I've always thought of the Revolution as a rebellion, not a civil war.Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Re: A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise
I've always thought of the Revolution as a rebellion, not a civil war.
The .Org's MTW Reference Guide Wiki - now taking comments, corrections, suggestions, and submissions
If I werent playing games Id be killing small animals at a higher rate than I am now - SFTS
Si je n'étais pas jouer à des jeux que je serais mort de petits animaux à un taux plus élevé que je suis maintenant - Louis VI The Fat
"Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?" - Lemur
Re: A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise
I spose it was a civil war. After all, not all of the colonists wanted to leave the UK. There was also quite a number of UK born citizens that joined the 'patriots'. There is a feeling that the rebellion was really the third and final act of the English civil war from a hundred years or so before. For practically the same reason.
There are times I wish they’d just ban everything- baccy and beer, burgers and bangers, and all the rest- once and for all. Instead, they creep forward one apparently tiny step at a time. It’s like being executed with a bacon slicer.
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.
"The purpose of a university education for Left / Liberals is to attain all the politically correct attitudes towards minorties, and the financial means to live as far away from them as possible."
Re: A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise
Yeah, me too. Then again you and I are US'ers. But if you pretend you're a Brit and look at a 1775 map and see the UK's holdings in N.Am. (including a buncha islands in the Gulf) our 13 rebelling colonies were less than half his majesty's assigned geography. Hence, a 'civil war' amongst off-island (GB) properties - not unlike Confederate States declaring independence from the Union; the difference being the head guy in 1776 lived in London, whereas the head guy in 1861 lived in D.C.
-edit-
Trying to stay on-topic: Seamus raises a good point about teh Founders likely being more amenable to a more restrictive franchise, as the theory was one of "skin in the game" then. But, in my opinion, the deed is done, universal franchise for all human legal residents ("citizens"), and cannot be un-done without excessive conflict - probably bloody.
Last edited by KukriKhan; 04-29-2010 at 16:18.
Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.
Re: A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise
It's a revolution if you win, a civil war (or a revolt) if you lose, and a rebellion if you're in the middle of it and you don't know how it will end. (Kinda like that old formulation about how "treason can never prosper, for none dare call it treason if it prospers.")
Re: A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise
Hee-hee. Reminds me of Catholic School, where I learned about "The Protestant Revolt". A few years later I heard about "The Reformation" and wondered what that was. :)
Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.
Re: A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise
All you people who think this is a good idea - could you, like, find another planet to live on or something?
"The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks