Consider the various “Revolutionproof Treaties” created in class and decide which one has the most merit.

  1. Make sure to mention the treaty you chose in bold.
  2. Defend your stance as to why you think this is the best.
  3. Embolden some of the sentences in your blog post that you think are the most important in your argument.
  4. Form a rebuttal against one other student’s choice emphasizing what false assumptions they are making in their treaty selection.

62 Responses to Revolution

  1. nathanbiyani says:

    I think that RICHARD LI’S (sorry, i don’t know how to embolden) treaty is the best because he addresses all the problems at the time. Pretty much, he addresses every major conflict that was hurting the cooperation between the colonists and the Americans at the time. For example, the limiting of trade because of the Navigational Laws were extremely important in this context, so TRADE WITH WHOMEVER THEY WANTED IN ORDER TO MAKE THE MOST PROFIT is a justified statement that Richard put’s in his treaty. I would disagree with Rishi’s treaty because i think that all of the colonists had to pay taxes so that they could help out the British. They also paid less taxes than the British did, so paying even less taxes seems kinda illogical

    • folukeo says:

      I think this treaty would have cause more problems than actually fix them.
      By raising taxes, yes they are paying less than Britain’s citizens, but it would still cause a conflict for the colonist. They were still angry over the Tea Tax, it wasn’t that it was to expensive, it actually made tea cheap, it was the principle. By raising taxes the colonist can then argue that the British government is even more out of touch than before, the colonist are not as able to create a commecre like the British and money isn’t made as easy as those in Britain.
      As for allowing the colonist to trade with whoever they want. No the colonies were not nessacilary made as other colonies to allow their mother country to get rich, but the colonies did allow for Britain to begin a process of mercantilism. Britain would lose a great deal of money if they allow the colonies to trade with someone else.

      • Richard Li says:

        Well the colonists didn’t understand the point of view of the British. The British not only were still in debt from the French and Indian war, but nonetheless providing military and economic benefits to the Americans. And I don’t your statement about easily made money in Britain is quite accurate, because it was because of economic troubles that some people left for the colonies.

    • Rishi Chatterjee says:

      Nathan thank you for criticizing me, as I did the same to you.

  2. henrynoonan says:

    I think the most likely treaty to succeed is AKSHAY CHANDRASEKHAR’S, Since it provides for each party what they want without severely compromising the other. It also seems to be one of the least authoritarian since it ENCOURAGES WHAT ENGLAND WANTS THE COLONIES TO DO, RATHER THAN FORCING COMPLIANCE. Also the consequences for breaking the treaty seem tough, but not totally unreasonable.
    I would challenge ZEB BLACKWELL’s treaty since it’s stipulations deal mostly with the cost of goods, while the colonists were demonstrably MORE ANGERED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE TAXES THAN THE ACTUAL COSTS BEING INCURRED. Also I would point out that it is VERY SIMILAR TO THE TEA ACT, only with wool.

  3. sarinadodhia says:

    I believe Kavya Dhurba’s treaty addresses the key issues between the two worlds. The treaty is a compromise between the two worlds economically where it says that a percentage of profits will go England each month, leaving the colonies with plenty of wealth. The colonies not being able to rebel will keep the two sides stable, and the colonies will have representation in government, where they will have the ability to make policies that benefit the colonies. For example, because the Englishmen do not fully understand the circumstances in the colonies, the representatives will be responsible for providing the best solutions, and the colonist will not have a reason to rebel against them. If each side has the same rights, and are equal, many of the issues would disappear. For example, the colonists had problems with taxes, writs of assistance, quartering act, and a standing army in signs of peace. The point she made about a trial by jury of peers addresses the natural rights the colonists say they should have. Ultimately, I believe this treaty will bring peace between the two colonies. I disagree with Kushal Hegeneshwar’s treaty because if Britain does get control over 7 of the 13 colonies, there will be an even bigger rebellion. The colonies are wanting more freedom from the British, and to form policies themselves. Therefore, by the English having complete control over the 7 colonies, the majority of colonists would be even more angered if Britain continues to enforce the same policies on them.

    • elijahjones says:

      I think the only fault with the Dhurba’s treaty is that the british want to control the colonies. it wouldnt work for the colonies i think because they want more freedom and want britian out of america to give them room to do what they want. lastly, coming together to decide the punishment wont work because the americans wont give themselves a punishment since they think there in the right just like you wouldnt give your self a punishment if your parents asked you too.

