Richard 614, truth attack!

[Joey Smith]

the government simply flat out ignores anyone attempting work on behalf of the TP's

Like who? Name names, dates, times, circumstances.

The government has not ignored the TPs, but instead spent many hundreds of man hours telling them that they are wrong (as the courts have consistently stated). It is not as if a bunch of real legal scholars, i.e., professors and deans of the major law schools have marched indignantly on the U.S. Supreme Court, or even given as much as a beer burp in support of TPs and their theories.

[Cpt Banjo]

the government simply flat out ignores anyone attempting work on behalf of the TP's

I rarely agreed with Hubert Humphrey, but he was spot on when he said that the right to be heard doesn't include the right to be taken seriously.

[Gregg]

Learn a little history, instead of accepting the general notion that the colonists did everything right and the evil empire was simply running them down. The colonists were tax protesters plain and simple far worse than any TP today.

No, Steve. You're equivocating on the use of the term "tax protester." Yes, both the colonists and today's tax protesters opposed the tax systems applicable to them. However, tax protesters today make legally frivolous, nonsensical arguments about the legality and application of the tax. When we use the term "tax protester" today, we are referring to "protester" in THAT sense -- not in its more general, non-perjorative sense.

Yes they did Famspear. They used all kinds of non-sensical baloney to justify why British laws did not apply to them. First and foremost was taxation without representation. Nothing in the British law required they have the kind of representation they demanded in order to be taxed. It was absurd that they even had the balls to contest the tax considering Britain spent a crap load saving their stupid butts from Indians. I say stupid becuase the colonists intentionally settled in areas outside the safe zones, destroyed the Indians hunting areas and treated them like animals, and then whinned about not being protected when the Indians got pissed and attacked them.

Go read the several redress of grievances they sent. Read the history of what transpired back then and how the colonists thought the courts were mistreating them. Everything the British did was perfectly legal yet the colonists had this notion by citing all kinds of common law and natural law mumbo-jumbo, I'm sure that's what the crown thought, they were exempt from British law. In lot of cases they just didn't like the law so they just deemed it tyrannical and absurd and simply ignored it because they didn't agree.

You really need to read a few books that tell it like it was rather than how we want to view it, a lot of you do, instead of what some school textbook that glorifies the revolutionary war says. If people acted with the same arrogance and thought the same way colonists did back then you would be demanding they be rounded up and imprisoned for life.

I went to school in England, where naturally the American Revolution is taught much defferently than here. For one, it was in fact a side bet to a much more important on again off again cold war kind of thing with France. Second, it was very much like Viet Nam in that the oppistion in Parliment used it to hammer the government with "there is no way England or any force from England can suppress the Americas" (which was true) and it drove Mr Pitt near senseless, not to mention what it did to George III.
America was bound to separate from England, of all the world's colonists, the Americans were the most like their mother country and most likely to be expected to be treated not as colonist but full fledged subjects, which they were not. Think about it, in most colonial situations of the time there was a cadre of overseers or something much like it that ran the administration and ruled over the indiginous population (think of the Raj here), but in America, not only the people who ran things, but the meanest free man working a farm in New Jersey thought of himselkf as much an Englishman as anyone in a similar postion in England would have. the colonists did not think they weren't British and didn't want to be treated as such. I theorize that a good half of them wouldn't have advocated the same theories in India had they been there working for EITC.

[fortinbras]

The "taxation without representation" was only a small part of the incentive for the American Revolution. There was the general atmosphere of being Englishmen and yet not being treated as if in England. The lack of a seat (or really several seats) in Parliament was a piece of this. The interference with attempts at self-government also. So was the perpetuation of the African slave trade in North America even after the British courts had held, in the Somerset case, that "the air in England is too pure to allow any man to be enslaved".

[notorial dissent]

As I’ve said before, the only thing funnier or more pathetic than Stevsie arguing about Constitutional Law is him arguing about American history.

First we start with

the government simply flat out ignores anyone attempting work on behalf of the TP's

which is, as has been pointed out a great number of times already, purest nonsense.

They are not and have not been ignored, but in all honesty treated with far more courtesy and consideration than they deserve(IMHO). They have repeatedly been unhindered in presenting their nonsense petitions to various entities, which have received them with the honor due them, again(IMHO)none.

The plain fact of the matter, is that if any of them had any sincerity of belief, they would do one of the following: work to change the law; or, take the law to court, which is the forum for that.

