Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Nations and Cannons: The American Crisis for DND 5E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8998474" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>And you're oversimplifying and putting only one side of the story yourself and I'm afraid I'm not going to let the incredibly incomplete picture you paint stand. Starting with pointing out that the taxes were wanted to pay for the defence of the American settlements in what was literally a world war, kicked off by those self-same colonists, and in which they didn't even provide all the defence of their own lands or ... just about anything to prevent reinforcements - but somehow claim that despite having started a world war that having provided an incomplete contribution to their own theatre of war this should render them tax exempt from contributing to either the rest of the costs of their theatre or the rest of the war? When it comes to reasons to raise taxes "paying for defence" is one all but the most hardcore of libertarians agree with. Especially when it's "paying for the costs incurred defending you in a war you started". </p><p></p><p>It's at this point worth pointing out that the British Empire was essentially a loosely federal night watchman state. And that the laws that affected people from day to day were the laws that were almost entirely made at home. Which is a part of why, despite slavery being illegal in Britain it was legal in numerous colonies including many of the American ones. (Of course one of the reasons that was the case was that a lot of powerful British people, normally from the King down, had invested deeply in the slave trade because it was so profitable).</p><p></p><p>You say that up to about 1760 the colonists were "largely unbothered by the crown". Which is true - they were essentially freeloading, gaining significantly while being unwilling to pay upkeep on the protection they gained. But they were the ones to bother the crown when they started the whole war many leaders were refusing to pay their share of costs for in 1755. And the way the Boston Tea Party was, contrary to the propaganda, an act carried out by Boston's smugglers in response to a significant tax <em>cut</em>. (Largely because the tax cut would have put the smugglers out of business). And their purpose was to destroy the tea carried by the East India Company so they gained a temporary monopoly of tea.</p><p></p><p>But it wasn't just the Townshend Acts (of which I'd argue that the only genuinely cruel one was the New York Restraining Act) and the Intolerable Acts that prompted the Americans to revolt. Other causes included the Royal Proclamation of 1763 with the Colonials not wanting to be restricted in their expansion and instead wishing to conquer and colonise from sea to shining sea. And Somerset v Stewart being settled in 1772 and clarifying that slavery was not and had not been legal on English soil for centuries and inspiring the rising tide of abolitionism in England. The irony of the slaveowner-led rebellion crying "no taxation without representation" otherwise appealing on the grounds of the liberty to own people as property is intense. And then writing the three fifths compromise into the Constitution? If it wasn't for George Washington having stepped down (thereby starting a tradition of orderly transitions of power) I'd have a hard time not seeing this as an outright bad guys victory.</p><p></p><p>If you want to know whether the revolutionaries were being reasonable focusing only on one narrow aspect or for that matter focusing only on the acts of the other side doesn't cut it. For that matter if you want to know whether King George was being reasonable you need to look at the information he was receiving. </p><p></p><p>Of course any discussions about the American Revolution are limited without putting it into the context of who was funding it. The French, who literally bankrupted themselves trying to stir up enough support to run an additional theatre of war against Britain as part of a world war that took place across multiple continents.</p><p></p><p>Oh, and a reenactment of the actual Paul Revere's ride or Longfellow's poetry based loosely on it?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8998474, member: 87792"] And you're oversimplifying and putting only one side of the story yourself and I'm afraid I'm not going to let the incredibly incomplete picture you paint stand. Starting with pointing out that the taxes were wanted to pay for the defence of the American settlements in what was literally a world war, kicked off by those self-same colonists, and in which they didn't even provide all the defence of their own lands or ... just about anything to prevent reinforcements - but somehow claim that despite having started a world war that having provided an incomplete contribution to their own theatre of war this should render them tax exempt from contributing to either the rest of the costs of their theatre or the rest of the war? When it comes to reasons to raise taxes "paying for defence" is one all but the most hardcore of libertarians agree with. Especially when it's "paying for the costs incurred defending you in a war you started". It's at this point worth pointing out that the British Empire was essentially a loosely federal night watchman state. And that the laws that affected people from day to day were the laws that were almost entirely made at home. Which is a part of why, despite slavery being illegal in Britain it was legal in numerous colonies including many of the American ones. (Of course one of the reasons that was the case was that a lot of powerful British people, normally from the King down, had invested deeply in the slave trade because it was so profitable). You say that up to about 1760 the colonists were "largely unbothered by the crown". Which is true - they were essentially freeloading, gaining significantly while being unwilling to pay upkeep on the protection they gained. But they were the ones to bother the crown when they started the whole war many leaders were refusing to pay their share of costs for in 1755. And the way the Boston Tea Party was, contrary to the propaganda, an act carried out by Boston's smugglers in response to a significant tax [I]cut[/I]. (Largely because the tax cut would have put the smugglers out of business). And their purpose was to destroy the tea carried by the East India Company so they gained a temporary monopoly of tea. But it wasn't just the Townshend Acts (of which I'd argue that the only genuinely cruel one was the New York Restraining Act) and the Intolerable Acts that prompted the Americans to revolt. Other causes included the Royal Proclamation of 1763 with the Colonials not wanting to be restricted in their expansion and instead wishing to conquer and colonise from sea to shining sea. And Somerset v Stewart being settled in 1772 and clarifying that slavery was not and had not been legal on English soil for centuries and inspiring the rising tide of abolitionism in England. The irony of the slaveowner-led rebellion crying "no taxation without representation" otherwise appealing on the grounds of the liberty to own people as property is intense. And then writing the three fifths compromise into the Constitution? If it wasn't for George Washington having stepped down (thereby starting a tradition of orderly transitions of power) I'd have a hard time not seeing this as an outright bad guys victory. If you want to know whether the revolutionaries were being reasonable focusing only on one narrow aspect or for that matter focusing only on the acts of the other side doesn't cut it. For that matter if you want to know whether King George was being reasonable you need to look at the information he was receiving. Of course any discussions about the American Revolution are limited without putting it into the context of who was funding it. The French, who literally bankrupted themselves trying to stir up enough support to run an additional theatre of war against Britain as part of a world war that took place across multiple continents. Oh, and a reenactment of the actual Paul Revere's ride or Longfellow's poetry based loosely on it? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Nations and Cannons: The American Crisis for DND 5E
Top