  4. elijahjones says:

    I believe the JEFFERSON TREATY was the most merit. I believe so because the americans get what they want which is place in parliment and get unjust laws repealed. those two things are, i think, the most important of all the problems the americans face and there being solved in this treaty. the british also get what they want which is to unity the empire, continue trade with other countries, and pay off the debt. those were also i think the most serious problems britian wanted addressed and they can be in this treaty. so by the two sides aggreeing and punishments being fair it makes the OLIVER JEFFERSON TREATY is the most merit.

  5. Laudan Ghahramani says:

    I think that OLIVA JEFFERSON’s treaty is the best because she explains major problems that occurred between the British and American colonists. She provides problems that are relevant between the both, such as the Britain should allow representation in Parliament, give the colonists/British rights, and seeking approval from legislative assemblies before imposing taxes on trade goods within the colonies. These problems were very vague during this time.I disagree with KUSHAL’s treaty because even if Britain only gets 7 out of the 13 colonies, the American’s will still be paying taxes and paying for other things as well. Also if Britain is only in control in those areas, the colonists in those colonies will rebel because the other colonies don’t have to go by the rules of the British. Which would cause a huge revolt.

  6. James Thompson says:

    I think the (OLIVA) JEFFERSON TREATY is the best treaty out of all those listed for the following reasons; first the treaty addresses both British and Colonial problems in a clear, unconfused manor. Secondly, it states stipulations that are not to harsh on either side like “THE BRITISH MUST RESTORE NATURAL RIGHTS LIKE TRIAL BY JURY” which the colonists wanted. Also, the diplomatic consequences fit perfectly because if unfair treatment on one side is obvious then by all means there is of course a right to rebel from the colonists, or to take control, from the British perspective. I like how this treaty is clear and concise in what it says. The treaty I dislike and disagree with is the R DAWG MILLI TREATY because of the following reasons: It is worded without thought to the treaty itself. Secondly the diplomatic consequences make no sense and seem illogical in the situation. The treaty is making false assumptions about American taxes, they are already low and lowering them “45 percent” would not help, just anger the colonists or the British because they are trying to make money, not loose it.

  7. I think the JEFFERSON TREATY is the best option. It addresses the main issues as to why the colonists were rebelling – their basic rights were being taken away (trial by jury, no standing army in times of peace), and they were being taxed in a way they saw as unfair without representation. Although the colonists may not have exactly wanted representation, it gave them a reason to oppose the taxes. If Britain gave them what they asked for, it would take away their right to complain. In the treaty, Britain will SEEK THE APPROVAL OF SAID LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES BEFORE IMPOSING TAXES AND MONOPOLIES ON TRADE GOODS WITHIN THE COLONIES. Since the colonists are now represented in the legislative assemblies, the British would be forced to compromise on the taxes.
    I would have to disagree with the LI TREATY, because it states that THE COLONIES MUST PAY TAXES EQUAL TO THOSE ALREADY IN BRITAIN. However, the colonists were rebelling at paying fewer taxes than the citizens in Britain. If they raised the taxes even more to pay the same amount as the British, this would only make the situation worse.

    • Richard Li says:

      That’s just part of the consequences of the following the stipulations. I think that the consequences need to be relatively severe for both sides in order for the treaty to be upheld and have any effect.

  8. Timmeh Luu Luu (Tim Luu) says:

    I believe that the American Colonies – Britain Treaty (whoever you are, kudos to you) has the most merit, because the treaty effectively covers all the issues presented in the conflict between the goals of the American colonies and that of the British. In their treaty, where they list the goals of the British, they put, “Want revenue to pay for war debts,” which were scars left by the French and Indian War. This problem is actually efficiently dealt with in the treaty’s stipulations, where it is proposed that the British taxes will go towards paying off reparations. Although it does conflict with the listed goal of the American colonists, in that they wished to be rid of taxes, it is noted that taxes may not be over 5% of the value of the product, which ultimately reduces taxes to a good minimum, enough to help pay towards the reparations, yet small enough so that colonists are not greatly affected. This allows for both sides to be satisfied. Additionally, the British propose that the colonies are free to conduct trade with other countries, satisfying another condition of the American colonies; however, 15% of the profits the colonies make go towards the war debt, yet again. Not only does this contribute to paying off the large war debt, this also satisfies the open trade desired by the colonists. Other points of merit include addressing the fact that the American colonies wanted self-representation, which is best satisfied in being provided self-government. The stipulations also address the manner in which laws regarding the two sides will be dealt with, saying how laws affecting one side had to be approved by that side as well. Overall, this treaty was, for me, the one with the most merit. A treaty I disagreed with, however, was the biyani nathan treaty. In his stipulations, he claims that by alleviating the Navigational Acts and giving the colonists representation, it is justified for the British to tax the colonists. However, it was already justified because the American colonies had a part in creating the war debt left by the French and Indian War. It was only natural that the British were taxing the American colonies. Also, problems arise in the consequences of breaking the stipulations. He proposes that, if I’m reading it correctly, if the Americans break the stipulations and decide not to pay the taxes, then the British are allowed to increase taxes. That makes no sense, whatsoever. If the Americans are not paying the taxes in the first place, then there is absolutely no point at all in increasing the taxes. None. At all. The other consequence makes just about as much sense as the first one. He proposes that if the British decide not to give the colonists political representation, then the colonists receive more representation than the British in Parliament. Yet again, this makes no sense whatsoever. If they have no representation, then how would they get more representation? Thus, for these reasons, I disagree with his treaty.

    Also, on a more personal note, next time Nathan, please capitalize the name of your treaty. Not only does it irk me to the very deep bottom of my soul, it seems as if the treaty is very improper and informal. Loooool.

    • Timmeh Luu Luu (Tim Luu) says:

      Oh, I apologize for not Caps-Locking or bolding the treaty names or important arguments in my post. I did this all in Microsoft Word, which bolded the stuff in there. However, when I posted this on here, it didn’t show the bolding, but I didn’t realize it until it was too late.

      Have mercy on me.

    • I disagree with your choice of the American Colonies-Britain Treaty. It does not touch on an important point: not all of the money from the taxes was going toward the war, and this bothered the colonists immensely. It should have mentioned something about not only making the taxes reasonable but also going toward what the colonists felt was fair. A majority of the taxes should have been to help pay off the debt of the French and Indian war. They didn’t want to pay for the British officials forced upon them, etc.

      • Timmeh Luu Luu (Tim Luu) says:

        Well, I’m just going off what the treaty stipulations claimed. What they said in the treaty was that the taxes that were imposed on colonies were used to pay off the war debt.

        And actually, the British officials being paid by the taxes could technically be a breach of the stipulations. The stipulations said that the taxes imposed on these colonists were going to the reparations; however, it didn’t say that they were allowed to pay British officials with that tax money, only that it was for paying off the war debt. So, it’s kinda a loophole that makes it so that the tax money can only be used for the war debt.

      • Varun Gopal says:

        Yo, that was my treaty!

  9. nicholaswhaling says:

    I think OLIVIA JEFFERSON’S treaty is the best she points out the major issues with both sides and comes up with a fair agreement. The treaty gives the colonist what they really wanted. It also lets the British continue to get what they want from the colonies.
    I disagree with HEGNESHWAR’S treaty. I disagree withit because it doesn’t really adress any of the major issues. The treaty also doesn’t help with really any of the problems either. Britain wants to keep all of the colonies and already has all of them. Also what does they get 7 of 13 colonies mean? Do they get to continue to rule oover those seven?

  10. zebblackwell says:

    The AMERICAN COLONIES-BRITAIN TREATY is the best written treaty. It gives fair prices on taxes for Americans and doesn’t overwhelm them with the burden of no money. It is completely fair thatWHEN LAWS OF AMERICA ARE MADE THE CROWN MUST JUDGE IT TO SEE IF IT GOES AGAINST THE ALREADY SET LAWS. ALMOST LIKE WE HAVE TODAY WITH OUR PRESIDENT. With the foriegn trade, it seems fair to have an elevated percentage of tax because IT DOES ALLOW FOR MORE FLOW INTO MILITARY AND WAR PAYMENTS. According to the consequences both Britain and America will be punished in the same way if any of the agreements are broken. This way all are equal and everyone is happy.

    • zebblackwell says:

      KUSHAL sorry man but, seriously? How can Britain keep more than half of the land for the treaty. Doesnt that defeat the purpose of living together. Of course America wont pay taxes because the 7 British colonies are paying them.

    • Hali Holloway says:

      I disagree that this is the best treaty. For one, I dont think the proposed political system will work effectivle. Whose to say what is detrimental to the colonies and what isnt. What is detrimental in the colonists mind might not be detrimental in English point of view. The whole issue to begin with is that the colonists think they are getting a raw deal but the E

    • Hali Holloway says:

      I don’t agree that this is the best treaty. For one, I don’t think that the proposed political system with be effective. Who’s to say what is detrimental to the colonies and what isn’t. What is detrimental in the eyes of the colonies might not be detrimental in the eyes of the English government. Te whole reason for the conflict to begin with is that the colonists felt they were getting the raw end of the deal but the English didn’t see it that way. Also I don’t think that the tax on the foreign trading will help end smuggling because it will continue to be cheaper to smuggle goods rather than pay taxes on the trade.

    • Brendan McCartney says:

      I am forced to disagree with your choice of the American-Britain treaty for a few reasons.

      1) Does it actually make things better, or does it create the illusion that things have changed? For example, it offers a colonial government to an extent, but it can at any point be overturned by the crown. Aren’t they trying to escape this lack of control in the first place?
      2) “The crown is only allowed to veto the law if it is detrimental to the well-being of the colonies and it doesn’t break previous taxes etc” — Who exactly is going to stop the crown from doing otherwise?
      3) It says there are “no taxes,” yet they still charge 5% without any representation.

    • franklyfranny says:

      I have to disagree with your reasoning behind your desicion, Zeb. The American Colonies-Britain treaty states that taxes will not be above 5% of the value of the product, but the price of the taxes were not incredibly expensive to begin with. This treaty favors the colonists’ side as they gain the right to check the powers of the British government, but the British government has limited rights to check the powers of the colonial government. I believe that this treaty would actually make it easier for the colonists’ to find reasons to be independent and establish themselves as a nation seperate from British rule.

      • franklyfranny says:

        yeah…. im not sure how my stuff got all the way down here but this is in reponse to Zeb’s blog.

  11. laelking says:

    I think that the JEFFERSON TREATY has the most merit. It hit all the major tensions and desires of the English and the colonists. The major goals of the British and the colonies were clearly and concisely defined. I think it found a happy medium between the two opposing forces. It gave REPRESENTATION TO THE COLONIES while MAINTAINING THE BRITISH RULE and SUPERIORITY. It gave the British the money they wanted to pay off the war debt and gave the colonies the right to approve of taxes. It puts the BRITISH AND THE COLONIES ON EQUAL TERMS. I think the diplomatic consequences are also fair. The colonies are given the RIGHT TO SEEK SELF-GOVERNANCE should the British fail to support and represent them. The British are given the RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY LIBERTIES from the colonies should they fail to comply to the agreement. Overall, it was a well planned treaty that encompassed all the major points of tension and allowed both sides to get what they wanted.

    • laelking says:

      Forgot to put this in my post…

      I disagree with the HEGNESHWAR TREATY. First of all, the Americans were not trying to get religious freedom. They were trying to get representation in Parliament. Second, it doesn’t make sense that Britain gets 7 of the 13 colonies, they already own all of the colonies. And thirdly, if the treaty is broken by the colonies, laws or restrictions should be enforced not heavier taxes. All the principals of this treaty are entirely incorrect.

  12. Hali Holloway says:

    I believe the JEFFERSON TREATY was the most straightforward solution and would probably been the most likely to accomplish its goal. It discusses the heart of the problem between the two nations and does the best at giving each side what they want. The colonists’ main issue was that they felt they were being denied their basic rights. Jefferson solves this by restoring their right of trial by jury and giving them representation in Parliament. England’s main concern was maintaining control over the colonies and paying back the war debts. Jefferson gives England some control by requiring the colonies to consult Parliament before passing laws and requiring them to maintain trade with England. By giving the colonists what they wanted the treaty makes them more complacent and willing to pay the taxes to help pay for the war.

    • akshaychandrasekhar says:

      I disagree that this is the best because it does not satisfy the British. Although the colonies may consult with England, you’re forgetting that the treaty also makes the British consult with America before passing laws. As you stated, control was important. Therefore, British would not like this decrease in superiority. Also, I disagree with the fact that by giving rights and other privileges to the colonists, they would be more willing to pay. The Stamp Act was issued to pay for the war. The colonists opposed it because they did not like the way it was implemented, not because because of rights violation, no representation, etc. Although, this treaty requires the payment of war debt, it does not solve future debt problems. In the future, if the British want taxes, there is nothing stopping the colonies from vetoing all taxes. Therefore, there is a loophole in the treaty, that only alleviates tensions temporarily.

  13. Kushal says:

    I mostly agree with the CHANDRASHEKAR treaty because it gives fair and realistic goals for the American and the British. He states why the colonists are being taxed but he also states how Americans should be more independent and not be so much in the shadow of Britian. For example he states in the American goals that Americans should have their own legislature and also that Americans should be viewed as equal SO THAT THEY AREN’T BOSSED AROUND AND HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING THAT BRITAIN SAYS.
    I disagree with the SONG-BROOKS treaty because why would the British try to best satisfy the American goals? Should it not be the other way around? And American never really WANTED BRITISH CONTROL they mostly only wanted to be represented since they were a huge part of Britain and it’s economy.

