So were the founders really this bad?

Started by Travis Retriever, December 21, 2010, 01:27:25 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537


Two things should make you skeptical of this article:

One is the idea that we have some kind of duty to pay taxes. Look at the bit about the East India tea: who the hell are they to decide for the colonists if that tea was better? And what does it matter if you're getting it at a low price, when all of your other options have been legislated away? I'm reminded of "The Incredible Bread Machine."

Second is the treatment of the colonists as being homogeneous. Remember that one-third of them were in favor of rebellion, one-third wanted to remain part of Britain, and the other third just didn't care one way or the other. You couldn't possibly get any more diversity of opinion than that!

Quote from: MrBogosity on December 21, 2010, 08:58:08 AMTwo things should make you skeptical of this article:

One is the idea that we have some kind of duty to pay taxes. Look at the bit about the East India tea: who the hell are they to decide for the colonists if that tea was better? And what does it matter if you're getting it at a low price, when all of your other options have been legislated away? I'm reminded of "The Incredible Bread Machine."
The whole 'it's your duty to pay taxes' assumption did irratate me, yeah.  I didn't notice the other thing, namely because I was so damn tired/sleepy at the time, but that is a very VERY good point.

Quote from: MrBogosity on December 21, 2010, 08:58:08 AMSecond is the treatment of the colonists as being homogeneous. Remember that one-third of them were in favor of rebellion, one-third wanted to remain part of Britain, and the other third just didn't care one way or the other. You couldn't possibly get any more diversity of opinion than that!
So in other words, not all the colonists were treated the same, it seems.
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

The colonists blundered us into the French and Indian War?  What a bunch of horseshit.  The French and Indian War was part of a larger global conflict between France and Great Britain.  That's why the British don't call it the "French and Indian" War, they call it the Seven Years War.  The colonists were merely the Western Front of a Conflict that was fought in every major colonial territory in the world.  A conflict that unwittingly and unwillingly involved thousands of natives and colonists in a battle they often didn't want and had no direct stake in.  Saying the "founding fathers" are responsible is like saying the St. Lucians were responsible.

This guy's an apologist for Britain.  Plain and simple.  What he calls smuggling is free trade.  The British, being misguided fools, believed in a mercantile system, and enforced a system of laws called the Navigation Acts which meant that all colonists were subject to a monopoly trade agreement with the crown and had to first sell their goods at a cut rate to the British and then the British would sell at a huge profit to the French and Spanish.  The colonist "smugglers" were end running a gamed and completely unfair system by trading with the French directly.  This is why a large majority of Northerners (many of whom later became radicals) opposed the French and Indian War.  It led to the quartering of troops in their houses, a clamping down on the Navigation Acts and afterwords, imposed taxes to pay for an army that was neither needed, nor wanted.

The colonists grief wasn't about paying taxes at all.  Has this stupid asshole READ the Declaration of independence?  It was about the fact that they had no say in taxes that were imposed on them, despite the fact that they were full British citizens.  The reason Franklin attempted to restore Royal Charter was because he, like many other colonists, felt that the King was the court of last resort for them.  They felt that the Parliament was working to keep them voiceless and powerless, and that, with the King's direct intervention, their rights as citizens would be restored.  Once the King passed the Intolerable Acts though, Franklin was a radical and revolutionary par excellence, and went to France immediately to drum up sizable military support.  It's certain that without Franklin and French aid, the Americans would have lost the war.

As for religious bigotry, that was a problem both before and long, long after the Revolution.  Hell anti-Catholic bigotry was an issue during the election of John F. Kennedy.  This is why people like Thomas Jefferson, and Washington wrote extensively about the need to keep the state out of church business.  After all, who was stirring up the bigotry?  Why, it was the Anglican congregationalists.  And who are they?  THE CHURCH OF FUCKING ENGLAND!  A state institution that enjoyed official mandate, especially during the restoration.

And what the hell does he mean by Founding Fathers anyway?  He seems to be talking about everyone alive and living in the colonies during the late 1770s.  That's the only possible way I can think that he could give deists and atheists like Paine, Jefferson, and Madison credit for stirring up religious hatred.  He's so ham handed with the term that it's essentially lost all meaning.  He might as well have just said Americans.

I can't tell if this person is intentionally being dishonest, or if they're really this stupid.  Unfortunately, I have to go with both.

Quote from: AHPMB on December 23, 2010, 09:10:14 AMThe colonist "smugglers" were end running a gamed and completely unfair system by trading with the French directly.  This is why a large majority of Northerners (many of whom later became radicals) opposed the French and Indian War.  It led to the quartering of troops in their houses, a clamping down on the Navigation Acts and afterwords, imposed taxes to pay for an army that was neither needed, nor wanted.

Not only that, but it led to the destruction of trial by jury. When juries started refusing to convict smugglers (using their duty-bound concept of nullification), the crown arbitrarily began considering smuggling an offense under admiralty law instead of common law, and admiralty law doesn't have trial by jury. This is the very reason for that clause in the Declaration of Independence, and the sixth and seventh amendments of the Constitution.

Quote from: MrBogosity on December 23, 2010, 09:24:53 AM
Not only that, but it led to the destruction of trial by jury. When juries started refusing to convict smugglers (using their duty-bound concept of nullification), the crown arbitrarily began considering smuggling an offense under admiralty law instead of common law, and admiralty law doesn't have trial by jury. This is the very reason for that clause in the Declaration of Independence, and the sixth and seventh amendments of the Constitution.

Damn straight, and when the British Juries wouldn't convict them, they retried them in front of Naval tribunals.  They repeatedly violated the very rights that the crown claimed they had.  There's a reason Jefferson insisted that the Bill of Rights be in the Constitution.  The 10 amendments read as a laundry list of every right the British stepped on.


Quote from: AHPMB on December 23, 2010, 09:49:20 AMDamn straight, and when the British Juries wouldn't convict them, they retried them in front of Naval tribunals.

Jesus Christ!  That sounds rather extreme, trying them before a military court.
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—'No. You move.'"
-Captain America, Amazing Spider-Man 537

It is extreme.  It's the reason the United States Constitution has such stringent amendments about Double Jeopardy, extradition, and trial by a jury of peers.  These were a direct response to the British government's flaunting of its own legal tradition by trying smugglers before naval courts.