1. #91
    Originally posted by Bearcat99:
    the issue of slavery that almost tore the country apart would have most likely been a possible cause...
    I'm not sure I quite follow what you're trying to say here, Bear. I'm assuming you know that Britain outlawed slavery long before America did, and that Britain was the prime mover in trying to establish an international law against slavery and that the Royal Navy was the only really effective force in fighting the slave trade between the American Revolution and the US Civil war. That provoked a brief war in 1812.

    That being the case, do you mean to say that if the Americans hadn't revolted against the British when they did they would soon have revolted to protect the slave trade? That seems like a reasonable extrapolation.

    It's worth pointing out that while the British were fighting the American slave trade they were shipping convicts to Australia in conditions as bad as (and sometimes worse than) the African slaves suffered in their journey to the Americas. A couple of my ancestors got here that way.

    People seem more willing to overlook that - because those people were "convicts" - without taking into account the fact that the great majority of them were convicted of shoplifting, and a significant minority of them were transported for their political beliefs. More serious crimes than that would generally get you hung in Georgian England.

    So I'm not trying to say the British were really keen on humanitarianism in their fight against the slave trade, I guess my point is that we can't really judge the people of 200 years ago by the standards of today, because nobody in power, British or American, was really convinced that racism wasn't the natural order of things. Some of the people who wrote the Declaration of Independance were slave owners, and I seriously doubt any of them thought that "All men are created equal" applied to people who were of different colours, religions, or ancestory than themselves.

    It's also worth pointing out that New Zealand and Australia were the first countries in the world to grant universal suffrage to their citizens; New Zealand in 1893, Australia in 1894. Finland was the first European country to grant universal suffrage to its citizens in 1906. The US didn't do it until 1920. And didn't do it effectively until the 60s civil rights movement forced it to happen.
    Share this post

  2. #92
    wayno7777's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,546
    Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
    Commonwealth of Massachusetts (did you know that technically, there are only 48 States? Virginia and Massachusetts are Commonwealths)
    Pennsylvania is also a Commonwealth....
    Share this post

  3. #93
    Nimits's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    928
    . . . and Texas is more of country . . .
    Share this post

  4. #94
    WWMaxGunz's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,792
    British and Dutch moved a lot of slaves but that was purely commercial. Did convicts bound
    for Australia get branded Duke of York? US cotton was pushing Brit wool trade down so they
    changed their tune on slavery? The mercantile system even without official slavery still
    amounts to the same thing if not worse and when did Britain finally end that? Hello India?
    France was still about it in Vietnam... errr, French Indochina, in more recent times.

    Australia where the Brits set up the new penal colony after Georgia became off-limts wasn't it?
    Whites were indentured so at least their children were not born slaves. No need to ask why
    Australia has so much Irish blood is there? What did Alexis Sayles say about his visit there?
    He was going through customs when they asked if he had a criminal record. He replied, "No, I
    didn't think you still needed one.".

    US war for independance there were the Redcoats, the Bluecoats and the Greencoats who were the
    Tories that fought for Britain. End of war, the Loyalists had to run and many went to Canada
    and were given free land on the border by the Crown. To this day their families have some kind
    of distinction, some Order of the Crown for what it's worth.

    I can't say about all the Tories as there were also a lot of Swedes and Germans settled as well.

    King George Washington took a force out into the hills of PA and busted up the moonshiners and
    tobacco growers who felt they didn't need to pay taxes they hadn't been asked about. First
    Federal Agency created and still the most powerful, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
    was created to collect taxes and control trade of those things, the big easy money of the time.
    Did anyone go out and poll the populace? No. George and Congress set up the deal and got the
    money flowing. Been that way ever since only more every year or so. The acorn didn't fall far
    from the oak in spite of all the talk as actions have shown.
    Share this post

  5. #95
    Copperhead310th's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,884
    Originally posted by gx-warspite:
    You Americans are funny

    Read up on your history a bit. The independence movement was really small, with only about 10-30% of the colonist population supporting it. A similar segment was decidedly royalist, and the vast majority simply didn't care. After the revolution, there was a mass exodus of over 100,000 royalists to Canada - the most faithful of the faithful.

    The Declaration of Independence is a propaganda piece. You'll find similar texts any time there's a revolt, and, of course, 90% of those are forgotten because the revolts fail. Every two-bit dictator that comes to power through a coup issues something similar, that sounds glorious and exaggerates the situation.

    Fact is, that the colonies were a net financial burden to Britain, their upkeep and protection cost more than what little tax they gave. The taxes on the colonies were remarkably low, they had the least tarriffs of any major colony or state in the world at the time. You might want to read how, after the end of the war, taxes were immediately raised because the colonies found out how expensive government really is.

    The revolutionaries had to drum up fake propaganda like the "Boston Massacre" in their newspapers, packs of lies, and still popular support for the revolution was low. In fact, when the White House was burned down during the War of 1812, there was considerable consternation that the British would re-establish colonial rule. Due to the taxes levied by the state governments, British rule was seen with great nostalgia among the populance. You guys should read about the recruiting and provisioning problems the army had during the War of 1812.
    Man you're Nucking Futz! Just what have you been smoking? Serously get a helmet or somthing.
    your heads a tad on the soft side. Wouldn't want you to have an permanent damage there.
    Oh and while you out pick a few American History book Printed in the USA. lol
    Seriously...the British half a long term memory problem. They can't remember all the women and children they raped & butcherd in Ireland & Scottland....let alone in the colonies.
    Share this post

  6. #96
    Copperhead310th's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,884
    Originally posted by djetz:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
    the issue of slavery that almost tore the country apart would have most likely been a possible cause...
    I'm not sure I quite follow what you're trying to say here, Bear. I'm assuming you know that Britain outlawed slavery long before America did, and that Britain was the prime mover in trying to establish an international law against slavery and that the Royal Navy was the only really effective force in fighting the slave trade between the American Revolution and the US Civil war. That provoked a brief war in 1812.

    That being the case, do you mean to say that if the Americans hadn't revolted against the British when they did they would soon have revolted to protect the slave trade? That seems like a reasonable extrapolation.

    It's worth pointing out that while the British were fighting the American slave trade they were shipping convicts to Australia in conditions as bad as (and sometimes worse than) the African slaves suffered in their journey to the Americas. A couple of my ancestors got here that way.

    People seem more willing to overlook that - because those people were "convicts" - without taking into account the fact that the great majority of them were convicted of shoplifting, and a significant minority of them were transported for their political beliefs. More serious crimes than that would generally get you hung in Georgian England.

    So I'm not trying to say the British were really keen on humanitarianism in their fight against the slave trade, I guess my point is that we can't really judge the people of 200 years ago by the standards of today, because nobody in power, British or American, was really convinced that racism wasn't the natural order of things. Some of the people who wrote the Declaration of Independance were slave owners, and I seriously doubt any of them thought that "All men are created equal" applied to people who were of different colours, religions, or ancestory than themselves.

    It's also worth pointing out that New Zealand and Australia were the first countries in the world to grant universal suffrage to their citizens; New Zealand in 1893, Australia in 1894. Finland was the first European country to grant universal suffrage to its citizens in 1906. The US didn't do it until 1920. And didn't do it effectively until the 60s civil rights movement forced it to happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


    Ok i'll comment on this.

    The insitution of slavery is at it's very core an economic VACUME. No free nation can contenuie to prosper while upholding slavery as the source of all it's labor force. A fact that the Conferates had came to realise as early as 1863. There were several members of the confederate congress oppsed to the issue of slavery. but for no other reason than it clogged up the owrk force and hamperd the economy. how so? well lets look at the situation.
    The south's Primary source of income from the early 1800's on was agriculture. Bumper crops, rice, tabacco, and latter cotton. Now let's say i'm a big plantation owner. i have say 26-30 slave families living on my land, working for me and i have to pay them? what? NOTHING. They sustain thier own gardens, grow thier own food, and tend my crops and reproduce even MORE ppl to work my lands for free. thus increasing my wealth.
    So with all that....why am i going to take gold from my coin purse and pay it to the poor white man down the road to do this work for me when it is already being done for free by the slaves that i own out right. and it cost me nothing more than a few livestock and some seed.

