Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[rvg]

Traitor, megalomaniac, political and social oppertunist and a mediocre and general and statesman.

That's quite a lot of epithets. How about some evidence to back them up?

[Strike For The South]

Washington has never gotten my juices flowing like Franklin or Madison

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's quite a lot of epithets. How about some evidence to back them up?

OK.

1. Traitor: This a no brainer, he was a British subject and a former Colonial Officer

2. Megalomaniac: Irrc he was convinced he was the only one who could beat the British, and even before War was declared he presented himself to the Continental Congress in uniform as their obvious (if not only) choice for Commanding General. There's also
no evidence he wouldn't have remained President were it not for extreme ill health. The idea that he deliberately served only two terms probably has more to do with later custom and chancer words of Geroge III. Either way, he had cemented his prestige and failing health in officer would not have enhanced it further.

3. Political a Social Opertunist: Another easy one, as a British subject in the Colonies Washington craved the validation of the Regular Commission, which would have placed him on equal standing to English and Scots Officers in the Colonies. With a regular Commission he would have been able to advance within the British Army on merit. He never recieved one, instead he was made Colonel of the Virginia Regiment.

4. Mediocre General and Statesman: Another no brainer, Washington won the war, but lost most of his battles. Given the home-logistical advantage his soldiers has he had only to hold the British off, and they had infrequent French support. Winning the war was no mean feat, but the Crown had to put more into it than the Continentals just to level the field. As a Statesman Washington was far less active than Jefferson or Adams.

None that means he wasn't the man who Beat the British or any kind of villain.

Like I said, perspective.

[rvg]

1. Traitor: This a no brainer, he was a British subject and a former Colonial Officer

This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".

2. Megalomaniac: Irrc he was convinced he was the only one who could beat the British, and even before War was declared he presented himself to the Continental Congress in uniform as their obvious (if not only) choice for Commanding General.

What's wrong with that?

There's also no evidence he wouldn't have remained President were it not for extreme ill health. The idea that he deliberately served only two terms probably has more to do with later custom and chancer words of Geroge III. Either way, he had cemented his prestige and failing health in officer would not have enhanced it further.

Considering that they pretty much begged him to run for the second term, he did even that very reluctantly. Furthermore, during the war there was a sentiment in the Continental Army to install Washington as king. They informed him of that and his reply was something along the lines of "considering it unthinkable that after spending so much time, effort and blood to fight one tyranny, we would replace it with another." So much for being a megalomaniac.

3. Political a Social Opertunist: Another easy one, as a British subject in the Colonies Washington craved the validation of the Regular Commission, which would have placed him on equal standing to English and Scots Officers in the Colonies. With a regular Commission he would have been able to advance within the British Army on merit. He never recieved one, instead he was made Colonel of the Virginia Regiment.

That was actually the whole reason for the revolution:the British Crown refused to treat us as equals, so we ditched it. Defending one's dignity is not political opportunism.

4. Mediocre General and Statesman: Another no brainer, Washington won the war, but lost most of his battles. Given the home-logistical advantage his soldiers has he had only to hold the British off, and they had infrequent French support. Winning the war was no mean feat, but the Crown had to put more into it than the Continentals just to level the field.

He led an army of ragtag civilians-turned-soldiers to confront a well trained, well supplied fighting force that had also enjoyed complete domination of the seas. Washington did extremely well in his situation.

As a Statesman Washington was far less active than Jefferson or Adams.

Que?

[a completely inoffensive name]

This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

[rvg]

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

Was Toussaint Louverture a traitor to France? The guy just didn't want to be a slave, it's kinda hard to fault anyone for that. Loyalty is one thing, but it should not be mistaken for blind obedience.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Was Toussaint Louverture a traitor to France? The guy just didn't want to be a slave, it's kinda hard to fault anyone for that. Loyalty is one thing, but it should not be mistaken for blind obedience.

The colonies were not exactly slaves. Parliament just wanted us to pay for the expenses of protecting us but without letting us have a voice. As I said before, many "revolutionaries" were pushed into the war because they could not get an agreement with the king.

So your example is weak imo.

[rvg]

The colonies were not exactly slaves. Parliament just wanted us to pay for the expenses of protecting us but without letting us have a voice. As I said before, many "revolutionaries" were pushed into the war because they could not get an agreement with the king.

Oh yeah, the were merely Untermenschen. How dare they yearn for equality...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

So strictly by the facts, Martin Luther King was a N-----? Not passing judgement on him of course, but would it be foolish of us to reject the word just because it has a negative connotation?


As for PVC. History is not something you learn because you feel happy inside when you imagine you are deflating other peoples delusions.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So strictly by the facts, Martin Luther King was a N-----? Not passing judgement on him of course, but would it be foolish of us to reject the word just because it has a negative connotation?

Great way to misinterpret what I am saying Sasaki. Love it when people put terrible racial slurs in my mouth.

Where's Vuk? I think I finally have something we can bond over.

Now, do I really need to explain the difference here for you?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Now, do I really need to explain the difference here for you?

No, you need to look at the similarity, and then ask yourself whether the difference is relevant to the point being made. It's an analogy.

[Noncommunist]

Not really, this where American bias comes in that I have talked about. Strictly by the facts, he was a traitor to the British crown, end of story. Not passing judgement on that point, but to argue that "winners are revolutionaries" is prime example of how skewed our ideas of history are when we can't even accept simple facts because certain words have negative connotation.

If the crown wasn't fulfilling its duties to its subjects, then it seems that the term traitor seems overly negative.

You're reading forward and making the mistake of believing that the Army that fought Napoleon was the same one that fought Washington, it wasn't. Nor was the British Navy at this time the one Nelson would command decades later. America's French allies gave the Royal Navy a drubbing and Washington's Army were regular soldiers just like the British, and just like the British they were a mix of veterans of the Indian wars and newly raised recruits.

Given that the French lost a ton of good admirals and captains during the French Revolution, the British Navy of 1777 was probably about the same as the British Navy of 1805. It's just that their enemies decreased in skill due to internal issues.

[Greyblades]

If the crown wasn't fulfilling its duties to its subjects, then it seems that the term traitor seems overly negative.

What duties was it not fulfiling?

[Noncommunist]

What duties was it not fulfiling?

Wasn't giving them adequate representation in parliament as was mentioned before.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The tax policy was the manifestation of British tyranny.

OK, that deserves a WTF LOL.

Seriously?

The only "Tyranny" was not letting the rich living in the Colonies vote like the rich in England. Before the Revolution most the of the population couldn't vote, and they still couldn't after the revolution. In fact, I think you'll find the UK was ahead of the US there as well as in matters of slavery.

You certainly implied it. You're obviously viewing it with a negative connotation.

Meh, I just don't think he should be lorded as a secular saint.

That's pure speculation on your part backed up by absolutely nothing.

His military record speaks volumes.

We were so equal that a senior colonial officer ranked on the same level as the regular British NCO. Equality my ass.

Are you willfully misinterpreting me? A British Colonist with a regular commission was equal to an Englishman with a regular commission.

You are equating the professional troops of what then was the largest colonial empire on the planet with a bunch of colonists? Really?

Again, you are reading forward. The Greatest Colonial Power at this time was France, not Britain, and the "professional" British Army was forged later in the Iberian Wars. During the Revolutionary War British units were still regularly raised and disbanded. Howe's army would have been built around a core of experienced units and newly raised battalions.

They were mostly farmers some of whom had served in the military at one point in their lives.

During this period Battalions raised in omerset had the same make up. Battalions raised in Liverpool were dock workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...olutionary_War

Note the number of "Volunteer" units.

If the crown wasn't fulfilling its duties to its subjects, then it seems that the term traitor seems overly negative.

The Crown fulfilled all its duties to the Colonists, including defending them from Indians and the French. Then they asked the Colonists to pay, the rich ones that is. The Colonial Aristocracy didn't like that, so they rebelled.

[rvg]

...Before the Revolution most the of the population couldn't vote, and they still couldn't after the revolution...

After the Revolution every free man was entitled to vote.

In fact, I think you'll find the UK was ahead of the US there as well as in matters of slavery.

True, but not relevant.

Meh, I just don't think he should be lorded as a secular saint.

Of course not, but no reason to badmouth him either.

His military record speaks volumes.

