toldailytopic: Was the United States justified in fighting for their independence fro

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 4th, 2011 09:28 AM


toldailytopic: Was the United States justified in fighting for their independence from Britain?






Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 4th, 2011 09:28 AM


toldailytopic: Was the United States justified in fighting for their independence from Britain?

]

Absolutely, why should any man be subservient to an aristocratic form of government. God is the only King I intend to serve. Freedom from the tyranny of taxation and oppression of government/King was the fuel that built the fire which is America. Freedom is worth fighting for.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
it was all about freedom

give me liberty or give me death

most came for religious liberty
 

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 4th, 2011 09:28 AM


toldailytopic: Was the United States justified in fighting for their independence from Britain?


Yes. The justification can be found in the Declaration of Independence.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it



The Declaration goes on to describe the evils wrought on the colonies by the British King.

Here is a sampling of the worst evils:

Would not assent to laws in the colonies.

Forming legislative bodies that call meetings at odd hours for the purpose of harassing the colonists into the compliance.

Obstructing laws for the naturalization of settlers.

Protecting British troops quartered by mock trial from the murders that they have committed.

Waging war against the colonists

Plundered the US seas, ravaged the coasts, burning towns, and destroying the lives of the colonists

Bringing in mercenaries to murder.

This is by no means a complete list. For a complete list read the text here.

A colony has every right to throw off the rule of a larger nation that is oppressing it. The colonists were not terrorists. They were settlers wanting to get away from a land that was violating their religious freedom.
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Was the United States justified in fighting for their independence from Britain?
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.​
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.​

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
 

Buzzword

New member
Yes.

BUT "taxation without representation" was just a...buzzword...to get the masses rolling.

That particular grievance seems to have been started by the individual colonial governments, who apparently wanted to have the lion's share of any and all money taken in taxes.
At least, that's what Patrick Henry's resolutions in the Virginia legislature seem to imply.
Virginians should be the only ones allowed to tax Virginians.

I.e., us rich folks over here should be able to legally take money from the non-rich folks over here, without sending any of it over there.
Goes a long way to explaining why "no taxation without representation" was brought up again as a rallying cry for the South leading up to the Civil War.


All that cynicism aside, if a colonial people feel they are better equipped to handle their affairs than a foreign imperial government, then they absolutely have the right to break away from the empire and govern themselves, with all the rights, privileges, and risks that decision entails.

I think if we ever get around to colonizing space, this issue will arise again.
 

elohiym

Well-known member

toldailytopic: Was the United States justified in fighting for their independence from Britain?



If Romans 13:1-7 is the word of God, and those who rebelled against the King claimed to be Christians, and claimed to believe Romans 13:1-7 is the word of God, then absolutely not. However, I do not believe that Romans 13:1-7 is the word of God, as I just explained in another thread:

"Note that Matthew 17:24-27 conflicts with Romans 13:1-7 suggesting, as I believe, that Romans 13:1-7 was intentionally added by agents of the Roman government to the Romans epistle during the persecution of the church, an entirely plausible scenario. The Romans epistle that Paul originally wrote in the first century may have started the thirteenth chapter with Romans 13:8, instead of what we have today from a third century manuscript (p46) that was circulating during the persecution of Christians, when Christians were refusing to pay tribute in fact."
 

Newman

New member
Who knows?

What I do know is that King George's rule was incomparabley lax and easygoing compared to what has become of our own attempt at governing. I mean, really--taxes were about $7 in today's inflated money. Raise your hand if you'd like to abandon the IRS tax code for a flat, measly $7 tax!

British North America 1774ish > United States of America 2011
 

Persephone66

BANNED
Banned
Not stupid enough to give half a rat's hind end what you think of my intelligence?

My defense of my views will come tomorrow, as my brother posts here and I told him I'd lay off the royalist rhetoric today.

So tomorrow you show us how stupid, weak minded and weak willed you are?

Can't wait.
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Does taxation without representation constitute grounds for violent revolution?

What do you mean? They protested peacefully over and over. Then the Red Coats were sent in and acted violently against their non violent protest.

Why don't you move to North Korea? Their leader agrees with you. He will do what you want. Well, get going.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top