  14. taylorrwhite says:

    I believe that the (OLIVIA) JEFFERSON treaty will be the most successful. It gives the British and the Americans what they want without contradicting one another. THERE is a compromisable middle ground that allows both sides to accept what each other want out of the TREATY. The stipulations in the treaty are exactly what the Americans and British wanted out of one another. “SEEK the approval of said legislative assemblies before imposing taxes and monopolies on trade goods within the colonies.” I think that the previous statement is exactly what the Americans wanted and what also needs to be done in order to carry out the British GOALS. Also the treaty’s consequences are very accurate to what would happen of the stimpulations are not completely followed through.
    I would have to disagree with the LI TREATY. It makes a false assumption as to why the British wanted to tax the colonies. “AT first to make a profit from the colonies’ labor and RESOURCES…” The British taxed the colonies only so they could pay for the damages from the French and Indian War, not to make a profit.

  15. folukeo says:

    I chose OLVIA TREATY. I think this treaty out of all the treaties would actually prevent a war between Britain and the American colonies.
    It suporrted both the British and the colonies. By having CONTINUE TO PAY TAXES WHICH GO TOWARDS WAR DEBTS RATHER THAN PERSONAL REVENUES for a colonist regulation, promise Britain that the colonist will help pay for the huge debt that was brought by the French And Indian War, which was a main concern of Britain residents at the time.
    By having both A RESTORIAN OF THE COLONIST BRITISH AND NATURAL RIGHTS AND ALLOW FOR REPRESENTATION IN PARLIMENT AS WELL AS LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES WITHIN THE COLONIES TO CREATE LAWS THAT APPLY TO THE COLONIES. This take care of a pressing issue in the colonies, the colonies wants to be seen as true Englishman and not be treated as a level lower. By giving them representation in Parliment they agree to their rights as Englishman, and it take it a step further by allowing them to have their own legislative bodies in America that can relate to the colonist problem. ( I probaly should have went this in debt with my treaty….oh well was tired yesterday:-))

  16. robinhood says:

    I think the the Jefferson Treaty was the most straightforward treaty that attempted to solve all of the major problems existing at that time period. It addressed the colonists lack of rights and the English’s need for profit from the colonies. It also provides reasonable consequences for breaking the treaty. It allowed the colonists some independence, however they still remained in Britain’s possession, and Britain still had plenty of influence over them and opportunities to pay off their debt.
    I disagree with the Song-Brooks Treaty. The British had plenty of other things on their minds besides the best interests of the colonies. They wanted to pay off their debt and make a profit. Also, the stipulations are not stated, but rather it says they will be voted on. They may be voted on by only British officials, or only colonists. If this were to happen, the treaty would quickly fail.

  17. oliviajefferson says:

    I believe that the KING TREATY is the most effective because it states both sides of the argument (i.e. unfair taxing versus recovering incurred debt) and provides a detailed solution to the seemingly irreconcilable differences. “The Navigation Acts shall be repealed…tax on colonial exports shall be placed” is an example of compromise between the British NEED TO PAY OFF DEBT INCURRED during the French and Indian War, and the COLONIAL ANGER AT BEING UNABLE TO EXPAND ECONOMICALLY through trade with other countries due to the enforcement of the Navigation Acts. The most important compromises are addressed and placed into compromise in this treaty. I would disagree with the BIYANI TREATY because the main goal of Britain was not to tax the colonies. Also it DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF BOTH SIDES in the treaty. It merely states what the British must do for their taxes in the colonies to become justified rather than providing compromise for the main issues, such as the rights of the colonies versus the sovereignty of British Parliament over said colonies.

