Results 1 to 30 of 157

Thread: Judging History (branch off from election thread)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Judging History (branch off from election thread)

    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.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  2. #2
    Upstanding Member rvg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    3,818

    Default Re: Judging History (branch off from election thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    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.
    "And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman

    “The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett

  3. #3
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Judging History (branch off from election thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by rvg View Post
    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.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  4. #4
    Upstanding Member rvg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    3,818

    Default Re: Judging History (branch off from election thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    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.
    "And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman

    “The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett

  5. #5
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

    Default Re: Judging History (branch off from election thread)

    Someone forgot his lesson on Jacksonion democracy. That fact a limey is whipping a Yankee at his own history is sad
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  6. #6
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,408
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Judging History (branch off from election thread)

    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...
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  7. #7
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Judging History (branch off from election thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by rvg View Post
    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.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  8. #8
    Upstanding Member rvg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    3,818

    Default Re: Judging History (branch off from election thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    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.
    "And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman

    “The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett

  9. #9
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Judging History (branch off from election thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by rvg View Post
    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.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  10. #10

    Default Re: Judging History (branch off from election thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    No, we were just a lot less racist.


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

  11. #11
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Judging History (branch off from election thread)

    Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger View Post


    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.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO