Massive taxes and retarded mercantile economic policy against a semi-autonomous nation 3000 miles away? Along with underrepresenting their colonies and still expecting them to fight proxy wars without sufficient support. yeah i guess not
good reasoning, human rights don't mean anything, neither does protecting corporate interest. and if they were so far in control why did they lose 2 consecutive wars to their colonists in America within forty years?
They were in control of the country they could do whatever they want.
Correct. And you know what else? They also have to be responsible. And I think that what the colonists asked for was a little much when you consider how long the trip took. In order to represent the colonists ("No taxation without representation" England would have had to slow down to a horribly slow speed in order to receive input on all the taxes. But, on the flipside, England did sorta mess everything else up, and the tactic of taxing them until they begged for mercy backfired (which everyone saw coming, by the way). So, to Britain, I say this. "We're sorry,Britain, but your key to colony retention is in another economic policy.
They could do whatever they want but they have to deal with the consequences. If they push the colonist to the point that they rebel and secede then its their fault.
In order to apologize, you need to first admit you were wrong
I wouldn't say that. If my best friend was hanging off a cliff, and I forsook him to save my mother from the same fate, I would be deeply sorry, but not necessarily wrong.
Massive taxes and retarded mercantile economic policy against a semi-autonomous nation 3000 miles away? Along with underrepresenting their colonies and still expecting them to fight proxy wars without sufficient support. yeah i guess not
Welcome to the Colonial Era. Are you aware how much it took to support the British Empire? Allow me to explain, in depth.
By the 1750's the British Empire had colonies in India, America, Canada, Australia, South Africa, The Carribean Islands, and a small piece of Venezeula. The American colonists were overly demanding especially through the idea of taxation by representation. The British were in a bloody war with the French over Canadian lands, in the midst of the Enlightenment era and had made the first steps to industrialize.
When America rebeled it cost Britain a great deal more. The Britist were not trying to cause rebellion, they wanted those colonies intact. However a war with revels would prove too costly and the decided to drop it as quickly as possible. Everywhere else was put under the same hardships as the American colonies. In fact, most colonies were worse off because they had indiginous populations. If any one should "apologize" it is America.
The war of 1812 occured because America didn't give two ****s about european politics and sold stuff to the french. England, still pissy from having it's nose bloodied by the colonies, retaliated by press ganging americans into the british navy.
And burning the white house down. Or was that Canadian militia? I always forget, but it's a fun fact.
Regardless the point is moot. It happened a long time ago and both sides could make a case. I personally have studied 18th and 18th century Europe to a large extent and "side" with the British. To me this is nothing more than an intesting bit of conversation to see American patriotism go too far.
