Happy Fourth

[Number Six]

This is a great American holiday celebrating independence from Great Britain. England had other interests and conflicts they were fighting at the same time, so you can't blame them for finally calling it a day.

Dr. North has been beating the drum questioning the very basis for our breaking away as founded on false arguments: https://www.garynorth.com/public/16833.cfm Is this true? I hope everyone here enjoys their holiday.

My apology if this should be in tax policy.

[Pottapaug1938]

I would say that Gary North's premise is untrue. For the reasons why, read the Declaration of Independence.

[notorial dissent]

I would have to agree with you here, the premise is not only false, but has nothing to do with reality. I personally have a hard time believing he actually submitted that paper for a class, unless under considerably different circumstances than he is claiming here.

I can see at least two false statements right off the bat.

The issues were not the amount of taxation, but that it was taxation without the input or approval of the colonies, and that the British government was taking over, taking away government institutions and power that the colonists had enjoyed since the founding of the colonies. That is what had them riled up, that and the attitude that the Mother Country new best for her "children", and that they should run along and let the "adults" handle things, that is what set the war off.

What Nelson says about the economy and "freedom" at the time is mostly correct, his assumptions from there on ARE NOT!

[The Observer]

I didn't get past the first paragraph. He seems to think that if we had not rebelled and stayed in the British Empire and then the Commonwealth, we would have not experienced higher tax rates. If that is his presumption, he must not have been looking too close at what the British are paying in tax rates these days.

[notorial dissent]

Or what they were paying in taxes and goods after the war with France got going good and after and doesn't take in to account the unemployment and the injured veterans who were struggling to survive. No wonderful times. I am also of the opinion that as far as actual rights are concerned, I think the colonists of the time were probably better off than those in England, taxes and goods were pricey, smuggling wouldn't have been the cash crop it was otherwise, and things in Merry Olde weren't all that merry for a lot of people. If nothing else, the constant wars didn't help at all. Things for England didn't really start to settle down until they planted Napoleon on his rock, and Europe didn't really settled down to relative peace until after 1871, and that only lasted a mere 40 years±.

[Gregg]

[Gregg]

While North may have some point in saying that British North America was one of the least oppressed place on earth in the mid 18th century, there were quite a few conditions that applied to different classes of people. If you were a slave, well, you were a slave and freedom was kind of fuck all...if you were rich and influential, you were taxed more than some others and on top of that the governing class in Westminster kind of treated you like stupid cousins best ignored except when being taken advantage of. If you owned a small bit of property, you were subject to whims of local crown officials and didn't have much in the way of recourse if they abused you by say, kicking you out of your own house so the Commander of the military unit in the region had a place to stay. Or the barn to keep the commander's horse, which often enough used to be your horse...

So yeah, you didn't have it so bad, unless you did. And if you did, complaining about it was a good way to make sure things weren't gonna get better.

It did all start because some whiney bitches in Boston didn't want to pay their taxes, and a local chapter of "American Lives Matter" flared up after the Boston Massacre, and surprisingly a lot of it stemmed from the price of tea and even more, wine and beer, but, hey, if they would have let us have 13 seats in the Commons it might very well have been sorted out and we'd be blowing stuff up on November 5th instead of July 4th to this day.

I know its not practical for most people, but if you ever get the chance, or more likely if your kids do, studying the American Revolution in Britain gives Americans a much different perspective on it, and makes you realize that to the British, it ended up kind of a side show to a longer conflict with France and as early as Saratoga their was significant opinion on England that they could never conquer North America and every shilling spent trying was wasted. It would turn out to be a better deal for everyone involved (well, except the Native Americans who were only just beginning to get screwed) if the USA were given their independence, and turned into a free trade partner, giving the British most of the advantages of the colonies (a market used to british goods and no industry to make them ourselves, as well as a lot of commodities England needed and not many other places to buy them) without the costs of defending or maintaining them. We got our political freedom and picked up the costs of defending and running an independent country.

The slaves, well, they got freed in less than 100 years which was the over/under and the Indians got free blankets, cheap booze, pushed all the way to Arizona, a fair dose of genocide and eventually, casinos and tax free cigarettes. Like I said, the Indians were the big losers.

[Burnaby49]

And we took the slow route and got to the same end without all that turmoil.

But I'd agree it's not really the same. You have all the drama of those founding myths about 'whites of their eyes', minutemen, Paul Revere, a horrendously unsingable national anthem, all the trimmings on the cake to make your breakaway special. All we really have is how we whipped your ass in 1812 and nobody here under my age has a clue about that inconsequential war anyhow.

[The Observer]

And we took the slow route and got to the same end without all that turmoil.

But you still are stuck with a queen, and have to let her visit Candia, Canadia or Candyland (or whatever you are calling it nowadays) with her doddering consort, put her picture up in public places and say "God save the Queen" whenever the moment calls for it. So its really not the same end.

This reminds me of the character "English Bob" from Eastwood's "Unforgiven", a gunslinger who loves nothing more than to taunt the US rubes about why the English monarchy is superior to having a president since no one would dare to assassinate a queen or king. But he gets his comeuppance later on when he gets beaten and stomped by the town sheriff and run out of town. In the same vein, I take satisfaction that you are stuck with Canada having Molson being brewed within its borders; that is what you get for winning the Battle of Lundy's Lane.

[noblepa]

<snip>

If you owned a small bit of property, you were subject to whims of local crown officials and didn't have much in the way of recourse if they abused you by say, kicking you out of your own house so the Commander of the military unit in the region had a place to stay. Or the barn to keep the commander's horse, which often enough used to be your horse...

<snip>

Hence, the third amendment, which I read somewhere is the only amendment from the Bill of Rights that has never been at
issue in a SCOTUS case. Just a bit of Constitutional trivia.

[noblepa]

When I studied the American Revolution in college history class, I may have had a left-wing, blame-America-for-everything professor, but he had some interesting ideas on the causes of the war.

First was the claim that the taxes imposed where actually a REDUCTION in taxes, but that the British governors of the time had the audacity to enforce the tax laws.

Secondly, the new taxes were, in large part, to pay for the costs of the French and Indian War, which had been fought in the colonies, largely for the benefits of the colonials.

Thirdly, Franklin had actually been an ambassador to London when the "Intolerable Acts" and the "Stamp Act" were passed. He was consulted on them, and had some 'splainin' to do when he returned home.

The American rebels didn't really win the revolution, so much as the British public grew tired of it, and the King grew tired of paying for it. George III also had mental problems, which may have contributed to his willingness to concede.

The War of 1812, was Britain's last ditch attempt to bring the American colonies back into the fold. Again, there was no way that the pipsqueak navy of the US could defeat the most fearsome armada of the time. We just wore them down, and Britain again gave in to their own interests.

BTW, we have a Brit who works in my office. I asked him once, what British school children were taught about the American Revolution. He said "Not much".

[Burnaby49]

But you still are stuck with a queen, and have to let her visit Candia, Canadia or Candyland (or whatever you are calling it nowadays) with her doddering consort, put her picture up in public places and say "God save the Queen" whenever the moment calls for it. So its really not the same end.

Please Observer, if you are going to opine on royal visits to Candia at least keep up to date on the topic. The Queen no longer visits anywhere outside of the United Kingdom. She hasn't been to Canada since 2010. Since her marriage she has very rarely left Britain without being accompanied by her 'doddering consort' Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. He is now 96 and just recently retired from government business, including traveling. So the Queen has also decided to call it a day after 23 visits to Canada with the prince between 1951 and 2010 and one lone visit without him. However we will not be bereft of royal visits! Charles, the king in waiting, will no doubt inflict bestow his presence on us once he accedes to the throne. He and Camilla were here just last month.

Say what you will about our Queen but I think it's great that we have a head of state who's never given an interview, never expressed a personal opinion, and probably doesn't even know what tweets are. Not that I'm comparing her to any other, less self-controlled, less-experienced heads of state.

As for your grossly offensive comments about our being forced to allow the production of Molson's vile brews may I remind you that the Molson output is just a drop in the bucket compared to the vast torrents of Bud Light produced and avidly consumed within your borders. I avoid those unspeakable abominations entirely. I'm off to Callisters this afternoon to get a growler of “Bearded Lady 2.0” Blackberry Sour from Real Ale Brewing and a growler of “Hastings Sunrise” Strawberry Rhubarb Wheat Ale from Callisters Brewing. Both great summer brews to counter our current heat-wave.

[Pottapaug1938]

And we took the slow route and got to the same end without all that turmoil.

But I'd agree it's not really the same. You have all the drama of those founding myths about 'whites of their eyes', minutemen, Paul Revere, a horrendously unsingable national anthem, all the trimmings on the cake to make your breakaway special. All we really have is how we whipped your ass in 1812 and nobody here under my age has a clue about that inconsequential war anyhow.

You didn't so much whip our ass in 1812 as prevent us from whipping yours. Then, remember that Confederation came about partly because people in British North America, many of whom had supported (both overtly and covertly) the Confederacy during our Civil War, got nervous about what might happen if, after suppressing the rebellion, our battle-hardened armies had thought about marching north for some payback, like more than a few were advocating.

[The Observer]

Secondly, the new taxes were, in large part, to pay for the costs of the French and Indian War, which had been fought in the colonies, largely for the benefits of the colonials.

Not the history I learned. The Stamp Act was brought about to pay for stationing British troops after the Seven Year's War, not during it. The reason given by the government for the troops was so that they would provide protection against Native American raids for the colonists. The colonies objected, since they had always provided for their own protection against native raids and hadn't requested this service from Great Britain. The colonists saw the the stationing of the troops as just an excuse for Britain to keep a larger standing army and to provide patronage for the generals in charge of the units stationed in North America - at the colonies' expense. Otherwise these generals would have been cashiered out and no career to fall back on; given their political connections, the government only saw problems with having a bunch of unemployed generals agitating members of Parliament.

The other side of the coin, at least as the British plan saw, it was that any of the taxes collected would be spent within North America; the Stamp Act required payment of British coin, not the paper colonial currency. Thus, the colonies would not suffer from watching this hard-to-get-money disappear back into Britain. But the tax had other inherent problems given the specific legislation as enacted, and the colonists viewed as a back door to Mother England gaining more control over the colonials.

Thirdly, Franklin had actually been an ambassador to London when the "Intolerable Acts" and the "Stamp Act" were passed. He was consulted on them, and had some 'splainin' to do when he returned home.

What could he explain? He was not the only ambassador that was sent from the colonies. All of them were consulted by the British government as to what sort of tax would be tolerated by the colonists and none of them thought it possible to suggest a tax that would secure the agreement of both sides. What Franklin told the government was that they should really allow the colonial governments to determine the best tax. It was good advice, but was ignored and the Stamp Act was imposed.

[notorial dissent]

Quite true, the Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts were passed without either the advice or consent of the colonists, or their representatives. Franklin as well as the rest were largely ignored, and everyone knew it. It was at this point that the English attitude towards the colonies became fairly evident. The Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts were just the outward expression of the deeper issues that were coming to the surface as a result. The colonists very rightly took offense at the British government's closing their various legislatures and voiding the colonial charters that had been in existence for so long, that is what set them off. The British made it very obvious that they would no longer be self governing or in control of their fates, and that just didn't set well.

[Pottapaug1938]

I believe that mercantilism was also a factor. The Powers That Were, in Great Britain, saw the colonies as sources of raw materials which could be brought to Britain to be made into finished goods, which would then be resold in the colonies and elsewhere. They didn't want to see the colonists set up industries which could compete with those at home.

[notorial dissent]

I believe that mercantilism was also a factor. The Powers That Were, in Great Britain, saw the colonies as sources of raw materials which could be brought to Britain to be made into finished goods, which would then be resold in the colonies and elsewhere. They didn't want to see the colonists set up industries which could compete with those at home.

Didn't is right. It was actually illegal to actually manufacture much of anything here, it ALL had to be shipped to the mother country as raw materials, and they were also pretty adamant abut not allowing outside trade either, they weren't quite as bad as Spain, but they weren't much different either. Ironically, the colonies were one of England's major sources of timber for ship masts and tar, two things a modern navy of the 1700's desperately needed. One of the reasons smuggling was so popular and a major part of commerce. The other thing was that a lot of the things that England wanted to sell back to the colonies was too dear for them to buy, what with hard currency being all but non-existent and such. So yes, English mercantilism played a VERY big part in what eventually came to be the American Revolution.

[Gregg]

And we took the slow route and got to the same end without all that turmoil.

But I'd agree it's not really the same. You have all the drama of those founding myths about 'whites of their eyes', minutemen, Paul Revere, a horrendously unsingable national anthem, all the trimmings on the cake to make your breakaway special. All we really have is how we whipped your ass in 1812 and nobody here under my age has a clue about that inconsequential war anyhow.

And the Native Americans still got screwed in Canada.

[Burnaby49]

And we took the slow route and got to the same end without all that turmoil.

But I'd agree it's not really the same. You have all the drama of those founding myths about 'whites of their eyes', minutemen, Paul Revere, a horrendously unsingable national anthem, all the trimmings on the cake to make your breakaway special. All we really have is how we whipped your ass in 1812 and nobody here under my age has a clue about that inconsequential war anyhow.

And the Native Americans still got screwed in Canada.

True, but without General Custer.

[The Observer]

And we took the slow route and got to the same end without all that turmoil.

But I'd agree it's not really the same. You have all the drama of those founding myths about 'whites of their eyes', minutemen, Paul Revere, a horrendously unsingable national anthem, all the trimmings on the cake to make your breakaway special. All we really have is how we whipped your ass in 1812 and nobody here under my age has a clue about that inconsequential war anyhow.

And the Native Americans still got screwed in Canada.

True, but without General Custer.

Yes, but at least here the Native Americans got a chance to get a few licks in - even Custer had to take his medicine. In Canada apparently, you guys just stomped them and never let them off the floor. When you see First Nationers having to resort to becoming illegal notary public rap artists like Chief Sino in order to survive in Canada, it's enough to make you weep.