    Now what's the poor guy down the road going to do? he cant find work, his land are poor and produce little to nothing to sustain his family on..let alone turn any kind of real profit. and I and the other large plantation owners can produce so much more than the little guys can so we flood the markets and drive down the price and force the little guys who the majoirty of are far to poor to even own one slave let alone 20 0r 30, to tend & work his own lands himself.
    Thus the 90% of the southern population of free men cannot find work to feed thier families, and can produce barely enough on thir own lands, if they have them, to survive on.
    Thus you have created an economic vacume by the Elite of the country/region forcing the intituion of slave labor. And this was relized far to late in this country. The yankees didn't want free men of color migrating north for this very reason and Linclons 1st solution to the problem was to deport them back to Africa.
    And the southern politicians were well aware of this economic vacume. Sadly the majority of these same souther politiacns were the very same ones who OWNED THE PLANTATIONS. So they had a vested intrest in keeping slavery going...even though it was widly disliked by the majority of the southern population.
    In the end slavery was the crack cocain of the 1800's and the only wa for the C.S.A tosave it's self was to quit cold turkey. And in time they would have. had the south won the war for thier independance Jeff Davis would have lost a bid foranother 6 year term Robert E. Lee would have won the by popular vote. And Lee was Frimly opposed to slavery. He saw it as an Abomantation to God, and being the deeply religious man he was would have brought it to an end in short order.
    And who is to blame for slavery? As much as i'd like to put this one off on the French..the truth is it was the Dutch. At that point in world history the Dutch were the worlds largest importers of slaves into North America. And were were they imported to? Every where. But 80% of all the slaving ships that came to North America were ships registerd at the Port of BOSTON to Dutch trading comanies.
    Sot he very idea that the brittish were doing anything substantial to stem the tide of slavery is laughable. all they had to do was declare war on the Dutch Merchant ships.

    but bear is right. it would hae been some other issiue to cause the colonies to break with england. And it would have mostlikly had been slavery.since the folks in Boston stood to loose a large bit of profits if the dutch slavers were not permitted to port thier slave ships in boston harbor. and they could no longer supply slave labor to the souther aristocrates plantation owners.
    Share this post

  7. #97
    Copperhead310th's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,884
    Oh and if anyone ever wonders were the south got the idea to succedd the union from....
    it's rigth here:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    And to fact: Any state may still to this day succeed from the union based on these same princibles. But that will never happen. lol
    Share this post

  8. #98
    Hi again, Jungmann

    Yes, I agree that all who particpated in the Slave Trade share the guilt, not just Americans by any means at all; I think every European colonial power, for a start, was into it at some stage. No slur against Americans in particular; slavery was/is a human crime - by humans, against other humans.

    Sorry, but I just couldn't remain silent when you said, "Everybody who came to America wanted to be there".


    Best regards,
    panther3485

    P.S. - Thanks Bearcat - that's exactly what I meant; no more and no less!
    Share this post

  9. #99
    Bearcat99's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,969
    Originally posted by djetz:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
    the issue of slavery that almost tore the country apart would have most likely been a possible cause...
    I'm not sure I quite follow what you're trying to say here, Bear. I'm assuming you know that Britain outlawed slavery long before America did, and that Britain was the prime mover in trying to establish an international law against slavery and that the Royal Navy was the only really effective force in fighting the slave trade between the American Revolution and the US Civil war. That provoked a brief war in 1812.

    That being the case, do you mean to say that if the Americans hadn't revolted against the British when they did they would soon have revolted to protect the slave trade? That seems like a reasonable extrapolation.
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yes.... that's exactly what I mean.... even though the Civil War wasn't entirely about slavery on it's moral grounds... although it was partly it, was largely about the economic disparities between the agrarian south and the industrial north and the representational disparities within the system.... even at 3/5 of a person the slave population in the south did alter the representation and considering that these extra people had no say whatsoever in the system..... it gave an advantage to the south..... that the north didnt have and the south was not about to give up these perks.... thier whole economy was based on slave labor... although the north was not "innocent" of benifittting from the slave trade either.
    And again.. I am not saying that the slave trade would have caused the split if the other issues hadn't.. but that it could very well have wound up being just another possible cause. I am also not trying to divert the issue by addressing who was or was not the biggest contributor to the slave trade. Lets face it the slave trade and the land grab over here and all the riches that came with it saved Europe.... thats a historical fact but not the issue being discussed here. The bottom line is the revolution was inevitable......and England's defeat in the issue was also inevitable.... at best (or worse I guess...) it could have dragged on longer.. but the eventual outcome would have been the same. The slave trade was just another line in the long list of evil deeds that humanity has perpetrated on itself and to this day is continuing to do in our own pride and arrogance....

    As far as comparisons to current events.... There is no way in the world you can compare the current "Freedom Fighters" in Iraq to Americans in the revolution. Americans wertent going around blowing up churches.. or setting them on fire.. they werent killing innocent civillians... won and children.. to make a "statement" and although they felt their cause was just and it did have a definite religious undertone to it, they didnt claim to be doing the will of GOD by such murderous cowardly acts.. but claimed to eb excercising thier GOD GIVEN RIGHT to self government.. a big difference. So please Xiolablu3 ... I know you probabvly are like so many othewrs around here who have your anti U.S. axe to grind...or tat the very least an anti current administration axe to grind... which of course youare entitled to grind away.. just not here... try to keep it historical and please .... please dont sully the memory of true Freedom Fighters worldwide by calling these murderous cowardly pigs in Iraq freedom fighters. The validity of the U.S. cause there is indeed a highly debateable subject... however the "nobility" of those killers or thier cause is not. If they had the Iraqi people at the core of thier cause they wouldnt be killing so many of them.

    Now lets get back to history shall we.....
    Share this post

  10. #100
    Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
    You Americans are funny

    Read up on your history a bit. The independence movement was really small, with only about 10-30% of the colonist population supporting it. A similar segment was decidedly royalist, and the vast majority simply didn't care. After the revolution, there was a mass exodus of over 100,000 royalists to Canada - the most faithful of the faithful.

    The Declaration of Independence is a propaganda piece. You'll find similar texts any time there's a revolt, and, of course, 90% of those are forgotten because the revolts fail. Every two-bit dictator that comes to power through a coup issues something similar, that sounds glorious and exaggerates the situation.

    Fact is, that the colonies were a net financial burden to Britain, their upkeep and protection cost more than what little tax they gave. The taxes on the colonies were remarkably low, they had the least tarriffs of any major colony or state in the world at the time. You might want to read how, after the end of the war, taxes were immediately raised because the colonies found out how expensive government really is.

    The revolutionaries had to drum up fake propaganda like the "Boston Massacre" in their newspapers, packs of lies, and still popular support for the revolution was low. In fact, when the White House was burned down during the War of 1812, there was considerable consternation that the British would re-establish colonial rule. Due to the taxes levied by the state governments, British rule was seen with great nostalgia among the populance. You guys should read about the recruiting and provisioning problems the army had during the War of 1812.
    Man you're Nucking Futz! Just what have you been smoking? Serously get a helmet or somthing.
    your heads a tad on the soft side. Wouldn't want you to have an permanent damage there.
    Oh and while you out pick a few American History book Printed in the USA. lol
    Seriously...the British half a long term memory problem. They can't remember all the women and children they raped & butcherd in Ireland & Scottland....let alone in the colonies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


    So let me get this straight. You say he's nut's to believe what he reads in English history books......But it's perfectly reasonable to take as gospel anything printed in an American history book?

    Oh and from the sound of the rape and pillage comment seems you actually think Mel Gibson's films like Braveheart and The Patriot are historically accurate??

    (where as there were without doubt such actions committed by British trops from time to time, it has never been as frequent as in some other armies.....And even US troops have been guilty of such actions from time to time. So in summary; there's not a single army worldwide that is totally innocent of such actions)

    Seems to me he might not be the only one with a soft skull m8.

    Seriously though, quite a few posters here are making a basic mistake. They seem to be trying to apply our modern morals and ways of thinking to a time when people's way of thinking, way of life and overall view of the world was completely different.

    I honestly don't think we can judge their actions since we have never experienced their world. The best we can do fairly is discuss the implications of their actions on the modern world and the possible "what if" scenarios if they had acted differently, or the wars in question had had a different outcome.
    Share this post