We hold these truths to be self-evident

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But 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.

This entry was posted in Libertarians don't live by argument alone, Oppressive government. Bookmark the permalink.

144 Responses to We hold these truths to be self-evident

  1. Behind Enemy Lines

    One thing we tend to forget is that for the American Revolution to succeed, a goodly percentage of the population (perhaps 30%?) had to be either brutally repressed or driven out of the country.

    I could see it happening again in the States, but not in Australia.

    I don’t celebrate the 4th of July any more. Maybe again, one day. Not now.

  2. Dr Fred Lenin

    I uppose most of the Royalists moved to Canada excpt those with financial reasons or strong roots who adapted to the new regime . After all the British elites hardly encouraged equality and freedom politically ,these elites were the people whose descendents are still trying to destroy Brexit in their own country ,once again defying the will of the majority . They were also the ones who introdued african slaves to the USA for financial profit thus creating endless strife ad trouble to this day ,a bit like todays elites and their mass voteherd migration plot and clinate scam again to diminish the peoples power . There is nothing new under the sun it seems .

  3. And there are other forces at work on the population today, including Australia, with ‘…invariably the same Object…to reduce them under absolute Despotism…’

  4. Driftforge

    The Acts for imposing Duties and Taxes may have accelerated the Rebellion, and if this could have been foreseen, perhaps, it might have been good policy to have omitted or deferred them; but I am of opinion, that if no Taxes or Duties had been laid upon the Colonies, other pretenses would have been found for exception to the authority of Parliament. The body of the people in the Colonies, I know, were easy and quiet. They felt no burdens. They were attached, indeed, in every Colony to their own particular Constitutions, but the Supremacy of Parliament over the whole gave them no concern. They had been happy under it for an hundred years past: They feared no imaginary evils for an hundred years to come.

    But there were men in each of the principal Colonies, who had independence in view, before any of those Taxes were laid, or proposed, which have since been the ostensible cause of resisting the execution of Acts of Parliament. Those men have conducted the Rebellion in the several stages of it, until they have removed the constitutional powers of Government in each Colony, and have assumed to themselves, with others, a supreme authority over the whole.

    Their designs of Independence began soon after the reduction of Canada, relying upon the future cession of it by treaty. They could have no other pretense to a claim of independence, and they made no other at first, than what they called the natural rights of mankind, to choose their own forms of Government, and change them when they please. This, they were soon convinced, would not be sufficient to draw the people from their attachment to constitutions under which they had so long been easy and happy: Some grievances, real or imaginary, were therefore necessary.

  5. Tim Neilson

    Some grievances, real or imaginary, were therefore necessary.

    Plus ca change….

  6. J.H.

    Behind Enemy Lines
    #3096805, posted on July 4, 2019 at 9:18 am…………….”One thing we tend to forget is that for the American Revolution to succeed, a goodly percentage of the population (perhaps 30%?) had to be either brutally repressed or driven out of the country.”

    They weren’t BEH. Indeed only about 30 percent of the population of the American colony were actually engaged in the Revolutionary war, most colonists were neutral or simply not interested….. George Washington, after winning, was adamant that there would be no retribution….

  7. Ian6333

    Sounds like something Sally McManus would say.

  8. Leo G

    In our own country, isn’t it the virtue signaling, hyper-globalist, new guard political college we need to throw off- not so much the government?

  9. Behind Enemy Lines

    J.H.
    #3096873, posted on July 4, 2019 at 10:30 am
    Behind Enemy Lines

    They weren’t BEH. Indeed only about 30 percent of the population of the American colony were actually engaged in the Revolutionary war, most colonists were neutral or simply not interested….. George Washington, after winning, was adamant that there would be no retribution….

    No hard feelings, J.H., but one can look it up. The percentage of affected loyalists will probably never be agreed, but apart from those who faced rough justice there were a lot of American colonists who either had to leave the new union outright or else couldn’t sleep easy in their homes for many, many years after the war.

    The key message being that it’s all very well daydreaming about the Declaration of Independence and the 4th of July but civil wars come with consequences. In fact, civil wars require consequences.

    I say this, fully mindful that in the western world we’re presently transitioning to a fresh political understanding of who gets to be in charge and how they get to be in charge. An increasingly un-civil transition.

  10. Behind Enemy Lines

    Leo G
    #3096907, posted on July 4, 2019 at 11:04 am
    In our own country, isn’t it the virtue signaling, hyper-globalist, new guard political college we need to throw off- not so much the government?

    Leo, that is the government. The government, and government money, and government courts, and government public servants. Don’t listen to what the administration says – listen to what it does.

  11. Roger

    “We the People” was a bit audacious.

  12. Neil

    Rebellion against govt is a dangerous idea. The Americans are lucky it worked. After british authority left anarchy could have happened. The fact that it didn’t means the Americans think what they did was right. They obviously did a brilliant job after the revolution. But perhaps because of the revolution they had a brutal civil war 100 years later.

    BTW the British were sending their convicts to America as indentured servants. After the Revolution that was not possible. hence they sent them to Australia and we started a new nation

  13. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    One thing we tend to forget is that for the American Revolution to succeed, a goodly percentage of the population (perhaps 30%?) had to be either brutally repressed or driven out of the country.

    Traitors had to be “brutally repressed”, yeah right. You mean like how the British used to sing about hanging Washington? He was better than most politicians, the British aristocracy and their monarchy. You have to remember, Victoria saved the prestige of the Hanoverians. No normal British person liked them after George III. Conflating LEAVING VOLUNTARILY with BRUTAL REPRESSION is very lame. The US left a corrupt system that was no good until 1832. The Glorious Revolution meant little by 1776 and nothing to American colonists by then.

    This is how the British viewed their own King: like Henry VII.

    After all the British elites hardly encouraged equality and freedom politically ,these elites were the people whose descendents are still trying to destroy Brexit in their own country ,once again defying the will of the majority . They were also the ones who introdued african slaves to the USA

    Well said Fred. Cornwallis was going to get a huge chunk of the SE USA with thousands of slaves.

    Some grievances, real or imaginary, were therefore necessary.

    Nothing could be more contrived from Australian “conservative” plonkers who are salty about the monarchy being trashed 200+ years ago…and who are proud of $5 a week tax cuts.

    The percentage of affected loyalists

    Were unpatriotic traitors who preferred a foreign monarch stealing off them and imposing martial law instead of a just government and laws written by the people living under them.

    Roger
    #3096986, posted on July 4, 2019 at 12:53 pm

    “We the People” was a bit audacious.

    You’re on the wrong side of history, pal.

    After british authority left anarchy could have happened

    It is a shame it did not. The US Federal Government was their greatest blunder.

  14. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Please stand for the real national anthem of the United States of America.

  15. sfw

    Here in Victoriastan there is only a choice between Labor and Labor Lite. A revolution isn’t going to happen and the Libs are content to let Labor dictate policy and direction, Labor is slowly but surely driving Vic into a hole and the Libs don’t care or want the same thing. What can be done?

  16. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Massively support the LDP and One Nation in Victoria.

    The Liberals in Victoria are the most rotten cucks since Hamlet.

  17. Iampeter

    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.

    Pretty sure most people quoting this today won’t even be able to explain what was despotic about Britain, nor even disagree with their policies. These people don’t know what the American revolution was about and would’ve fought on the side of Britain if they were there.

    It would pay to spend less time quoting mindlessly from America’s founding documents and more time learning the first thing about them.

  18. Beachcomber

    Dr Fred Lenin at 9:40 am

    ……….. They were also the ones who introdued african slaves to the USA for financial profit thus creating endless strife ad trouble to this day ,a bit like todays elites and their mass voteherd migration plot and clinate scam again to diminish the peoples power . There is nothing new under the sun it seems .

    Great comment Dr Fred. Our fascist left establishment is doing irreparable damage and there doesn’t seem to be any way to stop them.

  19. Roger

    “We the People” was a bit audacious.

    You’re on the wrong side of history, pal.

    Note the tense of the verb in the sentence, you rapscallion.

  20. Fat Tony

    Iampeter
    #3097195, posted on July 4, 2019 at 5:51 pm

    How about enlightening us poor dumb fucks

  21. Neil

    Pretty sure most people quoting this today won’t even be able to explain what was despotic about Britain, nor even disagree with their policies

    There was nothing despotic about the British govt. The American colonists were the freest people on earth. They voted for their own colonial govts. At that time the Russians were serfs and did not get any people involvement in govt until the early 1900’s

  22. max

    monarchs such as Louis XIV, Frederick II, or George II are genuine liberals by modern standards. None of the aforementioned could have issued a decree whereby he drafted all male subjects into his army, a decree regulating the diet of his citizens, or one demanding a general confession of all his economic activities from the head of each household in the form of an income tax declaration.

    We had to wait for the democratic age to see conscription, prohibition, and modern taxation made into laws by the people’s representatives who have much greater power than even the absolute monarchs of old dreamed of.

    Modern parliaments can be more peremptory in all their demands because they operate with the magic democratic formula. “We are the people, and the people – that’s us.”

    So, as a result of the American Revolution, the tax burden tripled.
    The debt burden soared as soon as the Revolution began. Monetary inflation wiped out the currency system.

    The proponents of independence invoked British tyranny in North America. There was no British tyranny, and surely not in North America.

    What would libertarians — even conservatives — give today in order to return to an era in which the central government extracted 1% of the nation’s wealth? Where there was no income tax?
    Would they describe such a society as tyrannical?

  23. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    There was nothing despotic about the British govt.

    NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

    What part of that don’t you understand?

    Look back at how George II and II and even William IV were perceived by the British public. If not for Victoria, during the revolutions of 1848, it would be entirely plausible the Brits would have axed their monarchy. The Hanoverians were very unpopular, greedy tyrants who started to go back on the Act of Settlement and Triennial Acts.

    The American colonists were the freest people on earth.

    Except when the King said no, were forced to quarter GB soldiers, were taxed unfairly…and were hanged for declaring they were secessionists.

    They voted for their own colonial govts. At that time the Russians were serfs and did not get any people involvement in govt until the early 1900’s

    Good lord, you’re comparing the (utterly backwards, Russian) feudal system with (Western) early modern history.

    monarchs such as Louis XIV, Frederick II, or George II are genuine liberals by modern standards.

    Truly they are not, nationalism and socialism introduced under democracy have been awful.

    We had to wait for the democratic age to see conscription, prohibition, and modern taxation made into laws by the people’s representatives who have much greater power than even the absolute monarchs of old dreamed of.

    That is true in part but not true through all modern history – liberalism was the prevailing popular political ideology of the 1800s.

    Prohibition of tobacco pre-existed democracy, as did conscription in various places; even being properly medieval and pre Norman era in England (the Fyrd).

    What would libertarians — even conservatives — give today in order to return to an era in which the central government extracted 1% of the nation’s wealth? Where there was no income tax?

    It was the creation of the US Federal Government that ruined everything.

  24. Neil

    Except when the King said no, were forced to quarter GB soldiers

    Quarting soldiers was the British custom. Slaves were put into barracks. british soldiers were quatered into homes. And they were their to counter the very real threat of the much more powerful French to try and get Quebec back. And paid for by the British taxpayer

    were taxed unfairly

    Too funny. name me a fair tax?

    Good lord, you’re comparing the (utterly backwards, Russian) feudal system with (Western) early modern history.

    Ok. I will compare the American colonists against any Western Countries. They were the freest people on earth. They had more freedoms than the British who they were rebelling against

  25. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Too funny. name me a fair tax?

    Old taxes.

    The Brits imposed new taxes without the consent of the Americans; to benefit a spendthrift King. His politics were penny wise but pound foolish.

    They had more freedoms than the British who they were rebelling (sic) against

    You’re a slow learner.

    If they did not declare their independence, they would have become like the British.

    Your assertion is false and bizarre. Could John Adams impose a tax on a man in Cornwall at all, let alone with his direct or indirect consent? Obviously not.

  26. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Roger
    #3097223, posted on July 4, 2019 at 6:31 pm

    “We the People” was a bit audacious.

    You’re on the wrong side of history, pal.

    Note the tense of the verb in the sentence, you rapscallion.

    It wasn’t, they said it was their duty and they won, after they were independent.

  27. Tel

    The Brits imposed new taxes without the consent of the Americans; to benefit a spendthrift King. His politics were penny wise but pound foolish.

    They won a war against France … but ran up the debt in the process.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War

    Sometimes known as “World War Zero”. The French king got his own back by shipping guns-n-ammo to the American colonists thus giving them the means to hold their own against the British. The French king got his comeuppance when those plucky, revolting Americans thought it was a good idea to encourage revolution in France.

    Gunser bad merkay?

  28. Neil

    Your assertion is false and bizarre. Could John Adams impose a tax on a man in Cornwall at all, let alone with his direct or indirect consent? Obviously not.

    The british had spent a lot of money defending these people from the French and Spanish. I believe they proposed some things to get the colonists to make a contribution but they were not willing. So the british taxed them. The Americans were freeloading.

    BTW you seem to be a smart arse know it all like the leftists I usually argue with

    If they did not declare their independence, they would have become like the British.

    Who is they? Britain had 26 colonies in the New World. They? did not exist. They? came into existence after the rebellion

  29. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Only on this madhouse of a blog would pathetic Australian conservatives ACTUALLY ATTACK THE US DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND TREATY OF PARIS.

    It is fucking sickening, truth be told.

    The british had spent a lot of money defending these people from the French and Spanish.

    This is delusional bullshit. The Seven Years War was about the French trying to steal the 13 colonies?

    Utterly insane.

    The colonial militias did a lot of the fighting, which did not require British largesse. Not one major battle was fought in the 13 colonies.

    “The US Declaration of Independence was a wicked document and independence was a sham because of the first truly global conflict, which never reached the home soil of the 13 colonies, but who paid with blood and Treasure: anything the King did after that was justified…including soaking them for his own luxuries and paying off war debts…”

    Bloody hell. What unsophisticated tripe.

  30. Neil

    This is delusional bullshit.

    The only thing delusional is you. The Brits had spent a lot of money defending their colonies from the French

    The colonial militias did a lot of the fighting

    So what?

    Not one major battle was fought in the 13 colonies.

    There were not 13 colonies. There were 26. There were 16 British colonies on the mainland and 10 in the Carribbean. The USA did not exist in 1776.

  31. Tel

    The british had spent a lot of money defending these people from the French and Spanish.

    Cobblers, the Americans fought the French and Indian War on their own steam while still paying taxes to the British and also providing troops. It was the Americans supporting the English, not the other way around.

    They have not only granted equal to their abilities, but, during the last war, they granted far beyond their abilities, and beyond their proportion with this country, you yourselves being judges, to the amount of many hundred thousand pounds, and this they did freely and readily, only on a sort of promise from the secretary of state, that it should be recommended to parliament to make them compensation. It was accordingly recommended to parliament, in the most honourable manner, for them. America has been greatly misrepresented and abused here, in paper, and pamphlets, and speeches, as ungrateful, and unreasonable, and unjust, in having put this nation to great expence for their defence, and refusing to bear any part of that expence. The colonies raised, paid, and clothed, near 25,000 men during the last war, a number equal to those sent from Britain, and far beyond their proportion; they went deeply into debt in doing this, and all their taxes and estates are mortgaged, for many years to come, for discharging that debt. Government here was at that time very sensible of this. The colonies were recommended to parliament. Every year the King sent down to the House a written message to this purpose, That his Majesty, being highly sensible of the zeal and vigour with which his faithful subjects in North America had exerted themselves, in defence of his Majesty’s just rights and possessions, recommended it to the House to take the same into consideration, and enable him to give them a proper compensation. You will find those messages on your own journals every year of the war to the very last, and you did accordingly give 200,000 pounds annually to the crown, to be distributed in such compensation to the colonies. This is the strongest of all proofs that the colonies, far from being unwilling to bear a share of the burden, did exceed their proportion; but they never murmured at that; they esteemed their sovereign’s approbation of their zeal and fidelity, and the approbation of this House, far beyond any other kind of compensation; therefore there was no occasion for this act, to force money from a willing people; they had not refused giving money for the purposes of the act; no requisition had been made: they were always willing and ready to do what could reasonably be expected from them, and in this light they wish to be considered.

    http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/examination-of-benjamin-franklin-before-the-house-of-commons-february-13-1766.html

  32. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    The Brits had spent a lot of money defending their colonies from the French

    ALL OF THE MAJOR BATTLES WERE FOUGHT IN LOUISIANA OR CANADA. NOT THE 13 COLONIES.

    Sorry Neil, you forelock tugging whacko, saying something over and over again, doesn’t make it true.

    Your idea would be as popular in America as a public access cable TV politics show.

    The colonial militias did a lot of the fighting

    So what?

    Good lord. They didn’t receive huge subsidies to fight, Neil. They paid with their own money and their own dead. Blood and treasure…SO WHAT?!, says Neil. You’re pulling my leg, right?

    There were not 13 colonies. There were 26. There were 16 British colonies on the mainland and 10 in the Carribbean. The USA did not exist in 1776.

    That’s nice. It’s irrelevant though. You’ve even pointed out that the 13 colonies were different.

  33. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Cobblers, the Americans fought the French and Indian War on their own steam while still paying taxes to the British and also providing troops. It was the Americans supporting the English, not the other way around.

    I know Tel, but Neil is one of these insane Australian conservatives who thinks John Howard is second to Jesus Christ and probably above St Peter or Our Lady.

    The poor fucker is actually attacking the US declaration of independence. Who is he going to convince? Some poor prick in Wales who cosplays as George III?

  34. Neil

    They paid with their own money and their own dead. Blood and treasure…SO WHAT?!, says Neil. You’re pulling my leg, right?

    Because they never would have been able to defeat the French by themselves. France had 20 million people compared to 9 million Brits and a much bigger Empire

    That’s nice. It’s irrelevant thoug
    h

    No not irrelevant. The USA did not exist in 1776. Furthermore the British had tried to get them organised under some Grand Council but they did not want to. But they got together to defend themselves from the British. Also one of the first Battles was the invasion of Quebec. They wanted Quebec to take part in their rebellion but they did not want to so the revolutionaries invaded.

    I do not like armed revolutions. The Americans are lucky their revolution worked unlike the French and Russian revolutions

  35. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Because they never would have been able to defeat the French by themselves. France had 20 million people compared to 9 million Brits and a much bigger Empire

    They? Britain or America? America would not have fought without the King’s insistence. ALL of the battles were in Canada and Louisiana. It was about the right to exercise force protection. The Yanks BOUGHT Louisiana in the end. “I don’t like armed revolutions”; Jefferson did it better than George II.

    The USA did not exist in 1776.

    It existed as of July 4, 1776.

    Furthermore the British had tried to get them organised under some Grand Council but they did not want to.

    “No, you’re lying.” The colonies wanted this, look up the Albany Plan.

    I do not like armed revolutions.

    Tyranny is always worse.

    The Americans are lucky their revolution worked unlike the French and Russian revolutions

    The Americans did not have a “revolution” per se. The Russian Revolution was going fine until the dickhead Kaiser armed and cashed up that monstrous clown, Lenin. Kerensky headed a legitimate Parliamentary government.

    The French Revolution was so extreme because the French had not modernised/became a liberal semi-democracy like the British, who had several rebellions by the peasants, nobles and other royals going back to the 13th century. France was still a feudal country in 1789 with peasants and an absolute monarch.

  36. Neil

    It existed as of July 4, 1776.

    Perhaps. But it was the Revolution which decided what eventually became part of what became the USA. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Quebec did not take part in the revolution. Then 80,000 loyalists went north and eventually formed Canada.

    The Americans first tried a Confederation which did not work. The USA did not come in existence until they formed a Federation. The Brits obviously thought it was a good idea since that is what they got us to do.

    But I would never preach that people should rebell like the Americans did. They are lucky that their revolution worked. Although 100 years later the South rebelled and 600,000 dead later the Union did not break up.

  37. Neil

    France was still a feudal country in 1789 with peasants and an absolute monarch.

    Then why did you abuse me for saying the same thing about Russia? The Americans were the freest people in the world in 1776 but they stilled rebelled. Rebellion appears to be part of human nature

  38. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Then why did you abuse me for saying the same thing about Russia?

    Russia was particularly backwards, and you are myopic, I noted that Kerensky’s government was legitimate and arose from a Parliamentary democracy.

    The Americans were the freest people in the world in 1776 but they stilled rebelled.

    You have to stop this nonsense. The GB army were being foisted on homes.

    There is no “perhaps” about it. The US was a sovereign state since this day, 1776.

    Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Quebec did not take part in the revolution.

    ..good lord. They weren’t part of the 13 colonies or the Albany plan. Upper Canada…is still Francophone.

    But I would never preach that people should rebell like the Americans did.

    That is because you have the mentality of a slave.

    The Americans first tried a Confederation which did not work.

    Yes it did. Hamilton was a Federalist and he was a war mongering, imperialist big government moron. Siding with the Federalists is a terrible proposition.

    The USA did not come in existence until they formed a Federation.

    This is stupid, insane and ahistorical.

    The Brits obviously thought it was a good idea since that is what they got us to do.

    It was our colonial governments idea and the colonial office simply went along with it. The idea that the Crown was a driving force behind Federation is probably the most insane drivel you have posted here.

    Even more so than being a preachy suffragette and telling off the greatest country on earth on its birthday.

  39. max

    Shays’ Rebellion

    Shays’ Rebellion was an armed resistance movement of about 4,000 property-owning men in western Massachusetts. Contrary to reports from the anti-Shays faction in 1787, and contrary to most textbook accounts ever since, it was not a revolt of impoverished, indebted rural radicals. It included men of all economic classes. Many of them were veterans of the American Revolution, including Daniel Shays,

    These men revolted against a group of speculators who had recently gained control of the governor’s office.

    Shays’ Rebellion. It was not a revolt of indebted farmers. It was a tax revolt.

    The government passed new taxes and insisted on collecting taxes that were in arrears. That tax burden was now higher by several times what they had been under Great Britain.

    Western counties had petitioned the government for relief for several years, but their petitions had been ignored. In July, 1786, a revolt began. It soon became an armed political revolt by towns, not by individuals. The rebels met as a convention to draw up a list of 21 grievances. This was not a mob. Daniel Shays became the head of this revolt after it had begun.

    This was a grass-roots rebellion, as surely as the American war for independence had been, and with far better cause.

    It was in fact a revolt against the confiscation of property by a tiny group of speculators in government debt.

    They were fighting a system of oppressive taxation that was being imposed in the name of paying off investors who had bought the depreciated notes of the Revolutionary War era from the soldiers who made that political rebellion successful. Rebels were fighting against the transformation, mostly at their expense, of the unfunded paper money of the war era into post-war currency, with interest payable in silver. They had been stiffed by the politicians during the war, who paid them with unfunded promises to pay. Now they were being stiffed by the politicians again – speculators who had taken advantage of them when they were on the battlefield.

  40. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    The lesson from Shay’s rebellion is not that American Independence was a bad idea, but eternal vigilance is the only security for liberty – and that the Federal government was and still is a bad idea.

  41. max

    A slogan in the era of the American Revolution was “No taxation without representation.” Today, we have representation, and our taxes reflect a level of confiscation that would have been regarded as tyrannical by citizens of every nation in 1776.

    Today…. The central government does not officially claim the absolute sovereignty that British legal theory claimed for Parliament in 1776, but in fact the invasion of our liberties is far worse than anything conceived by the most traditional of Tory political theorists in 1776.

    Not many Americans know what the level of taxation was in 1775.
    English taxes were in the range of 1% of income in most colonies, and possibly as high as 2.5% in the plantation colonies. For this, they went to war.

    Leonard E. Read, used to give a speech in which he surveyed the history of American taxation. He showed how the rates had grown higher until the state was extracting 40% or more of our wealth. Step by step, American voters had adopted the politics of plunder. Read then concluded: “They don’t know the difference between freedom and slavery.”
    He was right. Most people don’t know the difference. The number of free societies is declining today. Communism was a terrible evil, but the governments that replaced Communist rule are not free societies by 1913 standards.
    There is comparative freedom, of course, just as there are comparatively strong fiat currencies — compared to each other today. But World War I destroyed the international gold standard, the free movement of individuals (there were no mandatory passports in the West in 1913), and single-digit taxation.
    The voters do not know the difference. They think there was an eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.” They have adopted the politics of plunder, best described by Frederic Bastiat a century and a half ago in his great little book, The Law. He presents three choices for a society:
    The few plunder the many.
    Everybody plunders everybody.
    Nobody plunders anybody.
    We are clearly in living under system two. To regain our freedom — to return to system three — will take more than a declaration of independence. It will take a revolution in our thinking as Americans.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/07/gary-north/a-real-independence-day/

  42. max

    The American Revolution Was a Mistake
    By Gary North

    The colonists had a sweet deal in 1775. Great Britain was the second freest nation on earth. Switzerland was probably the most free nation, but I would be hard-pressed to identify any other nation in 1775 that was ahead of Great Britain. And in Great Britain’s Empire, the colonists were by far the freest.

    I will say it, loud and clear: the freest society on earth in 1775 was British North America, with the exception of the slave system. Anyone who was not a slave had incomparable freedom.

    Jefferson wrote these words in the Declaration of Independence:
    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 these States.

    I can think of no more misleading political assessment uttered by any leader in the history of the United States. No words having such great impact historically in this nation were less true. No political bogeymen invoked by any political sect as “the liar of the century” ever said anything as verifiably false as these words.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/07/gary-north/the-american-revolution-was-a-mistake/

  43. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Great article, max.

    I think sortition, CIR and a taxpayer’s bill of rights would solve the problem; as would cutting back the US Federal (and Commonwealth) government’s role in society and governance.

  44. max

    Federal Taxation Before 1789

    Gary North – June 02, 2016
    Printer-Friendly Format
    This is from the Articles of Confederation (ratified, 1781).

    All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.
    The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled. (Article VIII)

    This is the only mention of taxation. The federal government possessed no taxation power over individuals.

    This changed with the Constitution of 1787, which was ratified in 1788.

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/15273.cfm

  45. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    I will say it, loud and clear: the freest society on earth in 1775 was British North America

    Yet they were overtaxed without representation and had to quarter GB soldiers, had martial law imposed and freedom of the press was being curtailed, Geroge III was dangerously drifting back to a pre-1689 position.

    Let’s say America stayed with Mum and we got a bigger Canada and no French Revolution.

    The revolutions of 1848 would never have happened. The Bourbons and Hohenzollerns would have dominated Europe to this day and we’d have no USA and basically, a bigger Canada ruled by some cuck like Trudeau.

    The war of independence was not a mistake, the Federal system and attitude to Shay’s grievances were; Hamilton and other Federalists embodied the worst of Europe injected into America.

  46. max

    SECESSION

    I am a great believer in secession. I just do not believe in the armed form. Armed secession is sometimes valid as a defensive measure against an illegitimate invasion by the central civil government, but only rarely in history has armed secession not strengthened the political power of the secessionists more than the central government from which the secessionists are seceding.

    Secession is first of all a moral rebellion. People perceive that the civil government under which they operate has become inherently immoral. Also, the government shows no sign of reforming itself.

    Secession begins when someone offers a moral critique that begins with the individual. Moral reform is above all self-reform. If it is not grounded in a call for self-reform, it is just one more call for a transfer of power to a new group of power-seekers.

    Next, this reform impulse spreads to institutions that use private funds and individual talents to begin to reform society. If this program of reform is confined to politics, I recommend the following strategy: keep your hand upon your wallet, and your back against the wall.

    Until there is institutional evidence of superior moral performance and superior practical performance in a wide variety of voluntary associations, especially the family, do not commit your money and your emotional commitment to any political reform movement.

    Armed rebellion requires arms. Arms require money. Money requires taxation. Taxation has three main forms: direct (income, property, retail sales), indirect (wholesale sales), and monetary inflation.

    Armed rebellion requires loans because revenues are never enough to buy the arms.

    Armed rebellion requires a top-down chain of command: military ranks funded by centralized taxation.

    Armed rebellion throws up — in both senses — new leaders. Their claim to fame during and after the rebellion is their successful management of a new central government.

    We can find defenders of armed rebellion who live to regret its outcome. The most famous example in American history is Patrick Henry, a rhetorically skilled lawyer whose political career began with a series of lies and culminated with a profound truth: his famous comment on why he refused to participate in the Constitutional convention. “I smelt a rat in Philadelphia.”

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/13994.cfm

  47. max

    If no American revolution 1775-1781 than maybe no French Revolution 1789

  48. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    max

    Have you read this article before?

    Catallaxy gets a lot of Catholic readers, but maybe the Quakers are following a truly righteous path:

    https://mises.org/library/pennsylvanias-anarchist-experiment-1681-1690

    The tax burden was extremely light in Pennsylvania. The only tax laws were enacted in 1683; these placed a small duty on liquor and cider, a general duty on goods, and an export duty on bides and furs. But Governor Penn promptly set aside all taxes for a year to encourage settlers. In 1684, however, another bill to raise import and other duties for William Penn’s personal use was tabled; instead, a group of leaders of Pennsylvania pointed out that the colony would progress much faster if there were no taxes to cripple trade. These men heroically promised to raise 500 pounds for Penn as a gift, if the tax bill were dropped. The tax bill was dropped, but not all the money raised.

    Sounds like a place ruled by and populated by wise men.

  49. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    max
    #3097598, posted on July 5, 2019 at 10:14 am

    If no American revolution 1775-1781 than maybe no French Revolution 1789

    The ancien regime was an evil feudal system (as they all were). You cannot defend the horrors of the revolution but it is a nonsense to find a moral equivalence to say that the existence of one negates the evil of the other.

    Arguably, modern democracies have created different classes of persons before the law, just like under feudalism, despite the promises of rule of law.

  50. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Like the lame and insane conservatives on this blog…

  51. max

    Murray N. Rothbard was smart but I think he was wrong on anarchy.

    This people where brought up in religious environment — self government — no begging hard work no complaints that foreigner are guilt for hash environment, helping brothers in need…

  52. max

    George Washington Starts the French and Indian War at the Battle of Jumonville Glen 1754

    In Europe, the French and Indian War is conflated into the Seven Years’ War and not given a separate name. “Seven Years” refers to events in Europe, from the official declaration of war in 1756—two years after the French and Indian War had started—to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763.

    This is why the Fourth of July is not a holiday in Canada. It is merely July 4.
    The Fourth of July was all about war and secession. It is all about avoiding tyranny at the hands of the British. You know. The way Canada suffered.

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/11200.cfm

  53. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    max

    What about the French claiming the same land as the Iroquois who were advancing towards a civilised nation in European terms under international law, per Vettel?

    Blaming Washington is a bit preposterous. The border was not well defined and the French started expanding fortifications into British or Indian territory. The imperial governments disagreed over who owned what and war was inevitable.

  54. max

    Frank Ideas Have Consequences good and bad — also wars, revolutions civil unrest and so on.

    Blaming Washington is a bit preposterous — maybe but fact is that, 7 years war had consequences for American revolution and so on, idea of American revolution where spread to Europe and …..

  55. Neil

    The GB army were being foisted on homes.

    That was the custom of the time. Barracks for soldiers came later. Slaves were put into barracks

    The US was a sovereign state since this day, 1776.

    I thought they were 13 independent states. The Union came later

    They weren’t part of the 13 colonies or the Albany plan.

