The debate "America was right to secede from England" was started by
January 11, 2017, 7:16 pm.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
neveralone posted 12 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 1 argument, Blue_ray posted 6 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
thereal posted 6 arguments to the disagreers part.
neveralone, PoliticsAsUsual, Blue_ray, dapollman, TheExistentialist, LeftoverEye70, MlgLeprechaun69 and 15 visitors agree.
thereal, emshanley, Fallaciae and 7 visitors disagree.
The US revolution was essentially the manifestation of John Locke's work "Two treaties of government". If you compare his writing to the declaration of Independence and even the Constitution it is undeniable. Most scholars will agree, and most college level American history classes will also attest to this.
John Locke proposes that government is beholden to the people due to a social contract we enter when we belong to a society. This contract affords us certain protections in exchange for certain capacities. This contract, however is conditional on the government which governs a society being non-tyrannical. The American revolutionaries argued that the British government had violated it's portion of the contract and become tyrannical when it came to it's treatment of the American colonies. As such, they believed they had the right to retract their portion of the contract and thus leave the governance of the British empire.
So, we have a justification for leaving the British empire, now the only remaining question is then, were the American revolutionaries right in their view that the British government had become tyrannical towards them. I'd argue that the question must be answered in the affirmative. If a governing body is able to exploit the resources, labor, and security of its population without reprisal, without representation, and without just cause, then that government is indeed tryrannical to that population. The British government certainly exploited the labor and resources of the Americas and the colonies which were their subjects. The British government also compromised American security through military intervention and violence in moments of civil unrest (Boston massacre). So it would seem that by Locke's philosophy, the Americas were indeed not only justified in their uprising, but we're actually obligated to do so.
whatever you say
you are kazakhi.
well im not american but yes, i did disagree.
i just went to the site of this app to check who those people were and i found out that they were ---- thereal, emshanley and 3 visitors( visitors are people who didnt sign in)
just curious. people who disagrees. are any of u American? not saying it's unAmerican to disagree just curious.
true they did have a right. up until we weren't being represented and we were losing a bunch of freedoms we used to have. also these taxes he did were just to the colonies. he needed to stay in good graces with the people so he taxed some colonies halfway across the world.
well at first we were just a millitia ergo the shot heard around the world was when we were just a mallitia after that ( forget when exactly will be able to tell Tuesday) we decided to become a nation so we could set up a proper army and be able to tax.
It depends on the circumstances. That is why I have not voted in this debate. The British government levied taxes on America, as was their right. The people living in America didn't like that since they didn't feel that they were seeing any benefits from those taxes, so the refused to pay and rebelled. Both sides had legitimate reasons.
You started the discussion about declaring war by saying "we were at war with England before we became a nation". How were they at war before having a government to declare war?
no that's why I'm saying they didn't declare war.
well if they got enough names on their list I think they could. personally I didn't sign. I hoped America would get better later. then again I think their was a Constitution problem. also if this was some other country with a group of people wanting to secede would u be with or agaisnt them?
So if you and a group of your friends send a letter to your congressman demanding lower taxes that means you are at war with the United States?
To go back to what historybuff said earlier, do you think the south has a right to secede? Various groups have made demands, they took up arms and seized government property, and basically did declare war on America. Would they be right to declare themselves an independent nation?
the king thought the same thing. he thought he had more important things to do than help his people so he attacked them thinking we would crumble. now look at us. well that depends, for all u know I could have ansestors in Africa or China or Japan or England. I could have them anywhere. that doesn't matter though because I am American.
"we were at war with england before we became a nation" correct me if im wrong but i thought thats how it works with all countries? demands? oh please, the govt has other more important issues. its funny how you speak as though youre a different race from the english when in reality they are your ancestors....
we sent them demands which the king didn't read then he attacked us.
I'm curious. Who exactly do you think declared war before the USA was a country?
actually we were at war with England before we became a nation. the only reason we became one was so we could have soldiers and tax them for money.
the UK system overall has been much more successful than the US system and its funny when people try to make it sound like America seperated flying such a valiant flag of honor and justice when in reality, no. They seperated the same reason any other country seperates- the leaders of the revolution want to become the leaders of the nation, not the leaders of some small time corner militia. Noone can be a true leader without having a hint of thirdt for power within them, thats how it works in the animal kingdom and thats how it works with humans. the man with the most strength and intellect influences the most people and then becomes the leader- the alpha male. Trump is an example of that. trump has a thirst for power and has the mindset of a dictator but due to the time and place, he can only become president. but thats off topic.
blue ray, what do you mean "if the monarch disagrees the law wont be passed"? you are aware of the fact that royal assent is just a formality right? arent you? especially since no monarch has ever refused to sign a bill since 1708, 72 years before the us became independent. Matter of fact, the US presidents veto more congressional bills in 1 term than the monarchs of britain have in the last 300 years so in practice the UK is even more democratic than the USA. In terms of the King and the House of Lords, they were never anywhere near as powerful as the House of Commons. What you are stating are simple minded conspiracy theories. Matter of fact, the lobbyists in america have way more influence over us politicians than the house of lords do over commons members lmfao.
you really don't understand what the word democracy means do you blue ray? any government which is elected by the people is a democracy. a Constitutional monarchy has an elected government. both Canada and the UK are Constitutional monarchies to this day, and I assure you they are democracies.
that being said, England's political situation was not entirely democratic in the 1700s. the king and the house of Lords held a fair bit of power and were certainly not elected. parliament was very powerful in their government structure, but unelected officials held considerable power as well.
it was a constitutional monarchy fyi. democracy and constitutional monarchy arent the same thing. If the parliament passes a law and the monarch disagrees, the law wont be passed.
"democracy wins over monarchy", blue ray doesnt seem to have basic historical information such as that britain was a democracy back then as well. it has been a democracy since 1600s. britain is monarchy in name only and the monarch jas virtually no power. "britain wasnt strong enough to control america", you make it sound like white english soldiers were controlling the white natives of america (who obviously dont exist).
for who disagreed.why do u think America shouldn't have?
the problem with your logic is you are only applying it to others. should American states succeed? if Wales should, then why shouldn't Hawaii?
and i therefore believe that Scotland and Wales should break off from UK. And nothern Ireland should unite with Republic of Ireland.
and for an extra bit of information, UK and US became proper allies only after ww1.
which I'm happy about.
UK wasnt strong enough to control america. Oneday or the other, america was bound to get independent. Democracy wins over monarchy. Nevertheless, UK and US are allies now.
I wonder how the world would be if America stayed a colony. we might be under Nazi rule. or maybe a bunch of other things. then again I think we might have seceded eventually no matter what.
thanks yeah now that I see it I remember it.
OK a little history time. before the war started around 1770's I believe England did the French and Indian war. which they won but at great cost. now the king decided to tax the colonist to get money and stay popular which was important since the king has been having a rough time. on several occasions the colonist asked the king to stop doing it but he wouldn't even read them and just got harder on us. u see we still wanted to be British till we had enough and so did the king. which eventually lead to the war (by the way what was the name of this war? my class didn't say) and America today.