Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (138808)	7/5/2004 4:24:46 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

...To put it another way, the bonds of allegiance to the "mother country" were so attenuated that one would have been hard pressed to call England "their country", rather than an overlord that had become oppressive.. I might agree, though it seems like there was a lot of founding father "spin" at play. I recall reading somewhere along the line, that rumors were spread that the Quebec Act was the beginning of England's intentions to force all colonists to become Catholics. Sort of odd to come from the head of the Church of England, but some bought into it. It wasn't the brightest move on the part of King George to hit the lawyers and press with the Stamp Tax. Particularly the press. It's hard to win the "hearts and minds" of the colonists when you've pissed off the press in the colonies. I can imagine if Sam Adams were around today, he would look at the subsidies on the cotton industry as wholly parallel to the situation on the English Tea Company. He would gather together a group of merry men, dress them up as Navajo and burn the cotton crops in the middle of the night. John Hancock [who might have outsourced his supply of cotton] would have written an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal calling Sam and his boys the Sons of Freedom. The colonies were interested in "western expansion" and found England to be oppressive in prohibiting it. Western expansion, is a positive phrase. But it was expansion into French and Indian territory. Today, how would we view "Southern expansion" by Texas and Arizona? If the Feds prohibited Texas and Arizona from taking land in Mexico, would we call the Feds "oppressive"? jttmab