A few quick facts you ought to know.

>the American colonies did not have "taxation without representation", they were offered seats in Parliament and refused
>George III was the furthest thing from the Hitler-esque figure he was made out to be, just a harmless bloke who liked shagging his potato-faced German wife
>the Boston Massacre happened when a rioting mob threw rocks at soldiers and John Adams actually defended some of the latter in court and got them exonerated
>none of the taxes in question were unreasonable and all were necessary to recoup the costs of the world war that George Washington started
>It was entirely justified to retain armed soldiers on the Canadian border after 1783 in the event of American invasion
>Impressment of sailors was also yellow journalism, they were trying to catch Royal Navy deserters and no Americans were intentionally kidnapped
>the US lost most major engagements in the War of 1812, there were a few naval "victories" won by cheating when you used ships-of-the-line you passed off as frigates to pulverise sloops half their size that were manned by totally green sailors
>the burning of Washington was justified for your having burned York, Canada
>the Battle of New Orleans was meaningless and affected nothing as the war had already been ended about three weeks earlier, but it took a while for news to cross the Atlantic
>the entire war was just a minor distraction anyway because we had a real apocalpytic war to the death going on in Europe

>>17810549 (OP)
In order,
>1
The American colonies were taxed without representation, and beyond that, were intentionally held back via the Navigation Acts with various other acts too from industrial or demographic development; the U.S Colonies were used as resource-gatherers for the imperial metropole (Britain) and weren't supposed to get as large as they did, thus creating the conflict. The Americans asked for a seat at the table and were rebuffed.
>2
No one has ever said that George III was Hitler, just that he was a bad king. And he objectively went a bit insane in his later life.
>3
The troops which had been placed in Boston were put there after the British Parliament revoked the Massachusetts's founding charter, basically the colonies constitution, put it under directly military martial law, and then denied the right to a jury of your peers, a very ancient right with a long history in British jurisprudence, via seizing anyone sympathetic to the Sons of Liberty and shipping them to London to undergo essentially military trials despite being civilians
>4
The taxes weren't the point of the agitation. The point was that colonial legislatures were being overturned by aggressive High Tory policies that wanted to deny any semblance of self-governance to the colonies; it was a war over whether the colonies would have autonomy, or in absence of that, power sharing in London; the Tories vehemently denied both thus leading to the war.
>5
It wasn't entirely justified to retain soldiers in the land you specifically ceded in the Treaty of Paris, however, and then continuously board American merchant ships to impress Americans into service in the Royal Navy, which is what the British did.
>6
It wasn't yellow journalism. There are many specific cases that can be pointed to where this happened, they were not just going after Royal Navy deserters; this is basically just the "claim" made up by British historians hundreds of years later to cope with the fact they

>>17810549 (OP)
You lost, Nigel.

>>17810644
more or less had lost twice to Americans.
>7
Cheating doesn't exist in war. Git gud kiddo.
>8
The burning of Washington was intended as a full on naval invasion of the Chesapeake Bay, it ended with total humiliation of the British invading force, with a rag-tag American militia having managed to kill the leading general of the invading force and repel them back to the ocean; years later, British historians tried to say the invasion was a "raid" to further cope with the humiliation
>7
Rag-tag Kentucky and Tennessee militia-men, totally untrained, along with a small regiment of Regulars totally decimated the cream of the crop British Peninsular veterans who were celebrated Highland regiments. There were 2,000 British casualties to only 12 Americans hurt or killed. It genuinely might be one of the most humiliating defeats in British military history.
>the entire war was just a minor distraction
"We barely managed to fight cash & resource poor former colonies with less than half our population and no standing army into a status quo antebellum because we got too busy paying the Austrians & Russians to fight Napoleon for us," isn't a very good brag.

oh nono satanbros our days are numbered..

>>17810707
America hasn’t been an empire for 250 years though. It has been an empire MAYBE seventy if you consider it as such.

>>17810716
In a sense it has been in the sense that they were an imperial outgrowth which declared imperial-level sovreignty in their hemisphere, cf. Eastern/Holy Roman Empire, cf. Monroe doctrine

Here I mean "imperial" in the Roman/Chinese sense, i.e. suzerain over kings

>>17810716
American became an empire in 1898 when it took Spain’s possessions after winning the Spanish-American war. It became the world’s superpower 70 years ago.

>>17810648
Cucklonial cope

>>17810549 (OP)
True, America is a respectable nation in its own right and so it's a shame that they resort to lying about the motives for the revolution

>>17810707
So when this ends up being proven false what will the cope be? Will they just keep changing the dates and parameters like they do with global warming or try to say that America is the “sick man” and just bitch further hoping it will keep over?

>>17810731
>It became the world’s superpower 70 years ago.
The US was already the largest economy in the world by the 1880s

>>17810855
>>17810707
It's already been proven false. That number comes from John Glubbs' The Fate of Empires and in it he tries finding patterns with no logic and just makes a bunch of shit up. This has been talked about to death already

>>17810870
also want to add that John Glubb was a British military officer during the first world war and was majorly butthurt over Britain losing the Empire so he already had a chip on his soldier when he wrote that book. It's just nonesense but unfortunately midwits still cite it because retards are drawn to bad books for some reason

>>17810870
>>17810874
talk about a Glubb Shitto

i like how they go on about rights for the colonist when 80% of british citizens didnt even have rights lol also check out who funded the rebellion "they" were involved

>>17810707
>mUh EmPiRe’S lAsT 250 YeArs
That number is taken from John Glubbs "The Fate of Empires" and it's just something he pulled out of his ass. Most empires lasted far longer than 250 years. For example, here's a list of some empires that lasted over 250 years:
>Imperial China: 221 BC - 1911 AD (2,132 years)
>Roman Empire: 27 BC - 1453 AD (1,479 years)
>Aksumite Empire: 150 BC – 960 AD (1110 years)
>Holy Roman Empire: 800 AD - 1806 AD (1,006 years)
>Ethiopian Empire: 1270 AD - 1974 AD (704 years)
>Khmer Empire: 802 AD - 1431 AD (629 years)
>Ottoman Empire: 1299 AD - 1922 AD (623 years)
>Portuguese Empire: 1415 AD - 1999 AD (584 years)
>Spanish Empire: 1492 AD - 1976 AD (484 years)
>Parthian Empire: 247 BC - 224 AD (471 years)
>Hittite Empire: 1650 BC -1180 BC (470 years)
>Sassanid Empire: 224 AD - 651 AD (427 years)
>British Empire: 1583 AD - 1997 AD (414 years)
>First Bulgarian Empire: 681 AD - 1018 AD (337 years)
>Mughal Empire: 1526 AD - 1857 AD (331 years)
These are just some of them, the whole "250 years" is bullshit and also ignores if that was simply the end of each state being a great power or the complete end of that entire civilization.

>>17811221
The USA's "Empire" is just a term used to describe its formal network of alliances and the fact that its enormous (domestic!) economy is able to extert significant, but not absolute, influence over other states.

The USA does not rule over occupied provinces with Praefects and any kind of formal integration, Puerto Rico and Guam are basically the only things akin to that in the United States.

The USA possesses an enormous core heartland, exactly like how France by itself was enough to be the kingpin of Europe for centuries because France by itself was already the largest and most populated state in Europe aside from Russia.

An Empire like Britain or Spain's collapsed when their far flung colonies, populated by subjugated foreigners, seceded from them. The USA has no such colonial equivalent, fucking nobody in Minnesota is calling for independence.

There is literally zero demand for balkanizing the US outside of memes.

Even if the USA does qualify as an empire, it certainly wasn't an empire straight from when it was founded. Depending on when you choose to classify "empire," then the USA has decades to a century more before it reaches 250 years

butthurt

>>17810768
It’s not true, it’s bong revisionism.

There are even more reasons the Americans were justified in revolting. The bongs essentially placed the colonies under martial law and a command economy to economically sabotage them.


>>17810977
British people don’t even have rights to day, they literally go to prison for mean tweets LMAO

>>17810549 (OP)
FUCK BONGS, John Paul Jones should have finished the job

>>17812898
Americans go to jail for crossing the road and have to let their sons get circumcised in order to be released LMAO

>>17813339
>bongs go to jail for teaching their dogs tricks and can't own guns

British revisionism to cope with the fact they lost and were the bad guys.

>>17813965
Sounds preferable to being genitally mutilated tbf

>>17810549 (OP)
Happy birthday!
https://files.catbox.moe/dtami4.mp4

>>17810650
>>17810644
Unrefuted

>>17810650
>>17810644
Based post. You killed that bong and utterly refuted his advance like that Kentucky guy did when he single handedly killed 50 bongs and turned back their column at the battle of new orleans using his squirrel rifle