"What we get wrong about taxes and the American" Topic

….Revolution

""No taxation without representation" — the rallying cry of the American Revolution — gives the impression that taxation was the principal irritant between Britain and its American colonies. But, in fact, taxes in the colonies were much lower than taxes in Britain. The central grievance of the colonists was their lack of a voice in the government that ruled them.

The political underpinnings of the American Revolution have been discussed and debated for more than 200 years, and there are multiple explanations of the causes and multiple analyses of the revolutionary dynamic. One question about the revolution that has remained difficult to answer is if a little representation in Parliament could have prevented a war for independence, why did King George III not grant it?…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I'm not sure high taxation WITH "representation" is much, if any better.

"No Taxation, or Death!"

If you dig a little -- it had a good deal to do with land and hatchets????

Russ Dunaway

This is the second thread on how Americans should have stayed with G.B. this week.

Brits lost. Get over it.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

JMcCarroll-
Not the point of the article.

Thresher- Somalia has very low taxes. And, they're underpopulated.

JMcCarroll – We Brits have got over it. Most of us know nothing about it! That article seems to have been written by an American. Maybe some Americans need to get over it, then?

Settle down everyone. The AWI may have been a loss for the Brits at the time; but it has turned into a long term gain. There little American colony experiment has turned out wonderful. Are we not two common people only divided by language. ;-)

Cerdic's right. Tango's endless supply of articles lamenting that America ever happened has been provided pretty much exclusively by the left end of the US political spectrum. But the point is that they have nothing to do with miniature warfare.

Tango, fair is fair. Could you give us in the United States a break and print articles wishing the Mongol Hordes still ruled Russia for a bit? Or articles telling the Irish and Indians how much better of they'd be if they'd never thrown out the British?

Tax evasion? I cut the American Revolutionaries a bit of slack when I thought they were only traitors to the Crown but tax evaders? That puts those scoundrels beyond the pale!!!*

* NB the use of three exclamation points either indicates an attempt at humour or the user has rabies. Please send your answer on the back of a correctly addressed envelope to Tango & ensure you have paid the correct postage.

Time for Tango to dig out articles explaining how we would be much better off if those pesky Normans had not happened. Today we could be like Norway…

(Gunny, mate!)

Well, it's certainly time the Normans apologised

Also, France should give back the land to the Gauls and pay for all the years they were enslaved.

I think its high time the Vikings considered paying back the Danegeld they extorted from us back in the 10th and 11th centuries. Plus a bit extra for emotional distress.

Ha!Ha!….

Amicalement
Armand

Are we not two common people only divided by language. ;-)

Ummmm, no.

It was a conservative revolution, not to achieve freedom but to protect it. Under Salutary Neglect British taxes had seldom been collected.

The Tea Act threatened to place the East India Company (the world's largest corporation) in a position to monopolize American trade.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 kept settlers out of the Ohio Valley, and the Quebec Act of 1774 made Ohio part of Canada.

It was indeed about taxation and representation, and also a whole lot of other things.

<q.'The Royal Proclamation of 1763 kept settlers out of the Ohio Valley'

Those settlers would presumably be wanting defending from the irate inhabitants whose lands they were occupying.

The Quebec Act in that regard was also conservative.

Did any entity identified as 'Ohio' exist in the 1760-70s, particularly in relation to citizens' freedoms of the 13 colonies?

"The Ohio country" was widely discussed. Virginia started the war by sending young colonel Washington there, after all.

And the British Army did a poor job defending settlers during Pontiac's Rebellion. We will take care of that ourselves from now on, thank you anyway.

Those irate inhabitants had been raiding the frontier for more than a century. Turn about is fair play.

link

With the arrival of the Europeans, both Great Britain and France claimed the area and both sent fur traders into the area to do business with the Ohio Country Indians. The Iroquois League claimed the region by right of conquest. The rivalry between the two European nations, the Iroquois, and the Ohio natives for control of the region played an important part in the French and Indian War from 1754 through 1760. After initially remaining neutral, the Ohio Country Indians largely sided with the French. Armed with supplies and guns from the French, they raided via the Kittanning Path against British settlers east of the Alleghenies. After they destroyed Fort Granville in the summer of 1756, the colonial governor John Penn ordered Lt. Colonel John Armstrong to destroy the Shawnee villages west of the Alleghenies.

The British defeated the French and their allies. Meanwhile, other British and colonial forces drove the French from Fort Duquesne and built Fort Pitt, the origin of the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In the 1763 Treaty of Paris, France ceded control of the entire Ohio region to Great Britain, without consulting its native allies, who still believed they had territorial claims. Colonies such as Pennsylvania and Virginia claimed some of the westward lands by their original charters.

In an attempt to improve relations with the Native Americans to encourage trade and avoid conflicts with colonists, George III in his Royal Proclamation of 1763 placed the Ohio Country in what was declared an Indian Reserve, stretching from the Appalachian Mountains west to the Mississippi River and from as far north as Newfoundland to Florida. The British ordered the existing settlers (mostly French) either to leave or obtain special permission to stay and prohibited British colonists from settling west of the Appalachians.

So we can blame the damn'd British State for "Indian Reservations" as well?!!! (it's all right, Ochoin, I've had my shots).