top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 143 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (26 children)

This ignores the "without representation" part. England gutted colonies' ability to govern

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (22 children)

    It also ignores that taxes were actually LOWERED on tea just before the Boston Tea Party. This made it so taxed tea was cheaper than smuggled tea and people would be paying that tax without getting representation. Thus, the whole reason for fighting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (21 children)

    The whole reason for fighting is that the American colonies were rich. Initially they had been propped up by the British. But, once the French were essentially wiped out, the colonists no longer had need of the British military, and they were now richer than the British, so they no longer wanted to contribute to the motherland and wanted to be independent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 103 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    Taxation without representation is they key. They forcefully tried to shutdown the local governments and establish a dictator.

    The irony is that the US has done this to south America

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 96 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    I wonder why the colonies were in that war to begin with. Was it because GB dragged them in kicking and screaming, and the people living there had no say in the matter?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 67 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    That's kinda what a colony is when you think about it. A colony that can refuse the colonial overlords is.... well.... not a colony 🤣.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    The whole concept is revolting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    If you've ever wondered why many US cities have French names (Baton Rouge, Des Moines, Boise, Terre Haute, St. Louis, Louisville, Dubuque, Detroit, Marquette, New (Nouvelle) Orleans), it's because those were all under French control when they were named.

    The colonists couldn't expand westward without hitting French territory, so yes they wanted war against the French.

    The British settlers along the coast were upset that French troops would now be close to the western borders of their colonies. They felt the French would encourage their tribal allies among the North American natives to attack them. Also, the British settlers wanted access to the fertile land of the Ohio River Valley for the new settlers that were flooding into the British colonies seeking farm land

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War

    Do you know what actually started the 7 years war? It was when George Washington (a Lt. Colonel in the British army) ambushed a French force who were building a fort (Fort Duquesne) to defend their territory near the Ohio river. The French then attacked Washington's army and forced it to surrender. The first battlefront in the 7 years war was in North America, and it was a territorial dispute over the Ohio river valley.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Idk, the colonists had a vested interest in expelling the French from the Ohio territory, so that they could expel all the Indians and take the land. Also most of them still considered themselves English, and therefore despised the French so public support for the war was probably pretty high.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 82 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    to protect you from the French

    lol. oh man, that's hilarious. Stay in school, kids.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I believe they meant to protect North American territories from French capture, not necessarily to prevent individual bodily harm, but that doesn't fit as nicely in meme format.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [+] 67 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago (35 children)

    Europe's problems are the world's problems but the world's problems are never Europe's problems.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 2 years ago (33 children)

    Yeah, they really wanted to rule them all

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (20 children)

    Imagine my surprise when I learned that Europe was adjacent to Japan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • Bailing out the East India Company has entered the chat

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I had heard that they were actually lowering taxes and tariffs on imported goods and since the founding fathers were all involved in smuggling goods in — the lower taxes threatened their personal income so they rebelled

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago*

    It's complicated. They removed all taxation that would have benefitted the the colonies, but kept the Townshend Act taxes in place.

    The colonies had been evading the Townshend taxes, largely because they were understood to be punitive. That's the primary reason tea had been smuggled from The Netherlands, as resistance to what was viewed as unjust taxation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    Y'all started your own shit in Europe. Don't tax us for your fuckups.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • load more comments (12 replies)
    [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    and the 7 years war was fought without consent from the colonies. The colonies did not want to fight the french, their allies.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago

    The colonies, including a colonist named George Washington (a Lieutenant Colonel in the British Army) started the 7 year war by ambushing a group of French soldiers building a fort on French territory in the Ohio river valley. I don't know where you get the idea that the British colonists were allies with the French. But, if that was the case, the French must have found that a pretty confusing thing for their allies to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago*

    For perspective, there are two ways we pay taxes currently: direct taxation via tax collection and indirect taxation via the inflation of the currency supply (govt prints money and uses it, your money becomes worth less about 2-3% year in good years). That second tax is optional, there are ways to not use your national currency and therefore not pay the inflationary tax. That second tax is also insidious because people don't realize it's happening. If you have to raise actual taxes, suddenly you get revolts and removed from power. Which is why most wars are funded with inflationary spending, not tax increases. People will gladly pay extra tax for popular wars, but not unpopular ones.

    Imagine how the world might look different if inflationary spending wasn't a particularly powerful taxation tool because not much value was wrapped up in national currencies. Imagine if going to war meant raising actual taxes. Might we have a world where there is less war because war is now harder to fund?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›