Independance Day:- A Black Day for Brits?

[GrayMouser]

Can you please provide evidence of this? Especially since there were very few jails and low crime and poverty in colonial America. It had never been reported by eye-witnesses from England that America was a dumping ground for criminals. Also - don't you think with the MANY complaints the colonists had with Britain that was put into the Declaration of Independence - that being used as a dumping ground for British criminals would have been near the the top of the list?

Convicts were, next to the African slaves, the largest body of immigrants ever to be compelled to go to America. Transportation was a form of punishment in the 18th century, people were exiled to the American colonies. The legal frame was provided by the Transportation Act of 1718; it ended in 1775. Transported were people having committed property offences, which was the most common variety of crime. Most transports came to Maryland and Virginia.

The smallest proportion came from Scotland, a larger one was Irish. The majority of British convicts transported were native Englishmen sentenced in English courts. Variations always depended on the differing population sizes and the rates of crime (e.g. higher in London). People were often sentenced to either 7, 14 years or the whole life in exile.

Figures:

The total number of convicts from England and Wales is about 35,000 people. Ireland transported 16,000 convicts, Scotland only 800.

The predominant offence for which felons were transported was grand larcency, the theft of good values at a shilling and above. In addition to ordinary criminals, Irish courts also banished large numbers of vagabounds.

Social characteristics of transports:

The large majority was male (about 80%). Women were treated more leniently by courts and did not commit that many serious crimes. Most of the convicts were in their early twenties, and their occupations covered a broad spectrum. Many of them were bought for servants.

http://www.swan.ac.uk/history/teachi...2003/hanna.htm

or simply check " American colonies convicts" on Google for many more references.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil



As for Canada - whether you have the monarchy is also your business, yet you are NOT entirely free of Britain. If you were you would NOT have the queen on your money - you would NOT be paying for her expenses when she visits. We don't pay for the Queens visits or any of the royal familys or foreign dignataries. You can not say that you are fully independent and then say the Queen is the Head of State or that she is YOUR Queen. Either you are fully seperated and independent with NO ties to Britain or you are not.

If you want to be considered a fully independent country - then BECOME a fully independent country with NO ties to the British Crown. This goes for New Zealand, Australia and all the other countries tied to Britain.

We have the Queen on our money and we pay her expenses when she visits because she is the Queen of Canada. We don't pay for the visits of the Sultan of Brunei, or any other foreign dignitary either.

Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as its reigning monarch and head of state.

The most notable features of the Canadian constitutional monarchy are:

Although Queen Elizabeth II is also monarch of the United Kingdom, this does not mean that the United Kingdom has any sovereignty over Canada (nor that Canada has any sovereignty over the United Kingdom).

In all matters of state, Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada is advised exclusively by her governments in Canada. No British government can advise the Canadian monarch on Canadian matters.

All executive power theoretically reposes in the Queen, who is represented in Canada by the Governor-General of Canada, the lieutenant governors of the provinces, and the territorial commissioners. Royal Assent is required on all acts of Parliament and the legislatures, which sit at her pleasure. Persons swearing allegiance to Canada, such as immigrants, soldiers, parliamentarians and the like, swear allegiance to Her Majesty as Queen of Canada and as the legal embodiment of Canadian sovereignty.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Canada

So, JD, it doesn't particularly matter what you think the relationship between Canada and Britain is or should be- we are fully independent from Britain, and the fact that you are unaware of this or refuse to accept it this doesn't alter the reality.

As for the question of royalty in general, I happen to believe that democracy is the only morally justified system of government, and that even in cases of constitutional monarchies there is no justification for hereditary sovereignty.

Most of them are pretty harmless, and on the practical level you can even argue they do some good- the Spanish king protecting parliament from a military coup, the King of Thailand doing the same- hell, if China restored the Emperor maybe the PRC and the ROC could get together under that fig-leaf.

But there is no way (I think) you can argue that hereditary monarchy can have any poltical legitimacy- the boys in Philadelphia had it right- "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" .

Any monarch (theoretically) does not derive his or her power from the people; therefore, however benevolent , they are as illegitimate as any dictatorship or theocracy, and are as such a legitimate target for criticism by anybody, on the basis of universal human rights.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
No, Air Force One is much bigger, somewhat heavier, and much more airworthy. I'm fully aware what Air Force One is (but thanks for the pretty picture). I also already knew what Marine One is, too.

It's admittedly difficult to find an exact counterpart because, unlike most countries, the US does not have separate heads of state and government.

"Air Force One is a prominent symbol ..." : in this sense, the symbol is that of head of state, and by paying for it, the US taxpayers are doing exactly the same as the Canadians do when they pay for the Queen's transportation.

It's NOT the same thing - the President of the United States is AMERICAN. He's not British or from some other country. We're not paying for the expenses of some foreigner. Tell me when the Queen becomes Canadian and moves to Canada - and then you can use your example.

The other function, that of keeping the President in contact with the rest of the government relates to his functions as head of government- as when Canadians pay for the expenses of their Prime Minister.

I would assume you would pay for the Prime Minister - just like we pay for the president. But my point is that you are not entirely free of Britain like you claim. Once you do away with the Queen - then you will be TRULY free.

Here's a better example- when the US President appears at a state ceremonial function (welcoming an ambassador, honouring a citizen, dedicating a national park etc. etc.), and the voters pay for it, that is the same as Canadians paying for the Queen's visits.

That's NOT the same. The president is elected by AMERICANS and is an AMERICAN. The Queen is BRITISH and NOT Canadian. If you want to be truly free from Britain, as you claim you are , then you should have NO ties to a foreignn power and ruler. You can try twistiing it all you want - but Canada is truly not independent from Britain. If the US was paying for the Queens expenses - then that would be outrageos for us.

As I've posted before, have you ever been to Victoria, B.C.? It's simply one of the more extreme examples of Canadian tourist spots playing up the Royal connection to suck out tourist dollars from American and Japanese visitors- there are plenty of other examples in Ontario and the Maritimes. We get much more out of this than it costs for the odd Royal visit.

I didn't say you didn't get a ton of tourist dollars from Royal visits - it's the same reason why most Americans go to Britain. But your arguments do nothing to demonstrate hwo you are a fully independent country when the Queen still holds the reigns of your country. If you want to be TRULY free - then elimintae the queen as head of state and stop paying for royal visits, take her off your money and remove all references of Britain and her from your country. Until such time - you are not truly free like the United States has been for 217 years.

The argument isn't what you get from royal visits and whether it's a good thing or not - the argument is if you are still part of the British "empire". From your own descriptions - you are. You may not want to face this since you have your Prime Minister and stuff - but if you had to pay for the American Prsident's visit, had our presidents on your money and our president was known as your "Head of State" and so forth - I would consider you as a US territory.

As for having been to BC - no I haven't. I have however been to Ontario tons of times. I have a friend who lives on Six Nation Indian Reserve.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by Baby-K
You've done some pretty amazing things too, besides I think the British rule as in many cases added distinction to nationalities. Besides, if it eren't Britain it could have been any other nation that annexed colonies - like Kaizer Wilhelm I of Germany who was a great threat to Britain & a big factor in their race to own the earth.

Thanks, someone is sticking up for the Brits but I was annoyed by your Kaiser Wilhelm comment. Do you really mean the first, as a side note? It was the second who was the first world war one who everyone seems to unfairly hate.

"Their" race to own the Earth? I take it you mean the German people? Dear girl, the German government and especially not [Emperor= Kaiser] Kaiser Wilhelm did not even consider 'ruling the world'. No one ever believed the first world war was escalate as it did, no one could have predicted the millions killed. At most, it was assumed to be a one week war between Austria-Hungary and tiny Serbia.

Wilhelm had no desire for a war with Britain, indeed he was so close to the British and especialy to his grandmother, Queen Victoria of England, that she died in his arms.

Sorry if I ranted but I cannot help but feel outraged at the huge historical misconceptions of Germany and especially the Kaiser in world war one.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Baby-K
...1899 - 1902 - Second Boer War (during this war the British used larger forces & employed devious & undermining tactics, such as a burnt earth policy [burning down Boer farms to ensure that they'd have no provisions & thereby 'starving' the Boer Forces] and also concentration camps, where they effectively killed more than 26 000 Boer women and children and more than 14 000 natives). The British claimed that mismanagement caused the deaths of the people & not intentional genocide, however their 'mismanagement' included things like not feeding the children, letting sick people go without food, sanitized water and medical attention, as well as leaving the women & children to sleep in freezing cold with little or no shelter to speak of). It is rather ironic that British rulers so conveniently forgot about their own concentration camp policies when condemning Hitler for his practices not so long after, during WWII.

Holy sh*^!!! Wow, I had no idea. Thank you for posting that. Between you and JD, I feel like I'm back in History class.

Radagast, I'm pretty sure she meant that it was the Brittish who were in a race to rule the world. But I can't really speak for her. That's how I see it anyway.

My grandmama used to tell me stories of when the Brittish were trying to stamp out the French influence in Canada. In the winter, their troops would 'confiscate' all the stores of food and livestock from the farms. Essentially leaving the family to starve to death. And in some cases, they burned down the farm completely. They had to learn to hide their stores of food in a cache under the snow outside the farm house. She said these were stories handed down to her. So, I don't know how much was absolute truth.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
http://www.swan.ac.uk/history/teachi...2003/hanna.htm

or simply check " American colonies convicts" on Google for many more references.

Thank you for the link. However - as was pointed out - grand larceny was the main offense. Also - it took place ove a period of 60 years and was minor compared to the people immigrating on their own. Australia, on the other hand, was used as the dumping grounds for murderers and rapists and so forth. Australia was like Alcatraz in some respects.

The emigration of the 17th century was marked by 2 features:

1. About one million people migrated, of whom 70 per cent were English. Most of them went to growing English plantations in Ireland and America.

2. The movement of 400,000 English and Irish settlers to America represented the transfer of a massive labour force essential for the development of staple agriculture (sugar, tobacco) in the West Indies and Chesapeake. In the plantation colonies, there was a huge demand for labour, and the majority of the white settlers migrated as indentured servants: they were contracted to serve in tobacco and sugar fields, typically between 4 and 7 years in return for their passage across the Atlantic, board, and freedom dues.

In the 18th century there is a different pattern of emigration:

The major change was the decline of English migration to North America in contrast to the rise of Scottish and Irish emigration.

Some figures illustrate this:

England and Wales: In the 17th century there are about 350,000 emigrants but in the period from 1701 until 1780 this number declines to only 80,000 people.

Irish emigrants: The number rises from about 30,000 in the 17th century to about 115,000 emigrants in the period until 1780.

Scottish emigrants: The number rises from 7,000 in the 17th century to 75,000 in the period from 1701 until 1780.

® In the 17th century settlement abroad was mainly English, in the 18th century emigration was emphatically British, of whom 70 per cent were from Ireland and Scotland.

Also - the convicts were spread throughout the colonies, including the West Indies and Canada - even if the marjority landed in Maryland or Virginia.

It seems like most of these "criminals" were for petty crimes. I don't think that this even close to what happened to Australia like you tried implying. As I said - Australia was shipped dangerous criminals.

[jerseydevil]

Pitt’s government decided to transport the prisoners aboard the hulks to Botany Bay without any on-site preparation and only Captain Cook’s nearly 20-year-old reports as a guide. Thus the British launched a bold experiment in penology (the treatment of criminals). If successful, the experiment would empty the hulks along the Thames, solve the riddle of what to do with criminals, and even deter people from committing crimes.

