by Yumyumsuppertime » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:30 pm
by The Truth and Light » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:34 pm
by Minarchist States » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:35 pm
by Hollorous » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:40 pm
by Yumyumsuppertime » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:42 pm
Minarchist States wrote:Of course. Fighting against illegitimate coercion is always moral.
by Christmahanikwanzikah » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:42 pm
by The Truth and Light » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:45 pm
Blasveck wrote:Though this is a little OT, I'm curious as to why some people claim the American Revolution was justified and the attempted Southern Secession was not.
by Regnum Dominae » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:48 pm
Blasveck wrote:Though this is a little OT, I'm curious as to why some people claim the American Revolution was justified and the attempted Southern Secession was not.
by GCMG » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:48 pm
by GCMG » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:54 pm
Regnum Dominae wrote:Blasveck wrote:Though this is a little OT, I'm curious as to why some people claim the American Revolution was justified and the attempted Southern Secession was not.
Because the motivations behind the two were very, very, very different.
Opposition to taxation without representation and a host of other problems with British control, is not even close to "we don't want to free our slaves".
by Blasveck » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:54 pm
Regnum Dominae wrote:Blasveck wrote:Though this is a little OT, I'm curious as to why some people claim the American Revolution was justified and the attempted Southern Secession was not.
Because the motivations behind the two were very, very, very different.
Opposition to taxation without representation and a host of other problems with British control, is not even close to "we don't want to free our slaves".
by Zathganastan » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:54 pm
by Yumyumsuppertime » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:56 pm
Blasveck wrote:Regnum Dominae wrote:Because the motivations behind the two were very, very, very different.
Opposition to taxation without representation and a host of other problems with British control, is not even close to "we don't want to free our slaves".
To be fair, the newly formed US did still keep slaves post revolution.
They really just didn't care.
(Well, some did, like good ol' Benny, but not enough to institute change until the war about 70 years later.)
by Christmahanikwanzikah » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:57 pm
Blasveck wrote:Though this is a little OT, I'm curious as to why some people claim the American Revolution was justified and the attempted Southern Secession was not.
by The Truth and Light » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:02 pm
by Libertarian California » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:03 pm
by Libertarian California » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:07 pm
The Truth and Light wrote:What I find amusing is that taxation with parliamentary representation wouldn't have even worked. The more I read about it, the more it seems like the colonies were simply autonomous vassals that were disgruntled with having to pay tribute. They had their own local governments with the power to enact laws, and their own troops long before the Revolutionary War.
What I can't get over was the fact that this was not a war for any values or ideals; though it is often painted that way. The leaders among the colonists just wanted to cut out the middle man, so they could exercise more direct legislation over their territories without the interference from the nosy people from across the pond.
I'm starting to see it less as, "We want freedom and representation," and more as, "We want the spoils of this unjust political system we have set up here, and we don't want to share it with these Brits."
by Yumyumsuppertime » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:09 pm
Libertarian California wrote:Of course it was.
First, the colonists were dragged into the Seven Years' War against their consent by Great Britain.
Second, Great Britain did not "defend" the colonists, as it was the colonial militias that did most of the fighting and conquered the Ohio country.
Third, Great Britain passed the Proclamation of '63, preventing the colonists from moving into the land they had just conquered.
Fourth,Great Britain had the audacity to tax the colonists to "help pay for their defense", ignoring the fact that the colonists by and large defended themselves and that the colonists had no say in these taxes.
Fifth, Great Britain engaged in egregious acts of economic coercion, attempting to force a Royal monopoly upon the colonists and deliberately hampering manufacturing in the colonies
Sixth, Great Britain made colonial governments effectively powerless and assumed total control over their laws. The colonists had tolerated British control over foreign policy and such, but viewed this move by the Crown to control the colonial governments directly as invasive
Seventh, military occupation of Boston and creation of martial law
Yes, many of the colonists joined the Revolution because they wanted to make a buck, and yes many were hypocritical for clamoring for freedom while owning slaves, but you'd be foolish to deny that the colonists had legitimate grievances.
The American Revolution was most definitely justified.
Also, don't even try to compare this to the Confederate treason.
by Minarchist States » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:09 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Minarchist States wrote:Of course. Fighting against illegitimate coercion is always moral.
The British government provided stability through their military, their sound financial system (which was being badly affected by the money being issued independently by the colonies), and their institutions. What illegitimate coercion are we talking about, especially when one considers the benefits of British rule in exchange?
Just playing Devil's Advocate.
by The Truth and Light » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:10 pm
Libertarian California wrote:The Truth and Light wrote:What I find amusing is that taxation with parliamentary representation wouldn't have even worked. The more I read about it, the more it seems like the colonies were simply autonomous vassals that were disgruntled with having to pay tribute. They had their own local governments with the power to enact laws, and their own troops long before the Revolutionary War.
What I can't get over was the fact that this was not a war for any values or ideals; though it is often painted that way. The leaders among the colonists just wanted to cut out the middle man, so they could exercise more direct legislation over their territories without the interference from the nosy people from across the pond.
I'm starting to see it less as, "We want freedom and representation," and more as, "We want the spoils of this unjust political system we have set up here, and we don't want to share it with these Brits."
I'm sure it had nothing to do with being forced to accept monopolies by British corporations, or the military occupation of cities, or how Great Britain actively set out to destroy the governments of New England, which were the most democratic in the world at that time.
by Libertarian California » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:12 pm
The Truth and Light wrote:Libertarian California wrote:
I'm sure it had nothing to do with being forced to accept monopolies by British corporations, or the military occupation of cities, or how Great Britain actively set out to destroy the governments of New England, which were the most democratic in the world at that time.
First two points support my hypothesis, so yay. Vassal culture!
The third point is laughable.
by Christmahanikwanzikah » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:13 pm
Libertarian California wrote:Second, Great Britain did not "defend" the colonists, as it was the colonial militias that did most of the fighting and conquered the Ohio country.
by Saint-Thor » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:15 pm
Hollorous wrote:objecting to Britain allowing French Canadian Catholics to practice their religion.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Click Ests Vimgalevytopia, Herador, Keltionialang, Kenmoria, Kowani, Maximum Imperium Rex, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Plan Neonie, Talibanada, The Two Jerseys, Tungstan
Advertisement