Happy 4th - all

[S7Guy]

The colonies declared independence on Independence Day. King George III objected so it took a long war. From the time of Concord to Yorktown, independence was in dispute. After their defeat at Yorktown the Brits finally gave up and recognized the 'colonies' independence.

But, that is irrelevent. The colonies didn't request independence, they declared independence. From that moment on, it was up to the king to do something about it, and the signers didn't give a rat's rear end about how he felt. The 4th of July is a perfect day for a celebration.

I can’t help but wonder if such an action would stand a chance of success today ... the armed forces put out a report recently that only 28% of Americans of high school age are even acceptable for recruitment ... more than seven out of ten are either too obese, are functionally illiterate, or have a drug habit ... scary that less than three out of ten would be capable of defending the country ...

personally, I thank God daily for those who are capable - and who are willing to serve ...

I just got back from San Antonio where my daughter is doing her training to become an Army medic. I met a lot of her fellow soldiers, and I can tell you that I have never met such a nice bunch of young people. We are in good hands.

 

[Peter Nachtwey]

There is a big difference between declaring independence and winning independence

But, that is irrelevent. The colonies didn't request independence, they declared independence.

I never said the colonist requested independence but declaring independence doesn't make it so.

From that moment on, it was up to the king to do something about it,

And he did. That is why it took so long to win independence and have it acknowledged.

and the signers didn't give a rat's rear end about how he felt.

I doubt it was that simple. If the king treated the colonist as Englishmen I don't think there would have been a war. I bet many signed with some reluctance because it was the least worst of two options.

The 4th of July is a perfect day for a celebration.

I wasn't serious about changing the date of celebration.

I am just trying to make people think past the hot dogs, beer and fireworks.

 

[PeterW]

I doubt it was that simple. If the king treated the colonist as Englishmen I don't think there would have been a war. I bet many signed with some reluctance because it was the least worst of two options.

Arrogance caused the split, don't forget the King was more German than English in his outlook and the whole British aristocracy (who were generally the government) were arrogant in those days (still are today just less power).

He treated the colonists as Englishmen, in that he felt he had power of them and they had to do his bidding.

Less not forget, England had just beaten the French in Quebec which made the borders to the North safe, they had also beaten the French to the South plus won in India (Asia),against the Portugese I believe .

England was skint after all these wars and needed to raise money to guard the western borders of the colonies against Indian incursions.

So instead of asking for help in raising funds for an army to protect the colonies he demanded it as Kings and their ministers do. The colonists did not pay any other normal taxes and they were looking to recover less that 50% of the costs.

Another thing the English government did was to restrict movement west as they wanted to negotiate with the Indians rather than go through the expence of wars, the colonists did not like that either.

The English King and monarchy could have gone about it better, but they were not trying to bleed the colonists dry.

They felt they were dealing with Englishmen but most by now were 2nd/3rd generation colonists and had no real ties to England.

 

[Tom Jenkins]

They felt they were dealing with Englishmen but most by now were 2nd/3rd generation colonists and had no real ties to England.

That was the exact cause of the problems. The Americans resented being taxed as Englishmen without having a representative in Parliament like Englishmen. Bear in mind that a lot more Americans were property holders than those still in Great Britain. (I believe the only ones that could vote at the time were property holders.)

The split was probably inevitable in any event. The Americans simply didn't think the benfits of being part of the British Empire outweighed the costs. Combine that with a natural ornery independent streak and the break was probably going to occur. Any excuse would have sufficed.

An indication of the American attitude was relayed by Baron Von Steuben, a Prussian officer who drilled the Americans for General Washington. He wrote home (paraphrased from memory) "In our army you tell a private to do something and he does it. In this army I must first tell a private why he must do something, and then he will do it."

 

[SLC_Integrator]

I find it funny every time the colonists are referred to as 'Americans'. Werent they classed as British?


Think about it in todays perspective.
If we had a bunch of people leave the US and go live in, say Iraq (if it wasnt classed as an established country etc). Would they class themselves as Iraqi or American?
If they then declared independance could they then call themselves Iraqi? If so at what point would someone stop being American and start being Iraqi?


England classed the revolutionaries as upstart subjects and hence they tended to be a little heavy handed in bringing those subjects 'back in line'. Funnily enough their experiences in the US didnt really change their way of dealing with things. Read up about the Sepoy Rebellion and how it was dealt with.
I guess they took the view that you win some and lose some and with everything else going on alot closer to home (Napoleon etc) the sideshow they treat the US as wasnt really important.


Being an ex-pat and now naturalised Yankee I guess I have a unique perspective. Although I am proud of what Britain achieved in helping what were 3rd world countries or just downright wilderness lands become functioning democracies (and they seemed to have done more right than wrong) I am rather ashamed at what the UK has become lately in its constant US-hating and creeping multiculturism that undermines the very existance of a once great nation.

 

[Togadude]

I am just trying to make people think past the hot dogs, beer and fireworks.

Everything is relative to the observer.

 

[surferb]

I see a philisophical debate coming on absolutes and relativism...

Everything is relative to the observer.

 

[leitmotif]

Everything is relative to the observer.

and (or??)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Dan Bentler

 

[bernie_carlton]

Few realise that the "No Taxation Without Representation" slogan was basically a ruse. The colonies were being taxed much less than the residents of England who had representation. If the Parliment had given in and said - ok now you're equal with representation, and by the way, your taxes are now equal, it would have been much worse. The emmesaries who were sent to nominally negotiate with the government in England were under instruction to avoid being made equal in representation at all costs.

 

[PeterW]

Few realise that the "No Taxation Without Representation" slogan was basically a ruse. The colonies were being taxed much less than the residents of England who had representation. If the Parliment had given in and said - ok now you're equal with representation, and by the way, your taxes are now equal, it would have been much worse. The emmesaries who were sent to nominally negotiate with the government in England were under instruction to avoid being made equal in representation at all costs.

Can believe that, they certainly did not pay income tax or the equivalent. The only taxation the English could do was to tax the supplies they delivered.

I covered this period in history way back in my schooldays

The Stamp Tax etc were very controversial.

I don't think it was no coincidence that it all came to a head after the English had secured the borders and there was no threat from any direction (apart from native Indians with whom the English wanted to keep peace with and restrict the colonists from expanding).

 

[TimothyMoulder]

Such finagelling is nothing new, or old. Theodore Roosevelt gave a wink and nod to Panama when they declared their independence from Colombia, in order to get the canal built.

While maintaining the public opinion that the central americans should settle their issues and the US should await the outcome, he nevertheless sent a fleet of battle cruisers steaming down to the peninsula on a "goodwill tour".

"DIPLOMACY, n. The patriotic art of lying for one's country." Ambrose Bierce

 

[Togadude]

and (or??)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Dan Bentler

My point:

America: "We declare independence, we will govern ourselves and no longer pay taxes to the king!"

King George III: "OMG, WTF, you cant do that! we shall fight!"


Depending on which side of the fence one was standing on, you could have two different answers as to America's independence.