• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Harris is so out of touch.....

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Um, we fought the Brits over "taxation without representation", and yet non-citizens here do pay taxes, so why shouldn't they be allowed to vote in at least local elections if that community thinks it's right & proper? If not, then why should they have to pay taxes?

Just something to think about.;)

I think the real reason was that the colonists wanted to expand west, while the British wanted to forbid further colonial settlement west of the Appalachians. Royal Proclamation of 1763 - Wikipedia

Map_of_territorial_growth_1775.jpg


The area in pink on this map was supposedly set aside for the Native Americans, but the colonists balked at that idea. The colonists felt like they should have gotten something in return for fighting to save the Empire.

First thing we did once independence was gained was to move into that territory like gangbusters, starting with Mad Anthony Wayne and ending with the Trail of Tears.

I like that "Province of Quebec" label over the Great Lakes region. I guess the French had big plans for Quebec, but it was not to be. The French lost Louisiana, too, but Napoleon got it back just before he sold it to us.

These land deals are an interesting aspect of history. We bought Manhattan for $24, from another tribe that didn't even live on Manhattan. Then there was Louisiana, which we got for $15 million (which was pretty sizable back in those days). I think we paid $5 million for Florida, and $30 million for the Mexican Cession.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think the real reason was that the colonists wanted to expand west, while the British wanted to forbid further colonial settlement west of the Appalachians. Royal Proclamation of 1763 - Wikipedia

Map_of_territorial_growth_1775.jpg


The area in pink on this map was supposedly set aside for the Native Americans, but the colonists balked at that idea. The colonists felt like they should have gotten something in return for fighting to save the Empire.

First thing we did once independence was gained was to move into that territory like gangbusters, starting with Mad Anthony Wayne and ending with the Trail of Tears.

I like that "Province of Quebec" label over the Great Lakes region. I guess the French had big plans for Quebec, but it was not to be. The French lost Louisiana, too, but Napoleon got it back just before he sold it to us.

These land deals are an interesting aspect of history. We bought Manhattan for $24, from another tribe that didn't even live on Manhattan. Then there was Louisiana, which we got for $15 million (which was pretty sizable back in those days). I think we paid $5 million for Florida, and $30 million for the Mexican Cession.
Yep, I agree that there was more than just one issue. Another one was the fact that the Brits were becoming increasingly wary of slavery even though they themselves did not totally abandon it until a half century later. Many of their politicians were very reluctant to support slavery in their colonies because it was such a hot issue in their own domain, but a great many of Americans wanted it, especially in the South.

Funny we're talking about this as I was discussing being in the town of St. Ignace in da U.P. with a relative who was there last weekend, which was the regional head of the Catholic Church and was accountable to that in Quebec. There were and still are many Amerindians in that area, so there was a lotsa controversy dealing with the indigenous, the Church, and the French, English, and American governments back then. My wife and I are going there next month for a while, staying on a reservation not far from there.

BTW, I am a byproduct of that mixture, being a Me'tis.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
This is exactly what an urban Brit like me wants to believe rural America is like. Can any of you confirm or deny?

Depends on where you go. The US is a big place, so yeah there are some rural places that are pretty much just like that, but other rural areas are different (e.g. the rural southwest, rural Alaska).
 
Top