Just explain an argument made by loyalist in colonial times or Rev. War
135390
One of the big issues leading up to the war was trade.  At that time, the Southern colonies had a huge market with the British, exporting raw materials to England to be made into finished products (if not sending their products to the northern factories).  A lot of the taxes were levied for imports and exports (which would make sense because the ports were in the northern colonies).  Isn't it odd that southerners love tea and northerners drink lots of coffee?  Some think that the reason Americans love coffee so much, is because we were trying to get away from the British tradition of drinking tea...
188701
you are right. and i see another piece of misinformation cropping up as well.  our founding fathers were not christian.  one was an atheist and the others were all Diest (belief in the clockwork structure of the universe.  God made it all, wound it up, and lets it go.  God does not take a personal or vested interest in any part of his creation.).  So no knowledge of the Treaty of Tripoli or that there were NO Christian Founding Fathers of America.
473627
I am not going to write your essay, but would advise you to read up on the "Blank Cheque". Look at the gap between the shooting and the start of the war. Look at how war unites a country which is in trouble internally.
502330
1. Jay's Treaty stated the the British would evacuate posts on US soils(promised that in 1783 also). Brit. would pay damages for recently seized ships. BUT they didn't say anything about "FUTURE" seizures. America would pay debt owed to Brit. merchants.\n\nJeffersonians ENRAGED southern planters would have to pay off debt while rich federalist shippers where collecting money for damages. Also PINCKEY's TREATY of 1795-- the spanish feared the so called anglo-amer. alliance and gave American frontiersman's free navigation of Mississippi and the territory north of Florida.\n\n3. VA PLAN\n--big state plan\n---rep. by population\n--yea for the south b/c they would have a big voice in leg.\n--NO small states like NJ would have less influence\n\nNJ PLAN\n--small state plan\n--- 2 reps. per state\n---equal representation\n---unicarmel leg. like ARTs. of Confederation\n\nSolution GREAT COMP. CENT. COMP\n--- larger states--rep. by pop. house of reps.\n---smaller states--equal reps. in SEnate\n---bicarmel\n3/5 comp.\n\n2.Hamilton's Economic policies\n--- FEDERAL BANK~~debated but kept\n     --convenient strongbox --- nesscary and proper\n---bolster nat'l credit\n-- nat'l debt is a nat'l blessing b/c it unified more creditors invested in the wellbeing of america\n---REVENUE\n---EXCISE TAX ie whiskey~~whiskey rebellion\n\n\nneed to start doing this stuff yourself never going to pass AP exam. ;)
467075
Nice joke, it never gets old pinging on the french. Polisci the french didn't really want to help the colonies they just hated the Brits but couldn't declare war on them due to lack of political correctness however they did have a considerable stake in the new world. Thus, having the colonies write the declaration of independence they could legitimize coming to the aid of a sovereign nation, furthermore protecting their stake. Free colonies would put a sizable gap (landwise) between britain and the french claim. Thereby using us as shields for their land knowing that britain wouldn't have the strength to fight through the americans and be able to maintain the battle when they reached french lands. If the colonies stayed british then the french would have had a larger problem given that the brits are next door. hurray for the brave french.\nDane the french paid such a high price due to fact they were invaded and occupied, not because of galiant heroldry. The brits suffered heavily from V1 and V2 rockets along with bombing runs. At least the brits mounted a useful defense.
405012
I can think of several things that may qualify, but upon closer examination I find evidence lacking for all of them.  Not counting some local or minor issue that may have been discussed in your class, consider Iraq?\n\nNo, we are not a colonial power exploiting another people.  Further, the people of Iraq are not culturally related to us, like we were to the British.  So bag that idea.\n\nWhat else? Elections?  Change of focus of power from Republican to Democrat?  No, there were no parties in Colonial America.  Not like we have them today.\n\nSorry I can't be more helpful.  Perhaps, Like I said, the question may be related to some topic covered in class that is not "general knowledge."  \n\nLots of teachers have their own agenda and even more ask questions that only make sense to them.  Some make a career out of making the obvious, obscure.
376698
Where do you get your information that the settlers were stealing from Indian graves?  And if this is true, you're putting way to bad of a slant on it.  The settlers of Massachusetts were a very religious group that would just steal unless it was a matter of survival more than likely.  What would you do for your family in a life and death situation?  Don't taint our country's history by making the settlers at Plymouth sound like a group of selfish and careless people.  Their first winter was very difficult, and they had to learn how to live all over again.  As for teaching this to elementary students, I think they would be a little young to understand the whole truth.  An older group of students would be able to grasp the details better and know that nothing was malicious in their acts, whatever their acts may have been.  Regardless of the truth, it should be told.  The truth shouldn't be twisted, but made to be understood.  Obviously there are adults out there that can't grasp the meaning behind some things either.
363096
Due to my ignorance on this issue, I can not take a stand so I'd like to here the conservative counter to this. This sounds very intriguing.
541480
The American Continental army starts to fight for the redress of Britain(the redcoats not all coats were red there were green coats too). After repeated attempts (The Declaration of Independence)  America and Britain finally came to a final disagreement at the battle of Bunker Hill and the Olive Branch Petition. the key battle in the war was the Battle of Saratoga were the Americans(Continental army) convinced the French to help them. Basically America won (whoo!!) and became "independent" from Britain(the redcoats.) \nBasically RED GUYS vs. BLUE GUYS. BLUE GUYS Win America is an independent nation.\n\nLearn more take some quizzes in the website below.
121821
Left alone with him for about 2 1/2 mins I think a 12 year old could probably convince him.\n\nI'd prefer serious questions for us to ridicule *ahem* sorry, debate scientology in though.\n\nOh and jdmc2596 below, a colony is Gibraltar owned by Britain. More British Colonies: (Any place with a date like this "1760-")\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Colonial_Territories_by_country#Great_Britain_.2F_England\n\nThe United States has some too...\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Colonial_Territories_by_country#United_States\n\nOr go here for the full list.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Colonial_Territories_by_country
194976
British\n\n[modified below to provide source]\n"British forces march on Washington. At a brief battle on the road, known as the Battle of Bladensburg; the British forces defeat the American forces, who withdraw in disarray, thus opening the road to Washington. The British burn the White House and the Capitol, but the rest of Washington is saved by a strong rain storm. The British, under orders not to hold any territory, withdrew."\nhttp://www.historycentral.com/1812/Washington.html\n\n[another modification to provide some more details]\nI'm not a historian, so I will not pretend to be an expert on this subject.  However, I am learning more details as I go along in the effort to more fully answer your question.  At this point, this is more of a challenge and just plain fun, so it doesn't matter if you should choose this as a best answer or not.  The thrill is in the hunt.\n\nWhat I've determined so far is that the burning of Washington (and the White House) was performed by parts of the British Army stationed along the East Coast. Although the Canadian militia did fight on the side of the British, it seems that they were primarily in the Great Lakes regions where they comprised nearly half of the British forces.  The Great Lakes region was a separate theatre of operations during the war. \n\nThe war was conducted in four theatres of operations:\nThe Atlantic Ocean \nThe Great Lakes and the Canadian frontier \nThe coast of the United States \nThe Southern States \n\nThe commander of the British forces on the East Coast was General Robert Ross who served under Admiral Cockburn.  These two men are credited with leading the forces responsible for the burning of Washington.  From my reading, it appears that Ross probably actually led the forces, while Cockburn received credit as the commander of British Naval forces along the US coastal, providing the means for the landing of the ground forces, and as Ross' superior officer.\n\nRoss, himself, commanded a 4500-man army, comprised of the 4th (King's Own) Light, 21st Royal North British Fusiliers, 44th (East Essex) Regiment of Foot, and 85th Regiment of Foot.\n\n(The British commander of the Great Lakes forces was Major-General Sir Isaac Brock.)\n\nThere doesn't seem to be any significant work, citable references, or other resources that indicate any ties between the Canadian militia that served in the Great Lakes with Ross' East Coast forces that participated in the burning of Washington.\n\nFrom additional reading, it would seem that the attack on Washington and Baltimore was performed by components of the British as a diversion so that the British forces in the north (with Canadians) could repel the continual attacks from US forces and make an incursion into the US.\n\n\nSo, it would seem, in my opinion, that it was not Canadians that burned down the White House.  Although Canadians fought alongside the British in the Great Lakes region, they were not instrutmental in Cockburne's and Ross' forces on the East Coast that actually did the burning.  Further, just because the British Army in one region contained Canadian militia members, I don't think it would be correct to conclude, in any respect, that Canadians should get 'credit' for burning down the White House.  That would be like saying that Latvia gets the historical credit for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Hussein.  They had men in the coalition forces, after all.
660954
Winston Churchill had a great quote about this:\n"The best arguement against democracy is a 5 minute chat with your average voter."\n\nIn short, people is stupid.  Get used to it, sorry to burst your bubble.
471820
Wow, something that Rob Roy isn't an expert on.  You are just about as dumb as string.  I guess the schools in Scotland must not cover what we call "The War of 1812,"  I don't know what the English call it.  I assume in Scotland they call it "The war in the place that we were sent to do England's bidding (again) in 1812-1814."  Your English masters did manage to burn our capitol down, but we still b1tch slapped you.  \n\nWhy do you love Belgians so much?  Why did you edit that entry?  I was going to snidely quote your derisive comment about learning history back to you.
171195
OK, well Columbus wasn't working for the British, look that up on wiki if you don't know that.  secondly with the help of the French we kicks some British ass, look up American revolution on wiki
194472
it was the first....document to unite the colonies? al i kno its that it united the colonies instead of all of them saying" im from virginia" or "im from gorgia" they all said after this documetn" im from the united states. they were alredy united before this document but they never got along. it was the first call for union beetween the american colonies. \n\nhope this helped!\n\nkarina\n\ngood luck!\n\nnina02_atx@yahoo.com
460504
refer \nhttp://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/5610
213496
There wasn't much of a coherent argument. People were scared because of the Panic of 1893 that the US was running out of natural resources and capital, and businesses feared that they would need to have new land to be able to be competitive in the industrial world. The actual expansion that took place was justified by accusations that Spain was abusing its colonies, and so we had a moral obligation to come to their aid, but that's clearly not why we went to war with Spain.