True test of Obama: Bain Capital

[Raz]

Re: True test of Obama: Bain Capital

So then the Spanish American war was due to Spanish aggression? Because that's how the US wound up with Guam, Guantanamo, Puerto Rico and a number of other new territories.

You might also read up on the War of 1812: a war started by the US thinking it could snatch Canada while Napoleon was menacing Britain.

The narrative that the US is some humble, quiet, isolated power that was forced against its will into the world stage - totally false.

I was speaking of the present "empire". You left out the largest prize of the Spanish-American War: the Phillipines. We promised them their freedom in fifty years and in that instance kept our word (1948). We also gave up Cuba and the only reason to keep Guantanamo was because of the Cold War. And one has a very hard case to make that we exploited Guam and Puerto Rico - they have no oil and are pretty much a drain on the Treasury.

You're the one with a lot of reading to do on the War of 1812: you conveniently overlooked the trade restrictions Britain attempted to force upon neutrals, principally the United States, the impressment of American seamen, and the British arming and instigating Indian attacks in the Northwest Territory. THEY were the agressors - not us. Taking Canada would have been just recompense for British aggression.

I never claimed that the United States displayed altruism in its dealings with every nation in the world, but the Marshall Plan was hardly exploitive, and compared to the Romans and Soviets we do appear relatively nice.

[jiimbergin]

Re: True test of Obama: Bain Capital

I was speaking of the present "empire". You left out the largest prize of the Spanish-American War: the Phillipines. We promised them their freedom in fifty years and in that instance kept our word (1948). We also gave up Cuba and the only reason to keep Guantanamo was because of the Cold War. And one has a very hard case to make that we exploited Guam and Puerto Rico - they have no oil and are pretty much a drain on the Treasury.

You're the one with a lot of reading to do on the War of 1812: you conveniently overlooked the trade restrictions Britain attempted to force upon neutrals, principally the United States, the impressment of American seamen, and the British arming and instigating Indian attacks in the Northwest Territory. THEY were the agressors - not us. Taking Canada would have been just recompense for British aggression.

I never claimed that the United States displayed altruism in its dealings with every nation in the world, but the Marshall Plan was hardly exploitive, and compared to the Romans and Soviets we do appear relatively nice.

+1

[c1ue]

Re: True test of Obama: Bain Capital

I was speaking of the present "empire". You left out the largest prize of the Spanish-American War: the Phillipines. We promised them their freedom in fifty years and in that instance kept our word (1948).

You think the United States was keeping its word.

The Filipinos think they fought for and won their freedom:

http://www.military.com/Resources/Hi...surrection.htm

4,000 American troops, 20,000 Filipino soldiers, and 500,000 Filipino civilians.

We also gave up Cuba and the only reason to keep Guantanamo was because of the Cold War.

Cuba was not annexed by the United States after the Spanish American war because internal US politics had coughed up a specific law prohibiting this. This is the Teller amendment.

Hardly a prime example of what you're trying to assert.

And one has a very hard case to make that we exploited Guam and Puerto Rico - they have no oil and are pretty much a drain on the Treasury.

Unclear what your point is - most colonial possessions outside of a few prime ones like British India are net drains on the imperial occupier. Even today there are various Caribbean islands draining the coffers of Britain, France, and the Netherlands.

So what?

You're the one with a lot of reading to do on the War of 1812: you conveniently overlooked the trade restrictions Britain attempted to force upon neutrals, principally the United States, the impressment of American seamen, and the British arming and instigating Indian attacks in the Northwest Territory. THEY were the agressors - not us. Taking Canada would have been just recompense for British aggression.

Right, therefore the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was also just recompense for US trade sanctions on Japan over oil.

Glad that's all cleared up.

[Polish_Silver]

Making money on colonies

Unclear what your point is - most colonial possessions outside of a few prime ones like British India are net drains on the imperial occupier. Even today there are various Caribbean islands draining the coffers of Britain, France, and the Netherlands.

At certain times, national treasuries have been enriched by colonies. The Spainish empire was one good example---all that gold and silver taken from the Indians financed Spain's empire and wars.
France made loads of money from the Canadian fur trade. Britain and france also made tons off of lumber. Often it is often corporations making the money, and other taxpayers paying for the military, so the government as a whole is often losing--as you say. However, I think the British government must have at least broken even on many of the colonies, given how large the empire was relative to Britain itself.

A typical strategy was to place tariffs on trade with the colonies, or sell exclusive privileges to the likes of
"east india corp".

[Raz]

Re: True test of Obama: Bain Capital

You think the United States was keeping its word.