  18. Rishi Chatterjee says:

    I believe R DAWG MILLI TREATY has the most merit because, what the treaty of RDM expressed, such as lowering taxes, limiting taxation victims and representation in the BRITISH PARLIAMENT WERE ALL THE MAIN GOALS OF THE ENGLISH COLONIES. Except for the loosening of the Navigation act, the colonists were in search of self representation at Parliament so they can make decisions about the taxes they were eventually going to pay for their protection. If noticed, THE TAXES ON ITEMS, such as the STAMP TAX, DIFFERED IN AMOUNT, so the OVER ALL REDUCTION IN PRICES would be VARIABLE since some things were UNREASONABLY TAXED (mandatory items such as liquor, mortgages) and others TAXED TOO LITTLE. In the war that CAUSED the DEBT TO OCCUR in Britain and GAVE BIRTH TO TAXATIONS that Britain AFFLICTED ON AMERICA, was POWERED NOT BY BRITISH soldiers, most of it WAS GUERRILLA WARFARE and a LOT OF THE MONEY FOR THE WAR CAME FROM THE COLONIES OF AMERICA ITSELF. So in reality, Britain was NOT doing a lot to “PROTECT” its colonies therefore it is NOT JUSTIFIED to have all the taxes (even if they are much lower from what citizens pay in Britain) to be there. So it is ONLY JUSTIFIED if the taxes be REDUCED BY 45 PERCENT, very close to 50 percent, ALLOWING THE COLONIST WHO WERE NOT ABLE TO PAY, at least try to for it now. The diversion in society was very wide. This POLICY CAN BE PRESERVED as a “RIGHT OF MAN” in the colonies. The treaty ADDRESSES that evening these terms out would NOT RESULT to separation from the BRITISH RULE instead the colonies can VIABLY STAY under the CROWN but have it’s OWN SAY over it’s OWN DIVINE RIGHT. It is NOT a BAD thing to stay under the RULE OF NATION who have the greatest navy and over sea colonies in the world. The NAVIGATION ACT was NECESSARY to be kept in place (even if the colonies wanted it removed) to SUSTAIN A DIGNIFIED ECONOMY for both America and Britain. Even though the act WAS A LITTLE HARSH, it ALLOWED for even IN the HARSH TIMES, a PLACE TO EXPORT to. Even IN WAR, the Americans would be ABLE TO EXPORT to Britain and IMPORT from Britain. Together they can COLLABORATE to be the STRONGEST colonies in the neat FUTURE. I DISAGREE WITH NATHAN BIYANI’S TREATY. IT STATES THAT BECAUSE BRITAIN ALLOWS REPRESENTATION FOR THE COLONIES AND LOOSER NAVIGATION LAWS, IT IS JUSTIFIED FOR THE BRITISH TO TAX THE COLONIES. IT ISN’T ENOUGH OF A JUSTIFIED REASON TO TAX THEM, ESPECIALLY SINCE FOR MOST OF THE WAR IN AMERICA (FOR WHICH THEY ARE GETTING TAXED) WAS FOUGHT BY THE AMERICANS. THE EUROPEAN WAR ONLY HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF BRITAIN AND FRANCE AND SPAIN ALREADY HAD TO SETTLE SCORES WITH BRITAIN. THE AMERICAN SHOULD NOT BE TAXED SO INDEFINABLY. ALSO IF BRITAIN THOUGHT OF ITSELF AS THE MOTHER OF AMERICA, A MOTHER WOULDN’T CHARGE HER SON FOR PROTECTION. SEEMS PRETTY INCLUSIVE TO ME THAT THE REASONING FOR TAXATION IN THIS TREATY IS UNJUSTIFIED.

  19. Kavya Durbha says:

    I think that the KING-KING TREATY is the most “Revolutionproof” Treaty. The treaty addresses the concerns of both the American colonists and the British. Representatives from each colony are chosen by the colonists and represented in Parliament, as the colonies wished. Also, the colonists are ONLY TAXED, with approval from the representatives, TO PAY FOR THE DEBT FROM THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR RATHER THAN FOR SOLE BRITISH GAIN. The treaty also ACKNOWLEDGES THE CURRENCY SHORTAGES that the colonists are facing. The only thing I would disagree with in this treaty is the removal of British military and naval service if the colonies refuse to quarter British troops, as that is a violation of their rights as English citizens and would most probably stir revolutionary thoughts in the colonies.
    I also believe that the HEGNESHWAR TREATY would not prevent a revolution in the colonies with its stipulations. The treaty allows Britain control over 7 of the colonies while the others are left to be independent. Instead of appeasing the colonists, this treaty is more likely to PROVOKE GREATER ANGER TOWARDS THE BRITISH in the 7 colonies under control.

  20. Austin Taylor says:

    I think that the TREATY OF LUU does two important things well. First, it settles several main points. It resolves a way to pay off taxes indebted by the Seven Years War, as well as give the colonies salutary neglect back to a certain extent. Also, it does not lean toward either side very much, as both sides get what they want. This means that the treaty is much more likely to get signed than some of the ones that I saw. Like the Hegneshwar Treaty. Do you really think that the colonies are going to consent to letting go of some of the colonies completely, while leaving others untouched? Also, you need to elaborate on “not be the primary source of money”.

  21. I think that the JEFFERSON TREATY was the best overall. It was very clear with its purpose and listed out all the major troubles during the time. Also as far as stipulations go, they are very clear and orderly on the way they are presented. The consequences that are listed are also very clear and detailed. It exaggerates on the point of the colonists going for a rebellion. I disagree with the SONGS-BROOKS TREATY the most because why would the British want to fulfill the needs of America? The British always thought it to be the other way around. Seeing that American people to them didn’t mean much at all. While they also fail to recognize other major British goals.

