Sometimes I wonder what it was like to live in 1776 in what is now the United States. Perhaps many people had things and lived quite comfortably. Perhaps the "economy was good". Perhaps some felt like their taxes were taking care of everyone. Perhaps many were simply complacent and were accustomed to things the way they were. Perhaps things weren't all that different than they are now.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What was is like in 1776?
- Thread starter RHarris
- Start date
Not really all that different no...
They had a government far away from it's people. We have that.
They had a military used on civilians, we've had that.
They had police and governors who were violating the basic rights of their citizens. We have that.
They had absurd taxation to support a wasteful government. We have much more of that than they ever did.
We have libertarians being marginalized and even attacked. They had that.
We hear often of abuses of power. They heard of them and responded by marching to help stop them, such as was the case at Concorde green.
They tried repeatedly to solve the problems politically. We're trying that.
Their civilian militias were considered terrorists, as are ours.
If you really face the facts, we're living in the exact same world, just different technologies. Back then though, thousands of citizens would have shown up at Waco and killed the ATF. We may be living in the same circumstances, but we're hardly the people they were back then.
------------------
The Alcove
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist
The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
Compromising the right position only makes you more wrong.
They had a government far away from it's people. We have that.
They had a military used on civilians, we've had that.
They had police and governors who were violating the basic rights of their citizens. We have that.
They had absurd taxation to support a wasteful government. We have much more of that than they ever did.
We have libertarians being marginalized and even attacked. They had that.
We hear often of abuses of power. They heard of them and responded by marching to help stop them, such as was the case at Concorde green.
They tried repeatedly to solve the problems politically. We're trying that.
Their civilian militias were considered terrorists, as are ours.
If you really face the facts, we're living in the exact same world, just different technologies. Back then though, thousands of citizens would have shown up at Waco and killed the ATF. We may be living in the same circumstances, but we're hardly the people they were back then.
------------------
The Alcove
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist
The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
Compromising the right position only makes you more wrong.
Well, this buncha buggers, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Hale, Adams, etc. got real stupid and thought they should be able to do whatever they wanted as long as nobody got hurt.
Realizing that this would tick off King George and the rest of the "Put em under your thumb and keep em there" decent government ruler types, a good citizen named Aloytius Gorius snuck out from under a rock and helped the king as much as he could.
Fortunately, the "buggers" could outshoot the king's jackbooted thugs and kicked their butts out of the whole country
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited November 04, 2000).]
Realizing that this would tick off King George and the rest of the "Put em under your thumb and keep em there" decent government ruler types, a good citizen named Aloytius Gorius snuck out from under a rock and helped the king as much as he could.
Fortunately, the "buggers" could outshoot the king's jackbooted thugs and kicked their butts out of the whole country
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited November 04, 2000).]
When you read about it in a history book, the events of that time seem to follow one right after the other, blam blam blam. The Boston Massacre, the unpopular tariffs, the Intolerable Acts, the Boston Tea Party, Paul Revere's ride, shots fired at Concord, the Declaration of Independence ...
But many of these events had years pass between them. There was a lot of non-history that didn't get recorded in between the bits that did. Presumably during the quiet periods people were talking and outrage was building up; it just took time to reach critical mass.
Is this timeline so different? Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Oklahomah City bombing, the near-impeachment of a sitting president, an increasingly intrusive federal government and increasingly hated government agencies (BATF springs to mind, but so does the IRS and to a lesser degreee the FBI) ...
I tremble for my country.
pax
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." -- Charles Austin Beard
But many of these events had years pass between them. There was a lot of non-history that didn't get recorded in between the bits that did. Presumably during the quiet periods people were talking and outrage was building up; it just took time to reach critical mass.
Is this timeline so different? Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Oklahomah City bombing, the near-impeachment of a sitting president, an increasingly intrusive federal government and increasingly hated government agencies (BATF springs to mind, but so does the IRS and to a lesser degreee the FBI) ...
