engine of souls | forum 3

mre · Senior Member

Assignment #1: Pre-Revolution Debate (NEG/Colonist)

courtney · Veteran Member

Disadvantages: The more the British try and control the colonies, the angrier the colonies are going to get. It is obvious that if the British keep taking things away from the colonies, that they are going to rebel and do something in return.

Kyle Hamel · Member

i agree wit courtney

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Yes Courtney is right. It is quite on obvious by what we have read and researched that the goal of England was to regulate the colonies and their trade (i.e. Navigation Acts), prevent Free Press (i.e. Zenger Case), tighten sovereign control (i.e. Declaratory Acts), prevent uprising and demonstration (i.e. Coercive Acts), as well as repay a great war debt (i.e. Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Townshend Acts, Tea Act, etc.) I hope the affirmatives don't have a plan that includes taxes on the colonies because in fact taxes like the Townshend Acts actually hurt the British. According to our text book it raised only 21,000 pounds compared to the cost of 700,000 pounds to the British buisnesses through the colonial nonimportation movement.

Matthew Wasilowski · Veteran Member

After The Seven Years War France's position as a major colonial power ended while Britain was strengthened as a colonial power. After The Seven Years War Britain not only strengthened it's tarritories in North America but it also strengthened it's tarritories in India. Britain should have taken the time to come up with a better a solution to it's debt since the British did not have to worry about competition from France and Spain as much as they did before the war.

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Thsi is a really good website I found for anybody who is a negative.
It has a great collection of quotes from colonists such as Sam Adams. I think it may be able to help us and can serve as a primary source. Here is the link:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Transwiki:American_History_Primary_Sources_The_Road_to_Revolution

P.S. Let me know in a post here if the link doesn't work for some reason.

Vicky Smith · Member

The Seven Years War was a good political move for the British. It allowed them to continue controlling the trade of all the resources of America. Why then should king George only tax the Americans to repay his debts? Since the war was profitable to the whole British Empire, shouldn't all of Britain's colonies around the world also have to pay taxes? I also like the idea of Britain letting the colonists set their own taxes.... Just a thought.

Also, Danny: Considering what our text book says on pages 176, 177, and 179 I don't think your ideas about the slave trade would be very popular.

Vicky Smith · Member

Hey I just looked at Justin's link. I like the quote at the bottom of the page that was said by David Hartley. Does anyone know where I could look to find the rest of his speech to Parliament? I would like to see his full argument and maybe use that to base ideas off of.

Jesley Teixeira · Newbie

Yea, I agree with Courtney too. Obviously if they keep trying to gain control something negative is going to happen. Chances are even something within the colonists could occur... also with other countries ..

richie_richh · Member

I thnk if the british try to take more control of the coloneis lots of problems will start uprising not only in the colonies but other countries might try to sopport them in revolting against the british also the people in britan might try to to revolt form britian because they hearing that the colonies are getting there way because of revolting

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

I actually printed out all the quotes on the link I posted. I will let all of you guys get a good look at them tomorrow and hopefully you can use them as evidence.

Sarah Flood · Veteran Member

If the positive side is planning on taxing the colonies much like the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act of 1765, we will use these quotes to illustrate the colonies' ill feelings towards Britian after these crippling taxes were instated.

The Declaratory Act

1766

[Parliament has] the full power and authority... to make laws... to bind the colonies and people of America... in all cases whatsoever.

From the text of the Declaratory Act (March 1766), passed by Parliament the same day that it repealed the Stamp Act.

The Townshend Acts

1767

[Taxes shall be] for defraying the charge of the administration of justice, and the support of the civil government.

From the Townshend Acts, passed in June-July 1767, which took the costs of courts and governors’ salaries away from appropriations of the colonial legislatures by having them paid directly from British tax collections.

1767

Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First had his Cromwell, and George the Third (‘Treason’ cried the Speaker) may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.

Patrick Henry, Speech in the Virginia House of Burgesses opposing the Townshend Acts.

