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.
There were no major conflicts with the British and French when the British colonists rebelled. Getting involved in the disputes of others backfired horrifically on the French establishment.
True, there was a truce in the ongoing war which included the Seven Years War, between 1755 and 1763, the American Revolution, and the Napoleonic Wars in the early 1800s. There was low level conflict in the late 1700s. Does this sound like peace?
Now, I will excuse you if you do not know that the Seven Years War was called, in the Americas, the French and Indian war. The American version was the tip of the iceberg. France and Britain we’re not really at peace until after the Congress of Vienna.
I think a big difference between the American revolution and the French/ Russian political upheaval is that America did not have a large, impoverished underclass. It avoid this because America had a safety valve—westward expansion. Get kicked off your land? Go west. Can’t make a living where you are? Move west. Land that was, in the eyes of the US government, free & empty, not tied down by generations of nobility and could be taken. It wasn’t until the West was officially closed/settled that you saw the kind of dissatisfaction seen in Europe
I think a big difference between the American revolution and the French/ Russian political upheaval is that America did not have a large, impoverished underclass. It avoid this because America had a safety valve—westward expansion. Get kicked off your land? Go west. Can’t make a living where you are? Move west. Land that was, in the eyes of the US government, free & empty, not tied down by generations of nobility and could be taken. It wasn’t until the West was officially closed/settled that you saw the kind of dissatisfaction seen in Europe
Interesting theory. I don't totally buy it in the sense that in the U.S. the "safety valve" never truly closed. There are all kinds of new growing areas all the time where land at least starts out relatively cheap. Even Kentucky, really the first frontier state in the days of Daniel Boone, does not reasonable the New York metropolitan area.
I think a big difference between the American revolution and the French/ Russian political upheaval is that America did not have a large, impoverished underclass. It avoid this because America had a safety valve—westward expansion. Get kicked off your land? Go west. Can’t make a living where you are? Move west. Land that was, in the eyes of the US government, free & empty, not tied down by generations of nobility and could be taken. It wasn’t until the West was officially closed/settled that you saw the kind of dissatisfaction seen in Europe
The leading rebels in British America were large landowners, or aspired to be large landowners. Initially they never had popular support. Most of the leading rebels were large landowners and/or rich merchants. The majority owned slaves.
You are correct once the land was carved up and fenced off, with land eventually becoming owned by a small percentage of the population, as the big boys bought the small boys out, or were in first, selling or renting to the those that followed. They would have been aware about conditions in Europe to anticipate what America would be like as population increased. But that was last on their minds.
The original US Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, funded the new, federal US Government with a tax on land. About a decade later, some Founding Fathers met again, yet without Congressional authority and in secret, to replace the land tax with tariffs, at the behest of land speculators, which most of them were. Ben Franklin lost a bundle speculating in land— which may be what motivated him later in life to support the physiocrats, the thinkers who advocated a single tax on land value instead of on people’s labor or capital goods, like houses.
- Daniel Friedenberg Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Land, 1992.
Soon after the colonies protested the taxes that the British levied on them, the farmers of western Pennsylvania protested the tax on their product — whiskey. As a replacement tax, the frontier sodbusters advocated a levy on land. Back then, people clearly saw that a tax on the value of land would collect much more revenue in cities like Philadelphia, where locations were very spendy (still are), than in the countryside like backwoods Pennsy, where land is dirt cheap. To quell the Whiskey Rebellion, president George Washington — the nation’s richest man and biggest landowner — put into the field four times as many soldiers as he ever led against the British.
- Nathan Miller Stealing From America, 1992.
The leading rebels in British America were large landowners, or aspired to be large landowners. Initially they never had popular support. Most of the leading rebels were large landowners and/or rich merchants. The majority owned slaves.
How much land do you think the Boston Tea partyers owned?
How much land do you think the Boston Tea partyers owned?
They were mainly racketeers. They smuggled in commodities like tea. Taxes were not raised but price was about to be lowered, which would put them out of their illegal business.
"The truth is that tea imports to the American Colonies had been taxed by the Crown since the passing of the 1767 Townshend Revenue Act, along with taxes on other commodities like paper, paint, oil and glass. The difference is that all of those other import taxes were lifted in 1770, except for tea."
“You’re going to seduce Americans into being ‘obedient colonists’ by making the price lower,” says Carp."
They were mainly racketeers. They smuggled in commodities like tea. Taxes were not raised but price was about to be lowered, which would put them out of their illegal business.
"The truth is that tea imports to the American Colonies had been taxed by the Crown since the passing of the 1767 Townshend Revenue Act, along with taxes on other commodities like paper, paint, oil and glass. The difference is that all of those other import taxes were lifted in 1770, except for tea."
“You’re going to seduce Americans into being ‘obedient colonists’ by making the price lower,” says Carp."
Really? Sure could have fooled the victors at Yorktown in 1781.
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.
