- Were the Americans justified in their rebellion against Great Britain? Or were they just complaining about having to pay their fair share? Explain your opinion using at least two pieces of supporting evidence.
After your initial post, reply to at least two other student postings offering evidence to further their point or to disagree with their perspective. - Closes Sunday night at 11:59 pm.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Discussion Posting:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is my belief that the Americans responded appropriately to the actions of the British and that rebellion was justified through the British taxing the colonists without representation, and because of the Intolerable Acts. The Americans my have held "virtual" representation in government, being British citizens, however they were never given a real voice in parliament. How can it be appropriate for the British to tax the colonists without at least letting them have a say in the matter. Secondly, the quartering act and the intolerable acts, including the Boston port act, were as the name says "intolerable". How would you feel if soldiers showed up at your house expecting food and board, or if the British suddenly decided to shut down all trade and travel in the area, which at the time was supplied by sea routes. Finally, I believe the Americans were justified because of the involvement of the Hessians in the fighting. This introduction of a third party would have seemed as an act of oppression to the colonists
ReplyDeleteI agree to the most part, but the English were justified in the "Boston Port Act". All they asked was for colonies to pay for the cleaning of the harbor and to ensure safety of future cargo. It is very similar to a parent saying, "I won't buy you more toys till you clean up your current toys." The little kid refuses to pick up his/her toys, and when is refused a barbie, transformer, or stuffed animal exclaims, "It's not fair!" England's tea companies were already going bankrupt, why should they give Americans more tea to throw away?
Deletein my opinion the colonists were being justified because England was basically doing whatever they want and charging them for unnecessary items to increase their own profit. England passed many acts just to increase. Also they restricted the colonists from settling in the new land the colonists had just fought for in the seven years war. http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/332/9/f/ben_franklin_vs__zeus_by_sharpwriter-d4hjp6a.jpg
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion but i feel like there is more to the rebellion then just taxes, profit, and land settlements.
DeleteChelsa Jensen
In my opinion, the colonists were very well justified in taking up rebellion against England. The King and Parliament were enforcing way too many unnecessary taxes/duties, on colonists who shouldn't have been paying those. England was just trying to increase their personal gain, and were squeezing as much money and raw goods out of the colonies as they could. This was really rude of the English government, and the colonists were completely justified in lashing out and trying to create a better environment for themselves. Another thing that the colonists did not appreciate was the fact that the King had complete and total rule over every aspect of colonial and British life. He wouldn't let colonists choose what to be taxed on and had the final say in everything. And all he wanted was money and power! So i feel like the colonists were justified in trying to make the world better for themselves, instead of for England.
ReplyDeleteI agree that England did not have the best intentions, but then again who did? Colonists did not mind England's control until it effected their pocket book. All throughout history everything is based around money and power. That is all the colonists wanted. They wanted power to control themselves, the money gained from more land, and to get rid of the taxes from England that effected them. Still to this day a majority is run by power and money and the desire for more. So why blame the English for wanting money to pay for wars?
DeleteBut these taxes and acts caused by the British did not only affect the colonists pocket book it also affected their way of lives and the security of their homes. The quartering act allowed random British soldiers to appear at your doorstep and ask for food and shelter. They could take your food that you had saved for winter and leave you and your family starving. The Americans were justified in their rebellion because it affected their safety not only their money
DeleteI believe that the colonists were justified in rebelling against England. It was unfair of the king and Parliament to impose all these taxes on them because they had no say or a way of voting against these taxes and when the colonists tried to speak out the king completely ignored them. England had no respect for the colonies and didn't even bother in responding to their petitions. Instead they mistreated the colonists and only did what benefited England.They had no consideration about what was best for the colonies or for what they wanted. For example, they made the Proclamation of 1763 to stop colonists from expanding because it would harm England even though that was the main reason the colonists fought in the Seven Year War. Also, they wouldn't allow them to trade with anyone besides England so they could raise the prices to make a better profit. They put so many restrictions on the colonists and showed so little interest in their wants that anyone would have rebelled against them and no one else would blame them for doing so.
ReplyDeleteYeah Britain was doing the whole taxation without representation thing and that didn't go over too well with the colonists. The colonists only had "virtual" representation in the parliament. Britain: "Oh don't worry colonists you ARE represented....by us." Unfair.
DeleteI believe that the Americans were justified in the way that they behaved because of the way the British enforced and upheld the "laws" or acts to justify why they were taking taxes and regulating trade. I believe that the Americans were seeing how unfair it was that they didn't have a say in anything that was happening to them because they didn't have virtual representation.
ReplyDeleteChelsa Jensen
I think that the American colonists were justified in their rebellion against Great Britain. King George and Parliament were taxing the colonists without any representation and passing acts that took away colonists rights in general. The many acts passed like The Stamp Act and The Quartering Act were only two of the acts that caused the colonists to become fed up with Parliament and everything Britain stands for. The freedom that colonists once had to govern themselves was taken away, they were not fairly represented in parliament, and there was no trial by jury for the colonists. On top of taxes and basic rights being taken away, the colonists just fought a long war (French and Indian war) and won but now can't even reside at the place they fought seven plus years for. Britain wasn't allowing colonists to expand westward at all. Once the Proclamation of 1763 was passed colonists were stuck where they were. Even though they helped fight with Britain against the French, Colonists felt used and cheated out of much invested time and I feel like it was definitely necessary for them to rebel.
ReplyDeleteI see where you are coming from but I believe that the Americans may have been slightly out of line with their rebellion. They were a part of the British government and under the ruling of the King. Parliament set rules and the people of Brittian had to follow their rules and laws or be punished and that is the way that every government works. If you don't follow the rules, their will be a consequence. The colonists were feeling rebellious and free with their new found land and their recent victory. They decided to take on Brittain and challenge their King just because they didn't like the new laws and taxes but that was very childish of them. They basically threw a temper tantrum to try and get what they wanted instead of being mature. We have taxes now but we don't threaten our tax collectors and dump our goods into rivers.
DeleteThis is mackenzie kitchen. I agree with Mia, it's not like England was all at fault, English had been paying taxes for stuff years earlier. America is just whiny. I like Canada
DeleteThe American colonists were not justified in their rebellion against Britain. England was paying the taxes way before America, and Britain was trying to get colonists to pay for their own militia expenses. Second, if the colonists received the opportunity for representation they would not use the right. This is supported by the fact that it was hard to get colonies to meet together within their own lands, what would make a representative cross the ocean? So "taxation without representation" is just lip service to fuel colonial anger.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with what you're saying! The colonists were offered the opportunity to represent themselves in Parliament, but turned it down because they were rebelling. They then used "taxation without representation" to support and fuel their anger toward Great Britain, like you said. It was unreasonable of the colonists to blame someone else for their choices.
DeleteIn my opinion, American colonists were justified in their rebellion against Britain. The cost of the 7 years war was unjustly placed on the shoulders of the american colonists, and this caused resentment in the colonies. The benefits of land that were gained in the war were also restricted by the proclamation line of 1763. When colonists pushed for the repeal of the stamp acts, their requests were completely ignored by the King. Colonist took this as a sign that the British government no longer supported their best interests. Finally, the declaratory acts took away any liberty the colonies had left by giving the King of England complete authority over the colonies. These wrongs committed by the King justified the rebellion of the american colonies.
ReplyDeleteI agree the colonists were unfairly denied the land they had fought for in the 7 years war. Also and although Britain did eventually repeal the stamp act, they wanted the colonists to know that they did it because they wanted to, not because the colonists made them.
DeleteI completely agree that the colonists should have been allowed to move west of the proclomataion line of 1763 and that the colonists had been unjustly treated by being denied the benefits of the war that they had already won. Then the colonists were forced to pay for the war even though they were being denied their rightfully earned land from the British
ReplyDeleteI would agree because the population was increasing faster than Britain, and the only way for the colonies to expand was by moving west.
DeleteI agree, the King was not giving the colonists any options. They had to pay unrepresented taxes AND were not able to expand in colonization so the king gave them no choice but to start a revolution for their own independence.
DeleteI think that the American colonists were justified in their rebellion against Britain. Britain was taxing them unfairly and passing unfair laws without the colonist's voice in the parliament. The colonists had just fought a 7 year long war for the land west of the Appalachian mountains and Britain was like "Sorry guys, we aren't going to allow you to step foot in what you just fought a big war for so you are pretty much getting nothing out of this entire deal" The law was ignored for the most part but the very thought that Britain would even THINK that was fair made the colonists angry. Another thing was the many different acts the parliament put on the colonists. Like the Quartering Act? Seriously? Imagine you come home after a long work day and as soon as you sit down KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK. There is a group of about 7 British soldiers at your door. One of them says "Hey we are gonna crash here tonight what's for dinner?" You would probably feel how the colonists felt; angry, mistreated, and helpless because Britain wouldn't even listen to you if you complained. And the Stamp Act? Britain was bankrupt from the 7 years war and basically told the colonists they were going to have to pay it back. Seems fair right? I think the colonists made the right choice when they decided it was time for a change.
