Should the Revolutionary War have been fought?

[MRoCkEd]

Howard Zinn (http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22987.htm):

Nobody ever knows exactly how many people die in wars, but it’s likely that 25,000 to 50,000 people died in this one. … That would be equivalent today to two and a half million people dying to get England off our backs ….

Do you think the Indians cared about independence from England? No, in fact, the Indians were unhappy that we won independence from England, because England had set a line-in the Proclamation of 1763-that said you couldn’t go westward into Indian territory. They didn’t do it because they loved the Indians. They didn’t want trouble. When Britain was defeated in the Revolutionary War, that line was eliminated, and now the way was open for the colonists to move westward across the continent, which they did for the next 100 years, committing massacres and making sure that they destroyed Indian civilization.

Did blacks benefit from the American Revolution? … Slavery was there before. Slavery was there after. Not only that, we wrote slavery into the Constitution. We legitimized it

… Do you know that there were mutinies in the American Revolutionary Army by the privates against the officers? The officers were getting fine clothes and good food and high pay and the privates had no shoes and bad clothes and they weren’t getting paid. They mutinied. Thousands of them. So many in the Pennsylvania line that George Washington got worried, so he made compromises with them. But later when there was a smaller mutiny in the New Jersey line, not with thousands but with hundreds, Washington said execute the leaders, and they were executed by fellow mutineers on the order of their officers.
...
We’ve got to rethink this question of war and come to the conclusion that war cannot be accepted, no matter what the reasons given, or the excuse: liberty, democracy; this, that. War is by definition the indiscriminate killing of huge numbers of people for ends that are uncertain. Think about means and ends, and apply it to war. The means are horrible, certainly. The ends, uncertain. That alone should make you hesitate.

Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/029113.html):

It took me a while, despite my Loyalist ancestors, to come to the same conclusion about the Revolutionary War. It was unecessary, like the rest of our wars. For example, the king–a sweetheart compared to almost any US president–would have conceded internal independence to the 13 colonies, so long as they remained officially British. And as the examples of Australia and Canada show, with British colonies that became peacefully independent, there is far more decentralism than in the US, and far less militarism and belligerent nationalism.

[tmosley]

Bullshit. The American Revolution is what caused the British to wake up to the fact that they couldn't simply tread all over their colonists.

The revolution was 100% needed and justified, just as much as any slave rebellion.

[gls]

I support the right to revolution but I can't legitimately support the means used (namely conscription and taxation) to achieve that end.

[Brassmouth]

Bullshit. The American Revolution is what caused the British to wake up to the fact that they couldn't simply tread all over their colonists.

:rolleyes:

Did you think of that all by yourself, or do you have some academic evidence for that statement?


The revolution was 100% needed and justified, just as much as any slave rebellion.

The colonists were not slaves. They were far freer than we are today. At least, the white males were. But as the OP states, the Constitution just legitimized that discrimination.

The genocides of the Native Americans are inexcusable. I agree with Lew Rockwell. Fuck that genocidal "revolution." We would be far better off today if we had remained monarchic colonies.

[Brassmouth]

i support the right to revolution but i can't legitimately support the means used (namely conscription and taxation) to achieve that end.

+∞

[Kludge]

No, it apparently wasn't in the best interest in the British.

[Bodhi]

We would be far better off today if we had remained monarchic colonies.

Can you explain that a little more? Under that system, how do you think history would have played out? It is a new idea for me,(I'm not looking to have you say something just so I can attack it), I just want to know more about what you are talking about.

[tmosley]

:rolleyes:

Did you think of that all by yourself, or do you have some academic evidence for that statement?

Hmm, maybe it's because those reforms didn't come until a long time after the Revolution, and only as numerous other democratic revolutions were taking place in colonies worldwide?


The colonists were not slaves. They were far freer than we are today. At least, the white males were. But as the OP states, the Constitution just legitimized that discrimination.

The genocides of the Native Americans are inexcusable. I agree with Lew Rockwell. Fuck that genocidal "revolution." We would be far better off today if we had remained monarchic colonies.

In for a penny, in for a pound. If you are taxed against your will, you are a slave. Just because they didn't exist under the worst conditions imaginable doesn't mean that they had to roll over and take it up the ass from the British. By your logic, we should all submit to all crimes by government because they aren't as bad as they are elsewhere.

If you want to live under despotism, do it somewhere else. Ours is about up.

[Cowlesy]

Civility please.

[bucfish]

The British were quartering themselves in the Colonists houses and grabbing guns. Once a government goes to grab guns then it is those peoples right to use those guns.

[Steeleye]

http://www.britishbattles.com/images/king-george-iii.jpg > http://www.ts4.com/Quotes/Pictures/ThomasJefferson.jpg

[tmosley]

Can you explain that a little more? Under that system, how do you think history would have played out? It is a new idea for me,(I'm not looking to have you say something just so I can attack it), I just want to know more about what you are talking about.

Likely the Enlightenment never would have taken hold, and we would all be living as feudal serfs with the benefit of little or no modern production capacity (that is, even though we pay more in taxes than did the ancient serfs, our quality of life is better due to the capital investments of our forefathers).

Short, brutal lives for just about everyone. Nobility has a slightly longer, less brutal life.

[Optatron]

no, because violence never solves anything.

[tmosley]

no, because violence never solves anything.

Tell that to the next thug that robs and murders you.

Violence solves tyranny of many types. It need only be used in self defense.

[Steeleye]

http://hu0un.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/slavesDM2303_468x313.74131844.jpg
"At least we have peace..."

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.britishbattles.com/images/king-george-iii.jpg > http://www.ts4.com/Quotes/Pictures/ThomasJefferson.jpg

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Cornwell was more correct than TJ (I assume that's Cornwell in the first pic), but that's an interesting thought.

[Steeleye]

That's George III.

[tmosley]

That's George III.

I pray to God that you were being sarcastic.

If not, you got some splainin' to do, Lucy!

[Mini-Me]

Although there might have been a more diplomatic way to go about declaring independence (or maybe not), the Revolutionary War was fundamentally a war of aggression waged by the British against the Americans, not the other way around. In other words, from the perspective of the colonists, fighting in the American Revolution was nothing less than self defense. After all: The colonists told King George to shove his rule up his ass, and he got all pissy and sent an army over the ocean to subjugate them. The colonists fought back and won. How is that not self defense? Unless you are a pacifist or a statist in general, how can you call that unjustified?

If the Revolutionary War shouldn't have been fought, then it's the British who shouldn't have fought it!

As far as how history would have played out, I believe tmosley is correct:


Likely the Enlightenment never would have taken hold, and we would all be living as feudal serfs with the benefit of little or no modern production capacity (that is, even though we pay more in taxes than did the ancient serfs, our quality of life is better due to the capital investments of our forefathers).

Short, brutal lives for just about everyone. Nobility has a slightly longer, less brutal life.
Without the American Revolution having acted as a catalyst, France may never have had a revolution either, England may never have lost their empire, etc...and, well yeah, what tmosley said. Politically speaking, we might still be living back in the late 1700's, without the past two centuries of experience. Before the people of the world could ever be free, it was necessary for something like the Enlightenment and the American Revolution to happen...and it was also probably necessary for the newly reformed world of democratic republics to again fall deeper and deeper into tyranny, which is where we find ourselves today. Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but thanks to history giving us all these experiences and moving forward in the way it has, I think we may be finally on the cusp of breaking free for good sometime within the next century or two. It's just that, well...we're going to have to go through a pretty rough time first.

BTW, tmosley, I think Optatron was being sarcastic when he said violence never solves anything, because judging by his other posts, he seems to have less of a problem with violence than just about anyone else on this board. I mean, it's hard to tell sometimes, because he tends to be sarcastic in almost every single post, but...along with another recent poster (I forget who...), some of his posts make me think he might be Josh_LA reincarnated.

[Steeleye]

I pray to God that you were being sarcastic.

If not, you got some splainin' to do, Lucy!

I was referring to their style of dress.;)

[tmosley]

I was referring to their style of dress.;)

Good thing. It's hard to read sarcasm on the internet, unless you make it obvious.

[Optatron]

Tell that to the next thug that robs and murders you.

Violence solves tyranny of many types. It need only be used in self defense.

who gets to decide what's tyranny and self defense?

[Optatron]

http://hu0un.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/slavesDM2303_468x313.74131844.jpg
"At least we have peace..."

yeah, show some APPRECIATION

[Young Paleocon]

YouTube - America's Two Just Wars (1 of 5) Murray N Rothbard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clwZbQ5LoBI)

[Mini-Me]

who gets to decide what's tyranny and self defense?

...probably the same people who get to decide whether Mars is red or blue.

[revolutionisnow]

No. They should have all just wrote about their complaints in their vlogs and forums. (diaries/town halls)

[Steeleye]

yeah, show some APPRECIATION

"Why, yessir, Massa. We's greatly aprreciatin' dem table scraps. And much obliged fo' da beatins.

[RevolutionSD]

:rolleyes:

Did you think of that all by yourself, or do you have some academic evidence for that statement?



The colonists were not slaves. They were far freer than we are today. At least, the white males were. But as the OP states, the Constitution just legitimized that discrimination.

The genocides of the Native Americans are inexcusable. I agree with Lew Rockwell. Fuck that genocidal "revolution." We would be far better off today if we had remained monarchic colonies.

Ditto what Brassmouth said.

Violence is NEVER the answer, and look what the American Revolution eventually got us- tyranny FAR worse than what they had in the colonies, and even more apathy among people. Oh yeah, but we got taxation WITH representation. Woohoo! :rolleyes:

[Optatron]

:rolleyes:

The genocides of the Native Americans are inexcusable. I agree with Lew Rockwell. Fuck that genocidal "revolution." We would be far better off today if we had remained monarchic colonies.

Lew Rockwell believes we should've submitted to King George?

[Cowlesy]

BTW, tmosley, I think Optatron was being sarcastic when he said violence never solves anything, because judging by his other posts, he seems to have less of a problem with violence than just about anyone else on this board. I mean, it's hard to tell sometimes, because he tends to be sarcastic in almost every single post, but...along with another recent poster (I forget who...), some of his posts make me think he might be Josh_LA reincarnated.

