Were all the American grievances really justified, or were the British actually being more reasonable than most Americans have traditionally believed? The British were actually more reasonable than most Americans have traditionally believed. For example, the navigation laws, laws that regulated trade to and from the colonies, would be seen as an American grievance but were not really enforced by the British government until 1763, which allowed people to smuggle goods, “But the truth is that until 1763, the various navigation laws imposed no intolerable burden, mainly because there were only loosely enforced.
Enterprising colonial merchants learned early to disregard or evade troublesome restrictions. Some of the first American of John wholesome smuggling”(124).
It seems that Americans viewed the British as terrible and controlling, but the colonists actually benefitted from them. The colonists gained free protection from the British colony, and they a gained a monopoly in the British market, “London paid liberal bounties to colonial producers of ship parts, over protests of British competitors.
Virginia tobacco planters enjoyed a monopoly in the British market, colonists also benefited from the protection of the world’s mightiest navy and a strong, seasoned army of redcoats”(124).
It is obvious that they benefited from each other, and they British can be seen as reasonable. 2. What was the revolutionary movement all about? The amount of taxation? The right of parliament to tax? The political corruption of Britain and the virtue of America the right of the king to govern America? The colonies growing sense of national identity apart from the Britain?
The Essay on American Drug Laws Do They Help Or Hurt
American Drug Laws: Do They Help or Hurt? I believe the drug laws are in serious need of reform. We tend to forget that alcohol is a drug and that at one time it was prohibited without success. Also, I believe that a civil body of government rather than a criminal one should regulate drug use. It is a social problem, not a criminal one. As a largely victimless crime they should not have their ...
Was the revolution truly radical overturning of government and society –usual definition of a “revolution”? The revolutionary movement was about the taxes that Britain placed on the Colonies. Grenville was placing taxes on the colonists to support the new military defense, so they placed the Stamp Act, which used a stamp to make sure the tax on paperwork is paid off, the Quartering Act, which forced people to feed and shelter soldiers, and the Sugar Act which put taxes on imports on sugar, “Thus some colonial assemblies defiantly refused to comply with the Quartering act, or voted only a fraction of the supplies it called for.
Worst of all, Grenville’s noxious legislation seemed to jeopardize the basic rights of the colonists as Englishmen. Both the Sugar act and the Stamp act provided for trying offenders in the hated admiralty courts, where juries are not allowed”(126).
The people were against the taxes; they were not fairly represented in the courts when they were tried for violating these acts. This caused uproar by making the colonists feel like they are being controlled by the British government, and that they are not fairly represented. “Angry throats raised the cry ‘No taxation without representation’”(126).
3.
In 1775, which side would a neutral observer have expected to win-Britain or the colonies? Why? As a neutral observer, it would be expected that Britain would have won for several reasons. First and for most Britain outnumbers the colonies with a stronger and trained army, “The population odds were about three to one against the rebels-some 7. 5 million Britons to 2. 5 million colonists. The odds in monetary wealth and naval power overwhelming favored the mother country. Britain then boasted a professional army of some fifty thousand men, as compared with the numerous but wretchedly trained American militia”(135).
Britain had more people and they were better skilled, which displays that Britain has a huge lead on the colonists, especially since colonists are not trained. This would imply that colonists are easier to get rid of then the British army; hence they are the wealthier and stronger nation during this time. Not only were they strong and wealthy, they also received help from the Hessians, German Soldiers, and the Loyalists, colonist who stayed loyal to the King, “…and some thirty thousand Germans-Hessians-were ultimately employed.
The Essay on The Stamp Act and Other Taxes
... tried to directly tax the colonists Unlike previous acts, which were to regulate the economy of the British Empire, the Sugar Act was to raise ... vehemently against this. They suffered a trade deficit with Great Britain to begin with and argued that the shortage of hard ... for the British army stationed in the American colonies after they won the Seven Years’ War. The Stamp Act required tax stamps for ...
The British enrolled about fifty thousand American Loyalists and enlisted the services of many Indians, who though unreliable, who fair-weather fighters, inflamed long stretches of the frontier”(135).
This extra help from colonists, Loyalist, hessians, and the Indians only add to the army creating a bigger advantage towards the colonists. Even though they did not win it can said that the British seemed to have a bigger lead on the colonists. Colonists presented themselves as weak and disorganized, where one would presume that they wouldn’t win at all, “Yet the American rebels were badly organized for war.
