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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (139296)7/8/2004 12:08:26 PM
From: jttmab  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The smuggling was a way of evading the effects of the tax.

We certainly don't call the cigarette smugglers of today the Sons of Freedom for moving cigarettes from the south.

Large landowners of every socio-economic strata tended to feel it was in their best interest to be sympathetic to the Crown.

Not your fault...this seems to be an odd sentence, i.e., it includes large landowners of the lower socio-economic strata. Poor large landowners? I guess.

Sure, there were wealthy revolutionaries, but the wealthy generally did not care to rock any boats...

The signers of the Declaration of Independence....

Twenty four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated.

serendipity.li

Looks to me like you're looking at primarily the priveleged class.....I wouldn't have expected to see the phrase....All white men who are property owners are created equal though that's what the early years of the country were. All men are created equal is a much better sound bite for the masses. Not that everyone would actually get treated equally after the revolution, but it sounded great.

Here's one of the awfull things done by the Crown from the Declaration.......

He [King George III] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

What domestic insurrections are they talking about? Are they claiming that the Boston Tea Party was instigated by the Crown?

You held in a previous post that it was unreasonable for the Crown to restrict the movement westward of the colonies..."nomadic tribes" as you put it. What's going on here? Benjamin Franklin had some thoughts on the Indians in a letter to Letter to Peter Collinson 1753, pp. 468-75: It is good to serve the poor, but not so much as to encourage idleness or dependency. People tend to seek ease of life; the Indians seem to live an easy life, which young children as a rule prefer. Their wants are few and natural, and easily fulfilled. Meanwhile civilized man has "infinite Artificial [capitalizing an adjective] wants" that are harder to satisfy.

home.uchicago.edu

Doesn't sound like the merciless Indian Savages that we find in the Declaration of Independence. Franklin opposed the lynching of innocent Indians by the Penn. frontiermen. That would be the colonists doing the lynching, not England. There is another passage by Franklin floating around where he claims that the Indians have the best form of government in the world and they by and large live happily and peacefully.

jttmab