Petition nonsense is for when you want St Swithin’s Day declared a national holiday, not when you think a law is wrong or you want it changed. But then again, the crowd behind this has nothing of substance behind them and no real intention of doing anything but whine that no one is paying attention to their grievous wounds. Ah well, no one is really interested or it would have been changed a long time ago.

The colonists chief gripes were that the Crown was totally ignoring what was going on over here, was passing taxes, and laws without regard to what the colonists thought about it or needed, replaced existing courts with courts whose only loyalty was to the Crown and who were not likely to rule other than as the Crown dictated, and had wiped out almost 200 years of self government with no thought to the consequences, and were basically treating the colonists as a subject people. The big problem with all of this was that the colonists, for the most part, thought of themselves and considered themselves to be free Englishmen with the same rights and privileges accorded their friends and family at home, and for some reason they got a bit tetchy about it. The tax business was admittedly a part of it, and probably the part that affected the most people, but when it was decreed that they could only buy from English merchants it sort of upset people here more than just a bit, and was probably the last straw. So claiming that the colonists were tax protesters is disingenuous at best.

Far from being Tax Protestors, I would put them in the category of civil rights protesters, who had something to complain about. The revocation of 200 years of self rule and legislation, coupled with a judiciary that was locally responsible and having not only the custom, but the law saying that you were on the same footing as your cousins in England, then suddenly and absolutely ripped out from under you would tend to put you a bit on the fractious side.

An equal factor, was that at the time, petition was the only road open to the colonists to get their message across, and it was problematic at best, since they could be charged with treason or sedition if the sentiments did not meet with official approval, they had no legislative access, the colonial gov’t was dedicated to keeping the Crown, not the colonists happy, and so would not make any waves, and the courts by the same virtue were closed to them as well.

And yes, Franklin did get to speak before Parliament, he was there as the trade representative of the colonies, and as the mercantilists were pretty much in control of Parliament at the time they were all for not cutting off their source of raw materials. They also weren’t going to expend themselves anymore than they had to to maintain that supply either. That last meeting before hostilities broke out was the final attempt at a peaceful settlement. For his troubles, Franklin was verbally abused and hooted at, and at that moment, they turned a man who had been an ardent Anglophile and supporter of England and of a peaceful settlement into an even more ardent revolutionary and implacable enemy, and from that point on, he put all his efforts into the separation of the two nations.

[SteveSy]

The colonists chief gripes were that the Crown was totally ignoring what was going on over here, was passing taxes, and laws without regard to what the colonists thought about it or needed, replaced existing courts with courts whose only loyalty was to the Crown and who were not likely to rule other than as the Crown dictated, and had wiped out almost 200 years of self government with no thought to the consequences, and were basically treating the colonists as a subject people. The big problem with all of this was that the colonists, for the most part, thought of themselves and considered themselves to be free Englishmen with the same rights and privileges accorded their friends and family at home, and for some reason they got a bit tetchy about it. The tax business was admittedly a part of it, and probably the part that affected the most people, but when it was decreed that they could only buy from English merchants it sort of upset people here more than just a bit, and was probably the last straw. So claiming that the colonists were tax protesters is disingenuous at best.

Far from being Tax Protestors, I would put them in the category of civil rights protesters, who had something to complain about. The revocation of 200 years of self rule and legislation, coupled with a judiciary that was locally responsible and having not only the custom, but the law saying that you were on the same footing as your cousins in England, then suddenly and absolutely ripped out from under you would tend to put you a bit on the fractious side.

An equal factor, was that at the time, petition was the only road open to the colonists to get their message across, and it was problematic at best, since they could be charged with treason or sedition if the sentiments did not meet with official approval, they had no legislative access, the colonial gov’t was dedicated to keeping the Crown, not the colonists happy, and so would not make any waves, and the courts by the same virtue were closed to them as well.

And yes, Franklin did get to speak before Parliament, he was there as the trade representative of the colonies, and as the mercantilists were pretty much in control of Parliament at the time they were all for not cutting off their source of raw materials. They also weren’t going to expend themselves anymore than they had to to maintain that supply either. That last meeting before hostilities broke out was the final attempt at a peaceful settlement. For his troubles, Franklin was verbally abused and hooted at, and at that moment, they turned a man who had been an ardent Anglophile and supporter of England and of a peaceful settlement into an even more ardent revolutionary and implacable enemy, and from that point on, he put all his efforts into the separation of the two nations.

