1. #31
    Originally posted by Jungmann:
    Everybody who came to America wanted to be there. Still applies.

    My 2 cents about the inevitable split--Britain treated the Colonies like all their colonies, as a cash cow, to be taxed up the wazoo, to make the Yankees have to buy British goods off British ships at higher prices than they'd pay elsewhere (say, the French), and as a handy garden for all that good stuff they couldn't grow at home (tobacco). Americans finally got p***ed.
    A pack of lies.

    British taxes on the American colonies were almost nil, not covering even administration costs - never mind the cost of defending them. Taxes in the states were far higher after independence than before.
    Share this post

  2. #32
    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.

    _______________________________________________

    Got Track?
    Share this post

  3. #33
    Von_Rat's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,900
    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.
    __________________________________________________ _____

    this doesn't show the british military in a very good light does it. they couldnt defeat a revolution that had only about ten percent of the people supporting it, even when they had a similar number supporting them? i guess those brit generals should of been shot for incompetance.



    _________________________________________________
    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.
    _________________________________________________
    is that 90percent of the texts are forgotten, or 90percent of revolts fail? if its the latter it means the british military was really incompetant.

    in war both sides use propoganda. just cause its propoganda doesnt mean its wrong.

    hmmm i gotta admit your the 1st person ive heard of comparing the founding fathers to two bit dictators. i guess you consider the u.s the same as a two bit dictatorship?



    __________________________________________________ _____

    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.
    __________________________________________________ _______________

    it wasnt just the amount of taxes, it was about having a say in them.

    wow go figure, after a long and expensive war, the americans had to raise taxes higher than they had been in prewar peacetime.



    __________________________________________________ __

    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.
    _________________________________________________

    once again this really puts the british military in a bad light. the americans had all these problems like recuriting and provisions and with "British rule was seen with great nostalgia among the populance", but still the best the british could do was to settle for a draw? i guess the british military was hoplessly incompetant in 1812 too.


    btw im not trying to put down the british military, imo they were among the best in the world at the time. im just trying to show my opinion of the comments made. if the support for the revolution was really as small as stated the brits couldnt help but win,, but they didnt. ergo there was enough support to defeat one of the best militarys in the world. the actual numbers will never be known, nor do they matter. because all that matters is there were enough to win against a very formidable opponent. this alone should tell you the revolution was inevietable.
    Share this post

  4. #34
    Yet another topic that I know little about

    Just to clear up an error I thought some might like to know that four states in the United States officially designate themselves "commonwealths": Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. I thought for sure that Maryland was a "commonwealth," but wikipedia claims other wise.

    "Commonwealth" is also used in the U.S. to describe the political relationship between the United States and the overseas unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico and of the Northern Marianas.
    Share this post

  5. #35
    SkyChimp:
    You think this was about a tax???? It was about a lot of abuses on the part of the Great Britain. Read the Declaration of Independence. It mentions a few of them...

    A few of them...

    If someone had posted the equivalent number of gripes on this forum about this sim he would have been blasted into a solar orbit and accused of being a 'Whiner'...
    Share this post

  6. #36
    HellToupee's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,255
    this doesn't show the british military in a very good light does it. they couldnt defeat a revolution that had only about ten percent of the people supporting it, even when they had a similar number supporting them? i guess those brit generals should of been shot for incompetance.
    but they were rarely defeated in battle, the biggest issue was they had not enough man power to put down the rebellion, there was no central power like european countries eg take the capital the country surrenders when they conquerored the closest thing to a capital they just moved somewhere else.

    They couldnt help but lose, on the otherside of the world with reinforcements and such half the world away, the american armies when defeated would just withdraw inland and form another, british armies were mostly stuck holding costal cities .

    There was help from France and Spain to i belive against the british.
    Share this post

  7. #37
    Uh-oh, now you've done it HellToupee. Now some irate American is going to post something like "Well at least we didn't rely on German mercenaries" Then someone's going to reply "Oh yeah? What about Von Steuben?" Then someone'll post "Yeah, takes a German to get a good war rolling..."

    It will all end in tears, mark my words.
    Share this post

  8. #38
    Do these colonials really think that Washington's guerilla rabble, whom the Americans would today class alongside al-qaeda in the terrorists stakes, could possibly have defeated Cornwallis in a stand up fight if the British had truly put their backs into it??? And as for the Mustang winning the war,what war. Instead of the entente cordiale of 1904,if the British government had entered into a mutual defence treaty with Imperial Germany, western and northern France could retun to the English crown, there would have been no war in the west in 1914 and the German army transported around the world by the Royal Navy would have made further conflict unthinkable! Pax Brittanica.
    Share this post

  9. #39
    "All men are created equal"?...how many of the guys who signed that were slave owners?
    Share this post

  10. #40
    Chuck_Older's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,024
    SkyChimp-

    I think you might misunderstand me. I never said the American Revolution was (solely) about a tax. That was the convenient given reason.

    puhakka-

    It's not news to anyone with a bit of knowledge about history that the Founding Fathers of the USA would today most likely land in jail....but this isn't even new news if you take my meaning. that situation is about 40 years old. Al-Queda has little to do with that, and in addition, the exploits of the most notorious and invasive warrior for the Colonies, John Paul Jones, included a formal letter of apology to the lady of the house, after he had broken into an English Estate, looking to take a political hostage, which itself was in response the the gross mistreatment, deprivation, and condemnation to death by exposure, that American sailors were enduring on British prison hulks off the canadian coast that winter. the intention was to releive the inhuman treatm,ent of these helpless men in a politicl prisoner exchange. That's hardly what the situation is with Al-Queda, no matter how you spin it. It's more than a small exaggeration to say that the actions of men like Jones are the equivelent of Al-Queda. Jones is the only man I can possibly think of on the US side that came even close to the 'terrorist' ideal and his actions were extremely mild by the standards of Al-Queda. He used the threat of force more than the terror of death, and in any case he was a recognised sea captain whose job was waging conventional war, not a recruiter and organiser of terror cells in England. I can't think of another man who comes close to your descriptions, if there is another can you please point him out?
    Share this post