Being A Monarchist In America: A Little History Lesson

It seems that the cause of monarchy is not taken seriously at all by those that do not take the time to understand it. This is not surprising, however, when you would think that if someone is going to have an opinion about something they might as well be educated on the topic to some degree. Apparently not.

As much as I cant stand the snide comments, the outright insinuations and the fact that my choice to be a Monarchist is seen by others to be nothing but a complete joke I think what gets me the most is that with all of this, at the very same time these people know little to nothing about the history of the events leading up to, surrounding, interwoven with and the environment under which all of this took place.

They talk of taxation without representation even though they were represented by colonial governors and a parliamentary legislation. Interestingly enough, the Colonists were represented in a very similar manner as we are now. Interesting how the Insurrectionists were unhappy with that just as people are now…

The talk of taxation in and of itself is a joke (in and of itself). The taxes that the Crown levied (as was His right) were caused in whole by the colonists greedy and contemptuous activities. These activities included piracy, theft, etc. (We will go into detail about this later.) One of the biggest issues is that of unlawful expansion westward on the colonial mainland. The end result of this is the French and Indian War. What the anti-monarchists don’t tell you is that the taxes imposed by His Majesty were totally legitimate. The colonials were told not to encroach on Indian territory and yet they did so rather joyously. In doing so, however. They also forced England into a War that cost them 40 million dollars. Where does the crown look for reimbursement of this money? From the same people that put the Crown in the position to have to spend it. And this is wrong, how?

Another intriguing aspect of this situation is when you look at the Colonists and their tax “burden” based off of per capita income. According to the numbers at the time England was paying almost triple that of the Colonists in taxes. The Colonists were also making a good deal more than the average British taxpayer. So the idea that the Colonists were at some sort of financial hardship or disadvantage to pay these taxes is a bit off the deep end as well.

Despite the colonists being comparatively wealthy, with some very wealthy, the cost of this protection was nearly all being borne by the British taxpayer and the seven-year war had added 150 million pounds ($280,500,000) on top of an already crippling debt, incurred while defending Hanover from the French, Austrian, Saxon, Swedish and Russian Alliance.
This deficit was made worse by corruption in the colonies actually causing tax revenue to cost Britain £8000 in order to collect £2000 tax, and this at a rate of only sixpence a year each.
The British had repeatedly tried to get the colonists to pay towards their protection, by introducing various taxes, but all were unpopular.
So after the seven-year war the British had a massive debt with few ways to reduce it, so they had to limit expenditure and as the colonists had been the beneficiaries, it was decided:

1. The settlers were to stop taking more and more Indian land, to limit spiralling defence costs and adding to the debt burden
2. The settlers were to stop murdering the Indians (many of which had helped defeat the French), so as not to upset the only money maker in America, that of trading for Furs
3. They had to stop endemic corruption such as smuggling and bribery, that was costing the exchequer so much money
4. They had to find a way of introducing a tax system that worked to help with the debt burden.

No taxation without representation, the rebels said, but they did have representation through the colonial legislature/governor and had only been paying one twenty-sixth of the tax that a British tax payer paid, who were effectively subsidizing them by bearing the burden of their protection.

Despite its notoriety, the objection to tax levied on tea was a ruse; the real issue was the British had, in an attempt to curtail their activities, under-cut the price of tea offered by smugglers, so it’s not surprising that most of the revolutionary leaders were in fact smugglers. But what is less well known is these same leaders had become wealthy dealing with the enemy during the Seven-Year-War, while fellow Americans were fighting to help save the colonies from the French.
Another reason not often mentioned is that the local legislatures for their own ends, kept devaluing their currencies to the point of making them virtually worthless. This cheated creditors out of money; but also created large numbers of debtors in the colonies.
The money owed wasn’t theirs to lose, so by promising to absolve these debts, the rebels devised a powerful incentive for support.
The British had also drawn a proclamation line along the Appalachian Mountain peaks, honouring agreements to limit further encroachment onto Indian land and arrest the spiralling cost of protecting the colonists from Indian reprisals.
Therefore those that settled beyond this line were the cause of a lot of problems as not having any money; they just became adept at murdering the Indians in order to take their land. Such people put extra strain and expense onto the British defences and were of course the natural allies of those powerful colonists, such as George Washington who wished to benefit from Indian land speculation.

The rebel leaders or founding fathers (all quasi-atheists e.g. Deists) only represented about 27% of two and quarter million colonists (although they said it was 33%), but even if this was correct they knew they would have never won power through a referendum, so as they possess considerable propaganda skills, they called themselves Patriots, contrived incidents like the so called ‘ Boston massacre’, portrayed their own vested interests as philanthropic ideals, and incited a reign of terror, aimed at civil authorities to disrupt society.
In reality Hancock was a very wealthy smuggler, but the British had undercut his overpriced business and summoned him to appear in court at a time he and Samuel Adams were known to have been in Lexington, where the shots of unknown source were fired at both sides resulting in several Militiamen being killed.
The others including Sam Adams (a failed businessman accused of embezzlement), Allen, Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison were bitter men, who for various reasons held grievances against the British.
The British only really wanted the smuggling and bribery to stop.

End Part I


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: