Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[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.