Post by Jacobstein on Aug 16, 2014 23:58:42 GMT -5
The Beginning of the Revolutionary war was controversial among Americans. The cause was a small stamp tax to pay for a war in which the British had defended the Colonists from the Native Americans and was seen as unneeded violence versus a large empire that many felt would end in American deaths.
"Moreover, a majority of Americans opposed the war in 1775. Many historians believe only about a third of all Americans supported a war against the British at that time." www.ushistory.org/us/11.asp So, the question for you guys is this: Assuming you lived in 1775, would you support the war, be indifferent, or be against it? Remember, you have no idea what America will become.
I think the American Revolution was inevitable. If it had not occurred in 1775, it would have certainly occurred shortly thereafter. The problem was long-distance, and somewhat disconnected governance by the British over a population that increasingly saw its future tied to expansion in North America rather than as subjects of the British Crown.
Last Edit: Aug 17, 2014 13:25:03 GMT -5 by Escanaba
63rd Knight of TITO, Grand Knight Armada Commander Steward of the House of Improving Wordiness Namesake of The Escanaba Generation
Posts: 39,211
Likes: 4,699
XKI Generation: The Shelter Generation XKI NS Join Year: 203 - Thursday, 29 May 2014 Historical XKI Political Party: TCP - The Circle Party Ancient House of: Louisistan
Post by Louisistan on Aug 17, 2014 14:11:27 GMT -5
Well that poll is a little US-centric. I do consider myself a patriot but if there's any revolution I identify with it's the German revolution of 1848
But yeah, if I was an American back then, I'd probably be for the revolution. "No taxation without representation" is just common sense.
TITO Knight Master Commander Louisistan 79th Knight of TITO 28th Delegate of 10000 Islands Former Mayor of Taco Island Former TITO Tactical Officer and Executive Officer Former Senator for Lyonesse East
Posts: 112,088
Likes: 3,650
House: House of Tasdorf XKI Generation: The Redesign Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Red XKI NS Join Year: 148 - Monday, 9 May 2011 Historical XKI Political Party: TIP - The Islands Party Ancient House of: Aersoldorf
Post by Aersoldorf on Aug 17, 2014 14:18:18 GMT -5
You say that only a third of the populace supported the war, I've seen stats that state that only about 4% actually fought or gave material support to those who did fight.
Post by The Candy Lane on Aug 17, 2014 14:28:19 GMT -5
The USA's revolution and declaration of independence was a failed attempt by a small segment of the white-male, and land owning population to establish a republican utopia (lit. no where). It was unjustified and I believe even the USA has acknowledged this by declaring secession from the union to be unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Last Edit: Aug 17, 2014 14:29:36 GMT -5 by The Candy Lane
Veni, Vidi, Liberati
Where there is no vision, the people perish. - Pv 29:18
Posts: 112,088
Likes: 3,650
House: House of Tasdorf XKI Generation: The Redesign Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Red XKI NS Join Year: 148 - Monday, 9 May 2011 Historical XKI Political Party: TIP - The Islands Party Ancient House of: Aersoldorf
Post by Aersoldorf on Aug 17, 2014 14:51:07 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that we got rid of our overlord (the UK). I also don't have a problem with the protections afforded landowners (ie they were the only ones who could vote). I'm not saying that only wealthy whites should be allowed to vote, but I do think that those who are allowed this option should be responsible citizens. The fiasco we face today is that the vast majority of the Democratic party supports a welfare program that takes from those who have worked hard to get where they are (ie the rich) and gives those gains to those who for the most part refuse to work (ie the poor). I don't mind charity in principle, the Bible teaches that we should give what we can to the poor. What I do have a problem with is our government deciding to tax me because I'm willing to attempt to support my family and better myself and giving my hard earned wages to those who would rather sit at home and suckle at the governmental teat than attempt to do the same. The same Scriptures that tell us to be charitable to the poor also tell us that if a man isn't willing to work then he shouldn't eat.
CL, whether or not you think the revolution was a failed attempt or unjustified, the result was certainly successful in terms of a viable country and government, which was at least founded on those same failed principles. In any event, the causes of the revolution were as much economic as political. The rebels thought their actions were justified and they ultimately won, which is all that matters now.
63rd Knight of TITO, Grand Knight Armada Commander Steward of the House of Improving Wordiness Namesake of The Escanaba Generation
Posts: 112,088
Likes: 3,650
House: House of Tasdorf XKI Generation: The Redesign Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Red XKI NS Join Year: 148 - Monday, 9 May 2011 Historical XKI Political Party: TIP - The Islands Party Ancient House of: Aersoldorf
Post by The Candy Lane on Aug 17, 2014 19:30:42 GMT -5
When I said 'failed attempt' I meant the attempt to establish a utopian republic, (other causes and goals aside) borne out of the philosophy of the enlightenment period. I certainly respect (and believe in) the biblical principles and thought that motivated some, but at the same time they went against one of the most emphasized principles of scripture -Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; Submit even to unjust authorities.
