Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[rvg]

@rvg: rose tinted glassses?
Re: George Washington look at his track record when he still lead British troops against the American Indians. Not particularly awe inspiring that one.

What's wrong with it?

Re: equality: places such as Manchester paid more in taxes and had if possible even less representation for the ordinary folk. Parliament in those days didn't mean that because you paid taxes you were somehow able to influence an MP. The representatives of then would make the current crop of Congress critters blush.

Doesn't matter. The point is that the colonists were treated like second class citizens and they didn't like it one bit.

American Independence was ostensibly about "no taxation without representation" but in the same manner the Dutch ostensibly fought for "religious freedom" in the 16th century. The difference being that American Independence was fought over in a time of newspapers and public sympathy rooting for the Americans.

We didn't fight for publicity. Publicity was the result of our struggle, not the cause of it.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Strike For The South]

[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.

[Greyblades]

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

That's not really a duty, more a concession earned by force through several rebellions and treaties between the kings of england and the noblility over multiple centuries, and even then it was only given to those who either were in position of power and influence enough to force the issue, from my understanding parliment was pretty elitist.
I would like to add that I do not think the american colonies shouldnt have been represented, personally I do find myself confused at parliment's reluctance to accept american MP's considering the amount of the british economy they controled.
Though going from "we want american MP's" to "we want independance" was a bit much of an unneccissary leap on congress' part in my opinion considering thier victory in the war could have easily forced parliment into giving them representation.

[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]

After the Revolution every free man was entitled to vote.

Factually incorrect, only those with property of sufficient value held in their own name could vote, exactly the same as England.

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

You should hear me on Wellington, a man who shared many of Washington's charactaristics - good and bad.

Care to elaborate?

Injins.

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.

Failure to secure a regular commission on Washington's part appears to have been due to a lack of funds or connections, not being a Colonist. Other Colonists served as regular officers - Consider 105th American Volunteers - a Loyalist unit during the Revolution.

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.

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.

The French situation is arguable, the manpower and resources one is not. Washington held his army together long enough to bleed the British, not beat them. New York and it's environs remained in British hands until after the war.

[rvg]

Factually incorrect, only those with property of sufficient value held in their own name could vote, exactly the same as England.

It started almost immediately. In New Hampshire for example, all white men could vote as early as 1792.

You should hear me on Wellington, a man who shared many of Washington's charactaristics - good and bad.

I'm not debating your right to badmouth Washington, only the logic behind it.

Injins.

We fought a war. They fought on the side of the enemy. We killed them. I do not see a problem here.

Failure to secure a regular commission on Washington's part appears to have been due to a lack of funds or connections, not being a Colonist. Other Colonists served as regular officers - Consider 105th American Volunteers - a Loyalist unit during the Revolution.

Couldn't be picky once the Revolution began, though it was too late by then.

The French situation is arguable, the manpower and resources one is not. Washington held his army together long enough to bleed the British, not beat them. New York and it's environs remained in British hands until after the war.

As long as the goal was achieved, it's all good.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It started almost immediately. In New Hampshire for example, all white men could vote as early as 1792.

But wasn't finished until 1860, and then there's still blacks and women. By contrast, Blacks were never denied the vote in England.

I'm not debating your right to badmouth Washington, only the logic behind it.

The logic is, these men were not exactly nice people.

We fought a war. They fought on the side of the enemy. We killed them. I do not see a problem here.

You took their land, gave them diseases, then burned their remaining villages, man woman and child.

Couldn't be picky once the Revolution began, though it was too late by then.

Not at all, the point is that Washington failed to secure a regular commission but other American Colonists did succeed before and during the revolution. We were talking about megalomania before.

[rvg]

By contrast, Blacks were never denied the vote in England.

Right. You know where else they were never denied the vote? Imperial Russia. It's easy not to deny something to Blacks when you have none or very few of them around.

The logic is, these men were not exactly nice people.

Doesn't make them bad people though.

You took their land, gave them diseases, then burned their remaining villages, man woman and child.

They killed a bunch of us as well. Either way, most of that was done after Washington's death.

Not at all, the point is that Washington failed to secure a regular commission but other American Colonists did succeed before and during the revolution. We were talking about megalomania before.

My point is that a colonial Officer of one rank was not equal to the Regular officer of the same rank.

[Strike For The South]

Someone forgot his lesson on Jacksonion democracy. That fact a limey is whipping a Yankee at his own history is sad

[Greyblades]

Well it's kinda both our histories, as much as our education system may ignore it. bunch of jerks making me study the canal and road expansions grumble, grumble...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Right. You know where else they were never denied the vote? Imperial Russia. It's easy not to deny something to Blacks when you have none or very few of them around.

No, we were just a lot less racist. The only time we have ever had any form of racial segregation in the UK was during WWII to prevent fights between White American servicemen and everyone else. Let me spell that out for you:

Black G.I. orders pint in pub, white G.I. tells him to get out, barman throws White G.I. into street.

Not to say we had no racist here, but with very few exceptions all his majesty's common subjects were equal before the law.

Also, listen to Strike if you don't believe me.

Doesn't make them bad people though.

Did I say that? I said Washington was a traitor to his King, I didn't pass judgement on that fact.

As it is, I feel the reaction of the Continental Congress was.... excessive, but King George was having one of his funny turns and his ministers lacked His Majesty's common touch. If George III had been in better health perhaps he would have made a trip to the Colonies to see for himself, and the war would have been avoided.

They killed a bunch of us as well. Either way, most of that was done after Washington's death.

Washington did those things in Virginia before the war, and later during. If he was a model American soldier and statesman he has a lot to answer for. Compare the treatment ofNative Americans in Canada and the US - at least the Candaian authorities had the courtesy to sign intollerable treaties the Natives had to break, rather than break the treaties themselves.

My point is that a colonial Officer of one rank was not equal to the Regular officer of the same rank.

So what? A Yeoman Officer in England wasn't either.

[rvg]

No, we were just a lot less racist. The only time we have ever had any form of racial segregation in the UK was during WWII to prevent fights between White American servicemen and everyone else. Let me spell that out for you:

Black G.I. orders pint in pub, white G.I. tells him to get out, barman throws White G.I. into street.

Not to say we had no racist here, but with very few exceptions all his majesty's common subjects were equal before the law.

Washington. George Washington. 18th century, not 20th.

Also, listen to Strike if you don't believe me.

No can't do. He's on my ignore list.

Did I say that? I said Washington was a traitor to his King, I didn't pass judgement on that fact.

You're certainly portraying it as Washington's character flaw.

As it is, I feel the reaction of the Continental Congress was.... excessive, but King George was having one of his funny turns and his ministers lacked His Majesty's common touch. If George III had been in better health perhaps he would have made a trip to the Colonies to see for himself, and the war would have been avoided.

Either way, what's done is done.

Washington did those things in Virginia before the war, and later during. If he was a model American soldier and statesman he has a lot to answer for.

What he did wasn't anything out of the ordinary. It is kinda ridiculous to hold him up to today's moral standards. Besides, Indians were far from peaceful towards Whites. Mostly because there was about zero level of understanding of one another's culture and viewpoints, but in the end it was a mutual war of extermination. Colonists were simply better at it.

Compare the treatment ofNative Americans in Canada and the US - at least the Candaian authorities had the courtesy to sign intollerable treaties the Natives had to break, rather than break the treaties themselves.

i.e. they weren't any better.

So what? A Yeoman Officer in England wasn't either.

And I salute him for his resolve and loyalty that compel him to bend his back and properly serve his betters. Meanwhile, those New World rascals had other ideas.

[PanzerJaeger]

No, we were just a lot less racist.

Not taking sides in the Washington debate, but that is patently absurd.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not taking sides in the Washington debate, but that is patently absurd.

My family never had slaves - we used them in the colonies but not in the UK. That might be swivel-eyed on the part of the higher-ups, but the result is that the only Africans most British people ever saw were free men, and English and Scottish law reflect the resulting (relative) colour blindness. If you've been following me and Gaelic in another thread you might appreciate that the white Irish Catholic had as many if not more cultural and legal prejudices against him as the black Carribean or American Protestant.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Washington. George Washington. 18th century, not 20th.

And 200 years later things hadn't changed much. There have always been Africans mixing with Englishmen in the UK, ever since the 16th Century - in the Navy, in Bristol and London. Why do you think there are such African populations there?

No can't do. He's on my ignore list.

Your loss.

You're certainly portraying it as Washington's character flaw.

That depends on your perspective, on whether you think the regime in the Colonies was actually intollerable, but more importantly it depends what Washington thought.

Either way, what's done is done.

Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it, those who read it and misunderstand it are simply doomed.

The American Colonists fought a brutal and bloody Civil War (Loyalist forces roughly equalled Patriot forces in the beginning) over the tax regime imposed by London. Now you can't balance the books because of the inability of Washington to agree a serious tax regime over 200 years later.

What happened during the Revolutionary War and it's aftermath is important. I submit that America is still run by the elite who started the rebellion because they refused to pay their taxes, and they still refuse to pay their taxes.

What he did wasn't anything out of the ordinary. It is kinda ridiculous to hold him up to today's moral standards. Besides, Indians were far from peaceful towards Whites. Mostly because there was about zero level of understanding of one another's culture and viewpoints, but in the end it was a mutual war of extermination. Colonists were simply better at it.

Again, reading back - find my a massacre against Native Americans carried out by a British Officer.

i.e. they weren't any better.

A matter of Opinion, you would have to ask Megas - but at least British Canadian officals dealt by legal treaty.

And I salute him for his resolve and loyalty that compel him to bend his back and properly serve his betters. Meanwhile, those New World rascals had other ideas.

The Yeomanry were the English militia, not some sort of slave army. A Yeomanry officer would likely be of the same social class as a regular one, the same social class as Washington himself.

[rvg]

And 200 years later things hadn't changed much. There have always been Africans mixing with Englishmen in the UK, ever since the 16th Century - in the Navy, in Bristol and London. Why do you think there are such African populations there?

This has nothing to do with Washington. We can argue all day about racist Amurcans but that would be straying from our original topic.

That depends on your perspective, on whether you think the regime in the Colonies was actually intollerable, but more importantly it depends what Washington thought.

Which means that there's no accurate way to judge him.

Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it, those who read it and misunderstand it are simply doomed.

The American Colonists fought a brutal and bloody Civil War (Loyalist forces roughly equalled Patriot forces in the beginning) over the tax regime imposed by London. Now you can't balance the books because of the inability of Washington to agree a serious tax regime over 200 years later.

What happened during the Revolutionary War and it's aftermath is important. I submit that America is still run by the elite who started the rebellion because they refused to pay their taxes, and they still refuse to pay their taxes.

We have no regrets. Thank you for your concern though, but really, no regrets whatsoever.

Again, reading back - find my a massacre against Native Americans carried out by a British Officer.

How about the other Indians? The Amritsar Massacre of 1919 comes to mind.

A matter of Opinion, you would have to ask Megas - but at least British Canadian officals dealt by legal treaty.

Exactly, a matter of opinion.

The Yeomanry were the English militia, not some sort of slave army. A Yeomanry officer would likely be of the same social class as a regular one, the same social class as Washington himself.

Like I said, their subservience is exemplary. That doesn't mean that the colonists across the ocean would be enthusiastic about replicating it.

[gaelic cowboy]

My interest has been piqued by PVC's assertion that Washington missed out on a regular commission, that is I think a very significant factor in his later outlook.

It has been said but I wouldn't have any proof apart from the first line on his wiki entry that Wolfe Tone missed out on a regular commission in Hawaii.

Effectively he wanted to found a military colony on the island but it was rejected by Pitt, his father was very much against a commission anyway so he became a barrister instead.

Later of course he threw his lot in with the late 18th century revolutionary thought that swept France, USA and Ireland.

I guessing that there was a lot more going on here than just a few minor aristocracy and merchant classes bumping up against a glass ceiling. Basically the English fell into an enlarged empire without any thought about effective administration of the masses, the Union of Great Britain and Ireland was the first proper attempt to solve this. (it failed utterly to do its job)

[Strike For The South]

No can't do. He's on my ignore list.

Apparently me and the historiography

Phillips assertions are not wild. The only thing his critiuqe is missing is the schathing Marxist rhetoric that usually comes part and parcel with these.

I do take issue with a fair few of his points but due to the duration of the conversation I have lost my earlier inclinations

The idea that the Brits were "less racist" is absurd. The idea that the Brits were at the cutting edge of enfranchisement is also absurd. The British were able to reconcile granting base liberties to others becuase their world veiw was colored by class. The idea that liberty should be extended to all civilzed men fits nicely within the zeitiglest.

Americans could not frame it in such a way and were forced into other avenues.

The founders did not truly beleive in the common man like they are portrayed. I certainly wouldn't be so overly critical of them like PVC is. If nothing else they should be rewarded for not turning an enlightenment revolution into an orgy of blood and immorality (I'm looking at you Robisperre)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This has nothing to do with Washington. We can argue all day about racist Amurcans but that would be straying from our original topic.

No, this is about your "freedom vs Tyranny" narrative. You're right, if you're a white male property holder - otherwise not so much.

Which means that there's no accurate way to judge him.

That depends on what you are judging, and your sources - Washington's personal papers offer you a way to judge his character, but his actions can be judged simply. He had held a Colonial Commission, he would therefore have been required to Swear. He broke his Oath to King and Country and Rebelled against his regally established ruler and Parliament, not to mention his Colony's Governor, though I'll grant you that said Governor had an unfortunate habit of disolving the Assembly.

We have no regrets. Thank you for your concern though, but really, no regrets whatsoever.

but you do have a constant hang up about taxation and government, an argument led by the rich for the rich. Appreciating your history puts that into perspective.

How about the other Indians? The Amritsar Massacre of 1919 comes to mind.

You found one Officer in the twitchy post-War era who was subsequently removed from post and forced to retire. Obviously, 20 years later he would have been court marshalled, but he was at least punished.

Like I said, their subservience is exemplary. That doesn't mean that the colonists across the ocean would be enthusiastic about replicating it.

Failure to obey the orders of your superiors is insubordination - during this period militia were subordinate to Regular army, they were not "subserviant". You're just being silly to try and get a rise out of me.

I suppose you imagine there was some great class divide. Hardly - Washington could have gone to school in England and thence into the Army, or directly into the Navy. The latter was more-or-less a meritocracy at this point.

My interest has been piqued by PVC's assertion that Washington missed out on a regular commission, that is I think a very significant factor in his later outlook.

It has been said but I wouldn't have any proof apart from the first line on his wiki entry that Wolfe Tone missed out on a regular commission in Hawaii.

Effectively he wanted to found a military colony on the island but it was rejected by Pitt, his father was very much against a commission anyway so he became a barrister instead.

Later of course he threw his lot in with the late 18th century revolutionary thought that swept France, USA and Ireland.

I guessing that there was a lot more going on here than just a few minor aristocracy and merchant classes bumping up against a glass ceiling. Basically the English fell into an enlarged empire without any thought about effective administration of the masses, the Union of Great Britain and Ireland was the first proper attempt to solve this. (it failed utterly to do its job)

Failed in Malta too. I think Britain learned to treat colonists properly only after the Falklands War, prior to which Thatcher's government planned to screw them over too. You're absolutely right about the failure to properly integrate the Colonies into British rule, the final Solution was, and is, Commonwealth and self-rule. Although, I expect the original plan was for london to retain some form of overaching control.

Apparently me and the historiography

Phillips assertions are not wild. The only thing his critiuqe is missing is the schathing Marxist rhetoric that usually comes part and parcel with these.

I do take issue with a fair few of his points but due to the duration of the conversation I have lost my earlier inclinations

The idea that the Brits were "less racist" is absurd. The idea that the Brits were at the cutting edge of enfranchisement is also absurd. The British were able to reconcile granting base liberties to others becuase their world veiw was colored by class. The idea that liberty should be extended to all civilzed men fits nicely within the zeitiglest.

Americans could not frame it in such a way and were forced into other avenues.

The founders did not truly beleive in the common man like they are portrayed. I certainly wouldn't be so overly critical of them like PVC is. If nothing else they should be rewarded for not turning an enlightenment revolution into an orgy of blood and immorality (I'm looking at you Robisperre)

Yes, I'll give you that. The cynical prediction that the Americans would establish their own Dukes within twenty years never came to pass and I'm sure the character of the original Founding Fathers is in large part responsible for that.

However, I should like to see evidence that there was a more comprehensive franchise after the Reform Act 1867

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867

[rvg]

No, this is about your "freedom vs Tyranny" narrative. You're right, if you're a white male property holder - otherwise not so much.

Had to start somewhere.

but you do have a constant hang up about taxation and government, an argument led by the rich for the rich. Appreciating your history puts that into perspective.

It's not about money, it was never about money, it was about principles. The last incarnation of British taxes on imported goods (with tea being amongst those) was purely symbolic. Knowing how unpopular import taxes were, the crown made them so low that anyone who could afford to buy imported goods would have barely noticed the tax. The people still did not accept that. It wasn't because the tax was outrageously high, it was because of principles. Principles matter. They did back then and they do now.

You found one Officer in the twitchy post-War era who was subsequently removed from post and forced to retire. Obviously, 20 years later he would have been court marshalled, but he was at least punished.

You wanted an example and I gave you one.

Failure to obey the orders of your superiors is insubordination - during this period militia were subordinate to Regular army, they were not "subserviant". You're just being silly to try and get a rise out of me.

I suppose you imagine there was some great class divide. Hardly - Washington could have gone to school in England and thence into the Army, or directly into the Navy. The latter was more-or-less a meritocracy at this point.

Look, just because that was the way things were doesn't mean that it was just. All I'm pointing out is the injustice of the status quo and Washington's utter refusal to accept that injustice.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Had to start somewhere.

Yes, but the point is you didn't get anywhere fast. In 1832 King William IV forced the House of Lords to pass the Great Reform Act and in 1867 the Reform act effectively gave the franchise to all adult males. Meanwhile, even in the 1770's setiment was moving towards increasing autonomy for the the Colonial Dominions, so if the 13 Colonies had not rebelled by 1870ish you'd probably have a situation where they were mostly self governing (remember the Colonies already had democratic assemblies) with a broad franchise. As it was, you didn't achieve anything like universal sufferage until after WWII.

It's not about money, it was never about money, it was about principles. The last incarnation of British taxes on imported goods (with tea being amongst those) was purely symbolic. Knowing how unpopular import taxes were, the crown made them so low that anyone who could afford to buy imported goods would have barely noticed the tax. The people still did not accept that. It wasn't because the tax was outrageously high, it was because of principles. Principles matter. They did back then and they do now.

The Revolution was not a majority cause, 30% supported it, 30% opposed it and 40% were apathetic. Despite what has been said, the regime was not Tyranical and an accomodation could have been reached. That is not to say the Revolutionary War was bad for America, and certainly America has done very well in the subsequent centuries but that in no war means the war was necessary are particularly justified.

I would submit to you that:

A: The Founding Fathers were explicitely anti-democratic and were concerned not with principles but with economic autonomy. The US Constitution, and particularly the Electoral College, were explicitely designed to prevent the masses from gaining control of the government. Given the current havoc the Tea-Party is reeking on your finances I must say I am sympathetic to the sentiment and objective.

and

B: The Continental Congress was highjacked by Merchant princes who feared future taxes cutting into their profits and by political radicals who wanted to create a new Enlightenment State.

You wanted an example and I gave you one.

It is not the same as a planned massacre of women and Children such as were carried out in the Americas. It was essentially a botched Police Action enacted by a single officer without higher authorisation.

Look, just because that was the way things were doesn't mean that it was just. All I'm pointing out is the injustice of the status quo and Washington's utter refusal to accept that injustice.

There were injustices in the Americas, particularly in the power of the Colonial Governors which exceeded the analogous powers of the King, but Washington not recieving a Regular Commission, nore his lack of seniority as a Colonial Officer were not among them. Let me state this again, it was the nature of Washington's Commission, not Washington's birth, which dictated his station.

[Greyblades]

You're just being silly to try and get a rise out of me.

Seriously, this guy just doesnt get pissed no matter how stupid or inflamatory the argument.

The Revolution was not a majority cause, 30% supported it, 30% opposed it and 40% were apathetic. Despite what has been said, the regime was not Tyranical and an accomodation could have been reached. That is not to say the Revolutionary War was bad for America, and certainly America has done very well in the subsequent centuries but that in no war means the war was necessary are particularly justified.

An interesting point is that if the americans stayed with britain it wouldnt have become the superpower it is today, by becoming a seperate nation without loyalties to a preexisting power it became the go to place for the entire world's worth of people wanting a new life. If it had stayed it wouldnt have had the huge influx of manpower, culture and radical thinkers and might just be another unimportant american colony in the vein of mexico and brazil.

[rvg]

Yes, but the point is you didn't get anywhere fast. In 1832 King William IV forced the House of Lords to pass the Great Reform Act and in 1867 the Reform act effectively gave the franchise to all adult males.

We were a year behind when the 14th Amendment extended citizenship (and thus voting rights) to all men born in the U.S. regardless of race.

Meanwhile, even in the 1770's setiment was moving towards increasing autonomy for the the Colonial Dominions, so if the 13 Colonies had not rebelled by 1870ish you'd probably have a situation where they were mostly self governing (remember the Colonies already had democratic assemblies) with a broad franchise. As it was, you didn't achieve anything like universal sufferage until after WWII.

Why wait for freedom to be granted to you when you can take it yourself?

The Revolution was not a majority cause, 30% supported it, 30% opposed it and 40% were apathetic. Despite what has been said, the regime was not Tyranical and an accomodation could have been reached. That is not to say the Revolutionary War was bad for America, and certainly America has done very well in the subsequent centuries but that in no war means the war was necessary are particularly justified.

Coudln't wait for respect forever. There was no indication of any sort of understanding coming from London.

I would submit to you that:

A: The Founding Fathers were explicitely anti-democratic and were concerned not with principles but with economic autonomy. The US Constitution, and particularly the Electoral College, were explicitely designed to prevent the masses from gaining control of the government. Given the current havoc the Tea-Party is reeking on your finances I must say I am sympathetic to the sentiment and objective.

and

B: The Continental Congress was highjacked by Merchant princes who feared future taxes cutting into their profits and by political radicals who wanted to create a new Enlightenment State.

You look at who they were and I look at what they did. For starters, they managed to forge and implement the best Constitution the world had ever seen.

It is not the same as a planned massacre of women and Children such as were carried out in the Americas. It was essentially a botched Police Action enacted by a single officer without higher authorisation.

Planned or not, death is death.

There were injustices in the Americas, particularly in the power of the Colonial Governors which exceeded the analogous powers of the King, but Washington not recieving a Regular Commission, nore his lack of seniority as a Colonial Officer were not among them. Let me state this again, it was the nature of Washington's Commission, not Washington's birth, which dictated his station.

Colonial troops fought and bled the same way as the regulars. There was no reason to discriminate against them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We were a year behind when the 14th Amendment extended citizenship (and thus voting rights) to all men born in the U.S. regardless of race.

So the Revolution didn't do much for political equality, especially since legal Apartied continued into the 1960's. In any case, citizenship did not necessarily equate to "voting rights" because the US had applied property qualifications to citizen sufferage in the past. In any case, as I have already said, there was never a racially discrimination between British Subjects in the UK, so that's not something to crow about.

Why wait for freedom to be granted to you when you can take it yourself?

Why fight a brutal Civil War when you can live in peace and negotiate?

Coudln't wait for respect forever. There was no indication of any sort of understanding coming from London.

That is patently not true, as you yourself have admitted the London had already compromised on the tax issue, and Howe was authorised to negotiate, it was the Patriots you declared "give me liberty or give me death."

I agree with the central thesis that Parliament could not tax a territory which did not return MP's, but it follows that Parliament should not really be spending British taxes on expensive wars in the Colonies. Ergo, the Colonies should pay for their own defence - something they were incapable of in the face of the French.

You look at who they were and I look at what they did. For starters, they managed to forge and implement the best Constitution the world had ever seen.

Objectively, this is clearly not true. The original US Constitution is a seriously flawed document from the perspective establishing "Freedom" and you had to have another Civil War to sort it out.

Having said that, the current settlemet in the US, at least until 20 years ago, exemplery. Possibly time for another tune up though.

Planned or not, death is death.

True, but not the point. Particularly if you were to ask Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse, who were murdered during Parlay.

Colonial troops fought and bled the same way as the regulars. There was no reason to discriminate against them.

They were not Disciminated against.

I don't know how many different ways to explain this to you.

A British Colonist was a British Subject, the same as a man born in England. Washington could have gone to England, or entered the Navy as a Midshipman the same as a man from Kent or Devon. What he did instead was fought in the Colonial militia - as such he had a Commission from the Colonial Governor, not the King. A Royal Commission takes precidence over EVERYTHING, and that is the end of the argument. Later, Line Regiments with Regular Officers were raised in the Colonies, other American Regiments were added to the Order of Battle, like the 105th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Ame...ers_of_Ireland)

If Washington had brought the Virginia Regiment to the Loyalist side he would have recieved a Regular Commission.