The first British fleet to transport convicts to Australia consisted of 11 ships, including two navy warships. The commander of the fleet was Captain Arthur Phillip. Captain Phillip had been appointed governor of Australia by King George III.

In May of 1787, using Captain Cook’s 20-year-old reports as their only guide, about 200 sailors and 700 convicts sailed into the unknown. The youngest criminal was a 9-year-old boy who had stolen some clothes and a pistol. The oldest was an 82-year-old woman convicted of perjury, or lying under oath.

After a 252-day voyage across 15,000 miles, the ships reached Botany Bay. But Captain Phillip soon determined that Botany Bay was a poor harbor and the surrounding land was not suited for growing crops. He ordered the fleet northward to another location, which Captain Phillip named Sydney (after Lord Sydney, William Pitt’s minister of colonial affairs).

The First Years

Governor Phillip had been given near absolute power to rule his convict colony. This included the authority to establish courts, proclaim martial law, and award grants of land in the new colony. He also had the authority to emancipate (set free) deserving convicts. Upon landing at Sydney, Governor Phillip announced to the convicts that—if they wanted to eat—they would have to work.

More than two years passed before any relief ships arrived from Britain. During this time, the colonists nearly starved. But somehow over the next few years, Governor Phillip used convict labor to plant crops, establish herds of livestock (mainly sheep), and construct buildings and roads necessary for the colony. In the meantime, the British government continued to empty out the Thames River hulks by transporting more than a thousand convicts to Sydney each year. By 1792, when Governor Phillip returned to Britain, New South Wales had survived five harsh years to become largely self-sufficient.

Who were these convicts transported to Australia? About three-quarters were young, single men and women. Most were common thieves (called "sneaksmen") from London and other British cities. Fewer than 5 percent were transported for violent crimes. Some were political offenders, mainly from rebellious Ireland and Scotland. Male convicts outnumbered females 6 to 1. Although none of the women were transported for prostitution, many were forced to become prostitutes after landing in Australia. Frequently, female convicts ended up as "prisoners of the prisoners" and were sold like slaves.

[jerseydevil]

The "Assignment System"

"The sentence of the court upon you is, that you be transported beyond the seas for the term of your natural life." More commonly, criminals were sentenced to Australia for a specific term like 7 or 14 years.

After 1800, about 10 percent of the convicts arriving in Australia worked on government farms and public-works projects, such as roads and harbors. The other 90 percent were assigned to work for settlers who had received grants of land. The assigned convicts were dispersed throughout the colony to provide free labor until they had served their sentences.

How they were treated depended on who they worked for. In general, however, they lived in brutal conditions on meager rations.

Even so, the convicts were not considered slaves or "property." They possessed rights under British law. For example, neither the government nor private masters could physically punish a convict without first getting the approval of a judge at a hearing. But approval was routine.

The most common court-authorized punishment was flogging by the "cat-o’-nine-tails," a whip with nine leather cords. Convicts found guilty of minor offenses typically got 25 lashes on the back. More serious offenders drew up to 300 lashes, which would leave them gravely wounded.

While flogging kept convicts in line, a reward system also existed. "Gentlemen convicts" and those who exhibited good behavior were sometimes granted a "ticket-of-leave." This allowed the convict to work for wages and live virtually free. The only restriction was that such a person could not leave Australia until his or her sentence had expired. Deserving convicts also hoped to be emancipated by the governor.

To hold on to such a vast territory as Australia, the British government needed colonists to settle the land. Although it encouraged immigrants from Britain, few came. So the government called upon released convicts, who had served their sentences, to settle the land. It offered former convicts free land, tools, seed, livestock, and even food for one year. In addition, the government assigned newly arrived convicts to them to help work the land. As it turned out, most ex-convicts never returned to Britain but stayed in Australia to become landowners or wage workers.

