Amazon.com Widgets
  • Absolutely!

    A great way to justify any actions is to take a look at the results that were made possible due to the action itself. Because of the American Revolution, we are no longer ruled by a monarchy across the Atlantic Ocean, and our independence has become our highest-value asset as the United States. The US has become the power it has today because of the freedom we have had to make our own choices!

  • Yes, the American Revolution was justified.

    Thomas Jefferson said it best. When any form of Government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the people’s right to alter or abolish it. It was this sentiment that existed in the colonies before the start of the American Revolution. Great Britain had taxed the colonies to death to pay for a war that wasn’t even in the American colony’s interest. With these taxes that the colonists were forced to pay, came absolutely no representation in Parliament. Because of this, a group of colonists created a document entitled the Declaration of Independence, which listed all the justifications for abolishing Great Britain’s rule over the colonies.

  • Yes, it was

    The American Revolution was justified because the people of America came here to be free and Europe still wanted to have control. You can not control everything and we need to be able to do things to get away from people that act like that. They moved across the world for that. That is more than enough for them to do to get freedom.

  • Britian Is cool

    The British had just finished funding a war the colonists started, so it is pretty reasonable that they tax the colonist make up for the chaos that was created by their unsatisfiable need for land. Plus the British supported the colonies they gave them food so they can live. And that's how the colonists treat people who help them? There weren't even that many taxes. And the Boston Massacre? That was an extreme exaggeration only FIVE people died! Plus it was self defence!

  • Of course it was justifiable!

    The colonists were being unfairly taxed, forced to drink only one type of crappy tea, and were practically enslaved by the British. Great Britain was taxing the colonies without representation which, in some cases, might piss some people off because it was unfair. The East Indian Company was floundering so the king thought, "Hey, I can help you out getting rid of all your tea! Let's just force the colonies to drink it and you'll make great money!" With the soldiers in the colonies abusing their power, some colonists wouldn't be too happy. The Boston Massacre was justified by John Adams in court, obviously, but have you ever thought of the little things that the soldiers did to be completely and utterly rude? Pushing people out of their ways as if they were seniors in high school walking through the halls to their next class. Even after the Continental Congress extended out the Olive Branch Treaty to Great Britain, it is said that the king did not even bother to put on his spectacles to read it. The colonists, even after extending a treaty for peace, were attacked by Britain. By this, I believe the American Revolution is justifiable.

  • The idea that a head of stat should be in charge because of bloodline, even if power was limited, is a bad idea.

    The British monopoly and politics The British motivations was to enrich the mother country, the war was in their own self interest. The Americans at the time were a custom to being self governed, so when the British started to impose tax's and infringe upon trade (a monopoly) that angered a lot of people. Americans are a little brain washed about the motives of the American revolution and in reality the colonist really over-reacted in hindsight. The actions of the colonist, were actions of just a few, however at that time the colonist had in a sense developed an identity of its own from Britain, which was really the catalyst to all this.

  • The idea that a head of stat should be in charge because of bloodline, even if power was limited, is a bad idea.

    The British monopoly and politics The British motivations was to enrich the mother country, the war was in their own self interest. The Americans at the time were a custom to being self governed, so when the British started to impose tax's and infringe upon trade (a monopoly) that angered a lot of people. Americans are a little brain washed about the motives of the American revolution and in reality the colonist really over-reacted in hindsight. The actions of the colonist, were actions of just a few, however at that time the colonist had in a sense developed an identity of its own from Britain, which was really the catalyst to all this.

  • American independence is Great

    Freedom idea that a head of state should be in charge because of bloodline, even if power was limited, is a bad idea. Also, we were being taxed without the same representations that Englishmen in Britain had. ALSO, nobody wants to be ruled by a remote king living across an ocean who they barely know much about.

  • Path to power

    It is justifiable because it succeeded, and given right to the fact there is no wrong. However, the "crimes" of the British Empire were not as severe as it is usually made out to be. There is also a lot of evidence to support the conclusion that the British Empire has secretly been pulling the strings all along.

  • Path to power

    It is justifiable because it succeeded, and given right to the fact there is no wrong. However, the "crimes" of the British Empire were not as severe as it is usually made out to be. There is also a lot of evidence to support the conclusion that the British Empire has secretly been pulling the strings all along.

  • No, not really.

    I just learned about this in AP world history. These are the reasons the colonies seceded.

    1. Boston Massacre: Not really a massacre, something like 40 people died, and it wasn't deliberate, the soldiers were backed into a corner by a mob, and they fired. The media blew it out of proportion.

    2. New taxes: Well, the British just funded a war against the French, the French and Indian war, they needed to pay off their debts. It's pretty reasonable. I mean, we turned around and did the same thing right after the revolution.

    3. Appalachians: The British said we couldn't expand west. Proclamation of some year. This was to prevent a war with the Indians and to remain allies with the Iroquois.

  • No, not really.

    . I just learned about this in AP world history. These are the reasons the colonies seceded.

    1. Boston Massacre: Not really a massacre, something like 40 people died, and it wasn't deliberate, the soldiers were backed into a corner by a mob, and they fired. The media blew it out of proportion.

    2. New taxes: Well, the British just funded a war against the French, the French and Indian war, they needed to pay off their debts. It's pretty reasonable. I mean, we turned around and did the same thing right after the revolution.

    3. Appalachians: The British said we couldn't expand west. Proclamation of some year. This was to prevent a war with the Indians and to remain allies with the Iroquois

  • Brits at Home Paid more Taxes than the Colonists

    The tax ratio between the Brits in England and the Colonies respectively were 30-1. Though the Colonists had the stamp act and such, many colonists reported never seeing or having to use stamps. It was only fair to add the supplementary taxes, as the British government had fought a war against the French and needed to pay the war off. The colonists raised taxes to above what they had been before hand to pay for their war! It was a good example of group mentality: a few people didn't like the government, and used common, yet unjust, complaints to gain support for their own beliefs.

  • America used Britain as scapegoats.

    America was a colony which was much farther than any of the colonies founded prior. This was a first case scenario. The British tried using the same methods they used on the colonies closer to home such as India and Australia. This did not work which was to be expected. The Americans grew annoyed at the continued policies set up by the British. Instead of voicing their opinions in the proper way of explaining to the government, Americans started to protest with violence. They started to rebel because they didn't like what the British did. As well when the Americans protested violently such as The Boston Tea Party, they were angry that they had to make up for the losses. They decided on what to do with the reality of that Britain would not be happy but still they used it as an excuse to cry about it. Therefore I believe it was not justified in any way what so ever.

  • Not by any understanding of the word Justice of which I am aware!!

    Clearly the following does not constitute grounds for rebellion:-

    - Minor taxes to pay for a huge war (http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War), started by the Colonists and undertaken in their defence.

    - No Representation in British Parliament - did this really need a war to resolve??

    - Revolution was supported by approximately 1/3 of the populace of the Colony - hardly the case of a repressed populace throwing off the yoke of oppressor.

    Real Reasons?

    - Britain had effectively banned slavery on its own shores in 1772 with the judgment in the Somerset Case given by Lord Mansfield and the Colonists were averse to this happening in America. This point is particularly contrary to the myth of the Revolution being concerned with Liberty.

    - Limits on Colonists expansion West. Britain was keen to protect the Indian (allies in the wars against the French) lands and prevent further conflict, the Colonials were motivated by greed and would eventually see it as their 'Manifest Destiny' to take over all the land 'from sea to shining sea'.

    Betrayal?

    - To actively seek the support of the French - the previous arch enemy of the Colonists as well as Britain, and against whom the British had defended the Colonists in the previous war > that led to the British debt > which led to the taxes > which supposedly led to the Revolution... This must have been one of the worst acts of betrayal in human history.

    - The treatment of the loyalists. Persecuted, tortured, executed, disenfranchised and exiled with no compensation for lost property or damages. Tens of thousands of people whose stories have been written out of history, including thousands of freed black slaves (90+ years prior to the Emancipation Proclamation).

    Clearly, history is written by the victors, that this 'Rebellion' be remembered as a fight for Liberty.

    Posted by: pdc
  • The Americans were stupid.

    They didn't pay very high taxes at all, yet they were whining-only 1/30 of British colonists. They wanted to be British and be treated as British people? Then pay more taxes! Plus, the debt that the British had that needed to be paid off was for the American colonists, which was why they were fighting in the French and Indian War, so technically, they started a war that would lead to disturbance inside their ranks, which is stupid.

  • Keeping the colonists "fenced in".

    1) The colonist were being told that they could not "expand" their territories (I guess the pursuit of happiness/ human rights did not apply to anyone but the colonists, certainly not the Native Americans), which actually was a wise move on King George's end, especially after having to fund the Fr/Indian war. If the colonists had kept their end of the bargain of being British citizens and respecting land rights of others, who know what the landscape of America would be now? 2) Also, they did have an obligation to repay Britain for protection in the war, right? That is normally done with taxes.
    The colonists were singing praises of King George, especially considering that he granted them safe passage to the colonies to live as they choose, but they carried it out a bit too far when they were told NO to expansion.

  • Native American Lands

    How could the Am.Revolution be justified if one believes the Fr.&Indian War was not, since the former led to the latter. Virginia demanding that the French leave the Ohio and Miss.R Valleys was not justified. At least the French lived with and got along quite well with the Native Americans. The English and Americans simply wanted them gone. Britain was not enslaving us, we were enslaving blacks.

  • The taxes were mostly reasonable.

    The British needed money because they were funding the war with the French. They figured since the American land was fresh and full of industry they would be able to handle it, but the colonists felt that they deserved to have all of the money they were making. Another point would be the Boston Tea party. They completely ransacked British property just to prove a point. The tea wasn't even expensive compared to buying it in Britain.

  • They went against their "beliefs" which they used to justify the war as well

    It was the impatient nature of some of the colonists that led them to react violently. They didn't want to wait for the British to come to a solution to the problem they decided the best way to deal with the problem was to attack the British. Secondly they were mostly Christian and they did not follow the passage in the Bible that says they should submit to authority as long as it does not go against what God's law says.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.