Was the Revolutionary War right or wrong?

[Graphic]

Actually, yes. The US has caused far, far more problems than what positive things it's caused. The US should dissolve it's government, join the Commonwealth, and become, in a sense, a British possession.

I don't think the previous responses have emphasized properly how absolutely ridiculous this comment is. This is one of the dumbest statements I've ever read on the internet. Not attacking you personally, but this is just.....wow.

[RuleBritannia]

Let me geuss, your english?

Yes.

2) Remember THE BOSTON MASSACRE???

The massacre that occured AFTER A MOB OF DRUNK COLONISTS ATTACKED AND HARASSED BRITISH TROOPS.

I don't think the previous responses have emphasized properly how absolutely ridiculous this comment is. This is one of the dumbest statements I've ever read on the internet. Not attacking you personally, but this is just.....wow.

When you're anti-American, it makes perfect sense actually. You can't call someone's comment "the dumbest there is" just because you don't agree with the person's viewpoint.

[thealmightyzorg]

Yes.


The massacre that occured AFTER A MOB OF DRUNK COLONISTS ATTACKED AND HARASSED BRITISH TROOPS.


When you're anti-American, it makes perfect sense actually. You can't call someone's comment "the dumbest there is" just because you don't agree with the person's viewpoint.

I see. I'm not anti-British by any means, but saying that that statement makes sense because you don't like America is a very weak argument. The logistics of America suddenly joining the Commonwealth despite having been a sovereign nation for over 300 years makes no logistical or political sense. And, I thought we went over the whole Boston Massacre thing.

[Graphic]

When you're anti-American, it makes perfect sense actually. You can't call someone's comment "the dumbest there is" just because you don't agree with the person's viewpoint.

This is relativist hogwash, not to mention you don't seem to have even read it properly. I said "this is the one of the dumbest statements I've ever read on the internet," and that is a fact. I'm Canadian (though I live in the U.S. currently for my career), and I'm still telling you it's one of the dumbest statements I've ever read on the internet.

Now to your points:

You're telling people that the U.S.A. should dissolve and become a British possession because the revolution was illegitimate, which is also hogwash. The colonies demanded they be granted the rights of Englishmen, they weren't. They petitioned the King himself, he didn't listen. The British government was completely unwilling to negotiate with the colonists and continued to deny them their deserved rights, there were no options left except: live as second class citizens under British rule, or revolt. Anyone with knowledge on the subject, from any country, who isn't a British Nationalist like yourself, would arrive at this conclusion. Then you drop the all-time example of "Argument Fail" by stating that since the colonies were British possessions, they could treat the colonies however they wished, essentially giving them license to behave tyrannically without any moral repercussions (that you'd pull this loophole out of your behind to make an excuse for the British while maintaining that they did no wrong to begin with is quite telling). The U.S.A. was justified enough to revolt. They won the revolt. They get to be their own country, end of story. I suppose Ireland should dissolve and rejoin the U.K. too? Should India dissolve her democracy as well and ask for British troops to come occupy her again, maybe commit an atrocity or two? South Africa?

The other part about how the U.S.A. has done more terrible than good in history and should join in the loving moral arms of Great Britain is almost as dumb as your statement about the U.S.A. dissolving. True enough the U.S.A. has Vietnam, the Iraq War (which the U.K. went into along with the U.S.A., hand-in-hand), and other things to answer for...but you really think the U.K. is much better? The Islamic world hates the U.K. just as much as the U.S.A. The British Empire brutally colonized parts of Africa, India, the Middle East, and yes, North America, at the tip of a sword...a sword dripping with the blood of black and brown people, victims of greedy white imperialism. Both Apartheid in South Africa and slavery in the U.S.A. were legacies of British colonialism. The U.K. attacked Argentina for daring to claim part of it's soil just miles off it's coast from it's colonial masters thousands of miles a way. The U.K. supplied Iraq with weapons just like the U.S.A. did during the Iran-Iraq war. There's also dozens more revolts besides the American one, by proud patriots trying to oust the unwelcomed rule of England, or resist the implementation of that rule to begin with. Anglo-Irish War, Anglo-Afghan Wars, Anglo-Aro War, Anglo-Zulu wars, all the wars against Indians trying to resist the U.K.'s conquest, all the fighting with First Nations/Native Americans, etc... I could keep going. I think any outside observer who's view isn't clouded by anti-Americanism or British nationalism (like yourself) could easily see that, in fact, the British Empire/United Kingdom has had a far greater negative impact on the world than the U.S.A. could possibly hope to achieve. Only someone who is a nationalist, and indeed a racist, could see British imperialism as a good thing. Then only a hypocrite could turn around and say supposed American "imperialism" is awful and an affront to humanity.

Have a nice day.

[Seraph07]

HaHa, if we did dissolve our government, I don't think they would even take us !
RB your dislike of the U.S makes you sound like a Frenchman, not an Englishmen. The U.S and Britain have been two pee's in a pod for the better part of a century. The wellfare of one is guaranteed by the other.

No great Empire was ever made because of how nice they were. It's pointless to argue their vices and virtues.

[Pikemen]

The massacre that occured AFTER A MOB OF DRUNK COLONISTS ATTACKED AND HARASSED BRITISH TROOPS.

Lets go ever the events that led up tp the Boston massacre:

British Troops land in Boston (breaking the English Bill of Roghts. freedom from the standing army in peace time)

Tensions grow due to unfair laws passed by British (people where forced to feed and house british troops, taxation on basic materials where made without the colonies having proper representation)

March 5, 1770, Prvt. Hugh White of the British Milliatry gets in a argument with a small group of American Colonists. It draws a very large crowd.

British troops fire into the crowd (either because they where afraid for their lives, or because of cruel show of power.

4 lay dead, another dies later from his wounds

Twenty-one days before — on the night of March 5, 1770 — five men had been shot to death in Boston town by British soldiers. Precipitating the event known as the Boston Massacre was a mob of men and boys taunting a sentry standing guard at the city's customs house. When other British soldiers came to the sentry's support, a free-for-all ensued and shots were fired into the crowd. -

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/w.../massacre.html

What proof do you have they where drunk and harming the soldiers? You think it? or do you have a reliable source of information??

[Lord Claremorris]

This is relativist hogwash, not to mention you don't seem to have even read it properly. I said "this is the one of the dumbest statements I've ever read on the internet," and that is a fact. I'm Canadian (though I live in the U.S. currently for my career), and I'm still telling you it's one of the dumbest statements I've ever read on the internet.

Now to your points:

You're telling people that the U.S.A. should dissolve and become a British possession because the revolution was illegitimate, which is also hogwash. The colonies demanded they be granted the rights of Englishmen, they weren't. They petitioned the King himself, he didn't listen. The British government was completely unwilling to negotiate with the colonists and continued to deny them their deserved rights, there were no options left except: live as second class citizens under British rule, or revolt. Anyone with knowledge on the subject, from any country, who isn't a British Nationalist like yourself, would arrive at this conclusion. Then you drop the all-time example of "Argument Fail" by stating that since the colonies were British possessions, they could treat the colonies however they wished, essentially giving them license to behave tyrannically without any moral repercussions (that you'd pull this loophole out of your behind to make an excuse for the British while maintaining that they did no wrong to begin with is quite telling). The U.S.A. was justified enough to revolt. They won the revolt. They get to be their own country, end of story. I suppose Ireland should dissolve and rejoin the U.K. too? Should India dissolve her democracy as well and ask for British troops to come occupy her again, maybe commit an atrocity or two? South Africa?

The other part about how the U.S.A. has done more terrible than good in history and should join in the loving moral arms of Great Britain is almost as dumb as your statement about the U.S.A. dissolving. True enough the U.S.A. has Vietnam, the Iraq War (which the U.K. went into along with the U.S.A., hand-in-hand), and other things to answer for...but you really think the U.K. is much better? The Islamic world hates the U.K. just as much as the U.S.A. The British Empire brutally colonized parts of Africa, India, the Middle East, and yes, North America, at the tip of a sword...a sword dripping with the blood of black and brown people, victims of greedy white imperialism. Both Apartheid in South Africa and slavery in the U.S.A. were legacies of British colonialism. The U.K. attacked Argentina for daring to claim part of it's soil just miles off it's coast from it's colonial masters thousands of miles a way. The U.K. supplied Iraq with weapons just like the U.S.A. did during the Iran-Iraq war. There's also dozens more revolts besides the American one, by proud patriots trying to oust the unwelcomed rule of England, or resist the implementation of that rule to begin with. Anglo-Irish War, Anglo-Afghan Wars, Anglo-Aro War, Anglo-Zulu wars, all the wars against Indians trying to resist the U.K.'s conquest, all the fighting with First Nations/Native Americans, etc... I could keep going. I think any outside observer who's view isn't clouded by anti-Americanism or British nationalism (like yourself) could easily see that, in fact, the British Empire/United Kingdom has had a far greater negative impact on the world than the U.S.A. could possibly hope to achieve. Only someone who is a nationalist, and indeed a racist, could see British imperialism as a good thing. Then only a hypocrite could turn around and say supposed American "imperialism" is awful and an affront to humanity.

Have a nice day.

Though I agree with several of your points I have to make very plain that the colonists by no means had justification to revolt. I assume you did not read my previous posts on the matter, so I'll condense it. To think that the American people could send representatives to Parliament seems a rather strange one, since the colonies had their own assemblies, and the other possessions of the British Empire were not represented in Parliament either, why do the Americans think they are so special? You also say that the British Empire was very negative, I contest that. The British Empire brought industrialisation, modern medicine, improved infrastruture, they did kill people, but that hardly merits them the description "the British Empire/United Kingdom has had a far greater negative impact on the world than the U.S.A. could possibly hope to achieve." Neither of them are above guilt, but the British had a comparitively benevolent regime at the time, and it steadily improved throughout its history, as Britons themselves began seeing greater tolerance as an obligation.

Lastly your examples of British atrocities are actually very tilted against Britain. The British Empire has long possessed the Falklands, and they were never a part of Argentina, and Argentina was the aggressor in that war. The British simply defended their territory and initiated no hostile actions against Argentinian territory, they were entirely blameless for that conflict, unless you think they should have just bowed to intimidation and handed over the islands. The Anglo-Afghan Wars were not attempts by the British to annex Afghanistan, they were attempts to put in place friendly goverments that London could rely on to block, or at least resist, the passage of the Russian Army in case the latter desired to invade India. And for both India and Ireland I think it would be well to remember the British ruled both peoples using largely Indian and Irish soldiers, so though the British did commit atrocities in both places, many of the areas own people participated in these atrocities. I'm not saying that the British Empire is great and marvelous, myself being an Irishmen I have a certain antipathy for the British, but I try to remain objective, and I have deep respect for their achievements. But I would deny that the British are far worse than the United States, if the British Empire commited more crimes than it was because it was around for so much longer, rather than for any moral superiority harbored by the US. What of the wars against the Native Americans and the Philipinos? What of the blantant rascism and refusal to give up slavery until long after even England gave it up? All I'm saying is don't so easily cast judgement on nations. Oh, by the way, it is completely absurd to think the US would ever enter the Commonwealth, that is without doubt ludicrous.

[Amaz]

this thread makes me feel like I"m watching a debate on the History Channel lol...

EDIT: btw... a bit off topic, but please... it's Filipinos lol... my country is called the Philippines though

[Seraph07]

Your spot on about the positive side oof British Imperialism. History will look at the Empire as a second Rome.
Britain has given more to the world than any other nation , save ancient Rome, of which is the building block of western civilization.

What of the blantant rascism and refusal to give up slavery until long after even England gave it up?

If Englands economy was agricultural at the time, I guarantee the attitude would have been much, much different. Besides Imperialism is akin to slavery in all but name.

Though I agree with several of your points I have to make very plain that the colonists by no means had justification to revolt. I assume you did not read my previous posts on the matter, so I'll condense it. To think that the American people could send representatives to Parliament seems a rather strange one, since the colonies had their own assemblies, and the other possessions of the British Empire were not represented in Parliament either, why do the Americans think they are so special?

Why do the British think they are so special ? If a citizen of the Empire doesn't live in the mother country, they are still a citizen of the country are they not ? Even for the time, did the English not hold that all men are subject to the same laws ? Shouldn't a man in London and man in New York have the same rights, and be held accountable to the same laws?

America did not seek a war with Britain, nor did it want one. The Americans literally asked parliament and the king to resolve the issue peacefully. Even many in Britain felt military action was not the way to resolve the dispute. Many people in the colonies were still loyal, and even those who weren't still saw Britain as their Mother country.

The war was a result of a British blunder, not American greatness.

[Graphic]

To think that the American people could send representatives to Parliament seems a rather strange one, since the colonies had their own assemblies, and the other possessions of the British Empire were not represented in Parliament either, why do the Americans think they are so special?

I'm going to repeat part of my post here but you seem to have ignored most of it:

The colonies did have their own assemblies, they and levied their own taxes. This was the norm for a long time, and then it was broken when the island decided to directly tax the colonies themselves. "Fine," the colonists said, "but if you want to tax us, we want representation in your government, as per The Rights of Englishmen". The British government would not allow that, so they infringed on their rights as Englishmen by taxing the colonies without giving them representation in parliament. They petitioned the King himself to intervene on the matter, and when the colonists went unanswered, and with the government not budging, they were left with little choice but to live as second class citizens under British rule, or revolt. These are obvious historical facts and there's no way around them. The situation the colonists were in, you either believe they should have revolted or that they should have had their rights infringed upon and like it. If the colonists were British subjects, then they deserve the rights that go with it. If parliament granted the colonists the rights they deserved, it all could have been avoided. The British government was clearly the wrongful party in the ARW.

You also say that the British Empire was very negative, I contest that.

No. I was merely pointing out to our BNP member friend here that the U.K./British Empire was both good and bad, like every other nation, including the U.S.A., Canada, Japan, Tajikistan, and Bhutan, and that asserting that the U.S.A. should dissolve and rejoin Britain partly because they've caused so much problems in the world is ridiculous considering Britain, like all major European powers, has caused at least as many problems in the world and done at least as many injustices. I didn't mean to say the whole history of the U.K./British Empire is nothing but wanton slaughter (though the idea of imperialism is distasteful to me, even with the advantages it may bring). Britain has no moral high ground to look down upon the U.S. from, like he suggest. That's all.

Also, the idea of any government in the history of mankind being remotely near "completely benevolent" is laughable, especially the government of a colonial empire. Every nation has improved through time, "seeing greater tolerance as an obligation." The U.S.A. has a black president, so I don't see how that virtue is something exclusive to Britain.

[Pikemen]

Though I agree with several of your points I have to make very plain that the colonists by no means had justification to revolt. I assume you did not read my previous posts on the matter, so I'll condense it. To think that the American people could send representatives to Parliament seems a rather strange one, since the colonies had their own assemblies, and the other possessions of the British Empire were not represented in Parliament either, why do the Americans think they are so special?

Well, The Americans WHERE ENGLISH CITIZENS

I assume you did not read MY previous posts on the matter, so I'll condense it, The English Bill of Rights:

Freedom from royal interference with the law.
Freedom from taxation by Royal Prerogative.
Freedom to petition the monarch.
Freedom from the standing army during a time of peace.
Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defense
Freedom to elect members of parliament without interference from the sovereign.
Freedom of speech and debates; or proceedings in Parliament

For some reason, American Colonists (that where English Citizens) where denied their rights as Englishmen. All of these rights where denied of them. Therefore England forefit its right to have the colonies. I can say someone is my freind, but if I dont talk with them, dont know them, and insult them, Then they are not my freind.

AND

This is the "rights of Englishmen" that ALL subjects of the British Empire had:

The right to trial by jury of peers
Security in one's home from unlawful entry
No taxation without representation
Regular discussion
No cruel and unusual punishments
The right to rebel

Cheers,
Pikemen

[RuleBritannia]

Britain has no moral high ground to look down upon the U.S. from, like he suggest. That's all.

I agree. I know we've had our faults in history, but if you compare the history of Great Britain to the history of United States, there's a slight, if not a fair-sized difference.

The war was a result of a British blunder, not American greatness.

A British blunder? Treating a group of ungrateful rebels like ungrateful rebels is a blunder? From what I've seen, it seems that your idea of history is biased to America at best, twisted at worst.

in fact, the British Empire/United Kingdom has had a far greater negative impact on the world than the U.S.A. could possibly hope to achieve. Only someone who is a nationalist, and indeed a racist, could see British imperialism as a good thing. Then only a hypocrite could turn around and say supposed American "imperialism" is awful and an affront to humanity.

I believe the correct statement is "out of fact". I've heard of Canadians being rather bitter towards Great Britain, and I suppose this fact is proven by your post.

Why do you say the UK is worse than the US? The UK isn't over in Iraq genociding the population (they may have supported the US for a while, but if you haven't noticed, we've long been out of the war). The UK isn't faking terrorist attacks so they can go to war over oil. The UK in my opinion doesn't twist historical facts around to make themselves look better as the US does. The UK doesn't use mass propaganda (that I know of) that the US has used.

Honestly, everyone will have conflicting opinions. I'm an anti-American, so that will affect my opinions and beliefs, and, no racism intended by this, you're Canadian, so that will affect my opinions and beliefs. One's ideas of right and wrong come from personal beliefs, so that will have a major impact on one's arguments and opinions.

[Amaz]

I like both sides' stances on this...

but I doubt a matter like this could be settled soon enough...

this has been quite a war of words to see...

[Seraph07]

A British blunder? Treating a group of ungrateful rebels like ungrateful rebels is a blunder? From what I've seen, it seems that your idea of history is biased to America at best, twisted at worst

.

Dude, are you serious? 'Ungrateful rebels' This is the 21st century, not the 18th. Listen to yourself. Are you really that blinded by nationalism? If I meet you in person to debate this, would you still say that same phrase?

Why do you say the UK is worse than the US? The UK isn't over in Iraq genociding the population (they may have supported the US for a while, but if you haven't noticed, we've long been out of the war). The UK isn't faking terrorist attacks so they can go to war over oil. The UK in my opinion doesn't twist historical facts around to make themselves look better as the US does. The UK doesn't use mass propaganda (that I know of) that the US has used.

I gotta say first and foremost I vehemntly oppose the War's in Iraq and Afghanistan. I openly voice this, as much as my position allows.

Secondly, I have done two combat deployments to Iraq.

Thirdly, here is the definition of genocide:The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
One could accurately apply that term to Saddam's treatment of the Kurds.

First of all, when's the last time time you've been to Iraq? I've spent over 14 there. I lived,worked and trained the ISF.
Never once was I ever involved in any

genociding

When my unit handed security over to the ISF, they held a protest against us leaving outside of our FOB. Almost all of the people i've come across were happy we were there to keep them safe from the insurgents.

Look up the fundamental changes to the Iraqi society. Women's rights, as well as the establishment of the first true democracy of an Arab nation to name a few.


If you think the U.S went to war over oil you are ignorant of international law. If you researched the topic, you would know that the Iraqs mineral rights are owned by a plethora of major oil and energy companies to include BP, Exxon, as well as a host of companies from Europe and Asia. China is one of the main importers of Iraqi crude. As a matter of fact, I spent countless days staring at a Chinese pipeline, guarding it against smugglers on my last time there.

[RuleBritannia]

If you think the U.S went to war over oil you are ignorant of international law. If you researched the topic, you would know that the Iraqs mineral rights are owned by a plethora of major oil and energy companies to include BP, Exxon, as well as a host of companies from Europe and Asia. China is one of the main importers of Iraqi crude. As a matter of fact, I spent countless days staring at a Chinese pipeline, guarding it against smugglers on my last time there.

They already may have oil, but the US invaded to get more oil. Also, if there isn't genocide occuring in Iraq, then explain why there are merciless slaughters of the people there? US troops frequently, if not constantly are mistreating the population. From I read, the US made use of "smart bombs" in Desert Storm (that war, in my opinion, was justified) so they could have minimal civilian casualties. If so, then why aren't they using them in Iraq? Instead, they're bombarding villages full of innocent people with regular explosive weaponry, and kill hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of innocent people. How do they justify this? "Well, we may have killed 500 innocent people, but we killed 5 terrorists, so it's worth it!" That's a terrible excuse.

Also, explain why the US is in Iraq in the first place if it isn't for oil, and don't use the typical, false excuse of so-called "terrorist attacks" se,

.

Look up the fundamental changes to the Iraqi society. Women's rights, as well as the establishment of the first true democracy of an Arab nation to name a few.

It doesn't matter what changes the US has brought. No changes could justify the US invasion. You know why? Because Iraq is an independent nation that doesn't want the US interfering with their lives. Britain's actions were justifiable in the Revolution because the 13 Colonies were possessions of the British Empire. However, Iraq, Iran, etc. are independent nations. If they don't want the US there, the US shouldn't be allowed to be there.

[Seraph07]

[quote]

They already may have oil, but the US invaded to get more oil. Also, if there isn't genocide occuring in Iraq, then explain why there are merciless slaughters of the people there? US troops frequently, if not constantly are mistreating the population. From I read, the US made use of "smart bombs" in Desert Storm (that war, in my opinion, was justified) so they could have minimal civilian casualties. If so, then why aren't they using them in Iraq? Instead, they're bombarding villages full of innocent people with regular explosive weaponry, and kill hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of innocent people. How do they justify this? "Well, we may have killed 500 innocent people, but we killed 5 terrorists, so it's worth it!" That's a terrible excuse.

Name an example. One, just one. I have one for youWhen we bombed Zarqawi we killed 6 civilians, including his young daughters and his wife. Their deaths prevented the thousands of others he has already caused.

You have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Please don't even bring the subject with me again. I realize your either young or grossly misinformed, so I will keep my resonses civil.

I have no idea why we started the Iraq war. Probably because we thought we could win as fast as we did in the first one, and have a democracy and an ally in the middle of the Arab world.

Thousands of Americans have gaven their lives so that one day the people of Iraq will have a better life, free from tyranny. Thousands of Americans gave theirs lives two and half centuries ago, to free themselves from the tyrannical rule of Britain.


[quote]
It doesn't matter what changes the US has brought. No changes could justify the US invasion. You know why? Because Iraq is an independent nation that doesn't want the US interfering with their lives. Britain's actions were justifiable in the Revolution because the 13 Colonies were possessions of the British Empire. However, Iraq, Iran, etc. are independent nations. If they don't want the US there, the US shouldn't be allowed to be there.

The United States is an independent nation, and not a possession of Britain. That's the whole point of the war. How hard is that to understand? We no longer wanted to be a part of Britain. Just because they colonized the U.S does not entitle British rulership forever, no matter what. If thats your line of thinking, perhaps you should give Londinium and the rest of Britain back to the Italians.


{/QUOTE]
If they don't want the US there, the US shouldn't be allowed to be there.

We didn't want the British there, So the British shouldn't be allowed there.

[RuleBritannia]

It doesn't matter what changes the US has brought. No changes could justify the US invasion. You know why? Because Iraq is an independent nation that doesn't want the US interfering with their lives. Britain's actions were justifiable in the Revolution because the 13 Colonies were possessions of the British Empire. However, Iraq, Iran, etc. are independent nations. If they don't want the US there, the US shouldn't be allowed to be there.



We didn't want the British there, So the British shouldn't be allowed there.

The difference is the colonies were our colonial possessions and protectorates. We let them handle their affairs without interference. We gave them freedom. We gave them rights. We never gave up on the colonies' protection. We were the most powerful nation in the world, and a good deal of our power and influence went to protecting the colonies. Being our protectorate, we could interfere at any time we wanted, but we generally let the colonists rule their own land.

But wait, what's this? We've started taxing them a bit without full represenation! This is criminal! This is an atrocity! A revolution is in order for this heinous crime!


The Revolution doesn't make much sense when one looks at it like that, does it?

[Seraph07]

We were the most powerful nation in the world, and a good deal of our power and influence went to protecting the colonies

I guess the colonists were sipping tea the whole time? The way I see it, the colonists never needed British help. The colonists had been doing a fine job of defending themselves since the first conflicts with Natives at Jamestown. The reality of it is Britain was endangering, not protecting the colonies. If the colonies were a possesion of a nation friendly to France, they would have sat out the 7 years war, minding their own business. They were targeted because they were an asset to Britain.

We gave them freedom. We gave them rights.

Then you started taking them away.

Being our protectorate, we could interfere at any time we wanted, but we generally let the colonists rule their own land.

Either the rights of an Englishmen applied to everyone, or they applied to no one. Why is it basic civl rights could be revoked from the people just based upon the fact that they didn't live on the home island,

But wait, what's this? We've started taxing them a bit without full represenation! This is criminal! This is an atrocity! A revolution is in order for this heinous crime!

Thats what's started the argument. Parliament failed to understand one critical thing. The colonists were citizens of Britain. Parliament exists to serve the people, not the other way around. The citizend of England and Scotland would never have tolerated the same abuses, so why should the Americans? Just because their grandparents sailed over here on a boat, doesn't entitle Britain to treat them however they wanted.

If parliament taxed the home islands, as well as infringed on their rights as they did the colonists, then took away their elected representatives, how long do you think it would take for parliament to be burned to the ground and it's members drawn and quarted?

[RuleBritannia]

It doesn't matter what the colonists thought they deserved, it's what we thought they deserved. They needed to remember, WE, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, were their ruler. We didn't have to take orders from a band of colonists if we didn't want to. The King had every right to ignore the colonists. The problem was the proud nature of the colonists. "Our ancestors are from England so we deserve better treatment than everyone else" is what the colonists thought. Well, that wasn't true. They were technically colonists and nothing but. It doesn't matter what nationality they were, they were colonists. We were giving them a right to live on British-owned land.

Also, it was difficult for Parliament to represent the colonists, as they were an entire ocean away. The English and Scottish had a great deal of representation as they were closest to Parliament. The colonists were too far away to receive the exact same type of representation.

Another factor (not a problem, but a factor) in this was that King George III was an absolute monarchist; he believed that, though the monarch possessed great power, didn't possess enough power in the affairs of the Empire, which was why he continually went against Parliament and did things "his way". I admit, had he treated the colonists better, they might not have lost the war to France, but it is a true fact that he had a right to do what he did. Whether or not it was a good decision is open for question.

[Seraph07]

1) It doesn't matter what the colonists thought they deserved, it's what we thought they deserved.

2) Also, it was difficult for Parliament to represent the colonists, as they were an entire ocean away

3)They were technically colonists and nothing but

1) 'We' and 'Them'. You are differentiating between the two groups.
Right, so becauses they bothered to come over to America, they were now a lower class of citizen then those of the motherc country.

2)
It wasn't that far. Something as simple as recognizing the rights of the colonists by giving them a voice in the affairs of their own nation ( And by own nation I mean Britain, as they still saw themselves as British) Would have done wonders to their attitudes. Parliament basically said they dont rate the same rights as those in the home islands . Now you can understand how it came to be the Americans didn't give a damn what parliament said.

3) 'They' were still English, and still British citizens. Emmigrating to America does not change that.

"Our ancestors are from England so we deserve better treatment than everyone else"

We would have settled for equal.

We were giving them a right to live on British-owned land.

'We' and 'them' again. That last comment doesn't make any sense. Who else would live on British soil but the British.