Was the American Revolution a Mistake (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


KenDckey -> Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 5:24:59 AM)

http://www.progressive.org/zinn070309.html

Yes

http://louderwithcrowder.com/liberals-now-say-american-revolution-a-bad-thing-15-reasons-theyre-wrong/

No

What do you think?

I think it was a high price to pay, but the payoff allowed others in the world to gain their freedom from their monarchs. The job isn't done throughout the world. But we started it.




missiesfavourite -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 5:42:26 AM)

who knows ...
but for sure it is history

neither is a republic a guaranteed paradise on earth nor a monarchy inconclusive with democracy or worse per se than a republic

the english revolution is a good example that a republic can easily be turned into a dictatorship bringing nothing but suffering and terror to its neighbours as well as citizens under the auspices of religion and superiority

at least england stuck to the lesson that one oliver cromwell was enough for centuries

today's monarchies in europe have monarchs in a role comparable to representation presidents - and most of them do a far better job




Lucylastic -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 5:54:24 AM)

at least england stuck to the lesson that one oliver cromwell was enough for centuries
OMG Yes!!!!!




Real0ne -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 6:26:31 AM)

THE NATION
Who really won the War of 1812?

"If you ask the average American what they think about the War of 1812, some will have a puzzled look and ask who fought in that war?" said Ralph Eshelman, a Maryland historian who has written about the war in the Chesapeake Bay region. Another historian joked that about the only thing most Americans know about the War of 1812 is that it began in, well, 1812.

While some U.S. boosters believe our side won, many historians say the war -- largely fought over British impressment of American seamen and interference with U.S. trade and westward expansion -- ended in a draw.

And then there's that episode when the British burned Washington. "We don't have a lot to celebrate,'' said William Fowler, a Northeastern University history professor.

Still, the war produced the words for "The Star Spangled Banner" as Francis Scott Key watched the defense of Baltimore. Andrew Jackson was elevated to hero status for his victory at the Battle of New Orleans. And Dolley Madison earned her place in the history books for saving George Washington's portrait from the British torching of the White House.

The war also "confirmed the independence of a young republic whose success and prosperity was not foreordained or guaranteed,'' said Carl Robert Keyes, an assistant professor of history at Assumption College in Worcester, Mass.

There are those in Canada, however, who view their country as a victor, largely for

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/26/nation/la-na-war-of-1812-20120226

What about the brushed under the table war of 1812?



another:

The truth is, the British were never happy. In fact, their feelings ranged from disbelief and betrayal at the beginning of the war to outright fury and resentment at the end. They regarded the U.S. protests against Royal Navy impressment of American seamen as exaggerated whining at best, and a transparent pretext for an attempt on Canada at worst. It was widely known that Thomas Jefferson coveted all of North America for the United States. When the war started, he wrote to a friend: “The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent.” Moreover, British critics interpreted Washington’s willingness to go to war as proof that America only paid lip service to the ideals of freedom, civil rights and constitutional government. In short, the British dismissed the United States as a haven for blackguards and hypocrites.

The long years of fighting Napoleon’s ambitions for a world empire had hardened the British into an “us-against-them” mentality. All British accounts of the war—no matter how brief—concentrate on the perceived inequality of purpose between the conflict across the Atlantic and the one in Europe: with the former being about wounded feelings and inconvenience, and the latter about survival or annihilation.

Oh oh! Theres that annihilation word again!

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/british-view-war-1812-quite-differently-americans-do-180951852/?no-ist


Its been a long time since I reviewed this, however if I remember correctly all the land titles were kept in the white house at the time. The british burned the white house. So what happened to the land titles? Always seems to be something brushed to the side that completely changes the historical perspective.








PeonForHer -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 6:54:15 AM)

I guess, for me, it's rather like asking: is the sun coming up in the morning a good idea?

It was an inevitability.




Real0ne -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 7:04:52 AM)

it only gained the ability to control our own politics, but did nothing to the land ownership monopoly by the british in america.

Immediately after the revolution land titles were issued as allodial but after 1812 soon changed 'back' to 'in fee' which is a 'feod' which is a usufruct tenancy absolutely no different and identical to land ownership under the king pre-revolution

the revolution as far as I am concerned was meaningless in the larger scope since it changed nothing, we may as well fly the uk flag.

Now show me allodial land titles which are titles of individuals not under feudal control and you will get my full undivded attention.

In fact it took me several years and court cases to realize that article 14 of the wisconsin constitution where the land is claimed to be allodial was not intended for the individual but the 'sovereign' [king] state. Individuals in every state are issued land titles 'in fee' under the sovereign.








KenDckey -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 7:44:28 AM)

Real

Isn't that covered in Article I of the Treaty of Paris, 9/3/1783?




PeonForHer -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 8:56:11 AM)

quote:

the revolution as far as I am concerned was meaningless in the larger scope since it changed nothing, we may as well fly the uk flag
.

There you go again with the negative waves, RO.




Real0ne -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 9:34:51 AM)

I thought you were brit?
That would be another compliment would it not?
Since it would be true to the heritage?


1. God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us;
God save the Queen!

2. O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!

3. Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign;
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!

4. Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world over.

5. From every latent foe,
From the assassins blow,
God save the Queen!
O'er her thine arm extend,
For Britain's sake defend,
Our mother, prince, and friend,
God save the Queen!

6. Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen!


its pretty clear what brits stand for.





PeonForHer -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 9:38:45 AM)

quote:

its pretty clear what brits stand for.


Things have changed since that was written, though, RO. The only American we want to oppress nowadays is you. [:)]




Owner59 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 9:52:36 AM)

At it`s core,the motivation for colonists to reject the king and England was money.

Rightly so, the colonists were sick and tired of being fleeced and exploited financially by the system in place, that forced colonists to buy their goods only from the English Trading Company ,at inflated prices. Everything from linen to tea to gun powder to nails,had to be bought from the kings company. 

In turn,colonists were not allowed (under punishment by the king)to make there own iron, steel and lead ,etc. Beer and whiskey making was heavily taxed.

At every turn and at every trade, the colonists were being hustled and screwed, financially.

To top it off,the English Trading Company got huge tax breaks from the king.

The Boston Tea Party was (one of) the 1st protests AGAINST corporate welfare.

The whole American expedition was a business venture with investors, share holders and tight corporate control with boardrooms and records (that still exist BTW).

From the shipping companies to the slave trading companies to the warehousing companies to the cloth and food trading companies, they were all owned and operated by the king or his rich friends and family members.......ALL set up to milk the colonies of the most profits and wealth possible, at the expense of the colonists.




Real0ne -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 9:58:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

its pretty clear what brits stand for.


Things have changed since that was written, though, RO. The only American we want to oppress nowadays is you. [:)]



Thats understandable since no government enjoys their dirty laundry shaken out in public.




PeonForHer -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 10:06:16 AM)

quote:

From the shipping companies to the slave trading companies to the warehousing companies to the cloth and food trading companies, they were all owned and operated by the king or his rich friends and family members.......ALL set up to milk the colonies of the most profits and wealth possible, at the expense of the colonists.


Thing is, to me, it wasn't so much the physical forces that were against Britain holding on there, but the ideological forces. The control Britain had depended upon consent, which itself depended on the colonists seeing such control as 'natural and rightful'. It was never going to last. People were bound, eventually, to think to themselves, 'Fuck this for a lark'.




Zonie63 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 10:13:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
What do you think?

I think it was a high price to pay, but the payoff allowed others in the world to gain their freedom from their monarchs. The job isn't done throughout the world. But we started it.


There is some truth to both positions, although I think the bottom line is that America is probably bigger and more powerful today than we would have been if we had not had the Revolution. The American Revolution didn't "invent" freedom though, as many of the Founders' ideals had been churning around Europe for centuries before the Revolution.

It was probably a mistake for England to not give George Washington the commission in the British army he wanted. He and other colonists felt that England viewed them as "bastard step-children" and not being granted the same rights and treatment as Englishmen who were still in England.

Also, the point about the Proclamation of 1763 was correct. The French ceded all territory west of the Appalachians and east of the Mississippi to England after the French and Indian War. So the colonists saw the former French region as now belonging to England and therefore should have been opened to settlement by English colonists. That posed a problem, since there were Indian tribes who were also promised land in exchange for helping the English against the French, so the English felt obligated to prevent further westward expansion by the colonists.

I would also question whether the American Revolution "allowed" others in the world to gain their freedom. The French Revolution was a long time coming, although perhaps the American Revolution might have been an inspirational spark which set events in motion over there. But they took a completely different course with the Great Terror followed by the rise of Napoleon. At the time, America wanted no part of any of that, as we remained neutral and detached as much as possible. We did manage to finagle the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon - something that never would have happened if we remained under British control.

The War of 1812 might be viewed as a mistake, but at least the Americans and British realized at that point that we'd never want to get into a war with each other ever again. And it showed the rest of the world (particularly Spain) that we were more than capable of projecting our military power throughout the region. While the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the peace treaty and didn't affect the results of our war with Britain, the fact that it was such a lopsided victory in our favor caused the Spanish to sit up and take notice. As a result, when we started our expansionist forays into Florida, the Spanish didn't put up much of a fight. It also helped give teeth to the Monroe Doctrine and set the stage for further expansion on the North American continent.

Was it a "mistake"? It depends on one's point of view. I don't think the Revolution was a mistake. I think we can give an honest and objective appraisal of our history, pointing out the good as well as the bad. We can look at how much progress we've made and emphasize the many wonderful aspects of this country. Our policies towards aggression, slavery, and expansionism have been since challenged as morally unconscionable and a serious dark page on our history, although it's specious and far too hypothetical to suggest that wouldn't have happened without the Revolution. Besides, even if one wants to take that position, it doesn't follow that the Revolution itself was a mistake; one could argue that the real mistakes were made in the years that followed the Revolution.

I think that Louder With Crowder article spreads it on a bit too thick, as some of the points about entertainment, baseball, and football were kind of cheesy and ridiculous. I think both articles were two ends of an extreme. We don't have to hang our heads in shame or guilt, but by the same token, we don't need to go too far the other way and turn our history into a whitewash of cliches and myths.




joether -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 10:20:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://www.progressive.org/zinn070309.html

Yes

http://louderwithcrowder.com/liberals-now-say-american-revolution-a-bad-thing-15-reasons-theyre-wrong/

No

What do you think?

I think it was a high price to pay, but the payoff allowed others in the world to gain their freedom from their monarchs. The job isn't done throughout the world. But we started it.


Today is Independence Day in the United States of America.

As such, I'll explain later why you dont understand the first article. And that the author of the second is looking at things like a 4th grader's educational level. He's wrong on many parts. For example, that there are many millionaires today has no bearing on events or history that led to the creation of the country. Yeah that article is chalk full of inaccuracies and understanding of US History. If you believe that author 'got it right', your an idiot!




dcnovice -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 10:22:30 AM)

FR

Not sure about the Revolution, but the Civil War was definitely a mistake. [;)]




Real0ne -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 10:33:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Real

Isn't that covered in Article I of the Treaty of Paris, 9/3/1783?


Yes I know, however, it works the same way dealing with the constitution does. Its the substance. You need to look at the 'resulting' construction to determine if in fact the words of the treaty were simply fluffy words or were actually built into law and practice.

The fact that we have titles 'in fee', under a 'sovereign authority', who can tell you how you will live not only in public but inside your home, look at the unlimited jurisdiction they have granted t themselves (and look at the off grid case I posted) frankly speaks for itself that we have feudal construction.

Of course if the day ever comes that you took it to court they would merely flip the meaning of a few words around and nothing would change and the new boss would look exactly like the old boss.



[image]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d141/4dumdebunkers/Blacks/comonlawdefinition_zpse23b0f51.png[/image]

[image]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d141/4dumdebunkers/Blacks/fuedspelman_zpscfba9299.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d141/4dumdebunkers/Blacks/FEESPELMANnathanbailey1730bestSTATESOFTHEVASSAL_zps7a7804dd.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d141/4dumdebunkers/Blacks/ESTATESROYALDICTIONARYINTERESTOFGOVERNMENT002_zps6c613b63.jpg[/image]


people in the US have serf or vassal status and hold their land on the condition they are willing to pay taxes on the land and tenements to the land-LORD-state and hence grant jurisdiction to the ruling authority, the gubmint.

If you go to buy land and do not accept being a serf the US gubmint land of the freedom dreamers gives you the big [sm=sodoff.gif]



Fee simple is an estate in land in common law. It is the most common way real estate is owned in common law countries, and is ordinarily the most complete ownership interest that can be had in real property short of allodial title, which is often reserved for governments. Fee simple ownership represents absolute ownership of real property but it is limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat and could also be limited by certain encumbrances or a condition in the deed. How ownership is limited by these government powers often involves the shift from allodial title to fee simple such as when uniting with other property owners acceding to property restrictions or municipal regulation.

In English common law theory, the Crown has radical title or the allodium of all land in England, meaning that it is the ultimate "owner" of all land. [he should have said soil] However the Crown can grant an abstract entity—called an estate in land—which is what is owned. The fee simple estate is also called "estate in fee simple" or "fee-simple title" and sometimes simply freehold in England and Wales. In the early Norman period, the holder of an estate in fee simple could not sell it, but instead could grant subordinate fee simple estates to third parties in the same parcel of land, a process known as "subinfeudation." The Statute of Quia Emptores adopted in 1290 abolished subinfeudation and instead allowed the sale of fee simple estates. [1]

The owner(s) of real property in fee simple title have the right to own [own means perpetual usage...PROVIDED its approved by the gubmint board of zoning] LMAO the property during their lifetime and typically have a say in determining who gets to own the property after their death. In a sense, one might say fee simple owner(s) "own(s)" the property "forever".

Historically, estates could be limited in time, such as a life estate, which is an interest in lands that terminates upon the grantee's (or another person's) death, even if the land had been granted to a third party, or a term of years (a lease for a specified term, such as in an estate for years). It also could be limited in the way that it was inherited, such as by what was called an "entailment" which created a fee tail. Traditionally, fee tail was created by words of grant such as "to N. and the male heirs of his body"; which would restrict those who could inherit the property. When all those heirs ran out the property would revert to the original grantor's heirs.

Most common law countries have abolished entailment by statute; but many retain the possibility of creating a life estate, although this is uncommon. In the U.S., life estates are most commonly used in the context of either giving a right to someone in a will to use property for the remainder of that person's (or another person's) life, or reserving to a grantor who is selling property the right to continue using the property for the remainder of his/her life. The right to ownership after the death of the subject person would be called the remainder estate. In England and Wales fee simple is the only freehold estate that remains and a life estate can only be created in equity.

If previous grantors of a fee simple estate does not create any conditions for subsequent grantees to own the conveyed property in fee simple title, which is commonly the case these days, then the title is called fee simple absolute. Other fee simple estates in real property include fee simple defeasible (or fee simple determinable) estates. A defeasible estate is created when a grantor places a condition on a fee simple estate (in the deed). Upon the happening of a specified event, the estate may become void or subject to annulment. Two types of defeasible estates are the fee simple determinable and the fee simple subject to condition subsequent. If the grantor uses durational language in the condition such as "to A as long as the land is used for a park" then upon the happening of the specified event, the estate will automatically terminate and revert to the grantor or the grantor's estate. If the grantor uses language such as "but if alcohol is served" then the grantor or the heirs have a right of entry, but the estate does not automatically revert to the grantor. In the United States many of these concepts have been modified by statute in some states.

The concept of a "fee" has its origins in feudalism. According to William Blackstone, the great common law commentator, fee simple is the estate in land that a person has when the lands are given to him and his heirs absolutely, without any end or limit put to his estate. Land held in fee simple can be conveyed to whomever its owner pleases; it can be mortgaged or put up as security as well.

It is often said that no rent or similar obligations are due from the owner of property in fee simple. That is only partially true, for example a rentcharge may exist requiring a freeholder to pay a fixed sum of money closely resembling rent, and many jurisdictions have created financial obligations that may be imposed on a freehold estate, for example in England and Wales, the estate charge. In the United States, fee simple owners are subject to property tax and other assessments for items such as roads and water/sewer improvements on the land. Real estate owned as a condominium is usually similarly owned in fee simple, but typically subject to rules in the declaration of condominium or created by the condominium association, such as paying required monthly fees for maintaining the property's common areas.
Source(s): wikipedia.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple

Ownership 'in fee' simple only means you purchased the rights to the lease your property from the government forever.

If land titles were allodial that would be a different story.

The US Gubmint [without any vote from the citizens what so ever] abolished allodial title that can be seen in the first statutes of the original states and wisconsin in the 1854 statutes to grant themselves jurisdiction over all property in the state and US.

Now the US abolished military tenure but the rest of the feudal structure wh9ich is a bastardized version none the less that gave them the power of a king and the ability to kick you off your rightful land if you dont pay their ransom remains concretely intact.

The short version of a feud is vassal [citizen] ownership of 'rights/interests' in real property, NOT the property itself in which full ownership [in the soil] trumping yours is held by the state and has a fee for services attached. All titles in the US to individuals today are 'in fee'


I will stop there because this is far to large of a subject to detail out.







Owner59 -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 10:45:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

From the shipping companies to the slave trading companies to the warehousing companies to the cloth and food trading companies, they were all owned and operated by the king or his rich friends and family members.......ALL set up to milk the colonies of the most profits and wealth possible, at the expense of the colonists.


Thing is, to me, it wasn't so much the physical forces that were against Britain holding on there, but the ideological forces. The control Britain had depended upon consent, which itself depended on the colonists seeing such control as 'natural and rightful'. It was never going to last. People were bound, eventually, to think to themselves, 'Fuck this for a lark'.


IMHO,if the king had cut the Colonists in and gave them a piece of the action, the Colonials would have happily done business for years and years longer.

The thing that really tipped it though was when the king sent an army with orders to achieve a complete ,un concessional crushing of the rebellion. And then sent another and another.

Fun fact, malaria killed more British soldiers than Colonials did.




Real0ne -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 11:02:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://www.progressive.org/zinn070309.html

Yes

http://louderwithcrowder.com/liberals-now-say-american-revolution-a-bad-thing-15-reasons-theyre-wrong/

No

What do you think?

I think it was a high price to pay, but the payoff allowed others in the world to gain their freedom from their monarchs. The job isn't done throughout the world. But we started it.


Today is Independence Day in the United States of America.

As such, I'll explain later why you dont understand the first article. And that the author of the second is looking at things like a 4th grader's educational level. He's wrong on many parts. For example, that there are many millionaires today has no bearing on events or history that led to the creation of the country. Yeah that article is chalk full of inaccuracies and understanding of US History. If you believe that author 'got it right', your an idiot!



why not look to what is correct about the article joe?

this is from Jstor (more law stuff)

See in england the land used for profit is called 'estates'.
In the US they changed the names from e'state to state :)

[image]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d141/4dumdebunkers/Blacks/index_zpsx7tbzpie.gif[/image]

and united colonies to united state.

do you find that a bit deceptive?




cloudboy -> RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake (7/4/2015 12:00:01 PM)

Your articles point out that: IT'S A MATTER OF ONE'S POINT OF VIEW.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.298828E-02