What the fuck was his problem? Seriously.

What the frick was his problem?

Seriously.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    He had severe bouts of mental illness late in his life.
    Nevertheless, he did nothing wrong.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      By all accounts he was not seriously ill at the time of the Revolution, nor was losing the largest and greatest part of your Empire "nothing wrong".

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >losing the largest and greatest part of your Empire
        ...but British India seriously expanded under his reign???

        Anyhow if it's North AmericaTM you care about, they still had Canada. The Quebecois were loyal enough during this period due to the Quebec Act that they even fought against American revolutionaries

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          What the frick kind of cope is this? The GDP of the United States alone dwarfs the entire British Empire combined.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The GDP of the United States alone dwarfs the entire British Empire combined
            >implying the US wouldn't be Canada 2.0 if they stuck around and didn't fight back

            Realistically they would've been integrated into part of Canada. The loyalists literally just moved to Canada, i.e Anglo-Canadian culture is just the members of the Thirteen Colonies who fellated George and his royal buddies.

            The Confederacy chimpout over slavery would be crushed in the 1830's when the Brits outlawed slavery, and the rest would be history

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            the US wouldn't be Canada 2.0 if they stuck around and didn't fight back
            So you're saying remaining in George's grasp would have turned American into an ungodly leftist hellhole and the Revolution is the best decision they ever made

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >bringing leftists into something that happened in 1776
            You need to stop thinking about Thirteen Colonies as equivalent to modern USA. Holy frick dude take a walk outside or something, modern politics have turned your brain into lobster bisque

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Bro you said it would become Canada and in modern Canada fundamentalist churches have started to meet in secret because they've been banned for refusing to play pattycake with trannies, no thank you!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Take an internet break. This isn't a suggestion

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The British government wasn't super stoked about expanding the colonies; one of the causes of the revolution was the Crown's desire to protect the Indians in the Ohio from settlement and displacement so as to keep the peace. Obviously that wouldn't hold, reality and even British history is rife with people ignoring London's desires for personal gain and glory, but it would moron the expansionism.

            The interesting thing to consider is that the Louisiana Purchase would have never happened. Hell, the French Revolution might have never happened either. If Napoleon doesn't come to power, Spain is still a united empire and the Austrians are still Holy Roman Emperors.

            >The GDP of the United States alone dwarfs the entire British Empire combined
            >implying the US wouldn't be Canada 2.0 if they stuck around and didn't fight back

            Realistically they would've been integrated into part of Canada. The loyalists literally just moved to Canada, i.e Anglo-Canadian culture is just the members of the Thirteen Colonies who fellated George and his royal buddies.

            The Confederacy chimpout over slavery would be crushed in the 1830's when the Brits outlawed slavery, and the rest would be history

            Anglo-Canadians hangups are weird; they basically do whatever the opposite of the United States on principle alone. I don't think keeping the empire together would resemble anything of what we see in Canada today. If anything, I think the Canadians in Quebec would ultimate push for independence, but who's to say if there would be a big liberation movement. Decolonization and nationalism was driven largely by the Soviet Union, the United States, and to a lesser extent the French (at least in Europe).

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >If anything, I think the Canadians in Quebec would ultimate push for independence
            Absolutely. I'd wager in order the will for independence would be
            >Quebec
            >southern US/"CSA"
            >New England/New York
            >Maritime Canada (but not Newfoundland, which was still British until 1949 somehow!)
            >everywhere else in British North America

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Newfoundland was culturally distinct from Canada and only joined because the UK feared their eventual absorption into the United States and they no longer had the will (or money) to meet their needs and concerns.

            They were doing their own thing and having not been settled by New Englanders or butthurt loyalists, had little interest in the affairs of the rest of the continent until Americans started knocking up their daughters.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >until Americans started knocking up their daughters
            Elaborate

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            During World War II, the UK agreed to give the US rent free basing rights in all of their American colonial possessions (Newfoundland, Bermuda, the Caribbean). Newfoundland got a lot of servicemen because it's the closest to the UK, and as such, ended up awash in bachelors and American dollars. After the war, there was a growing movement for closer economic ties to the US because of this (and the fact that they were deeply in debt).

