|
Why Stephen Harper won't win the election... (pg. 16)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| malek |
Thank you, it doesn't make sense anyways.
back to current days politics>>>>>>>>>>>> |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
asking me if I slept thru it when clearly you show signs of ignorance.
The 13 colonies already had tensions with the UK, but it was clear that after the conquest of all enemies in North America, that paying taxes for "protection" was out of the question. The 13 colonies decided to rise against the British. It was British greed that did it, not those 65000 Canadiens :rolleyes:
I can continue about the Loyalists moving north and asking for harsher policies against French and the return of assimilation politics, but its useless to lower myself to your unidimensional view of things.
After posting what you did early it serves no purpose, you're still an idiot even after all those years. |
you're doing all the childish name calling yet you're calling me ignorant?:rolleyes: Is this what they teach you in the Middle East or Montreal or wherever it is you were "educated"?
Your views on the American Revolution are especially twisted. British greed? Are you kidding me? You do realise that the British had fought what was really the first world war (ie fought across the globe in Europe, America and India) that stressed Britain's economy and put her in massive debt. Do you know what set off the Seven Years War in the first place? George Washington and his Virginians crossing into the Ohio Territory in 1754 demanding that French territory be annexed by the British government. The colonists set off the war, although tensions between Britain and France were always shaky at best during those times.
So let me see....you have a massively indebted Britain that just inherited basically a whole continent by 1763 after defeating France for the third time in a century. Again, you keep ignoring this point, but they have their own interests as a centralised government to look at, the bickering of American colonists, the interests of the French in Quebec and the oft forgotten Natives. So the British, in order to remedy the situation, give all land west of the Appalachians to the Indians and impose a series of taxes on the colonists to pay for the war that they DEMANDED IN THE FIRST PLACE. The British had to maintain 10,000 troops on the frontier to satisfy the demands of the colonists for protection against Native harrassment. How else does a nation offer such services? They tax...and tax...and tax. And in this situation, it was completely justifiable.
You obviously have trouble seeing the bigger picture here. Even American intellectuals will admit their Revolution was due to greed, money and land yet you're saying it was because of British greed! Please tell me you're not a history major. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
With regard to the Quebec Act's influance on the US revolution.... While those that supported US cecession from Britain did cite this as part of their greivences and did use it to rally support it really was inconsequential in the final decision. Revolutionary rhetoric and even meetings had existed long before the Quebec Act was proclaimed. Furthermore, the 13 colonies had origionally planned for 15 colonies. The additional two colonies were Quebec and Nova Scotia. Both of these colonies refused to join in the revolution because they believed they would benefit from association with Britain more so then with the colonies. Following the revolution representitives from the Continental Congress again approaced Quebec (Lower Canada at the time) and Nova Scotia to join, again both rejected the offer. Lower Canada was actually approached a thrid time (prior to the onset of hostilities in 1812) with an invitation to join the US. Certainly, if the US were really infuriated with the existance of a French culture in North America they would not have wished to allow that culture into their own state. This idea that the Quebec Act was a catalyst to the US revolution is a historical inacuracy that is a product of the propaganda of the time rather then fact. |
I can't believe the both of you, trying to talk history here, are nearly completely overlooking the impact of the Quebec Act on Anglo colonial opinion. That act was passed in 1774, the Revolution's first shots were fired in 1775 at Lexington and Concord. Do you not at least see the correlation here? There is an abundance of material to be found concerning American upheaval over the Quebec Act.
I quote, from "A People and a Nation 4th Edition Volume 1: To 1877"
"The Quebec Act granted greater religous freedoms to Catholics, thereby alarming Protestant colonists. The act annexed to Quebec the area east of the Mississippi River and north of the Ohio Valley where American merchants and businessmen had begun to stake their claims. That region was thus removed from their jurisdiction. To Patriots, the Quebec Act proved what they had silently feared since 1768: that Great Britain had embarked on a plan to oppress American expansion, while granting concesssions to an already conquered French population and savage Indians on the frontier". page 90.
This, coming from American historians, should shut you both up. The Quebec Act was an integral component, albeit a much later one in addition to the Intolerable Acts (such as garrisoning troops in local houses as I said earlier, The Boston Massacre, the Navigation Acts, the series of taxes, no representation in London), in swaying patriot opinion over to the militant side.
And it was not the "existence" of a French culture in their society that "infuriated" the Americans...it was the British preventing them from CONTROLLING that society via the stipulations in the Quebec Act. Please remember that without monetary and military support from France, the Americans never would have defeated the British in any event.
Now, if you're going to argue with an historian, next time do a better job than typing up your own opinions as fact. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
Come on Malek, what about that British greed that started the American Revolution?
I guess we'll have to ignore the fact that 2/5 of the 13 Colonies' population was Patriot, 2/5 were loyalist and 1/5 neutral, changing sides based on whoever was doing better at any given time. What a united cause against British greed!:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Floorwhore |
 |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
 |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
so now we're playing the "Post a Stupid Picture" game? :rolleyes:
 |
|
|
| malek |
, i forgot that thread.
So Smitty, you still argue, that Quebec is the cause of the American revolution and all the happened on this continent since 1763...
man, you need help for being so francophobe and desillusionned. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
That's hilarious! Let's hijack this thread!
I return your volley...
This doesn't mean I'm pro-liberal, read my posts earlier. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
Beer for the parents, popcorn for the kids. Everyone benefits. What's the problem?
 |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
|
my point exactly :p |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
That's hilarious! Let's hijack this thread!
I return your volley...
This doesn't mean I'm pro-liberal, read my posts earlier. |
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
