#1 Frigid verus Cracked.com
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:11 pm
I got emailed this article by a buddy back in Oklahoma. It annoys me deeply. So y'all get to see me shred it.
This is Part I.
Cracked.com
Ben Franklin was the representative of the colonies to the crown, yes. He was for the Stamp Act yes. But this didn't sneak up on them. There was a build up.
Let me start before the Stamp Act. I'll go to the Sugar Act (1764). The Sugar Act was a tax on molasses, a high one, which was imported from the West Indies and used to make Rum. At the time Rum was a major export from the West Indies. If the rum makers paid it, they would have gone out of business no ifs or buts. In order to keep in business (and you know afford clothes, houses and food) the rum makers of New England turned to smuggling, bribery and out right threats on tax collectors. For the merchants... It worked pretty well. It also generated protests led by Samuel Adams and James Otis. At the time the protests were aimed at the economic impact, "If I pay this tax I am bankrupted." Which you gotta admit is a pretty good reason to get excited.
Now we can get to the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act is pretty misunderstood. It's not a tax on mail stamps. See back in the day if you did any official business (get married, sold something, bought something, buried or gave birth to someone, went to court, etc) the documents had to be stamped with an official seal. Anything printed had to have a stamp, so any newspaper, magazines, books, also needed to be stamped. That's lot of taxes. Here's a fun part for you to think about, it had to be pay in British money, most colonies used their own currency. You can see how most folks would get excited. Additionally Britian at the time was not coining any money and wouldn't let the colonies do so. So not only did you have pay a tax for just about anything official you did, you had to do so in a currency that wasn't available to you unless you were part of the elite. Parliament wasn't trying to piss off Joe Average but it found a pretty good way to pull if off anyways.
Enter the Stamp Act Congress, a meeting of 56 delegates from 9 of the 13 colonies. They got together discussed their options and sent in a petition to stop the Stamp Act... Before the damn stamps in question even got to the colonies! They also sent in a lists of grievances. The reaction of Parliament? They refused to have the petition read or even discuss it. Add in the sheer level of violence (well how would you react if someone told you that if you wanted to get married or buy a house you had to pay a tax in a form of money you didn't have?) that was well publicized... In fact there was so much violence that the tax collectors collectively resigned rather then collect this tax (that's alot of collects there).
I think it safe to say that the British caught some clues. This is 1765. A full 12 years before any declarations of Independences had been made.
Course it wasn't just the colonials who were opposed to the Stamp Acts. British merchants were completely against them and spent plenty of time and money telling Parliament that it had lost it's damn mind (politely of course, this is England when being rude to Parliament got you jail time).
Parliament withdraws the Stamp Act pretty quickly but in it's place sends a army of 1500 men to occupy New York City. It's 1766. It may just be me but I don't think you sent the army to occupy a place that loves you. The Quartering Acts basically declared that the colonies were completely responsible for supplying and sheltering the troops sent to the colonies. Now I'll admit... That's not unfair seeming. But let's consider. The colonies aren't asking for these troops, the French and Indian War (or to go by it's real name the 7 Year War) is over. There are no more French Armies to worry about (stop laughing!). The only reason for these troops is to... well control the colonies. This is like being told by the governor that since your city is so cranky with him, he sending in the national guard to shut you up... And you gotta pay for the gas it takes to get them there. This went over like a lead balloon. No one expect Pennsylvania followed the law and in fact the Governor and Assembly of New York were removed from office by the British government. The colonies were expected to provide barricks or put them up in inns, food houses or failing that the private homes of business owners "the houses of sellers of wine and houses of persons selling of rum, brandy, strong water, cider or metheglin" Did I mention that the making and selling of rum was a huge part of the New England economy? Quiet a few people fell under that list and they had to give food, beds, drinks, candles and so on to the troops. Free of Charge. This was pretty much aimed at a good chunk of the merchant class and like the Sugar Act would have driven them under. (You try feeding an extra 4 or 5 really big and active guys and see how much it costs you). I submit when you have to remove an entire government, an elected one, it's a signal that the natives are unhappy.
