New blog entry...

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Halk

I really hope you're joking...

I pretty much thought WWII covered it.

BOb

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I pretty much thought WWII covered it.

BOb

We only just finished paying that debt ....

[James Bryant]

If the former American Colonies would apologise and pay for the tea we would have 'em back - instead of a President they could have a Governor General with a feather in his hat. An give up the whole four yearly charade.

James - who would not volunteer for the job

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by James Bryant

If the former American Colonies would apologise and pay for the tea we would have 'em back - instead of a President they could have a Governor General with a feather in his hat. An give up the whole four yearly charade.

James - who would not volunteer for the job

If the former British Empire would simply admit they were in error for implementing the bloody, stupid tax, we'd forgive them and let them become states 51-55!

Derek

[GeoffC]

Monday, April 14, 2008
Waiting for, the new firmware.

Our team is actually working on the development of the new firmware. We are late for that first official update, nevertheless we are doing all that we can to supply you rapidly with your new firmware, integrating a maximum of new feature and bug fixes.

A first hint about what will be integrated in this upgrade is that it will sensibly change the navigation button management.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

If the former British Empire would simply admit they were in error for implementing the bloody, stupid tax, we'd forgive them and let them become states 51-55!

Derek

pfft

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

If the former British Empire would simply admit they were in error for implementing the bloody, stupid tax, we'd forgive them and let them become states 51-55!

Derek

It's ironic that the same things we (The Colonies) complained about, taxes to the crown for example... we (US citizens) sit back and accept 30% of our income going to taxes for example.

BOb

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

It's ironic that the same things we (The Colonies) complained about, taxes to the crown for example... we (US citizens) sit back and accept 30% of our income going to taxes for example.

BOb

See ... you were better off when we were in charge ...



And at least in the fullness of time you will be lorded over by someone whos' surname doesn't begin with a " B " .....

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

It's ironic that the same things we (The Colonies) complained about, taxes to the crown for example... we (US citizens) sit back and accept 30% of our income going to taxes for example.

BOb

It is not the taxes but the lack of representation that was at issue. Don't you vote?

Dale

[Halk]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

It is not the taxes but the lack of representation that was at issue. Don't you vote?

Dale

As I understand it was the taxation, and not lack of representation that was the issue. American colonists did not want representation in Britain, they felt it was too far away, and they felt it was absurd that an island would control a continent. Although actual representation was not on the table, British policy at the time stated they were "virtually represented", claiming they were represented by similar voters. So "No taxation without representation" didn't mean "We won't pay until we're represented" it meant "We're not represented, and we can't be properly represented, so we shouldn't pay tax".

I'd also argue it wasn't inevitable, American colonists were proud to be part of the British Empire, it was treatment like stamp duty that disenfranchised them. The critical thing was that American Colonists were only part of the Empire because they wanted to be, Britain was not in a position to oblige it by force. Even if we had won the war of Independence, by that point I think it would have gone beyond the point and we'd have to effectively occupy the colonies in America to keep them loyal to the Crown.

As I understand there were loyalists in America during the Revolution, around 1/4 of the colonists opposed independence, although they switched when we were far too heavy handed. In other words we disenfranchised enough with taxation and legislation for a rebellion to occur, and may have disenfranchised enough of the rest with continued poor treatment and maltreatment in the war.

But it need not have led to American Independence. If instead us Brits had handled things correctly, and recognised a higher level of self governance in the American colonies, and had the colonists happy to pay extra taxes rather than forced then perhaps we'd end up with a stronger Commonwealth of Nations which contained America. Perhaps the Empire may not have crumbled in the way which it did. Perhaps America would have been more inclined to help Europeans in the war against Fascism. Indeed it could be argued that the only reason America was finally convinced to help in the Second World War was because they realised that Britain was the last barrier in Europe, and a united Fascist Europe may look to the Americas next.

[JWLaRue]

Originally Posted by Halk

As I understand it was the taxation, and not lack of representation that was the issue. American colonists did not want representation in Britain, they felt it was too far away, and they felt it was absurd that an island would control a continent.

That's not what I've read in a number of books on the subject. Seems that the 'activists' amongst the colonists worked pretty hard to make something work in order to remain a part of the UK.

-Jeff

[Halk]

Originally Posted by JWLaRue

That's not what I've read in a number of books on the subject. Seems that the 'activists' amongst the colonists worked pretty hard to make something work in order to remain a part of the UK.

-Jeff

Could you give me any references? I've had a quick search on the web and found to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_Congress

"They maintained that while Parliament could make laws and taxes for Great Britain, they could only make laws in the colonies, since the colonies had not representation there. As for Parliament, they could not be represented there, nor did they want to be represented there; they could only be taxed by those who represented them."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...ution_02.shtml

"Colonists in America felt that they discharged their obligations when they paid colonial taxes and they resented being compelled to pay taxes levied by a Parliament in which they were not represented. Moreover, they contended, the distance between America and Britain precluded American representation in Parliament."

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/related/sac65.htm
http://www.publicbookshelf.com/publi...ampact_bd.html

[JWLaRue]

The references that I have are not web sites, but books that I have read published by historians. One that comes readily to mind is one of my favorites: A New Age Now Begins (subtitled: A People's History of the American Revolution) volumes 1 and 2, by Page Smith. There are several hundred pages devoted just to the run-up to the actual breakout of hostilities.

It does bear noting that the causes of the English colonies in America breaking with Britain were actually quite complex and evolved over a period of many years. Taking a snapshot of one event (i.e. the Stamp act...and which one?) doesn't do the history justice.

Starting with the Navigation Act of 1660 and then the Molasses Act of 1733, Parliament was restricting who could carry goods to/from the colonies. This created some rumblings, but not a lot of real action. What seems to have been the beginnings of the upswing in discord was when Parliament enacted the Sugar Act if 1764 (intended to help pay for the Seven Years War). There was this concern or distinction raised around Parliament's right to enact 'external' vs. 'internal' taxes. External taxes principally being put in place to protect the British merchant fleets who were carry the trade to/from the colonies. But it was the internal tax aspect of this Act that first raised the specter of the oft repeated 'taxation without representation' mantra that is too often used as the overly simplified reason for the whole sorry mess.

Fascinating and complex subject, yes?

-Jeff

p.s. The wikipedia 'Stamp Act' reference actually does support the taxation without representation POV.

[Halk]

Originally Posted by JWLaRue

Fascinating and complex subject, yes?

-Jeff

That's actually my point. It's not as simple as it may be painted.

[JWLaRue]

Absolutely....and as I learned to richer history of the former British American colonies, that pulled me into the histories of other countries as well.....especially that of the U.K. Talk about an interesting and varied story!

-Jeff