Wow -- you might be onto something there.

[Optatron]

Ditto what Brassmouth said.

Violence is NEVER the answer, and look what the American Revolution eventually got us- tyranny FAR worse than what they had in the colonies, and even more apathy among people. Oh yeah, but we got taxation WITH representation. Woohoo! :rolleyes:

eventually?

took them long enough!

[tmosley]

Ditto what Brassmouth said.

Violence is NEVER the answer, and look what the American Revolution eventually got us- tyranny FAR worse than what they had in the colonies, and even more apathy among people. Oh yeah, but we got taxation WITH representation. Woohoo! :rolleyes:

Right, so it's never worth it to fight for something better, since it will all just become worse eventually. Why bother getting up? You'll just have to go back to bed again. Why bother eating? You'll just get hungry again.

The problem with fighting for your freedom is that it causes apathy, therefore don't fight, but just be apathetic?

There's a lot of dumb in this thread. :rolleyes:

[Agent CSL]

Let me enlighten you for a moment. There will never be a perfect system. It is the law of nature and the nature of humanity that pushes and turns a wheel of time. There are some who wish to be left alone, to be left to make their own life; and there will always be those who want to enforce their own views upon others under the guise of protecting or saving them. Over a period of time the balance shifts and there will be more of one kind. Right now, we are seeing a country where over 60% (based on congress) of the population chooses peace through apathy and dependence on a system which hates them. Given time, the balance will shift back after those who chose apathy say "hey, wait a minute" and finally find the courage to take back what they are losing.

The American Revolution was absolutely necessary, as are many revolutions. The American Revolution turned violent because the King chose to send armies to confiscate guns, food and shelter from colonists. This on top of heavy taxes from an infant economy. The English government wouldn't listen so they did the final thing they could and fight.

Who knows what might have been if everyone had just laid there like a dead fish flopping around. But are you willing to take that chance? When an individual realizes they can take advantage of a situation, they will. The same goes for businesses and governments. You always need to lay your boundaries and your foundation for your own freedom, and if anyone steps over these boundaries and will not listen to logic, it's time to protect yourself in self defense.

There will never be utopia or true freedom, but we can at least attempt to get close to it. It is noble to fight for your right to exist the way you see yourself existing. The early Americans examined this and chose their path to freedom.

[ScoutsHonor]

Let me enlighten you for a moment. There will never be a perfect system. It is the law of nature and the nature of humanity that pushes and turns a wheel of time. There are some who wish to be left alone, to be left to make their own life; and there will always be those who want to enforce their own views upon others under the guise of protecting or saving them. Over a period of time the balance shifts and there will be more of one kind. Right now, we are seeing a country where over 60% (based on congress) of the population chooses peace through apathy and dependence on a system which hates them. Given time, the balance will shift back after those who chose apathy say "hey, wait a minute" and finally find the courage to take back what they are losing.

The American Revolution was absolutely necessary, as are many revolutions. The American Revolution turned violent because the King chose to send armies to confiscate guns, food and shelter from colonists. This on top of heavy taxes from an infant economy. The English government wouldn't listen so they did the final thing they could and fight.

Who knows what might have been if everyone had just laid there like a dead fish flopping around. But are you willing to take that chance? When an individual realizes they can take advantage of a situation, they will. The same goes for businesses and governments. You always need to lay your boundaries and your foundation for your own freedom, and if anyone steps over these boundaries and will not listen to logic, it's time to protect yourself in self defense.

There will never be utopia or true freedom, but we can at least attempt to get close to it. It is noble to fight for your right to exist the way you see yourself existing. The early Americans examined this and chose their path to freedom.

This really says it all. :)

[ChaosControl]

Absolutely. Sure bad things happened during it as they do during all wars but the overall cause was a just one. Likewise a modern American Revolution would be just as well. Now, if we can achieve freedom without a war that is obviously ideal, but that doesn't mean that a war is unjust as a last resort.

[Aurelia]

The thing is, these people were volunteers dying for their own land. Who is somebody else to tell them that this is wrong? This isn't the damn Iraq war we are talking about. Yes, lots of lives were lost, but if somebody wanted to avoid fighting it wasn't like they couldn't disappear. This would have had social consequences (maybe), but the point remains. There was always Mexico, there were no ID cards, etc.

It's also not only Britain we're talking about--it also indirectly caused the fall of the Spanish empire. Most of the Latin American revolutions then started around 1810 and eventually all crumbled. Not to mention the colonies in the Caribbean. This revolution was the start of it all and laid the foundation for good government.

How is it possible that these people are saying it never should of happened, oh gods of capitalism and self-interest? I think it goes to show that everybody says stupid things sometimes, even if they are generally smart people.

[ScoutsHonor]

Absolutely. Sure bad things happened during it as they do during all wars but the overall cause was a just one. Likewise a modern American Revolution would be just as well. Now, if we can achieve freedom without a war that is obviously ideal, but that doesn't mean that a war is unjust as a last resort.

Agree completely. No way I can view our founding fathers with anything but the
greatest admiration. (especially Thomas Jefferson :))