Much like Justin's qoutes, I think that these could be useful tools in the debate, and should be implemented.

P.S. These are all from primary sources

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Transwiki:American_History_Primary_Sources_The_Road_to_Revolution

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Remember everyone, making a good statement that makes a good point is great, but you need evidence to back it up. Evidence is key in a debate like this. We need to use whatever research we might have found online or in our textbook as a source of evidence to prove our point. Go negatives!

Vanessa Souza · Member

Workability:
Ideology:

"Much of this Whig ideology reached the people
through some 23 newspapers circulating in the
colonies by 1763"

- None of the British ideas were in support of the colonies and Britain as a whole

“The colonists viewed the events of the 1760s and 1770s through an ideological prism that had been shaped by English thinkers who had tried to deny the throne to Charles II's Catholic brother James between 1679 and 1681. This tradition held that liberty was always fragile and vulnerable, that power was always aggressive and corrupting, and that political liberty required constant vigilance. These ideas had been kept in circulation during the eighteenth century by radical Whig politicians in Britain , including Thomas Gordon and John Trenchard. The colonists avidly read their warnings about the dangers posed by a standing army, the government corruption caused by government officials lusting after power, and the evils caused by public debt. When Parliament began to tax Americans, regulate their trade, station trops in their midst, denied colonists the right to expand westward, many Americans perceived these efforts as part of a design to deprive them of their property and reduce them to slavery. The Consequences of the Seven Years' War”

-This passage proves how ideology had already existed before the Sugar Act of 1764

Taxes:

"For every Englishman is taxed, and not one in twenty represented"-Soame Jenyns

- Colonists were not being represented. How can Britain tax each and every one of us, if we have no one to represent us. We don’t want a single person. We want a true democracy. News of their rebellions may spread through out other British colonies.

-- Edited by Vanessa Souza on Saturday 19th of September 2009 06:57:37 PM

-- Edited by Vanessa Souza on Saturday 19th of September 2009 07:03:54 PM

mre · Senior Member

Good posts so far. Remember to post your evidence when stating a position. State your evidence clearly and don't just post a link, ok?

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

I just discovered another great point that we can use to attachk the Affirmative's solvency. In a Britsish Order in Council in 1763 the resolution was that from America and the West Indies "revenue was small and inconsiderable and is not yet ready to defray the fourth part of collecting it." What I am trying to say here with this quote, which by the way was made before the great line of taxes were imposed on the colonies, is that if the affirmatives still won't be able to balance their budget. Remeber in 1763, Britain had a 250 million pound deficit. It seems that the affirmatives are neglecting this. Also, if they try to raise a "colonial infantry" which they say will lower cost, they forget that they will have to pay the infantry and supply it with arms and forts. In the first place they have no evidence as to how many would join the millitary and if any of these measures would even be cost effective and successful.

*On another note I also have an idea for a possible counter plan to that of the affirmatives that I will present in class Monday!* Keep up the good work everyone!

Danny · Member

That's a good point since one of the b-block plans were to recruit the colonists to the british army. this obviosly will not have much sucsses since- A what you just wrote -
B they will be forced to pay the colonists recruits - and C if we were in the british army why pay a tax for protection if we basically are protecting ourselves.

mre · Senior Member

Adam
Member

Posts: 5
Date: 2 days ago
IP: 72.70.3.187

AFF Need (no negatives!)

Reply Quote More

Edit Post

Delete Post

Printer Friendly

Ban IP

Report Spam

Historical Debate - Resolved: That the British government should establish a foreign policy to increase political, economic and social control of the American colonies.

Group Assignment: NEED [Explain what the justification for change is. Describe what problems exist, why these problems are big enough to demand a change, and why the present system is unable to address the issues. Remember, your job is to prove that an increase in colonial control is needed.]

Aubriee Braultt
Member

Posts: 6
Date: 2 days ago
IP: 24.147.149.146

Reply Quote More

Edit Post

Delete Post

Printer Friendly

Ban IP

Report Spam

ok so, we're pointing out problems the colonists have internally, and support why and how the ruling of the mother country would benefit the colonists...?

here are some reasons and points that are hopefully relevent to our part in this,

* British presence in the colonies would help with the settlement of the large influx of Irish and German immigrants coming into New England after the Treaty of Paris in 1763 ... these immigrants caused stress in the colonists because they were taking away a variety of jobs which were a safety net of security in the new world; there were many quarrels among the two peoples because money was earned from these jobs, money bought land, and land bought power and a political voice.

* The lower class citezens were beginning to voice their opinions and demanding more authority, as a result the knowledgeable elite's voices were no longer heard of. The voice of such well-rounded individuals is key to a process where experience and knowledge is needed; the process of keeping a new settlement afloat. British influence could have helped to keep the voice of those elites heard, and so more quarrels solved and brighter ideas could surfaced with much less concequences than those after the war.

* As local protesting and rebellions continued to cause an atmosphere of chaos boycotts began as well. The colonists put themselves into an economical depression when they stopped trade with Britain. Keeping a friendly and open trade with the strongest empire of the world during the time would have excellent benefits and an infuencing title of authority.

... i have more :] i'll out them up tmrw

theaa
Member

Posts: 5
Date: 2 days ago
IP: 76.118.91.107

Reply Quote More

Edit Post

Delete Post

Printer Friendly

Ban IP

Report Spam

so im just going to identify probelms now,
1. ***huge debt***
-big enough to demand change since england is trying to make money after the huge debt they have and one of the reasons is from the french and indian war, which helped out the colonists. too many colonists are objecting the taxing and uprising against the government and revolting. we need to find a solution so we can make colonists happy and still make money.
2. uprising in colonists / respect for britain and vise versa.
-if england is going to continue represtenting the colonies, they need the respect from colonists to get new laws and regulations out and see majority of public respionse and not the rash behavior of a few groups like the sons of liberty. Britain also needs to gain more respect for the colonies and put themselves in their positions so they can think of possible solutions to many of their problems.
3. housing for soldiers
-this causes many uproars since the colonists belive they are paying for them just so they can protect them from native americans and the also have to house them. if we found a soution to the housing, revolts would decrease. (possible solution: create stations for soldiers where they train colonists to become soldiers, maybe theyll pay a certain tax to enlist and getbenefits to draw people in?)
4. better represtenation for the colonies to britain
-big enough to demand change since the colonists disagree with majority of britain's actions so they need a person / group of people to represent the common colonists' views. doing so would get their views and opinions on how to make the colonies more stable.
6. land territories
-soldiers are in the colonies to prevent colonists from going over the appalaian moutain line even though colonists end up doing so. if we found a more effective way to keep colonists from branching into territories that dont belong to britain, maybe the number of soldiers in the colonies would decrease, therefore less taxes for them to stay there and less hosing also.

anyone else think of any other reasons change is needed?

Danny
Newbie

Status: Online
Posts: 3
Date: 2 days ago
IP: 209.80.229.198

Reply Quote More

Edit Post

Delete Post

Printer Friendly

Ban IP

Report Spam

1- huge debt - --- britian is in huge debt not the colonists

2- respect between britian and the colonies demands no change- it seems that britian doesn't care about respect since they have been enforcing laws and taxes laft and right

3- if we make our own militia and soldiers then we no longer need your protection

4- we do need better representation but this seems more of a solution for the colonists vs a reason for change

5- ?????

6- taxation and law enforcement has nothing to do with bounderies or appalation mountains

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Well we wouldn't pay taxes for defense, but we would still have to pay to subside the 250 million pound debt. And yes they would have to pay the colonists for their military services, along with paying a Bristish army to train colonial troops. Here are a few questions we can specualte on this topic:
Militia

How much will it cost to train a colonial militia?
What evidence do you have that enough colonists will enlist, if this is voluntary?
How will you pay the colonial militia?
In a time where the colonial militia is under attack by maybe Indians, will you send troops to aid us, and if so what will the cost be for the expedition and troops?
What evidnece do you have that a colonial trained militia will help subside the deficit considering all of the immenant costs we have presented?

*These questions are just for the militia issue. Bring up another topic (i.e. taxes, etc.) and I can create some specualtive questions we can use in the debate. The key of being a negative is not only rebutting facts but speculating and forcing the affirmatives to answer up to those questions and speculations. If they can't answer sufficiebtly for all of the stock issues, the negatives win.

Danny · Member

Hey just throwing this out there - Britian at this time period is on the edge. If we revolted we could find allies in france, spain, netherlands, and maybe some indian tribes. So if we colonists couldn't find a way to settle with britain we would not have a hard time finding friends. Britian knows this, so i suspect britian to be a little more flexible with dealing with the colonies.

so since the colonies are ultimatley pointed towards unification anything that would further seperate us would cause massive harm to our relationship to the british. this means that not allowing our leaders to meet, not allowing us to expand, and not allowing us to control ourselves would cause us to break away from britain.

so the onlythng they have left to do is tax us - which most colonists are ticked off about already.

Vicky Smith · Member

Also, Danny, they shouldn't just tax us. The reason they are in debt is because of the 7 years war, which was really a victory for the whole British empire. It continued to allow the British to control the trading of goods from America. I think if they want to regain the money they lost in the war, they should be taxing all of their colonies around the world, not just the Americans. Also, they could just set them a yearly amount that has to be payed to the mother country and leave it up to the colonies to decide how they would come up with that money. Therefore, the colonists would have more control and the British would still get their money.

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

That's a good point Vicky, but to ellaborate on that further, if the Affirmatives deem a plan on us here in a AMerica how will that affect their foreign policy in their other colonies worldwide? Think about that.

courtney · Veteran Member

Also back to Vickys point. I beliebve that if the British set a yearly amount to be paid it would still upset the colonies. They would still have to pay money to the british " which is something they do not want to do."

Also to point some diadvantages out.

-If the british keep taxing the colonies and treating them unfairly the colonies may involve other countries that the british have been unfair too. This may cause other countries to turn on the british , which in return could eventually make the colonies stronger.

courtney · Veteran Member

Back to Vickys point, Even if the colonists pay the british a yearly amount I believe the colonists would still be upset. They would still be paying money to the british "which is what they do not want to do!"

Also to point out a disadvantage. If the British keep treating the colonists unfairly this may upset other countries that trade or have offiliations to the Colonists. This may turn other countries against the british, which in return could make the colonies stronger!

- To respond to Justins statement, I think that if British were taxing all their Colonies worldwide they would run into many problems with trading and millitary support.

richie_richh · Member

How deos everyone want to start at with argueing our position on the other thread

Matthew Wasilowski · Veteran Member

Since were the negative side we just need to challenge everything that they say then back up our statements up with evidence, so we kind of just got to go with the flow and use our knowledge to debate theirs. So I think we should let them go first and just debate what they say.

Here's a quick little summary of some of the things the negative need group has come up with.

There is no need for the British to increase control over the colonies because with the French defeated, there are no threats facing the colonists. The British should use this time to increase their control over the rest of their colonies, such as their colonies in India. This would create a stronger British empire

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Yes Matt, we have to wait for the affirmatives to post their position, otherwise we have nothing to attack which is our job as negatives.

Consider threats though from Native Americans though.

Nuru101 · Newbie

Colonists were angry because they had 0 representation and had to keep paying taxes. With all this happening, it could cause riots, boycott, and protests. I agree with Vanessa about how they wanted a true democracy because they wanted to have a voice and be able to represent themselves.

felicity · Veteran Member

hey guys, I was thinking, if I was on the other team, I wouldn't be issuing new taxes; i'd be enforcing the old ones. The Sugar Act of 1764 was incredibly successful for the British. As I learned from (Marc Egnal, A Mighty Empire: The Origins of the American Revolution (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988) p. 1)

1] Egnal estimates the yearly revenue from this act as 20,000 pounds sterling.

Because the Sugar Act was so effective for the British, I think they would try to recreate it with similar plans.

GB actually lowered the price for a gallon of imported molassess, it went form 6 pence to 3 pence. However, it was so loosley enforced before it was revamped the colonists almost never paid it.

the new england economy was direectly intwined with the rum industry. The molases that the british taxed ultimately made creating rum extremely expensive for the n.e colnists. Thus crippling the N.e econmy.

Despite the fact it created alot of revenue for the British, the colonists DESPISED the Sugar Act of 1764. The sugar act began the series of taxes and events that eroded the realtionship between the colonies and thier mother colonies.

We, as the Neg. side, would point out the sheer outrage the colonists felt. Also, we could argue that putting the New England's economy in a percarious position was a stupid way for britian to try and raise revenue to get out of the immense debt they incurred from the french and indian war.

courtney · Veteran Member

Disadvantages:

The British are trying to take control over the colonies and their trade which will probably result in the rebellion of the colonies. The British pushed several bills on the colonies not knowing what they would get in return. First they passed the stamp act which reduced the tax on imported molasses, and it added various colonial products to the list of commodities that could be sent ONLY to England. Another bill passed was the Currency Act. This constricted the colonies trade causing them to lose money. Although both of these upset the colonies the worst was the Stamp Act. This put a tax on mostly all printed items. This would send the colonist over the edge. They start groups that influence people to turn their back against the British. (Sons of Liberty) “This could hurt the British in losing support.” Also if the British keep treating the colonists unfairly this may upset other countries that trade or have affiliations to the Colonists. This may turn other countries against the British, which in return could make the colonies stronger!

Also if the British keep taxing the Colonies it could eventually backfire causing them to lose money or gain no money at all! As we know in the Townshend Acts. The Townshend acts hurt the British(as we read in our books) It yielded less than 21,000 pounds, while it cost the British 700,000 pounds through the colonial nonimportation movement.

Justin BRAGA · Veteran Member

Ok everyone I am going to begin the debate now since the affirmatives aren't going to post. I hope others follow suit after me. Remember all of the info we have submited here is for everyones use. Don't hesitate to use somebody elses' info. We are all a team. Now let's go win this debate!

Kyle Hamel · Member

Disadvantages- British are ting to take total control of the colonies. They are passing severak bills on the colonies that tax differtn things that the colonist do not liek getting taxed. for example- tea,molases, and legal documents etc. The british also tryed to control the trade of the colonist, wich also did not make them happy. As they tryed to take contorl of them, the colonsit started to revolt and riot agaisnt the diffeent act and taxes which evually led to the revoultioun

Kyle Hamel · Member

Disadvantages- British are tryin to take total control of the coloonies. They are passing several bills and acts on the colonies that tax them on differnt things. for example- tea,molases, legal documents, etc.The britsh also tryed to control the trade of the colonist. as they are tyring to take contorl the colonist revolt and riot agaisnt the acts and tarriffs that the britsh make wich lead to the revoultion.

Kellyman · Member

The Disadvantages - if the british began to take control of the colonists then this would conclude in riots , and protests which would increase the negative consequenses for the british. The colonists felt they did not have a strong representation for them.The taxes was another purpose for the colonists too get upset, the Stamp Act was the biggest because it put tax on all items that were used on the daily.

Kellyman · Member

The British did not support the colonists , this made them want too seperate and become enemys.

mre · Senior Member

Grades Updated 10/4/09

Kenzie · Member

disadvantages-

If the British tried to gain control over the colonists by enforcing taxes and laws, the colonists would rebel. They would feel like they didn't have any voice in what laws they had to follow. The colonists' responses would be to protest, boycott, and riots. The colonists wanted to feel independent but with British constantly passing bills, the colonists would need to rebel.