Forum dems/libs: Would you have supported the American Revolution?

[Reaganfan]

Just for thoughts and discussion.

[Rockefeller GOP]

And support those stupid gun-toutin' rednecks who think government overreach went too far and opposed the simplest of tax increases??

But seriously, I'm going to guess that the vast majority of people would have supported it (or at least will state that as their position), regardless of ideology.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

no, see avatar

[SNJ1985]

I'm a conservative, and no.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given that I have some Loyalist ancestors, no.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm a conservative, and no.

Absolutely disgusting.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yes, and any liberal who wouldn't (Brits exempted) needs to examine their priorities.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes (normal/sane/republican/anticolonialist/anglophobe)

[checkers]

Yes (anti-monarchy).

[H. Ross Peron]

Yes (normal/sane/republican/anticolonialist/anglophobe)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

lolnaso

[beaver2.0]

I dont know.  With foresight, then yes.

[Intell]

At the time, I probably wouldn't have.

[DemPGH]

I honestly kind of doubt it, but that's with knowledge of how England developed vs. how we developed. At the time I kind of doubt it as well.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I probably would have with hindsight, because I'm not sure that England would have developed as it did had the American Revolution not occurred. Without hindsight I don't really know.

[Boston Bread]

No, especially with hindsight (not American).

[Sol]

I'm not sure--I would be vehemently opposed to integrating the colonies in any way into parliament, because that would prolong slavery. I guess I would, given that the colonies staying as mere colonies in the long term is unlikely.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Let's see..my earliest known ancestors (English and Scottish) would have been in Pennsylvania and Virginia at the time.

Lean "yes", though I honestly wouldn't be surprised if I had some Loyalists in my line.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I'm not sure--I would be vehemently opposed to integrating the colonies in any way into parliament, because that would prolong slavery. I guess I would, given that the colonies staying as mere colonies in the long term is unlikely.

Why do you say that?

[TNF]

I'm not a liberal nor a big d democrat, but as a revolutionary socialist and radical democrat, the answer is obviously yes, I would have supported the First American Revolution (1775-1783), the Second American Revolution (1861-1865), and will, should I live long enough to see it, take up arms in defense of a third American revolution to rid this nation of rule by parasite. It is utterly confounding that anyone, especially those who claim to be liberals, would argue against our very split from Britain, given that without it, liberalism would probably not have really been a thing. The fact that so many 'liberals' would rather endorse the despotism of the crown and the subjugation of the public to landlordism and imperialist dictatorship is a pretty stunning illustration of how utterly impotent liberalism has been since its triumphant and total victory over the slavocracy in the 1860s.

You can't have something for nothing. You can't have freedom without rebellion, you can't have liberty without the destruction of that which strangles it. This is why liberalism is a dead creed, and rightfully so. You belong in the ashbin of history with the parasitic classes that your fore bearers overthrew, largely because you have no vision and no perspective, and no plan for finishing that which you have started.

tl;dr - f##k yes and anyone who says no is a traitor

[Deus Naturae]

I honestly kind of doubt it, but that's with knowledge of how England developed vs. how we developed. At the time I kind of doubt it as well.

That doesn't really make sense. You think being under the political control of England would result in the American colonies being the same as England? And why would you desire that begin with?

[TNF]

The reasons for the revolution were entirely legitimate. The British crown was forcing taxation upon the colonists without consultation of their legislatures.

[Türkisblau]

The reasons for the revolution were entirely legitimate. The British crown was forcing taxation upon the colonists without consultation of their legislatures.

Oh, come on. Even if we did get representation we would have been outvoted in parliament. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that matters at all unless you really do ascribe to the idea that our founders really were not just acting in their own self interest (which is what many marxist revisionists claim.)

My family was actually given a fair amount of land down in SC that was taken away after the Revolution, so:

Given that I have some Loyalist ancestors, no.

[TNF]

If we had representation and were outvoted, it wouldn't have been an issue because what was disputed was not the tax itself, but the principle that taxes could only be levied by representatives of the persons being taxed in question. The fact that the Americans were not represented in Parliament made the taxation levied by Parliament upon them illegitimate.

I don't think any serious Marxist historian disputes that the Founding Fathers (in the sense that we understand that term) were self-interested. Of course they were. They led a revolution in part to protect their own position and to secure the position of their class as the dominant one in the new American republic. Of course, that was also a very diverse group of people, with reactionaries and radicals alike included, none of which really agreed on what should come in the wake of the revolution itself, which is why you had groups like the Federalists and Anti-Federalists emerge in the late 1780s and early 1790s, forming the crux of the political system at the time.

[Lief 🗽]

I would not have supported the 1776 slaveholder's rebellion, no.