Was The American Revolution Justified?

[Former United Soviet Socialist republic]

Every revolution is justified. Because revolutions only happen when the common person has no way out.

[Mike the Progressive]

Every revolution is justified. Because revolutions only happen when the common person has no way out.

Really? Because most revolutions are usually lead by children of the bourgeoise and only seem to occur when a catastrophic event wipes out the current regime's ability to enforce its will. Rarely -I won't say never- do revolutions occur because the common man desires change.

[Former United Soviet Socialist republic]

Every revolution is justified. Because revolutions only happen when the common person has no way out.

Really? Because most revolutions are usually lead by children of the bourgeoise and only seem to occur when a catastrophic event wipes out the current regime's ability to enforce its will. Rarely -I won't say never- do revolutions occur because the common man desires change.

My point was that revolutions occur when most people desire change, the government cannot or will not enforce it.
"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."- JFK

[Mike the Progressive]

Really? Because most revolutions are usually lead by children of the bourgeoise and only seem to occur when a catastrophic event wipes out the current regime's ability to enforce its will. Rarely -I won't say never- do revolutions occur because the common man desires change.

My point was that revolutions occur when most people desire change, the government cannot or will not enforce it.
"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."- JFK

Not necessarily. Case in point, with the American revolution estimates show that up to a third of the population favored revolution, a third opposed and a third remained indifferent (though that seems to neat, damn you Mr. Anderson, you were a lousy history teacher). At the very least, there was no majority that favored severing political ties with GB completely.

And I have no response to the JFK quote. I'm sure I did that when I was younger. Lay down a poor argument, followed by a semi-relevant quote from a historically famous individual. I mean I still have some poor arguments, but I stopped with the random quotes.

You should too.

[The Nihilistic view]

Really? Because most revolutions are usually lead by children of the bourgeoise and only seem to occur when a catastrophic event wipes out the current regime's ability to enforce its will. Rarely -I won't say never- do revolutions occur because the common man desires change.

My point was that revolutions occur when most people desire change, the government cannot or will not enforce it.
"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."- JFK

People don't realize that now is all there ever is there is no past or future except as memory or anticipation in your mind.
-ULT

[The Nihilistic view]

My point was that revolutions occur when most people desire change, the government cannot or will not enforce it.
"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."- JFK

Not necessarily. Case in point, with the American revolution estimates show that up to a third of the population favored revolution, a third opposed and a third remained indifferent (though that seems to neat, damn you Mr. Anderson, you were a lousy history teacher). At the very least, there was no majority that favored severing political ties with GB completely.

And I have no response to the JFK quote. I'm sure I did that when I was younger. Lay down a poor argument, followed by a semi-relevant quote from a historically famous individual. I mean I still have some poor arguments, but I stopped with the random quotes.

You should to.

Shame, I always like to hit a random quote with a semi-random quote.

[Saint-Thor]

A mother country which went into ruinous debt partly on behalf of driving the French out of North America and leaving the Indians far more vulnerable to predation by the colonists.

Oh please, the American campaign was one theater of the Seven Year's War, with GB's primary focus being Europe and elsewhere, not exclusively North America. And it still didn't warrant placing a heavy tax burden on the colonies for a war they didn't start.

It's hard to know who really started it between the British and the "colonists" as the latter were fighting for the former. One might say it was the colonists since the Virginia Regiment responsible for the first attack in the Ohio country was mainly composed of Virginian militia and commanded by a Virginian (George Washington). Britain wasn't really active before 1756.

Btw, North America was Britain's main theatre of operation. The Prussians did most of the fighting in Europe, on land at least.

The result of the French and Indian War largely opened the door for westward expansion of the future United States by kicking the French out and weakening the Indians.

Which the Crown prohibited by proclamation.

True, but the colonists weren't aware of that until 1763. My point being that they did support that war from the very beginning, perhaps even encouraged it (Jumonville Glen, Washington's doing sparked the conflict in North America) hoping they could acquire the much coveted Ohio valley after the British had done most of the fighting. They got shafted, but that's another story.

