Did the Colonists have legitimate grievances against the King, or were they just being whiny little *****es? It seems like their primary complaints were about taxes, but they paid less than a British citizen in England, and most of the time it sounds like they really didn't even have to pay the taxes. Were they really treated all that bad by the King (and Parliament)?
Post Reply
1 of 1
Did the Colonists have legitimate grievances against the King?
4 Views |
9 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by 45-70Ag
colonists everywhere resented the mother country-----consider India, all of the Americas, most of Africa.
Local elites think they can do a lot better if they are running the show rather than some whiney noble in London, etc.
We think we can do things better in Texas than the elites in DC.
Most Mexicans don't much care for the heavy hand of DF.
George Washington applied for a commission in the Brit army and did not get it. He later made them pay.
They had a lot of grievances that don't get discussed much. For example, there is a place in the Declaration of Independence where they complain about the Brits whipping up the redsticks against them. This was easy to do because the colonists were constantly trying to wedge their way into lands the Injuns lived in and the Brits resisted the attempts in a bid to keep the natives pacified.
When the Brits were gone the removal of the tribes began
Lots of other grievances
Taxation with representation is a lot worse than taxation without because of the local elites' love for having the government pay for the internal improvements so touted by Henry Clay and his addled worshipper, Abe the railroad lawyer Lincoln.
Local elites think they can do a lot better if they are running the show rather than some whiney noble in London, etc.
We think we can do things better in Texas than the elites in DC.
Most Mexicans don't much care for the heavy hand of DF.
George Washington applied for a commission in the Brit army and did not get it. He later made them pay.
They had a lot of grievances that don't get discussed much. For example, there is a place in the Declaration of Independence where they complain about the Brits whipping up the redsticks against them. This was easy to do because the colonists were constantly trying to wedge their way into lands the Injuns lived in and the Brits resisted the attempts in a bid to keep the natives pacified.
When the Brits were gone the removal of the tribes began
Lots of other grievances
Taxation with representation is a lot worse than taxation without because of the local elites' love for having the government pay for the internal improvements so touted by Henry Clay and his addled worshipper, Abe the railroad lawyer Lincoln.
From what I can tell, they're issue was Parliament and the King ignoring their rights as Englishmen. It's not the actual value of taxes that was the issue, it was that they didn't have the ability to have a say in their governance.
When you consider the administrative state we live under today where we really don't have influence and compare it to the light burden they faced, they do seem whiny.AustinAg2K said:
Did the Colonists have legitimate grievances against the King, or were they just being whiny little *****es? It seems like their primary complaints were about taxes, but they paid less than a British citizen in England, and most of the time it sounds like they really didn't even have to pay the taxes. Were they really treated all that bad by the King (and Parliament)?
The more legitimate(from my pov) gripes that were solved largely reside in the BoR.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Doesn't matter, not subsisting on crap meals like shepherd's pie, non-Jello pudding or spotted dick.
That right there is real reason we told them to shove it. Their food still sucks.Shife said:
Doesn't matter, not subsisting on crap meals like shepherd's pie, non-Jello pudding or spotted dick.
The list in the Declaration of Independence is a laundry list. Some good, some spurious. Huisache's point is well-made.
Don't forget, the shooting didn't start until the Crown tried to seize guns from the colonists. (Yes, the objective of the British Army that sent them to Lexington and Concord was to seize weapons that had been stockpiled by/for the Massachusetts militia.)
This came after the Crown had placed severe restrictions on the import of guns and the import and manufacture of powder.
This came after the Crown had placed severe restrictions on the import of guns and the import and manufacture of powder.
Corey Booker do you remember this?
And having to pay the debt related to the French and Indian war.
Issues with free speech regarding John Peter zenger, quartering troops.
Issues with free speech regarding John Peter zenger, quartering troops.