♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 7, 2016 14:25:16 GMT
The English Monarchy too indolent to run it's own economy entrusted bankers to do this for them. Banker currency demands a tax or interest for it's creation. Big Lin
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 7, 2016 16:20:17 GMT
"Taxation without representation," has long been trumpeted as the primary reason for the Revolutionary War. Ben Franklin gives us some interesting background here.
The British Empire was at peak then. They had just annexed Australia a few years earlier. They controlled the seas worldwide. France and Spain were antagonists offering weapons and support to the colonies. King George needed to tax everyone and everything to finance the empire.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 13, 2016 14:34:35 GMT
Well, actually, they hadn't annexed Australia till after the end of the War of Independence.
And of course a) the slogan 'no taxation without representation' was just propaganda because if they'd really believed it they would have given universal franchise to all taxpayers when in fact FEWER people could vote AFTER independence than before; b) taxes ROSE after independence; c) the REAL reason for the revolt (which the majority of Americans opposed) was twofold - one the Mansfield judgement which led the slave owners to fear that slavery might be abolished and the other the reluctance of the British government to allow the Americans to steal land from their Native American allies during the wars against the French.
I could say a lot more but maybe later.
Anna, you really do come across sometimes as having swallowed the Marxist interpretation of history lock stock and barrel.
Loads of wars are NOT fought for purely economic reasons.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 14, 2016 18:10:10 GMT
First off Big Lin there never was a single Colonial American slave ship. The slave ships and the slave trade were financed by the very same international bankers, who the English monarchy foolishly entrusted their economy to. The abolition of slavery in England simply meant that the slave trade would be outsourced from England to Portugal and the Netherlands. The tax that the bankers demanded for use of their currency continued to finance the slave trade and other dark agendas. Yes! Truly taxation without representation! The minority of Americans who were duped into buying slaves often became Abolitionists themselves and helped finance the humane repatriation of slaves to Liberia + Sierra Leone.
Without the financiers of the slave trade African slaves would have never been brought to America.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 14, 2016 21:01:23 GMT
Australia became part of the British Empire in 1770 when James Cook charted the eastern coast, claimed it for Britain and named it "New South Wales". This was prior to the American revolution. However, it did not fully become part of the British Empire until the British returned and made a more positive claim by landing the First Fleet in 1788. However the western half of the continent named "New Holland" by William Dampier, was unclaimed by Britain until 1828 when it was annexed to New South Wales. Australia was used by Britain as an outdoor prison as its own were full and overcrowded.
It is only natural that some colonists would oppose independence and some embrace it. Major political issues are always divisive. What's most surprising is that the American leadership thought they might be able to win a war against mighty Britain, ruler of all the seas and the far flung British Empire. What brash impudence.
The American colonies were really a minor player in the slave trade as compared to Latin America.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 14, 2016 22:58:16 GMT
Well, of course, BA, there were two main reasons why the British lost. One was that most of the commanders were against the war and fought half-heartedly at best and both Clinton and Howe (the proof is in letters they wrote) engaged in treasonable correspondence with the rebels. Clinton and Howe both deliberately betrayed Burgoyne at Saratoga as is quite clear from their correspondence with Burgoyne.
The second reason is that Britain was also fighting France, Spain and Holland all of whom were acting on behalf of the colonists.
So the idea of a bunch of heroic Americans winning the war all on their own is just a myth.
And their attempts to conquer Canada were spectacularly unsuccessful as were their attempts to persuade the Quebecois to rise up against the English. French Canadians preferred being ruled by Britain to being ruled by France or the Americans and stayed loyal.
In Canada the American rebels got their butts kicked big time.
Outnumbered and outweaponed as they were the Canadians fought off the American invaders.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 14, 2016 23:02:15 GMT
Well, Anna, actually there WERE American slave ships.
And the British just moved in on the slave trade.
They didn't invent it or do nearly as well out of it as the Spanish and Portuguese had done.
As for your touching faith in the humanitarianism of Sierra Leone and Liberia I suggest you read 'Uncle Sam's Unhappy Child' which shows the sad history of American blacks in those country ruthlessly exploiting and dominating the native Africans till Master Sergeant Samuel Doe's coup.
And your Marxist view of history is just not true.
Ben Franklin SUPPORTED the Stamp Act and the Navigation Acts.
And of course when America GOT its independence it did NOT link taxation with representation. Loads of people paid tax and had NO say in the government.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 15, 2016 18:46:47 GMT
Well, of course, BA, there were two main reasons why the British lost. One was that most of the commanders were against the war and fought half-heartedly at best and both Clinton and Howe (the proof is in letters they wrote) engaged in treasonable correspondence with the rebels. Clinton and Howe both deliberately betrayed Burgoyne at Saratoga as is quite clear from their correspondence with Burgoyne. The second reason is that Britain was also fighting France, Spain and Holland all of whom were acting on behalf of the colonists. So the idea of a bunch of heroic Americans winning the war all on their own is just a myth. And their attempts to conquer Canada were spectacularly unsuccessful as were their attempts to persuade the Quebecois to rise up against the English. French Canadians preferred being ruled by Britain to being ruled by France or the Americans and stayed loyal. In Canada the American rebels got their butts kicked big time. Outnumbered and outweaponed as they were the Canadians fought off the American invaders. Canada, at that time in history, was what we now call the Province of Quebec The Americans were successful at first, but not ultimately. The Colonists did conquer Montreal and fought at Quebec City. Those were then Canada's two most important cities. One of the Generals leading the attack was the notorious Benedict Arnold, depicted in American History as a famous traitor because he later defected to the British. Arnold led the attack on Quebec City but his army was decimated by trudging through the back woods of Maine enroute from Boston. The American armies were also hit with a Smallpox outbreak.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 16, 2016 15:36:38 GMT
Well, Anna, actually there WERE American slave ships. And the British just moved in on the slave trade. They didn't invent it or do nearly as well out of it as the Spanish and Portuguese had done. As for your touching faith in the humanitarianism of Sierra Leone and Liberia I suggest you read 'Uncle Sam's Unhappy Child' which shows the sad history of American blacks in those country ruthlessly exploiting and dominating the native Africans till Master Sergeant Samuel Doe's coup. And your Marxist view of history is just not true. Ben Franklin SUPPORTED the Stamp Act and the Navigation Acts. And of course when America GOT its independence it did NOT link taxation with representation. Loads of people paid tax and had NO say in the government. The Independent American government actively suppressed the slave trade! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol The slave ship "Desire" often called "American" left Massachushetts in 1638 when the English monarchy and the bankers were solidly in control. We must investigate who financed the building of this ship and others + hired the crew. Most likely a banker or a financier, with no allegiance to the Colonies.
The Clotilde en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clotilde_%28slave_ship%29 was built in 1856 by a Louisiana businessman. It could hold a maximum of 160 slaves. This operation was illegal and never sanctioned by the government, which sent Federal agents to intercept the Clotilde forcing it's sinking. QUOTE: When the Clotilde arrived, Federal authorities had been alerted to the illegal scheme. Fearful of criminal charges, Captain Foster arrived in the port at night and transferred his cargo to a riverboat, then burned the Clotilde before sinking it.[1] The African slaves were distributed to those having a financial interest in the Clotilde venture, with Timothy Meaher retaining 30 of the Africans on his property near Mobile.[1]UNQUOTE I don't qualify illegal enterprises as American or associate them with any nationality. The Huntress was another illegal, criminal slave ship. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntress_%28ship%29 A list of the slave ships is here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_ship Any such ships built under English rule and under English control in pre revolutionary America should be deemed British/English since they formed the government then.
Marxist history?? Money is power Big Lin ! Plutocrat bankers + financiers cross the line in using money to control the nations they influence, unlike Capitalist bankers and entrpreneurs. I support Capitalism and am extremely anti-Marxist. DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) Big Lin @menantol interestedbob
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 16, 2016 17:46:37 GMT
States rights were very important when the American colonies got together to form the union now known as the United States. The colonies were proudly independent and reluctant to yield powers to a federal government.
They knew they couldn't fight a war against the British Empire as independent colonies so they got together for that purpose. But on other issues, such as the slave trade, the southern colonies believed that the newly formed federal government had no business intervening. That issue, and many other issues, were felt to be the province of the states rather than the feds. The northern states mostly opposed the slave trade on philosophical and economic grounds.
Those British owned slave traders could just as easily do business with Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, or one of the southern states.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2016 18:24:40 GMT
States rights were very important when the American colonies got together to form the union now known as the United States. The colonies were proudly independent and reluctant to yield powers to a federal government. They knew they couldn't fight a war against the British Empire as independent colonies so they got together for that purpose. But on other issues, such as the slave trade, the southern colonies believed that the newly formed federal government had no business intervening. That issue, and many other issues, were felt to be the province of the states rather than the feds. The northern states mostly opposed the slave trade on philosophical and economic grounds. Those British owned slave traders could just as easily do business with Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, or one of the southern states. That is all true. I believe the way to look at it is that these were thirteen different colonies with some differences in the way they were established and run. They were also different cultures and different economies and, with the war they began to become each independent States each with their own Constitutions before there was a Constitution of the United States. They could each be considered independent countries right through the Articles of Confederation and into the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. Even with the establishing and ratification of the Constitution of the United States, they considered themselves as independent except for things expressly stated as part of that new Constitution. Those differences continued with their independent economies and often quite different cultures. This continued until the end of the Civil War. There is an old truism that historians used in describing this period (roughly 1791 through 1868), that is, prior to the Civil War when one referred to these States in their entirety the phrase used was,” these United States” and, after the Civil War such reference changed to “The United States.” While the Constitution was the same after the Civil War (except for the addition of the 13th and 14th Amendments), the way it was applied relative to States rights began to change. The technical reason is that those first 10 Amendments (particularly the first 8) which had been applied to only the federal government and the separation of powers, were applied differently beginning in 1868 with the 14th Amendment which was the start of applying the Bill of rights to State governments. During the next 50 or so years the decisions of the Supreme Court began to reflect this change. Even so, the separation of powers as represented by State powers in that Constitution are jealously guarded and there are cycles of legal interpretation which reflect this ebb and flow. For example, there are today legal theories which recognize the right of the States to with draw from the Union and to not recognize the position of the federal government to keep them in the Union. Part of the reasoning is that the keeping in the Union (during the Civil War) was by the force of blood of the gun and sword and that Constitutional Law has never been used to remove that right of the States. I believe that it is likely difficult for those outside of the United States to fully appreciate the role of the Constitution of the United States as the glue which holds together 50 separate independent States (countries) and that while we act in many ways as a single country, that is not the end-all belief of all States and Citizens.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 16, 2016 19:46:42 GMT
Very true Menantol. Though we aren't going to have another Civil War, there are still some BIG differences in how various states govern and view the issues.
For instance, California is just about bankrupt because of liberal spending policies despite a higher tax base than say Texas or Florida. The use of the Death Penalty varies from state to state. Those are just two examples.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 16, 2016 22:06:14 GMT
Of course if the US had followed the original Articles of Association rather than adopting the Constitution (which wasn't ratified by all 13 states till 1791 - Rhode Island if my memory serves me right was the last state to do so) the country would be even less unified.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2016 1:56:45 GMT
Of course if the US had followed the original Articles of Association rather than adopting the Constitution (which wasn't ratified by all 13 states till 1791 - Rhode Island if my memory serves me right was the last state to do so) the country would be even less unified. Close Big Lin and most people do not realize that there was a spread of dates for ratification, however, the Constitution of the United States was adopted by a Convention of the States on 17 September 1787 and that was then reported to the Congress where it was sent to the States for ratification with nine States required for ratification and that ratification by nine States occurred 21 June 1788. Those States were: 7 December 1787 – Delaware 12 December 1787 – Pennsylvania 18 December 1787 – New Jersey 2 January 1788 – Georgia 9 January 1788 – Connecticut 6 February 1788 – Massachusetts 28 April 1788 – Maryland 23 May 1788 - South Carolina 21 June 1788 – New Hampshire With these States ratification was completed. The remaining States ratified on the following dates: 25 June 1788 – Virginia 26 July 1788 – New York 21 November 1789 – North Carolina 29 May 1790 – Rhode Island 10 January 1791 – Vermont (Newly formed State making a total of 14 States) The Congress of the newly ratified Congress proposed twelve Amendments to the States on 25 September 1789. Ten of them were ratified by the States (individually) as of 15 December 1791. Some people consider this latter date as the formal beginning of the Constitution because these Amendments were promised to the States so that they would ratify the Constitution.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 19, 2016 13:48:59 GMT
Well, actually, they hadn't annexed Australia till after the end of the War of Independence. And of course a) the slogan 'no taxation without representation' was just propaganda because if they'd really believed it they would have given universal franchise to all taxpayers when in fact FEWER people could vote AFTER independence than before; b) taxes ROSE after independence; c) the REAL reason for the revolt (which the majority of Americans opposed) was twofold - one the Mansfield judgement which led the slave owners to fear that slavery might be abolished and the other the reluctance of the British government to allow the Americans to steal land from their Native American allies during the wars against the French. I could say a lot more but maybe later. Anna, you really do come across sometimes as having swallowed the Marxist interpretation of history lock stock and barrel. Loads of wars are NOT fought for purely economic reasons. Slavery was only abolished in the U.K. in 1833 and the East India company was allowed to continue with slavery. Slave owners in the British empire were also compensated financially for the loss of the slaves. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
The opinion that the Mansfield Judgment contributed to the American declaration of Independence is just the opinion of some historians. This case was not decided in America and I doubt it played a role. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart
5,000 Blacks fought on the side of American Independence. The Loyalists were allowed by the British to keep their slaves. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_Revolutionary_War
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 19, 2016 17:08:55 GMT
Well, I think I know a bit more about this than you do, Anna.
The Mansfield judgement definitely worried slave owners in America and the West Indies. That's a historical fact.
Slavery wasn't abolished till 1833 but it was on the cards for about forty or fifty years earlier. But for the French Revolution it probably would have been abolished in the 1790s.
Yes, slave owners were compensated.
More than I can say for Roma and Sinti victims of the Nazis by the way!
Yes, blacks did fight for the colonists but they also fought against them. And the British freed many slaves during the war. And almost every British soldier who served in the war came back an ardent abolitionist.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 19, 2016 23:12:49 GMT
Well, I think I know a bit more about this than you do, Anna. The Mansfield judgement definitely worried slave owners in America and the West Indies. That's a historical fact. Slavery wasn't abolished till 1833 but it was on the cards for about forty or fifty years earlier. But for the French Revolution it probably would have been abolished in the 1790s. Yes, slave owners were compensated. More than I can say for Roma and Sinti victims of the Nazis by the way! Yes, blacks did fight for the colonists but they also fought against them. And the British freed many slaves during the war. And almost every British soldier who served in the war came back an ardent abolitionist. Many slave owners became abolitionists over time as well. Abolitionists were also strongly represented on the American Independence side of the slavery dilemma.
There was a very naive Churchianity belief that slavery was a chance to Christianise nonbelievers and God approved of this. Slavery never was the economic asset that it's sometimes portrayed as. The harvests were done before and after slavery. In the Northern states on a state to state basis slavery was abolished much earlier than it was in the British empire.
The American concept of small central government and state's rights didn't force the abolition of slavery in Southern states and this led to America's most bloody war ever.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2016 14:29:26 GMT
I suggest Anna that the Civil War (which took many years to develop) was as about many things, economics (re: to the tariff problems of 1828) and significant cultural differences. The way people worked made a difference as the south (over time) was more of an agrarian society dependent on exports, while the north was increasingly a producer of goods for home consumption. The north was also becoming more dependent on the national government and the south was more a lined to State government. This was evident in the ways people saw themselves as citizens. The north was more acclimated to national citizenship while those of the south saw themselves as citizens of their individual States.
Most of these differences existed prior to ratification of the Constitution of the United States and only intensified during the intervening years. This was evident in the way they described themselves. Prior to the Civil War it was most often ‘these’ United States and after the Civil War it was ‘The’ United States.
Clearly slavery was a major issue leading to the war, but it is also clear that if the war had not occurred slavery would have been done away with (as too expensive if nothing else) within 50 years.
As a side issue, there were those in England who were (at least indirectly) supportive of American slavery. That is because they wanted the large amounts of cotton grown in the United States and at that time large numbers of people were needed to develop that crop.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 20, 2016 15:01:41 GMT
I suggest Anna that the Civil War (which took many years to develop) was as about many things, economics (re: to the tariff problems of 1828) and significant cultural differences. The way people worked made a difference as the south (over time) was more of an agrarian society dependent on exports, while the north was increasingly a producer of goods for home consumption. The north was also becoming more dependent on the national government and the south was more a lined to State government. This was evident in the ways people saw themselves as citizens. The north was more acclimated to national citizenship while those of the south saw themselves as citizens of their individual States. Most of these differences existed prior to ratification of the Constitution of the United States and only intensified during the intervening years. This was evident in the way they described themselves. Prior to the Civil War it was most often ‘these’ United States and after the Civil War it was ‘The’ United States. Clearly slavery was a major issue leading to the war, but it is also clear that if the war had not occurred slavery would have been done away with (as too expensive if nothing else) within 50 years. As a side issue, there were those in England who were (at least indirectly) supportive of American slavery. That is because they wanted the large amounts of cotton grown in the United States and at that time large numbers of people were needed to develop that crop. All very true. There is a fascinating PBS Documentary on the Civil War produced by historian Ken Burns. The whole series of programs is really excellent. One of them lays out the causes of the Civil War and runs less than an hour. It's well worth your time. You will find it on YouTube and Netflix.
|
|