PDA

View Full Version : Taxation with Representation



Germanicus
02-15-2014, 02:07 AM
Hey I am reading an awesome book on modern history that was not written by an American. The book tells me that the English did not want the American colonialists to expand west because it would start a war with the Indians. Do you guys know anything about that?

Also, dont you think that the American colonialists starting a war with England was the act of traitors? England won the land. England lost many lives winning the land. Englands enemy was France. The American colonialists use the French to defeat the English and win independence. Isnt that kind of messed up? And are you guys sure the taxation was the reason? Or was it the best available excuse?

So the English didnt want to start a war with the Indians? Is this correct?

zelmo1234
02-15-2014, 02:12 AM
Hey I am reading an awesome book on modern history that was not written by an American. The book tells me that the English did not want the American colonialists to expand west because it would start a war with the Indians. Do you guys know anything about that?

Also, dont you think that the American colonialists starting a war with England was the act of traitors? England won the land. England lost many lives winning the land. Englands enemy was France. The American colonialists use the French to defeat the English and win independence. Isnt that kind of messed up? And are you guys sure the taxation was the reason? Or was it the best available excuse?

So the English didnt want to start a war with the Indians? Is this correct?

If you look at the war of 1812, the English promised the Indians that they would give them the west as a land of their own, if they would fight with England!

The Indians did, and when the British lost, Again! The abandon the Indians in the USA, this was one fo the things that actually set off some on the indian massacres!


Of course they could all run to Canada! But the British killed them up there too!

As for the other part of your question! Taxation was but one of the issues facing the colonies, and if we had lost the war, the founding fathers would have been hung for treason!

KC
02-15-2014, 02:17 AM
Hey I am reading an awesome book on modern history that was not written by an American. The book tells me that the English did not want the American colonialists to expand west because it would start a war with the Indians. Do you guys know anything about that?

Also, dont you think that the American colonialists starting a war with England was the act of traitors? England won the land. England lost many lives winning the land. Englands enemy was France. The American colonialists use the French to defeat the English and win independence. Isnt that kind of messed up? And are you guys sure the taxation was the reason? Or was it the best available excuse?

So the English didnt want to start a war with the Indians? Is this correct?

Yes, after the French and Indian War (Seven Years' War probably elsewhere) settlement into the newly acquired territories was prohibited until England could establish a coherent Indian policy.

That doesn't really explain your thread title. The lack of representation may be seen as an excuse, but regardless America did lack representation in Parliament.

donttread
02-15-2014, 07:13 AM
We STILL lack TRUE representation.

And I doubt the Imperialistic English were concerned about the Indians, they likely just wanted to cement their exploitation plan first

Newpublius
02-15-2014, 12:35 PM
Hey I am reading an awesome book on modern history that was not written by an American. The book tells me that the English did not want the American colonialists to expand west because it would start a war with the Indians. Do you guys know anything about that?

People versed in history actually know a lot about it. Let's take a step back to pre-revolutionary colonial America where the colonists settle in places like Boston, Providence, New Haven, New York, Philadelphia....etc...essentially in natural harbors at the mouths of nice sized rivers.

Water transport was very, very important.

It was relatively easy for civilization to extend about as far as the 'fall line' in most cases and beyond that of course you had the natural impediment imposed by the Apalachain mountains. Now, from the colonists point of view, the mountains are just the frontier, the Apalachains are not an impervious barrier by any stretch of the imagination.

So, when one goes to a place like Montpelier, James Madison's home in Orange, VA, one can truly sense how the frontier is ever so tantalizingly close.

Now, from the British point of view, there's no great incentive to cross the mountains pre-1776. Why? Well, its simple really, the watershed becomes the Mississippi watershed relatively quickly and the French hold New Orleans.

Fast forwarding a little bit, ask yourself why Washington put down a 'Whiskey' Rebellion in western Pennsylvania and the answer is simple, there was insufficient infrastructure to get corn to market, so to export it to eastern PA, one had to turn it into whiskey.

Now, back tracking a little bit, there's always the sense in early American history of connecting the hinterlands with the coast, and the way to do this is with canals. Canals are often a footnote in history of course, but the Erie Canal, the Pennsylvania Canal, the Chesepeake & Ohio Canal....read up on them and see how these canals were very, very important for establishing commerce in NY, PA and the DC area extending westward....

Transporting product by land just wasn't very practical. You can look up the watersheds and where they meet, the Mississippi watershed actually extends to a spot in western NY if you can believe it. Lake Chautauqua is actually in the MS watershed and there's an historic portage going from there to Lake Erie.


Also, dont you think that the American colonialists starting a war with England was the act of traitors?

No, we're Americans, we think the American Revolution was a lawful act. American law distinguishes between the lawful act embodied by the natural right of revolution and unlawful rebellion.


England won the land. England lost many lives winning the land. Englands enemy was France. The American colonialists use the French to defeat the English and win independence. Isnt that kind of messed up? And are you guys sure the taxation was the reason? Or was it the best available excuse?

And those Englishmen were intimately connected with the land for the most part. Including people like Washington who actually fought for the British during the French and Indian War. Read Common Sense by Thomas Paine.


So the English didnt want to start a war with the Indians? Is this correct?

Well, I think they were a bit more concerned with the French and Indians hence the French and Indian War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Necessity

You can see where Fort Necessity is....Of course after the French and Indian War the French cede the Indian Reserve but the British still had an affirmative interest in Native American ALLIES.....as can be seen by the Treaty of Easton. The British didn't want to fight those Indians, they wanted those Indians to fight WITH THEM....against the French.,...
\