More Penal Experiments

The number of convicts transported to Australia increased dramatically when more ships became available following the Napoleonic Wars (1804–1815). The peak year was 1833 when 36 ships transported nearly 7,000 convicts. By this time, areas outside Sydney had been opened up for settlement under the convict assignment system. One of these was the large island south of the mainland, now called Tasmania.

Beginning in 1834, Tasmania became the site of perhaps the world’s first juvenile prison. Convicted boys aged 9–18 were isolated from adult convicts at Point Puer (Latin for "boy"). Considered too young or ignorant for assignment, they were given a basic education, taught a trade, instructed in religion, and punished for misbehavior. Although they were subjected to flogging and solitary confinement, the training they received probably provided them with more opportunities than they would have had growing up in London’s slums.

By contrast, the place of ultimate terror was Norfolk Island, 1,000 miles east of Sydney. Set aside for the worst adult criminals, this island prison kept convicts working in chains. Guards unmercifully flogged prisoners for the slightest rule violation. Desperate to get off the island, convicts sometimes would draw lots to kill each other so that the murderer would be taken to Sydney for trial.

"Beyond the Seas": The Transportation of Criminals to Australia

I don't see how you can make the statement like you did - that the English used the American colonies as a "jail" and then switched to Australia after they lost ONLY the United States region. Remember - Britain still had the Canadian colonies to ship their criminals too. As is pointed out here - the criminals were far greater in number and in later years were far more dangerous. They were also being sent to completely UNSETTLED land - land that Britons didn't want to immigrate to - unlike the Americas. The America's were never the penal colony you tried to imply.

[Bombadillo]

i don't think our Independence Day is a black day for Brits, but it should be an embarassing reminder. I mean, a bunch of inbred farmers beat up the entire, larger, professionally trained country. It's a good thing for us that you never learned your lesson about battle tactics.

j/k Brits

[jerseydevil]

Here is more detailed information...

Perish or Prosper: the Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700-1850 (PDF File)

....None of the colonies in America or the West Indies was a penal colony in the sense that the Australian colonies were....

Transportation to the American colonies
The government paid some of the shipping contractors an initial fee of £3 per convict (later rising to £5), while the contractors also gained the proceeds of the sale of the convict’s labour.Once they arrived in America, the contractors’ agents sold the convicts like animals or slaves, sometimes on the ship, sometimes on a wholesale basis, and sometimes after being moved around like goods for sale. As it was only their labour that was sold, and for a fixed period, the convict’s value was less than that of slaves but since it was for a longer period, it was more than that of indentured servants. Women fetched a lower price than men. The typical price range for convicts was £8 to £20. The contractors were supposed to take all the convicts offered by the courts in Britain or Ireland, putting them at risk of being stuck with those of lower value. There was no such risk in the carriage of slaves and indentured servants, among whom they could select whom to carry, though it is likely that some merchants quietly released unprofitable convicts in Britain or Ireland rather than sending them on to America as they were legally required to do.

Virginia and Maryland took the greatest number of convicts, followed by Pennsylvania. The colonial legislatures tried to restrict transportation, but were unsuccessful in the face of the parliament’s clear intention in its favour under the 1718 Act, and the refusal of royal assent to some of these colonial Acts. The reaction of some Americans is best shown by Benjamin Franklin’s often quoted statement that in return for the British sending convicts, Americans could send rattle snakes back to Britain.

Convict servants were under tight control in the American colonies, but it did not differ much from that imposed on indentured labourers. Discipline was enforced through whipping and the use of chains, although they could petition the courts for relief against excessive punishment or non-supply of food and clothing. The penalty for running away was a whipping,
plus an increase in the period of service, a multiple of the days missing. The logic of masters having property in their convict servants’ labour precluded the payment of wages to them. Indentured servants were entitled to freedom dues, property or money on completion of their period of service. This right was extended to and then denied convicts in Virginia. Indentured servants were typically required to work for four years though the length varied from person to person, whereas seventy three percent of convicts were required to work for seven years, twenty five per cent for fourteen years and two per cent for life. During the course of the eighteenth century, the link between the length of the convict’s sentence of transportation and the period of the contract of service was broken. No matter what the original sentence, all convicts came to besold for seven year terms of service. Their labour was sold to cover the price of transportation, not to match the sentence imposed in England.

