okay so my class is having this debate...the american revolution?

J

~JeSiE MaRiE~

New member
this is my topic. (if you have any better topics please enter them and add the rebuttals) the british were the ones who developed laws of the land and communities. please give me some rebuttals for this topic. like i said. if you have any better topics please comment with them. i greatly appreciate your help.

~jessica~
dave thank you so much, my classmates and i found this extremely helpful. please people comment!! this is half my grade!! thank you

~jessica~
 
The rebuttal, is that for over a hundred years, the colonies were basicly isolated, and often historians say they suffered from "benign negect". Benign because it was good to be left alone.

While basic English laws and customs were brought over to colonies by original settlers (because communication took months in those day) the leaders of the colonies had to change things to soot them, not the Crown, or Parliament, 3,000 miles away.

Each colony had it's own legislature, or House of Burgesses, and Governor or Royal Magistrate.
THEY developed new laws, procedures and methods of doing things, often different from England's.

The colonies had to deal with Native Americans who were like separate nations. They had to set up their own militias (military of volunteers). They had to raise their own taxes, and build their own infrastructure.

Over time, they became self-reliant, and wanted to seek independence, when England tried to establish more direct control over them, and force them to be less independent minded.

There probably wouldn't have been an American Revolution, if the colonies hadn't been so successful and being their own bosses, and running their own affiars.

Better topic? How about "Did the French and Indian War (also called 7 yrs war) led to the American Revolution?" and Why?

Or, this one: Would the world have been better off, if the colonies never revolted, and America stayed connected to British Empire up to 20th century? (as Canada did)
 
The rebuttal, is that for over a hundred years, the colonies were basicly isolated, and often historians say they suffered from "benign negect". Benign because it was good to be left alone.

While basic English laws and customs were brought over to colonies by original settlers (because communication took months in those day) the leaders of the colonies had to change things to soot them, not the Crown, or Parliament, 3,000 miles away.

Each colony had it's own legislature, or House of Burgesses, and Governor or Royal Magistrate.
THEY developed new laws, procedures and methods of doing things, often different from England's.

The colonies had to deal with Native Americans who were like separate nations. They had to set up their own militias (military of volunteers). They had to raise their own taxes, and build their own infrastructure.

Over time, they became self-reliant, and wanted to seek independence, when England tried to establish more direct control over them, and force them to be less independent minded.

There probably wouldn't have been an American Revolution, if the colonies hadn't been so successful and being their own bosses, and running their own affiars.

Better topic? How about "Did the French and Indian War (also called 7 yrs war) led to the American Revolution?" and Why?

Or, this one: Would the world have been better off, if the colonies never revolted, and America stayed connected to British Empire up to 20th century? (as Canada did)
 
The rebuttal, is that for over a hundred years, the colonies were basicly isolated, and often historians say they suffered from "benign negect". Benign because it was good to be left alone.

While basic English laws and customs were brought over to colonies by original settlers (because communication took months in those day) the leaders of the colonies had to change things to soot them, not the Crown, or Parliament, 3,000 miles away.

Each colony had it's own legislature, or House of Burgesses, and Governor or Royal Magistrate.
THEY developed new laws, procedures and methods of doing things, often different from England's.

The colonies had to deal with Native Americans who were like separate nations. They had to set up their own militias (military of volunteers). They had to raise their own taxes, and build their own infrastructure.

Over time, they became self-reliant, and wanted to seek independence, when England tried to establish more direct control over them, and force them to be less independent minded.

There probably wouldn't have been an American Revolution, if the colonies hadn't been so successful and being their own bosses, and running their own affiars.

Better topic? How about "Did the French and Indian War (also called 7 yrs war) led to the American Revolution?" and Why?

Or, this one: Would the world have been better off, if the colonies never revolted, and America stayed connected to British Empire up to 20th century? (as Canada did)
 
The rebuttal, is that for over a hundred years, the colonies were basicly isolated, and often historians say they suffered from "benign negect". Benign because it was good to be left alone.

While basic English laws and customs were brought over to colonies by original settlers (because communication took months in those day) the leaders of the colonies had to change things to soot them, not the Crown, or Parliament, 3,000 miles away.

Each colony had it's own legislature, or House of Burgesses, and Governor or Royal Magistrate.
THEY developed new laws, procedures and methods of doing things, often different from England's.

The colonies had to deal with Native Americans who were like separate nations. They had to set up their own militias (military of volunteers). They had to raise their own taxes, and build their own infrastructure.

Over time, they became self-reliant, and wanted to seek independence, when England tried to establish more direct control over them, and force them to be less independent minded.

There probably wouldn't have been an American Revolution, if the colonies hadn't been so successful and being their own bosses, and running their own affiars.

Better topic? How about "Did the French and Indian War (also called 7 yrs war) led to the American Revolution?" and Why?

Or, this one: Would the world have been better off, if the colonies never revolted, and America stayed connected to British Empire up to 20th century? (as Canada did)
 
The rebuttal, is that for over a hundred years, the colonies were basicly isolated, and often historians say they suffered from "benign negect". Benign because it was good to be left alone.

While basic English laws and customs were brought over to colonies by original settlers (because communication took months in those day) the leaders of the colonies had to change things to soot them, not the Crown, or Parliament, 3,000 miles away.

Each colony had it's own legislature, or House of Burgesses, and Governor or Royal Magistrate.
THEY developed new laws, procedures and methods of doing things, often different from England's.

The colonies had to deal with Native Americans who were like separate nations. They had to set up their own militias (military of volunteers). They had to raise their own taxes, and build their own infrastructure.

Over time, they became self-reliant, and wanted to seek independence, when England tried to establish more direct control over them, and force them to be less independent minded.

There probably wouldn't have been an American Revolution, if the colonies hadn't been so successful and being their own bosses, and running their own affiars.

Better topic? How about "Did the French and Indian War (also called 7 yrs war) led to the American Revolution?" and Why?

Or, this one: Would the world have been better off, if the colonies never revolted, and America stayed connected to British Empire up to 20th century? (as Canada did)
 
Back
Top