[Seljuq Kyiv]

No. There was no such thing as an American people, an American nation-state, nor an American national leader before 1775.



In all seriousness, revolting over taxation without representation alone, or being too far away, may have been too much, but I'm not well versed in American history, so, /shrug.

[Valendia]

The result of the French and Indian War largely opened the door for westward expansion of the future United States by kicking the French out and weakening the Indians.

Which the Crown prohibited by proclamation.

As they should have because it would have led to more expensive conflicts with the Indians who were not leaving their land without a fight. The colonists were overzealous and hungry for territory - the British government favored a more rational and restrained attitude towards expansion.

[Valendia]

I'm uncertain to the relevance of either comment. Presuming slavery would have ended had the United States remained a colony is speculative. Go write a novel for Harry Turtledove.

As to the influences, again, I never said they weren't there. But they were tested, at least at the time, in the United States and eventually proved successful. France struggled with republicanism and monarchism, and GB didn't really usher in democratic reforms until what the late 1880s?

Speculative, but is demonstrative of the fact that the portrayal of Britain as an "evil empire" is rather...well, false.

The reason they proved successful in the United States is because not actually that much changed. The colonies had self-government long before 1776, it was a simple matter of federating; and even then, the federation was done in a very conservative manner - the vote was still restricted to propertied white males, neither Senators nor the President were actually elected by popular vote, and there was the Supreme Court was not elected at all. In fact it is fair to say that the government that emerged from the American Revolution wasn't particularly revolutionary at all - the same rich, white males remained in charge.

[Arsur]

Definitely mixed… on the one hand the Americans had every right to protect their life, liberty and property against an increasingly authoritarian government. However, the Americans reacted too greatly to initial taxes, which were only aimed at repaying Britain's 130 million pound debt left by the French-Indian War which protected the colonies, and that once they did overreact to those small taxes, it continually build up to the revolution we know today.

In summary, the Americans were right in protecting their natural rights, but overreacted too greatly to minimal taxes.

[Valendia]

Definitely mixed… on the one hand the Americans had every right to protect their life, liberty and property against an increasingly authoritarian government. However, the Americans reacted too greatly to initial taxes, which were only aimed at repaying Britain's 130 million pound debt left by the French-Indian War which protected the colonies, and that once they did overreact to those small taxes, it continually build up to the revolution we know today.

In summary, the Americans were right in protecting their natural rights, but overreacted too greatly to minimal taxes.

What makes you think rights are natural? The British government was no more 'authoritarian' than the US or many of its state governments were during various portions of its history. It's arguable that the US was born out of a desire of propertied white males to hang on to their property.

[Yusova]

Any one who says thenpatriots are justified,think about two events
1. They beat up, tortured, hung tax collectors
2. They killed people on Christmas in a very one sided battle that was practically a slaughter
As much as I love this country, our one sidedness disgusts me

[Ausira]

Every revolution is justified. Because revolutions only happen when the common person has no way out.

Definitely. A revolution of Italy took place in 1452 because there was a lack of national defense. It failed, completely.

No defense in a country.
Attempt to take it over from within.
Not joining Military.
Not being logical.

[Ausira]

Any one who says thenpatriots are justified,think about two events
1. They beat up, tortured, hung tax collectors
2. They killed people on Christmas in a very one sided battle that was practically a slaughter
As much as I love this country, our one sidedness disgusts me

That's wrong on number one.
1. They tortured, killed, shot, stabbed, amputated limbs of those supporting the British. Did I forget to add robbed? INot just tax collectors.
3. (The loving country) Well.. try for the Indians. And, what we did to those that weren't white. (I.E. Hispanics that were in America, they were 'Americanized'. Their names were changed, forced to teach English, stuff like that) The trail of tears- yeah... this is just stuff we know. So..

Country about being free to do as you wish.
Can't critique a police officer's motives (While not being on the news or in court), or record him doing his job (Even though it's legal, 1st Amendment) without being arrested.

[Yusova]

Any one who says thenpatriots are justified,think about two events
1. They beat up, tortured, hung tax collectors
2. They killed people on Christmas in a very one sided battle that was practically a slaughter
As much as I love this country, our one sidedness disgusts me

That's wrong on number one.
1. They tortured, killed, shot, stabbed, amputated limbs of those supporting the British. Did I forget to add robbed? INot just tax collectors.
3. (The loving country) Well.. try for the Indians. And, what we did to those that weren't white. (I.E. Hispanics that were in America, they were 'Americanized'. Their names were changed, forced to teach English, stuff like that) The trail of tears- yeah... this is just stuff we know. So..

Country about being free to do as you wish.
Can't critique a police officer's motives (While not being on the news or in court), or record him doing his job (Even though it's legal, 1st Amendment) without being arrested.

I love it now, when were finally getting close to equality
I would've sided with the British btw

[Ashmoria]

That's obviously a simplified version, but it covers most of the major points that we hit in American History. My question is this, especially if you're from the U.K: What, if anything, are you taught about the causes for the American Revolution? Is it seen as justified? A temper tantrum? A mixed bag? Something else entirely? And, of course, what do you personally think? My belief is that it was justified, but as I said, we tend to have a narrow focus in school when it comes to these matters.

nothing that the british were doing to the american colonies was bad enough to justify war. they werent horrible tyrants who needed to be tossed out regardless of the cost. (if the native americans had found a way to band together and toss out all the europeans, THAT would have been justified)

but i suppose that in any revolution the justification is success.

[Arsur]

Definitely mixed… on the one hand the Americans had every right to protect their life, liberty and property against an increasingly authoritarian government. However, the Americans reacted too greatly to initial taxes, which were only aimed at repaying Britain's 130 million pound debt left by the French-Indian War which protected the colonies, and that once they did overreact to those small taxes, it continually build up to the revolution we know today.

In summary, the Americans were right in protecting their natural rights, but overreacted too greatly to minimal taxes.

What makes you think rights are natural? The British government was no more 'authoritarian' than the US or many of its state governments were during various portions of its history. It's arguable that the US was born out of a desire of propertied white males to hang on to their property.

Well, every human being can do ANYTHING they want, primarily they can own any land, they are entitled to life and liberty free from constraint. However, man gives up these rights in order to be a part of a society that provides them with certain cervices and goods in exchange for the surrender of their natural rights. And I completely agree with you in terms of the authoritarian argument, I believe that the colonists overreacted to simple taxation and that the British were just trying to repay their debts. Since there was little change in the new society I also agree with you, that the revolution was initiated by white males concerned over their own economic interests.

[Yusova]

If we didn't rebel, well, look at Canada

[The Truth and Light]

If we didn't rebel, well, look at Canada

When I look at Canada I see a country that has things down pat, and is more progressive than the US. So.

[Arsur]

If we didn't rebel, well, look at Canada

When I look at Canada I see a country that has things down pat, and is more progressive than the US. So.

I like that because I'm from Australia and we're like old brothers from the empire

[Yusova]

If we didn't rebel, well, look at Canada

When I look at Canada I see a country that has things down pat, and is more progressive than the US. So.

Precisely

[Uieurnthlaal]

Eh... sort of. But all they really had to complain about was that they were... taxed a lot. And required to submit to the royal army. Really, pretty much the same rights as everyone else.

[CTALNH]

Of course. Fighting against illegitimate coercion is always moral.

Yeah like telling the British to please drive away the french was not your doing.

Why the fuck should British citizens be taxed for things you caused?

You should have payed your taxes.

[Greed and Death]

Really it was not. The Brits had been willing to give us representation, and there was even discussion of creating an American nobility to fill the house of lords. The Americans did not want that they wanted their own Parliament in the Americas to set Taxes and spending.

Strangely Canada got that deal a little later though in large part to ensure they did not join the Yanks.