Were the American colonists justified in claiming independence and engaging in a violent revolution to separate from the British Empire?
There was no peaceful way to do it. If you protested, that would be time in prison
We could have done so peacefully. The violence was unnecessary.
Uh, no. When they shoot at you for not being loyal, being "peaceful" isn't going to stop them!
I see both sides
To have representation in parlment it would take about 3 months to send people/ documents
The taxes were way to high
My wife is British so it's hard to be hora America about this
This matter is very interesting to me; There were a lot of misunderstandings and mistakes from both sides. Back then, most people just wanted their rights back; those who wanted a new government were a radical minority. Sound familiar?
I also think we are getting close to being justified to overthrowing our government and both parties.
Personally I think they were wrong and clearly a group of selfish, seditious, malcontents out in pursuit of their own narrow self interest - traitors in fact. Nevertheless, I like what they did and especially the outcome.
Interesting, 6% still support the British Monarchy and believe we should have remained a colonist. I love the United Kingdom as well but I prefer controlling my own destiny.Being an ally suits me fine.
Man is not free until they are free to govern themselves.
I'm pretty content that they did.
The justification for the revolution is firmly summed up in one beautiful line from the Declaration, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Sounds a lot like today ironically.
Anyone else think it's ironic that 25% of DC people said "no"?
No. People from DC are utter morons
For all you keyboard warriors who keep wanting a second revolution, nut up or shut up. NOTHING is stopping you from starting it. If you believe in it that much then do it. If not for whatever excuse then SHUT UP and go back to your Faux News.
You need to reevaluate what histories heros have given you & by what means they were achieved. There was talk of revolution from England for decades, same with the states seceding from the union. People shouldnt have to be concerned with oppressive
gov and public supporters of that gov, like yourself but history is full of Benedict Arnolds and Snakeheads. So if the time comes when we do have to reign in an out of control gov.
You can rest easy that you & your ancestor's cowardly bloodline will benefit from someone else's sacrifice.
Lol calling me a coward, how very mature. You know nothing of me or my ancestry.
Oh and good job assuming I support the current administration. Way to over analyze in your over zealous attempt at wits and intellect. You're wrong though.
I feel more like a colonist every day.
Imagine, 90 degrees plus humidity and have to have hogh tea right now! No, need a cold one!
Who would say no?
We need to have another violent revolution against the government now!
Then what's stopping you? Little dog all bark no bite.
Because true students of history and the DOI understand the words of Jefferson; "Governments long I established should not be changed for light and transient causes..."
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, envinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
The violent revolution was a LAST RESORT. They petitioned and pleaded with the King multiple times, but he just kept pushing us towards it.
tyranny and injustice from a government is all the incentive I would need. justified.
I've always wondered what this nation would have been like if we had achieved our independence like Canada did.
We'd be like Canada
Canada: we'd like to be independent, eh
UK: jolly good ol' bean
Canada: thank you, sorry for the bother!
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Ironically they commited acts of terrorism to achieve the greatest nation ever formed.
Terror must be the result of the acts for it to be qualified as an act of terror.
Dumping tea into a harbor hardly inspires terror in anybody. Try again.
But, isn't "terrorist" the term ANY tyrant uses for their rebellion?
Disagree. The acts the revolutionaries committed were never against the British people or in the British home isles.
I know. My point is that a tyrant always tries to label their opposition as "terrorists".
Correct. I was disagreeing with the original post.
Oh. My bad. Lol
So you're saying that attacking the livelihood of merchants didn't induce terror in them, nor the govt officials whom couldn't collect their taxes? And you're saying that absolutely no loyalists were fearful of the armed rebellion swelling up and threatening the stability of their region?
Oh, please! I'd be more terrified of the next bullsh!t, tyrannical measure coming from King George!
Then again, I'd also be one of the 3% of Colonists who actually fought the British.
Hahaha congratulations on the dissent! I assume therefor you'd also be of the modern libertarian ilk that advocate for revolution, just as you would be for southern secession as to ensure there would not be a "next bull" issue to come from Washington!
I am a Libertarian, but I've never advocated for a violent revolution for light or transient causes. The DOI even says that. Only when representation is ABSOLUTELY GONE from government is such an action justified, as was the case for the Revolution.
Under that line of thought though, then the founders were absolutely not justified. They had domestic representatives as well as those in London, so rising up would have been wrong.
King George's mandates BYPASSED the representation in England and the Colonies. "Taxation without representation" ring a bell?
Entirely, however that bypass would have eventually been reformed and reprimanded into more properly representing the colonies. I'm not arguing against representative discussion anyways, my point is and stands that they neglected their nation's legal system instead of following its procedures.
Yes they did! They drafted official petitions from all the Colonies and sent ambassador after ambassador and diplomat to King George and he either let their words pass through one ear and out the other, or blew them off. The DOI was voted on in the Continental Congress and was UNANIMOUSLY approved.
Precisely, and they should have continued with that process and patiently endured. In the larger scheme of things in the empire at the time, I highly doubt that the American colonies were the biggest focus of the legislative day. The fact that something is signed unanimously simply means no
dissenting vote was present and that there was some level of wide spread support geographically not populously, and little else there aside.
At Bunker Hill, the British advanced on the Colonists 3 TIMES. The British took over 700 CASUALTIES, big numbers in those days, at POINT-BLANK RANGE and they STILL took the ground! THAT was the measure of British resolve! If independence and Rule of Law was the goal, then clearly after THAT.....
.....war was the only way.
700 casualties for an area of strategic importance isn't so great a toll. I don't know of many nations that wouldn't trade 1000 young lives for a major city.
Furthermore, getting to that point of armed resistance only furthers my point. If the founders were dedicated their empirical legal system
legal system they simply would have never had a call to arms and kept petitioning. I'm certainly glad they didn't, however at the time it wouldn't have changed the validity of their justification.
So you would rather bury your head in the sand until a government official threatens you or your family's life then fight back BEFORE it's too late?
Besides, temperance can be a convenient disguise and excuse for fear and cowardice.
Here's a better question: Do you honestly believe that Man is capable of governing themselves individually?
1. If you're not doing anything wrong, in all its subjective connotations, you've nothing to worry about from govt officials. Simple.
2. While agreeable that temperance may be construed as such, effective politicing and legislation completely skips over the need for ulterior actions.
Define self governance, is that direct democracy, representative, or voluntarily subjugative?
You didn't answer the question, and if you truly believe in freedom, independence, and holding government accountable to the people, then WHY are you willing to stop at only words?! Is that really the sort of man, or woman, you are?!
Besides, you shouldn't have to live looking over your shoulder.
A representative, Federalist republic like the Founders intended, and LIMITED government power. A government that minds their own damn business, and just allows people to live their lives. A government that the PEOPLE control, instead of the government controlling them.
1. I can very fully answer your points as soon as you define what kind of self governance you are aiming at me answering to. The multiple kinds deserve very differed answers.
2. you're right, I never look.over my shoulder because I don't do anything illegal. Why would you look over your shoulder?
1. I did answer. READ.
2. Because what right does the government have to watch and monitor the people EVERY MINUTE of EVERY DAY???
Pardon me, we posted at the same time so I retract part of my previous comment.
Under representative governance, then absolutely it is functional and voluntary. Things such as limited government are used so subjectively that it itself warrants defining. The concepts of freedom and justice are
are absolutely plausible for a society, but those too earn temperance In that Somalia in 1994 for example was the freest.nation on earth, yet socialistic nations such as Sweden who's laws govern much of society is a far more positive Western culture to live in.
If you're trying to sell me the idea that America would be better off as a socialist police state, then we are DONE talking.
All governments.draw their power from their people, either monetarily, physically, from the actual populous being present, or through representation, so that argument itself falls flat.
By choosing to.live in and be governed by a society, you choose to be subject to its laws. If you draw quarrel
quarrel with surveillance for example, or taxes, or regulations or any litany of.examples, then.you are free to act and change the law or simply leave.the nation's governance.
And I am not selling any idea here in directly, only that which the discussion originated with and developed hereafter to.
Well regardless, I consider anyone who finds the American Revolution unjustified to be incredibly stupid, and I don't do stupid.
We're done talking.
Well that's a clever move, unable to challenge my points and so you retreat back into insults and depravity. Well played good sir, may your wool be as thick as that of the rest of your flock my friend.
Woodstock's over, hippie. Let it go.
I'm impressed that a libertarian would accuse a statist of being a hippy. Rather almost cute really.
I'm appalled that you're not even ashamed to say that you are a statist; poison for this country.
I would, by contrast, say my love of state and dedication to our legal system is not only far more viable for the health of our country, but even more ethical. I would even be so inclined as to say that the bigotted statement you emphasized is poisonous, though I am by no means a relativist.
The power of the people always wins in the end when the state tries to control too much.
Finally, a political themed poll that all parties agree on :)
Hmmm justified? Probably not. But I'm damn proud and grateful they did it anyway.
Can't tell if tony is trolling or not...
You can justify anything...
Wow. Everyone seems to have forgotten ridiculous taxation with zero representation. The colonists were taken advantage of by their government. They didn't just up and decide, "Hey, WE want this land! Hand it over!" It was more like, "Treat us like...
citizens or we'll be forced to become our own." Which they did. And I'm glad for it. Inalienable human rights, which were previously denied, they took for themselves. I'd call that justified.
Any group of any civilization has the inalienable human right to revolt against those who govern them. No law will prevent a motivated mass of determined people. Just look at Egypt, Syria, and soon Turkey.
No doubt but the question is whether it was justified or not.
To throw off the yoke of any Muslim Brotherhood, or similar regime that supports Shariah Law, absolutely.
Whats wrong with the muslim brotherhood or shariah law?
They both advocate GROSS violations of Human Rights, and extreme persecution of non-Muslims and women.
Under Shariah Law, a woman's testimony in court is worth only HALF that of a man's. It's also the same rule of law that allows dismemberment for theft.
I think your confusing the Muslim brotherhood with al-Qaeda.
I retract my statement of support for Shariah law. I stand by my support of the muslim brotherhood.
al-Qaeda BACKS the Muslim Brotherhood. Why do you think Morsi supporters were flying al-Qaeda flags?
Same reason why american citizens fly the confederate flag. They can be a part of a political allegiance and a public organization without the two becoming one and the same.
Who are we fighting against right now? That flag showing up ANYWHERE should be an INSTANT red flag to anybody.
Then why in the HELL was Obama supporting that asshole?!?! Btw, Egyptians that ousted Morsi are also displaying anti-Obama signs BECAUSE he supported him.
Because Morsi along with most of the brotherhood are not bad men. And I'm really done arguing. No one wins an argument this massive, so i've lost interest. Continue yelling at your iPhone dear sir, because im done.
A good man that was all for implementing Shariah Law? Try again.
It's Android, btw.
Who the hell said no!
I dont take kindly to your words.
Do I care?
You should. But i don't think you respect much other than yourself and the flag.
Respect is earned.
Yes but being disrespectful outright doesn't usually earn you any of it.
Should've also mentioned that I don't respect stupidity.
Ignorance can be fixed. Stupidity is a choice.
While I'm neither ignorant nor stupid, i find your presence among this otherwise peaceful community disgusting.
The feeling is mutual.
Well as long as theres an understanding I'm satisfied. Good day.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass, Loyalist.
Pip pip cheerio. Off to seek more civilized conversation and crumpets. Also tea. Must have the tea.
You mean the pisswater we dumped in the harbor? Enjoy. ;-)
Do you even know WHY we did that?
The Tea Tax. Basically telling England to go fuck themselves and their taxes.
But let me guess; you got the pinko-commie, hippie lesson that it was an "act of terror"
Wrong on both counts. It was in protest of the Tea ACT which stated that all colonial tea imports were to come from the british east (or west) tea company that was going out of business. It was our way of saying u cant decide where we get our tea.
O and it was an act of terror but an act of terror i approve of.
An act of terror requires the use of TERROR TACTICS. All they did was dump tea crates into Boston Harbor. Hardly a terrifying spectacle.
Then again, "terrorist" is always what the bigger army calls the smaller army.
Either way it was what it was.
Yeah, an act of DEFIANCE; not terror.
I wish we were still British colonies.
Go to hell
Everyone unfollow Yoshimax, all 17 of you.
Well at least we can agree on this issue.
You'd be surprised. Look below.
Why would anyone say no? The 5% of you who said yes should have been used for target practice by the colonists.
I figured more of the democrats would vote no.
THEY TRIED TO TAKE OUR GUNS. They had it coming!
We had a government that spied on their people, they wanted to take guns away from their people, had no representation of the people and had a overbearing dictator who thought they were above the law. History always repeats its self think about it!
You think King George would have let the colonies go peacefully?
Obviously, he didn't. How many times did the Colonies peacefully petition to the King? And he STILL sent troops.
I think some out there did not understand the question. Unbelievable!
How is this poll not 100% I just don't get it
The 5% that said "No", kill yourselves.
I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Jolly: I'm not sure why anyone would say no, but I'd be willing to hear them out, without coming right out flinging very nasty names at them first.
I said no. Look below as to my reasoning. Am i a patriot? Yes. So don't try that approach.
not that I said no, but I just love when people say "go kill yourself" over the internet, makes you so sound so mature and thoughtful.
And how in the HELL do you come to the conclusion of "No"?! King George was a TYRANT.
You know what?! You think America is a criminal nation, gtfo! We're not "children", we're HUMAN BEINGS with God-given, Natural Rights that CANNOT be taken by ANY man!
"Give me liberty, or give me death!" -Patrick Henry
YES!!! Read the colonies' grievances in the Declaration!
Wow. Outburst much?
Read a history book. Your argument's already been lost.
A government is not a "parent" over the "children" they rule; a government "derives its just powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED."
They work for WE THE PEOPLE!!!
Has it? The facts are facts true, but how we interpret them is another matter entirely. You have yet to even provide an argument let alone sway my point of view on the matter. When your ready to discuss as adults just comment back.
There's nothing to argue! King George was a power-hungry son of a bitch, so we threw off his tyranny. Man has the Natural Right to govern themselves.
Still raging. I'll wait till you calm and use facts not blind patriotism as an argument.
It's not "blind patriotism". Every grievance listed in the DOI are legitimate justifications for the Revolution.
I must ask; are you even an American citizen? Why are you trying to downplay the Revolution of the country you live in?
Not blind patriotism? Ok then (Cu-cu bird sound) yes I'm an american citizen, though I'm well educated so i can see why your confused. And downplay? No. De-Romanticize? Yes.
A framed paper on the wall doesn't mean you're better than anyone else.
Framed paper? What do you...... OH! You think i went to college? No no no you misunderstand. Im a junior in high school.
LMAO WOW...you must know SO much about the world!
? Yes i sort of do but i feel your adolescent attack is more an indication of bigotry towards my age rather than an attempt at intelligent debate. I'll wait till your ready.
It's not that; it's just that you feel you know SO much at such a young age, when really you've been indoctrinated for the past 16 or 17 years.
But sure, humor me with the twisted history lesson. Btw, I'm 21 and a US Marine. I'm not stupid, and I've seen A LOT MORE of the world than you have.
Ok if your done comparing dick sizes lets get down to the facts. We're arguing about whether the american colonies were justified in their revolt. I say no, you yes. Where does age and "seeing the world" come into play?
I cannot FATHOM how ANYONE can say that the Colonies were not justified!
Dude, the argument is as simple as "Taxation without Representation". The law at the time was that the representatives of the Continental Congress had to ratify any new taxes imposed by the Crown. King George imposed the taxes without ANY ratification!
I see I'm not getting anywhere here. So I'm going to part you with this thought. If it's so simple as "taxation without representation" as you say, why were there so many grievances listed in the DOI?
Because some people still couldn't get it through their fucking heads, as is still evident today, it seems.
That right there is our problem. You, as in people like minded as you, boil a very large complex problem into the fortune cookie response. If all the british did was not represent the colonies in parliament is that cause enough to overthrow a ....
An otherwise good government? I still say no and my no becomes even more solidified when you take all the variables into consideration.
Yes, it is! Similar to today, why do you think groups like the Tea Party protest Obamacare and the government in general? They are not representing the will of the people! Especially with Obamacare, the majority of Americans did not want the law to pass, and in Congress, it was a partisan vote.
When representation is ignored in government, there is tyranny.
And thats where our mini debate shall end good friend. I disagree with that entirely and look forward to our next bout. See you later.
Tragic to see our nation's youth romanticizing a tyrannical form of government. *smh*
First, why do you assume i don't know what I'm talking about? I like the democratic party and the Obama administration, doesn't mean i drank the kool-aid. Secondly, i text a lot but what is smh?
It means "shaking my head".
A wise student of history would choose neither party, or none at all. President Washington said in his Farewell Address (paraphrasing) that partisan politics would only push corruption and infringement of Rights.
Ask yourself; was he wrong???
And, as educated as you say you are, but you still favor Obama, I cannot help you then. *smh
He wasn't wrong, at the time. As the constitution itself, the very government must evolve with the times. Parties are essential. Also saying an educated person can't like Obama is like saying a religious man can't like god.
So, freedom and representative government are obsolete?
And, an educated person would see that Obama is doing more harm to the country than good.
No im saying political parties are necessary in our search for freedom and are key to the success of any representative government. Also the second statement you made is a opinion rather than a statement based in fact.
How are political parties necessary? The political spectrum has been described as "Communism on the Left and Fascism on the Right", but that's bullshit.
They're the same thing; POLICE STATE
Instead of a political, or policy, spectrum, I prefer to use a POWER spectrum. How much power are you REALLY willing to grant the government? I would hope you would say little, or at the very least, moderation.
That is the definition of a political spectrum yes. Extreme liberalism is communism where as extreme conservatism leads to fascism. I don't see how thats a problem but a government deserves the power it needs to do its job. No more no less.
...and you FAVOR Obama and Obamacare?! Dude, wake up.
I'm quite conscious thank you. Yes i do support Obama and the affordable care act.
Dude, you didn't drink the Kool-Aid; you GUZZLED it.
People have the option to change their circumstances if they are unhappy. The price they paid was pretty high so I guess for them it was worth the risk. Also they tried to make things better when they win so their intentions were good. But justified?
Fron what i remember in history classes, the british government was a lot like ours. Id say yes, but what would our government do if someone tried what they did?
I would say it was more calculated at times. The French Revolution was more of an example liberal savagery
If you said no, then gtfo. We don't want you here.
Sry but i said no and im staying.
Why did you say no?
Because we (the colonists) weren't justified in our revolt. Just as the confederates weren't.
That's not a rationale, reasoned argument. That's like saying grass is green because it's green.
You weren't asking for my reasoning. You asked why i said no.
That's what the poll was about. 'Yes' or 'No'? I thought that you were smart enough to skip that step...
Anyways, then what was your reasoning in voting no?
Mercantilism, the economic system used at the time, treated the colonies as employees and after the French and Indian War the mother country required ALL colonies to pay the taxes set up under the navigation acts many years prior. Unlike what many...
Seem to think we were nit paying "higher" taxes, just paying what we SHOULD've been paying in the first place. Now the employees, or children, didn't like this because previously they got payed off the books. Taking this into consideration the next..
Act the children took was throw a tantrum. We dont like what your doing so were gonna voice our displeasure. This led to the king flexing his muscles to show who's boss, much like spanking a naughty child. We didnt take kindly so we reacted stronger
Then came the "timeout" period and still we revolted stronger. After the incident on kings street there was no going back. Britain tried keeping us in place but the now angered child revolted. The rest is history.
Thats why i said no we were not justified. We were whiny, spoiled brats that decided that our parents were no longer in the right.
The economics of the situation were not the only, nor, I would argue, the largest part of it.
The lack of representation in return for taxes paid, and the violation of rights, without redress being given, are what pushed things over the edge.
And that, is why I believe they were justified. Taxes suck, to be sure. But as long as we have proper representation, and the means to change things, those avenues are preferable.
They no longer had that option.
Of course. (Sarcasm) just like Slavery was the reason for the civil war! (Sarcasm)
Last word in. Woot!
While I am a proud American, the colonists overreacted a bit. Yes they had to pay unfair taxes but they were 1/4 as much as they were in Great Britain. The taxes weren't heavy at all.
Says you. They had families to feed and less access to the basics of life than we do today.
Also, they had no representation, or say, in how those taxes were spent.
venator - the operative phrase is "taxation without representation." I don't believe it was so much about the taxes per se at all. It was about not having a voice or control over one's life.
They had no representation as colonists. So, in a way the crown looked at them as employees. A means of profit. What if they wanted to quit? If they couldn't quit, did that make them slaves of a sort?
well by the law at the time they were traitors... just my opinion ..
And thank God that they were.
Traitors are patriots
This and EVERY Independence Day, raise your glass and toast "High Treason" ;-)
Their complaints didn't justify violent revolution, but I can't argue with the final result (for the most part).
When non-violent measures fail, violence is all that's left.
Ofc only non republicans think that way...
Justified? Not really. Did it turn out great? Yea!
Of course they were justified! They were having their money stolen, and getting no say in how it was spent! Theft is a crime, no matter who does it, and deserves punishment.