Vulpae wrote:Seleucas wrote:
The Americans were barely even taxed; they paid 1/7 of what their British counterparts did, in the most liberal empire at the time. Not to mention that said taxes were for the colonies to pay off a war to protect them, and, furthermore, that they had a good deal of the culpability in it having started to begin with. As for 'not compromising,' the British had already repealed their taxes save for a symbolic tax on tea. While the mercantile policies of the British were overbearing, for a large part they were unenforced, and conversely the Americans did enjoy a common market with Great Britain for their own products. Also, Great Britain did not want the settlers to provoke the Indians, and feared that they might try to wipe them out (which, once they gained independence... they did.)
Even if the colonists did not have a voice, they were probably better off than any other group of people in the world, even better than many of the people living in Britain. And, ultimately, they ended up implementing most of the same fiscal and monetary measures whose use by the British they had objected to, implemented their own brand of mercantilism through protectionism and slavery, and in many respects were worse in terms of liberty than the British (note the king's protection of the Indians versus the US's genocidal policies, or how the English abolished slavery decades before the Americans who only eliminated it as a punitive measure against the South.) That they did not have a voice in the policies that ultimately benefited them, or that, once they got power, did not behave any better than the people who had ruled over them, does not give credence to the legitimacy of their revolution.
hindsight is 20/20 eh
overall it was the treatment of their colonies as just that, colonies, many americans saw themselves as british, and even after the revoloution began there were a number of americans on the fence about it. they saw themselves as british, and were loyal to the crown untill parliment started treating them as second class citizans.
It was mostly britan's mis-handling of the situation in america. a pattern that we saw over and over when a nation mistreats it's colonies and reacts without thinking. Imperial Spain was the posterchild for this method of thinking.
Colonists are vocal an issue? ignore them, colonists protest? punish them, colonists riot? crackdown, colonists rebelling? shoot them.
canada had a recent issue with Quebic wanting to seperate, they simply sat the leaders of the other side down, and talked it out, the US is getting the picture too, especally after Vietnam, and lessions learned in Iraq and afganistan.
Slavery was also an issue when the country was founded the founding fathers didn't want to deal with the dissent and fracticious issue so soon after the founding of this country, lest theri hard won independence be lost to civil war.
when the issue was finally adressed, we had a civil war, it was about a lot of things, and many issues left over from america's founding.
What happened to the natives was deplorable, but the clash between cultures became inevitible as america grew. Like england before it, it should have handled the situation better than it did.
it did not, but we cannot change that, nor would carving up states to give them back to natives accomplish anything.
All we in america can do is take a look at our past, learn from it, and not repeat the same mistakes. The same with every nation, every person, ignore history at your own peril.
Oh, no doubt, Britain dropped the ball in dealing with the colonists. It showed weakness at a pivotal moment, and that is more or less kryptonite for monarchies. But as far as being cruel to the colonists, that simply is not so. It hardly shot anyone before the Revolution (the Boston 'Massacre' was blown far out of proportion, and might have been justified in self-defense,) and it had ultimately given in to the colonists demands save for the tax on tea (which was counterbalanced by how cheaply the British East India Company could sell it.) While they certainly did a terrible job of getting people on their side (they pretty relentlessly alienated people), I think it is understandable that they would be frustrated at how they simply could not extract any revenue for a war that they had fought to defend their colonies.
Maybe the US will learn to settle down and stop being so belligerent and be a little more pragmatic... I think it will happen regardless as they simply lose the capacity to be so violent, seeing the descent of their star. Hopefully, the US will become at least a little more peaceful in time, so that the more tragic things that have been done, the deals with the devil that have always carried a high price, will never have to repeat themselves.
(As for the Indians, I am sorry but I am going to have to disagree. The US screwed over the civilized tribes who were willing to coexist, and repeatedly broke its promises even after there had been a 'settlement' of sorts. And they continue to abuse them, in fact, making them so dependent on the Federal government for their continued existence and closing off alternatives for them on the reservation. I don't think it is necessary to uproot any non-Indians and send them back to where they came from, but we are falling very far short in terms of cooperation and coexistence with them.)
