SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Neocon who wrote (138803)7/5/2004 9:39:56 AM
From: jttmab  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
Sometimes they were, actually. But would you care to say more?

Maybe a couple of items...

In 1774, they wrote up their Declaration of Rights in Philadelphia, declaration.net complaining among other things on the Stamp Act of 1765. Whiners. The Stamp Act of 1765 was only in effect for 4 months and then repealed by King George III ... eight years later they were still whining about a repealed Act. It was a small and pretty reasonable tax, at that and coordinated with the colony before it went into effect. Asking the colonies to pay for a small percentage of the cost to defense, doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me. There were no direct taxes on the colony prior to that. A tax free haven and the colonists thought that England should pay for their entire defense.

totse.com

Personnaly, my favorite example was the Quebec Act, labelled by the founding fathers as a "Coercive Act", and an act of tyrany. Sounds bad. But the Quebec Act merely guaranteed that Catholics in Quebec would be permitted to practice their religion. An act of tyranny?

The Quartering Act was another one. When Georgia refused to comply, England said, ok...no British troops. Georgia decided it was in their best interests to pay the pittance out of their own colonial treasury.

jttmab
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext