Happy July 4 (and Dominion Day)!

[M.Dancer]

Thanks.

Please share your "concerns".

ummmm...happy successful rebellion against your lawful sovereign you treasonous dogs?

[g_bambino]

ummmm...happy successful rebellion against your lawful sovereign you treasonous dogs?

[Leafless]

Thanks.

Please share your "concerns".

Did the colonies in America simply want it all at the expense of poor Britain.

The revolution was basically about 'taxation without representation' and the 'Rights of Englishmen' in the Magna Carta.

But in effect it was argued by the British that the colonist were virtually represented by 'Members of Parliament' who had been elected by similar voters who basically represented their concerns.

So what have you really got to be proud about by taking advantage of political mayhem that probably would have been rectified at a later time.

Or is there more to this than outright greed?

[bush_cheney2004]

....But in effect it was argued by the British that the colonist were virtually represented by 'Members of Parliament' who had been elected by similar voters who basically represented their concerns.

So what have you really got to be proud about by taking advantage of political mayhem that probably would have been rectified at a later time.

Or is there more to this than outright greed?

Yes there was..the very notion of waiting for a later date to taste "liberty" was unacceptable. It was a seminal event to dash incestuous kings and queens and their monarchy to the ground. That is why the "loyalist sheep" were so despised by the rebels.

It has worked out quite well.

[g_bambino]

Yes there was..the very notion of waiting for a later date to taste "liberty" was unacceptable. It was a seminal event to dash incestuous kings and queens and their monarchy to the ground. That is why the "loyalist sheep" were so despised by the rebels.

Please. It had nothing to do with monarchy; Britain in the 1700s was already a constitutional monarchy wherein the King followed the advice of his ministers on imperial affairs. The US rebellion was about the laws of Westminster overriding the local governments of the colonies; i.e. laws that denied the colonists the ability to expand westward unhindered by rules regarding interactions with Indians, laws that granted French Canadians religious and linguistic protections, and, yes, laws that imposed taxes. No matter whether colonies of the British monarchical or French republican empires, until independence, those thirteen along the Eastern Seaboard would have remained subordinate to an imperial parliament. The romance of the American libertarians rising up against a totalitarian king is just the stuff of children's stories.

[M.Dancer]

The romance of the American libertarians rising up against a totalitarian king is just the stuff of children's stories.

Listen my children and you shall hear

Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere....

Revere certainly did not shout the famous phrase later attributed to him ("The British are coming!"), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols; also, most colonial residents at the time considered themselves British as they were all legally British subjects. Revere's warning, according to eyewitness accounts of the ride and Revere's own descriptions, was "the regulars are coming out."

Not to mention that many in the rebel insurgency hoped that the end result would be a reconcialation where they would have local responsible governemnt and remain loyal subjects of te crown. In this regard the rebellion was a failure.

Edited July 10, 2008 by M.Dancer

[bush_cheney2004]

...The romance of the American libertarians rising up against a totalitarian king is just the stuff of children's stories.

Poppycock....conflict with the unwritten constituitonal monarchy continued long after 1776. That's the part you don't understand..."We The People"..and I guess you never will. God Save the Queen and all that jazz.

Christ, Canada meekly repatriated a constitution only in 1982!

Edited July 10, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Not to mention that many in the rebel insurgency hoped that the end result would be a reconcialation where they would have local responsible governemnt and remain loyal subjects of te crown. In this regard the rebellion was a failure.

If this be failure...then by God we shall have more of it man.

[g_bambino]

Poppycock....conflict with the unwritten constituitonal monarchy continued long after 1776. That's the part you don't understand..."We The People"..and I guess you never will. God Save the Queen and all that jazz.

Christ, Canada meekly repatriated a constitution only in 1982!

Again, irrelevant.

You seem to be under the impression that the status of the UK as a constitutional monarchy was the actual cause of conflict, rather than just being a coincidence. You also don't seem to understand what a constitutional monarchy is. Not terribly surprising, though, if true; the structures and intricacies of foreign societies has never been a strong point for Americans. It maybe has something to do with needing to deny their own British roots.

[Guest American Woman]

.....the structures and intricacies of foreign societies has never been a strong point for Americans. It maybe has something to do with needing to deny their own British roots.

Nothing like having a non-American tell us all about Americans.

Edited July 10, 2008 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

Nothing like having a non-American tell us all about Americans.

Meh.. people are free to make observations.

[bush_cheney2004]

Again, irrelevant.

You seem to be under the impression that the status of the UK as a constitutional monarchy was the actual cause of conflict, rather than just being a coincidence. You also don't seem to understand what a constitutional monarchy is. Not terribly surprising, though, if true; the structures and intricacies of foreign societies has never been a strong point for Americans. It maybe has something to do with needing to deny their own British roots.

OMG....more loyalist remorse about what could have been. Next time be careful about which royal ass to which you attach your lips.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nothing like having a non-American tell us all about Americans.

True....when "Merkins do it we are being arrogant...LOL!

[Guest American Woman]

Meh.. people are free to make observations.

And other people are free to laugh at the absurdness of them.

But please, as a polite non-American as opposed to us loud Americans who give political opinions without being asked, keep telling us all about Americans-- even though no one asked you to. Please state our strengths and weaknesses and what we feel the need to do. I actually find that such "observations" say much more about the observer than they do the subject of the observation.

[Guest American Woman]

True....when "Merkins do it we are being arrogant...LOL!

And loud. Can't forget loud.

[g_bambino]

OMG....more loyalist remorse about what could have been. Next time be careful about which royal ass to which you attach your lips.

So, you can't refute what I said. Thank you, then. It's been an interesting, if brief, discussion.

[bush_cheney2004]

So, you can't refute what I said. Thank you, then. It's been an interesting, if brief, discussion.