[/color][/b]

What you said simply offers another part of the story it doesn't contradict anything I've said.

The federal government today IMO treats people worse when it concerns their freedoms. It's not like you can sue the government concerning its actions. They have taken the same position as the crown its sovereign even when it concerns acts against its own people. Unless of course it allows us to sue it. So much for a government for the people by the people. The government does as it wishes, the right to vote for representation is in form only. It would be like parliament offering a predetermined list of people the colonists can vote for all the rest are shut out and slandered. The British Parliament proudly exclaims you have representation now, pay up and do as directed. While people today have life much easier they have given up nearly all of their freedoms in return as compared to the colonists of that day. A slave who resides and has benefit of the mansion is still a slave.

The colonists have a lot less to complain about that we do today when it comes to government. Any one of them could have easily avoided ever having to deal with British rule or its courts by just doing some simple things. Instead they wanted to operate tax free all together, not even pay minuscule taxes on goods which was used to pay for their protection. Britain didn't just randomly pick on people. Also they weren't forced to buy only British goods, what you're saying is kinda like saying we're forced to only buy crap made in China because everything you see is made there.

The colonists were not forced to hand over a significant part of their earnings, forced to contribute to their social welfare, every one of them forced to hand over their books and records every year, have their businesses regulated, forced to comply with employment laws, told what they can and can not do with their children, forced to use only a fiat based currency, get approval for building everything, the list is very, very long. While you can argue all that regulation and taxation is better for us as a society its not better for our freedoms and liberties. That's what the colonists wanted and demanded, they had it made as it compares to today.

[Joey Smith]

The colonists were not forced to

The colonists didn't have interstate highways, national parks, or aircraft carriers to support, either. Sorry, Steve, but in case you haven't notice the rural agrarian economy where every person's small plot supports themselves no longer exists.

Once more into the intellectual cul-de-sac drives Steve, who after all these years still can't figure out why no credible tax, legal or constitutional scholar takes the tax protestors seriously.

[SteveSy]

The colonists were not forced to

The colonists didn't have interstate highways, national parks, or aircraft carriers to support, either. Sorry, Steve, but in case you haven't notice the rural agrarian economy where every person's small plot supports themselves no longer exists.

Once more into the intellectual cul-de-sac drives Steve, who after all these years still can't figure out why no credible tax, legal or constitutional scholar takes the tax protestors seriously.

So if Britain came in and built them roads, schools and whatever then they would have gladly handed over part of their pay, along with a tax on every single item they purchased or sold? Hahaha....They didn't even want to pay a less than 1% tax on printed materials to help pay for protection from the Indians. In comparison the colonists had it made concerning taxation, regulation, freedom and liberty. However, after a little thought, National Parks might have made them comply.

btw, no accredited economists or person in authority who was in the know agreed the economy was unsustainable and was due to collapse when people like me were applying simple commonsense...seems being someone who matters and saying something doesn't change reality after all. I know, blind squirrels and nuts and all that....

[notorial dissent]

What you said simply offers another part of the story it doesn't contradict anything I've said.

The federal government today IMO treats people worse when it concerns their freedoms. It's not like you can sue the government concerning its actions. They have taken the same position as the crown its sovereign even when it concerns acts against its own people. Unless of course it allows us to sue it. So much for a government for the people by the people. The government does as it wishes, the right to vote for representation is in form only. It would be like parliament offering a predetermined list of people the colonists can vote for all the rest are shut out and slandered. The British Parliament proudly exclaims you have representation now, pay up and do as directed. While people today have life much easier they have given up nearly all of their freedoms in return as compared to the colonists of that day. A slave who resides and has benefit of the mansion is still a slave.
And yet, oddly enough, people sue the gov’t all the time and often win. That being why we have District Courts, the US Court of Claims, and a whole raft of other specialized courts just so that the gov’t can be sued.
The colonists have a lot less to complain about that we do today when it comes to government. Any one of them could have easily avoided ever having to deal with British rule or its courts by just doing some simple things. Instead they wanted to operate tax free all together, not even pay minuscule taxes on goods which was used to pay for their protection. Britain didn't just randomly pick on people. Also they weren't forced to buy only British goods, what you're saying is kinda like saying we're forced to only buy crap made in China because everything you see is made there.
Gee, Stevsie, I don’t remember being required to quarter soldiers in my home, or having to buy a special tax stamp for every document or paper that crosses my hand, or being able to only buy from one sanctioned store. And yes, they were forced to buy ONLY British made goods, that is what mercantilism is all about, it was the law, that only British manufactured goods could be imported and sold without paying an exorbitant tax on them.
The colonists were not forced to hand over a significant part of their earnings, forced to contribute to their social welfare, every one of them forced to hand over their books and records every year, have their businesses regulated, forced to comply with employment laws, told what they can and can not do with their children, forced to use only a fiat based currency, get approval for building everything, the list is very, very long. While you can argue all that regulation and taxation is better for us as a society its not better for our freedoms and liberties. That's what the colonists wanted and demanded, they had it made as it compares to today.No, they were only required to pay a tax in one form or another on everything they bought, they were required to pay for as much of the previous war with France as they thought they could wring out of the colonies, so it was no picnic.

