In preparation for july 4th, independence day, we will spend the next 3 days debating the pretenses for the american revolution including the boston tea party, the stamp act (and the intolerable acts), and natural law tradition. Finally on july 4th i will convince you that the constitution itself was a betrayal of the american revolution and the articles of confederation.>taxes for war debtFirst lets establish that colonists were not expected to pay taxes directly to the treasury of the British government and the justification of the war with the french that preceded this tax was not convincing to the colonists. Colonists did not have a fear of the french to begin with and had already paid for the establishment of their own militia during the war. Additionally the colonists were subject to duties on imports and exports from the British parliament so they reasoned that any taxes owed for the 7 years war were already taken through tarrifs agreed upon in the british colonial charter. >direct taxationThe english citizens were subject to direct taxation for centuries, but the colonies had legal protections from direct taxation. The americans only accepted taxation from local assemblies and argued that they get no representation or privilege from this new taxation as well as no way to vote on it. the protest arose "no taxation without representation", in other words at least let americans participate in british elections if they are being taxed by elected british officials. The argument is that brits pay taxes to their local officials and not the colonists, so why do americans pay taxes to both their local officials and the british officials?
>>472793635>patrick henryPatrick henry was a revolutionary hot head That opposed the idea of british laws applying to americans at all and thought only the crown held supremacy over their assemblies. This view was more of a cope against parliament because of the later tyrannical acts of the king against the colonists just 1 year later. Patrick henry coined such quotes as "no taxation without representation" "if its treason, make the most of it" and "give me liberty, or give me death!" Henry and his legal troubles following the incident in the house of burgess would become a sort of pop icon in the colonies that brought a pretty obscure tax law into the spotlight and irreparably damaged relations between the British and the colonists.>loss of revenueStrangely enough, we have evidence that parliament knew that the revenue from the stamp act would be completely wiped out by the economic damage the law caused and the price of enforcing it. It would seem they were more interested in the precedent of direct taxation than the revenue of the tax, after all the legal justification of the law was argued by a lawyer named Blackstone (weird, i know) that said the ability of parliament to create and levy these taxes was not explicitly forbidden by the british charter. We now interpret his arguments as "implied powers" or the legal theory that because you cannot enumerate all the powers of an organization, some have to be implied by the absence of a restriction on that power. Strangely this is a feature of our constitution for both our rights, and the power of the congress despite being a cause of the revolutionary war.>burning of effigyA tradition started where americans who would be deputized to collect stamps for the british government would be made into an effigy, hung in public, and in some cases beaten in the streets. Clearly the mob mentality of americans reached a fever pitch when they would destroy effigies of their own elected assemblymen just for being deputized.
>>472793635The cause of the revolution according to Franklin was that the UK prohibited local currencies, giving the (Rothschild) Bank of England a monopoly. The colonies would have to sell things to UK to get BoE issued Pounds to then pay their taxes. The Founding Fathers understood that this is slavery to a privately owned foreign central bank
>>472793635What about the currency Act?
Bump for the history. It's important to learn where you came from and how we got here.
>>472793635I'll make this shorter for you: Finance Jews finance another Jewish revolution.
>>472794994Don't be mentally retarded. Dollars (not US ones, pieces of eight) were international trade currency; Sterling never was.
why did this bother americans so much? Well the stamp act was just one of many intolerable acts that had more dire implications than just the act itself. Violators of the stamp act for example would have to face trial in england and were denied a jury of their peers. This would completely uproot their life and put them at the mercy of strangers. Additionally to enforce the stamp act, soldiers from the 7 years war were allowed to reside (read: force themselves into) your home to be quartered so that the british government could save money, and so that they would be able to hold americans accountable in their own homes to the other intolerable acts. In other words you are forced to host a spy in your house that is rewarded for snitching on you. The entry into a home and permission to search without warrant was completely foreign to colonists and often led to soldiers and americans murdering eachother. Finally a secret court in england was tasked with assigning warrants for the arrest of colonists suspected to be in violation of these new laws without any evidence of a crime, any charges levied, or any trial date set for the offender (sound familiar? look up fisa). There are many more tyrannical facets of the enforcement of the stamp act, but this should be enough context to understand why it was so terrible. Soldiers are quartered in your home and search for any evidence to send you to england to face a trial for months that you will always lose so that they can steal your home from you.
Well lets finally cover what the stamp act was meant to do. Every single piece of paper in your residence had to have a seal from the british crown (or its deputies) and paper exchanged between any two persons such as diplomas, paper currency, TRADING CARDS, etc needed a stamp. In theory the government would have to approve of literally every transaction of paper but instead they issued disposable stamps that colonists had to buy and place on every piece of paper they had. If something like a newspaper was received and didnt have a stamp, it would be considered smuggled and you would pay a fine for it. If you were the one distributing or making industrial use of paper without government stamps, you could face a trial in england. The revenue for these stamps was considered a tax and legislated as such in england itself, but the parliament considered it a tariff or duty on product within the colonies. just as suddenly as the stamp act was passed, it came to an end. within 1 year and some change, the stamp act was repealed. However, It was replaced with something... much, much worse. Join us in the next thread to learn about the townsend act of 1767 and the boston tea party of 1773
>>472794801>lawyer named Blackstone (weird, i know)For William Blackston Esquire was a professor of law and the solicitor general to her majesty. For he has authored four commentaries on the laws of england. Not weird, but what should be expected.
>>472794994>>472795040The currency act shouldnt be controversial. Americans had basically no means to generate precious metals and during the french and indian war the paper money of colonies like virginia had been devalued since its outstanding obligation (debt) was much higher than the actual holdings of assets they represented. No more gold, no more paper. As far as benjamin franklin protesting to parliament, a lot of very wealthy people in the colonies simply preferred a devalued currency for interstate commerce to the impracticality of trading physical assets and thought that the deflationary pressure of a restricted money supply with growing productivity would cause unemployment (a strangely modern economic theory). They also saw no reason a government body would control the trade between the colonies despite the obvious problem of them inflating their currency to pay off their debts. As for its "control" of the colonies, Its similar to the gold standard post ww2. Every other country in the world wanted to hold and trade in dollars as opposed to other sovereign currencies. If business owners in france wanted to trade with the government of italy but needed dollars, they would be forced to provide americans 50000 dollars worth of goods and then spend all its new money for whatever it was buying from italy. Meanwhile it cost america a few cents to print all that money and all of it circulated outside of its economy while the american consumer enjoyed these new french products. These dollars were worth the price though because they had a stable exchange rate with gold.Obviously british creditors would want a currency that actually had value and asset backing instead of devalued IOU notes from colonial governments. I have never heard the theory about rothschilds monopolies causing the revolutionary period.
>>472798232You misunderstand what a dollar was, kike-kun.The dollars people wanted were Spanish dollars, US dollars didn't fucking exist and nobody wanted colonial scrip.
>>472793635why did you leave out the currency act of 1764 - are you possibly a jew
>>472797304I just think its weird that black and rock keep appearing next to eachother all throughout history and even today. While i personally have my objections to his interpretation of implied powers, I recently learned in "The Cause: The American Revolution and its Discontents, 1773-1783", that the founders were actually inspired by his style of compiling a collection of different laws into singular legal principles when they created the first amendment. Ill expand on my own discontent with common law when we debate Natural law tradition on july 3rd
>>472795248
>>472798825If you want to write an essay on the currency act then go ahead.
>>472799108Name stealer, steal names.
