Comments on: Friday T&A: Up the Irons Edition

By: Tom Kratman

Tom Kratman — Sat, 15 Jul 2023 05:22:23 +0000

Wasn’t really the tax, Chris, but the principle. We were either Englishmen, with the rights of Englishmen, to include the right to tax ourselves – and note, here, that when we were asked for money to support the French and Indian War we invariably gave more than we were asked for – or we were not Englishmen and owed no duty to the crown.

Moreover, what reason to believe that the tax would have stopped at 5%, or any percent short of the confiscatory, had we not risen in arms?

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 06 Jul 2023 17:11:36 +0000

The amazing thing is a bunch of well-heeled British aristocrats got all pissy over a 5% tax, and even that may be overstated. “LIBERTY OR DEATH!!” Over a tax that as has been pointed out, could have been worked out. Today it’s anywhere from 20% to 40% or more depending on your income. Why haven’t we revolted over those higher taxes today? (It’s a rhetorical question)

By: Tom Kratman

Tom Kratman — Sun, 02 Jul 2023 13:58:09 +0000

You know why we rebelled? Almost no one does.

There was essentially nothing that couldn’t have been worked through and most of it, officially, was. For that matter, as kings go, George was a good king. We object to quartering troops on the populace? Fine, Parliament makes it illegal to quarter troops on the populace here, uniquely in the British Empire. We object to certain taxes? Fine, Parliament revokes those taxes while trying, weakly, to preserve the principle that they can tax us.

They didn’t want a war any more than we did.

The problem was the British Army, which was out of control here. Despite what Parliament said, they DID quarter troops on the populace and they did try to disarm us, at Lexington and Concord, but even before that in Boston.