The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism

[Mushroom]

Hell, it wasn't even about the taxes.

It was never about the taxes themselves, but the legality of them. Because under the Constitution all English Citizens were entitled to representation, and only their representatives could impose taxes.

That was right in the Constitution.

 

[Mushroom]

Facts: not like your distorted opinions

Funny thing is, from what I am seeing far more in here are agreeing with what you call "my distorted opinions" than whatever it is you are trying to claim.

 

[Mushroom]

So Dante never commented upon your delusional claims

You know, it is rather pathetic when people talk about themselves in the third person.

Either pathetic, or a sign of mental illness.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

One must bear in mind that during those times, in Britain, representation was also highly limited due to unequally distributed voting constituencies and property requirements; only 3% of the population could vote and they were often controlled by local gentry. (From wiki.)

 

[Mushroom]

It was a statement against unfair taxation. Taxes might not have been so bad if England had provided some benefit from the taxes paid.

The thing is, the Colonists had no problem with being taxed. They actually expected it.

However, the Crown refused to follow the law, which was to allow them to have a local version of Parliament to create, enforce, then collect the taxes to pass along to England. Which is why in the years prior to 1776 the main issue they would bring up over and over again was their "Rights as Englishmen". And that under their own Constitution and English Common Law dating back hundreds of years the populace could not be taxes without the consent of the House of Commons.

And as the unofficial agent of the Colonies to England from 1757 to 1775, he put forward several proposals to the government. Among them were allowing the Colonies to have a local Parliament to act as the one in England. Or to create titles so that there was a noble class which would have seats in the House of Lords. He put forth several such proposals, and all were rejected. If any of those proposals or some other compromise could have been worked out the revolt could have been averted. But every attempt at reconciliation or compromise was outright rejected in London,

And one thing to be said about the American Revolution, is that the UK woke the hell up and took notice. And never again treated their citizens in remote colonies the way they had treated the American Colonies. That was a real wake-up call, that even those people born two and three generations in territories far away still were considering themselves "Englishmen", and had better be treated as such or they also would revolt.

 

[Mushroom]

One must bear in mind that during those times, in Britain, representation was also highly limited due to unequally distributed voting constituencies and property requirements; only 3% of the population could vote and they were often controlled by local gentry. (From wiki.)

But they still had representation. And it was the House of Commons that held the purse. Even if one could not vote, they still represented all of the gentry who were not entitled.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

And never again treated their citizens in remote colonies the way they had treated the American Colonies.

How did they “treat” them?

 

[ShahdagMountains]

I was under the assumption that the Revolution was about the French-Indian War, and the Colonists’ refusal to pay for it.

 

[Mushroom]

How did they “treat” them?

Forbidding all local assemblies, allowing no local representation. Imposing taxes from afar with they having no say in the matter.

Which is why the colonies after that were allowed to form their own assemblies. And the Crown worked through them to impose taxes, or to impose things like conscription.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

with they having no say in the matter.

That’s how l live. But that’s another story.

 

[Mushroom]

I was under the assumption that the Revolution was about the French-Indian War, and the Colonists’ refusal to pay for it.

No, it was because in the English Constitution all English Citizens are entitled to representation, and only their representatives could impose taxes.

Hence, two of the largest cries in the years prior to the revolt itself. "No taxation without representation", and their "Rights as Englishmen".

They had no problem with taxes, but were correct in saying that without legal representation in Parliament they were illegal under English law.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Forbidding all local assemblies, allowing no local representation. Imposing taxes from afar with they having no say in the matter.

Which is why the colonies after that were allowed to form their own assemblies. And the Crown worked through them to impose taxes, or to impose things like conscription.

I’ve often wondered how they managed to run the colonies from so far away. Given the distances, and the time it took for communications. No telegrams, telephones, faxes, emails etc.

 

[Dante]

You’d be crying and whining and demanding life sentences for “terrorists,” you mumbling, fumbling, stumbling hypocritical and confused jackass

Okay fool

 

[Dante]

Funny thing is, from what I am seeing far more in here are agreeing with what you call "my distorted opinions" than whatever it is you are trying to claim.

So when the Lunatics start running the asylum, you proudly proclaim yourself a wit? Cousin to nitwit?

 

[Dante]

You know, it is rather pathetic when people talk about themselves in the third person.

Either pathetic, or a sign of mental illness.

It makes me close to being a leader of the GOP - Bob Dole.

 

[Dante]

And never again treated their citizens in remote colonies the way they had treated the American Colonies.

Uh, they were all subjects, not citizens.

 

[Dante]

How did they “treat” them?

as subjects, not as citizens.

 

[Dante]

I was under the assumption that the Revolution was about the French-Indian War, and the Colonists’ refusal to pay for it.

partially.

kudos

 

[ShahdagMountains]

I looked it up.

At first, life was hard and rough in the North American colonies. However, by the early 18th century people in the American colonies lived in houses as comfortable as those in Europe. Wealthy people had finely carved furniture, wallpaper, china, silver, and crystal and chairs were common. In 1742 Benjamin Franklin invented a kind of metal stove.

Daily Life in Colonial America - Local Histories

This is a complete description of life in Colonial America, including food and drink, clothing, work and religion

localhistories.org

However, many people in Britain at that time lived in unimaginable squalor, (and still do)

Mean streets full of depressing Dickension style back to back houses.

America had much more room to “spread out”.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

partially.

kudos

What do you mean, partially?

I went to Fort Necessity to research it.