Veni, Vidi, Liberati
Where there is no vision, the people perish. - Pv 29:18
What I do have a problem with is our government deciding to tax me because I'm willing to attempt to support my family and better myself and giving my hard earned wages to those who would rather sit at home and suckle at the governmental teat than attempt to do the same. The same Scriptures that tell us to be charitable to the poor also tell us that if a man isn't willing to work then he shouldn't eat.
While this is getting off topic, I feel that it's worth saying that you are regurgitating a very gross simplification of what is really going on. It's estimated that less than 10 percent of welfare is being spent on the deadbeats you are characterizing. In fact, most estimates tend to agree that most of what is classified as fraud is actually an error on the government's part. I'm not saying it doesn't exist - if there's a system, people will take advantage of it - but this is hardly the case for most people accepting either state or federal aid.
It is also unfair to characterize this as a Democratic targeting strategy, when Bush's 2000 campaign specifically targeted low-income voters by pushing for an increased EITC that gave a credit of $400 per child - something that wouldn't make a very large difference for most people who were in a bracket that actually required them to pay taxes.
The best thing about UDP jokes is that I don’t care if you get them or not.
Writing this stream of consciousness or whatever so if it makes little sense, I apologize.
I think you may have oversimplified things a bit stating that the stamp act was the cause of the war. The Stamp Act was one of several acts (Quartering Act, Townshend Act, Navigations Act, Sugar Act, etc) which aggravated colonists but not the only reason for the revolt. Also remember it took a few years of one thing after another before the ball got rolling.
I should add it wasn't the first revolt in colonial America; Was just the final one (at least in the 13 colonies while under British rule. There was one or two more in Canada, afterwards, that I can think of. ) For almost as long as there has been British settlements here, there have been smaller, localized revolts and uprisings -- many over taxes, corrupt officials and other such grievances. So, we have a lot of ingredients here: years of mild resentment, at least in localized patches, a distant gov't that refuses to give settlers a voice in parliament, corrupt local officials who represent the crown followed by unpopular and unnecessary (at least in many colonists minds) taxation schemes. Oh and lets not forget the power of the printed word and the role it played in the events leading up to the Revolution, helping to stir further unrest.
As for "Was it justified?" Justification is a lot like beauty.. it's in the eye of the beholder. The colonial revolutionaries felt justified in their rebellion as did the British Gov't. in trying to quell the revolt of it's citizens. I suppose it depends on one's viewpoint so I'm uncertain about what you mean?
Personally, like Escanaba I feel it was inevitable. Eventually, the colonies would have rebelled again. Had the Amer. Revolution War failed and the British Empire followed the path as it did in our timeline where they abolish slavery in 1833, would they have abolished it officially in the American colonies or leave it alone for a decade like they did in their East Indies holdings? And if so, how would their colonies act towards it? That's probably a question for another thread, though.
To answer your final question: I chose indifferent colonist, at least in the beginning. As the war went on, my loyalties would likely shift due to what happens and my possible circumstances. I have to be honest with myself and look at how things were during that period and the mindset of someone living in it. Around then, I would not know what the future held for the revolution and the odds are pretty high that I'd been among the poorer settlers having either arrived from the Great Britain not too long ago or perhaps my parents were immigrants. I would probably have married young and had several children to feed.
Without wealth, I'd have to work to feed my family. If I was lucky I may have had an apprenticeship in my youth where I learned a trade. Otherwise, I'd either try to find a niche in one of the cities or towns, probably as a laborer or head out to the frontier and squat illegally on a homestead. My priorities would be my family - feeding, protecting and clothing them.
If I stayed in a city or town, I likely would have stayed indifferent to politics. Being poor in the cities at the time was tough, and with a family, even more so. I probably wouldn't care much about who was in power, as it really wouldn't directly affect my family too much, so long as I have income and the ability to take care of my family, I'd probably be more or less content, possibly even loyalist leaning. Granted the taxation issues may be annoying but if I remember correctly, the were relatively low.
On the frontier as a squatting homesteader.. I'd be away from most of the fighting, at first. Much of the political babble would likely not concern me too much (I'd keep an ear open though as squatting on the frontier was illegal past the Appalachian range.) otherwise, I'm too busy trying to run a farm to care. My concerns are my crops, indian raids, drought, etc. In nearby settlements some rabblerousers would come in, trying to get support for the revolution but I'd ignore them; If I have an older son, I may worry he'd abandon the farm to join the fight. Once the British start using their native allies to raid frontier settlements and homesteads -- then I'd likely join a local militia to help protect our farms. As the war escalated we'd be drawn into it being forced to deal with fighting both British loyalists and indian raiders.
This is all running off my memory of Revolutionary War era events and such and my memory is pretty spotty so I maybe incorrect on a few details but I believe I'm more or less "in the ballpark." Could be wrong. Probably am..
Writing this stream of consciousness or whatever so if it makes little sense, I apologize.
I think you may have oversimplified things a bit stating that the stamp act was the cause of the war. The Stamp Act was one of several acts (Quartering Act, Townshend Act, Navigations Act, Sugar Act, etc) which aggravated colonists but not the only reason for the revolt. Also remember it took a few years of one thing after another before the ball got rolling.
I should add it wasn't the first revolt in colonial America; Was just the final one (at least in the 13 colonies while under British rule. There was one or two more in Canada, afterwards, that I can think of. ) For almost as long as there has been British settlements here, there have been smaller, localized revolts and uprisings -- many over taxes, corrupt officials and other such grievances. So, we have a lot of ingredients here: years of mild resentment, at least in localized patches, a distant gov't that refuses to give settlers a voice in parliament, corrupt local officials who represent the crown followed by unpopular and unnecessary (at least in many colonists minds) taxation schemes. Oh and lets not forget the power of the printed word and the role it played in the events leading up to the Revolution, helping to stir further unrest.
As for "Was it justified?" Justification is a lot like beauty.. it's in the eye of the beholder. The colonial revolutionaries felt justified in their rebellion as did the British Gov't. in trying to quell the revolt of it's citizens. I suppose it depends on one's viewpoint so I'm uncertain about what you mean?
Personally, like Escanaba I feel it was inevitable. Eventually, the colonies would have rebelled again. Had the Amer. Revolution War failed and the British Empire followed the path as it did in our timeline where they abolish slavery in 1833, would they have abolished it officially in the American colonies or leave it alone for a decade like they did in their East Indies holdings? And if so, how would their colonies act towards it? That's probably a question for another thread, though.
To answer your final question: I chose indifferent colonist, at least in the beginning. As the war went on, my loyalties would likely shift due to what happens and my possible circumstances. I have to be honest with myself and look at how things were during that period and the mindset of someone living in it. Around then, I would not know what the future held for the revolution and the odds are pretty high that I'd been among the poorer settlers having either arrived from the Great Britain not too long ago or perhaps my parents were immigrants. I would probably have married young and had several children to feed.
Without wealth, I'd have to work to feed my family. If I was lucky I may have had an apprenticeship in my youth where I learned a trade. Otherwise, I'd either try to find a niche in one of the cities or towns, probably as a laborer or head out to the frontier and squat illegally on a homestead. My priorities would be my family - feeding, protecting and clothing them.
If I stayed in a city or town, I likely would have stayed indifferent to politics. Being poor in the cities at the time was tough, and with a family, even more so. I probably wouldn't care much about who was in power, as it really wouldn't directly affect my family too much, so long as I have income and the ability to take care of my family, I'd probably be more or less content, possibly even loyalist leaning. Granted the taxation issues may be annoying but if I remember correctly, the were relatively low.
On the frontier as a squatting homesteader.. I'd be away from most of the fighting, at first. Much of the political babble would likely not concern me too much (I'd keep an ear open though as squatting on the frontier was illegal past the Appalachian range.) otherwise, I'm too busy trying to run a farm to care. My concerns are my crops, indian raids, drought, etc. In nearby settlements some rabblerousers would come in, trying to get support for the revolution but I'd ignore them; If I have an older son, I may worry he'd abandon the farm to join the fight. Once the British start using their native allies to raid frontier settlements and homesteads -- then I'd likely join a local militia to help protect our farms. As the war escalated we'd be drawn into it being forced to deal with fighting both British loyalists and indian raiders.
This is all running off my memory of Revolutionary War era events and such and my memory is pretty spotty so I maybe incorrect on a few details but I believe I'm more or less "in the ballpark." Could be wrong. Probably am..
I wouldn't characterize the Biblical principles that this country was founded on as 'failed'
Aersoldorf,The founding fathers were full of Christians, Deists, and Agnostics. I have yet to see a strictly biblical principle as part of the founding principles in this nation. What I have seen are human principles that can be found in all religions and cultures to varying degrees. Murder, lying, and stealing are all bad even to an ape simply because it hurts another being and the society as a whole. So please, do tell what "biblical principles" this country was founded on.
Post by The Candy Lane on Aug 18, 2014 19:24:13 GMT -5
Aersoldorf,The founding fathers were full of Christians, Deists, and Agnostics. I have yet to see a strictly biblical principle as part of the founding principles in this nation. What I have seen are human principles that can be found in all religions and cultures to varying degrees. Murder, lying, and stealing are all bad even to an ape simply because it hurts another being and the society as a whole. So please, do tell what "biblical principles" this country was founded on.
You just named them. Just because they weren't exclusively christian, doesn't mean they didn't have biblical principles in mind. After all, they lived in a staunchly Christian culture. One can intend to draw principles out of a belief system, without adhering to the full system. Furthermore, "Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees."* Also, just because morality is universal doesn't mean they are not biblical principles. I think the principles Aerso had in mind are ones like all humans being created equal, which is an idea that isn't all that common outside of the Christian religion (modern secularism aside).
Despite the religious affiliations of the founders, I once again emphasize the fact that no strictly biblical principles were enacted with our constitution. They are very human principles found in most religions in cultures to a degree. For instance, Jainism and Buddhism have many of the same principles. Even the Aztec society had the same principles for citizens unless they volunteered themselves for sacrifice, which was considered a great honor. To say that the founders were purely biblical in their intentions for these types of things while all cultures have them is hardly true. Again, even apes have this sense of societal morality that comes with being a societal animal. If these principles weren't in our founders minds when creating a nation, then humans would be less than apes!