The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism

[ShahdagMountains]

Now there it was semantics.

Under British Law, they were denied the rights even guaranteed to subjects. Specifically, the Magna Carta, the English Constitution, and the English Bill of Rights.

Just because one is a "subject", does not mean that under British Law they do not have key rights.

There is no written English Constitution.

 

[Mushroom]

America had much more room to “spread out”.

Well, not really.

Remember, that most of North America at that time was claimed by France and Spain.

That was all the "room" they had. And notice, that is smaller than even the states occupy today. For most of the Colonial Era, expansion west was halted by the Appalachian Mountains. And to the south and north, claims by France and Spain.

Most of the colonies were actually rather cramped, with big cities, and the countryside for around 100 miles around dedicated to supporting those cities.

The "spreading" would not actually take place until the 1800s, when France sold their interests in the continent to the US.

 

[Dante]

The history books read by children in German schools. With illustrations! The robber kings the English had.

cute

 

[Dante]

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.

The Crown and the Parliament did not 'run' the colonies in North America.

 

[Dante]

Like one would in most situations as an occupied territory.

With a local Lord Governor, who had total control over the area he was responsible for. Where the Governor is a Noble Peer, and appointed by the Monarch and is their direct representative.

As opposed to a Governor-General, who is appointed by Parliament and is their representative as well as a member of Parliament.

In essence, it was just like an occupied territory. Where the Crown gave a direction to the Lord Governor, who then passed it down to the people. And they had no say in what was passed down onto them, no more than say Occupied Germany, Occupied Japan, or Occupied Italy after WWII.

However, that is where you get the issues. That is different, as it is a military occupation after those nations started and lost a war. And in the early days of the colonies they had no problem with the Lord Governors, as they were just starting out in a frontier and had little population and were making everything as they went.

But by that time, we were talking 100 year or more later. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in 1628. Pennsylvania in 1681. Georgia in 1733. New York in 1644 (founded as New Netherlands in 1614).

So we are literally talking about in many areas 100 to 150 years after they were founded, and they were still being given no representation. Still ruled by a Lord Governor as if they were a hostile power. And that was what the decades between the French-Indian Wars and the Revolution itself were mostly about for the colonies. When do they get the right to determine at least some of their own affairs internally, or are they to be eternally given no rights, with no self-determination at all?

And it did not help matters at all that in the Quebec Act of 1774, that formerly hostile region was given more self-determination than their loyal colonists were given.

But in essence, for a century and more the American Colonies had been ruled by royal proclamation. Which after more than a century was increasingly an issue with those that lived there.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

The Crown and the Parliament did not 'run' the colonies in North America.

Pedantic and uninformative. Tells me nothing.

 

[Mushroom]

There is no written English Constitution.

It is not a single Document like the US Constitution, but it does exist. Hence, where the US Founders got the term in the first place.

But it is multiple documents, like the Magna Carta, the Act of Supremacy, the Earl of Oxford's Case, the Bill of Rights, and many other documents that created what is known to be English Common Law to this day.

So you are correct, only if you change it to say "there is no single English Constitution". It is a collection of documents, not unlike that of the US. Which is both the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Amendments to said Constitution. Which in reality is also over a dozen different documents.

 

[Dante]

Like one would in most situations as an occupied territory.

With a local Lord Governor, who had total control over the area he was responsible for. Where the Governor is a Noble Peer, and appointed by the Monarch and is their direct representative.

As opposed to a Governor-General, who is appointed by Parliament and is their representative as well as a member of Parliament.

In essence, it was just like an occupied territory. Where the Crown gave a direction to the Lord Governor, who then passed it down to the people. And they had no say in what was passed down onto them, no more than say Occupied Germany, Occupied Japan, or Occupied Italy after WWII.

However, that is where you get the issues. That is different, as it is a military occupation after those nations started and lost a war. And in the early days of the colonies they had no problem with the Lord Governors, as they were just starting out in a frontier and had little population and were making everything as they went.

But by that time, we were talking 100 year or more later. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in 1628. Pennsylvania in 1681. Georgia in 1733. New York in 1644 (founded as New Netherlands in 1614).

So we are literally talking about in many areas 100 to 150 years after they were founded, and they were still being given no representation. Still ruled by a Lord Governor as if they were a hostile power. And that was what the decades between the French-Indian Wars and the Revolution itself were mostly about for the colonies. When do they get the right to determine at least some of their own affairs internally, or are they to be eternally given no rights, with no self-determination at all?

And it did not help matters at all that in the Quebec Act of 1774, that formerly hostile region was given more self-determination than their loyal colonists were given.

But in essence, for a century and more the American Colonies had been ruled by royal proclamation. Which after more than a century was increasingly an issue with those that lived there.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Seriously, I'm curious.

The North American colonies were not any hing like occupied territories. You need to read up on the realities of life in the colonies through the decades. My family history alone goes back to a colony under the Dutch. None of what you claim in your post resembles anything I've ever read.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

It is not a single Document like the US Constitution, but it does exist. Hence, where the US Founders got the term in the first place.

But it is multiple documents, like the Magna Carta, the Act of Supremacy, the Earl of Oxford's Case, the Bill of Rights, and many other documents that created what is known to be English Common Law to this day.

So you are correct, only if you change it to say "there is no single English Constitution". It is a collection of documents, not unlike that of the US. Which is both the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Amendments to said Constitution. Which in reality is also over a dozen different documents.

Well, there was an agreement reached at Runnymede in 1215.

 

[Mushroom]

My interests were the distances. And the time involved negotiating them . How did they manage it?

In essence, they were not unlike the Borg.

There is no negotiation, only assimilation.

As we say on military rifle ranges, all orders come from the tower. In the Colonies, it was the exact same. The King gives orders to his Lord Governor, he enacts them. No negotiation at all, just do as you are told.

Hence, the problems with the colonies after the French-Indian War. And seeing a now occupied territory being given more rights than they had.

 

[Dante]

Now there it was semantics.

Under British Law, they were denied the rights even guaranteed to subjects. Specifically, the Magna Carta, the English Constitution, and the English Bill of Rights.

Just because one is a "subject", does not mean that under British Law they do not have key rights.

The differences between citizens and subjects is hardly semantics.

Nope. Not true.

No one claimed that to be true. Not even the most virulent opponents of the rebels.

 

[Mushroom]

The North American colonies were not any hing like occupied territories.

Did they have local assemblies?

Could they petition the King or Parliament for issues?

Did they have a locally appointed Governor? Or a Governor-General appointed by Parliament?

Or did they have a Lord Governor, appointed by the King?

Please, tell me again how they were different?

 

[ShahdagMountains]

The King gives orders to his Lord Governor, he enacts them.

Back to the time and distances. How long did it take for the Governor to receive his orders?

I dread to think how they managed in Australia.

 

[Dante]

Pedantic and uninformative. Tells me nothing.

Simply stating facts bothers you? Okay. Hang out with Mushroom. Just be careful not to get your shit all over the place during the circle jerk.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Simply stating facts bothers you? Okay. Hang out with Mushroom. Just be careful not to get your shit all over the place during the circle jerk.

There you go again. Up close and personal.

 

[Mushroom]

The Crown and the Parliament did not 'run' the colonies in North America.

Then please tell us, who did?

This aught to be funny.

 

[Dante]

Did they have local assemblies?

Could they petition the King or Parliament for issues?

Did they have a locally appointed Governor? Or a Governor-General appointed by Parliament?

Or did they have a Lord Governor, appointed by the King?

Please, tell me again how they were different?

"The Colonial Assemblies were formed to govern the various American colonies. To some degree they were based on the British political system as they had a charter signed by the king which gave them legitimacy and authority." - found factual quote. Now I will cease dealing with you two imbeciles.

 

[Mushroom]

The differences between citizens and subjects is hardly semantics.

Nope. Not true.

No one claimed that to be true. Not even the most virulent opponents of the rebels.

You might want to start with the "Olive Branch Petition" of 1775.

Most gracious Sovereign!

We, your Majesty’s faithful Subjects of the Colonies of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the Counties of Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex, on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, in behalf of ourselves and the inhabitants of these Colonies, who have deputed us to represent them in General Congress, entreat your Majesty’s gracious attention to this our humble petition.

The union between our Mother Country and these Colonies, and the energy of mild and just Government, produced benefits so remarkably important, and afforded such an assurance of their permanency and increase, that the wonder and envy of other nations were excited while they beheld Great Britain rising to a power the most extraordinary the world had ever known.

If you had ever actually learned real US History, that should be immediately recognizable. It was during the period in which the colonies were trying hard to prevent a revolution and come to an accommodation with the Crown. Something realized not only by the Colonists when the King refused to even accept that petition, but by Englishman Thomas Paine in his writings.

Funny, how all you do is scream myself and everybody else is wrong. Yet, myself and other actually name documents and even quote from them.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

You might want to start with the "Olive Branch Petition" of 1775.

Ask him what he knows about King Canute.

 

[Mushroom]

The Colonial Assemblies were formed to govern the various American colonies.

Which were never officially recognized, had no official rights or powers, and were frequently abolished by the Crown if they did not do what he wanted.

Holy hell, you really do not know anything about this era of history, do you?

Dating all the way back to 1754 with the Albany Plan, the colonies had been requesting the equivalent of an "American Parliament", to conduct affairs as that body in the Colonies. And among the powers of that Congress would have been to implement local taxation as required by the Crown and Parliament. And that was not the last such proposal, as later in 1774 you had the Plan of Union, a very similar proposal.

But no, there was no "Colonial Assembly". In fact, by 1773 all such assemblies had been abolished, which is why they created the "Committees of Correspondence". Where leaders of communities started writing letters between each other, forming ad hoc assemblies via the post. Because actually meeting as an assembly was considered to be treason.

I mean, goodness gracious, this is literally Grade School level history here I am covering.