Quote Originally Posted by rvg View Post
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.