1. #41
    Chuck_Older's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,024
    Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
    Oh dear he's whipped out his declaration out! Now its gona get nasty.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
    He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    there he goes waving his manly firmness about in front of the people again

    Thank god we live in an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

    Next he will be complaning about the violence inherant in the system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Bloody peasant
    Share this post

  2. #42
    There are many reasons why people go to war, probably as many reasons as there are combatants. Jones was a Scot. Many Scottish Jacobites went to America after the failed rebellion of 1745. I wonder if Jones and men like him were just carrying on the war against the Hanoverians?
    Share this post

  3. #43
    Chuck_Older's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,024
    Originally posted by foxyboy1964:
    There are many reasons why people go to war, probably as many reasons as there are combatants. Jones was a Scot. Many Scottish Jacobites went to America after the failed rebellion of 1745. I wonder if Jones and men like him were just carrying on the war against the Hanoverians?
    Jones actually was an interesting figure before the war. He was named John Paul, the Jones was affected after some legal trouble in which he killed a mutineer on a ship on which he was captain, and he made his way to the Americas. A sordid tale, the man dies after Jones wounded him, his family made a stink, Jones was arrested.

    Some of his drive against the English easily could have come from the '45 but some of it also came from his father's old boss, who young John Paul didn't like (also there is speculation he was illegitimately sired by Dad's boss). Jones was a moody and easily wounded man. Most of Jone's inspiration was probably the good old quest for glory, though. A fascinating subject. During the American revolution, Jones didn't see eye to eye with many powerful men, like Hancock

    On one occasion, after Jones returned from a cruise, the local equivelent of the tax man came up to him as he was disembarking from his ship. The man told him that he owed the King money for mooring (forgetting about the war apparently, since it was still a new thing). Jones whipped out his sword and cried, "The King? By God, if you're a servant of the King then I have a warrant for your Head!", and the man squeaked and ran off. Jones was a fascinating man. Russian Admiral, too
    Share this post

  4. #44
    Blutarski2004's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,020
    Originally posted by gx-warspite:
    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.
    ..... Fascinating. Why do you suppose that Great Britain maintained its North American colonies for so long?
    Share this post

  5. #45
    Bearcat99's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,969
    Wars are fought for two reasons... money (read land, resources or whatever material gain you can think of) and power..... things like religion and political gripes are usually the excuses used but it is always and will always be about maoney and power. Therefore the American revolution like the civil war as well was inevitable... just as the next one will be.
    Share this post

  6. #46
    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.
    The Declaration of Independence is one of the great political tracts of all time. It neatly contains all of the major ideals of the Enlightenment on one page. It's pronouncements sparked democratic revolutions across the globe. If it's a mere propaganda piece, then it's the most morally relevent chunk of propaganda ever delievered
    Share this post

  7. #47
    Aaron_GT's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,131
    Bearcat wrote:
    Bottom line if not taxes something else.. the split was inevitable...
    I'd agree, and with SkyChimp too. If you look at the Declaration of Indepdence and then look at things the Leveller movement produced in the 1640s they contain essentially the same grievances. Not that this is necessarily surprising given that some of the Leveller movement ended up in the American colonies to try to get away from repression. The slight irony is that Cromwell very nearly decamped to the American Colonies prior to the English Civil Wars, and ultimately became a despot himself, thus driving more people to move to the American Colonies.
    Share this post

  8. #48
    Aaron_GT's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,131
    Everybody who came to America wanted to be there.
    Actually England transported criminals there prior to opening up Australia for that purpose. Plus America was, for the English, somewhere that it was possible to go to to get away from England and so a choice of exclusion. In the 17th century the Indian and Australian colonies were not available.
    Share this post

  9. #49
    Aaron_GT's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,131
    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.
    In the 1770s Britain was engaged in other wars and was stretched militarily. Since the American colonies were a net drain on resources and the prize of India was up for grabs and promised to be more useful financially and strategically. Given this and some military cockups on the part of the British the British didn't feel that victory was going to be achievable in the context of troops being required elsewhere. The 1812 war was very much in the context of the wars in Europe.
    Share this post

  10. #50
    Aaron_GT's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,131
    ..... Fascinating. Why do you suppose that Great Britain maintained its North American colonies for so long?
    Probably to annoy the French :-)
    Share this post