Or indeed by anyone, at that time!![]()
Haven't you read the Protocols of the Elder Freemasons?
Or indeed by anyone, at that time!![]()
Haven't you read the Protocols of the Elder Freemasons?
This is great; but could they settle the land freely, as their colonial charters said they couldL?
And replaced it with English support, so that fur traders based in London could profit.
This would have a ring of truth if members of Parliament hadn't discussed the fear of the colonists growing too widespread to control as part of their reason to support the Proclamation Act.
Sure, but this was because the law was impossible to enforce. Besides, Britain hadn't enforced the tax on molasses, yet it suddenly chose to do so. How were the colonists to konw Britain wouldn't one day say the same thing?
This is a blatant double standard, since justice was no more blind in English courts at the time.
The entire US, however, was not run by Sam Adams.
What the King giveth the King can taketh away.
In honesty putting forward the colonial charters as the basis as a moral right to have those lands is ridiculous, especially considering they extend across intentional boundaries in some cases.
The British weren't supporting them to attack the colonists however, putting troops in the East and establishing the native reserve was designed to prevent just that.
How many and how important was it to those?
Not to mention the fact that they were indeed correct in their fears.
Really?
So British juries had an inbuilt desire to see people not pay their taxes, I doubt it since that would mean those in the Jury would have to pay more themselves in the final analysis.
Of course the British also ended up in Admiralty courts so it is neither here nor there (but of course the entire thing is a desire for special treatment for Americans).
Indeed not but allies and a fair propaganda network (not to mention paid enforcers on the Mafia model) went a long way to winning him enough support to achieve his ends (although he failed miserably in the end).
Not at all. You guys should have also launched a revolution.
Not at all. You guys should have also launched a revolution.
But then he was headstrong, and wasn't ahead in the polls. It was always heading that way...
Seriously though, he could have done - really it requires a certain level of political cunning on the part of the king, and Charlie just didn't have that. In fact he was a complete moron.