The article is 90+ pages long and has a lot of information - especially on Australia.

By the way - I had forgotten ben Franklin had said that about sending rattlesnakes over to England. You were right about convicts being sent to America - which I had forgotten - but it was not even close to how Australia was used. The convicts were basically indentured servants in America.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's NOT the same thing - the President of the United States is AMERICAN. He's not British or from some other country. We're not paying for the expenses of some foreigner. Tell me when the Queen becomes Canadian and moves to Canada - and then you can use your example.

I would assume you would pay for the Prime Minister - just like we pay for the president. But my point is that you are not entirely free of Britain like you claim. Once you do away with the Queen - then you will be TRULY free.

That's NOT the same. The president is elected by AMERICANS and is an AMERICAN. The Queen is BRITISH and NOT Canadian. If you want to be truly free from Britain, as you claim you are , then you should have NO ties to a foreignn power and ruler. You can try twistiing it all you want - but Canada is truly not independent from Britain. If the US was paying for the Queens expenses - then that would be outrageos for us.

The Queen is Canadian- as the monarchists loyally assert- the Oath of Citizenship for Canada requires all Canadians to affirm their loyalty to ...the British Monarch? No...

"I swear/affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada.
Her Heirs and Successors, according to law and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."

Since Canadian citizenship derives from the Queen, how can she possibly not be Canadian?

You quite ably demonstrated that Australia is NOT fully independent by quoting from their constitution, and when I lived in Australia I used to tease the Aussies/Kiwis the same way.

There is no reference whatsoever to Britain or the British Parliament in the Canadian Constitution

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#VI

If you have ANY evidence that Canada is in any way subject to the British government or British sovereignty, please don't hesitate to post it.

So far the facts of the matter seem to be:

Canada regards itself as totally independent

The British government agrees that Canada is totally independent

HRH Queen Elizabeth II regards Canada and the United Kingdom as totally independent Kingdoms under her sovereignty

Jersey Devil disagrees

Sorry if I don't regard your opinion as that decisive.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Thank you for the link. However - as was pointed out - grand larceny was the main offense. Also - it took place ove a period of 60 years and was minor compared to the people immigrating on their own. Australia, on the other hand, was used as the dumping grounds for murderers and rapists and so forth. Australia was like Alcatraz in some respects.


Also - the convicts were spread throughout the colonies, including the West Indies and Canada - even if the marjority landed in Maryland or Virginia.

It seems like most of these "criminals" were for petty crimes. I don't think that this even close to what happened to Australia like you tried implying. As I said - Australia was shipped dangerous criminals.

From your own source "Most were common thieves... Fewer than five per cent were violent offenders"

The two relevant quotes are, from you:

No - Britain had no intention of sending criminals to America. America was mostly founded by religious people escaping persecution - such as the Pilgrims and Calvanists, Quakers, etc.

And from me:

However, the American colonies were used as a dumping ground for British prisons. The Australian penal colony at Botany Bay was established for precisely that reason, as an alternative after the War of Independence.

Your own sources show that I was quite correct -thank you for the corroboration- and I nowhere "implied" (weasel word) that North America was a penal colony- I simply stated the known historical facts.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Your own sources show that I was quite correct -thank you for the corroboration- and I nowhere "implied" (weasel word) that North America was a penal colony- I simply stated the known historical facts.

But they didn't start Botany Bay because they lost America as their "dumping ground". The role of the American colonies - including the West Indies and Canada were completely different from the role of Australia. They actually set up prisons - and landed with nothing there.

On the other hand - the criminals that were being sent to America were being sent over as serfs and being sold for 4 - 7 years service.