US War of Independence

[Toby Rowe]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Hi mate,

I stated above the (hoped for) conditions.

If it is 15,000, so be it- It really doesn't change my daily life and I have no Brownie points to exchange.

Do you understand what I wrote above?
Already I feel I'm beng drawn into it- I just wanna see a diferrent perpective, and learn other things.

I actually don't trust everything the media says, I asked for a perspective by people from other natons, and it's SO hard not to defend what you have been taught even if you are questing new info as you are uncertain- think on it.

Toby

[mrmitchell]

Two million Americans voted with their feet and went elsewhere once the war was won, meaning that at best, the war was won with a maximum support of 40-50% at best, and at all times.

Two million seems very high. But your percentages are about right...IIRC in 1776 the colonists started with about 40% support and by the end of the war they had around 50% support...but I doubt the other 50% moved away, probably another 40% by the end of the war just wasn't interested at all.

However, probably a very high number out of the loyalists (90, 95%) moved because after the war Loyalists were persecuted IIRC.

Dr. David Starkey stated that the Colonies ended up paying 1/100th the taxation my ansestors paid in the modern UK, whilst doing the same job.

What was the population difference in the colonies and the UK? What was the difference between tax rates and taxes actually paid?

He also said in this 4 parter that an agitator in Boston only became so once he realised his tea-smuggling ships now sat outside the harbour, with tea costing more than the now tax-free ships coming in.

Which agitator? I'm sure probably at least one of them were smugglers, but the most famous agitator (Sam Adams) was just a bum pre-revolution AFAIK. Probably driven to smuggle by your high taxes no doubt

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe



Hi mate,

I stated above the (hoped for) conditions.

If it is 15,000, so be it- It really doesn't change my daily life and I have no Brownie points to exchange.

Do you understand what I wrote above?
Already I feel I'm beng drawn into it- I just wanna see a diferrent perpective, and learn other things.

I actually don't trust everything the media says, I asked for a perspective by people from other natons, and it's SO hard not to defend what you have been taught even if you are questing new info as you are uncertain- think on it.

Toby

You find your comedy where you will, and I will where I will.

Think on it.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by BlackCat


I can't give you any view that may make sense because I haven't digged into the subject - my newest "source" is the movie "The patriot" and I know that it is hopelessly unreliable - I guess that even americans accept this

If you really want an opinion, I'll say that it's mainly a question of control - brits couldn't control the area so they lost it - actually, if control was easier, then you would have been danish now.

Maybe I should put a plug in the redwine bottle

The Patriot is the most historically accurate account of the war ever produced. This is fact.

[Zkribbler]

You must be using a definition of "fact" of which I have heretofore been unaware.

[Ted Striker]

It's true, it's true.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Toby,

I won't say anything because I'm not unbiased, as you mentioned in your opening post.

But take care to view Canadian perspectives equally skeptically as any. They were just as implicated in that war as the Americans and the British.

I will say one thing though. The idea of the colonies suddenly being given a huge tax hike after the French and Indian War, as Odin mentioned, is a bit of a myth. For nearly 200 years prior to that war the colonies were governed with a high degree of laissez faire and allowed to do pretty much what they wanted. PM Pitt decided to crack down in order to pay off debts, which pissed off the colonists. At least thats my understanding of it.

[Toby Rowe]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

Two million seems very high. But your percentages are about right...IIRC in 1776 the colonists started with about 40% support and by the end of the war they had around 50% support...but I doubt the other 50% moved away, probably another 40% by the end of the war just wasn't interested at all.

However, probably a very high number out of the loyalists (90, 95%) moved because after the war Loyalists were persecuted IIRC.


What was the population difference in the colonies and the UK? What was the difference between tax rates and taxes actually paid?

Blimey mate,

You are actually asking the questions I want answers to- but youre another bloody Yank!!!

OK mate, seems that so far, nobody really agrees on the real US population figures at the time, so what was it in 1776!! The figure needs not a foreign man to be reported- You guys can answer that best.

Taxes paid and tax rates paid is interesting. The poor were on seperate taxes to the rich- the window tax on the rich being a famous example, even the poor laughed at that. (The rich were rich and so could afford a bricklayer to brick up all windows except for the few rooms they actually lived in.)

My area of history is WW2


Which agitator? I'm sure probably at least one of them were smugglers, but the most famous agitator (Sam Adams) was just a bum pre-revolution AFAIK. Probably driven to smuggle by your high taxes no doubt

If Starkey reduced the importantance of Adams to an agitor then he would never have be allowed his professorship I hope- he might not be an A.N.Wilson yet, just give the chap time.

He is a serious bloke, I simply cannot believe all that he said. Or take what he said at face value- He wasn't being radical over the causes, I just didn't belive it over my history lessons as a nipper, hence my request. (The programmes have played on my mind since.) I also assumed that BBC America showed it- clearly not mate.

It's not so much revionst history, but corrective- or not.

Toby

I knew it would come to this.

[Ted Striker]

Seriously though, I read a very recent article in which King George was shown to have a serious mental disorder. I can't remember which one it was, but he would go from a normal person to having spells where he became so mentally incapacitated that he could not administer much of anything.

Earlier he was portrayed as just being a d1ck, but now there is evidence he was physically and mentally ill.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
But take care to view Canadian perspectives equally skeptically as any. They were just as implicated in that war as the Americans and the British.

I say not really not British due to the phenomena that parts of Southern Ontario and British Columbia are said to be more British than the Brits.

Ya think?

[notyoueither]

I doubt you'll find many committed Danish references.

Other than Brits, Yanks and Canucks, who gives a rat's ass?

[Ted Striker]

Maybe the French but they will probably be biased more against the English

[notyoueither]

I doubt even them. They are happier to forget the loss of 'those few acres of snow.'

But if anyone paid any attention at all, it would be them. Boy that would be one conflicted account.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


The Patriot is the most historically accurate account of the war ever produced. This is fact.

As was "The Passion of the Christ". I'm beginning to see a pattern.

[Zkribbler]

Don't forget Braveheart.