no, i do not believe the professor made a convincing arguement. i believe he said "ungrateful" were the americans for even wanting to rebel against the the country that basicaly gave them civilization. i believe just because britain helped america get its start doesnt mean they can control and take advantage of us such as by overtaxing the people of the colonies so that they dont have to do it to their people. i also believe it was a good thing that we declared war on britain by surprise to them. i believe this because they had no time to prepare and possibly save money for the war fund, therefore they had no choice but to tax their people the way they did ours and make them feel the way they did the colonies.
i believe that the Professor made a convincing argument. I'm saying this because he comes around with a completely different view on the colonies that we Americans would never think of. The British were surprised that the colonies were building up military power just to reach independence. The British were also not prepared to go to war, and they were very surprised when they lost. The colonies were supposed to be a raw source of materials such as crops for the British to utilize. The Professor even made the colonies look "ungrateful" for what they had. All the British did was tax the colonies. This is why I think the Professor made a convincing argument.
yes, the professor makes a convincing argument by stating the causes, processes and the result of the American Revolution. The colonists wanted their own freedom and they didnt want to pay any more taxes to the England.English didnt care much about the colonist,he only wanted get goods form them since they were very important to england's economic.As the result, under the help with General Atlantic colonists won the independence.
no, i do not believe the professor made a convincing arguement. i believe he said "ungrateful" were the americans for even wanting to rebel against the the country that basicaly gave them civilization. i believe just because britain helped america get its start doesnt mean they can control and take advantage of us such as by overtaxing the people of the colonies so that they dont have to do it to their people. i also believe it was a good thing that we declared war on britain by surprise to them. i believe this because they had no time to prepare and possibly save money for the war fund, therefore they had no choice but to tax their people the way they did ours and make them feel the way they did the colonies.
I dont think that professor Weinstraub made a convincing argument because first of all, the British colonies were heavily taxed and underpriviliged, with an extensively low amount of rights. basically they werent treated fair at all, they werent treated like citezans of Britain. just so the empire could save money and give more to their own citizans. i think it was totally natural and pretty appearant that a revolt, a protest, a reballion was soon to form by the people in such conditions.
The profesor said that the British were in shock when they heard of the rebellion and called the Americans ungratfull, and undeserving because britain helped the colonials settle here and start afresh while the British used them to become economically more successfull. in my opinion the British need to see it from an american's view, and they need to feel what it was like for the americans in person and then even they would rebel. but since they didnt they view it different.
I think that the revoloutinary war was the right thing to do by the Americans. at some point, someone has to stand up and draw the line.
I dont think that professor Weinstraub made a convincing argument because first of all, the British colonies were heavily taxed and underpriviliged, with an extensively low amount of rights. basically they werent treated fair at all, they werent treated like citezans of Britain. just so the empire could save money and give more to their own citizans. i think it was totally natural and pretty appearant that a revolt, a protest, a reballion was soon to form by the people in such conditions.
The profesor said that the British were in shock when they heard of the rebellion and called the Americans ungratfull, and undeserving because britain helped the colonials settle here and start afresh while the British used them to become economically more successfull. in my opinion the British need to see it from an american's view, and they need to feel what it was like for the americans in person and then even they would rebel. but since they didnt they view it different.
I think that the revoloutinary war was the right thing to do by the Americans. at some point, someone has to stand up and draw the line.
In my eyes i believe that the professor did make a convincing argument. Just as "zk51794" said, he is telling the revolutionary war from the British's point of view. They were really shocked because it didn't make sense to them that these inferior colonies would even dream about going to war with them and when they found out AND lost on top of that it was embarrassing not to them but to the world because it showed the big countries like France that the British didn't have there colonies on a leash.
I felt the professor did make a convincing argument. Even though he published his book based on the Britain's perspective during the American Revolution at times he did jump into the sidelines of the American colonists. He started out with explaining how the British colony felt that American colonists owed them because Britain served to provide Americans with protection from the Indians throughout and after the French-Indian War. Yet what they also did was prevent the American colonists from becoming independent. Even if the Americans did win the war we, obviously being Americans never thought about Britain's side of the story. The professor also explained how shocked the Britains were when they found out that the American militias were starting to buildup .Thats when they realized they couldn't get taxation out of the colonists. The colonists rebelled and fought for what they thought was right, yet at the same time Britain fought for what they thought was right for their nation.
Although the Brittish were having a rough time dealing with the debts they had to pay off, i dont think it was necessary to heavily tax the Americans. especially looking at it from the point of view that the Americans were really poor and they had just began to settle down. you cant expect so much from a beginner. The two english revolutions of the 1600s prepared the ground for the American revolution: the english civil war and the glorious revolution of 1688. these two revolutions launched powerful new ideas about government. the english revolutionist believed that a government should serve the interests of the governed not those of the ruler.
Although the americans were given a few rights, they were still under the control of Brittain and were obligated to serve it. not everyone in the colonists was given the same rights. white adult males who owned property had more rights than others. women had few legal rights. slaves and native americans had none. the rights of the followers of catholicism and judaism were restricted. and the colonies were only allowed to trade with brittain, trade with anyone else was highly discouraged. looking at what the colonies had to endure, i believe they were right in revolting. despite the great brittain being its mother land, there always comes a time where the mother has to let go of its child so it can stand on its own. because the brittains would not hear and respond to the voices of the americans, it was time the americans take an act. because as we all know, actions speak louder than words.
Dear Mr.Strk, If Professor Weintraub's argument is "he explained that the British felt the Colonies were indebted to them and should be more appreciative", which states that America should have bowed down to the British then I do not agree. It is true that the British provided soldiers for the colonies protections, but when did the colonists ask for this protection, and the fact that British passed the Quartering act, was even more unjustified, which is why the British were not owed anything, since the colonists did not ask for these soldiers. The British were not truly providing protection for the colonists, as "xT_TH" above stated, the British had the colonists fighting along aside them. Taxation on the colonies was not just either, though the British citizens had it worse when it came to taxes. This doesn't mean that the British though could tax the colonies when not a single member in Parliament was from the colonies. The British only saw the colonies as a way of making back the money they had lost in the Indian war. "When it started. They weren't prepared for it", this is something else i dont agree with, since the colonist politicians sent over the Olive branch treaty and King George III just discarded it. What did King George believe was going to happen? I do agree with the professor when it comes to the general population of the British, they did not like the war, citizens were already paying high taxes and now because of this war they would have to pay up even more. I also agree with the professor on why America won the war, one because the British had a almost 3 month journey. This alone hindered the British ability to have weapons, soldiers and orders.
Yes, I believe the professor made a convincing argument. Professor's argument was based on the British point of view. British felt that the American colonies owed them greatly due to protection and manufacturing. he said British weren't prepared for it because the American militias were building up on military large amounts of weapons. British lost a lot of men at bunker hill. taxation was growing in Britain even little things such as paper and etc. Britain wasn't even up for the War due to merchants and business men because of the taxation. Professor explained that the British lost the war was because the colonists had a big population and traveling wise was far. Professor also wanted to have a balance point of view for the British.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteno, i do not believe the professor made a convincing arguement. i believe he said "ungrateful" were the americans for even wanting to rebel against the the country that basicaly gave them civilization. i believe just because britain helped america get its start doesnt mean they can control and take advantage of us such as by overtaxing the people of the colonies so that they dont have to do it to their people.
ReplyDeletei also believe it was a good thing that we declared war on britain by surprise to them. i believe this because they had no time to prepare and possibly save money for the war fund, therefore they had no choice but to tax their people the way they did ours and make them feel the way they did the colonies.
i believe that the Professor made a convincing argument. I'm saying this because he comes around with a completely different view on the colonies that we Americans would never think of. The British were surprised that the colonies were building up military power just to reach independence. The British were also not prepared to go to war, and they were very surprised when they lost. The colonies were supposed to be a raw source of materials such as crops for the British to utilize. The Professor even made the colonies look "ungrateful" for what they had. All the British did was tax the colonies. This is why I think the Professor made a convincing argument.
ReplyDeleteyes, the professor makes a convincing argument by stating the causes, processes and the result of the American Revolution. The colonists wanted their own freedom and they didnt want to pay any more taxes to the England.English didnt care much about the colonist,he only wanted get goods form them since they were very important to england's economic.As the result, under the help with General Atlantic colonists won the independence.
ReplyDeleteno, i do not believe the professor made a convincing arguement. i believe he said "ungrateful" were the americans for even wanting to rebel against the the country that basicaly gave them civilization. i believe just because britain helped america get its start doesnt mean they can control and take advantage of us such as by overtaxing the people of the colonies so that they dont have to do it to their people.
ReplyDeletei also believe it was a good thing that we declared war on britain by surprise to them. i believe this because they had no time to prepare and possibly save money for the war fund, therefore they had no choice but to tax their people the way they did ours and make them feel the way they did the colonies.
I dont think that professor Weinstraub made a convincing argument because first of all, the British colonies were heavily taxed and underpriviliged, with an extensively low amount of rights. basically they werent treated fair at all, they werent treated like citezans of Britain. just so the empire could save money and give more to their own citizans. i think it was totally natural and pretty appearant that a revolt, a protest, a reballion was soon to form by the people in such conditions.
ReplyDeleteThe profesor said that the British were in shock when they heard of the rebellion and called the Americans ungratfull, and undeserving because britain helped the colonials settle here and start afresh while the British used them to become economically more successfull. in my opinion the British need to see it from an american's view, and they need to feel what it was like for the americans in person and then even they would rebel. but since they didnt they view it different.
I think that the revoloutinary war was the right thing to do by the Americans. at some point, someone has to stand up and draw the line.
I dont think that professor Weinstraub made a convincing argument because first of all, the British colonies were heavily taxed and underpriviliged, with an extensively low amount of rights. basically they werent treated fair at all, they werent treated like citezans of Britain. just so the empire could save money and give more to their own citizans. i think it was totally natural and pretty appearant that a revolt, a protest, a reballion was soon to form by the people in such conditions.
ReplyDeleteThe profesor said that the British were in shock when they heard of the rebellion and called the Americans ungratfull, and undeserving because britain helped the colonials settle here and start afresh while the British used them to become economically more successfull. in my opinion the British need to see it from an american's view, and they need to feel what it was like for the americans in person and then even they would rebel. but since they didnt they view it different.
I think that the revoloutinary war was the right thing to do by the Americans. at some point, someone has to stand up and draw the line.
In my eyes i believe that the professor did make a convincing argument. Just as "zk51794" said, he is telling the revolutionary war from the British's point of view. They were really shocked because it didn't make sense to them that these inferior colonies would even dream about going to war with them and when they found out AND lost on top of that it was embarrassing not to them but to the world because it showed the big countries like France that the British didn't have there colonies on a leash.
ReplyDeleteI felt the professor did make a convincing argument. Even though he published his book based on the Britain's perspective during the American Revolution at times he did jump into the sidelines of the American colonists. He started out with explaining how the British colony felt that American colonists owed them because Britain served to provide Americans with protection from the Indians throughout and after the French-Indian War. Yet what they also did was prevent the American colonists from becoming independent. Even if the Americans did win the war we, obviously being Americans never thought about Britain's side of the story. The professor also explained how shocked the Britains were when they found out that the American militias were starting to buildup .Thats when they realized they couldn't get taxation out of the colonists. The colonists rebelled and fought for what they thought was right, yet at the same time Britain fought for what they thought was right for their nation.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Brittish were having a rough time dealing with the debts they had to pay off, i dont think it was necessary to heavily tax the Americans. especially looking at it from the point of view that the Americans were really poor and they had just began to settle down. you cant expect so much from a beginner. The two english revolutions of the 1600s prepared the ground for the American revolution: the english civil war and the glorious revolution of 1688. these two revolutions launched powerful new ideas about government. the english revolutionist believed that a government should serve the interests of the governed not those of the ruler.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the americans were given a few rights, they were still under the control of Brittain and were obligated to serve it. not everyone in the colonists was given the same rights. white adult males who owned property had more rights than others. women had few legal rights. slaves and native americans had none. the rights of the followers of catholicism and judaism were restricted. and the colonies were only allowed to trade with brittain, trade with anyone else was highly discouraged.
looking at what the colonies had to endure, i believe they were right in revolting. despite the great brittain being its mother land, there always comes a time where the mother has to let go of its child so it can stand on its own. because the brittains would not hear and respond to the voices of the americans, it was time the americans take an act. because as we all know, actions speak louder than words.
Dear Mr.Strk,
ReplyDeleteIf Professor Weintraub's argument is "he explained that the British felt the Colonies were indebted to them and should be more appreciative", which states that America should have bowed down to the British then I do not agree. It is true that the British provided soldiers for the colonies protections, but when did the colonists ask for this protection, and the fact that British passed the Quartering act, was even more unjustified, which is why the British were not owed anything, since the colonists did not ask for these soldiers. The British were not truly providing protection for the colonists, as "xT_TH" above stated, the British had the colonists fighting along aside them.
Taxation on the colonies was not just either, though the British citizens had it worse when it came to taxes. This doesn't mean that the British though could tax the colonies when not a single member in Parliament was from the colonies. The British only saw the colonies as a way of making back the money they had lost in the Indian war.
"When it started. They weren't prepared for it", this is something else i dont agree with, since the colonist politicians sent over the Olive branch treaty and King George III just discarded it. What did King George believe was going to happen?
I do agree with the professor when it comes to the general population of the British, they did not like the war, citizens were already paying high taxes and now because of this war they would have to pay up even more. I also agree with the professor on why America won the war, one because the British had a almost 3 month journey. This alone hindered the British ability to have weapons, soldiers and orders.
Yes, I believe the professor made a convincing argument. Professor's argument was based on the British point of view. British felt that the American colonies owed them greatly due to protection and manufacturing. he said British weren't prepared for it because the American militias were building up on military large amounts of weapons. British lost a lot of men at bunker hill. taxation was growing in Britain even little things such as paper and etc. Britain wasn't even up for the War due to merchants and business men because of the taxation. Professor explained that the British lost the war was because the colonists had a big population and traveling wise was far. Professor also wanted to have a balance point of view for the British.
ReplyDelete