Quote Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit View Post
More key is the fact that they didn't see themselves as British; the colonies had developed their own identity.
I dissagree, the fact they complained about taxation without representation and formed a Congree to present grievences to London proves you wrong. Americans became different through rebellion, rather than rebelling because they were different.

Kindly point out exactly where the constitution mentions universal suffrage.
Your Constitution has been ammended to establish that race, gender, property qualifications, wealth, ancestry etc., cannot be used to restrict sufferage.

And that's why Britain is what it is today.

CR
A nation with a democratically elected government, secular liberty, freedom of speech, peace, and the rule of law?

Not to mention a working health service.

Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
I'd read that things were about 30% Tory, 30% Rebel, and 40% "why don't you all leave me alone so I can raise my family."
That's pretty much the defnition of a Civil War then, isn't it?

Washington was a VA officer, not a British Army or British Army native contingent officer. He was no more a "turncoat" than any other rebel in the USA.
His commission might have been in a Colonial militia rather than in a British Regiment of Foot, but he was still clearly a British soldier, who fought the French Canadians and served British generals. He did turn coats when he fought against the British.

Why he chose to do so is a different issue.

Universal suffrage was NEVER a principle enshrined in the Constitution. Yes, I think you make and excellent point that it became part of our collective mythos and that outlook led us to extend the franchise more and more. The Constitution itself, however, is relatively silent about who shall be given the suffrage, leaving that up to the several states.
Your Constitution has since been ammended, what you have suggested in this thread is a reversal of that extension of sufferage.