Were the first 13 colonies just in ther rebellion against England? We had this debate in American History, and I thought it would be interesting to have here. A warning though: I'm a flaming loyalist.
Page 1 of 1
Just Rebellion?
#2
Posted 06 October 2005 - 01:58 AM
In most ways I don't think so. England had the right to impose taxes upon its colonies. As the government raises taxes today, people complain, but they don't rebel and throw tea into Boston Harbor
. But, I can see why the patriots rebelled. Heavy taxes and other injustices would push many to the limit (especially Samuel Adams
).


#4
Posted 09 October 2005 - 06:59 AM
England?
America was never owned (can't think of a better word) by England.
But I think British colonialism is silly and all countries that are governed by countries thousands of kilometres away should get rid of that system, and govern themselves, if it is economically possible, that is.
America was never owned (can't think of a better word) by England.
But I think British colonialism is silly and all countries that are governed by countries thousands of kilometres away should get rid of that system, and govern themselves, if it is economically possible, that is.

#5
Posted 09 October 2005 - 08:55 PM
seing as this is alive for the moment...
Yes, they where Just. why? because they where being taxed without representation. now adays, when taxes are going to be raised, representatives from every state have a say, (system of checks and balances, thats what keeps our Govfrom running away with us) forhte colonys, they had no say in what happened ti ther taxes, they had no government representatives on there side. thus, they where justifyed in rebeling.
Yes, they where Just. why? because they where being taxed without representation. now adays, when taxes are going to be raised, representatives from every state have a say, (system of checks and balances, thats what keeps our Govfrom running away with us) forhte colonys, they had no say in what happened ti ther taxes, they had no government representatives on there side. thus, they where justifyed in rebeling.

#6
Posted 10 October 2005 - 03:31 PM
I agree with what Jarik said. If you tax people without allowing them representation when they're perfectly capable of fending for themselves, revolution is inevitable.
Some argue that the District of Columbia (Washington DC) is today "taxed without representation" because it doesn't have seats in Congress, and use this as a basis to argue that America is hypocritical. However, citizens of DC are still entitled to vote, and the District of Columbia receives three electoral votes toward the presidency (an amount proportional to its population.) That's representation. People in DC just like to whine about things because they have nothing better to do... [/rant]
Some argue that the District of Columbia (Washington DC) is today "taxed without representation" because it doesn't have seats in Congress, and use this as a basis to argue that America is hypocritical. However, citizens of DC are still entitled to vote, and the District of Columbia receives three electoral votes toward the presidency (an amount proportional to its population.) That's representation. People in DC just like to whine about things because they have nothing better to do... [/rant]
Cspace - "Eagles may soar but turkeys don't get sucked into jet engines" says:
I bow to the supreme wrath of Lord Crescens.
I bow to the supreme wrath of Lord Crescens.
#8
Posted 11 October 2005 - 11:03 PM
My history teacher told us that the Brits could have easily potatowned the colonies, but they decided that it wasn't worth fighting for compared to their colonies in India.
Boy were they wrong.
Boy were they wrong.
And now we have the quote of the day, from greenl2l: PLONGED!!!

#9
Posted 06 May 2006 - 02:11 AM
seing as this is alive for the moment...
Yes, they where Just. why? because they where being taxed without representation. now adays, when taxes are going to be raised, representatives from every state have a say, (system of checks and balances, thats what keeps our Govfrom running away with us) forhte colonys, they had no say in what happened ti ther taxes, they had no government representatives on there side. thus, they where justifyed in rebeling.
I agree with you, they were being taxed unjustly. also, the people actually living in Britain were not recieving as many taxes and the taxes weren't s high on them.
I agree with what Jarik said. If you tax people without allowing them representation when they're perfectly capable of fending for themselves, revolution is inevitable.
Some argue that the District of Columbia (Washington DC) is today "taxed without representation" because it doesn't have seats in Congress, and use this as a basis to argue that America is hypocritical. However, citizens of DC are still entitled to vote, and the District of Columbia receives three electoral votes toward the presidency (an amount proportional to its population.) That's representation. People in DC just like to whine about things because they have nothing better to do... [/rant]
I live just south of DC, and my entire class agreed that people in this area really only care about power. especially in DC, everybody wants more power than thier nieghbor down the street. so when DC citizens whine, its just thier longing for power.
ps- you'll never find the city with a poulation of aproximately 10000 (last i heard) that i live in. imagine, 10000 people crammed into 2 square miles... thats kinda small
Page 1 of 1