[Prof]

Merchantile economics led to some odd results. For example, the first clocks manufactured in the North American colonies had wooden gears and other parts because the manufacuture of the metal parts was prohibited in the colonies.

Steve is a least a little correct -- many historians have criticized the colonials for their resentment over taxation to pay for the French & Indian War(s) -- after all, the war was fought in large part to protect the British colonials, particularly in New England and Western New York/Pennsylvania. However, as a result, the Crown got Canada and the fur trade, so the economics for Britain were not that bad. And, many of the colonials, including Washington, had fought in that war.

[Paul]

When you're dealing with stevesy, you have to remember that he can't distinguish between legallity, morality, taste, or any other system for evaluating behavior. He's like the ants in The Once and Future King -- everything is "done" or "not done." Only two possibilities, no matter what scale you're using to measure, and what is "not done" on one scale must be "not done" on all.

When you say the income tax is legal, he accuses you of supporting it as good economic and social policy and thinking that it is moral and good in every other way. When the colonists complained that "taxation without representation is tyranny," that is identical in his mind of saying that it was illegal. When today's protestors argue that they are not taxable under some idiotic reading of the IRC or the Constitution, stevesy cannot see the difference between them and the founding fathers. He simply cannot comprehend that anyone can acknowledge that something is legal, and also believe it is wrong. He doesn't like the income tax or much of what the government does, and anyone who defends either the tax or the government on any grounds must be wrong on all points.

[notorial dissent]

Prof, another of the little curiosities of the era along those lines, was that while there was a fair reserve of iron ore available in the colonies, by law, they were forbidden to smelt it into finished products. All finished iron, cast iron, had to be manufactured in England and returned to the colonies. This was one of many of the mercantilist laws of the period, which, despite Stevsie’s whining to the contrary, was of considerable affect on not only the local economies, but the local industry as well, which is to say, next to none. There were a whole long list of these that I had to learn when I was studying American History, which I have long since misplaced in the dark recesses of my brain, but there were a goodly number of them, and the penalties for crossing these laws were severe. By law manufactured goods HAD to come from England. So, so much for non interference by the Crown in the lives of the colonists.

Prof, I will have to take issue with you, or more correctly the “some historians”, on one particular point. The so called “French and Indian Wars”, were for the most part the result of agitation if not outright acts by “agents provocateur” on both sides. What we call the “French and Indian Wars” were an outgrowth or manifestation of what was known as the “Seven Years War” which was largely between Britain and France, and was exceedingly costly to both sides, in fact nearly bankrupting them both. It would have the British if they hadn’t had viable colonies on the North American continent to bleed, and poorly maintained and governed French possessions to grab in the north, and it ultimately did bankrupt France. So I think putting the cost of the “French and Indian Wars” off on the colonists is a bit opportunistic, except they couldn’t complain about the taxes and do anything about it where their British cousins could, by voting out the government that proposed the taxes. When it came right down to it, the “French and Indian Wars” were nothing but a continuation of the continental wars, and the colonists were quite well aware of it and quite rightly resented being expected to pay for something that France and Britain were orchestrating between them.

[Prof]

ND: You just stated what I think remains the consensus view. For an older but complete, short summary, setting out both sides of this issue, but obviously sympathetic to the American side, you might review the relevant chapters in Samuel Eliot Morison's Oxford History of the American People(1965) (not just older --OLD -- it was published the year I graduated from high school).

[notorial dissent]

Thanks Prof, I will look for a copy since it isn’t one in my collection.