Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think the colonists were acting like immature babies by getting so worked up over the taxation issue or do you think it was worth war? Should the colonists have just given in to everything Britain wanted?
The "taxation issue" started out with the colonists believing that they were being deprived of their rights as subjects of Great Britain when they, in fact, had created their own institutions of political representation. It ended with the colonists becoming citizens of the new nation they had created over the previous 150-175 years.
"4. Gun regulations are incompatible with America’s gun heritage.
"When we think of settlers of colonial America and the 19th-century Wild West, we often picture fearless frontiersmen defending hearth and home from predators. But while gun possession is as old as the country, so is gun regulation.
"In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses. (Imagine what the NRA would say if government officials went door to door today asking people how many guns they owned and whether they were functional.)
"On the western frontier in the 19th century, to stave off violence, new towns and cities enacted laws to bar carrying guns. In fact, the typical western town had stricter gun laws than many 21st-century states. Today, four states have completely eliminated permits for handgun ownership and carrying."
(My emphasis - more @ the URL)
The source also talks about militias & the right to resist government - another topic, but of interest.
It was mostly about the power to print our own currency. "No taxation without representation" is what we are told.
Relevant: "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws" — Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Our Ministry of Truth is spending billions altering what is available on the net. Material like this is getting harder to find.
The war started well before Americans were willing to actually declare independence, and until France joined the war in 1778 there was still a chance that the US was going to come to some negotiated settlement.
The war started well before Americans were willing to actually declare independence, and until France joined the war in 1778 there was still a chance that the US was going to come to some negotiated settlement.
We have a bad habit of failing to give credit where credit is due. Without the French involvement, the Revolutionary War would have been much different. That is rarely discussed or taught.
A bigger lie is found in WWII. The USSR defeated the Third Reich. I think 75% of German casualties were on that front. The USSR employed 35,000 reliable tanks and lost 28 million people. Mostly we hear about D-Day, Patton and the Holocaust. Oh yea, a prolonged battle in Stalingrad was also fought.
What good is the study of history if we are not presented with honest history? Though serious students do tend to know the truth much more than "Joe SixPack" and "Sally Sammich".
^^ Good points. I wonder how far a high school textbook would go if it told the honest truth about history.
In TX & other states where a state commission (not professionals) reviews textbooks K-12 for public schools - typically listing several choices for each grade & subject - the honest truth wouldn't get very far. TX & CA between them order enormous numbers of textbooks, & so the big textbook outfits tend to trim their ideological slant to make the textbooks attractive to the textbook committee. Everybody else has to make do with the leavings of the textbook market.
Topics to watch are how the Native Peoples in the Americas are treated, how Evolution is handled in Biology, whether Thomas Paine & Thomas Jefferson are still among the Founding Fathers, the explanations for the Civil War, the Civil Rights struggles in the 1960s, the Vietnam War.
The non-professional textbook review committees tend to view their job as a kind of state boosterism - & so nothing shocking nor deplorable about the state can appear in a textbook, workbook, study guide, consumables, etc.
We can hope that the trend to books & articles over the Internet will cut into this ugly practice, but until we get there, it's worth monitoring what passes muster in your state textbook committee.
Do you think the colonists were acting like immature babies by getting so worked up over the taxation issue or do you think it was worth war?
It wasn't that. It was the increasing control and manipulation from Britain (in many areas) that became the issue. England saw that the Americas were becoming too big of 'a good thing' to let slip out of their hands. The hassles and heavy-handed approaches that caused many to leave that land started coming to the New World soil. It escalated, so we had to retaliate to fend them off. Maybe the English were the "babies".
^^ Good points. I wonder how far a high school textbook would go if it told the honest truth about history.
It's taught, but how much time does school have to deal with history in the first place. One course on history, one one hour class on the American Revolution, ten minutes on the Siege of Yorktown. How much do you remember from that ten minutes of class 20 years ago? History education in general is lacking.
What's really lacking perhaps in history, even if they do cover French involvement in the revolutionary war, is the self-interest motive of French contributions - revenge for the loss of the Seven Years war and to protect there trade interest in the Carribean, and to increase holdings in India. Basically to stick it to there historical enemy who they had been enemies with for centuries. It was simply "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenario (although, yes, we did have true noble Frenchmen like Lafayette that faught for different reasons).
Also not taught is the quasi-war we had with France only two decades or so later.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Drawing a bead