  22. I like Olivia Jefferson’s Treaty. She clearly lists the problems and how they can most easily be solved. The colonies did want their rights, and if they were denied those rights, it only follows that they should be allowed to “separate and run as a sovereign nation independent of [their] mother country.” Her consequences were fair, as not only does she mention what would happen if Britain broke the treaty (which is, in my opinion, what most people tend to focus on) but also what would happen if the colonists broke the treaty. Her treaty gives the colonists some of what they want while also leaving a majority of the power with Britain, the mother country.

  23. akshaychandrasekhar says:

    I agree most with the Durbha Treaty because it equally satisfies both sides. Americans get their representation. More importantly it gives Americans their rights as English citizens . Britain, however, still remains superior which is what they want. For example, the British government can still levy and control taxes as well as put down rebellions which ensures future British control
    I disagree with the Jefferson Treaty because it is biased towards the American side , and it doesn’t give Britain what it wants. For example, Britain established the colonies with the intent of exclusive trade as a colony, not reasonable trade like an ally. They would want more. They would also not like the idea that the colonies can reject the Parliament’s or the king’s laws on taxes and monopolies for the colonies. This kind of arrogance lead to the Declatory Act. . Finally, the treaty is vague on the part stating “Act always in the best interest of the colonies”. What is the “best interest” is at the discretion of the British. Therefore, it would be different from what the Americans view as their “best interest”.

  24. Stephan Williams says:

    I think that the Chandrasekhar Treaty has the most merit, in part due to the method in which it addresses the taxation dilemma. It recognizes that it is not the colonists not wanting to pay taxes that is the problem, but the colonists only wanting to pay taxes levied by their own legislatures — which is what the treaty proposes, in order to repay the British for debt procured during the French and Indian War, much of which was on the colonists’ behalf. The treaty also, while implying the removal of the Navigation Acts, manages to retain some of the mercantilism that the British desired while not imposing too much on the colonists, by having the colonists only pay a small fee when not trading with Britain, and by preventing boycott of British goods.

    I have to disagree, however, with several portions of the Holloway-Astari Treaty. The treaty provides for one parliamentary representative for each colony; however, because of the sharp ideological differences between the British and Colonists, any representation short of 50% of Parliament (which would be illogical) would likely have negligible positive effect for the colonists. In addition, with the Parliament being in across the ocean in Britain, they would be extremely disconnected from the colonists. The treaty also does not entirely grant the crux of the colonial complaints towards Britain – their natural and British rights – by still maintaining a version of the Quartering Act, and by implying a standing army in the colonies in times of peace, which is prohibited in the English Bill of Rights.

  25. Brendan McCartney says:

    The McCartney-Durbha treaty is clearly the best . . haha jk 🙂

    In all seriousness, I feel the Holloway-Astari Treaty most effectively offers a middle ground for England and the colonies to agree upon. It goes more in-depth than most others and offers some compromise for a variety of issues.

    I like how specific it is and how deceptively easy it makes compromise seem. For example, it mandates that colonies only need to obey the Quartering Act during the Winter season, and at first glimpse it seems great. However, it puts the colonists’ real motives for rebellion to the test– is it they don’t have the resources to offer their homes, or is it the principle?

    Anyway, I just like how it’s worded a lot, and I like how it addresses everything to a great extent . . it was really well thought out. :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

  26. lirichard says:

    I think the Chandrasekhar treaty has the most merit. It brings up both the point about establishing their own legislature as well as the taxing power should reside with them. The stipulations provide a nice motivation to the colonists to pay off their debt in order to be able to establish their own legislature; however, this is also too easily abused to determine the exact “debt” owed to them. The treaty does create good conditions which things are allowed to happen and the consequences are there to simply encourage what both sides want as opposed to forcing them to obey. This is the nature of the entire treaty throughout and that’s why it has the most merit.

    For my rebuttal, I am going to look at the American Colonies – British treaty. I don’t think that the colonies didn’t want taxes, but simply just for them to presented differently and for them to able to justify them, as well as how they wanted to pay them. Also, did all the colonists want social unity? There is already a clear split between the Loyalists and Patriots. I think that at this point they are already set as is. Furthermore, the under 5% tax is ambiguous when it refers to a “good” – would that be any product? Also, I think putting the power of approving colonial governments in the crown is too easy to abuse.