Now we jump 1768 with the Townshend Acts. These were actually a bunch of separate acts but here are the highlights. Paper, lead, glass and tea imported into the colonies were to be taxed. The colonies didn't make them at the time and were only allowed to buy them from Great Britain itself. Tea imported to Britain was freed from all taxes in the meantime. So the colonists would have to pay taxes that the English wouldn't. Reaffirmed were general search warrants, which allowed an English official to search pretty much any house he damn well felt like for smuggled goods (remember how the Sugar Act convinced a bunch of merchants to start smuggling? Well it became a habit, a HUGE habit). Now I'll write in England's defense here. They grasped that the Americans didn't like the Stamp Act (no one did) and had a ligit complaint towards the Sugar Act (I pay this and I'm screwed!) but they thought an external tax on exports to the colonies would be considered fair game. Whoops. To collect the taxes the The American Customs Board was set up and Admiralty Courts were set up in the American colonies (before then they had only been in Nova Scotia), Admiral courts had no juries, and much lower requirements for evidence then civil courts. To say they were unpopular would be like saying the military tribunals for Gitmo were a source of mild displeasure for the Arab world (this is not meant to suggest that the Admiralty courts were torturing people, they were not.) In reaction the colonies sent petitions to the Kings saying "Hey we don't like this, please stop, it hurts" and Virginia and Pennsylvania sent petitions to Parliament, who again refused to even discuss the matter.
The British ordered the colonial governors to dissolve any Assembly that didn't comply. The colonists responded with a boycott of the taxed goods and started making their own. British exports to the colonies fell by 39%, not as good as the colonists hoped but more then enough to make people notice. Boston had to be occupied by British troops to retain control, clashes between civies and troopers grew to the point where in 1770 the Boston Massacre occurred (it should be noted in England's defense the troops were confronting a riot and with a whole 5 dead and 11 injuried... It's not much of a massacre).
I'll jump ahead to the 1st Continental Congress in 1774 now. The 1st Continental Congress was a response to the Intolerable Acts. I'll go ahead and list them for you.
The Boston Port Act, the first of the acts passed in response to the Boston Tea Party, closed the port of Boston until the East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea and until the king was satisfied that order had been restored.
This was basically a mass punishment that would ruin thousands of people over the actions of a couple dozen and done without a trail.
The Massachusetts Government Act provoked even more outrage than the Port Act because it unilaterally altered the government of Massachusetts to bring it under control of the British government. Under the terms of the Government Act, almost all positions in the colonial government were to be appointed by the governor or the king. The act also severely limited the activities of town meetings in Massachusetts.
Up until now almost everything had been locally elected.
The Administration of Justice Act allowed the governor to move trials of accused royal officials to another colony or even to Great Britain if he believed the official could not get a fair trial in Massachusetts. Although the act stipulated that witnesses would be paid for their travel expenses, in practice few colonists could afford to leave their work and cross the ocean to testify in a trial. George Washington called this the "Murder Act" because he believed that it allowed British officials to harass Americans and then escape justice.[4] Some colonists believed the act was unnecessary because British soldiers had been given a fair trial following the Boston Massacre in 1770, with future Founding Father John Adams representing the Defense no less.
Keep in mind this could mean you would be stuck in England for over a year if not more, and it would take you months to get there and back.
The Quartering Act applied to all of the colonies, and sought to create a more effective method of housing British troops in America. In a previous act, the colonies had been required to provide housing for soldiers, but colonial legislatures had been uncooperative in doing so. The new Quartering Act allowed a governor to house soldiers in other buildings if suitable quarters were not provided.
There are competing claims here, many say it allows for the quartering of troops in private homes. Others say it means empty buildings only.
The Quebec Act was a piece of legislation unrelated to the events in Boston, but the timing of its passage led colonists to believe that it was part of the program to punish them. The act enlarged the boundaries of what was then the colony of "Canada" (roughly consisting of today's Province of Quebec and Province of Ontario) removed references to the Protestant faith in the oath of allegiance, and guaranteed free practice of the Roman Catholic faith. The Quebec Act offended a variety of interest groups in the British colonies. Land speculators and settlers objected to the transfer of western lands previously claimed by the colonies to a non-representative government. Many feared the establishment of Catholicism in Quebec, and that the French Canadians were being courted to help oppress British Americans.
I think the protests to this were hysteria honestly. Although there is a point in that more strength was being given to a colony that didn't have a locally elected government.
The 1st Continental Congress meets and decides on a even bigger boycott. In the following year British exports to the colonies drop 97% (in effect forcing British merchants to talk to Parliament for them, since Parliament won't even read their letters). The Congress also agrees to cease all exports to Great Britian in 1775 (the war got in the way of this).
They agree to have another Congress next year.
1775 and the fighting is underway. At this point I believe I have made a firm case that this had been building for over a decade and the colonists had made their displeasure known at every step of the way. Rebellion wasn't yet in full swing but Lexington and Concord have occurred and folks are grabbing their rifles. The Congress for the most part wants to nip this in the bud.
They send a petition to King George (called the Olive Branch Petition) asking him to stop the conflict and declare themselves fully ready to negotiate tax and trade regulations with Great Britain and open to any plan the King would offer. Two suggestions were given: One that the colonists pay the same taxes as the people of Great Britain if they were allowed free trade or no Imperial taxes but strict trade regulations worked out to the satisfaction of both parties. The King of course could offer his own plan. King George III rejected the petition. The colonies were declared to be in rebellion by the English government a month later.
The English were not attempting to be cruel or brutal overlords on the other hand they did repeatably ignore colonial cries and complaints and refused to even discuss the issue with the colonists. The colonists repeatably shown themselves open to a compromise and would pay taxes if they could be part of the decision making process. While the colonists aren't without blame it is utter and total bullshit to claim that the British thought that the colonists were happy and fine throughout this process.
Part II to follow.
This is Part I.
Cracked.com
In a word, Bullshit. In two words Fucking Bullshit.It's easy to say the modern teabaggers are assholes. The modern teabaggers are assholes. See? We didn't even break a sweat.
But as it turns out, these latest teabaggers are simply carrying on a longstanding tradition of proud, vaguely patriotic douchebaggery that they learned from the OG's of asshole behavior; the guys who tossed some tea into a harbor a couple hundred years ago.
No, we're not saying we wish the British had won the war or that we wish America had never been born. We're just saying that American history glosses over a lot of true dick behavior. After all, consider that...
1: The British didn't even know the Colonists were unhappy
Benjamin Franklin had been chosen by the Pennsylvania colonial legislature to represent the colonies before the crown. If the colonies were pissed, or sick of paying unfair taxes (or as was more often the case, not paying them), it was Franklin's job to let the crown know.
Unfortunately, Ben really loved the crown. Right before the revolution, he had been trying, unsuccessfully, to convince the king to take back Pennsylvania from the Penn family, and put it under royal control.
When the issue of the Stamp Act first came up, even though the colonists were furious, Ben Franklin was all about it, and he told Great Britain as much. Hell, he even gave a friend of his the cushy job collecting the new taxes.
But Why?
Because he was fucking clueless about the people he was representing and spent most of his time in Britain. When colonists eventually showed up at his house rioting, he must have been just shocked that they were so angry about the Stamp Act. Or, he would have been shocked, but people were rioting at his house and threatening to hang him, so he kind of had some other stuff to deal with.
When you think about it, Ben Franklin was a terrible choice for Voice of the People. The dude managed to be a rich, successful, self-made, internationally jet-setting playboy in the 18th goddamn century, for fuck's sake. John Q. Public he was not. Of course he didn't mind the Stamp Act; if it didn't at all impede his ability to fuck princesses on hot air balloons, (or whatever the 18th Century analogue to the mile high club was), why should he care? Franklin's hypothetical balloon-humping to one side, the point is that Great Britain was blissfully unaware on the other side of the ocean while the colonists steamed and let their rage build.
Ben Franklin was the representative of the colonies to the crown, yes. He was for the Stamp Act yes. But this didn't sneak up on them. There was a build up.
Let me start before the Stamp Act. I'll go to the Sugar Act (1764). The Sugar Act was a tax on molasses, a high one, which was imported from the West Indies and used to make Rum. At the time Rum was a major export from the West Indies. If the rum makers paid it, they would have gone out of business no ifs or buts. In order to keep in business (and you know afford clothes, houses and food) the rum makers of New England turned to smuggling, bribery and out right threats on tax collectors. For the merchants... It worked pretty well. It also generated protests led by Samuel Adams and James Otis. At the time the protests were aimed at the economic impact, "If I pay this tax I am bankrupted." Which you gotta admit is a pretty good reason to get excited.
Now we can get to the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act is pretty misunderstood. It's not a tax on mail stamps. See back in the day if you did any official business (get married, sold something, bought something, buried or gave birth to someone, went to court, etc) the documents had to be stamped with an official seal. Anything printed had to have a stamp, so any newspaper, magazines, books, also needed to be stamped. That's lot of taxes. Here's a fun part for you to think about, it had to be pay in British money, most colonies used their own currency. You can see how most folks would get excited. Additionally Britian at the time was not coining any money and wouldn't let the colonies do so. So not only did you have pay a tax for just about anything official you did, you had to do so in a currency that wasn't available to you unless you were part of the elite. Parliament wasn't trying to piss off Joe Average but it found a pretty good way to pull if off anyways.
Enter the Stamp Act Congress, a meeting of 56 delegates from 9 of the 13 colonies. They got together discussed their options and sent in a petition to stop the Stamp Act... Before the damn stamps in question even got to the colonies! They also sent in a lists of grievances. The reaction of Parliament? They refused to have the petition read or even discuss it. Add in the sheer level of violence (well how would you react if someone told you that if you wanted to get married or buy a house you had to pay a tax in a form of money you didn't have?) that was well publicized... In fact there was so much violence that the tax collectors collectively resigned rather then collect this tax (that's alot of collects there).
I think it safe to say that the British caught some clues. This is 1765. A full 12 years before any declarations of Independences had been made.
Course it wasn't just the colonials who were opposed to the Stamp Acts. British merchants were completely against them and spent plenty of time and money telling Parliament that it had lost it's damn mind (politely of course, this is England when being rude to Parliament got you jail time).
Parliament withdraws the Stamp Act pretty quickly but in it's place sends a army of 1500 men to occupy New York City. It's 1766. It may just be me but I don't think you sent the army to occupy a place that loves you. The Quartering Acts basically declared that the colonies were completely responsible for supplying and sheltering the troops sent to the colonies. Now I'll admit... That's not unfair seeming. But let's consider. The colonies aren't asking for these troops, the French and Indian War (or to go by it's real name the 7 Year War) is over. There are no more French Armies to worry about (stop laughing!). The only reason for these troops is to... well control the colonies. This is like being told by the governor that since your city is so cranky with him, he sending in the national guard to shut you up... And you gotta pay for the gas it takes to get them there. This went over like a lead balloon. No one expect Pennsylvania followed the law and in fact the Governor and Assembly of New York were removed from office by the British government. The colonies were expected to provide barricks or put them up in inns, food houses or failing that the private homes of business owners "the houses of sellers of wine and houses of persons selling of rum, brandy, strong water, cider or metheglin" Did I mention that the making and selling of rum was a huge part of the New England economy? Quiet a few people fell under that list and they had to give food, beds, drinks, candles and so on to the troops. Free of Charge. This was pretty much aimed at a good chunk of the merchant class and like the Sugar Act would have driven them under. (You try feeding an extra 4 or 5 really big and active guys and see how much it costs you). I submit when you have to remove an entire government, an elected one, it's a signal that the natives are unhappy.
Now we jump 1768 with the Townshend Acts. These were actually a bunch of separate acts but here are the highlights. Paper, lead, glass and tea imported into the colonies were to be taxed. The colonies didn't make them at the time and were only allowed to buy them from Great Britain itself. Tea imported to Britain was freed from all taxes in the meantime. So the colonists would have to pay taxes that the English wouldn't. Reaffirmed were general search warrants, which allowed an English official to search pretty much any house he damn well felt like for smuggled goods (remember how the Sugar Act convinced a bunch of merchants to start smuggling? Well it became a habit, a HUGE habit). Now I'll write in England's defense here. They grasped that the Americans didn't like the Stamp Act (no one did) and had a ligit complaint towards the Sugar Act (I pay this and I'm screwed!) but they thought an external tax on exports to the colonies would be considered fair game. Whoops. To collect the taxes the The American Customs Board was set up and Admiralty Courts were set up in the American colonies (before then they had only been in Nova Scotia), Admiral courts had no juries, and much lower requirements for evidence then civil courts. To say they were unpopular would be like saying the military tribunals for Gitmo were a source of mild displeasure for the Arab world (this is not meant to suggest that the Admiralty courts were torturing people, they were not.) In reaction the colonies sent petitions to the Kings saying "Hey we don't like this, please stop, it hurts" and Virginia and Pennsylvania sent petitions to Parliament, who again refused to even discuss the matter.
