Who would you side with in the American Revolution?

The indians

Brits. They eventually would have let you become a sovereign country anyway and less people would have been killed.Ace6301

Just like Ireland, oh wait...

I'd side with Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger.

hmmm definitely the future americans

Heh, I'm not so sure I agree with all of that. It's at least possible that we should have stayed out of WWI altogether, preventing an overwhelming loss for Germany, and perhaps not setting them up for failure to a level that would call for a dictator a few decades later to save them.

If that pans out (not saying it's a surety), then WWII wouldn't have happened, at least not due to the same dynamic.

Hindsight is 20/20 though.

m0zart

Your point is plausible; however, I find it interesting that even after a couple of wars against each other, a common heritage overcame political differences which resulted in a great alliance between the U.S. and the UK.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Brits. They eventually would have let you become a sovereign country anyway and less people would have been killed.cyanidebakesale

Just like Ireland, oh wait...

Heh, actually there's a lot more truth to that bit of irony than you realize. The Stamp Act may have been the first inkling to the colonists that the Crown and Parliament were changing their overall approach to the governorship of the colonies from one of mostly self-governing on matters of taxation and local trade law, but it was the subsequent act of Parliament that really set their teeth on edge -- the Declaratory Act. The act was on its surface a disollution of the Stamp Act, but it came attached with a very straightforward declaration of authority to demonstrate Parliament's future ability to govern the colonies without representation and without any form of consent, stating that Parliament "had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America... in all cases whatsoever".

This was frightening to the American colonists because, as they well know, just such an act with almost the exact same wording was used only half a century prior to justify the forceful subjegation of the Irish. The message was loud and clear to most of the colonists -- no longer were the American colonies to be afforded some semblence of self-government, which was afforded to all friendly and prized colonies and projects of the Crown. Many colonists had come from Ireland as well, and they knew quite well what this act was meant to convey.

Basically, I've always felt that the Declaratory Act had more to do with fostering the American spirit of rebellion than the Stamp Act alone. If Parliament had done even the slightest bit to ensure the colonists that there was no intent to remove their abilities to self-tax and self-govern, I don't think the American colonists, who were up to this time very proud to be British, would have moved so swiftly to a revolutionary sentiment.

[QUOTE="grape_of_wrath"]If I were a white american aristocrat? I'd imagine being very pissy about that "Taxation without representation" jazz...If I were to be a part of the lower classes,though-I don't suppose i'd care.thegerg

Exactly, they look at the present and into the future. Looking at the future and seeing a war against the large and powerful government that has allowed you to attain the desirable position in which you find yourself would put more than a few on edge. I'm not saying that the risks that a few took didn't work out well for many more, just that I think hindsight may be influencing your opinion quite a bit. thegerg

The Rebels of course!

USA!USA!USA!

King George can kiss my ***.

i be on the side with eddie izzard

[QUOTE="grape_of_wrath"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Exactly, they look at the present and into the future. Looking at the future and seeing a war against the large and powerful government that has allowed you to attain the desirable position in which you find yourself would put more than a few on edge. I'm not saying that the risks that a few took didn't work out well for many more, just that I think hindsight may be influencing your opinion quite a bit. thegerg

Probably the loyalists, or at least those opposed to rebellion. The reasons for rebellion were really silly, if you actually study them. Even with new taxes, Colonists still paid less than any other group in the British empire, enjoyed a great deal of local autonomy, and were protected from other colonial powers by British Troops.

Being a proud American from the north east who's family migrated towards the south west. I would choose the rebels or the good side or also known as the American side!

My own enjoyment...^.^ My,actual, point being that people tend to rise up in face of injsutice,and in the face of coming consequenses.people aren't as cautious as you seem to make them... I,also, wouldn't normally ,identify, with a civil uprising-but, Taxation w/o representation ranks as very severe(now and then)...And in that case-anger has a way of outweighing caution.grape_of_wrath

it wasn't actually very severe back then, when compared to other societies, and it was brought on by Britain's own constitutional progress, dating back to the English civil war, the glorious revolution and the English bill of rights. remember the colonists argued their rights as "englishmen" were infringed by taxation. The French taxed their own people without representation considerably, France was closer to a feudal society. If you actually look back on British policy in the colonies, it was extremely limited legislation, when compared to modern governments. to the point that it was only the educated and upper class that was really affected. this was Britain's mistake, they upset the people who actually held authority in the colonies

it wasn't actually very severe back then, when compared to other societies, and it was brought on by Britain's own constitutional progress, dating back to the English civil war, the glorious revolution and the English bill of rights. remember the colonists argued their rights as "englishmen" were infringed by taxation. The French taxed their own people without representation considerably, France was closer to a feudal society. If you actually look back on British policy in the colonies, it was extremely limited legislation, when compared to modern governments. to the point that it was only the educated and upper class that was really affected. this was Britain's mistake, they upset the people who actually held authority in the colonies

gamedude2020

[QUOTE="grape_of_wrath"] My own enjoyment...^.^ My,actual, point being that people tend to rise up in face of injsutice,and in the face of coming consequenses.people aren't as cautious as you seem to make them... I,also, wouldn't normally ,identify, with a civil uprising-but, Taxation w/o representation ranks as very severe(now and then)...And in that case-anger has a way of outweighing caution.thegerg

I'll side with the rebels since they started a great form of government that is used around the world today. Besides, we were being a financial drain on Britain and the only reason they took on the war was to show us our place, the sugar plantations in the Caribbean made 200x as much money as we were making, so it's a win-win on both sides.

It's surprising how many people are saying they would have joined the rebels. I guess people can say that now after the outcome of the war is already known but back then would have been a different story. What if the british chose to use their navy to stifle the Americans after the war? What if they decided to rally more troops and allies to launch a much larger invasion? Didn't the English lose around 1/2 the people of what the Americans lost? At the time of the War England was the strongest nation in the world. I honestly think I would have been a loyalist or neutral.

whoever gives me more money.

[QUOTE="Nercay"]The british of course, i'm a very patriotic guy ;)topsemag55

If not for the rebels, then WW1 and WW2 would have ended for the worse for Britain.:)

You can't even gauge whether WW1 or 2 would've even happened had the rebels lost.

I'll side with the rebels since they started a great form of government that is used around the world today.

ZIVX

Ah, the myth of the United States as the birthplace of the Republic. Read more history.

I would side with the Brittish.

Whoever wins.

Knowing what I know now about what happens post-18th century? The British, although I would probably lean more towards organizing as many Native Americans as possible in completely driving any colonialists out of America and then using captured vessels and freed slaves to form an Alliance with Africa anddrive the evil invaders back to their own continentusing their own technology. Based on ideologies, though, I most definitely would have been for independence.