Did the American Colonies have the right to revolt? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#1275512
Here's a question I've been meaning to ask.

The 13 American Colonies revolted in 1775-1781. One cause was the high tax rates, which the colonies unified in rejecting. However, the colonists should have paid the taxes, the whole reason Britain needed the money in the first place was because of the French and Indian War. The men in London had spent a lot of money on the colonists' defense, and it is only fair that the colonists themselves should help pay. The taxpayers in Britain proper were still paying even higher taxes, even with the Stamp Act.

The next reason is the Boston Massacre. In Boston on March 5, 1770, a large mob gathered around a group of British soldiers. The mob grew more and more threatening, throwing snowballs, sticks and stones at the soldiers. In the midst of the commotion, all but one of the soldiers fired into the crowd. Eleven men were hit and five of them died. The event quickly came to be called the Boston Massacre. Exaggerated and widespread descriptions of the massacre began to turn colonial sentiment against the British. The event also began a downward spiral in the relationship between Britain and the colonies, especially Boston.

What soldier in their right mind would not get angry when hit over the head with a rock? That's humiliating. The soldiers fired because the colonists provoked them. They were even acquitted, with none other than John Adams himself serving as their defense attorney.

The Stamp Act was repealed due to the colonists being stubborn and not paying, but the British government still needed money. In 1773, the British government passed the Townshend Acts, which placed a tax on a number of essential goods including paper, glass and tea. Thoroughly angered, the colonists organized a boycott of British goods. On December 16, 1773, a group of men led by Samuel Adams, disguised as Mohawk Indians, boarded the ships of British tea merchants and dumped the tea on board into the harbor. An estimated £10,000 worth of tea was dumped into the waters of the Boston Harbor. This event became known as the Boston Tea Party and remains a part of popular American patriotic lore.

My opinion is that the colonists should should have just paid their taxes like good British citizens, it was their own defense they were paying for, those ingrates. >:
By kami321
#1275540
Did the American Colonies have the right to revolt?

The Founding Fathers(tm) held a special conference with our Lord(r) and recieved his personal approval for signing the Declaration of Independence(c).

In other news, the American colonies actually revolted numerous times but were crushed nearly very time. There's only one bastard who managed to successfully wrestle the control of a former colony from the Empire and get a firm hold of it, establishing a regime alien to Western Civilization. All others failed.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#1275568
The rebellion was not particularly legitimate. British rule was hardly the most oppressive, and a good deal less oppressive than that of Americans themselves against their own citizens.
User avatar
By Attila The Nun
#1275617
But you're missing a fundamental argument: They didn't have representation in Parliament, they weren't represented in the government that was taxing them. That was the fundamental issue concerning taxes: no taxation without representation. By that analysis, their rights were being violated as British citizens. Also, there was the Quartering Act, the closing of Boston Harbor, and the general reversal of a century of English policy to leave the colonies to run themselves. There was much more at stake then what you seem to list.
By marlin33
#1275630
The rebellion was not particularly legitimate. British rule was hardly the most oppressive, and a good deal less oppressive than that of Americans themselves against their own citizens.


What defines a rebellion as legitimate or not?

The majority of the colonists seemed to think that it was a legitamte and needed action.

And how was the American government more oppressive than the British one?
User avatar
By Red Rebel
#1275657
All the reasons behind the rebellion weren't really that big. I mean people within England paid more taxes than Americans. No people deserve to be colonies, so yes it was legitimate.

Attila The Nun wrote:But you're missing a fundamental argument: They didn't have representation in Parliament, they weren't represented in the government that was taxing them.


The Colonists did not want represenation though. They really just wanted to be left alone and not have to pay taxes. There were no major advocates of gaining representation in England.
By Piano Red
#1275718
It's not really a question of whether the American Colonies had a right to revolt as it was the notion that they had the right for self-determination.

A significant portion of the Colonials at that time believed they did and were willing to commit treason and fight against the British Empire in order to make such a notion a reality.
By independent_turkiye
#1275734
every colonies has right to rebel if they are really colonies, not in a modern sense, as Kurdish calls themselves in Türkiye..:))

Grettings from İstanbul;Türkiye
User avatar
By Attila The Nun
#1275776
The Colonists did not want represenation though. They really just wanted to be left alone and not have to pay taxes. There were no major advocates of gaining representation in England.


They would have preferred that option, but had they been given representation in Parliament it would have soothed many, especially in the upper classes.
By Wolfenstein
#1275779
It's important to recognise that a lot of people in Britain had no representation at this stage, and that what was being demanded was not democracy or anything like it. Rule by those who owned property and thus had the franchise. It becomes a little meaningless to discuss rights as British citizen, too, when none existed. They were British subjects. Like everyone in Britain. It's a significant difference.
User avatar
By Donna
#1275915
It doesn't matter whether it was "legitimate" or not. They did it anyway.

Has the world gone mad?!
User avatar
By Praetor
#1275918
For me, it isn't really a question of whether someone has a right to revolt. I believe every single human being on Earth has the right to revolt. The question isn't whether you have a right; it's whether you have a chance of succeeding. The United States successfully revolted against the British Empire, and the Confederates unsuccessfully revolted against the United States. Is either revolt more justified than the other? No, not really. One succeeded and was forever vindicated, and the other failed and was judged by history as unwarranted.
By PBVBROOK
#1275936
There are no "rights" in rebellion. You just do it. If you win, you are the legitimate government. If you loose you are usually killed by the legitimate government.

What the hell difference does it make.




And the winner of the gibberish award...........


The Founding Fathers(tm) held a special conference with our Lord(r) and recieved his personal approval for signing the Declaration of Independence(c).

In other news, the American colonies actually revolted numerous times but were crushed nearly very time. There's only one bastard who managed to successfully wrestle the control of a former colony from the Empire and get a firm hold of it, establishing a regime alien to Western Civilization. All others failed.


And the winner of the gibberish award...........
By marlin33
#1275980
It's important to recognise that a lot of people in Britain had no representation at this stage, and that what was being demanded was not democracy or anything like it. Rule by those who owned property and thus had the franchise. It becomes a little meaningless to discuss rights as British citizen, too, when none existed. They were British subjects. Like everyone in Britain. It's a significant difference.


You are correct when you say that the franchise was incredibally limited at this point in the UK. But regardless of the ability to vote, a Briton had someone looking out for the interests of where that Briton lived. Even thouh John from Oxford could not vote, he had someone trying to ensure the profitability/success of where he lived, because that benefited the parliament member from Oxford also.

John from Virginia though, had nobody who was trying to help Virginia. That puts the Virginian John at a large disadvanatge.

Also, many of the leaders of the Revolution were landholders of some sort. Their social equals/fellow citizens in Great Britian had a say in parliament, the aristocratic colonist still did not.

And I agree with Praetor. When enough people to win think that a rebellion is right, it is probably right.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#1275991
And I agree with Praetor. When enough people to win think that a rebellion is right, it is probably right.

I agree. It is meaningless to ask whether a rebellion or revolution is 'justified' - by definition, it is an illegal act of sedition until it succeeds, when it immediately becomes a noble struggle of the people for liberty. If it succeeds, then it was justified; if it fails, then it was obviously premature or unwanted, and is therefore not justified, and its leaders deserve to be hanged as traitors.
By marlin33
#1276003
I would like to add that rebellion for survival is a justifiable action win/lose. The jews in the Warsaw ghetto were justified in rising up even though they lost miserably.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#1276016
I would like to add that rebellion for survival is a justifiable action win/lose. The jews in the Warsaw ghetto were justified in rising up even though they lost miserably.

They rose up because they believed they could win. A rebellion which the rebels themselves know is doomed to failure is not really a rebellion, it's just a fancy way of committing suicide.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1276046
Potemkin, I believe thats called militant Anarchist angst :p
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#1276140
A question to all the "might makes right" folk (at least, it seems, regarding their attitude towards rebellions): will the current insurgencies in Iraq be legitimate if they succeed
User avatar
By Donna
#1276146
A question to all the "might makes right" folk (at least, it seems, regarding their attitude towards rebellions): will the current insurgencies in Iraq be legitimate if they succeed


No, because they are still weak.

] He is a bad candidate. He is the only candid[…]

How do the tweets address the claims by the UN Rap[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The 2nd Punic War wasn't bad for Rome because a) […]

World War II Day by Day

June 5, Wednesday British government bans strike[…]