England decapitated the king 126 years before the American Revolution so all American talk about muh freedom from kings is horseshit
>>18495371And the British never had kings again?
>>18495533Not ones that weren't cucks to parliament. The king literally has to ask permission to enter his own parliament now.Search black rod BBC for more on this.
>>18495538Americans rebelled against parliament. Initially they petitioned the king to mediate between the colonies and parliament. Their ire only shifted to the king when he rejected their plea. Remember that at the time American colonials considered themselves British. They continued to consider themselves British for a time after the shooting started. I think it’s hard for both modern day Americans and Brits to remember that.
>>18495553How do Americans think being represented in the British parliament would have possibly worked in the 18th century?The MP for Albany could be asking for relief from a drought that ended 3 months ago.
>>18495553American colonists were bitching and moaning an rebelling since the inception of the colonies it didnt start in 1775
>>18495573Realistically, they just wanted to continue to not be taxed by Parliament and instead taxed by their own colonial legislatures like they had before.
>>18495582Well they should have thought about that before they incurred such a debt being defended from the French.
Ironicly. the total french defeat in the 7 years war removed any existential threat to the colonies meaning they were now free to rebel from the crown
>>18495591The British Parliament didn't send troops against the French out of the kindness of their hearts and their purpose wasn't just defensive either.
The American Revolution was a continuation of the English Civil War, and the American Civil War was that as well except even moreso
>>18495723>visible 'Centralization' tattoo on the foreheada bit on the nose innit
>>18495782not really, since its on the forehead
>>18495723I'm sympathetic to libertarians but I fully give Abe Lincoln a pass. Insane to expect any sitting head of state wouldn't do everything within and without their power to maintain territorial unity and crush a separatist threat
>>18495723And the alternate option? Complete fracture of his nation. Wouldn’t look good in history books either, being known as the man who let US fall apart.
They spent like 5 years trying to not decapitate Charles and he practically forced them to by refusing to compromise on anything.
>>18495723You still lost, Jeb
>>18496199why should he have had to?
>>18496622Because the divine right of kings is a meme and at the end of the day you need to actually have a power base in order to enforce your will. Charles pissed everyone off and was given a dozen opportunities to give small concessions to this or that group in order to get things under control but he kept stomping his feet and saying no like a three year old.
>>18496747he was based
>>18496863His wife was a medici, she was telling him not to compromise his divine right.The puritans could not have gained the power they did if the King had been willing to compromise.
>>18495553>>18495582this
>>18495553>bunch of guys get angry that their rights as british citizens are being violated>britain responds by trying to kill them?why are they like this?
>>18498017The rights in question were invented for the occasion, principle among them in actually motivating colonist rebels was their clearly legitimate right to not pay taxes>b-b-but my representation, no taxation without representation!The colonists were already dodging all taxes and smuggling frequently when these questions came up and never stopped, if they're so naturally linked it only makes sense they weren't being represented, why should central government incur expenses in administering for them and reward their smuggling elites with government resources if they're going to act like it's their right to not give anything back?
