Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[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.

[rvg]

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.

By the 1860s property requirements for voting purposes were ancient history. Citizenship was the universal factor that granted voting rights.

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

Events like the Boston Massacre leave little room for negotiation.

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."

Too little, too late.

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.

The interpretation of freedom might have been flawed at the time, but the Constitution itself had it right from the beginning.

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

Crazy Horse had plenty of blood on his hands.

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

By then he didn't want it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

By the 1860s property requirements for voting purposes were ancient history. Citizenship was the universal factor that granted voting rights.

Yes, but you still had the Apartied.

Events like the Boston Massacre leave little room for negotiation.

Yes, well people pelting soldiers with snowballs and rocks does put a pall on things.

Five men is not a massacre.

Too little, too late.

Apparently so.

The interpretation of freedom might have been flawed at the time, but the Constitution itself had it right from the beginning.

It was basically the same interpretation as the King of England had - but you elect your Kings.

[quote]Crazy Horse had plenty of blood on his hands.

OK, you can have another WTF LOL for that one - especially since you've spent the last few pages defending a man's right to bloody insurrection in the cause of Freedom. Crazy Horse's people were facing cultural annihalation at best.

By then he didn't want it.

Since way of not backing down.

Not the point, is it?

[rvg]

Yes, but you still had the Apartied.

Doesn't matter.

Yes, well people pelting soldiers with snowballs and rocks does put a pall on things.

Five men is not a massacre.

Life's cheap when it's not your people that are getting killed.

It was basically the same interpretation as the King of England had - but you elect your Kings.

And not for life. And we hold them accountable to the people.

OK, you can have another WTF LOL for that one - especially since you've spent the last few pages defending a man's right to bloody insurrection in the cause of Freedom. Crazy Horse's people were facing cultural annihalation at best.

He lost though. We couldn't coexist in peace, someone had to go.

Not the point, is it?

Then why bring up a hypothetical situation?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Doesn't matter.

Yes it does. Your vaunted Republic was hideously flawed, and the scars of that remain to this day. You think it's a coincidence that the first Black President has no "African American" blood?

Life's cheap when it's not your people that are getting killed.

They were the same people that's the bloody point! [infraction please]

British subject attacked British soldiers, read the entry on wiki. Hell, there was a deposition afterwards. It wasn't a small incident for the Army. It remains "not a massacre" however, Bloody Sunday was a massacre.

And not for life. And we hold them accountable to the people.

From where I'm sitting you have two parties and they switch every eight years - unless one side REALLY screws up.

He lost though. We couldn't coexist in peace, someone had to go.

That's because you killed all his Buffalo, stole his land, put his children into cultural re-education schools and broke the treaties you made with him; repeatedly.

To this day large swathes of America are technically illegally held by either the Federal Government or settles in violation of Treaties the Federal Government signed with the Native American Tribes.

Then why bring up a hypothetical situation?

To help illustrate that this is not an issue of "Colonialism" or "subservience" - it is merely one of Order of Precidence.

[rvg]

Yes it does. Your vaunted Republic was hideously flawed, and the scars of that remain to this day. You think it's a coincidence that the first Black President has no "African American" blood?

Flawed? Perhaps. Better than any alternative? Absolutely.

They were the same people that's the bloody point! [infraction please]
British subject attacked British soldiers, read the entry on wiki. Hell, there was a deposition afterwards. It wasn't a small incident for the Army. It remains "not a massacre" however, Bloody Sunday was a massacre.

Oh please. We were the pond scum: indentured servants, religious cultists, political dissidents, disgraced aristocrats and other misfits. America was a human trash pile, perhaps a notch above Australia, but that's about it. And it was treated accordingly.

From where I'm sitting you have two parties and they switch every eight years - unless one side REALLY screws up.

A democracy nonetheless.

That's because you killed all his Buffalo, stole his land, put his children into cultural re-education schools and broke the treaties you made with him; repeatedly.

To this day large swathes of America are technically illegally held by either the Federal Government or settles in violation of Treaties the Federal Government signed with the Native American Tribes.

I did no such thing.