this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
517 points (89.7% liked)
memes
10645 readers
2717 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This ignores the "without representation" part. England gutted colonies' ability to govern
It also ignores that taxes were actually LOWERED on tea just before the Boston Tea Party. This made it so taxed tea was cheaper than smuggled tea and people would be paying that tax without getting representation. Thus, the whole reason for fighting.
The whole reason for fighting is that the American colonies were rich. Initially they had been propped up by the British. But, once the French were essentially wiped out, the colonists no longer had need of the British military, and they were now richer than the British, so they no longer wanted to contribute to the motherland and wanted to be independent.
The colonial governments had previously had influence over laws in that their elected officials would advise the governors. England shut that down. Patrick Henry made the "taxation without representation" argument ten years before the Declaration of Independence
Many excuses were made, that's the one that stuck. The real reason was that the colonies were rich, and now had effectively unlimited land to the west they could expand into, that the British army had taken care of the French.
I think you have that backwards. The grievances were the motivation. The situation was the opportunity.
If they were content, they wouldn't have revolted
They weren't content because they were now rich and the motherland was now poor. It wasn't some high-minded ideal, it was opportunism.
How would having more money make them discontent? That makes no sense. If they're doing so well in the empire, then stay. Enjoy the security. Don't make an enemy of the most powerful force in the world.
It was ideological. Have you read anything contemporary leaders were writing at the time?
When they were less well off than Britain, they liked being British because they were protected by the British army and received British investment. Once they were richer than the rest of the empire, they wanted to be independent so that they didn't have to support the rest of the empire.
In addition, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 limited the right of British colonists to use the land to the west of the Appalachian mountains. To the British in Great Britain, this was no big deal, but to the colonists it limited their expansion westward. The Quebec Act in 1774 vastly expanded the size of the Quebec province and allowed the French-speaking, Catholic "Canadiens" to move south-west and settle in areas to the north-west of the 13 colonies.
Yes, in public people talked about high-minded ideals, but the reality is that the defeat of the French meant that the American colonists no longer had as much of a need for the British army. In fact, the British army was standing in their way, stationed between the colonies and the new "Indian reserve". And, although taxes on the American colonists were much lower than taxes within Britain, the colonists didn't want to pay the taxes, even though it was paying down a debt that was mainly due to kicking the French out of the new world.
It was an economic decision, not a moral one.
You can speculate about their motivations. That's your right, but we do have the treatises, publications, propaganda, and letters.
You may believe that there was some simple, secret reason, but certainly for the vast majority, it was ideological. The people actually fighting were in on the idea. Those who weren't fled to Canada, where even Toronto was a couple of farms and cabins at the time
It was hardly a secret:
"The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was very unpopular with the colonists. For those living in the colonies, creating a boundary was not helpful because it did not address some of their biggest problems with the War. Colonial blood had been shed to fight the French and Indians, and many felt they had the right to go settle on the land that was won. In addition, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 did not account for American colonists who had already settled in the West."
"Since the end of the War, colonial governments had started planning an expansion into the new western territory. In fact, this had become a big political issue among colonists"
https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/lessonplan/royalproc.html
"While the Proclamation Line generally failed to restrict the migration of individual settlers, it adversely impacted Virginia’s landed gentry through the mid-1760s. These men had been investing and speculating in land since the 1740s, preliminarily granting millions of acres of western territory to firms, such as the Ohio Company, for future sale. However, the French and Indian War and subsequent Indian treaties interrupted these land companies’ designs, during which time their preliminary grants lapsed. "
"These constraints particularly affected George Washington, who had dedicated much of his life to land speculation in an effort to achieve economic independence and distinction among Virginia’s privileged class."
"Resentment for the British Empire and her interference in colonial affairs bonded Americans of varying socioeconomic backgrounds on a philosophical level. The ideological break with the mother country promulgated by the Proclamation Line of 1763, particularly for governmental leaders and Virginia’s landed gentry, served to push the colonies into rebellion in the following decade. "
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/proclamation-line-of-1763/
"George Washington wrote to his agent in 1767 in support of illegally buying as much Native American land as possible. "
https://www.history.com/news/remembering-the-proclamation-of-1763
All along you've been saying it wasn't ideological. From your own post:
"Resentment for the British Empire and her interference in colonial affairs bonded Americans of varying socioeconomic backgrounds on a philosophical level. The ideological break with the mother country promulgated by the Proclamation Line of 1763, particularly for governmental leaders and Virginia’s landed gentry, served to push the colonies into rebellion in the following decade. "
Is it "idiological" if I suddenly start to resent my job when I'm denied a raise? Or is it simply self-interest?
The US founding fathers suddenly had ideological issues when their economic interests were at stake.
For many, there were economic interests (in addition to fundamental grievances), but millions of regular people were motivated by ideology. That's clear from the propaganda they were consuming
Hahah, sure.
Just because they were consuming the propaganda doesn't mean that it was the dominant force for them. Propaganda mostly gives people an excuse to do what they already want to do. Who wants to pay taxes, especially when you no longer feel threatened by another powerful military?
What I'm saying is, look what people said and wrote--you, know--the hard evidence. You are speculating that their primary motivations were not recorded, so left little evidence. If you insist on sticking to your assumptions, there's no way no way to resolve the difference.
I can just close by quoting their most direct explanations:
"when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great Britain, is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
*He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
*He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
*He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
*He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
*He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
*He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
*He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
*He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
*He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
*He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
*He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
*He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
*He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
*For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
*For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
*For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
*For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
*For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
*For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
*For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
*For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
*For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
*He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
*He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
*He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
*He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
*He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
That's not hard evidence of what they thought, any more than Trump's claims about the 2020 election and the 2021 coup are hard evidence of what he thought, let alone hard evidence of what actually happened.
Nobody launching a coup or a revolution admits that they're doing it because they want to seize power. They always use some kind of justification. That's all these people were doing. Washington's illegal purchases of land in the Indian territory are pretty clear evidence that he had an economic incentive to overthrow the British so he could claim that land.
When the Egyptian military overthrew the democratically elected president in 2013, they justified it by saying that he failed to meet the demands of the people. Does that make that true? Or could it be that they were grabbing power for a different reason? If you're only going to trust what people write to justify coups or revolutions, you'll discover that every single coup or revolution is fully justified and done for the most noble of reasons. But, actual historians who study these things look at the receipts, often literally. They follow the money and use that to understand why people were acting the way they were.
Again, you are speculating or citing sources that are speculating. I'm referencing actual evidence. It's clear that we have an ideological difference so I'm just going to stop now.
You're not citing evidence for what happened, you're citing propaganda that was used to justify it.
Again, do you 100% believe everything Trump said about the 2020 election and 2021 coup attempt? If he said it it must be true, right?
Historians can only speculate, because nobody is going to be 100% honest about their reasons for a coup or revolution. In particular, if their reasons are selfish they're almost always going to keep those reasons private, and try to justify with public statements that make it seem justified. You can look at their public statements, but you have to compare those public statements to their actions.
If I'm looking for the motivations of the coup and the rioters, I'm going to look at what they and their propaganda said. And it says they wanted to delay accepting the electors. Trump said that explicitly. He specifically called in Pence to reject the electors. The rioters believed the election was fraudulent; that's also apparent from their statements, posts, and media.
We have been talking about motivations, so what people said is absolutely relevant. We were never taking about the validity of the facts.
So, you fully believe that the reason that the democratically elected government of Egypt was overthrown because "The president's speech last night failed to meet and conform with the demands [of the people]"? Couldn't possibly because the military wanted to seize power, could it?
Maybe, maybe they just didn't want to admit they lost. Do you think Trump believed the election was fraudulent? That's what he said, so it must be true, right? Everyone's justifications have to be taken at face value, and there can't be any other possible reasons for what they do. All coups are launched for fully benevolent and altruistic reasons, just as they claim!
Again, we're talking about motivations. I don't have things like letters between Egyptian military leaders, large treatises, etc., like I do from the American revolution.
I think there's a difference between motivations and justifications. I said Trump's motivations were clear and conspicuous. Were his justifications valid? I believe not. Did he believe them? I think I'm his convoluted way, he did/does. He thinks everything is a game. It's apparent from his demand on the Georgia Secretary of State that he invent the numbers he needed to make up the difference. I'm sure Trump believes that's how it works and the he other side is doing the same, but--as I said earlier--we were never taking about validity. Were those 2 dozen reasons started in the Declaration of Independence all true? I don't know, but it doesn't really matter if we're talking about motivations. And, yes, I think everyone who showed up for the coup believed there was fraud. Many Republicans accepted they had lost, but those weren't showing up in Washington that day
It doesn't matter what you have. What you have is the things they chose to publish.
Put it this way. If the rebels had lost the war and the British had won, do you think that the British history books would give the same reasons for the attempted rebellion?
If those are the actual reasons, there's not going to be any case of "history is written by the winners". Boy would the British history books look grim, they crushed an attempted rebellion where the rebels had such lofty ideals!
Or, do you think the alt-history British would look deeper and say something like "While George Washington publicly claimed to be rebelling because he objected to the lack of representation, in reality he had purchased a lot of land illegally and was trying to justify the revolution so that he could make a profit on that investment."
You seem to be hung up on this idea that people who write about their justification for rebellions and coups are being honest, for some reason. They aren't. The public reasons they give are the ones that make them look good. You need leaked recordings or investigations to uncover the reasons that they don't list in public.
In this case, historians have dug into the actual reasons for the rebellion. Sure, to some extent the rebels may have felt these lofty ideals, but they were also trying to get rich. They wanted access to all the wealth of the American continent without having to share it with the people of mainland Britain.
George Washington was not a signatory of the Declaration of Independence. You like to bring him up but I'm not even considering him. I'm talking about the fanatics who drive the movement. We do have their correspondence. We do know their thoughts. They wrote philosophically about the issues. There were debates, schisms, etc. They were baking arguments on thinkers like Hume and Locke.
You want a simplistic, crass, dismissive explanation. Sure, money was a motivation for some, but not for the 2 million regular citizens and I'd say many of the drafters of the Declaration. I think someone like Franklin was ideological. He was heavily involved in advising France in a way that demonstrates a level of benevolence
Your jobs were to harvest resources and kill Indians not play pretend parliament
Boston was trying to hide and store wealth before the revolution and it’s still doing it to this day.
It is so common that when Massachusetts passed its billionaire tax recently, the real estate market got worried they might lose revenue.
"If anyone should be denying our people representation, it's US!"