toldailytopic: Was the United States justified in fighting for their independence fro

[WizardofOz]

While I feel the colonists were justified in fighting for independence, there is a good argument for the contrary that can be made. I don't think people who feel the 13 colonies were not justified in fighting are stupid. It's a complex argument to put forth and I give credit to anyone presenting it.

I'll respect your stance, Samstarrett. Then I will load my musket

 

[Samstarrett]

While I feel the colonists were justified in fighting for independence, there is a good argument for the contrary that can be made. I don't think people who feel the 13 colonies were not justified in fighting are stupid. It's a complex argument to put forth and I give credit to anyone presenting it.

I'll respect your stance, Samstarrett. Then I will load my musket

You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you.

 

[WizardofOz]

You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you.

Dern red coats! :sibbie:

I was taken back by you being labeled as "stupid" for offering a contrarian position. It's a perfectly understandable stance to take, historically speaking. Many people just assume such wars were just/justified because that's what they were taught. The Civil War is another great example. I grew up thinking it was a no-brainer, of course the Civil War should have been fought. Now that I've read and come to understand the argument(s) against it, I see it's not such a clear conclusion.

 

[Samstarrett]

The response expected was "You seem a decent fellow. I hate to die." But maybe you didn't see that film. Now to your post.

Dern red coats! :sibbie:

Ya blasted rebels!

I was taken back by you being labeled as "stupid" for offering a contrarian position.

Well, thank you, but I wasn't at all surprised, given who it is that's been attacking me.

It's a perfectly understandable stance to take, historically speaking. Many people just assume such wars were just/justified because that's what they were taught.

And because the side that "of course" was "right" won. lain:

The Civil War is another great example. I grew up thinking it was a no-brainer, of course the Civil War should have been fought. Now that I've read and come to understand the argument(s) against it, I see it's not such a clear conclusion.

Amen. I cast my lot with the Confederacy, at least until the Emancipation Proclamation. I'm under no delusions, mind, that Lincoln acted out of his love for the Negro, but on the other hand, regardless of his motivations, he did free slaves, and I'd have trouble fighting against that, even though I can't think of any reason why a State shouldn't have been allowed to secede.

 

[KeithB]

Does taxation without representation constitute grounds for violent revolution?

Yes:up:

 

[Granite]

:doh:

First monarchists, now slave-holding rebels who detested the idea of a strong centralized government, let alone a king.

Why don't you make up your mind? Or are you just a romantic who gets stuck on lost causes?:think:

 

[Samstarrett]

:doh:

First monarchists, now slave-holding rebels who detested the idea of a strong centralized government, let alone a king.

Strong centralized government and monarchy are anything but synonymous. I support decentralizing power(in the sense that I want many small subdivisions with great independence, not that I want many people with a "vote" in an "election" that binds the whole) as much as the next man. Moreover, while the colonists were rebels against their rightful Sovereign, the Confederacy was a league of sovereign states that had entered a voluntary association of sovereign states and now wanted to leave. An entirely different affair. And as if that weren't enough, while neither North nor South contained many supporters of monarchy, anti-monarchical sentiment was much stronger in the North, and the South was decidedly pro-aristocracy, unlike the proletarian, industrial North.

Why don't you make up your mind?

I'm not contradicting myself. :idunno:

Or are you just a romantic who gets stuck on lost causes?:think:

Not "just" a romantic who gets stuck on lost causes, but I am a romantic, and I suppose I do get stuck on lost causes a bit.

 

[Samstarrett]

What do you mean? They protested peacefully over and over. Then the Red Coats were sent in and acted violently against their non violent protest.

This was when?

 

[Samstarrett]

I see something slavish in a desire for a monarch.

Should "slavish" be taken to mean "not rejecting the concept of social hierarchy?"

And I certainly see a craving for some kind of glorified mommy/daddy figure to lean on and trust to make it all better.

That would be nice. Failing that, however, I'd settle for a government that taxes 5-8% of GDP and doesn't feel the need to regulate the size of my toilet tank or whether I wear a seat belt.

 

[Samstarrett]

And there you have it. Grow up. Be an adult.

I thought continual rebellion against authority was an adolescent rather than adult trait?

Or, if you so badly want to be a subject that is ruled over...

:rotfl:

Do you seriously think that because your title is "citizen" and not "subject" you are not ruled over, and in fact ruled over far more than any British North American in the freest place on Earth in 1775?

 

[some other dude]

Sam, you've obviously struck a sore spot. Why else would you have so much childish invective thrown your way?

Leave them their illusions. Let them believe they're free. Let them believe that their representation is effective and justifies their taxation.

:think: When was tax freedom day this year? Ah, there it is. April 12th, the 102nd day of the year. Americans will pay more in taxes in 2011 than they will spend on groceries, clothing and shelter combined.

:doh:

 

[Granite]

Strong centralized government and monarchy are anything but synonymous.

As I've said before, you don't know your history very well.

Moreover, while the colonists were rebels against their rightful Sovereign, the Confederacy was a league of sovereign states that had entered a voluntary association of sovereign states and now wanted to leave.

On this much I'd agree although on purely moral terms the colonialists were on much sounder footing.

And as if that weren't enough, while neither North nor South contained many supporters of monarchy, anti-monarchical sentiment was much stronger in the North, and the South was decidedly pro-aristocracy, unlike the proletarian, industrial North.

Yes, yes, yes. The glorious Lost Cause.

 

[Granite]

Should "slavish" be taken to mean "not rejecting the concept of social hierarchy?"

Sure, it could be. What's so terrific about the urge so many folks have to be slaves? Or would it not be a good idea to grow up?

That would be nice. Failing that, however, I'd settle for a government that taxes 5-8% of GDP and doesn't feel the need to regulate the size of my toilet tank or whether I wear a seat belt.

Sure: and an inbred pack of know-nothings who don't work and lead an insular life because they think their genes are enough to say so are necessary for all this.

Who are you trying to kid?

 

[Samstarrett]

As I've said before, you don't know your history very well.

Maybe if you say it again, it will become true! :banana:

On this much I'd agree although on purely moral terms the colonialists were on much sounder footing.

How(before the Emancipation Proclamation)?

Yes, yes, yes. The glorious Lost Cause.

If I may make a suggestion:

Try to base your interpretation of my post on the content thereof. It will contribute greatly to mutual understanding.

 

[Samstarrett]

Sam, you've obviously struck a sore spot. Why else would you have so much childish invective thrown your way?

I believe you're right.

Leave them their illusions. Let them believe they're free. Let them believe that their representation is effective and justifies their taxation.

Trouble is, it's my taxation too. Their beloved Revolution was the beginning of an attack on Western Civilization that will soon lead to a crisis on par with the collapse of the Roman Empire.

:think: When was tax freedom day this year? Ah, there it is. April 12th, the 102nd day of the year. Americans will pay more in taxes in 2011 than they will spend on groceries, clothing and shelter combined.

:doh:

But those darned British were worse! For...some reason. :doh:

 

[Samstarrett]

Sure, it could be. What's so terrific about the urge so many folks have to be slaves? Or would it not be a good idea to grow up?

I have no urge to be a slave, but I don't see the harm in a bit of reverence. Moreover, I think, as I've said before, that continual rebellion against hierarchy and reverence and authority is an adolescent trait rather than an adult one.

Sure: and an inbred pack of know-nothings who don't work and lead an insular life because they think their genes are enough to say so are necessary for all this.

Obviously, I think your characterization of royalty is pretty ridiculous, but if we sub the word "monarchy" for your pack of mostly spurious insults, I'd say that, while not necessary, it certainly helps, and what I've proposed was historically characteristic of Western Christian monarchies. :idunno:

 

[Granite]

Maybe if you say it again, it will become true!

You've admitted before that your understanding of monarchial government comes almost exclusively from Europe. That's incredibly short-sighted, at the very least.

How(before the Emancipation Proclamation)?

Because the Confederacy was explicitly predicated on white supremacy and black enslavement.

 

[Granite]

I have no urge to be a slave, but I don't see the harm in a bit of reverence.

In what? To what? For what?

Moreover, I think, as I've said before, that continual rebellion against hierarchy and reverence and authority is an adolescent trait rather than an adult one.

Ah, yes. "Reverence," again.

Distrust of authority and a healthy skepticism in the powers that be is prudent, Sam, not simply rebellious. I'd counter that a trust in the State is dangerous, slavish, and leads down a very dangerous path very quickly.

Obviously, I think your characterization of royalty is pretty ridiculous...

The idea that certain families are chosen by the almighty and are owed obedience and loyalty because of a genetic accident is pretty asinine, if you ask me, so I guess this is a push.

 

[Samstarrett]

You've admitted before that your understanding of monarchial government comes almost exclusively from Europe. That's incredibly short-sighted, at the very least.

"Europe" is a pretty big tent with a long monarchical history. In this case, I think if I could show that there were many decentralized European monarchies, that would be enough to refute any necessary connection between centralization and monarchy that was argued for on purely empirical-historical grounds. And while I'm sure expertise in the history of say, Asian monarchies would be useful, it is no more necessary than it is necessary to be an expert on the history of the Roman Republic to think the American one is a good idea.

Moreover, since I primarily promote monarchy for Europe, on the European model, why wouldn't European monarchies be the best history for me to study?

Because the Confederacy was explicitly predicated on white supremacy and black enslavement.

Well, true, but there were slave states in the Union too, and moreover, many of the colonials had slaves and the Founding Fathers did not even end the slave trade. So the Continentals also believed in these things, or at least enough of them did to get the others to go along with it.

 

[Granite]

And while I'm sure expertise in the history of say, Asian monarchies would be useful...

How about a better grasp of where the concept originated, period? I don't think that's asking for too much.

Well, true, but there were slave states in the Union too...

Except the Union had not been founded on explicitly racist grounds. The CSA was. So the point stands: the Confederacy was clearly and specifically based on white supremacy and the enslavement of blacks, and the United States was not. Stephens' "cornerstone speech" directly pointed out the differences between the two nations.