How was England in the wrong fighting against the American separatists?

America was part of the British Empire just as e.g. Texas or Puerto Rico are part of the American Federation. The whole "no taxation without representation" is bs - how should the colonies have been represented in parliament in the UK, if they were just colonies similar to Puerto Rico?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1_fijarpw8c
youtube.com/watch?v=t-9pDZMRCpQ
youtube.com/watch?v=rZMmPWTwTHc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>A cuck doesn't understand why a group of people wanted sovereignty and independence from a government that was fucking them
Color me Indian street colors Mehmet

A 5% increased tax on tea, coffee, furs, tobacco and cotton made the yanks chimp out.

Puerto Rico has a Constitutional Path for citizenship laid out that they may avail themselves of anytime. As Puerto Rico is currently a Territory, not a State with full representation, they do not currently pay federal taxes. It seems this is how they like it. You are a retard, that knows nothing of his own history. This would be harsh if I believed you were actually German, but I have a feeling you are only stationed their on one of our many bases.

More like your imbecile king chimped out

Pissed off old senile dad detected
The young will eat the old if you let them

In fairness to the burgers, we wasn't alowing them to Nick the red mans land. So they had to get independence in order to take all of that lovely clay

YOU HAD TO BLOW IT ALL UP DIDN'T YOU?

YOU AND YOUR PRIDE!

well youre government is fucking you now, so not much has changed

You were giving preference to the British East India Co. and fucking us over financially, we got tired of your shit and left. Now we cucked you out of your empire haha.

We were going through a rebellious stage. We're cool now dad, best buds, we even go out hunting kebab together.
>pride yourself in creating a language
>butcher the ever loving fuck out of it
Ayy

>be retarded British Parliament
>start French-Indian war, basically a 1700s war in Syria
>after war is over, decided to raise taxes on American colonists across the board, despite the fact that the war was chiefly for British interests, not for protecting the colonies from "Indians"
>colonists get pissed because hey had no say in the vote to raise taxes
>even people who would have been fine paying taxes are pissed
>british decide to garrison troops in Boston and other places because of brewing rebellion
>force colonists to house Britbongs in their homes
>break up a protest by shooting at the crowd
>start trying to disarm the colonists
>war basically breaks out at that point
It essentially was a giant chimpout but it was for the cause of freedom tbqh

>Puerto Rico has a Constitutional Path for citizenship laid out that they may avail themselves of anytime. As Puerto Rico is currently a Territory, not a State with full representation, they do not currently pay federal taxes. It seems this is how they like it. You are a retard, that knows nothing of his own history. This would be harsh if I believed you were actually German, but I have a feeling you are only stationed their on one of our many bases.
What about American Samoa? And what about Washington D.C.?

>Click here
To be fair they had been dealing with "peaceful noble savages" for years and probably didn't have the patience for shit from people across the ocean.

>>colonists get pissed because hey had no say in the vote to raise taxes
Sorry, but I am sure that if there were like 4 reps in the UK parliament from the colonists, Americans would still have chimped about "muhhhhr taxes is theft". Republicans were always retarded.

>>british decide to garrison troops in Boston and other places because of brewing rebellion
>>force colonists to house Britbongs in their homes
>>break up a protest by shooting at the crowd
>>start trying to disarm the colonists
>>war basically breaks out at that point

That's like Syria started... just that you did not mention the CIA and Mossad.

Because some stupid farmers decided to betray the British and ended up creating a broken system where they are worse off than they would be if they had just thought things through and stayed in the UK. Also, it's not the first time poor people have chimped out because some wealthy, power hungry men wanted to defeat the establishment purely to get wealthier and more powerful.

Republicans didn't fucking exist back then.

The Patriots felt as though their rights as Britons were being infringed; they had quite a bit of support in the Parliament too, but the King didn't want to gib representation for whatever reason. Oh well, his loss

>"muhhhhr taxes is theft"
We would have paid the taxes, begrudgingly, but we'd have paid them

The King dindu nuffin.

It was Parliament.

But the colonists couldn't accept that the all-wise, all-kind Parliament would fuck with them.

So they had to find another cause.

So they blamed the King.

youtube.com/watch?v=1_fijarpw8c

Under binding international law ratified by the US Senate we have an obligation to decolonize, which our government has obviously never had any more intention of doing that the Israelis intend to ever return to their borders.

Whereas the British were only violating standards of decency and common law, international law being at an earlier stage.

PR should either become independent or a state ASAP, but too many people both there and on the mainland are making bank from the status quo for it to change anytime soon.

And I guess you can even defend it on that level, just practically, what else are you going to do? How would it actually help anyone to do it?

It wasn't just that though

One specific thing I can think of is that British shippers not only could avoid the higher tax on tea, but were pretty much ignored by royal Navy inspectors looking for smuggled goods. American shippers on the other hand had to pay the higher tax to ship tea and couldn't smuggle it like their British counterparts

The whole reason the Boston tea party happened was that a group of patriots and ships captains wanted to throw a new shipment of tea into the bay rather than pay the unfair dues on it.

>British shippers
>American shippers

Both the same thing back then. Don't make shit up.

The wealthy colonial landowners, business owners, politicians, lawyers and educated wanted direct control of continental trade policy, taxation, and governing systems as opposed to it being controlled by a distant government. It's pretty reasonable based on the population size, levels of capital and wealth within the colony. Plus the initial colonization of Virginia, New England (not to mention New Netherlands And Sweden) had been, especially with New England almost entirely privately done without the interference of the British government. The rapid growth of Virginia and it's ability to sustain itself both defensively and economically with the cotton and tobacco industries made the British take a more direct interest in the tax revenue potential of the colony. Similarly in New England, mostly from rapid population growth, but also the importance of the fisheries off its coast (codfish in particular, to feed Caribbean sugar plantations and sell to Europe). Note the creation of the province of Massachusetts, merging the formerly theocratic and very independent failed Plymouth colony with other more sparsely and less theologically or ideologically based provinces did not create much positive sentiment. Pennsylvania and New York were also full of a lot of non-conformist and non-English sects.

It has more depth and nuance to it but in essence the "no representation" argument is correct, and entirely reasonable

This, King George III was of upstanding personal character and I really don't like the simplistic demonization of him that occurs in the US.

>be upset with the current state of things
>decide to engage in light banter
>throw a fluffy snowball at the oppressors
>get shot
fuck the brits. They were a bunch of globalist kikes.

wew, typing this got me fired up. had to look at pictures of the Boston tea party to cool me down.

You revolted. The soldiers did what they had to do to suppress a rebellion. And history proved them right, Americans really wanted to rebel.

The heroes of the boston massacre (never forget) were peacefully protesting about the unfair oppression of the american people.

>throws our tea in water
>expects to not get killed
u wot

the boston tea party was 3 years later, lobsterback.

>The heroes of the boston massacre (never forget) were peacefully protesting about the unfair oppression of the american people.

They were radicals who wanted to show their ingratitude towards the British Empire. Be real, how would you deal with people who want to overthrow the government?

>massacre

>>throws our tea in water
>>expects to not get killed
>u wot

Not to mention that it was Twinings Earl Grey, the best tea in the universe.

The revolution began because the colonists' basic rights as Englishmen weren't being respected by Parliament. In the end, they realized they had to fight to assert them.

Of course, the British lost, and their best colonies became independent. But a generation later when they started to face the same problems in Australia and Canada, the British learned from their first mistake and degraded their empire in favor of an almost federal system that presaged the modern Commonwealth. The Crown appointed governors became more like figureheads, and the local legislatures were granted self governance.

So you see, if the British simply hadn't been so pig headed in the first place, the American colonies would never have needed to rebel, and there would be no such thing as the United States.

>tell all the people who love freedom in your country to go settle the colonies because it's so great lots of freedom
>colonies become successful
>"Oi m8s looks like ya had enough freedom, time to nannystate this whole thing"
>they rebel
>didn't expect that

9/11 happened because turrists hate our freedum, hurr

The American separatists were, at most, 1/3 of the population. But they were backed by the French (world's largest army, world's second largest fleet), the Spanish (world's second largest army, world's third largest fleet) and the Dutch (world's fifth largest army, four largest fleet).

It was the combined forces of the European powers who defeated Britain, not the American separatists - and remember that Britain was not a great military power at the time; the British army was the smallest of any major power.

So, basically, the whole thing was a powergrab by a bunch of plantation aristocrats who were terrified that the British would undermine their dominant position. So they colluded with the very same countries that Britain had protected them against. Somehow Americans think this makes them the good guys even when, statistically, if you are American and your ancestors fought in that war, they were probably Loyalists.

We got wrecked by spreading our forces too thinly.
India, Australia, New Zealand, bits of China, Canada, loads of little islands. That takes a lot of firepower and administration.
Also two world wars crippled the economy.

The colonists also chimped out because we wanted to reduce the number of slaves being brought to the colonies, we didn't want slave populations to get too large

And now look, you have a extra large nigger population because you wouldn't listen

Look at it again

I believe they didn't house soldiers in people's homes, they only put them in abandoned/empty homes and buildings.

But yeah pretty dumb of them with all the other stuff.

this is truth.

King George and George Washington had a business partnership to map and take the Appalachian Mountains together. While the outcome of the war dissolved the King's share of the spoils, the work went on throughout the revolution, with Washington receiving funding from the crown while simultaneously leading the war against it.

To the leaders at least it was strictly business. Winning the war was cheaper than paying their taxes.

You almost sent me off the deep end. Thankfully I had this image handy.

They weren't, but might makes right. We with the help of some yuropoors were mightier (or at least mighty enough that the British didn't see it as worth continuing).

The loser is always wrong, you should understand that Heinz

>The loser is always wrong, you should understand that Heinz
How did the British actually lose? They just stopped fighting, they weren't conquered or something.

They lost by admitting defeat and losing THEIR land. So yes they were conquered.

You weren't wrong, George, you were just an asshole.

Different jurisdictions were set up for the colonies than for Britain proper.

If you knew anything about our history instead of meming about it, you would know that this system led to another factor that stoked the Revolution:

When a British military officer would fuck up in the American colonies, and the colonies would seek to try him in the manner they were authorized to by their charters, the Crown would step in and say that he can only be tried in the jurisdiction of the British Isles, be shipped back there, and given a light consequence or no sentence at all.

>So, basically, the whole thing was a powergrab by a bunch of plantation aristocrats who were terrified that the British would undermine their dominant position. So they colluded with the very same countries that Britain had protected them against.


Interesting thought, but consider the following: if the intentions of the revolutionary leaders were purely economic, why would thy risk letting go of a relatively stable and prosperous system for them, to get into a bloody war, risking their lives, their families' lives, their land, and the economy, with a high chance they would all be hanged?

Why did they create a political system with decentralized mechanisms of power- a federated republic with at least two branches at the time, and a legislative branch itself split into two?

Why did they side with private groups and militias gravely paranoid of a powerful central government?

Was economics part of it? Yes.

Was it just a few wealthy landowners that tried to wage a comfortable war from afar? Far from it.

Washington DC is the sissy bitchboi of America. It's used for the benefit of the Federation. They're incredible cucks, even proclaiming their cuckness on their license plates

To be fair, a lot of it was just because of communication, when there is an ocean between you, the cultural and national identity just can't be the same.

The American revolution was a bourgeois revolution. Top down and unrelated to the struggles of most working people.

Actually, it makes perfect sense. Why give tax money to a country that is far away? After the British lost the Revolutionary War. The Brits have proven themselves worth of being America's Friend after World War 2. Even though we back stabbed the French after they help fight the British in the Revolutionary War.

>america back stabbed the french
I hate this meme

They were in the wrong because they couldn't hold it. If you can't actually hold the Empire you built, you don't deserve that Empire.

They weren't - they just lost.

Leftypol pls

>The American revolution was a bourgeois revolution.
Those farmers fighting in the fields sure were bourgeois
>Top down
Not only was it fought by Continental Army and Navy, but also various state and private militias, and with help from men from all over Europe from France to Spain to Poland to Prussia.
>it was also fought by and unrelated to the struggles of most working people.
No matter that the British Empire turned its competitors and colonies into pastoral states to reduce industrial competition through a combination of military pressure, barriers to entry, and intellectual property.

No matter that Adam Smith wrote to the US colonies not to industrialize, for their own good as they comparative advantage in agriculture, while the Isles have it in industry.

Even Chomsky and Ha Joon Chang- hardly pro-aristocracy patriots, agree that this economic element existed and helped drive what would later be termed the "proletariat" into fighting for their economic sovereignty.

>Even though we back stabbed the French after they help fight the British in the Revolutionary War.

>France succeeded in the major strategy of loosening British control of some of its colonies

>France bungles management of various colonies

>Haiti uprising causes them to sell off some assets and recover their losses

>The US expands via the Louisiana Purchase and trades as it suits the country, with whom it suits the country

I don't see a problem here.

>How was England in the wrong fighting against the American separatists?

Winners write the history. Old John Bull got his shit stuffed in. Then the USA killed imperialism across the world, starting with the Monroe Doctrine and followed up along with the Soviets and some cucks in the UN to complete decolonization after WWII.

> Fuck the monarchs.

Simplified here:

>The United States, which grew out of 13 of Britain’s American colonies, chaffed under the restrictions of British mercantilism. Under the Navigation Acts, American goods had to be carried in British ships and Americans were forbidden from engaging in free-trade with Britain’s European rivals. The American colonies were also forbidden from engaging in advanced manufacturing activities. Instead, the purpose of the American colonies was to export cheap raw materials to Britain while serving as a market for metropolitan industrial exports.

Also this.

>literally everybody on the entire planet was in favour of a monarchy until the Republican party of the USA was formed

American education :^)

>Be cucked by Scandinavian "Norman" royals

>Be cucked by the German house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha I mean the Windsors

>WWI which put millions of men through the meat grinder was essentially a cousins' dispute between the King, the Kaiser, and the Tsar

>Free speech and gun rights non existent

>GCHQ outed patrolling anonymous political sites

>Bin that knife

>State propaganda TV licenses

Sure Nige. Sure.

Strawman
Counter to straw man
Poor attempt to counter the counter

Just came back from having a pint to your slag wife tonight?

Tea?

A party?

I do wonder what the world would look like today if the "American Revolutionary War" didn't blow up into World War Zero. Would the French Revolution never have happened because France didn't essentially bankrupt itself fighting that war? Would it still have happened anyway? What about Napoleon?

Would the Thirteen Colonies combine with Canada to create one superstate still under British rule? Or would the colonies 'Balkanize' and form thirteen different but similar countries?

So many questions that will never be answered. Being able to jump around in history and change things here and there to see what happens would be amazing.

Weren't all the soldiers involved trialed for the attack? I am quite sure, likewise - civilians in the crowd started shooting.

>As the evening progressed, the crowd around Private White grew larger and more boisterous. Church bells were rung, which usually signified a fire, bringing more people out. Over fifty Bostonians pressed around White, led by a mixed-race runaway slave named Crispus Attucks, throwing objects at the sentry and challenging him to fire his weapon.

>There was a pause of uncertain length (eyewitness estimates ranged from several seconds to two minutes), after which the soldiers fired into the crowd. Rather than a disciplined volley (Preston gave no orders to fire), a ragged series of shots was fired, which hit eleven men.

5% too much if you ask me

>Would the French Revolution never have happened because France didn't essentially bankrupt itself fighting that war

Well France was doing fine bankrupting itself through the 30 Years War and various failed frog colonization enterprises.

>Private White was attacked by a mixed-race person called 'Crispus Attucks'

You can't make this shit up.

>our government has never had any intention to decolonize

Why aren't the Phillippines American bud? The other shitholes don't want independence and have generally microscopic population

Private White and his alien comrades should not have been there in the first place.

>muh Sons of Liberty
>muh tax collection

Fuck that. The people of Boston didn't want them there. Period. That ought to have been the end of the discussion. And had it been, it might not have come to blows.

>biritain fights war for murican colonies
>wins it
>raises taxes slightly to pay for war
>muricans chimp out
>britain gives half arsed attempt at keeping colonies
>loses them because french massively interfered
>whatever still got India, the only colony worth a damn

Hundreds of years later the Americans are still getting triggered over the fact that their independence was the result of a tantrum.
Mother France decided to side with baby America against Father England and somehow baby America thought this meant they won the fight.

The War cost the French 1.3 billion livres (£56 million), which added a lot to their already high national debt and pushed them past the breaking point. They may well have been able to scrape through their money troubles if they didn't have to spend such a large sum of money on warfare in the middle of it all.

They weren't wrong, they just lost.

> Americans are still getting triggered over the fact that their independence was the result of a tantrum
um literally no one gets triggered by that. We are all proud we beat someone way bigger and stronger than us. The only people that talk about the revolution on Sup Forums are ass blasted brits.

The chimpout was barely about taxes. It was fucking tiny. One thing that they got pissed about was the illegal billeting of soldiers. Despite being told not to they still did it.

Why do you assume when there's a war that one side is "wrong"?

The stronger side wins and gets to rule, that's the sum of it

Because we succeeded

Literally all history is

Accurate representation of the causes of the war.

youtube.com/watch?v=t-9pDZMRCpQ

We've became established and had our own culture.

However similar, are you going to let some king across an ocean you've never seen tax you?

Anyways, we mad tight now and I hope to visit soon.

>muricans triggered

there was the marquis de lafayette, von stueben, and others who supported the americans. and the french definitely helped out as much as they could without getting themselves dragged into it.

things do not change.

> How was England in the wrong
They weren't.

...

>98,000 troops
>without getting themselves dragged into it.

And accurate history of the war.

youtube.com/watch?v=rZMmPWTwTHc

But user i'm a brit.

What did he mean by this?

Meh, they were going to give us representation anyway but we decided our jimmys were rustled so fuck the red coats.

Also SpicRico has every right to become a state they just choose not to.

Hold up fellow muribro.

First and foremost the French Indian war started because Americans were niggers and couldn't keep themselves from charging into the French claimed Ohio river valley.

When they were killed by Indians and French people for what amounted to breaking NAP, they chimped out over how daddy England needed to protect them, never mind England was waging 8 other compaigns around the world

After that war ended, England actually accrued debt from the war so they imposed by modern rates a very reasonable tax on tea. NOT EVEN ALL FUCKING TEA, just East Indian tea like how u might tax grey goose but not popov

This is where we see all the revolution begin

>t. Not retarded burger

A likely story.

>massacre
Wouldn't call it that tbqh. Although many did get shot.
>protesting peacefully
According to the British soldiers present, the colonists were egging them on and yelling insults. As well as throwing objects and what not. Wasn't surprising one of the soldiers panicked, felt threatened and fired.

...

White colonists were not bound by any form of ethics or morality that I am willing to recognize to refrain from settling on land that filthy fucking Indians occupied and wasted with their barbarian nonsense, no matter what empire claimed the land.

And this was another reason Britain had to go. They were intentionally stiffing western expansion, favoring naked savages over white men, which was intolerable.

Now go ahead, preach some multicult bullshit to me.

Seems like not understanding fair taxation and social responsibility has been a part of American culture since the start.

Tbh I always sympathized with the men of that night. Imagine being 6 men alone in Boston and people are throwing rocks at you and trying to make u attack.

>one finger slip, one sharp gleam of what you think is a weapon
>shoot before you realize, it's too late to stop the attack because of the noise

Plus from what I heard the men were all whipped badly and one was branded. The British army treated it as tho it was a bunch of angry dudes mowing down their own people, which wasn't the case at all. It essentially was cops breaking up a BLM protest