10 Things You Might Not Know About America's Independence

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'll sometimes get suckered into reading these lists at work, and I can say with absolute certainty 100% of any type of "list" put on a major media outlets website will be a combination of fluff, opinion, urban legend, or things already widely known.

[garbon]

Most of the people living in the Americas at that time were not colonists.

Not sure who we are talking about then. Native Americans?

Not surprised.

Well yes, this isn't the first time I was negative about the American Revolution.

I don't think the DOI says anything about slavery. Where is this argument made?

Oh, so we aren't supposed to take the reasoning for supporting independence and apply it to the historical state that resulted? Seems to me if your reasons for independence include a line about all men being equal - it's a bit rash to keep an institution that so egregiously violates that principle.

[garbon]

Is this an argument?  Smells like a red herring to me.

More like an off the cuff remark. Colonies exist to service the mother country. It shouldn't be surprising that they are exploited or that colonists might feel they lack representation - as they often did...at least of an effective sort.

I should think it would have depended on your circumstances.

Sure, of course. But it this pub-esque gathering that we have, on the merits, I still don't see that I could objectively be in favor.

The vast majority of the delegates wanted to keep the accusation that Jefferson wrote, to the effect that King George

...has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them to slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportations thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this excrable commerce

but had to drop it when the carolina delegations refused to agree to the declaration containing the charge.

The founders knew the nature of slavery and accepted its continuance reluctantly, as a matter that could not be resolved in a time of war.  If that is the most damning thing you have, remember that it was legal under the law the Americans were fighting against, as well.  At best the slavery issue is a tie between the British and the Americans.

So slavery should be forgiven because at that time "all men are created equal" really only meant that some men were equals?

[Berkut]

Most of the people living in the Americas at that time were not colonists.

Not sure who we are talking about then. Native Americans?

People born in the Americas of course, and hence no more "colonists" than I am.

Not surprised.

Well yes, this isn't the first time I was negative about the American Revolution.

I don't think the DOI says anything about slavery. Where is this argument made?

Oh, so we aren't supposed to take the reasoning for supporting independence and apply it to the historical state that resulted? Seems to me if your reasons for independence include a line about all men being equal - it's a bit rash to keep an institution that so egregiously violates that principle.

You aren't supposed to take reasoning that doesn't apply to independence and apply it to the decision to rebel, no. There were many, many, MANY problems with American social, cultural, and economic conditions at the time of the Revolution - nothing that the society was not perfect is a pretty idiotic way to argue that the decisions to rebel was flawed in some fashion.

Why not complain that America did not give women the right to vote, and hence how can they make a claim to equality? Or that only the wealthy got a voice? Or that gay people could not marry, or that children were required to work in inhumane conditions at time? Or that American Indians were treated unfairly?

[Berkut]

Is this an argument?  Smells like a red herring to me.

More like an off the cuff remark. Colonies exist to service the mother country. It shouldn't be surprising that they are exploited or that colonists might feel they lack representation - as they often did...at least of an effective sort.

Nor should it be surprising that colonies tend to decide not to do that any longer when they do not perceive that their interests are served by continuing to service the mother country any longer, and said mother country can no longer force compliance.

What is your point here? That because the Americas were setup to serve Britain, the Americans had no right to decide they didn't want to do that any longer?

[Berkut]

So slavery should be forgiven because at that time "all men are created equal" really only meant that some men were equals?

NO, I think grumbler didn't say anything about forgiving slavery. IN fact, I am rather certain he did not.

I am still unsure why you are harping on about slavery as some kind of relevance to your claim that the Americas should not have rebelled against Britain.

[CountDeMoney]

So slavery should be forgiven because at that time "all men are created equal" really only meant that some men were equals?

You know damned well that the signers of the Declaration, as well as the Constitution, had the complete expectation that slavery would eventually disappear based upon the inevitable political and philosophical maturation of the nation.
Unfortunately, the cotton gin came along.  So we fought a war to accelerate the inevitable.

So don't be silly.

[Barrister]

The founders knew the nature of slavery and accepted its continuance reluctantly, as a matter that could not be resolved in a time of war.  If that is the most damning thing you have, remember that it was legal under the law the Americans were fighting against, as well.  At best the slavery issue is a tie between the British and the Americans.

I dunno man - I'd more put it that at worst slavery was a tie between the British and the Americans.

It is completely fair to point out that in the Empire slavery was legal in the late 18th century.  However, Britain's history in the very early 19th century diverged quite sharply from the US on the topic of slavery.  So at best, slavery was a point in the UKs favour.  In some mythical America that was loyal it seems likely slavery would have been abolished long before the 1860s.

[CountDeMoney]

I am still unsure why you are harping on about slavery as some kind of relevance to your claim that the Americas should not have rebelled against Britain.

Because he's black on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, and gay on all the other days. 

[garbon]

So slavery should be forgiven because at that time "all men are created equal" really only meant that some men were equals?

NO, I think grumbler didn't say anything about forgiving slavery. IN fact, I am rather certain he did not.

I am still unsure why you are harping on about slavery as some kind of relevance to your claim that the Americas should not have rebelled against Britain.

He said:

Seems well-justified to me.  They wrote a declaration justifying it.  You might want to read it.  It makes a good case.

which I assumed to mean the Declaration of Independence. Because I assumed such, I assumed that it would be relevant to point out something that I didn't see justified in their case - namely the part where they said all men are created equal.  I agree discussing slavery is a tangent but then I wasn't arguing the side that the rebellion was well-justified.

[garbon]

You aren't supposed to take reasoning that doesn't apply to independence and apply it to the decision to rebel, no. There were many, many, MANY problems with American social, cultural, and economic conditions at the time of the Revolution - nothing that the society was not perfect is a pretty idiotic way to argue that the decisions to rebel was flawed in some fashion.

Why not complain that America did not give women the right to vote, and hence how can they make a claim to equality? Or that only the wealthy got a voice? Or that gay people could not marry, or that children were required to work in inhumane conditions at time? Or that American Indians were treated unfairly?

Again I didn't bring up the DoI and it doesn't really factor into why I think the rebellion wasn't necessarily well-justified.

[garbon]

Nor should it be surprising that colonies tend to decide not to do that any longer when they do not perceive that their interests are served by continuing to service the mother country any longer, and said mother country can no longer force compliance.

What is your point here? That because the Americas were setup to serve Britain, the Americans had no right to decide they didn't want to do that any longer?

Sure they have the "right" to decide that. Doesn't really justify rebellion considering that said setup was the whole reason for their existence.

[garbon]

I am still unsure why you are harping on about slavery as some kind of relevance to your claim that the Americas should not have rebelled against Britain.

Because he's black on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, and gay on all the other days. 

Would you rather I be gay every day like Mart?

Besides, I was gay enough this evening.

[The Brain]

If you feel that you have to produce a written justification for your actions it kind of gives away the fact that you know you're in the wrong.

[Admiral Yi]

I dunno man - I'd more put it that at worst slavery was a tie between the British and the Americans.

It is completely fair to point out that in the Empire slavery was legal in the late 18th century.  However, Britain's history in the very early 19th century diverged quite sharply from the US on the topic of slavery.  So at best, slavery was a point in the UKs favour.  In some mythical America that was loyal it seems likely slavery would have been abolished long before the 1860s.

Can't remember the exact dates, but I was surprised when I learned how late slavery was abolished in the British East Indies.