Care to elaborate?

Are you willfully misinterpreting me? A British Colonist with a regular commission was equal to an Englishman with a regular commission.

No, I am willfully contradicting you. One reason why Washington limited his participation in the French and Indian campaigns: he didn't want to do it as a colonial officer, since even the most junior regular officer would outrank him. He found it humiliating and rightfully so.

Again, you are reading forward. The Greatest Colonial Power at this time was France, not Britain

This is arguable, since by 1770 France was completely kicked off the North American continent. Furthermore, be it first colonial superpower or the next one, Britain had a lot more in terms of resources, manpower and deployment ability than the colonists.

and the "professional" British Army was forged later in the Iberian Wars. During the Revolutionary War British units were still regularly raised and disbanded. Howe's army would have been built around a core of experienced units and newly raised battalions.

They have plenty of manpower. They refused to properly engage the manpower because they underestimated the rebellion, but that's another story. Sending mercenaries to crush the rebellion was their prerogative but hardly their only option.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".

He held a commission from his King and he rebelled, that makes him a traitor. This was a war over tax policy, not abject Tyranny.

What's wrong with that?

Who said "wrong"?

Considering that they pretty much begged him to run for the second term, he did even that very reluctantly. Furthermore, during the war there was a sentiment in the Continental Army to install Washington as king. They informed him of that and his reply was something along the lines of "considering it unthinkable that after spending so much time, effort and blood to fight one tyranny, we would replace it with another." So much for being a megalomaniac.

Except that Washington craved status, not raw power. That fact that he could remain President for life satisfied that need in spades.

That was actually the whole reason for the revolution:the British Crown refused to treat us as equals, so we ditched it. Defending one's dignity is not political opportunism.

That's factually wrong. A British Colonist was a British subject, just like in the UK. A new arrival in the Colonies could run for the Colony's Assembly and a Colonist in the UK could run for Parliament. By and large the Colonies were self governing, albeit that the executive was a Governor from London.

There was no inequality of individuals, the issue was over how the Colonies should pay for the quartering of British soldiers. It's worth pointing out that many of those "intollerable" Acts went down fine elsewhere in the Empire

He led an army of ragtag civilians-turned-soldiers to confront a well trained, well supplied fighting force that had also enjoyed complete domination of the seas. Washington did extremely well in his situation.

You're reading forward and making the mistake of believing that the Army that fought Napoleon was the same one that fought Washington, it wasn't. Nor was the British Navy at this time the one Nelson would command decades later. America's French allies gave the Royal Navy a drubbing and Washington's Army were regular soldiers just like the British, and just like the British they were a mix of veterans of the Indian wars and newly raised recruits.

[rvg]

He held a commission from his King and he rebelled, that makes him a traitor. This was a war over tax policy, not abject Tyranny.

The tax policy was the manifestation of British tyranny.

Who said "wrong"?

You certainly implied it. You're obviously viewing it with a negative connotation.

Except that Washington craved status, not raw power. That fact that he could remain President for life satisfied that need in spades.

That's pure speculation on your part backed up by absolutely nothing.

That's factually wrong. A British Colonist was a British subject, just like in the UK. A new arrival in the Colonies could run for the Colony's Assembly and a Colonist in the UK could run for Parliament. By and large the Colonies were self governing, albeit that the executive was a Governor from London.

There was no inequality of individuals, the issue was over how the Colonies should pay for the quartering of British soldiers. It's worth pointing out that many of those "intollerable" Acts went down fine elsewhere in the Empire

We were so equal that a senior colonial officer ranked on the same level as the regular British NCO. Equality my ass.

You're reading forward and making the mistake of believing that the Army that fought Napoleon was the same one that fought Washington, it wasn't. Nor was the British Navy at this time the one Nelson would command decades later.

You are equating the professional troops of what then was the largest colonial empire on the planet with a bunch of colonists? Really?

America's French allies gave the Royal Navy a drubbing

Yes, the French were instrumental. Enlisting their help was smart politics.

...and Washington's Army were regular soldiers just like the British, and just like the British they were a mix of veterans of the Indian wars and newly raised recruits...

They were mostly farmers some of whom had served in the military at one point in their lives.