Was the American Revolution Justified

[H. Ross Peron]

Yes (D)

[TNF]

Yes (American, normal, sane)

[Mechaman]

Yes (American, normal, sane)

[Dr. Cynic]

Yes, it was.

[Deus Naturae]

Yes, obviously. Even if you love taxes, I would think that you could at least agree that taxation without representation is a bad thing.

[Flake]

Why would it not be justified?

[MurrayBannerman]

Yes, obviously. Even if you love taxes, I would think that you could at least agree that taxation without representation is a bad thing.

[SWE]

Yes (American, normal, sane)

[ElectionsGuy]

Of course

[DC Al Fine]

No of course not.

[Supersonic]

Traitors.

[CatoMinor]

Why would it not be justified?

At least where I went to high school, the AP US History class was taught from a perspective that chose to focus on the negatives of US history much more than the positives. Part of that included talking about how we weren't really that justified to secede.

If that is how I was taught near Houston Texas, I imagine that classrooms in NYC and Chicago for example, that is more common.

[RR1997]

Yes (American, normal, sane)

Yes, obviously. Even if you love taxes, I would think that you could at least agree that taxation without representation is a bad thing.

[AggregateDemand]

"No" on two counts. The colonists didn't have any compelling reason to rebel, and without Common Sense it might never have happened. However, King George III didn't have any particular reason to chose war over diplomacy.

[Mopsus]

Yes, obviously. Even if you love taxes, I would think that you could at least agree that taxation without representation is a bad thing.

From what I understand, Americans did have representation - in their own colonial governments, which allowed a greater degree of self-rule than most British people had. In addition, those extra taxes that were cause for such a stir in the Thirteen Colonies were levied on us to help pay off the debts incurred during the French and Indian War. I suppose that if the British had known how much trouble these taxes were going to cause, they would have just let the French conquer us.

Now I'm not super knowledgeable about this time period, so I could be wrong about all of this. 

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Yes. While British rule was not that bad for most people and was relatively benign, the colonies were still colonies and were being run in the interests of Britain, not America.

[Cory]

In hindsight it might have been better if the British Empire gave the colonists in America seats in Parliament and America never rebelled. It would only be a matter of time before a version of expansion to the West began and America would eventually become the economic powerhouse of the British Empire.

There is the possibility that the British Empire would be a massive "superstate" of sorts that would be practically unbeatable by any other power by 1850. By 1900 it would take an alliance of France, Germany, and Russia to even stand up to the British Empire, butterflies permitting.

The only downside I can see is that it might take the British longer to ban slavery considering the economic interests in the Southeastern American Colonies but it probably would be banned before 1865. Also consider the Southerners are less likely to rebel against a massive British Empire in this scenario.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

In hindsight it might have been better if the British Empire gave the colonists in America seats in Parliament and America never rebelled. It would only be a matter of time before a version of expansion to the West began and America would eventually become the economic powerhouse of the British Empire.

There is the possibility that the British Empire would be a massive "superstate" of sorts that would be practically unbeatable by any other power by 1850. By 1900 it would take an alliance of France, Germany, and Russia to even stand up to the British Empire, butterflies permitting.

The only downside I can see is that it might take the British longer to ban slavery considering the economic interests in the Southeastern American Colonies but it probably would be banned before 1865. Also consider the Southerners are less likely to rebel against a massive British Empire in this scenario.

We would only become the powerhouse if we united and didn't remain separate colonies. Considering how effective the British were at divide and rule and keeping nations apart, (Sudan, India, etc.) I doubt we would have united and I doubt we would have controlled anything.

[Cory]

We would only become the powerhouse if we united and didn't remain separate colonies. Considering how effective the British were at divide and rule and keeping nations apart, (Sudan, India, etc.) I doubt we would have united and I doubt we would have controlled anything.

That's the thing, the American Colonists would have to be granted seats in Parliament and the "White" Colonies would be incorporated into the British Federal Government. India and Sudan I don't think are good examples in regards to the American Colonies. It's unfortunate but the fact that the Americans are White English-speaking Protestants would go a long way. It's different.

The idea is that this would only work if the British were willing to incorporate the American Colonies as part of the British "mainland", politically speaking.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Of course (R).

[politicus]

Its interesting that so many of you are basing your arguments on the idea that being a powerful great power is an advantage. I doubt that's true for the common people.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Its interesting that so many of you are basing your arguments on the idea that being a powerful great power is an advantage. I doubt that's true for the common people.

While historically being a great power is expensive and often only benefits a few involved in outside adventures, just look at how most european colonies were money sinks, I would argue being a citizen of a colonizer and great power is better than being a subject of a colony.

[Cassius]

Revolutions against government are always justified.

What, all of them? The Russian Revolution for instance?

Anyway, yes, from a certain point of view (that of the Americans who wanted to have representation if they were to be taxed), and from another point of view, no, it wasn't (that of the British government and of the loyalists). Really and truly, nothing can be objectively justified; things can only be justified from the perspective of a certain number of people. From my perspective, no, an armed revolt was certainly not justified.

[TDAS04]

Of course (RD).

[Goldwater]

Of course (R).