The Filipinos think they fought for and won their freedom:

http://www.military.com/Resources/Hi...surrection.htm.

Well according to THIS article they did NOT "win their freedom". They lost the wars of insurrection.
But the eeeevil, greeedy American pigs did finally decide that the United States was better served by granting them independence upon mostly friendly terms.

Cuba was not annexed by the United States after the Spanish American war because internal US politics had coughed up a specific law prohibiting this. This is the Teller amendment.

Hardly a prime example of what you're trying to assert.

Well thank you for proving my point for me. Our political system even at that time apparently wasn't completely imperialistic.
I say that it precisely proves my point.

Unclear what your point is - most colonial possessions outside of a few prime ones like British India are net drains on the imperial occupier. Even today there are various Caribbean islands draining the coffers of Britain, France, and the Netherlands.

So what?

My point was obvious given the context and your examples: we didn't exploit Guam and Peurto Rico as you implied.
"So what" is your point?

Right, therefore the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was also just recompense for US trade sanctions on Japan over oil.

Glad that's all cleared up.

You're quite adept at changing the point and also building straw men but it just doesn't fly.

You attempt to compare Roosevelt embargoing the sale of American crude oil to Japan because of their savage invasion of China with Britain forcibly removing American seamen from American merchant ships and forcibly inducting them into the Royal Navy.

I hope that you're not also trying to present an equivalency of Roosevelt's economic sanctions against Japan with the British arming of and instigating Indian attacks against American settlers in the very territories they ceded to us at the Treaty Of Paris that ended the Revolutionary war.

We didn't attack Great Britain - they attacked us: on the high seas and in territory they had ceded to us. And we didn't attack Japan - they attacked us.

You've cleared up nothing.

[c1ue]

Re: True test of Obama: Bain Capital

At certain times, national treasuries have been enriched by colonies. The Spainish empire was one good example---all that gold and silver taken from the Indians financed Spain's empire and wars.
France made loads of money from the Canadian fur trade. Britain and france also made tons off of lumber. Often it is often corporations making the money, and other taxpayers paying for the military, so the government as a whole is often losing--as you say. However, I think the British government must have at least broken even on many of the colonies, given how large the empire was relative to Britain itself.

A typical strategy was to place tariffs on trade with the colonies, or sell exclusive privileges to the likes of
"east india corp".

The population of the colonies was fairly large compared to Britain in 1776 - say 2 to every 5 of the British home isles. It is debatable how profitable the colonies were, however, given that the British government was constantly complaining about the expense of keeping troops in the colonies to protect colonists from angry Indians attacking over land seizures. Couple this with the strains of fighting against Napoleon - it is highly debatable whether the 'colonies' paid their fair share.

Well according to THIS article they did NOT "win their freedom". They lost the wars of insurrection.
But the eeeevil, greeedy American pigs did finally decide that the United States was better served by granting them independence upon mostly friendly terms.

So the Iraqis gained their freedom because the US decided to give it back to them?

As opposed to the US left Iraq because it became just too expensive to stay?

You decide.

Well thank you for proving my point for me. Our political system even at that time apparently wasn't completely imperialistic.
I say that it precisely proves my point.

Your point would be much stronger if the Teller amendment applied to the many other possessions not called Cuba.

As it is, it is a clear example of inward facing politics and nothing more.

My point was obvious given the context and your examples: we didn't exploit Guam and Peurto Rico as you implied.
"So what" is your point?

Imperialism isn't always about making money - it is more often about flaunting power.

Owning land far away is the classical method of doing so.

You're quite adept at changing the point and also building straw men but it just doesn't fly.

You attempt to compare Roosevelt embargoing the sale of American crude oil to Japan because of their savage invasion of China with Britain forcibly removing American seamen from American merchant ships and forcibly inducting them into the Royal Navy.

I hope that you're not also trying to present an equivalency of Roosevelt's economic sanctions against Japan with the British arming of and instigating Indian attacks against American settlers in the very territories they ceded to us at the Treaty Of Paris that ended the Revolutionary war.

We didn't attack Great Britain - they attacked us: on the high seas and in territory they had ceded to us. And we didn't attack Japan - they attacked us.

You've cleared up nothing.

Interesting, somehow you think that the US can do no wrong - that the Patriots of the American Revolution were lily pure in their behavior.

Well, far be it for me to try and change your view.

From my view, the people who conducted the American Revolution on the winning side were the same ones massacring Indians to take their land, booting out loyalists to Canada, rebelling against their sworn sovereign who had devoted considerable manpower and expense to protecting colonists from angry Indians, etc etc.

Sure, the Revolution was a great thing for white Patriots, but there's always another side to every equation.

As for the War of 1812 - the reality is that the US declared war first. Provocations or not, this is fact. Equally factual is that the US did not think Britain had the wherewithal to prosecute another front due to Napoleon, a mistake soon revealed.

And as for World War II - yes, a fine example of R2P. It is perfectly all right for the US to literally threaten Japan's modern existence but be indignant if the result is war. And certainly the US desire for a pretext to intervene in Europe had nothing to do with it either. /sarc

[Raz]

Re: True test of Obama: Bain Capital

The population of the colonies was fairly large compared to Britain in 1776 - say 2 to every 5 of the British home isles. It is debatable how profitable the colonies were, however, given that the British government was constantly complaining about the expense of keeping troops in the colonies to protect colonists from angry Indians attacking over land seizures. Couple this with the strains of fighting against Napoleon - it is highly debatable whether the 'colonies' paid their fair share.

In 1776 the estimated population of the American Colonies was 2.5 million while that of Great Britain was 6.5 million, the American colonies making up about 28% of the total of both populations. (The first official census in Great Britain, that of 1801, showed the island population to be 10.4 million.)

The American Colonies were very profitable to the British government and British merchants due to the strict mercantilist policy in force.
American trade with highly profitable markets in the West Indies was prohibited so that trade surpluses would accrue to the British isles, its merchant class and its government.
The Seven Years War almost doubled Britain's national debt and numerous tax bills were enacted that fell heavily on the American colonies (The Molasses Act, Sugar Act, Quartering Act, Stamp Act, et cetera.) And all of this took place with the economically targeted population of the American colonies lacking ANY voice or representative rights whatsoever, even though they made up more that 25% of the population.

I hope you'll rethink the assertion that the colonies might not have "paid their fair share" - especially when they were forced to operate under a system of trade and finance that clearly oppressed them.

So the Iraqis gained their freedom because the US decided to give it back to them?

As opposed to the US left Iraq because it became just too expensive to stay?

You decide.

Quite a leap from the Spanish-American War to the ill-fated invasion of Iraq by George W. Dumbass.

The Phillipine-American War was expensive, but nothing like that of Iraq. Both McKinley and Roosevelt wanted a coaling station for the American Far Eastern Naval Squadron so there was a percieved interest in this for the United States. I'm under no illusions to the contrary and stated so previously, yet the historical record doesn't show that we were "forced" to grant independence to the Phillipines for financial reasons.

And there was real opposition to the imperialist designs of the American government of the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League

Your point would be much stronger if the Teller amendment applied to the many other possessions not called Cuba.

As it is, it is a clear example of inward facing politics and nothing more.

I'm sure there were domestic economic interests (sugar lobby, United Fruit Company, etc.) that didn't want fresh competition.
But there was an anti-imperialist lobby as well as the vocal opposition of the Fourth Estate.
Inward facing politics - perhaps. "Nothing more" - I disagree.

Imperialism isn't always about making money - it is more often about flaunting power.

Owning land far away is the classical method of doing so.

That's true. The desire for a far-eastern coaling station fits that bill, although I cannot see the United States of 1898 launching an invasion of the Phillipines to obtain one.
It was an opportunity presented by the war with Spain and the American government - like every other government throughout history - took advantage of it.

Interesting, somehow you think that the US can do no wrong - that the Patriots of the American Revolution were lily pure in their behavior.

Well, far be it for me to try and change your view.

Let's try to be reasonable here, c1ue. I know you don't like Ron Paul and consider him to be a political gadfly, but as a supporter of his do you really believe that I "think the US can do no wrong"? Surely you've read enough posts of mine over the years to know better. Don't you think your emotions could be overiding your memory in this particular instance?

From my view, the people who conducted the American Revolution on the winning side were the same ones massacring Indians to take their land, booting out loyalists to Canada, rebelling against their sworn sovereign who had devoted considerable manpower and expense to protecting colonists from angry Indians, etc etc.

Sure, the Revolution was a great thing for white Patriots, but there's always another side to every equation.

Of course there were tensions between the "white" settlers and the Indians, but the first "massacre" I remember was that of Jamestown where the Indians did the massacring. Would you rather the American government had conducted wholesale executions of the Loyalists who sympathized, supported and fought alongside the British?

Rebelling against their sworn sovereign? George III was likely insane, the Colonials had no voice in their governance and were heavily taxed in ways that the British islanders weren't. And what's this "white" thing? I recall you saying that you had at least some Chinese ancestry; do you have some particular dislike for caucasians? Do you believe that "white" people - and white Americans in particular - are the oppressors of all mankind?

As for the War of 1812 - the reality is that the US declared war first. Provocations or not, this is fact. Equally factual is that the US did not think Britain had the wherewithal to prosecute another front due to Napoleon, a mistake soon revealed.

And as for World War II - yes, a fine example of R2P. It is perfectly all right for the US to literally threaten Japan's modern existence but be indignant if the result is war. And certainly the US desire for a pretext to intervene in Europe had nothing to do with it either. /sarc

I'd like to be able to agree with you, c1ue, but if I did we'd both be wrong.

The "reality" is that the British committed numerous acts of war against the United States and Jefferson suffered them to a degree that public opinion and the Congress would not. (Even Madison did not ask for a declaration of war.) Provocations? Is that how you describe kidnapping and impressment of American citizens by the thousands? The instigating of attacks against Americans by Indian tribes armed and paid by the British government? It was with great reluctance that the United States Congress declared war.

R2P? What about the Right to Protect of the Chinese who were subjected to one of the most hideous, merciless invasions since the Mongols?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre

Threaten Japan's modern existence? Again, what about China's existence? Would you have had Roosevelt do nothing?

You are far too intelligent to make such statements, for the corollary would be if the Saudi's decided they didn't want to sell oil to the United States we would then have the "right" to invade Saudi Arabia and if necessary either kill or enslave their entire population to obtain the oil.

"US desire for a pretext to intervene in Europe?" Perhaps FDR, but NOT the American population. Public opinion was greatly opposed to direct involvement in the European or Asian wars of the time. The attack on Pearl Harbor was the only way Congress would have approved of war, and it was Germany that declared war upon the United States - not our Congress.

Perhaps you are angry or supremely irritated with me and in this instance that's clouded your thinking.

[touchring]

Re: True test of Obama: Bain Capital

Without the US, C1ue might be a citizen of Japan and not of Canada.

[c1ue]

Re: True test of Obama: Bain Capital

The American Colonies were very profitable to the British government and British merchants due to the strict mercantilist policy in force.

I fear your view is not one shared by anyone else:

http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncate...shambivalence/

By the onset of the Revolutionary War, American colonies had become increasingly expensive to defend and maintain. The British had already poured significant money into defending the colonies during the Seven Years War (aka the French and Indian War), to fend off Native American and French attacks.⁶ Despite having the support of large Native American tribes, such as the Iroquois and Cherokee, the alignment of major tribes such as the Ottawa and Shawnee with the French heightened British fears. The British worried that such defense expenses to protect colonists against both French troops and their Native allies would become a regularity and they were hesitant to commit themselves further to the colonies in fear that they were becoming too expensive to maintain.


Professor Anderson of the University of Colorado discusses the significance of the French and Indian War for the average American presents in Why the French and Indian War is Worth Remembering: The Ironies of a Decisive Victory:

I'd also note that the British mercantilist system applies primarily to outside nations; the later Commonwealth tax had not yet been instituted.

This graph below shows very clearly how Britain benefited from the Colonies:




Britain certainly was dependent on products from the colonies, but financially the colonies drained a lot of money out of the Crown's coffers both via the balance of trade and via direct expenditures on troops.

The profits on above negative balance of trade (as viewed by Britain) were being made largely by Colonists, and not the crown.

Quite a leap from the Spanish-American War to the ill-fated invasion of Iraq by George W. Dumbass.

The Phillipine-American War was expensive, but nothing like that of Iraq. Both McKinley and Roosevelt wanted a coaling station for the American Far Eastern Naval Squadron so there was a percieved interest in this for the United States. I'm under no illusions to the contrary and stated so previously, yet the historical record doesn't show that we were "forced" to grant independence to the Phillipines for financial reasons.

And there was real opposition to the imperialist designs of the American government of the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League

You have your opinion, and I have mine. Mine is based on facts like this:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36542...-h/36542-h.htm

The truth is, as Secretary of War Taft said in 1905, before the National Geographic Society in Washington, “We blundered into colonization.”51

Yes, this is future President Taft speaking.

