Effigies?

As a student of the Revolution, I see nothing wrong with tarring & feathering. Or slavery. Or property requirements for voting.

Waitaminute...

 

AM - There you go again, picking on America's favorite pastimes....

 

Chandos, your quote on this revolution you are a student of doesn't exactly paint a very nice picture of effigies. This one got one property burned, another stoned (oddly) and looted, and would likely have cost people their lives if anyone had tried to intervene or even reason with them. Not exactly what I would want to encourage.

 

That's the same thing King George III said....

Ok, I'll be serious:

The Stamp Act was much hated by the Revolutionaries, and not because the taxes were all that much...it was because of two things:

1. What bothered them was the notion of "taxation without representation." They were taxed as Englishmen, but not represented in Parliament. In other words, the colonists were treated as second class citizens.

2. Because of this, they were denied basic rights: they were subject to Writs of Seizure and forced to accommondate British soldiers without any say. Thulsy, they took some very harsh measures to make their point. Yes, AM makes some valid points, but without the effort of the Sons, the Revolution might have taken longer and the results may not have been as desirable. And to counter those criticisms, let me give you some accomplishments: Trail by jury of your own peers, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the Press. All this grew out of the experience of the Revolutionaries with Parliament and the Crown of England. The road to liberty is never easy....

 

Chandos, I am familiar with our history. I know who the Sons of Revolution were. I also don't think it was the best way to do things. The ends don't justify the means.

 

NOG - Well, that's an interesting debate. Since you believe that the end does not justify the means, you must oppose many of the "means" that are being used in the current War on Terror, which include torture and the "special handling" of prisoners, and denying the rights of detianees to be confronted and charged by the accusers and to have access to a fair trial.

The reason I bring this up is because I agree with you, that the end certainly does not justify the means.

 

Everyone who isn't a pacifist thinks that, to some degree, the ends justify the means.

The correct quotation, of course, is that the ends must justify the means, which is an altogether different thing.

 

Hmm, AM, just like NOG meant to say he is familiar with "The Sons of Liberty." The Sons of the Revolution were not around until long after the Revolution. But it all means the same thing -- really.

 

Ok, so I'm not good with names.

Chandos, yes, I do object to torture of prisoners in all cases except known terrorists (you caught them with the bombs and maps to your camp). In that case, the means is justified, though the ends must also be justified (no torture just for kicks).

AMaster, that only works if you assume that violence is always unjustifiable, which I don't.