This ignores the "without representation" part. England gutted colonies' ability to govern
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.
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.
The colonial governments had previously had influence over laws in that their elected officials would advise the governors. England shut that down. Patrick Henry made the "taxation without representation" argument ten years before the Declaration of Independence
Many excuses were made, that's the one that stuck. The real reason was that the colonies were rich, and now had effectively unlimited land to the west they could expand into, that the British army had taken care of the French.
I think you have that backwards. The grievances were the motivation. The situation was the opportunity.
If they were content, they wouldn't have revolted
Your jobs were to harvest resources and kill Indians not play pretend parliament
Boston was trying to hide and store wealth before the revolution and it’s still doing it to this day.
It is so common that when Massachusetts passed its billionaire tax recently, the real estate market got worried they might lose revenue.
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
Imperialism and slavery make the capital go round
Taxation without representation was the excuse. As always, the reason was "wait, we're the ones with more resources!"
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?
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 🤣.
The whole concept is revolting.
Colonies do lead to revolutions in most cases, yes.
All this talk is making my head spin
I see what you did there
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.
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.
to protect you from the French
lol. oh man, that's hilarious. Stay in school, kids.
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.
So… they saved the land, not the people. It’s like cutting employee salaries to avoid a takeover from another company. Don’t worry everyone… we “saved” you.
The territories were the things the US founding fathers cared about. They were almost all rich -- or at least formerly rich like Samuel Adams.
Europe's problems are the world's problems but the world's problems are never Europe's problems.
Yeah, they really wanted to rule them all
Imagine my surprise when I learned that Europe was adjacent to Japan.
It is interesting to see that Sweden is only three land borders away from North Korea.
Sweden - Finland
Finland - Russia
Russia - DPRK
And Brazil!
Don't forget the section of South America that is also Europe on that picture.
Thank you. Gonna save this picture for when someone calls the migrant crisis an invasion of Europe.
Projection like always.
Lol, love how French Guyana is "Europe"
The US took over that role after WW2
Bailing out the East India Company has entered the chat
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
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.
Y'all started your own shit in Europe. Don't tax us for your fuckups.
The first battles of the 7 years war were in the Ohio river valley. They resulted in a certain Lt. Colonel of the British Army named George Washington surrendering.
and the 7 years war was fought without consent from the colonies. The colonies did not want to fight the french, their allies.
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.
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?
A classic prank
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
