Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[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]

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

[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.