20% of colonists supported the British during the Revolutionary War.

[byronius]

Now more than 40% embrace the cause of white supremacist fascism and Russia, and the unraveling of all that makes us American.

Heavy lift. We've been manipulated, betrayed, weakened in all respects -- and that 40% reflects ignorance, fear, stupidity and small-minded cruelty brought about by the purposeful destruction of public education and the malignant twisting of the founding concepts of the nation for power and profit. Most of them know not what they do.

I will never give up. And I look forward to the turning of the tide. May we learn from this naked display of darkness to forever drive money from politics, conservative piracy from the marketplace, and primitivism from the halls of wisdom.

May we never again forget what the cost of relaxing vigilance in all of these these things means.

[Turbineguy]

1. Yes, but 245 years later it's no longer a new experiment.

These idiots want to destroy a reasonably well-functioning country.

The strange thing is that Conservatives have become Vandals and Progressives have become Conservatives.

[NNadir]

2. Actually, the figure was probably higher for loyalists in North America in the 1770's.

It is generally believed that about 30% supported the revolution, 30% were loyalists and 40% were on the fence.

All figures are speculative, since there really wasn't polling.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. I'm not so sure I would have supported the revolution.

The British weren't really doing such a bad job of managing the colonies. They allowed a lot of self-government and they didn't govern with such a heavy hand. If the British had remained in control, slavery probably would have ended decades before it did and there wouldn't have been a civil war. We might even be one country with Canada.

[NNadir]

6. Your point is well taken. Slavery was definitely an issue. It's in the Declaration.

It contains this odious clause:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

"Domestic Insurrections" is about slavery of course, and we don't have to go too far to understand "Indian Savages" a reflection of extreme racism on the part of the author(s).

This said, I believe that establishing a Democracy that lasted up to now (although it is under severe attack by "domestic insurrections" by right wing savages) I am not entirely sure that it was the worst outcome for the world.

The British set up the slave system and only abolished it 30 years before the US. This extra 30 years was brutal, to be sure and millions of human beings suffered terribly as a result. But it is possible also that the existence of the United States from 1776 to 2016 reduced the sufferings of humanity over all. Those times are gone, but these are my views on our history.

The issue as I see it, was largely about a voice in home rule, which of course, in the 1770's was not standard anywhere in the world. Overall, recognizing the complexity of the situation, I believe the American Revolution - by being one of the only successful anti-colonial actions of that time and setting the stage for self determination elsewhere - was a good thing, at least as "good" as a violent war can be.

The fact that it extended "inalienable rights" only to white men, and then really only to white men with property, was fortunately vague, and created an avenue for future generations to expand the definition to include all human beings. That, I think, was the value of America, at least until the recent destruction of America's value and greatness in the world.

[LuvNewcastle]

10. You're certainly right about America's influence

on anti-colonial movements all over the world. We provided an example for others who wanted and still want to govern themselves. I'm not one of those who only sees the evil in U.S. policies, foreign or domestic. We have done a lot of good in the world, although we have often fallen short of the goals we have set for ourselves.

I am just the kind of person who doesn't want to upset the apple cart unless there's a damned good reason for it. I probably wouldn't have thought that the revolutionaries had a very good case, just as I would be loyal to the USA if there were a similar revolutionary movement now. But it is fun to wonder sometimes, what if things had turned out differently?

[Celerity]

22. One of the worst replies I have ever seen on here.

Staggering in its attempt to rewrite over 120 years (using the Philippine–American War as a starting point) of American empiric wars. I cannot believe I am reading this on a modern Democratic Party chatboard. Mind-numbing gaslighting that ignores millions of innocent deaths, mostly women and children, and a perfect example of why the US has such a love/hate relationship globally.

The US tried mightily to STOP many decolonial movements for ages. The soil of a myriad nations across the planet has been drenched in blood courtesy of the US, often backing up other colonial/exploitative powers like the UK.

[SQUEE]

24. So you are saying that America was NOT the influence of many anti colonizational movements?

The US Declaration of Independence was the model of many, many similar declarations.

Even Ho Chi Minh quoted the American Declaration in 1945.

The IDEAS espoused by America are still admired and copied, unfortunately even our own party's heroes did not live up to the ideals the country was founded upon. Words, ideas and a guiding light so powerful, and so obviously unobtainable by mere men that even we can not achieve them 250 years later, but that many of us here still try every day to live by.

[Celerity]

25. I am saying the reality on balance has been slathered in the blood of innocents, with the actual

kinetic actions brutally betraying the lofty words of intent with far too much regularity. I choose not to employ a willing suspension of disbelief when looking at history.

[SQUEE]

27. Whatever works for you.

I chose/choose a different path.

[whathehell]

11. So you'e okay with the concept of taxation without representation?

Even Queen Elizabeth II, when visiting the US during the Bicentennial admitted that was wrong.

[LuvNewcastle]

13. We have taxation without representation here.

Just ask the people in D.C. about that. And you know it's funny, I bought a box of tea at Wal-Mart this morning and I paid taxes on it. Of course taxation without representation is wrong, but unless the taxation is particularly onerous, it isn't something to get that worked up about.

[whathehell]

14. Oh please.

We have 435 Congressional Representatives and 100 Senators. Washington DC has non- voting members of Congress who should be able to vote, but even that exception hardly makes your point.