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Knew it had something to do with WWII! Thanks anon, really obscure bit of history right there unless you're from Newfoundland.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I had to read a very rare parliamentary transcript of the British decision to go to war with America, Basically everyone was in agreement that the Americans were right lads and could probs govern themselves better than they could. But they were worried that if they just granted America independance South Africa and India would be next so they sent out a token Army to put up the minimalist of resistance without looking like they were just letting the colonists win.

        I shit you not this was all in the transcripts. I can't find them again because they were very expensive to print.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Damn, they had time travelers in Parliament?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            nthey were visionary. Even though British are evil in my opinin, they were more smart than most of pople iin their coloniial.ssttugfle an thats whyy. they succeedeed. No wonderr they had so much visionary people in their elite class.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >I shit you not this was all in the transcripts. I can't find them again because they were very expensive to print.
          Ever read this? You can find it on archive.org and the author says the same thing.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            pretty neat i'll check it out. thanks anon

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I had to read a very rare parliamentary transcript of the British decision to go to war with America, Basically everyone was in agreement that the Americans were right lads and could probs govern themselves better than they could. But they were worried that if they just granted America independance South Africa and India would be next so they sent out a token Army to put up the minimalist of resistance without looking like they were just letting the colonists win.

            I shit you not this was all in the transcripts. I can't find them again because they were very expensive to print.

            >South Africa

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, that's a mistake. I

            >I shit you not this was all in the transcripts. I can't find them again because they were very expensive to print.
            Ever read this? You can find it on archive.org and the author says the same thing.

            meant the part about them putting up a minimal level of resistance was true, and it's also true I believe that the British experience in the Revolutionary War informed their conduct going forward in regard to other colonies.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Basically everyone was in agreement that the Americans were right lads and could probs govern themselves better than they could.
          This wasn't really the issue under contention though. The big dispute was whether or not parliament had the authority to tax the colonies.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They were already in rebellion by this point I think he's saying. They're debating whether it's worth trying to bring them back into the fold or let them go independent. They were even willing to fully give into the original demands of the Patriots at one point during the war:
            >The Carlisle Peace Commission was a group of British peace commissioners who were sent to North America in 1778 to negotiate terms with the rebellious Continental Congress during the American Revolutionary War. The commission carried an offer of self-rule, including parliamentary representation within the British Empire. The Second Continental Congress, aware that British troops were about to be withdrawn from Philadelphia, insisted on demanding full independence, which the commission was not authorised to grant.
            >the British prime minister, Lord North, had Parliament repeal such offensive measures as the Tea Act and the Massachusetts Government Act
            >The commission was empowered to offer a type of self-rule that Thomas Pownall had first proposed a decade earlier and later formed the foundation of British Dominion status.[1]

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >nor was losing the largest and greatest part of your Empire "nothing wrong".
    If you thread is just about the revolution, then you should specify as much.

    The 13 colonies were lost because of the incompetency of the British generals, and a lack of coordination between them. There was also a lack of communication and poor planning between the army and admiralty. After France and Spain joined the war, it was basically over. Britain didn't have the will or resources to fight the colonies and them at the same time for a long time.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Please Your Majesty, may we have the same rights as our cousins in England
      >No

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Colonists never had a right to sit in parliament for all of the colonies' history. The reason being the obvious impracticality of sending MPs back and forth across the ocean to sit in parliament. This was the position of every one of George's governments.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          They never asked for that right either, the right they demanded was the right to self-governance through representation in the state. Parliament did not have the authority to govern them.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            P.S.
            >the right to self-governance through representation in the state
            They did have this since the foundation of the colonies, it was being taken away from them for no reason than the fact the mother country wanted money

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Parliament did not have the authority to govern them.
            Legally, they did and had been doing so for all of the colonies' history.