    What? There were 26 colonies not 13. Thirteen of those rebelled. It was the war which decided the eventual borders. Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland could have taken part. In fact the revolutionaries invited Quebec to take part but Quebec declined. And those 13 colonies could have evolved into 13 independent countries or the Northern colonies could have formed a Union and the Southern colonies could have form another Union

    It was our colonial governments idea and the colonial office simply went along with it.

    I guess they got the idea from the Americans. I also guess there are other forms of govt other than Federations

  56. Iampeter

    This thread went pretty much as expected, LOL.

    The one thing Neil and Max get right, is that America wasn’t all that oppressed compared to everywhere else at the time. So why did they rebel against the crown? What motivated this action?
    Was it just another bunch of warlords, using religion to justify seizing power?
    Was it, as Neil suggested, just “human nature?” You know, creating America was like taking a shit, or something. That’s why there are so many rights-protecting republics all over the place, right?
    What was the reason?

    Ahh, the mystery of American Independence.
    Nothing like the 4th of July to demonstrate how completely uninformed conservatives are as to the most important ideas of Western Civilization and the ideals of America’s founding.

  57. Iampeter

    Only on this madhouse of a blog would pathetic Australian conservatives ACTUALLY ATTACK THE US DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND TREATY OF PARIS.

    Wait, you don’t include yourself in this?
    Aside from every other thread where you have failed to stand against the crazy and clueless conservatives posting here, putting forward your own nutty nonsense, just in this thread alone you’ve said things like:

    The Americans did not have a “revolution” per se.

    And:

    Hamilton was a Federalist and he was a war mongering, imperialist big government moron. Siding with the Federalists is a terrible proposition.

    And:

    eternal vigilance is the only security for liberty – and that the Federal government was and still is a bad idea.

    I mean, you’ve hit every single brain dead talking point of today’s politically illiterate leftists, AKA conservatives that I expect to hear and all in one thread.

    You may not identify as a crazy conservative, but when you’re as clueless as they are, you may as well.

  58. Mark A

    Iampeter
    #3097701, posted on July 5, 2019 at 12:54 pm

    This is getting beyond ridiculous.
    You carry on talking and talking and never saying anything useful or informative.

    You perfected BS-ing to an art form.

  59. Tel

    Iampeter is the Earnest Voice of the Cat.

  60. Neil

    Only on this madhouse of a blog would pathetic Australian conservatives ACTUALLY ATTACK THE US DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND TREATY OF PARIS

    I find it hard to believe that Conservatives would preach armed rebellion against the govt. Peaceful protests is what Conservatives would do and never preach for armed rebellion against the govt.

    Frank you sound like a smartarse know it all. The Americans were the freest people on earth but YOU abused me for saying that. And yet they still rebelled. That rebellion meant Australia came into existence. The Brits were sending their convicts to NA. After the revolution that was stopped. So they decided to send them to the other side of the world and start a new country

  61. Zatara

    Anyone with interest in the true history of the American Declaration of Independence would be well served by spending a few bucks to rent the movie ‘1776’ from youtube and having a watch.

    Do have an adult beverage or two at hand as it is both hilarious and a true representation of the almost farcical cat-herding required to form a country.

  62. Neil

    You perfected BS-ing to an art form.

    Normally I cannot stand Iampeter. For the first time I agreed with most of what he said. But as a Conservative I find it hard to preach armed rebellion against the government. Protest peacefully and then if the State so decides then get thrown into prison. Preaching armed rebellion against the govt is a dangerous concept. The Americans are lucky that their rebellion worked. I guess because they were not trying to overthrow anything. They were trying to get back liberties that King George had taken away from them ( no matter how deluded that was)

    PS Frank is a knowitall fool who thinks he knows everything but most probably knows nothing. The Americans WERE the freest people on earth with more freedoms than the British people who they rebelled against

  63. Tel

    Normally I cannot stand Iampeter. For the first time I agreed with most of what he said.

    Slippery slope … know the warning signs!

    There’s no shame in asking for help when you really, really need it.

  64. Iampeter

    This is getting beyond ridiculous.
    You carry on talking and talking and never saying anything useful or informative.

    You perfected BS-ing to an art form.

    I’m the only one not BS-ing here and you know it.
    THAT’s why so many of you are triggered by me.
    Unlike you LARPing idiots, I actually know what I’m talking about.

  65. Iampeter

    For the first time I agreed with most of what he said.

    I doubt it. I don’t think you understood most of what I said.

    But as a Conservative I find it hard to preach armed rebellion against the government.

    Yep. If conservatives understood America’s founding documents, they would oppose them.
    Which is why it’s so funny watching conservatives talk so approvingly and so sagely on this topic. Oh, the unintentional comedy.

    PS Frank is a knowitall fool who thinks he knows everything but most probably knows nothing.

    Frank is just like most of the posters here. Not sure why you’re singling him out.

  66. mh

    Iampeter, what other blogs do you frequent because I would like to read more of your work.

  67. Neil

    Yep. If conservatives understood America’s founding documents, they would oppose them.

    I think I agree with that (BTW the only time I have agreed with Iampeter). If Conservatives oppose something they would protest and then take the penalty the State imposes for that protest eg thrown into prison, thrown to the lions etc. Armed rebellion against the powers that be is a no no for Conservatives

    PS Frank. The Americans WERE the freest people on earth in 1776. They had freedoms most people at that time would just dream about and lust after. But they rebelled anyway. And quarting soldiers was the custom of the time. Slaves were put into barracks. British soldiers were billeted into peoples homes. OK they most probably raided the fridge, swam in the swimming pool and trashed the joint and then moved on to the next home. But billeting soldiers was the custom of the time

  68. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    That was the custom of the time. Barracks for soldiers came later. Slaves were put into barracks

    Jesus christ, you’re just making this shit up. You’re talking about causes of the Seven Years War…good lord.

    I thought they were 13 independent states. The Union came later

    No, you’re wrong – look at the articles of confederation you dolt.

    The US signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The constitution was operative in 1789.

    What? There were 26 colonies not 13. Thirteen of those rebelled.

    So what? You brought up the Albany plan you moron. They did not “rebel”, they declared their independence and the British attempted to invade and reassert Crown rule.

  69. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    PS Frank. The Americans WERE the freest people on earth in 1776.

    You don’t know this at all, you’re just asserting and regurgitating what Gary North once said.

    George III was a terrible King and losing the war tempered his proclivities. I have shown you how reviled he was by the British press in the 1790s but you ignored this – he was a greedy King who imposed higher taxes and national debt and lived high off the hog. He tried to go against the Triennial Acts and interfere with Parliament. He was becoming like the Stuarts before him.

    British soldiers were billeted into peoples homes. OK they most probably raided the fridge, swam in the swimming pool and trashed the joint and then moved on to the next home. But billeting soldiers was the custom of the time

    Good lord, yet you think the Americans had no legitimate grievances and weren’t patient enough.

    The mind of a slave.

  70. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    PS Frank is a knowitall fool who thinks he knows everything but most probably knows nothing. The Americans WERE the freest people on earth with more freedoms than the British people who they rebelled against

    Ok thanks, dumbarse.

    You think America didn’t exist before 1789. You tried to say that the Seven Years War had something to do with the Brits defending the soil of the 13 colonies. You have tried to say the act of declaring independence was an “armed rebellion”. You have defended quartering soldiers in civilian homes because it was “the convention at the time” or some other rubbish.

    Everything you have asserted here is utter nonsense and puts you squarely in the camp of American hating Marxists.

    I expected better of max when challenged on the absurd contention that…”Washington started the Seven Years War…”, replying with “actions have consequences is rather lame.

  71. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Iampeter
    #3097702, posted on July 5, 2019 at 12:59 pm

    Only on this madhouse of a blog would pathetic Australian conservatives ACTUALLY ATTACK THE US DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND TREATY OF PARIS.

    Wait, you don’t include yourself in this?

    Because everything I have said is correct, you grandstanding, concern trolling leftist twit.

    1. Yes the Americans declared independence and the British replied with force. The Americans did not simply attack the British unprovoked. It was not a mindless revolution like the French Revolution degenerated into after the reasoned and cool-headed August decrees. Geroge III simply ignored such grievances the continental congresses put before him.

    2.

    Hamilton was a Federalist and he was a warmongering, imperialist big government moron. Siding with the Federalists is a terrible proposition.

    Absolutely true. The declaration of independence was good and the Federalist movement was not.

    3.

    eternal vigilance is the only security for liberty – and that the Federal government was and still is a bad idea.

    Yes. This is true in itself, the slide into Federalism is a cautionary tale.

    You have not offered any counter-argument or alternative to the assertions you oppose at all, you mouth breathing imbecile.

    You know, creating America was like taking a shit, or something. That’s why there are so many rights-protecting republics all over the place, right?
    What was the reason?

    Not for the first time in this thread – come on, enlighten us, dickhead.

    Mark A
    #3097705, posted on July 5, 2019 at 1:01 pm

    Iampeter
    #3097701, posted on July 5, 2019 at 12:54 pm

    This is getting beyond ridiculous.
    You carry on talking and talking and never saying anything useful or informative.

    You perfected BS-ing to an art form.

    Damn right.

  72. Neil

    You don’t know this at all, you’re just asserting and regurgitating what Gary North once said.

    Never heard of garry North. I made my comment because it was a fact nd before I read that Garry North comment. The Americans were the freest people on earth. They had more freedoms than the people they were rebelling against

    Jesus christ, you’re just making this shit up

    I do not make stuff up .YOU do. When the British govt around to getting a standing army they were not sure what to do with it. So they billeted them out into peoples homes. That was the custom of the time. Barracks for soldiers came later

    PS Frank you are a deadbeat knowitall fool who thinks he knows everything but knows nothing. Like all the leftists I usually argue with. No Conservative would preach armed rebellion against the powers that be. Only leftists preach armed rebellion.

    And PPS you need to stop being so knowitall and wanting to thrust your knowitall leftists beliefs down everybodies throat. The Americans are lucky their armed rebellion worked

  73. Neil

    You have defended quartering soldiers in civilian homes because it was “the convention at the time” or some other rubbish.

    I am not defending it. I am saying it was the custom of the time. Slaves were put into barracks. British soldiers were billeted out into people homes. In those days slavery and barracks went together. Barracks for soldiers came later.

    PS you need to read some books and stop being a knowitall blowhard.

  74. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    The Americans were the freest people on earth. They had more freedoms than the people they were rebelling against

    You’re just making this up. They had taxation without representation, soldiers quartered in their homes and could be hanged for declaring their allegiance to the country they were born in. Do you think the British Navy blockaded Liverpool or Teesside? What a preposterous notion. Why do you think the Massachusetts Colony was upset that the King had removed their self-government? Can you imagine what the commons or Lords would have done if the King tried to remove them as an institution?

    You are totally ignorant of the legitimate grievances the Americans had.

    When the British govt around to getting a standing army they were not sure what to do with it. So they billeted them out into peoples homes. That was the custom of the time. Barracks for soldiers came later

    This is pathetic. Barracks existed in Roman times. Even when the English occupied Scotland they used barracks.

    Like all the leftists I usually argue with

    I highly doubt leftists would side with Jefferson and the anti-Federalists.

    No Conservative would preach armed rebellion against the powers that be. Only leftists preach armed rebellion.

    You’ve just made this up. Do you honestly think Churchill opposed the Warsaw Uprising or FFI Uprising in Paris, 1944?

    Good lord man, you’ve gone completely batty.

    Furthermore, it wasn’t an “armed rebellion”, you dishonest twit. The Americans were attacked by British soldiers for being tax resisters, whilst they had fewer rights than their British brethren. They tried to peacefully petition the King but he ignored them. Twice. They declared their independence and the British planned to invade, recolonise and carve up the land for newly made nobles like Cornwallis, which would have supported slavery even more strongly than before.

  75. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    I am not defending it. I am saying it was the custom of the time. Slaves were put into barracks. British soldiers were billeted out into people homes. In those days slavery and barracks went together. Barracks for soldiers came later.

    PS you need to read some books and stop being a knowitall blowhard.

    LOL

    Did you even know the King had revoked the charter of the Massachusetts Colony?

  76. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Good lord Neil, you have talked a lot of shit to shit on the Yanks and defend the Queen and John Howard.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Artillery_Barracks

    Built 1776–1802

    I am not defending it. I am saying it was the custom of the time. Slaves were put into barracks. British soldiers were billeted out into people homes. In those days slavery and barracks went together. Barracks for soldiers came later.

    As originally built (1774-6) the barracks frontage was only half the present length

    Shut up, you fucking lunatic “moderate conservative”.

  77. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthven_Barracks

    …near Ruthven in Badenoch, Scotland, are the best preserved of the four barracks built in 1719 after the 1715 Jacobite rising

    Must have been occupied all of those native-born slaves forced into the army in England after the Glorious Revolution in 1689.

    On that note,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment#British_North_America

    One of the largest impressment operations occurred in the spring of 1757 in New York City, then still under British colonial rule. Three thousand British soldiers cordoned off the city, and plucked clean the taverns and other sailors’ gathering places. “All kinds of tradesmen and Negroes” were hauled in, nearly eight hundred in all.[20] Four hundred of these were “retained in the service”.

    The Royal Navy also used impressment extensively in British North America from 1775 to 1815. Its press gangs sparked resistance, riots, and political turmoil in seaports such as Halifax, St John’s, and Quebec City. Nevertheless, the Royal Navy extended the reach of its press gangs into coastal areas of British North America by the early 19th century. In response, sailors and residents fought back with a range of tactics. They sometimes reacted violently. The riots in St John’s in 1794 and Halifax in 1805 led to a prohibition on impressment on shore for much of the Napoleonic Wars. The protest came from a wide swath of the urban community, including elites, rather than just the vulnerable sailors, and had a lasting negative impact on civil–naval relations in what became Canada. The local communities did not encourage their young men to volunteer for the Royal Navy.

    Yeah sure, the Brits were just lovely.

  78. Neil

    could be hanged for declaring their allegiance to the country they were born in.

    The country you are talking about did not exist. Like all leftists you are making stuff up. The Brits had 26 colonies in NA. 16 on the mainland and 10 in the Caribbean. It was the Revolution which decided the borders of the USA. Quebec was sent an offer to take part in the rebellion. They declined and therefore they were invaded by the revolutionaries under the leadership of Benedict Arnold. American patriotism slowly evolved. That is why even 100 years later General Lee sided with the South during the civil war because his loyalty was to his State not his country .

    And the Brits did regard barracks as bad for soldiers. I don’t care what the Romans thought. Slaves were put into barracks at that time. British soldiers were billeted out into homes.

    PS like all leftists you think you know everything but know nothing

  79. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    The country you are talking about did not exist.

    Yes it did, from July 4, 1776. 🤣

    They have a big party every year on the 4th of July to celebrate.

    The Brits had 26 colonies in NA.

    Good lord you’re a fucking robot. How many times are you going to blurt out this irrelevant factoid?

    It was the Revolution which decided the borders of the USA.

    No, it was the Treaty of Paris.

    And the Brits did regard barracks as bad for soldiers.

    Shut up you idiot, your absurd assertion has blatantly obvious counterfactuals against it noted here.

  80. Neil

    Billeting soldiers was the custom of the time. It happened in England to. Don’t know about Scotland but it had to be done under law. Standing armies were frowned upon as well

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

    By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law

    Quartering soldiers was the custom of the time

    PS like all leftists you are a nasty knowitall person.

  81. Neil

    Good lord you’re a fucking robot. How many times are you going to blurt out this irrelevant factoid?

    It is not irrelevant. The permutations are endless. All 26 could have rebelled. What would have happened if Quebec did not side with Britain? The revolutionaries asked Quebec to take part but they declined

    PS you need to stop being a knowitall nutjob. The USA did not exist until people in the 26 colonies decided what they wanted to do

  82. Neil

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracks#United_Kingdom

    In the 17th and 18th centuries there were concerns around the idea of a standing army housed in barracks; instead, the law provided for troops routinely to be billeted in small groups in inns and other locations.[7] (The concerns were various: political, ideological and constitutional, provoked by memories of Cromwell’s New Model Army and of the use of troops in reign of James II to intimidate areas of civil society. Furthermore, grand urban barracks were associated with absolutist monarchies, where they could be seen as emblematic of power sustained through military might; and there was an ongoing suspicion that gathering soldiers together in barracks might encourage sedition.)[

  83. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    “The custom of the time” is the most pathetic and laboured defence of violations of life, liberty and property.

    More on British war crimes: Sexual assault in company of American civilians for days on end:

    https://tinyurl.com/y468foxw

    You stupid prick, the Bill of Rights states how quartering soldiers in homes was illegal in the UK, but James II did it anyway.

    The Quartering Acts were passed on top of the Americans paying for and fighting the French Indian Wars and paying significantly more than their protection by the GB Navy and Army cost. Were similar Acts passed and impinged on residents in Great Britain? No. The King was just fleecing them.

    Tel outlined this before, but you choose to remain ignorant to indulge in some bizarre fantasy that the US declaration of independence was an evil act and historical document. Prior to this, you made some bizarre argument about the protection of the 13 colonies even though the militias did most of the fighting and all major battles occurred in French territory.

    You are simply are strange little man who desires to belittle the United States to glorify Queen Elizabeth and John Howard.

    You’re a low IQ whacko who chooses ignorance.

    I’m done with this preposterous nonsense.

  84. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Furthermore, grand urban barracks were associated with absolutist monarchies, where they could be seen as emblematic of power sustained through military might; and there was an ongoing suspicion that gathering soldiers together in barracks might encourage sedition.

    Fail after fail after fail. This proves that you are right, because?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    In 1765, the British parliament enacted the first of the Quartering Acts,[6] requiring the American colonies to pay the costs of British soldiers serving in the colonies, and requiring that if the local barracks provided insufficient space, that the colonists lodge the troops in alehouses, inns, and livery stables. After the Boston Tea Party, the Quartering Act of 1774 was enacted. One of the Intolerable Acts that pushed the colonies toward revolution, it authorized British troops to be housed wherever necessary, including in private homes.[7] The quartering of troops was cited as one of the colonists’ grievances in the United States Declaration of Independence.

    You are a boorish, uneducated, poorly read moron with no grasp of the facts yet have the audacity and temerity to tell others “to read”. Try it yourself, you oblivious rambler.

  85. Dr Fred Lenin

    I believe Fort William and Fort George were barracks for Royalist sldiers after the 45 rebellion as a deterrant to the Highland clans . The troops at Fort George didnt get any food supplies locally as I suspect the locals refused to sell to them it us said tge troops were bored stiff as cal snubbed them and there was nothing to do . The only officers would be the poorest ones who couldnt purchase a higher rank and get the hell out of there .
    Purchasing oficer rank just imaginr thurnbull son buying a colonelcy ,the mind fair boggles .

  86. Neil

    “The custom of the time” is the most pathetic and laboured defence of violations of life, liberty and property.

    Wrong. It WAS the custom of the time. At that time slavery and barracks went together. British soldiers were billeted out into homes

    I’m done with this preposterous nonsense.

    Exactly. Cannot argue so u run away. And u argue very violently. Anybody who disagrees with you is evil according to you. I do not like revolutions. Democracy had nothing to do with the American revolution. A vote was never taken. To this day nobody knows who supported what. Some say 1/3 were rebels. 1/3 were loyalist and 1/3 did not care. More accurately some say 40% were revolutionaries, 40% did not care and only 20% were loyalist.

    And you could argue every revolutionaries since 1776 took their example from the American revolution

    PS why do you argue so violently? You seem to have a very high opinion of your opinions

  87. Neil

    You are a boorish, uneducated, poorly read moron with no grasp of the facts yet have the audacity and temerity to tell others “to read”. Try it yourself, you oblivious rambler.

    Why so violent. You seem to like beating people. Quartering soldiers WAS the custom of the time. Slaves were put into barracks.

    In the 17th and 18th centuries there were concerns around the idea of a standing army housed in barracks; instead, the law provided for troops routinely to be billeted in small groups in inns and other locations.[7] (The concerns were various: political, ideological and constitutional, provoked by memories of Cromwell’s New Model Army and of the use of troops in reign of James II to intimidate areas of civil society. Furthermore, grand urban barracks were associated with absolutist monarchies, where they could be seen as emblematic of power sustained through military might; and there was an ongoing suspicion that gathering soldiers together in barracks might encourage sedition.)[

    And no I do not agree with armed rebellions. The USA had a brutal civil war 100 years later with 600,000 dead because of 1776

  88. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    And u argue very violently

    Sweet jesus, and you call other people “leftists”?

    Democracy had nothing to do with the American revolution. A vote was never taken.

    All of the 13 colonies, which then asserted themselves as States unanimously supported the declaration of Independence.

    The idea of the Australian Senate, US Senate or German Federal Council voting unanimously gives you an idea of the popularity of independence.

  89. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Why so violent. You seem to like beating people.

    Good lord.

    Quartering soldiers WAS the custom of the time.

    No, which is why the Americans opposed it. It was illegal in the UK. It had been illegal since 1689 (and before).

    And no I do not agree with armed rebellions.

    The Americans did not have an “armed rebellion”. They would not have taken up independence if the Intolerable Acts were not passed. They were indeed treated differently and worse than residents of Great Britain.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts

  90. Neil

    All of the 13 colonies, which then asserted themselves as States unanimously supported the declaration of Independence

    Can you read? There were 26 colonies and no vote was ever taken. The revolutionaries somehow got into power and controlled everything. If a vote was taken there most probably would have been majority support but we will never know because no vote was ever taken.

    And those 13 colonies who rebelled could have decided to go their own way. Or the Northern colonies form a country and the Southern colonies form a second country which almost happened 100 years later. Or Quebec could have accepted the invitation that they were sent by the Revolutionaries.

    PS why do you get excited about men trying to overthrow govt?

  91. Neil

    No, which is why the Americans opposed it. It was illegal in the UK. It had been illegal since 1689 (and before).

    It WAS the custom of the time

    In the 17th and 18th centuries there were concerns around the idea of a standing army housed in barracks; instead, the law provided for troops routinely to be billeted in small groups in inns and other locations.[7] (The concerns were various: political, ideological and constitutional, provoked by memories of Cromwell’s New Model Army and of the use of troops in reign of James II to intimidate areas of civil society. Furthermore, grand urban barracks were associated with absolutist monarchies, where they could be seen as emblematic of power sustained through military might; and there was an ongoing suspicion that gathering soldiers together in barracks might encourage sedition.)[

  92. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    The revolutionaries somehow got into power and controlled everything.

    They were elected. Over and over again.

    It WAS the custom of the time

    No, it wasn’t. You don’t even understand what you are quoting. Some ESL lessons would help.

  93. Neil

    It was the custom of the time. Once again

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracks#United_Kingdom

    n the 17th and 18th centuries there were concerns around the idea of a standing army housed in barracks; instead, the law provided for troops routinely to be billeted in small groups in inns and other locations.[7] (The concerns were various: political, ideological and constitutional, provoked by memories of Cromwell’s New Model Army and of the use of troops in reign of James II to intimidate areas of civil society. Furthermore, grand urban barracks were associated with absolutist monarchies, where they could be seen as emblematic of power sustained through military might; and there was an ongoing suspicion that gathering soldiers together in barracks might encourage sedition.)[6]
    Nevertheless, some “soldiers’ lodgings” were built in Britain at this time, usually attached to coastal fortifications or royal palaces. The first recorded use of the word ‘barracks’ in this context was for the Irish Barracks, built in the precinct of the Tower of London in 1669….In the aftermath of the French Revolution, though, things changed. The size of the army grew from 40,000 to 225,000 between 1790 and 1814 (with the Militia adding a further 100,000).[7] Barrack accommodation at the time was provided for a mere 20,000. To deal with the situation, responsibility for building barracks was transferred in 1792 from the Board of Ordnance to a specialist Barracks Department overseen by the War Office.

    PS why are you such a smartarse knowitall? Ans do you know what “some” means? In 1776 most soldiers were billeted into peoples homes. Some were housed in barracks perhaps. Slaves were put into barracks. It would have been humiliatingly to put British soldiers into barracks when slaves were housed in barracks just down the road

  94. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    You’re insane Neil.

    Try selling your tripe to Americans.

  95. Neil

    Insane? At least I do not say the USA started in 1776. In 1776 there were 13 rebellious colonies that were regarded legally as 13 independent countries. Those 13 colonies could have evolved in anything. We know what happened. But what would have happened if Quebec accepted the revolutionaries offer to take part in the rebellion?

    Mate the Americans know nothing. They have no idea what Canada is doing just north of them. However they are the greatest country in the world. I lived there for 6 years and they do not know much about what happens outside the USA

    And YOU have no idea that barracks for British soldiers came later than 1776. Before then most were housed in homes

  96. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Neil
    #3097916, posted on July 5, 2019 at 6:58 pm

    Insane? At least I do not say the USA started in 1776.

    🤣

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=trump+4th+july+speech

    Ah, good times.

    Mate the Americans know nothing.

    I’m sure you know better. LOL.

    I lived there for 6 years and they do not know much about what happens outside the USA

    You seem to know less about America than you say they know about Canada.

    And YOU have no idea that barracks for British soldiers came later than 1776.

    I showed you at least two barracks built before 1776, one before 1765 (Quartering Acts) and the fact that the Bill of Rights banned private quartering when William III came to the throne, this is a truly bizarre argument, not to mention the 1774 Quartering Act enforced quartering just out of spite.

  97. Neil

    I showed you at least two barracks built before 1776, one before 1765

    I saw that. So what? Most were housed in homes. Can you read? I was going to post the link again but u r too stupid. Most soldiers at that time were billeted into peoples homes

    1774 Quartering Act enforced quartering just out of spite

    Like all leftists u r a fool. It WAS the custom of the time in spite of what u say. Even in Australia most soldiers were part of the militia and kept their guns at home and stayed at home. Apparently we did not get a standing army until 1948. And I believe just before D-Day there were American soldiers billeted out into English homes because there were not enough barracks. And that was hundreds of years after that practise had stopped

    Try selling your tripe to Americans.

    I am sure I they would not like what I say. But they think the Founding Fathers invented English, the King James Bible, Trial by jury and most things which came from English history

  98. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    You are so outrageously and offensively dumb, Neil.

    I saw that. So what? Most were housed in homes.

    No, they were not, you are functionally illiterate conflating different time periods.

    The Quartering Act of 1774 was just spiteful, it was not a custom at all at the time and it had been illegal since the Glorious Revolution.

    Your last post has descended into a bedlamite parade of woeful confusion:

    Even in Australia most soldiers were part of the militia and kept their guns at home and stayed at home.

    What, in 1774?

    Apparently we did not get a standing army until 1948.

    The British did not get a standing army until 1955.

    And that was hundreds of years after that practise had stopped

    “Which was the custom at the time” – which version of events are you asserting is true, you mad fucker?

    I am sure I they would not like what I say. But they think the Founding Fathers invented English, the King James Bible, Trial by jury and most things which came from English history

    No one likes what you say, Neil. You miss the point entirely about the American Declaration of Independence, they were only seeking to reassert the rights they had under English and then British law; the King had begun treating them as second class citizens.

    You are simply bigoted against America and Americans, no American has ever asserted they were ruled by a native-born King James, they are accurately aware of the Magna Carta which is celebrated in popular culture (like in The Simpsons).

  99. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    functionally illiterate and conflating different time periods…

  100. Neil

    You miss the point entirely about the American Declaration of Independence, they were only seeking to reassert the rights they had under English and then British law; the King had begun treating them as second class citizens.

    Perhaps.

    I think they just wanted to rebel because the British were not needed anymore. If the British had not kicked the French out of North America there would have been no rebellion. Rebellion is part of human nature.

    The Quartering Act of 1774 was just spiteful, it was not a custom at all at the time and it had been illegal since the Glorious Revolution.

    Garbage. Can u read English? The 18th Century is not 1689. You have to be a leftist because everything u say is wrong

    In the 17th and 18th centuries there were concerns around the idea of a standing army housed in barracks; instead, the law provided for troops routinely to be billeted in small groups in inns and other locations.

    PS I thought you had given up and were not going to argue anymore?

  101. Neil

    No one likes what you say, Neil.

    Good. It mean I must be saying something right. I do like the USA. I lived there for 6 years. But just say after British authority left things degenerated and they started killing each other. That did not happen and they became the most powerful country on earth. Just because what they did worked does not mean it was right

  102. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    I think they just wanted to rebel because the British were not needed anymore.

    Yet you tried to justify the British taxing them to “pay for protection”.

    If the British had not kicked the French out of North America there would have been no rebellion.

    What you are saying is possibly true. Which supports the idea that the British were fleecing the Americans.

    Rebellion is part of human nature.

    Because we often have shitheads in government. Human nature again.

    Garbage. Can u read English? The 18th Century is not 1689.

    The British did not impose this sort of thing in the homeland until the Napoleonic Wars.

    In the 17th and 18th centuries there were concerns around the idea of a standing army housed in barracks; instead, the law provided for troops routinely to be billeted in small groups in inns and other locations.

    SMALL GROUPS – not in homes, and not for any reason, like the spiteful 1774 Act.

  103. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Just because what they did worked does not mean it was right

    Yes it does.

    You can choose to live in reality or fantasy.

  104. Neil

    SMALL GROUPS – not in homes, and not for any reason, like the spiteful 1774 Act.

    U have a link for that? My link said small groups in inns and other locations. It was the custom of the time

    PS your replies are not as violent as usual. You seem to think some of the things I say may have some truth. But like all leftists you will then go back to your nasty violent comments

    What you are saying is possibly true. Which supports the idea that the British were fleecing the Americans

    It was the other way around. the Americans were fleecing the British. Just because the revolution worked does not mean it is right. When the British were not needed any more they were kicked out. That is what sinful human beings do

  105. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    My link said small groups in inns and other locations.

    READ ABOUT THE 1774 ACT. GOOGLE IT, IDIOT.

    the Americans were fleecing the British.

    This is a lie. Tel showed you how the Americans contributed financially to the British war effort globally in the seven years war despite paying for their own militias in blood and treasure.

    When the British were not needed any more they were kicked out.

    Rightly so.

    That is what sinful human beings do

    Eschatological nonsense, based on lies.

  106. Neil

    READ ABOUT THE 1774 ACT. GOOGLE IT, IDIOT

    So what? They were still the freest people on earth with more freedoms that the govt they rebelled against. In 1776 the Russians were serfs. France, Japan, India whatever were all worse.

    You seem to get sexual thrills defending people who rebel. The Americans are lucky their rebellion worked. Who knows why it worked but I would never preach people should rebel against their govt with arms. They should protest and then get thrown into prison for their rebellion

    PS I though u said you were not going to reply to my comments?

  107. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    So what? They were still the freest people on earth with more freedoms that the govt they rebelled against

    No, they were not. In the two preceding decades, the Crown started to treat them as second class citizens.

    You seem to get sexual thrills defending people who rebel. The Americans are lucky their rebellion worked.

    This is some really far out, lunatic stuff.

  108. max

    “The victors write the textbooks. Historical truth is presented as a series of victorious wars that inevitably produced the march of democracy. The fact that a different outcome for several of these wars would have produced a very different world and a very different kind of democracy is not considered.”