By the the way, taxes levied on the colonists by the Brits at the time of the Revolution were onerous.

[LuvNewcastle]

16. Their taxes weren't that bad.

Their taxes for the new government were probably more. Some of the taxes were levied because the colonists were hostile to the British government. I'm not saying that the colonists were wrong to rebel. People should have the right to self-determination, but with the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me that a lot of their arguments for separation were overblown.

[whathehell]

19. I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.

Last edited Sun May 10, 2020, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Please remember that an actual knowledge of history is required before one can have any "hindsight' on it.

[shockey80]

21. Their taxes weren't that bad?

They taxed things like sugar and molasses which doesn't sound like a big deal today. Back then it was a very big deal. Rum was a very big deal back then.

[whathehell]

37. It was also a big deal when you did not,

like your English counterparts, get any representation for it.

[edhopper]

23. The King still had undemocratic authority in England

in fact there weren't any true democracies anywhere at that time (might be a small country I am not aware of, but in general the world was not democratic.)

[whathehell]

28. Yes I know..

[edhopper]

29. So the idea that paying taxes

in exchange for a say in government wasn't really a thing at that time.

The issues had little to do with taxation. More about Colonist having control over resources. In other words, Rich White people were pissed off.

[whathehell]

33. No. The king's powers were limited by Parliament

and the colonists wanted to representation in Parliament, hence
the slogan "Taxation without representation is tyranny".

The idea that all, or even most, of those supporting and from fighting in the Revolution were "rich white people" is patently false..They were cross section of the population at the time and included free people of color.

[whathehell]

30. The king didn't have complete authority -- Parliament held the purse strings.

[edhopper]

31. True

but it was far from a democracy. Many in England had no representation.

[whathehell]

34. The issue of whether GB could be called a "democracy' at the time

Last edited Mon May 11, 2020, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

isn't pertinent to this particular discussion.

The point is, the King's taxpaying subjects in England had Parliamentary representation while those in America did not -- This
was the main reason for the Revolution.

[edhopper]

35. And i am saying it wasn't really democratic representation in GB either.

I think taxation was an excuse, not a cause.

[whathehell]

36. And again, I am saying that the colonists of that time were not

figjting for some idealized "democracy" They simply wanted the same rights as their English counterpoints. Whether that suits your
21st century concept of democracy is not the point.

[edhopper]

38. Well

that was uncalled for!

[whathehell]

39. Huh?

I don't know what you're talking about.

[edhopper]

40. Kind of condescending

I was saying taxation was a slogan more than a prime reason, which had to do with control over our own resources.

Not my "21st Century idea of democracy."

[whathehell]

41. Sorry,

but as others here have noted, taxes were a 'big deal' then, not to mention the concept of basic fairness..I was running out of ways
to say the same thing.

[roamer65]

4. Some of my relatives were loyalists.

They moved to southern Ontario. They should have stayed there.

They came to MI for the low cost land.

[whathehell]

7. "They should have stayed there"

Really?

You yourself could always correct what you view as your forebears mistake.

[roamer65]

17. Nope.

I am going to stay here and cause as much havoc as possible.

[whathehell]

18. Riiiiight

and let it cause as much havoc for you as possible.

[shanti]

32. That's where my Loyalist ancestors

went too. They did come back to the U.S. though, at a later date. I have several Patriots too.

[somaticexperiencing]

5. I've always thought that Republicans would have been on the side of the British...

always.

Getting rid of Fox News is one of the only answers. While that source of lies is around, we're always going to have a steep climb.

Along with that, convince that speaking truth to power is more important than any particular policy proposal - that's my belief anyway.

[Grins]

8. Of course they would.

“Conservative” is just the new name for “Tory”.

[TheFarseer]

20. Not sure

Alot of the trouble was over the Stamp tax and a tea tax if memory serves me. You know who gets super pissed about taxes? They probably would have been those guys in the militia that fire one shot and run away when they see the redcoats advancing.

[Ex Lurker]

9. 20% were patriots. 20% were loyalists

The rest were just trying to get by as best they could.

[whathehell]

12. No, it was more like 35 to 40 percent were patriots.

and 15 to 20% Loyalists, according to historians.

https://www.thoughtco.com/causes-of-the-american-revolution-104860

[2golddogs]

15. Revolution

That checks out to me. Years ago I read that with any revolution in history, roughly 25% supported it. A quarter supports change, a quarter wants to keep status quo, a quarter doesn’t care because they’re too busy earning a living, and a quarter doesn’t care because they’re not informed well enough (ie: living I’m more remote areas).

[shockey80]

26. The American Revolution has been my favorite subject to read about.

I have no idea have many books I have read about the revolution, all I can say is, a lot.

Life, culture were so different back then. It is impossible to put ourselves in their shoes.

Imagine living in Boston back then and you hated seeing redcoats marching through your streets. You hated their guts. You wanted them gone. At that same time you owned a business that relied on trade with England. You had a big decision to make. Remain loyal, join the uprising or sit on the fence and hope things went your way.

In many ways the King tried to bully the Americans into submission, Sound familiar. He put in place taxes, laws, that back fired. Then he sent thousands of soldiers to America thinking the Americans would back down from taking on the most powerful military in the world at that time.

Today, in our world, we are used to taxes and we don't like it. Back then, being taxed on things like tea, sugar, molasses was shocking to the American people.