ReplyDeleteGood point about the Quartering Act. It definitely angered the colonists and gave them a right to try to fix it.
DeleteI agree and I like the way you said your point. Its very to the point. It is very understandable. But I think you should have also put the tea act in there because that was also a big part.
DeleteThe Americans were not justified in their rebellion against Great Britain , for many reasons. For one, the majority of laws and acts they were upset by had already been created, and although Great Britain had never enforced them, Parliament held the right to put them into effect as necessary. Granted, the Proclamation Line of 1763 was a bit harsh, especially since the Americans had just fought the French and Indian War for the land that was restricted, but the line was created to avoid yet another war while Britain was still in debt from the last. Additionally, the taxes that the British imposed were to fund an American military, so the Americans should have been contributing since the taxes were for their benefit and protection. Americans were also upset by being taxed without representation, although no Americans were even willing to go back to Parliament to represent the colonies when the British offered the opportunity to. Great Britain's laws were reasonable and just, but the colonists were stubborn and unwilling to compromise. Therefore, the Americans were not justified in their rebellion against Great Britain.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the American colonists were unjustified in their rebellion against Britain because the taxes that Britain was imposing on the colonists were only to get the money for the debt of the war. It was fair for the colonists to pay the taxes because that was how Britain was paying the debt.
DeleteI think that the Americans were justified in rebelling against the British. The British were just exploiting the colonists. A law that confides you in only trading with British so that you are limited to the amount of profit you can make, wouldn't you be mad?
DeleteI see where you're coming from, but technically, the colonies were a part of Great Britain. It would only make sense that goods from the colonies would first be shipped to Great Britain, especially since both the colonies AND Britain were in debt from the French and Indian War. If colonists were the only people profiting from their goods, then the British as a whole (Great Britain and the colonies) would remain in debt.
DeleteThe Americans had every right to be justified as they rebelled. First off the British were not listening to the Americans opinions instead they just swatted them off like flies. The British were taxing the Americans and passing laws that made the Americans feel mistreated or used. The Quatering Act was where you had to feed and shelter the redcoats without any hesitation, just think you had no idea when that would happen either. So I believe the Americans had every right to rebel.
ReplyDeleteBut the British were fighting a war for the colonies, so it would make sense for the redcoats to take shelter in the homes of colonist. The redcoats didn't know the weather conditions, so if they didn't take shelter then they would've died from diseases that were worsen by the cold or hypothermia. This would've given the French and Indians a huge advantage in numbers as well. After the war, England was in huge debt, so the best way that they thought of making money was by taxing the colonist.
DeleteI agree with you Tanis but I think sense you were talking about the Quartering Act you could talk more about how they did this because they were bringing more soldiers over seas. This brought up questions on why they needed more troops especially after they just faught a war. -DENI ORTIZ
DeleteThe American colonists were not justified in their rebellion against Great Britain. Britain had the right to tax the colonists because first of all, the colonists were still part of the country and under the rule of the king, and second, Britain had just fought a huge war for the colonists and they were in a massive debt; it would only be fair for the colonists to pay their fair share of the money that was owed from the war. Parliament also had the right to enforce any laws as necessary. Although the Proclamation of 1763 was a bit harsh, mainly because the colonists had just fought the French and Indian war to win the land west of the Appalachian mountains, it prevented the possibility of another war.
ReplyDeleteyou brought up good points but you also have to think how harshly the king and parliament treated the colonist. The parliament could have avoided this easily if they were not so immature about how they handled the situation. They could have let the colonist pay the debt with their own taxes. It may have been slower process but in the long run it would have been more efficient. -DENI ORTIZ
DeleteI do see your points but I have to disagree. Yes, the colonists were a big debt to the British, but how they went about taxing them was unjust. Think of yourself in the position that the colonists were in, they were just trying to get by, but the British steps in taxing anything and everything! I know that I would be very angry with the British especially because I wasn't considered. It would have been a completely different story if from the beginning if the colonists were FAIRLY represented,
DeleteI agree with your points and the fact that Parliament had the right to tax and enforce laws as necessary.
DeleteI agree with you. The colonies were always part of Britain, and Britain always had the right to tax the colonies. The French and Indian War was fought for the colonists. So, they have to pay their fair share of the debt. Plus, the Proclamation of 1763 was to keep the colonies from another war and an even bigger debt.
DeleteThink about it though: the government taxes us in America today, and we don't have an issue with most of them, and since the colonists were part of Britain it was only right that they pay taxes to the country they are part of. All Britain was doing was trying to get the colonists to pay for their fair share, especially since the French and Indian War was pretty much the colonists' fault.
DeleteThe colonist had every right to rebel against the Britain's. Not only were they treated poorly but they had no say in parliament. Any example of this is when the "Stamp Act Congress' sent a letter to parliament and was completely ignored. The colonist were pushed to the point that they felt it was very necessary to succeed from Great Britain. I think this because were many times the parliament could have easily made things right, but instead they kept on destabilizing the colonist lust for freedom and equality by adding many new and unheard of laws like the "Stamp Act", "Proclamation Act", and "The Intolerable Act". All these laws added many new taxes on things that the colonist thought were out rages. Not only added were the colonist upset but so was King George the 3rd, He and the parliament responded to the rebellious colonist very irresponsibly by ignoring the colonist and trying to fight fire with fire. -DENI ORTIZ
ReplyDeleteI agree that the colonists had many reasons to rebel and they were treated unfair, but I wonder if it really changed anything. In modern America we pay taxes and that is accepted nationwide. We know that the money we give to the government goes to important things and we agree to pay it.
DeleteI agree completely with what Deni is saying about the colonists reasons for rebelling against Britain. When the king and parliament ignored the colonists completely and didn't even acknowledge the fact the colonists were in distress. They were trying to reach out to the King and Parliament and they really thought the best way to handle it was to ignore them? By parliament doing that it left colonists with no choice but to rebel. Their voices were not being heard and they were not being treated as an equal at all.
DeleteI also agree with all of Deni's reasons, especially the one about Parliament having numerous opportunities to make things right. The most infamous one would be ignoring the Stamp Act Congress, of course, but on top of that, Parliament could have stop taxing and oppressing the colonies at any point. Instead, they kept the iron fist on them, and eventually pushed them to the brink of revolution. -MEAGAN NEU
DeleteYo deni how was your Saturday night? And yeah I disagree with you, just like Mia said we pay taxes now...Britian was paying taxes before colonists showed up. Everybody pays taxes, America can suck it up. This is mackenzie kitchen over and out
DeleteI believe that the Americans were justified with their rebellion. Britain began taxing the colonists without warning to pay for the expenses of the war. The items taxed were every day items that were now an inconvenience because of the raised price. This annoyed the colonists because they could not do anything about it and when they tried, they were not even looked at. Their proposal was ignored and wasn't even considered. The colonists realized that they were not seen as equals and they knew they must do something about it because after all, if you want something done you need to do it yourself. They were also denied the land that they had fought for seven (more like nine) years for. They were paying taxes for a war that won them virtually nothing because Britain took their right to settle in the land away.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all your reasons in the colonists rebellion against Great Britain. The colonists in my opinion were pushed to their limits when it came to being taxed on silly things like paper and tea and were fed up. They only way they felt their voice could be heard was if a rebellion started and that is what got Parliament and the King to finally realize they should do something about the taxes. After the Boston Tea Party, Parliament and the King could no longer just ignore the colonists they had to do something.
DeleteI agree with all your reasons as well, especially with the colonists not being seen as equal. The colonies whole purpose for existing was to expand the British Empire, and with England pushing them away, they were ultimately left with almost no choice but to revolt. -MEAGAN NEU
DeleteAmericans were completely justified in rebelling against British rule. The inequitable taxes, biased laws aimed at only aiding the British parliaments and salutary neglect, it was no surprise the Americans were angered to the point of the revolt. The term “taxation without representation” was a slogan used by colonists to summarize the British tyranny over the colonists. It was used to enrage colonists about being underrepresented in British parliament. Laws such as the “Stamp act” and “Quartering Act” showed to the people that the British were trying to exploit the colonists to make profit off of them. The geographical boundaries set on the colonies were another reason for rebellion. The timing of passing the proclamation of 1763 couldn’t have been timed worse. Colonists had just spent 9 years fighting the French and Indian war for the right to settle over more land. The British took away this newly won freedom and offended many of the Americans. Colonists felt like their rights as Englishmen were under attack. Americans worked hard to survive and just wanted to be fairly represented and taxed. Like an abusive relationship, one can only handle so much before a person will leave. The British gave to many reasons for the colonists to hate them. Americans fought for their freedom and created one of the greatest and most powerful nations in the world, founded on the belief that all men are created equal.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely that the British were using the colonies. The abusive relationship analogy works perfectly!
DeleteI agree in every way. Especially how Americans worked hard to survive part. They did and England didn't even help them a lot. Also they should have been better represented because they were also a major helper for England's economy.
DeleteI agree but the British were doing what they thought was right. They were in debt and needed to pay it off so they did the only reasonable thing to do and that was to tax.
DeleteI agree I can see why Britan thought it was the right thing to tax the colonists, and i can see why the colonists were pissed off. In the end it didnt work out for the British at all.
DeleteDespite Britain's claims that the taxes were being used for American's military force,the Americans were justified in their rebellion because the colonies were being expended by England, and the time for the rising of the new nation was nigh.
ReplyDeleteThe American colonies were being taxed left, right, and center. The colonists were being taxed not for their own good, but to help Britain pay off the increasing debt after the Seven Years War. Also, taxes were not the only issue. The many acts passed by the Parliament, such as the quartering of military personnel and Navigational Acts, put restrictions on the growing nation . The ever tightening fist of the British used the colonies, and did not try to benefit them; countless monopolies ruled over the trading system such as the British East India Company. Thus, leaving it clear that England was using the colonies at their own likelihood.
Another reason the American's were justified in their rebellion was the clear evidence that it was time for the new nation to claim independence. There are many factors that played into the colonies growing to be more "American" some of which include celebrating their own holidays and also the fact that the average age for a colonist was sixteen: meaning that most colonists were "American" born. The ideas in Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" indicated the greatness that the United States, together without Britain, would hold, and explored the thought of power in independence. The colonies were no longer small settlements dependent on their mother country but a vast nation full of new thoughts like Republicanism. Americans were on the beginning road of creating a "city upon a hill," that even England could aspire to be. Britain could no longer contain the new nation.
The restricting, demanding acts, and the influential ideas of independence surging through the colonies absolutely justifies the rebellion against their mother country.
The colonist had the right to rebel against England. It seemed like Britain wanted the colonies only for themself because England wouldn't let the colonies trade with other countries. To make matters worse, Britain set up many ridiculous acts to gain profit from the colonies. For example the Stamp Act angered the colonist causing them to set up a Stamp Act Congress and sent a letter to the King, which of course they ignored. The colonist were upset so then they started rebelling because of these high taxes because they felt used.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely, and to add a little bit I would say that the colonists tried compromising and tried avoiding war with England at first by giving what THEIR government thought was a good solution and they had no other choice. They would either be ruled by England for the rest of their lives or rebel.
DeleteI believe that the colonists were justified in their rebellion against England because when they left their homes to come over to America, they believed that they were equal with everyone back home. But as life in the colonies went on, it became clear that this wasn't the case. They colonies were taxed without their consent, they weren't represented in Parliament, and their request for a repeal of some of these laws went completely unacknowledged by Parliament and the King. England had plenty of opportunities to patch things up with the colonies, but they failed to ever do so, and they pushed the colonies to revolution with their continued babying of the colonies. The colonists were fed up, and they took action. -MEAGAN NEU
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Britain thought they were higher than the colonies so they taxed them and did not represent them in Parliament. There may have not been a revolution if they treated them equally and listened to what the colonists had to say, like having American representatives in Parliament.
DeleteKarina Miller ^
DeleteI agree, the British Parliament had no right to tax the colonies without having American represenatives in Parliament.
DeleteI disagree, and I feel that your first point argues against itself. They were ENGLISHMEN, on ENGLISH soil, and later decided that they could ignore that. They complained about THEIR government ruling them. They complained about lack of representation, when in truth they didn't want it.
Delete-Grace Elsensohn
DeleteI believe that the colonists were not justified in their fight for independence against Britain. It was true that the British imposed numerous taxes on the colonists, but the taxes were paying for the protection of the colonists. Britain needed to tax the colonists because they had gone so far into dept after fighting the French and Indian War. Plus, many of the laws were already in place. Parliament always had the ability to enforce the laws. The British had the right to tax the colonies because the colonies were still part of Britain. The people currently living in Britain were being taxed much more compared to the colonists, and they had been taxed for many years beforehand. The colonists were also very upset over the Proclamation of 1763 because an entire war was fought over the expansion into land west of the Appalachians, and now they were being told that they couldn't have it. They proclamation was put in place to prevent another war. Even though the colonies were upset over the Navigation laws being enforced, it made sense that since the colonies were British, all the goods should go to Britain. The colonies don't have a legitimate reason to rebel against Britain.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. Britain had rightfully "claimed" the land in the Americas, they saw it as their land, and therefore they had all the right to tax them. The colonies were still a part of Great Britain's empire, and since they owned the land, it didn't matter if it was across an ocean, it was still theirs.
DeleteI believe that the Americans were justified in their rebellion against Britain. Britain claimed the Americans but did not bother to ask what their opinion on things were. The British thought they knew what was best for the colonies so they did not represent them in Parliament, or even listen to them. This upset the colonists because they did not approve of the laws that were being passed, effecting the colonies. Also, Britain taxed the colonists to pay for the debt they had from the recent war. They were taxed on items that were used daily so it was inconvenient for them because they already had tight finances. The colonists had to grow their own food and provide their necessities either by trade/purchasing or on their own. Britain was very greedy because not only did they tax the colonists, they forced them to trade with them first, even if other countries had higher prices. The colonists did not have the freedom of trade and they did not get the income that they needed. Overall, Americans did not have much freedom because of power-hungry Britain.From all of these problems, it led them to a rebellion against Britain. - Karina Miller
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely! The British didn't care about the needs of the colonists in any way. The British only cared about what they could gain. I feel like the British treated the colonists very poorly when they could have become a major benefit to them financially. The colonists had the right to revolt against the British.
DeleteI definitely believe that the Americans were justified in their rebellion against Britain. Think about the Quartering Acts, the colonists were forced to house the military, who could potentially harm them. Were they paid for this? No! Great Britain used the colonists for their own benefit.All of the laws that were set in place were for the British. Great Britain didn't treat them fairly in any way. The British taxed everyday items like paper, cards,tea, etc, and that wasn't right.The British knew they would upset and anger the colonies by taxing their everyday items. Several other acts such as the Stamp act, Intolerable acts, Navigation acts caused numerous uproars by the colonists.. The colonists never got a break, they were continuously taxed by Britain. The colonists weren't represented fairly in any way. "No taxation without representation." The British also had no right to make the colonists pay for the French and Indian War, the British were the ones who declared war! It shouldn't even be a question, everyone deserves the right to revolt. After years of being unfairly taxed, unfairly represented and unfairly treated I'm sure you as well would revolt against whoever was controlling you. The restrictions the British placed upon the colonists were unjust. The colonies has every right to revolt against the British.
ReplyDeleteThe British were fighting for the Colonists so of course the colonists are going to have to pay their fare share for what took place. The colonists had a right to be angry but the British had the right to tax the colonies.
DeleteIn my opinion, the colonists were not justified in their rebellion against King George III and Great Britain. The colonies were indeed taxed by Britain, but the money was paying for the war that was fought for them, and for their protection. The colonists were complaining about paying for their war. Another reason the colonies were not justified in their rebellion was that they were still living in land that was "claimed" by the British. The colonies were part of British territory, they were owned by Britain. The idea that the British had ownership of the territories was still there. Since Britain had rightfully "claimed" the land, they had the right to tax them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. The fact that colonists were living on British territory has been over looked by most and that they had the complete right be taxed.
DeleteTHANK YOU. Even though the colonists were taxed, it was to pay for the war that was for THEM, and they were still part of Britain! They weren't separated from England, so it was only fair for them to pay taxes. Britain was in debt from the war that was fought for the colonists, so Britain had the right to force them to pay for the costs of the war. Besides, other people in England still had to pay taxes, so why on earth would the colonists think that they get special treatment solely because they aren't in England? It's like, come on, you're still part of this country, you have to do what everyone else does.
DeleteI totally agree with you! The colonies were still British when they were being taxed, and the war was for their benefit. The colonists didn't want to pay any of the taxes because they were on different land. The colonists complained too much.
DeleteI agree that the colonists should be happy about paying to support a war effort the benefited them, but the reason that they got so mad about supporting the war was because they couldn't choose to not support the war if they wanted to.
DeleteThe colonists did not ask for British protection during the Seven Years' War. They felt like they were having to pay for something they didn't even want. The colonists weren't complaining about paying for the war. After the war was over, Britain issued the Proclamation of 1763, which stated that they could not settle in the land that they just got done fighting over. Why should the colonists have to pay for something they didn't want and for being denied the settlement of the area west of the Appalachian Mountains?
Delete-Patrick Neill
I believe the Americans were completely justified in revolting from England/Brittan. The Americans just decided they had enough with England ruling over them in such a strict way. The reasons for this were; the Intolerable acts, Stamp act, Proclamation line, and the Townshend Acts. The Proclamation Line was the first step towards revolution. Americans just fought the 7 year war for more land west. Then England/Brittan said you could not go past that land and make more colonies. This angered the Americans, they lost friends and family winning this war just to have it all taken away. Then The Stamp act happened, the second step towards revolution for the Americans. People thought that they were being taxed unreasonably. Which they came up with the term 'taxation without representation'. This meant that Americans were not considered while making this tax. Sons and daughters of liberty and the stamp act congress. The stamp act congress, sent a letter asking to revoke The Stamp Act to the parliament and king, but it was ignored. Then the sons and daughters of liberty threatened stampmen and tarred and feathered them to show how they felt. Which rallied people together. When it was finally revoked they came back with the Townshend Acts the third BIG step to revolution. Made it so that England/Brittan could tax or put a duty on glass, lead, paper, paint, and tea. The tea was the worst part of it, it was so unreasonably priced. That the Americans got on ships that had tea on it and dumped it in to the harbor. This just angered the king. The last and final step to revolution was the Intolerable Acts. In it was the Quartering Acts, Boston Port Act, and Quebec Act. Quartering Acts were not fare for the Americans. It literally meant that you would have to give your house up for the British troops, also your food. Boston Port Act closed Boston harbor down till order and damages were paid. The Quebec Act was a slap to the face for the Americans. It showed the Americans that England/Brittan didn't like them and gave freedom of government to Canada, But not to them. Instead it took that away from the Americans and made them feel like peasants and slaves to England/Brittan. All of these rules the parliament put on the Americans made them strive for rebellion. Just because they couldn’t put up with the strict ties they had with England/Brittan. So they decided it was time to break away, and start a new without being ruled by the monarchy of England/Brittan.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with everything. I'm just wondering if it is too one sided.
DeleteI believe that the colonists were not justified in their rebellion against Britain. The colonists rebelled because they had no representation in the government, and they wanted to have the rights of English men. They had both and were even treated better than people in England, in the form of rights. The British taxation was completely justified, because after spending money on protecting the colonists they were in debt. The taxes that were put on the colonists were much lower than the ones in England and a rebellion against Britain would only be reasonable if the taxes were higher or the colonists rights were infringed. Also the violence in protesting the Acts were even more unjustified. If anyone would have performed the same act now, they would have been considered terrorists and had NATO on their backs, so British suppression and punishments would be expected. Also as Shannon Leininger said earlier if the colonists were even to receive representation in parliament they would not be able to agree on anything. They only were able to unite during the revolution.
ReplyDelete^Samuel Razumovskiy
DeleteI agree If the colonist were fine with being taxed with no representation and being supressed they wouldnt of rebelled.
DeleteThis is mackenzie kitchen I don't think America was justified in their rebellion. England provided defense of the land they lived on whether or not they ended up being able to settle on the new land without England's help they probably wouldn't have won. It's more than fair that they had to pay Britain back for that. Also America shouldn't be complaining about the taxes out on them from the Grenville acts, English people had been paying taxes for many years, it's how the government lays for stuff. Sure it sucks that the taxes were forcefully put on them without their representation in parliament but at the end of the day taxes are taxes. We pay taxes now I don't see how it's so unfair that they had to pay taxes back then. Okie dokie have a good night, also sorry for my bad spelling and grammar it's hard to do this on my phone aight bye.
ReplyDeleteWhen British Parliament began taxing the Americans they were denying there rights as Englishmen. Also, since the Americans were not being represented in Parliament, Parliament had no right to begin taxing them.
DeleteI see your point about the taxes but that doesn't mean that Parliament can enforce over six new acts all in about ten years. To the Americans it seemed like there was a new act every time they turned around and there was nothing they could do but to rebel.
DeleteI believe the Americans were justified for rebeling against Great Britain. First of all, the Stamp Act of 1765 began the rebellion amongst other acts. The Stamp Act, in particular, angered the Americans because British Parliament began taxing them. The Americans believed they could only be taxed by their own Colonial Assemblies. The term "no taxation without representation" arose because the Americans were not being represented in British Parliament. Another act that increased the American's justification in rebelling against Great Britain was the Quartering Act of 1765. This act, that shouldn't have even been able to be passed, let British soldiers stay in any colonial house if the barracks were full. This angered the Americans even more because they believed there was no need to even have British soldiers in the colonies, let alone having to house and care for them.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the Americans were justified to their rebellion. They felt like Britain was too controlling and too demanding of the colonists. First of all, the whole cause of the Seven Years' War was the desire for more land. And after Britain and the colonies finally won the war, Britain issued the Proclamation of 1763 which prohibited the settlement of the land the Americans just got done fighting for! Another reason why I think that the Americans were justified in their rebellion is because of all the taxes Britain placed on them. Sure, England had troops fighting for the colonies during the Seven Years' War, but the colonies didn't ask for their protection. It wasn't the fault of the colonists that Britain was so far in debt, so the colonists thought that England had no right no tax them. It was already bad enough that England was severely taxing the colonies, but the Americans were not even being represented in British Parliament ("Taxation without representation").
ReplyDeletePatrick Neill^
DeleteColonists were completely justified in their revolt against England. The taxes that England imposed upon the colonists were placed to pay the bills of the Seven Years War, a war that the colonists HELPED fight. The war was fought in the first place so that they could colonize westward and expand America. The treaty of Paris did not allow that so the colonists were stuck with a British army they didn't need and taxes that they didn't want or deserve because they fought the war as well. Although other countries were being treated a lot less fair it is still not correct to say that America was being treated right. England was abusing their colony for profit. Limiting their trade to only England, enforcing the Quartering acts and taxing everything that was important to them is not a government that people want to be ruled by. Even after documents were written and requests were made trying to appeal to the parliament in England, nothing would prove effective to make them see how unjust all the taxes and rules were becoming. Unless America was willing to spend the rest of their lives being ruled by another country and having their government rendered completely useless then they had to do something. After the Committees of Correspondence and other efforts to avoid war were not accepted they had no other option other than to rebel.
ReplyDelete-Keira Stogin
I agree with your statement because yes, it did seem like Britain was abusing the colonies and the Americans saw that the tax was too high a price after fighting a war for Britain.
DeleteI believe that the American had every right to rebel against Great Britain when all these new acts started piling up and they couldn't take it anymore. With the Proclamation of 1763, Britain had made it clear that no one can move past the Appalachian mountains. With the growing population, to the colonist this seemed silly because that was one of the reasons for fighting in the French and Indian War. With more acts coming, the colonists soon became restless and felt that they didn't have a say in the matter. Americans also tried to reason and come to an agreement with Great Britain, but the King would not hear any of it, seeing that "his people" were already in a rebellion.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The acts were "piling up" at the same rate as were being repealed, and were being adapted according to colonist complaints while maintaining the authority of the crown. The British understood when to cease conflict, even if the stalemate meant being deeper in the red with no new ground covered. The hotheaded Americans, however, lacked this foresight, forging on into more bloodshed and war.
Delete-Grace Elsenson
I believe the the colonists were justified for rebeling against Great Britain. Most colonists were all pissed at Britan for the same reasons such as the Stam Act, being taxed without representation ect. The signing of the Decloration of Independence just adds on to that justification when the broke apart from Britan completly.
ReplyDeleteIn the rebellion leading to the Revolutionary War, I do not think the colonists were justified. While it is easy to argue that the colonists were being unfairly taxed for a war they gained nothing from, you must also consider that there was good reason for the British to forbid them from settling on the newly gained territory. Further conflicts with the Native Americans would only lead to new taxes for colonists to pay. Additionally, while history likes to remember Americans as being ruthlessly taxed without the slightest hope of ever being represented in Parliament, they didn't want representation. I may have sympathized with them had they actively sought reprentation, but that is not the case. Another instance of colonists contradicting themselves was thier claims to be acting in self-defense while at the same time seeking to conquer Canada.
ReplyDelete-Grace Elsensohn
Because of the arrogant taxes and massacre that the British brought upon American colonists, the colonists were justified in their rebellion and push toward independence.
ReplyDeleteThe first justification for the American rebellion was the Stamp Act. The Americans felt disrespected when the British taxed them and gave the Americans no say in Parliament. To make matters worse, the British condescendingly said that the Americans were represented by Parliament through virtual representation.
Another justification for the American rebellion was the Boston massacre. Although the massacre was brought on by the Americans when they threw rocks at the British soldiers, the news and propaganda that was sent across the colonies showed the British slaughtering innocent bystanders. The Boston massacre justified the Americans' rebellion because the Americans had no means of finding the truth about the Boston Massacre, they were forced to believe that it was a senseless slaughter.