            P.S.
            >the right to self-governance through representation in the state
            They did have this since the foundation of the colonies, it was being taken away from them for no reason than the fact the mother country wanted money

            >it was being taken away from them for no reason than the fact the mother country wanted money
            What self-governance/representation as being taken away as a permanent measure?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Legally, they did and had been doing so for all of the colonies' history.
            No, they did not, and no, they had not. They did not, because the belief they did had and has no legal grounding, and is little more than the conflation of power with authority. Parliament had the guns, but not the prerogative. They had not, because their policy was openly to neglect the colonies and leave them to manage themselves even to the point that when colonial governments frustrated crown officials (which was the branch of metropolitan government which actually had established authority in the colonies) parliament regularly ignored the crown's pleas for aid against the colonies. This neglect contributed to the colonies ceasing their requests for recognition from parliament as essentially equal authorities, since they felt that recognition had been established by custom. The only things on which parliament had ever legislated for the colonies were things that concerned the whole empire, like trade and war.
            >What self-governance/representation as being taken away as a permanent measure?
            It didn't have to be "permanent", the point was they had no authority to do it at all. The violations of the colonists' rights as landed Englishmen were numerous and obvious, such as the dissolution of the Massachusetts legislature

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >They did not, because the belief they did had and has no legal grounding, and is little more than the conflation of power with authority. Parliament had the guns, but not the prerogative.
            Why did it have no legal grounding?
            >The only things on which parliament had ever legislated for the colonies were things that concerned the whole empire, like trade and war.
            Those are pretty significant things that were *accepted* by the colonies on many occasions, thus establishing that the colonies accepted parliament's supreme authority.
            >the point was they had no authority to do it at all.
            The governor of Massachusetts had the legal right to dissolve the legislature.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The governor of Massachusetts had the legal right to dissolve the legislature.
            It was to be permanently dissolved by act of parliament.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Government_Act

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            This was a response to the rebellion occurring in the colonies. And Lord North intended to restore the legislature and actually give the colonies more autonomy after order had been restored, as evidenced by the Conciliatory Resolution issued the following year.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >oh no throwing gas on the fire didn't work
            >better put it out

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Your point?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How is a bunch of drunken political idealists dressed as indians tossing tea in the water "rebellion", and how is destroying the well-established lawful government a proper response to rebellion?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >How is a bunch of drunken political idealists dressed as indians tossing tea in the water "rebellion"
            I think you mean, a group of violent insurrectionists destroying property.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Well clearly if the King can't profit off our misfortune, what's the point of being King at all?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You are an idiot. It was *parliament*, not the king that passed all of the acts that the colonists had a fit over.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            When the play is a disaster it's the coach's fault.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            True, but it's not the fault of the owner of the team, which is far more analogous to the king's role than the coach.

            Does the King not consent? Does he not reign? Did he not reject the olive branch when his own people were suffering and begged for reconciliation?

            To say nothing of the savagery and barbarism he inflicted elsewhere on his own subjects, notably in Scotland and Ireland.

            >Does the King not consent? Does he not reign?
            I just love the irony that Americans label the king a tyrant because he *did not* overrule parliament and do whatever he wanted.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Does the King not consent? Does he not reign? Did he not reject the olive branch when his own people were suffering and begged for reconciliation?

            To say nothing of the savagery and barbarism he inflicted elsewhere on his own subjects, notably in Scotland and Ireland.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >To say nothing of the savagery and barbarism he inflicted elsewhere on his own subjects, notably in Scotland and Ireland.
            Example such as?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Does the King not consent? Does he not reign?
            In a constitutional monarchy, the king reigns but does not govern.
            >Did he not reject the olive branch when his own people were suffering and begged for reconciliation?
            He rejected it because it was asking him to go against parliament, something that a constitutional monarch ought not do.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Everything that the colonial rebels complained about was either a massive exaggeration of something minor that nobody cared about or a complete lie.

