Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. Except that people who win are generally not dubbed as "traitors". They are called "revolutionaries".

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.

What's wrong with that?

Who said "wrong"?

Considering that they pretty much begged him to run for the second term, he did even that very reluctantly. Furthermore, during the war there was a sentiment in the Continental Army to install Washington as king. They informed him of that and his reply was something along the lines of "considering it unthinkable that after spending so much time, effort and blood to fight one tyranny, we would replace it with another." So much for being a megalomaniac.

Except that Washington craved status, not raw power. That fact that he could remain President for life satisfied that need in spades.

That was actually the whole reason for the revolution:the British Crown refused to treat us as equals, so we ditched it. Defending one's dignity is not political opportunism.

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

He led an army of ragtag civilians-turned-soldiers to confront a well trained, well supplied fighting force that had also enjoyed complete domination of the seas. Washington did extremely well in his situation.

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.

[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.