History has refuted your silly notions.

.....Once upon a time there was an Empire on which the sun never set......

[g_bambino]

And other people are free to laugh at the absurdness of them.

But please, as a polite non-American as opposed to us loud Americans who give political opinions without being asked, keep telling us all about Americans-- even though no one asked you to. Please state our strengths and weaknesses and what we feel the need to do. I actually find that such "observations" say much more about the observer than they do the subject of the observation.

Of course; people are free to laugh at whatever they wish. However, not all observations are absurd, and external opinion can be a good thing to take into account. It can also say much about an individual if they immediately toss away all others' observations in favour of their own fantasies.

[g_bambino]

History has refuted your silly notions.

It's not up to history to defend your claims; it's up to you. It's starting to look more and more like you don't want to take responsibility for what you've said.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not up to history to defend your claims; it's up to you. It's starting to look more and more like you don't want to take responsibility for what you've said.

No, you're still miffed because I handed you your ass about another aspect of American history.....President Martin Van Buren. Sore loser!

Still, the day you stop obsessing about Americans is the end of our "empire".....just like yours.

[g_bambino]

No, you're still miffed because I handed you your ass about another aspect of American history.....President Martin Van Buren. Sore loser!

Still, the day you stop obsessing about Americans is the end of our "empire".....just like yours.

Yes, yes, it's clear now you won't back up your statements about US/UK relations from the mid 18th century on; rather like your claims of terrorism in the 1830s - indeed, good example! Though, at least there you conceded that your example of "terrorism" on the Niagara was "weak." Perhaps, in time, you will come around to admitting here that the UK's being a constitutional monarchy was not the cause of any conflict. You can even throw in a juvenile taunt here and there; I know you don't mean it and are only trying to save face.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course; people are free to laugh at whatever they wish. However, not all observations are absurd, and external opinion can be a good thing to take into account. It can also say much about an individual if they immediately toss away all others' observations in favour of their own fantasies.

Yes, well when you've "observed" the majority of Americans, making you knowledgeable enough to make comments in regards to 'most' Americans, rather than "Americans," as you previously stated, then perhaps your observations will cease to be your fantasies-- and you'll be in the position to be critical of my laughter at your "observations," and justified in your accusation that my knowledge about Americans, as an American, would be merely my "fantasies" as opposed to your great knowledge of Americans, as a non-American.

Until then, I'll continue laughing at the absurdity of it. Justifiably laughing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, yes, it's clear now you won't back up your statements about US/UK relations from the mid 18th century on; rather like your claims of terrorism in the 1830s - indeed, good example! Though, at least there you conceded that your example of "terrorism" on the Niagara was "weak." Perhaps, in time, you will come around to admitting here that the UK's being a constitutional monarchy was not the cause of any conflict. You can even throw in a juvenile taunt here and there; I know you don't mean it and are only trying to save face.

Methinks all the dead people involved may disagree with your "foreign" analyses. But any notion that the UK's unwritten "constitutional monarchy" played no role in the American Revolution is revisionism for unknown purpose, save for the observation that you are the most strident protector of all things Royal. One by one, all the king's horses and all the king's men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

Maybe you could start by actually reading that silly Declaration of Independence.

From Wiki.....

Although many colonists no longer believed that Parliament had any sovereignty over them, they still professed loyalty to King George, whom they hoped would intercede on their behalf. In late 1775, the king rejected Congress' second petition, issued a Proclamation of Rebellion, and announced before Parliament on 26 October that he was even considering "friendly offers of foreign assistance" to suppress the rebellion. When it became clear that the king was not inclined to act as a conciliator, colonial attachment to the Empire was weakened, and a movement towards declaring independence became a reality, especially after the publication of Thomas Paine's enormously popular pamphlet Common Sense on January 10, 1776. Paine not only argued in favor of independence; he introduced many to an alternative to monarchy: republicanism.[6]

[g_bambino]

Yes, well when you've "observed" the majority of Americans, making you knowledgeable enough to make comments in regards to 'most' Americans, rather than "Americans," as you previously stated, then perhaps your observations will cease to be your fantasies-- and you'll be in the position to be critical of my laughter at your "observations," and justified in your accusation that my knowledge about Americans, as an American, would be merely my "fantasies" as opposed to your great knowledge of Americans, as a non-American.

Until then, I'll continue laughing at the absurdity of it. Justifiably laughing.

Well, I'm able to form an outside opinion based on what I see. Perhaps you and I see differently because the American nation portrays a different face to the world than it does to itself? I see a weak understanding of foreign culture and government in the popular media that's manufactured in the US; and I'm sure the messages broadcast beyond the country's borders aren't different from those that reach US television sets.

[g_bambino]

From Wiki.....

Although many colonists no longer believed that Parliament had any sovereignty over them, they still professed loyalty to King George, whom they hoped would intercede on their behalf. In late 1775, the king rejected Congress' second petition, issued a Proclamation of Rebellion, and announced before Parliament on 26 October that he was even considering "friendly offers of foreign assistance" to suppress the rebellion. When it became clear that the king was not inclined to act as a conciliator, colonial attachment to the Empire was weakened, and a movement towards declaring independence became a reality, especially after the publication of Thomas Paine's enormously popular pamphlet Common Sense on January 10, 1776. Paine not only argued in favor of independence; he introduced many to an alternative to monarchy: republicanism.[6]

What has that got to do with what you're being asked to prove? Do you think if George III was an elected president, the situation would have been any different? An imperial power did not want to lose part of its territories, and, as per the binding conventions of constitutional monarchy, the King followed the direction of his ministers, not the other way around. If you want to say the British parliament and government caused conflict through their actions, fine; but you can't pin the cause of the conflicts on the fact that the United Kingdom was a monarchy.