I tremble for my country.
pax
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." -- Charles Austin Beard
I have always loved history, and feel that too many people simply dismiss it as a boring subject. However, any struggle we have today is one that has been repeated down through the ages. We as a people do not seem to want to learn from the experiences of our predecessors. The shortness of human life makes anything that happened before our own lives seem like the distant past. Perhaps the WWII and even Viet Nam vets here have seen this when teens seem to have forgoten or never bothered to learn of the events lived by those vets.
The sun we walk under, the land under our feet, is the same as that experienced by people stretching into the distant past. Someone someday will be reading of our time in some stale book and wondering why we have made the choices we 've made.
The sun we walk under, the land under our feet, is the same as that experienced by people stretching into the distant past. Someone someday will be reading of our time in some stale book and wondering why we have made the choices we 've made.
Mike Irwin
Staff
The tax rate for Americans was about 25% of what it was for an Englishman in a similar situation.
The big beef was that the Americans didn't see that they were getting anything for their taxes -- no representation, spotty protection, etc.
The tax on tea, which precipitated the Boston Tea Party, actually made the price of tea go DOWN in the colonies. It was the concept that pissed off Sam Adams.
In a lot of ways, the Colonists had it a lot better than their English counterparts.
Social mobility was a lot more possible here than in England.
Land was available to just about anyone, something that wasn't the case in Britain.
There were a lot of downsides, though, mostly economic.
Goods imported from England were expensive as all hell, as you can imagine.
Inflation was always a serious problem.
There was no standardized monetary system. Sure, the Pound Sterling was the 'official' currency, but there was never enough of it to go around, so Spanish and French coinage was used virtually interchangably.
In some ways no, things aren't much different than they were in 1776. In other ways, though, it's very different.
------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.
If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
The big beef was that the Americans didn't see that they were getting anything for their taxes -- no representation, spotty protection, etc.
The tax on tea, which precipitated the Boston Tea Party, actually made the price of tea go DOWN in the colonies. It was the concept that pissed off Sam Adams.
In a lot of ways, the Colonists had it a lot better than their English counterparts.
Social mobility was a lot more possible here than in England.
Land was available to just about anyone, something that wasn't the case in Britain.
There were a lot of downsides, though, mostly economic.
Goods imported from England were expensive as all hell, as you can imagine.
Inflation was always a serious problem.
There was no standardized monetary system. Sure, the Pound Sterling was the 'official' currency, but there was never enough of it to go around, so Spanish and French coinage was used virtually interchangably.
In some ways no, things aren't much different than they were in 1776. In other ways, though, it's very different.
------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.
If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
Uhh, pax - a slight correction.
Bill Clinton was the first elected President to be impeached. He just wasn't found guilty.
Being impeached means the House has decided to have the President tried. It does not mean he has been found guilty, just that's he's been charged.
The Senate is responsible for the trial, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. They failed miserably in their non-execution of their Constitutional duty, IMNSHO.
Bill Clinton was the first elected President to be impeached. He just wasn't found guilty.
Being impeached means the House has decided to have the President tried. It does not mean he has been found guilty, just that's he's been charged.
The Senate is responsible for the trial, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. They failed miserably in their non-execution of their Constitutional duty, IMNSHO.
hoosierboy
New member
I belive that roughly 3% of the population actually participated in the revolution against the british.
------------------
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
--Ayn Rand, in "The Nature of Government"
http://hometown.aol.com//jsax13/web.html
Member NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, and CCRKBA.
------------------
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
--Ayn Rand, in "The Nature of Government"
http://hometown.aol.com//jsax13/web.html
Member NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, and CCRKBA.
hoosierboy
New member
Right 1/3 were for freedom but only 3 % of the total population actually fought!
------------------
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
--Ayn Rand, in "The Nature of Government"
http://hometown.aol.com//jsax13/web.html
Member NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, and CCRKBA.
------------------
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
--Ayn Rand, in "The Nature of Government"
http://hometown.aol.com//jsax13/web.html
Member NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, and CCRKBA.
Only 3% is an awfully high number. Few countries have ever managed to put more than 5% of their population under arms at one time.
Imagine the building where I rent: four people being pro-independence, two or three plus all the colonial soldiers being against...even that few fighters would tear up the neighborhood pretty bad even with purely civilian weapons. May that not come to pass.
Imagine the building where I rent: four people being pro-independence, two or three plus all the colonial soldiers being against...even that few fighters would tear up the neighborhood pretty bad even with purely civilian weapons. May that not come to pass.
Mike Irwin
Staff
When you get right down to it, 3% of the population is NOT at all bad, considering that you're likely drawing most of your 3% from the 1/3rd of the population that is actually for the war!
------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.
If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.
If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike Irwin:
The big beef was that the Americans didn't see that they were getting anything for their taxes -- no representation, spotty protection, etc.
[/quote]
One could look at it another way - Americans could see very well what was gotten locally for their taxes.
All local decision making was in the hands of 1) Crown/Parliment appointed Governors, or 2) Military personnel. Colonists did not have much say, outside of the courts, in either case. Though the colonists did fairly well in front of the bench of law, they had absolutly no say in the crafting of laws. The tax issue is really the only part of it that would attract the attention of the non-educated colonists.
The best the colonists could hope for was to enlist the help of their friends in Paraliment. Franklin was amoung the most visible in attempting this, though there were many others. However, what contributed in no small way to the revolution was the condiscending nature by which Paraliment and the Crown referred to the colonies. Franklin illustrating one such instance in his publication of "Rules by Which a Great Empire May be Reduced to a Small One".
In the case of the Military presence, it may seem absurd do us now, but living under arms was a rather common activity in the 16th-17th-18th centuries. Remember the Riot Act was drawn up under the Magna Carta (however somewhat removed.) Never-the-less, living with a military presence, regardless of discipline, is unacceptable.
I'd like to say that the protection wasn't considered spotty. Infact, most colonists had no interest in paying for a military (i.e. their taxes) that they considered only protected the interest of the Crown. Oddly enough, overall they did a pretty good job protecting the ports, major cities and settlements. As can be imagined, fringe settlements might disagree.
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
[This message has been edited by USP45 (edited November 05, 2000).]
The big beef was that the Americans didn't see that they were getting anything for their taxes -- no representation, spotty protection, etc.
[/quote]
One could look at it another way - Americans could see very well what was gotten locally for their taxes.
All local decision making was in the hands of 1) Crown/Parliment appointed Governors, or 2) Military personnel. Colonists did not have much say, outside of the courts, in either case. Though the colonists did fairly well in front of the bench of law, they had absolutly no say in the crafting of laws. The tax issue is really the only part of it that would attract the attention of the non-educated colonists.
The best the colonists could hope for was to enlist the help of their friends in Paraliment. Franklin was amoung the most visible in attempting this, though there were many others. However, what contributed in no small way to the revolution was the condiscending nature by which Paraliment and the Crown referred to the colonies. Franklin illustrating one such instance in his publication of "Rules by Which a Great Empire May be Reduced to a Small One".
In the case of the Military presence, it may seem absurd do us now, but living under arms was a rather common activity in the 16th-17th-18th centuries. Remember the Riot Act was drawn up under the Magna Carta (however somewhat removed.) Never-the-less, living with a military presence, regardless of discipline, is unacceptable.
I'd like to say that the protection wasn't considered spotty. Infact, most colonists had no interest in paying for a military (i.e. their taxes) that they considered only protected the interest of the Crown. Oddly enough, overall they did a pretty good job protecting the ports, major cities and settlements. As can be imagined, fringe settlements might disagree.
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
[This message has been edited by USP45 (edited November 05, 2000).]