The British ordered the colonial governors to dissolve any Assembly that didn't comply. The colonists responded with a boycott of the taxed goods and started making their own. British exports to the colonies fell by 39%, not as good as the colonists hoped but more then enough to make people notice. Boston had to be occupied by British troops to retain control, clashes between civies and troopers grew to the point where in 1770 the Boston Massacre occurred (it should be noted in England's defense the troops were confronting a riot and with a whole 5 dead and 11 injuried... It's not much of a massacre).
I'll jump ahead to the 1st Continental Congress in 1774 now. The 1st Continental Congress was a response to the Intolerable Acts. I'll go ahead and list them for you.
The Boston Port Act, the first of the acts passed in response to the Boston Tea Party, closed the port of Boston until the East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea and until the king was satisfied that order had been restored.
This was basically a mass punishment that would ruin thousands of people over the actions of a couple dozen and done without a trail.
The Massachusetts Government Act provoked even more outrage than the Port Act because it unilaterally altered the government of Massachusetts to bring it under control of the British government. Under the terms of the Government Act, almost all positions in the colonial government were to be appointed by the governor or the king. The act also severely limited the activities of town meetings in Massachusetts.
Up until now almost everything had been locally elected.
The Administration of Justice Act allowed the governor to move trials of accused royal officials to another colony or even to Great Britain if he believed the official could not get a fair trial in Massachusetts. Although the act stipulated that witnesses would be paid for their travel expenses, in practice few colonists could afford to leave their work and cross the ocean to testify in a trial. George Washington called this the "Murder Act" because he believed that it allowed British officials to harass Americans and then escape justice.[4] Some colonists believed the act was unnecessary because British soldiers had been given a fair trial following the Boston Massacre in 1770, with future Founding Father John Adams representing the Defense no less.
Keep in mind this could mean you would be stuck in England for over a year if not more, and it would take you months to get there and back.
The Quartering Act applied to all of the colonies, and sought to create a more effective method of housing British troops in America. In a previous act, the colonies had been required to provide housing for soldiers, but colonial legislatures had been uncooperative in doing so. The new Quartering Act allowed a governor to house soldiers in other buildings if suitable quarters were not provided.
There are competing claims here, many say it allows for the quartering of troops in private homes. Others say it means empty buildings only.
The Quebec Act was a piece of legislation unrelated to the events in Boston, but the timing of its passage led colonists to believe that it was part of the program to punish them. The act enlarged the boundaries of what was then the colony of "Canada" (roughly consisting of today's Province of Quebec and Province of Ontario) removed references to the Protestant faith in the oath of allegiance, and guaranteed free practice of the Roman Catholic faith. The Quebec Act offended a variety of interest groups in the British colonies. Land speculators and settlers objected to the transfer of western lands previously claimed by the colonies to a non-representative government. Many feared the establishment of Catholicism in Quebec, and that the French Canadians were being courted to help oppress British Americans.
I think the protests to this were hysteria honestly. Although there is a point in that more strength was being given to a colony that didn't have a locally elected government.
The 1st Continental Congress meets and decides on a even bigger boycott. In the following year British exports to the colonies drop 97% (in effect forcing British merchants to talk to Parliament for them, since Parliament won't even read their letters). The Congress also agrees to cease all exports to Great Britian in 1775 (the war got in the way of this).
They agree to have another Congress next year.
1775 and the fighting is underway. At this point I believe I have made a firm case that this had been building for over a decade and the colonists had made their displeasure known at every step of the way. Rebellion wasn't yet in full swing but Lexington and Concord have occurred and folks are grabbing their rifles. The Congress for the most part wants to nip this in the bud.
They send a petition to King George (called the Olive Branch Petition) asking him to stop the conflict and declare themselves fully ready to negotiate tax and trade regulations with Great Britain and open to any plan the King would offer. Two suggestions were given: One that the colonists pay the same taxes as the people of Great Britain if they were allowed free trade or no Imperial taxes but strict trade regulations worked out to the satisfaction of both parties. The King of course could offer his own plan. King George III rejected the petition. The colonies were declared to be in rebellion by the English government a month later.
The English were not attempting to be cruel or brutal overlords on the other hand they did repeatably ignore colonial cries and complaints and refused to even discuss the issue with the colonists. The colonists repeatably shown themselves open to a compromise and would pay taxes if they could be part of the decision making process. While the colonists aren't without blame it is utter and total bullshit to claim that the British thought that the colonists were happy and fine throughout this process.
Part II to follow.