From the earliest days, they had been almost fatally lacking in unity, and a new nation lurched forward uncertainly like an uncoordinated centipede”(136).
Organization is important for the colonists because they are competing against a well-developed and trained army. 4. What was radical and new in the Declaration of Independence, and what was old and traditional? What did the statements like “all men are created equal” mean in their historical context, and what did they come to mean later? The old and traditional of the Declaration of Independence is that the idea of having alienable rights.
The British defied these rights to the colonist, and the constitution gave them back or reconnected the colonists with these rights, “Jefferson’s pronouncement, couched in a lofty style, was magnificent. He gave his appeal universality by invoking the “natural rights” of humankind-not just British rights. He argues persuasively that because theking had flouted these rights, the colonists were justified in cutting their connections”(145).
These ideas are necessarily new because these ideas originate from John Locke and the social contract.
Another old and traditional idea is that they sent George III a long list of his misdeeds. “He then sent forth a long list of the presumably tyrannous misdeeds of George the III. The overdrawn bill of indictment included imposing taxes without consent, dispensing with trial by jury, abolishing valued laws, established a military dictatorship, maintaining standing armies in peacetime, cutting off trade…”(145).
The Essay on The War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War
The War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War are two wars that physically appear two opposites. The War of 1812 involves plenty of naval battles and a few major land battles, while the Mexican-American War involves numerous land battles and few, if any, naval battles. However there are numerous similarities. The War of 1812, The US saw Great Britain as a major problem because of their definition ...
King George III shows an continuous pattern of control throughout the colonies and using dictatorship on the colonies, causing the colonists (T.
Jefferson) for a piece of the constitution to be about George III and his actions. The newer part of the constitution would be that “all men were created equal. ” This statement doesn’t truly take full meaning during this time because this was not necessarily true/ or did not apply to all men/people. In the historical content this mainly applied to all the white men, however, this did not include the blacks or women. Eventually this will eventually apply to everyone, but not yet. 5. Was the military strategy or politics the key to America victory in the war?
How did the two coincide? Both military strategy and politics played a key role in the American victory. The political role in the war is with France. France has some beef with the British, so they decide to help and the Colonists, as way to get back at Britain from the French-Indian war. However, strategy played key role as well, since Britain was considered to have one of the strongest navy, they are seen as big threat to the colonists, especially since the colonists were weak, disorganized, and they did not have uniform troops.
They used a hit and strategy which made weapons like, the cannonballs less effective. 6. Did the loyalists deserve to be persecuted and driven out by the country? What difference does it make to understand the revolution as a civil war between Americans as a war against the British? The loyalists did deserve to be prosecuted and driven out by the country because they were against the ideas of America and were fine with British rule; if they were satisfied with British rule then they should live in Britain because they obviously do not want the same rights as the colonists if they do fight for the cause. . What has the revolution mean to later generations of American, including our own? Do we still think of the United States as a revolutionary nation? Why or why not? 8. Which social changes brought by the Revolution was most significant? Could the Revolution have gone further toward the principle that “all men are created equal” by ending slavery or grating women’s rights? During the Revolution the most significant social change was that American can define itself as its own country without the control of the mother land.
The Essay on The importance of this particular war in American history
1. The most important historical event that occurred between 1492 and 1865 was the American Civil War. Sparked by issues such as states’ rights and the many aspects of slavery, it was a four-year war in which the country split in two and fought against each other for principles each side strongly believed in. The importance of this particular war in American history cannot be emphasized enough. ...
This what colonists wanted because the British government was controlling their trade, taxes, etcetera which made the colonists become angry causing them to want independence from the mother land. Another significant social change is that slavery was abolished, however they were not abolished in the south. 9. Was the United States in a crisis under the articles of confederation, or was the “crisis “exaggerated by the federalists to justify their movement? Could the United States have survived if the articles have stayed in effect?
The Articles of Confederation is considered our first constitution which caused a lot of problems within our colony. The articles of confederation lacked a central government, tax, trade, etc. This caused economy to go down, no control over the states. Each state would make laws that contradicted each other, and they just did not agree on the same matters. 10. Should the founding fathers general elitism and indifference to the rights of the people, women-African Americans, and Indians be held against them?