        >Members of parliament start discussing giving the colonies seats based on proposals that the colonies gave them.
        >Colonies say it's not good enough and continue to ape out.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The truth is, we would have pursued independence regardless. Free trade, freedom to expand into the interior etc. there's just no real upside to the colonial relationship. It would have only worked if Britain gave the colonies total independence in everything but name. But then, what would be the point of that?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ironically American freedom was the greatest thing to ever happen to that godforsaken isle. They basically maintained the same trade relationship but without any of the extra military cost, and the philosophies of egalitarianism and free trade wore down the oligarchy of the nobility to at least the semblance of equality that Britishers enjoy today.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not sure I agree. I guess it depends on your perspective. I think right-wing Brits who are nostalgic for the Empire and desire Britain to be a great world power would have to conclude that American hegemony has been a disaster for them. They're caught between the Brussels and Washington.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Brussels is a puppet of the United States.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Wow, the despots and the oligarchs who profited from mercantilism and empire are unhappy that they've lost their status.

            Boo hoo. Frick 'em. Frick England for listening to them when they damn well know better.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Britishers
            pajeet detected

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Free trade
            Free trade was a dirty word in the US until the 20th century

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Slaver hands typed this.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Tariffs were the primary way our government collected taxes prior to the income tax, moron. Read a book.

            I mean in the sense of the colonies being able to trade with whoever they wanted and not just the mother country. Which was what they were doing anyway (not really paying taxes either), then Parliament finally put it's foot down and we know the rest.

            >Which was what they were doing anyway
            precisely

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I mean in the sense of the colonies being able to trade with whoever they wanted and not just the mother country. Which was what they were doing anyway (not really paying taxes either), then Parliament finally put it's foot down and we know the rest.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What? You want to trade with each other? Poppywiener.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Free Trade is bad when you're a developing economy and good when you're a world hegemony like victorian Britain or modern America. It a simple question of do I want to avoid being flooded with cheap foreign goods or am I the one who is flooding you with cheap foreign goods.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Free trade is always good. If a business can take a ton of steel for $1000 and turn it into $1500 worth of goods, it adds $500 to the economy, but if you force it to buy from the domestic steel monopoly for $1500 it can no longer do so, or buy domestic steel.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The Revolution was never really about taxes, and even a Marxist materialist analysis will reveal this. The simple fact is that colonies exist to have their wealth extracted and transferred to the Imperial Core. A colony can either be prosperous and self-sufficient, or it can be profitable for the colonizer. It can never be both. America revolted, HAD to revolt, in order to preserve it's own well-being, For the same reason Britain HAD to oppress the colonies in order to make them worth the cost of maintaining them. It was a contradiction that could only be resolved with either Independence or the loss of American prosperity.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >It was a contradiction that could only be resolved with either Independence or the loss of American prosperity.
            Yep. Although I like the idea of greater cooperation between the Anglosphere based on shared heritage. Pan-Germanism but for Anglos. Won't happen because CANZUK would just be a gay liberal project and doesn't include USian Angloids like me. I can dream though.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Bonny gave him brain damage.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      one day we will return the colonies to the fold

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Don't know if this is conversation really happened or not but it's funny.

        ?t=20

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The day the Anglosphere becomes a proper union is the day the Wilsonian world order dies and the age of nuclear armed turd world shitholes takes its place.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Eh, it's on the verge of happening and on Wilson's terms. Just give it another century or so.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          What are you talking about? They already have nukes.

          Wilsonian democracy and "nation building" resulted in the cold war, the nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan, NK turning into a scientology cult with the atom bomb, constant chaos and civil war in independent African countries to this day, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Islamic extremists across the middle east and communists rising up in Latin america which the US had to start acting like an "imperialist" to stop. It has been chaos in an era we should be enjoying enormous prosperity and peace and modern technological advancement.

          Thanks America. See where your anticolonial mentality has gotten you.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You're welcome

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            moron

            >no argument

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            moron

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >shidding and farding all over yourself this hard while completely missing my point
            India, Pakistan, North Korea, every African country, Afghanistan, and every country in Latin America are UN member states. My point was that we won't be seeing any sort of official Anglosphere until those Wilsonian institutions like the UN begin to fall apart. Until then we will have an unofficial Anglosphere constituted by agreements like the five eyes, AUSCANZUKUS, etc. I am no fan of Wilsonianism; it is a feckless sort of imperialism through euphemism.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *