And, which was largely fought (and won) in a way that dramatically benefitted the colonists.
Ever wonder why there are so many places with French names just slightly inland from the original 13 US colonies have French names?
Bayou La Batre, Decatur, Lapine, Leroi, Mon Louis, Dauphin Island, etc. Alabama
Louisville, Paris, Versailles, Montpelier, etc. in Kentucky
Leroy, Napoleon, Montpelier, Saint Croix, etc. in Indiana
Bellaire, Bellefontaine, Louisville, Marietta, etc. in Ohio
Dubois, Duquesne, Labelle, Fort le Boeuf, Eau Claire, etc. in Pennsylvania
The name “Michigan” itself (originally Ojibwe, but interpreted into French), and a whole lot of parts of that state, including Detroit
Ozark (aux arcs), Benoit, Bellefontaine, D’Iberville etc. in Mississippi
New France went from the Gulf of Mexico north, included all the Great Lakes, and kept going up to Hudson’s Bay. American settlers couldn’t go west without entering New France, so England fought a war to allow the expansion west. It won that war. The resulting treaty gave the British colonists in the Americas a huge amount of territory they could expand into, leaving only a small amount behind for France and its native allies.
The British colonists in the Americas were asked to help pay for the war that gave them that opportunity to expand west, and they rebelled. And then, after the rebellion, they decided they didn’t need to abide by the terms of the British treaty with the French and took over most of the remaining land that France had been left after that war.
Yes, but it was also a grudge match between rivals. In one connected incident a locally-owned ship was burnt to the waterline to take out a competitor.
The tea party was hugely damaging to the rebel cause, and leadership was furious. Just the sort of lawlessness the rebels were accused of standing for. It’s only several decades later that it was recast as an act of rebellion against the crown.
Except that the British were offering that concession, and the negotiators for the colonists didn’t want to take it because really the taxes and lack of representation were just an excuse.
The British were also being ruled by someone with a genetic blood disease that makes you irrational and some form of major personality disorder, not exactly the most trustworthy negotiators.
Neither did… well the K-12 education was paid, but it wasn’t the best of qualities. Having to relearn a lot of history and economics in EU now lol.
Also off topic; was gonna say US had a specific year for when education was free but checking the history, it was really spotty when implemented and heavily disorganized. Aaaand wow found out California broke a treaty against Mexico in 1998 with Proposition 227, where it’s illegal for teachers to speak Spanish (ir any other bilingual language) in public schools. It was heavily lobbied by Californian multimillionaire Ron Unz. We don’t know if that still holds up, cuz what if the kids only speak Spanish?? Or its Spanish class??? Or the teacher is Spanish themself and are trying to find the right words to something and are like ¿cómo se llama esto? faaaahhhh”???
Anyways USA only has the education part and it’s spotty af lol
And paid for wars that were fought for the benefit of the colonists. Similar to how US taxes today are paid to the state and are used to pay for wars that the government claims are for the benefit of the American people.
We didn’t quit paying taxes. We just quit paying unfair taxes to the Crown.
A reminder that the taxes in question were levied to recoup the costs of French and Indian War, which the colonists started.
And, which was largely fought (and won) in a way that dramatically benefitted the colonists.
Ever wonder why there are so many places with French names just slightly inland from the original 13 US colonies have French names?
New France went from the Gulf of Mexico north, included all the Great Lakes, and kept going up to Hudson’s Bay. American settlers couldn’t go west without entering New France, so England fought a war to allow the expansion west. It won that war. The resulting treaty gave the British colonists in the Americas a huge amount of territory they could expand into, leaving only a small amount behind for France and its native allies.
The British colonists in the Americas were asked to help pay for the war that gave them that opportunity to expand west, and they rebelled. And then, after the rebellion, they decided they didn’t need to abide by the terms of the British treaty with the French and took over most of the remaining land that France had been left after that war.
Best comment today
Didn’t the boston tea party start because they lowered the price of legally imported (and thus taxed) tea, undermining smugglers?
Yes, but it was also a grudge match between rivals. In one connected incident a locally-owned ship was burnt to the waterline to take out a competitor.
The tea party was hugely damaging to the rebel cause, and leadership was furious. Just the sort of lawlessness the rebels were accused of standing for. It’s only several decades later that it was recast as an act of rebellion against the crown.
Most of the US founding fathers were smugglers.
Sell drugs, run guns, nail sluts, and fuck the law
deleted by creator
Quit paying
unfairtaxes to the crown“No taxation without representation”. If the colonies got representatives in Parliament, that flag would look mighty different.
Except that the British were offering that concession, and the negotiators for the colonists didn’t want to take it because really the taxes and lack of representation were just an excuse.
The British were also being ruled by someone with a genetic blood disease that makes you irrational and some form of major personality disorder, not exactly the most trustworthy negotiators.
Kids get taxed whenever they buy anything so where’s their vote
DC has entered the chat…
Kinda cool of them to travel 14 years back in time before they were even founded
SlowClap.gif
We just like how the “un fair taxes” they teach is actually way lower than the taxes US citizens have now adays.
It was also 1/10th what the British citizens were paying at the time.
It really depends on what you’re getting in return. If your taxes paid for your healthcare and education, things would be different
Best they can offer is bombs for isreal
Neither did… well the K-12 education was paid, but it wasn’t the best of qualities. Having to relearn a lot of history and economics in EU now lol.
Also off topic; was gonna say US had a specific year for when education was free but checking the history, it was really spotty when implemented and heavily disorganized. Aaaand wow found out California broke a treaty against Mexico in 1998 with Proposition 227, where it’s illegal for teachers to speak Spanish (ir any other bilingual language) in public schools. It was heavily lobbied by Californian multimillionaire Ron Unz. We don’t know if that still holds up, cuz what if the kids only speak Spanish?? Or its Spanish class??? Or the teacher is Spanish themself and are trying to find the right words to something and are like ¿cómo se llama esto? faaaahhhh”???
Anyways USA only has the education part and it’s spotty af lol
The checks were unfair because they went to the crown rather than back to the American people who are paying them in the first place
And paid for wars that were fought for the benefit of the colonists. Similar to how US taxes today are paid to the state and are used to pay for wars that the government claims are for the benefit of the American people.
So what is different now?
Is Israel, Trump’s ministers’ pockets, insurance company executives, and the military industrial complex executives considered “the american people”?
Normal the difference is the larger pool of people, and this more money for non citizen things.
Right now… who the fuck knows
True and real