And:

Within a few days after the official news of the battle of Manila Bay reached Washington, the Treasury Department set a man to work making a “Report on Financial and Industrial Conditions of the Philippine Islands.”4 The Interior Department also awoke, about the same time to possibilities of an El Dorado in the new overseas conquest. “In May, 1898,” says Secretary of the Interior, C. N. Bliss, in a letter intended for the Peace Commissioners who met at Paris that fall, “by arrangement between the Secretary of War with this Department”—Mr. Bliss’s grammar is bad, but his meaning is plain—“a geologist of the United States Geological Survey accompanied the military expedition to the Philippines for the purpose of procuring information touching the geological and mineral resources of said islands.”5 This report, which accompanies the Bliss letter, reads like a mining stock prospectus. That summer an Assistant Secretary of the [49]Treasury, presumably echoing the sentiments of the Administration, came out in one of the great magazines of the period, the Century, with an article in which he said: “We see with sudden clearness that some of the most revered of our political maxims have outlived their force. * * * A new mainspring * * * has become the directing force * * * the mainspring of commercialism.”6

To which I'll add this:

Said the distinguished Congressman from Texas, Honorable James L. Slayden, in a speech which appears in the Congressional Record of February 25, 1908 (pp. 2532 et seq.):

On this point, and in reply to a resolution of the Senate in 1902, the Secretary of War reported that the cost of the army in the Philippines from June 30, 1898, to July 1, 1902, had been $169,853,512.00. To this let us add $114,515,643.00, the admitted cost of the army in the Philippines from May 1, 1902, to June 30, 1907, and we will have a grand total of $284,369,155.00. That does not take into account the additional cost of the navy.

...

The War Department has long figured on the cost of an American soldier in the Philippines per annum including his pay, allowances, and transportation out and back, at $1000 per annum. The cost of 12,000 soldiers at $1000 per annum is $12,000,000, per annum. The conclusion would, therefore, seem inevitable that the extra military current expense chargeable to our occupation of the Philippines is $12,000,000, per annum, outside the Philippine scouts, or, a total [602]of $14,000,000.

The entire United States budget in 1907 was $579 million; $14 million is 2.4%.

In contrast the annual Afghanistan spending in 2010 vs. the entire US federal budget: $80 billion vs. $3.5 trillion spending = 2.2%

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Let's try to be reasonable here, c1ue. I know you don't like Ron Paul and consider him to be a political gadfly, but as a supporter of his do you really believe that I "think the US can do no wrong"? Surely you've read enough posts of mine over the years to know better. Don't you think your emotions could be overiding your memory in this particular instance?

My view is that you have an amazingly pliant acceptance of the revisionist history of US past behavior, even as we all have front row seats for revisionist history-making of the last 2 decades. This is what I refer to.

I'm sure there were domestic economic interests (sugar lobby, United Fruit Company, etc.) that didn't want fresh competition.
But there was an anti-imperialist lobby as well as the vocal opposition of the Fourth Estate.
Inward facing politics - perhaps. "Nothing more" - I disagree.

You have your opinion, I have mine. You believe the anti-imperialist lobby is why the Teller amendment passed, but others say the 'anti-imperialist lobby' had less noble reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller_Amendment

According to Gregory Weeks, author of U.S. and Latin American Relations (Peason, 2008, p. 56), "The Teller Amendment, authored by a Colorado Senator who wanted to make sure that Cuba's sugar would not compete with his state's crop of beet sugar, prohibited the president from annexing Cuba."

Of course there were tensions between the "white" settlers and the Indians, but the first "massacre" I remember was that of Jamestown where the Indians did the massacring. Would you rather the American government had conducted wholesale executions of the Loyalists who sympathized, supported and fought alongside the British?

Rebelling against their sworn sovereign? George III was likely insane, the Colonials had no voice in their governance and were heavily taxed in ways that the British islanders weren't. And what's this "white" thing? I recall you saying that you had at least some Chinese ancestry; do you have some particular dislike for caucasians? Do you believe that "white" people - and white Americans in particular - are the oppressors of all mankind?

Actually, if you care to read history, the first killings around Jamestown were by the settlers, not by the Indians. Be that as it may, surely you must at least acknowledge that the arriving colonists had no natural right to land already occupied?

As for George III - I don't see any laws anywhere that said a divine right of kings monarch must be sane. I equally disagree vehemently that the American colonies were taxed more heavily than the UK islanders.

Lastly white or not white is frankly irrelevant. The facts of the matter are that white colonists in the New World took the native's land and killed them off.

I'd like to be able to agree with you, c1ue, but if I did we'd both be wrong.

The "reality" is that the British committed numerous acts of war against the United States and Jefferson suffered them to a degree that public opinion and the Congress would not. (Even Madison did not ask for a declaration of war.) Provocations? Is that how you describe kidnapping and impressment of American citizens by the thousands? The instigating of attacks against Americans by Indian tribes armed and paid by the British government? It was with great reluctance that the United States Congress declared war.

R2P? What about the Right to Protect of the Chinese who were subjected to one of the most hideous, merciless invasions since the Mongols?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre

Threaten Japan's modern existence? Again, what about China's existence? Would you have had Roosevelt do nothing?

You are far too intelligent to make such statements, for the corollary would be if the Saudi's decided they didn't want to sell oil to the United States we would then have the "right" to invade Saudi Arabia and if necessary either kill or enslave their entire population to obtain the oil.

"US desire for a pretext to intervene in Europe?" Perhaps FDR, but NOT the American population. Public opinion was greatly opposed to direct involvement in the European or Asian wars of the time. The attack on Pearl Harbor was the only way Congress would have approved of war, and it was Germany that declared war upon the United States - not our Congress.

Perhaps you are angry or supremely irritated with me and in this instance that's clouded your thinking.

I fear that you either haven't or refuse to look into any detail of any of the above events you speak of.

The 'British act of war' of impressment arose because Britain and the US had completely opposing views of what constitutes an American citizen. The British consider a person who was born in the UK to be British until they declare otherwise; America considered a British citizen who naturalized to be American. Unsurprisingly, many British citizens unwilling to be impressed into the British Navy 'naturalized', much as many male Americans of a certain age became Canadian in the Vietnam war era.

This doesn't make it right, but it does illustrate the folly of looking at any dispute from one point of view alone.

Equally the US was attempting to trade with both France and Britain in their conflict. As a continental embargo was a keystone of British strategy vs. Napoleon, it can hardly be said that 'free trade' in that situation had no military impact.

Equally your comments on R2P in China are based on textbooks. As someone who's family was intimately involved, the reality of the US 'intervention' in China was far more about kneecapping Japan than it was about helping China.

For that matter, one reason why Japan was so interested in China was due to its inability to export its newly modernized economy's goods into the Western countries due to the wave of Great Depression import taxes passed all over the world.

[Raz]

Re: True test of Obama: Bain Capital

I fear your view is not one shared by anyone else:

http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncate...shambivalence/

That's quite an open-ended statement.

I fear you is wrong.

In 1663 the British Parliament passed the Staple Act, requiring enumerated goods be shipped exclusively to England, where they could subsequently be reexported to other countries at greater profit to English merchants. The Staple Act also called for European exports to the colonies to be shipped first through England, inflating the prices of foreign goods and making English goods cheaper by comparison. This was in reality a tariff that protected British industry, rewarded British merchants, and penalized Colonials. The taxes on tobacco from the Mid-Atlantic American colonies amounted to 25 percent of English customs revenues and 5 percent of the British government's entire income!

In 1699 the British Parliament passed the Woolen Act, prohibiting the colonial export and sale of certain textiles in order to protect the British textile industry. This was only one of the mercantilist laws that discouraged colonial industries from competing with their British couterparts. The British government wanted the colonies to be limited solely to supplying raw materials. During this period excise taxes on colonial tobacco contributed about £400,000 per year in royal revenues.


"With respect to its colonies, British mercantilism meant that the government and the merchants became partners with the goal of increasing political power and private wealth, to the exclusion of other empires. The government protected its merchants—and kept others out—by trade barriers, regulations, and subsidies to domestic industries in order to maximize exports from and minimize imports to the realm. The government had to fight smuggling—which became a favorite American technique in the 18th century to circumvent the restrictions on trading with the French, Spanish or Dutch. The goal of mercantilism was to run trade surpluses, so that gold and silver would pour into London. The government took its share through duties and taxes, with the remainder going to merchants in Britain. The government spent much of its revenue on a superb Royal Navy, which not only protected the British colonies but threatened the colonies of the other empires, and sometimes seized them. Thus the British Navy captured New Amsterdam (New York) in 1664. The colonies were captive markets for British industry, and the goal was to enrich the mother country."

The Great Frontier War: Britain, France, and the Imperial Struggle for North America, 1607-1755 by William Nester

Yes, there was tremendous expense in building and maintaining the Royal Navy. But are you prepared to show that it served only to protect the American Colonies? That the British Isles gained no other significant benefit from this war fleet, built by the duties and taxes raised through British Mercantilism?

And by the way, why did you pull one sentence out of two paragraphs and ignore all the other points I made, like no representation for almost 28% of the population?

I'd also note that the British mercantilist system applies primarily to outside nations; the later Commonwealth tax had not yet been instituted.

This graph below shows very clearly how Britain benefited from the Colonies:




Britain certainly was dependent on products from the colonies, but financially the colonies drained a lot of money out of the Crown's coffers both via the balance of trade and via direct expenditures on troops.

The profits on above negative balance of trade (as viewed by Britain) were being made largely by Colonists, and not the crown.

Would you help me out by explaining just how Playfair's chart shows what you assert? I'm well aware that enormous credits were extended to the colonists by British merchants from about 1750 onward, and these greedy merchants weren't paid in many instances, but Playfair's chart appears to show exactly what I asserted concerning British Mercantilism - that the interests of the British merchant class were given preference over the American Colonies, that tax revenue from this mercantilist trade funded a good part of the British government (as in expanding the Royal Navy), and that except for a brief "blip" in the mid-1770s Great Britain maintained what its mercantilist policy was designed to acheive: a positive trade balance and the inflow of gold and silver bullion to the British Isles. (American colonials had to pay for British manufactured goods in hard money - Sterling - and Colonial money was illegal in the British Isles.)

You have your opinion, and I have mine. Mine is based on facts like this:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36542...-h/36542-h.htm



Yes, this is future President Taft speaking.

And:



To which I'll add this:



The entire United States budget in 1907 was $579 million; $14 million is 2.4%.

In contrast the annual Afghanistan spending in 2010 vs. the entire US federal budget: $80 billion vs. $3.5 trillion spending = 2.2%

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Okay, I'll admit that the costs of the two wars as a percentage of the Federal Budgets were approxiamately the same with the cost of the Phillipine War even slightly larger.
Thanks for the detailed info. Now please explain to me why we are essentially out of Iraq after less than a decade while we stayed in the Phillipines for another forty years.

And where did I assert that the motives of the United States government in the 1890s were purely altruistic? I clearly stated that McKinley wanted a coaling station for the Far Eastern Fleet.

My view is that you have an amazingly pliant acceptance of the revisionist history of US past behavior, even as we all have front row seats for revisionist history-making of the last 2 decades. This is what I refer to.

And my view is that you're highly susceptible to the Blame America First propaganda crowd. I'm under no such illusions as you assert but neither do I believe that the United States is the birthplace of imperialism or the oppressor of mankind. You seem to stretch the limits of reality with your defence of Japanese motives during the late 1930s and early 1940s. And your beloved British were the inventors of the Concentration Camp - not Nazi Germany.

You have your opinion, I have mine. You believe the anti-imperialist lobby is why the Teller amendment passed, but others say the 'anti-imperialist lobby' had less noble reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller_Amendment

That's a nice straw man you built there, c1ue. Did you even read what I said? I clearly acknowledged the sugar and fruit lobbies and never claimed it was all about the Anti-imperialist League or the newspaper attacks on McKinley's desire for foreign naval bases.

Actually, if you care to read history, the first killings around Jamestown were by the settlers, not by the Indians. Be that as it may, surely you must at least acknowledge that the arriving colonists had no natural right to land already occupied? ...
... Lastly white or not white is frankly irrelevant. The facts of the matter are that white colonists in the New World took the native's land and killed them off.

A killing is bad enough; a massacre falls into another category, being the indiscriminate slaughter of women, children, the sick and the elderly.

After some refresher reading I must admit that the situation as far back as DeSoto was even worse than I thought, with apparently the first "massacre" being the wholesale execution of Indian warriors by him in 1539. Although this wasn't what I would describe as a true massacre it was bad enough and the settlers were certainly guilty of not showing the Christianity that they proclaimed. In New England it was mostly the Calvinist and Puritans who decided that if the Indians wouldn't convert to their particular "tradition" then they were only fit to be enslaved. How "Christian"of them.

But it was diseases for which the Indians had no resistance that truly decimated them. This likely killed more of them than did bullets.

Now to the subject of "land already occupied": Since man first appeared on this planet and then "fell" there has been an ongoing struggle for survival.
When populations expand beyond their capacity to live off of the land they inhabit they begin to seek other land. If the land is truly occupied - with dwellings, gardens and crops, fenced or penned animals, etc., then you have made a case for the property rights of those who "already occupy the land". To take their homes, crops and animals would be theft, but the situation in some areas of the colonies and definitely in the woodlands to the west were fluid to say the least.

The Indians likely claimed vast areas as hunting grounds and in my opinion wouldn't fall into the same category as "land already occupied".
In that case you won't find much sympathy from me for their "property rights".

As for George III - I don't see any laws anywhere that said a divine right of kings monarch must be sane. I equally disagree vehemently that the American colonies were taxed more heavily than the UK islanders.

Well having a crazy person as head-of-state doesn't exactly contribute to good government, does it? And I didn't say that the colonials were "taxed more heavily" that the residents of Great Britain. ("straw man" time again?)

I said "numerous tax bills were enacted that fell heavily on the American colonies (The Molasses Act, Sugar Act, Quartering Act, Stamp Act, et cetera.) And all of this took place with the economically targeted population of the American colonies lacking ANY voice or representative rights whatsoever, even though they made up more that 25% of the population."

The colonies were hit with duties in order to defend the mercantilist system beneficient to British merchants and manufacturers. A rose by any other name is still a rose. And since you didn't bother to address the issue of the colonies being denied any representation in the British Parliment that enacted all of these laws I will take it that you consider that particular grievance of the colonists to be valid.

I fear that you either haven't or refuse to look into any detail of any of the above events you speak of.

The 'British act of war' of impressment arose because Britain and the US had completely opposing views of what constitutes an American citizen. The British consider a person who was born in the UK to be British until they declare otherwise; America considered a British citizen who naturalized to be American. Unsurprisingly, many British citizens unwilling to be impressed into the British Navy 'naturalized', much as many male Americans of a certain age became Canadian in the Vietnam war era.

This doesn't make it right, but it does illustrate the folly of looking at any dispute from one point of view alone.

Your fear is unfounded: I most certainly have in the past - before I wrote what you are now responding to - and do now both know and understand the events I speak of.

Let's take a look at this from the point of a key phrase contained in the Treaty of Paris (1783):

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

...(boilerplate describing the preliminary treaty in 1782 and the parties authorized to sign the foregoing treaty)...

Article 1st:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

The British government claimed the right to naturalize any American citizen as a subject of Great Britain but rejected the right of the United States to do the same. That being the case, just what did the British government mean by "sovereignty"?

The issue of impressment of American citizens - born or naturalized - by British naval forces was an act of war, the Chesapeake–Leopard Affair notwithstanding.
I believe that whether you do or not and further discussion on this point is not going to change my opinion.

Neither will I make any further attempt to change yours.

Equally the US was attempting to trade with both France and Britain in their conflict. As a continental embargo was a keystone of British strategy vs. Napoleon, it can hardly be said that 'free trade' in that situation had no military impact.

Speaking of complicated, please read this entire article, especially the heading at the very end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_of_1807

Equally your comments on R2P in China are based on textbooks. As someone who's family was intimately involved, the reality of the US 'intervention' in China was far more about kneecapping Japan than it was about helping China.

Would you please elaborate as to just what you mean by your family being "intimately involved". Unless they were part of the ROC Foreign Office I don't immediately grasp how they would know more about American history than I'm able to.

A historian is, of course, held captive by his sources. Since I had no family members or friends serving at high levels in the US Department of State during the 1930s and 1940s I am forced to rely upon historical texts.

... one reason why Japan was so interested in China was due to its inability to export its newly modernized economy's goods into the Western countries due to the wave of Great Depression import taxes passed all over the world.

Well Smoot-Hawley caused a lot of problems for a lot of people, and along with increasing defence spending a repeat of this idiocy might spring forth from a Romney presidency.

But poor Japan. They only wanted to establish their "Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" and end the exploitation and oppression of the "white devils" from North America.
I somehow don't think the Koreans, Cochins, Malayans, Chinese and millions of others who experienced the racist savagery of Imperial Japan will sympathize.

[don]

Re: True test of Obama: Bain Capital

Just started reading Parkman's France & England in North America. He starts way back with Spain's claim to all of North America, based on Spanish adventurers planting the flag in Florida. France mobilized Huguenots, aka Lutherans, to build a fort (what else) and place a claim in the Sunshine State. When Spain got word of their endeavors (Ft. Caroline) they dispatched a small fleet of nobles and adventurers (honest-to-god pilgrims were in short supply in both France & Spain - that was England's trump card) who stealthily butchered the French, many as cooperative captives that were bound and then slain. Can't beat religion for bloodshed.

[Raz]

Re: True test of Obama: Bain Capital

Just started reading Parkman's France & England in North America. He starts way back with Spain's claim to all of North America, based on Spanish adventurers planting the flag in Florida. France mobilized Huguenots, aka Lutherans, to build a fort (what else) and place a claim in the Sunshine State. When Spain got word of their endeavors (Ft. Caroline) they dispatched a small fleet of nobles and adventurers (honest-to-god pilgrims were in short supply in both France & Spain - that was England's trump card) who stealthily butchered the French, many as cooperative captives that were bound and then slain. Can't beat religion for bloodshed.

Before Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and their ilk I would have agreed with this statement.

That being said, I've never understood how "christians" could decieve themselves into believing God wanted them to burn those who didn't share their "faith".

[lektrode]

Re: True test of Obama: Bain Capital

and so today we have the strongholds of miami and 'ollywood ?
damn - the 'tulip is just amazing - we start out on a politico-econ topic and end up in graduate level history....
just one more reason my other half gets bent outa shape as soon as she sees the green bars on my screen.
;)

sez the history buff that never had the time/inclination before