  27. franklyfranny says:

    I believe the (Oliva) Jefferson Treaty has the most merit because it addresses the wants and compromises of the treaty from a political, economic and social point of view . This treaty truly finds a middle ground between the British government and the colonies , instead of favoring the colonies wants. For everything the colonists gain from the treaty, they have to abide by some stipulation which in turn would keep the British in power whilst appeasing the colonists wants. For example, the treaty states the colonists are allowed intercolonial congresses and ability to make their own laws. However said laws must be approved by Parliment. Vise versa, before Parliment can impose a tax on trade goods, the legislative bodies in the colonies must approve. This provides a system of checks and balances, which as we know from our country’s system, is an effective way to maintain a indivudual or group from over powering the government. As I agree with the effectiveness of this treaty, it has holes in it’s efficiency. The diplomatic consquences leave room for rebellion and revolution of the colonies, and that goes against the purpose of the treaty.

  28. abhipandya says:

    I like the TREATY OF LUU as one that i would want to defend. I like this treaty because it finds a way to properly SETTLES THE DISPUTE OF THE SEVEN YEARS WAR and the debt thats obtained by it. Not only this, the colonies have a sense of SALUTARY NEGLECT and are not completely under the control of the Britian empire as much as they had been before.
    I strongly disagree with the SONG-BROOKS TREATY. The British government , unlike showed in the treaty, had many troubled that they were faced with, other than the colonies. After the war, they had a hard time paying back the debt they obtained due to the war. In this treaty, the STIPULATIONS ARE A MAJOR FLAW. It states that they will be voted on, however, part of this entire problem arises because there is NO REPRESENTATION. If this were to be amended, it could perhaps be a reasonable treaty, otherwise, it would not work efficiently.

    7:55, YEAH!!!!

  29. Oryza Astari says:

    I believe that the Sarina Dodhia’s Treaty is the most “Revolutionproof.” It addresses the key problem of the colonists: lack of representation. I like how she incorporates the idea of representation of colonists in England AND the colonies. It also allows these officials to be self-elected by the colonists, not by the King. Trading policies are also more lenient and allows for equal opportunities to trade with England as well as other countries, bringing in profit to both parties. Although the taxes for the colonists will be higher as Englishmen currently living in Britain are paying more extreme taxes, they will not be more inclined to rebel as all of the colonists’ problems and grievances have been addressed.

    However, I disagree with the Raulerson Treaty because it sounds like the British Crown is utilizing dictatorship to control the colonists. It does not address any of the problems and grievances of the colonists; instead, the Crown will treat every colonists the same as Englishmen and they should stop complaining. It will be highly ineffective because the colonists are currently complaining because they aren’t represented and will continue to question their freedom of representation till the end of the time if this treaty is implemented.

  30. Varun Gopal says:

    I think that ABHI PANDYA’S treaty has the most merit for many reasons. It clearly addresses all the main issues that are essentially to making peace between the two countries. Both, the Colonists and the English, have an established parliment where the two where the other will not intefere with each other. THIS ENSURE THAT BOTH SIDES WILL IMPLEMENT POLLICIES TO BENEFIT THEIR OWN LIFE STYLE (economically, politically, and socialy); this is exactly what the colonists want and therefore, they will not rebel against the British. This treaty also proposes a compromise economically, as the the colonies will be able to have free enterprise with at most 60 % of their products, and THE BRITISH WILL STILL BE GAINING ECONOMIC GAIN OFF OF THE COLONIES, just a smaller amount of profit. Also, the treaty contains reasonable consequences for violating the treaty.
    I would have to disagree with the Song-Brooks treaty becuase of the goals of the British where he states that they are to SATISFIES THE AMERICAN GOALS becuase they are against the goals of the American Colonists as they are retailiating against Britain. I think that there is also a false assumption in his “what should happen if they break the treaty” part because not only would the American colonies retaliate but the British would also attack the colonies with their navy etc. Thus, he is assuming that the British wouldn’t do anything.

  31. Sana Azami says:

    I agree most with the King Treaty ( are they underlined, italicized or put in quotes?) because it deals in relative fairness desires of both the side of the Colonists and the British. The King Treaty repealed the Navigation Acts but still kept a tax on the colonists so that the Crown may continue to rap profit bu still allow the Colonists to trade with whomever they wish. I oppose the points that are given as compromise in the American-Britain Treaty because it seems to be trying to cast an illusionary change over the policy that Britain has with its Colonies. And about vetoing the law that may detrimental to the Colonies, they were doing that as is, how would that be a change. Thirdly the colonist are still going to be taxed 5 % percent regardless of the state of their representation in Parliament.

  32. Kushal says:

    I remember this. I disagree with The HEGNESHWAR because the treaty allows Britain to control over 7 of the colonies while the others are left to be independent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s