    The French and Indian War of 1756-63, sometimes called the Seven Years War, had begun in North America in 1754, and had produced Braddock’s famous defeat by the French and their Indian allies in 1755. A young Virginia militia officer, George Washington, had been part of Braddock’s ill-fated troops. The British Navy won the Seven Years War, which led to the transfer of French territory east of the Mississippi to Great Britain. It also led to Parliament’s post-war attempt to tax the colonies to help pay for the war’s debts and also expenses connected with British troops stationed in North America. The Stamp Act of 1765 led to a tax revolt and political resistance by colonists that was to evolve into a war of independence a decade later.

  109. max

    If American revolution and constitution was/is good why today American people have less freedom than Americans in 1775?

  110. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    max

    Ben Franklin and British MPs argued for American representation in an enlarged imperial Parliament.

    This would have avoided the war. The British upper class (like Cornwallis, who would have been given a very large land grant with thousands of slaves if he won the war) opposed the notion.

    Here is a reasonable argument from the Washington Post before it went completely bonkers and anti-Trump.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/20/what-we-can-learn-from-one-of-the-biggest-mysteries-and-misunderstandings-of-the-american-revolution/?utm_term=.34be75e5643d

  111. max

    The division between conservatives and libertarians over the issue of war did not begin with Vietnam. It began in 1796. The Jeffersonians had tried to avoid getting into the war between France and England. The Federalists, good conservatives all, wanted the country to oppose France whenever possible. New England traders wanted close economic ties with Great Britain. Their political goal was a veiled neutrality, but with profits from trade with England.

    The Jeffersonians were compromised from the beginning. They had supported armed revolution against Great Britain in 1775. The original conservatives had not. They lost that argument. They either left the country or moved into new regions where their loyalty to Great Britain would not be known. Post-war libertarians and conservatives were united in their commitment to war as a means of national self-determination and annexation.

    In the Constitutional debate of 1787, the libertarians were on the side of the Articles of Confederation: a weak central government, no strong executive, no national tariffs, and no standing Army. As President, George Washington opposed all four views. By the time the nation divided politically under John Adams, the original libertarians were out of the picture. Their fallen flag was being carried by the Jeffersonians.

    In 1803, Jefferson bought Louisiana, despite the fact that the Constitution did not authorize this. In 1812, his colleague and successor James Madison took the nation into war with Great Britain. Immediately, he ordered General Hull to invade Canada. Hull surrendered Detroit in August without firing a shot. Two other invasion attempts failed that summer when New York militiamen refused to cross the border: Lake Champlain and the Niagara Frontier.

    The wars of expansion continued. Americans got used to the idea that free land was available for the taking. Wars, treaties with the Indians — invariably broken by Washington — and more wars followed.

    The Southern states seceded in 1861, but within the South, there had long been politicians who publicly spoke of conquering Mexico, Cuba, and Central America as slave territories. These were the “filibusters.” The lust for land prevailed, and the means of expansion, when push came to shove, was force of arms.

    This is the story of America in the textbooks. This is the lesson that Americans have taught their children for two centuries: “Land stolen by force of military arms is not stolen property. It is the lawful fruit of the march of democracy.”

    The story of the triumph of a well-armed State has not been confined to international relations. It has spread to domestic relations. This tradition was the heart of the Whig Party and was extended by its successor, the Republican Party. William Jennings Bryan appropriated it for the Democrats in his 1896 “Cross of Gold” speech. Franklin Roosevelt is still said to have saved capitalism from the capitalists. This is a domestic version of the presumption, although never explicitly stated in the textbooks, that McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt saved the Filipinos from the Filipinos.

    CONCLUSION

    Anti-war libertarians face an uphill battle. The libertarian political tradition has always been compromised by a willingness to call Johnny to get his gun and take it on the run. The anti-imperial position never got much of a hearing after 1901. Non-intervention in Europe failed politically when Wilson and Roosevelt showed how easy it was to win the Presidency with a campaign promise of not going to war and then taking the country into war within a year of their inauguration — Wilson, within a month. The cheering was deafening when Johnny got his gun.

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/programs/search.cfm

  112. Neil

    No, they were not. In the two preceding decades, the Crown started to treat them as second class citizens.

    Name me any people on earth who had more freedoms than the Americans in 1776? The Japanese? Russians? Chinese? French?

  113. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    max
    #3097979, posted on July 5, 2019 at 8:11 pm

    If American revolution and constitution was/is good why today American people have less freedom than Americans in 1775?

    Dude. What about the Brits, Canucks, EU and Australia?

    Removing the Federal government for Australia and the US would have been led to better outcomes.

  114. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Name me any people on earth who had more freedoms than the Americans in 1776

    Other British subjects. Then after July 4, they were free.

  115. max

    American fathers lied and children died:

    Hermann Goering
    “Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

  116. max

    rich man was loosing money and he and broderhood persuade people to rebel :

    John Hancock. Massachusetts (1737-1793) Became a Mason in Merchants Lodge No. 277. The first signer of the Declaration of Independence; first Governor of Massachusetts; Major General of the American Revolution.

    rich man was loosing money and he and broderhood persuade people to rebel

  117. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    The original conservatives had not.

    The States in the Second Continental Congress unanimously voted for the Declaration of Independence. Who were these conservatives?

    It was not a declaration of war. That was contingent on Britain asserting itself as a colonial power.

    The choice to go to war was the British Crown’s. The conflict that occurred in 1775 was due to British aggression.

  118. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    max
    #3097999, posted on July 5, 2019 at 8:29 pm

    rich man was loosing money and he and broderhood persuade people to rebel :

    Dude.

    Cornwallis was going to get a chunk of land in SE USA that was yuuge.

  119. max

    Proclamation Line of 1763, Quebec Act of 1774, and Westward Expansion. The British won vast territory in North America after the Seven Years’ War, but with it came numerous problems of how to govern it. British officials were unable to balance the interests of colonists and Indians, and these conflicts led to colonial dissatisfaction with …

  120. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    max

    Comparing John Adams to Herman Goring?

    This is some sick fantastical bullshit.

    I thought you were better than this.

  121. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Number of days that the Very Stable Genius has not been an embarrassment to the USA, reset to 0 again.

    http://youtu.be/4Wk5VYQC2XA?t=21

    “In June of 1775, the Continental Congress created a unified army out of the revolutionary forces encamped around Boston and New York,” Trump told a rain-soaked crowd. “Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do,

    I assume his support base know these nearly weekly incidents are embarrassing and they tolerate it because… I guess they like what he’s doing for trade, employment, NoKo, groping, mining, the culture war, and popcorn futures.

  122. Tel

    max #3097998, American fathers lied and children died.

    The British under King George had ALREADY sent them to war. It had nothing to do with any lies, they already knew who they were fighting and why … they were fighting the French and Spanish, because they were British citizens.

  123. max

    Comparing John Adams to Herman Goring?

    not at all, comparing rich and influential people fulling its countrymen neighbours and friends to war weapons of mass destruction

  124. Neil

    Then after July 4, they were free.

    Who is “they”. After the Revolution 80,000 loyalists left the 13 colonies and migrated to what became Canada. The revolutionaries confiscated their property and the loyalists lost everything. I would have been a loyalist. I do not like revolutionaries sticking their guns up my rear end and telling me how to votes

  125. max

    Tel
    #3098007, posted on July 5, 2019 at 8:38 pm
    max #3097998, American fathers lied and children died.

    The British under King George had ALREADY sent them to war. It had nothing to do with any lies, they already knew who they were fighting and why … they were fighting the French and Spanish, because they were British citizens.

    once they start revolution they where traitors

  126. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    After the Revolution 80,000 loyalists left the 13 colonies and migrated to what became Canada.

    Some of them were redcoats anyway. Why do we care? The British were aggressors and oppressive.

    I do not like revolutionaries sticking their guns up my rear end and telling me how to votes

    Maybe you shouldn’t support foreign tyrants in the hypothetical bizarro world?

    They probably were treated unfairly. The British however used r-pe as a weapon of war:

    How R-pe Was Used as a Weapon During the Revolutionary War

  127. Tel

    once they start revolution they where traitors

    The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was all done by traitors so the authority of the UK Parliament was no different.

    Britain’s claim on the USA was based on force of arms, and they lost it fair and square by their own rules. Churchill didn’t have too much difficulty abandoning his pride and doing business with a bunch of traitors some time later.

  128. max

    “NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!”

    American school children have memorized this political slogan for a hundred years. But where did it come from? From textbook writers. Nobody ever went into print with this phrase in colonial America.

    Linking taxation to representation goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215. The connection regained public attention as a result of the Stamp Act crisis of 1765—66.

    The British in 1763 had signed a treaty with France settling the Seven Years War, which was called the French and Indian War in the colonies. This war had drained the treasuries of both countries.

    The name of the war is incorrect. It refers to the dates of the official hostilities: 1756—63. It should be called the Nine Years War, because it began, not in 1756, but in 1754. It began on May 28, when an inexperienced 22-year-old Virginia militia officer led about thirty-five troops in an unprovoked surprise attack on a small group of Frenchmen commanded by Ensign Joseph Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville. The battle is called the Battle of Jumonville Glen. It took place in Western Pennsylvania.

    The previous year, the militia’s commander had established an alliance with a village of Seneca Indians. He consulted with their leader the day before the attack. The Indian had encouraged him to strike first, without warning, which he did the next morning. The French lost the skirmish. Nine were killed; 21 were captured. Thirteen were wounded, but the group of about eight Indians without warning killed them. The Virginian met with the wounded French commander to discuss the terms of surrender. Before he could formally surrender, the Indians’ leader smashed his skull with a tomahawk.

    France and England had not been at war. This was the opening salvo.

    Another 400 men soon arrived. This was not enough. He surrendered on July 3 to a French and Indian force of 600 French and 100 Indians. As a condition of his troops’ release, he signed a document admitting that the French commander had been assassinated while surrendering to him. The French word was “l’assassignat,” which the young officer later said he thought meant “killing.”

    The officer was Lt. Col. George Washington.

    And the war came.

    As a result of the war, which was mostly a naval battle for control over the West Indies, the French surrendered their claims to territory in North America, but not to the British. In 1762, France had surrendered its territory to its ally, Spain. When Napoleon defeated Spain four decades later, France got this territory back, which he sold to the United States.

    The French after 1763 were no longer a threat to the colonists. So, the immediate benefits of having British troops stationed in the colonies fell rapidly. “What have you done for us lately?”

    Then, in 1765, the British Parliament imposed a small tax on colonial paper. Official transactions had to be printed on taxed paper. So did newspapers. So did playing cards. The paper had to receive an official government stamp from tax collectors sent to the colonies.

    This, I would argue, was the most shortsighted political decision of the British Parliament in the eighteenth century. The tax alienated three groups: lawyers, newspaper publishers, and card players.

    The media response was immediate. “We shall not submit to such tyranny!”

    Tax collectors were chased out of town, tarred and feathered by mobs, and otherwise treated in ways that would get you sent to jail for ten years today.

    It was a widespread tax revolt. Most colonists decided that they were not going to pay. The problem was, they needed plausible excuses not to pay, other than the real ones: “We have been manipulated into mob action by lawyers and the media, and we love to play cards.”

    So, they invented some arguments. This was the main one: “The British Empire cannot lawfully impose internal taxes. It can lawfully impose only external taxes, such as on trade.” This was a very good argument, because it meant that smugglers would have to be tried in colonial courts, and juries would not convict.

    The British knew this. So, they transferred to Admiralty Courts the right to try smugglers and violators of the Stamp Act. These courts were held in distant Canada. This abolished trial by jury.

    One man understood all this better than anyone else. In 1764, he had inherited a shipping company from his uncle, making him the richest man in New England. His uncle Thomas had been a respected trader, but like all New England traders, he had learned how to evade taxes. He smuggled goods into small ports where British customs agents were absent. If caught, no jury would convict. His nephew had learned the trade well. His nephew was John Hancock.

    In October, 1765, a Stamp Act Congress was held in New York City. It adopted a Declaration of Rights and Grievances. This document denied the right of Parliament to tax colonists directly, because the colonists were not represented politically in Parliament. Only colonial legislatures had the right to tax colonists.

    Parliament backed down and repealed the Stamp Act in 1766.

    But it formally retained the right to tax the colonies.

    In 1767, n new government passed what came to be known as the Townsend Acts. Townsend was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the man in charge of taxes. He took seriously the Stamp Act document’s declaration of a distinction between internal and external taxes. So, he imposed lots of taxes on imported goods. Then he died.

    These taxes did not produce widespread resistance in the colonies. The once exception took place in 1768, when customs agents impounded Hancock’s ship, Liberty. Hancock organized protests by writing a letter attacking taxation and the quartering of British troops in cities.

    The riot in Boston persuaded the governor to call in the British Navy. The presence of the Navy and British troops in Boston was a constant irritant. They did not leave until March, 1776.

    The Townsend duties were repealed in 1770, except for a symbolic duty on tea. Americans then started importing Dutch tea. This hurt the British East India Company, the tea seller.

    A REVOLT AGAINST A TAX CUT

    In May, 1773, the British government granted the failing East India company a monopoly to ship tea to the colonies directly, threreby avoiding import taxes that had previously been imposed in England before shipping the tea to the colonies. The English duties of course were sales taxes. This tax cut reduced import costs. With the Townsend tea tax a fraction of the total savings from removing the British sales tax, East India tea was now cheaper than any other tea in the colonies.

    This pressured the colonial merchants to stop selling non-British tea. They tried to organize a boycott of East India Company tea. But boycotts rarely work when the item being boycotted is cheaper than its rivals. The merchants were stymied.

    Sam Adams saw an opportunity for some political mischief. He persuaded a group of them to conduct what became known as the Boston Tea Party in December, 1773. They dressed up as Indians and tossed overboard privately owned, duty-free tea. This was a protest in favor of taxes on tea.

    The British retaliated by closing the port of Boston. This gave Adams a chance to organize a national protest through his correspondence committees.

    On April 19, 1775, the American Revolution began in Concord, Massachusetts. Colonists shot and killed British troops in a successful effort to protest. To protest what? Tax-free tea. From that day forward, there would never again be tax-free tea in America.

    And the war came.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/07/gary-north/shorn-on-the-4th-of-july/

  129. max

    Tel
    #3098014, posted on July 5, 2019 at 8:47 pm
    once they start revolution they where traitors

    The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was all done by traitors so the authority of the UK Parliament was no different.

    Britain’s claim on the USA was based on force of arms, and they lost it fair and square by their own rules. Churchill didn’t have too much difficulty abandoning his pride and doing business with a bunch of traitors some time later.

    no argument from me regarding this.

    my argument is was there any better option and was is necessary to rebel violently
    yes there were better options and it was not necessary to rebel violently.

  130. Tel

    max #3098023, Lew Rockwell is a nice guy but I would always ask a second opinion because he specializes in off-beat history. Sometime interesting … but worth a small grain of salt.

    http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/george-washington-starts-french-and-indian-war.html

    Apparently Washington, who did not speak French, was attempting to interrogate Jumonville and the communication was difficult. He may have left Jumonville unattended for a period, during which either Tanacharison or a militia member killed Jumonville in cold blood. Some accounts say Tanacharison tomahawked Jumonville in the head and washed his hands in Jumonville’s brains. Others say a militia member shot him. The reason for Jumonville’s killing is unclear. Washington’s official account to Governor Dinwiddie states that Jumonville was killed in the battle, but doesn’t state how.

    After the Battle of Jumonville Glen, a full sized French force came out of Fort Duquesne and chased Washington back to Fort Necessity. The French captured the fort and Washington surrendered on July 3, 1754, the only time he ever surrendered in battle. Washington signed a surrender document written in French that he could not read and may have not been translated properly to him. The document stated that Jumonville had been “assassinated” and Washington was later blamed of ordering the assassination by France. This affair led to the first time that Washington’s name became known abroad in an international context. The result of all of this was an escalation of British and French troops in the area and the outbreak of the French and Indian War two years later.

    Changes the story a bit, huh?

    Now both the British and the French were involved in colonizing land that had previously belonged to Native Americans … but the tribes were warlike enough to begin with and quite happy to get their hands on superior weapons as well as neighboring land. They bought into the land grab.

    As for Washington single-handedly starting the Seven Year’s War … I don’t fall for that. The French vs British rivalry goes back many centuries, both had their colonies in the USA for quite some time, and you can’t possibly tell me that wars as far distant as Prussia and the Mughal Empire were all because of a bunch of Indians in the Ohio Valley. Besides that, the actual war didn’t start until two years later.

    I know that Americans only believe that America exists, but go read the Wikipedia background, there’s more of a European perspective.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War#Background

    Note in particular:

    The term “Second Hundred Years’ War” has been used in order to describe the almost continuous level of worldwide conflict between France and Great Britain during the entire 18th century, reminiscent of the Hundred Years’ War of the 14th and 15th centuries.

    They had been fighting for a very long time before, and they kept fighting a long time afterwards.

    If you want perspective on this, when the Black Death went through France (1348 to 1355) they lost approximately one third of the population to disease, but they only stopped the war for a year or there abouts. Barely time to bury the plague victims and they were back at war again. Americans don’t have the psychological perception of how much war underlies European history (and human history in general, read up on the Arab invasion of the subcontinent for an example of brutality).

    The wars in Europe only really came to a stop after the invention of nuclear weapons and the significant shift of power away from Europe towards North America.

    Good on Gary North with his Ron Paul Curriculum, by the way, I’m not opposed to his efforts to undermine the atrocious government school system. I wouldn’t take his history in simple terms, get a broader perspective.

  131. Tel

    my argument is was there any better option and was is necessary to rebel violently
    yes there were better options and it was not necessary to rebel violently.

    Difficult to say what would have happened … the Ameicans as British subjects would have been dragged into World War I and II much earlier (like Australians were) and thus unable to stroll in late and clean up. The spoils of both wars would have gone to England.

  132. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    my argument is was there any better option and was is necessary to rebel violently
    yes there were better options and it was not necessary to rebel violently.

    They tried petitioning the King on numerous occasions as was their right but they were ignored.

    They did not start the conflict – the aggression was British in 1775 (Concord) and the British could have up and left after July 4, 1776.

    The Americans were not the aggressors and for an act of civil disobedience, had a port blockaded by the British.

    The choice to be violent was in the hands of the British and they preferred risking losing some colonies than opening up their Parliament to colonials.

  133. Perfidious Albino

    Oh for the love of God, can we just appreciate the greater glory of the Anglosphere in all her diverse beauty and leave it at that…

  134. Iampeter

    Oh for the love of God, can we just appreciate the greater glory of the Anglosphere in all her diverse beauty and leave it at that…

    Not if you don’t understand what’s glorious about it and would oppose the ideas that led to that glory if you did, no.

    Conservatives love going through the motions of things with no idea of what’s going on. A political movement of cargo cultists.

  135. Perfidious Albino

    Well, you can speak for yourself Lampy, but get some perspective.

  136. Neil

    and the British could have up and left after July 4, 1776.

    Leave what? Should they have left Quebcec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland? What about the colonies in the Caribbean?.

    And 100 years later why didn’t the North up and leave when the Southern colonies rebelled?

    and they preferred risking losing some colonies than opening up their Parliament to colonials.

    The Americans did not want that. They wanted to leave. And how impractical would that have been anyway? How long did it take on those days to sail across the Atlantic? The Americans rebelled because they wanted to rebell

  137. mh

    This is getting beyond ridiculous.
    You carry on talking and talking and never saying anything useful or informative.

    You perfected BS-ing to an art form.

    When Iampeter puts some flesh on the bones his whole schtick falls apart.

    He has done it a couple of times with hilarious results.

  138. Neil

    and the British could have up and left after July 4, 1776.

    Leave what? And also just say they did leave and anarchy broke out when British authority left. What would you say then. The revolutionaries were rebelling against government which at that time was believed to be against God also. Peoples view of the revolution is clouded because the revolution worked. Preaching armed rebellion against the powers that be is something no Conservative would ever do. Conservatives should protest peacefully against govt wrong doing and take the punishment for that protest ie thrown into prison

  139. Iampeter

    At the Cat, people who don’t know what they’re talking about, often think that fact alone constitutes some kind of an argument.
    Then belligerently demand everything is explained to them and all their thinking is done for them.
    It never occurs to them that they should have the first clue about topics before opining on them with the tone of experts.

    But people at this level of self-delusion aren’t the ones BSing anyone, right?

  140. dover_beach

    It never occurs to them that they should have the first clue about topics before opining on them with the tone of experts.

    Oh no no no no…

  141. Iampeter

    And right on cue, to prove my point about delusional BSing, LOL.

  142. struth

    Iamperplexed offers nothing but abuse since he has had his arse handed to him many times here.
    Historically ignorant and yet a legend in his own lunch box.

  143. Iampeter

    Iamperplexed offers nothing but abuse since he has had his arse handed to him many times here.
    Historically ignorant and yet a legend in his own lunch box.

    Except on every single thread I’m the one receiving all the abuse, because you morons think you’re legends in your own lunch boxes and don’t like being exposed as the clueless LARPers that you actually are.

    Stupidity, evasion and projection. Keep it coming morons.

  144. Iampeter

    Oh and btw, Dover and Struth’s posts here, are what actual BSing looks like.

    They know they are describing everyone but me, but proceed anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.