Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This has nothing to do with Washington. We can argue all day about racist Amurcans but that would be straying from our original topic.

No, this is about your "freedom vs Tyranny" narrative. You're right, if you're a white male property holder - otherwise not so much.

Which means that there's no accurate way to judge him.

That depends on what you are judging, and your sources - Washington's personal papers offer you a way to judge his character, but his actions can be judged simply. He had held a Colonial Commission, he would therefore have been required to Swear. He broke his Oath to King and Country and Rebelled against his regally established ruler and Parliament, not to mention his Colony's Governor, though I'll grant you that said Governor had an unfortunate habit of disolving the Assembly.

We have no regrets. Thank you for your concern though, but really, no regrets whatsoever.

but you do have a constant hang up about taxation and government, an argument led by the rich for the rich. Appreciating your history puts that into perspective.

How about the other Indians? The Amritsar Massacre of 1919 comes to mind.

You found one Officer in the twitchy post-War era who was subsequently removed from post and forced to retire. Obviously, 20 years later he would have been court marshalled, but he was at least punished.

Like I said, their subservience is exemplary. That doesn't mean that the colonists across the ocean would be enthusiastic about replicating it.

Failure to obey the orders of your superiors is insubordination - during this period militia were subordinate to Regular army, they were not "subserviant". You're just being silly to try and get a rise out of me.

I suppose you imagine there was some great class divide. Hardly - Washington could have gone to school in England and thence into the Army, or directly into the Navy. The latter was more-or-less a meritocracy at this point.

My interest has been piqued by PVC's assertion that Washington missed out on a regular commission, that is I think a very significant factor in his later outlook.

It has been said but I wouldn't have any proof apart from the first line on his wiki entry that Wolfe Tone missed out on a regular commission in Hawaii.

Effectively he wanted to found a military colony on the island but it was rejected by Pitt, his father was very much against a commission anyway so he became a barrister instead.

Later of course he threw his lot in with the late 18th century revolutionary thought that swept France, USA and Ireland.

I guessing that there was a lot more going on here than just a few minor aristocracy and merchant classes bumping up against a glass ceiling. Basically the English fell into an enlarged empire without any thought about effective administration of the masses, the Union of Great Britain and Ireland was the first proper attempt to solve this. (it failed utterly to do its job)

Failed in Malta too. I think Britain learned to treat colonists properly only after the Falklands War, prior to which Thatcher's government planned to screw them over too. You're absolutely right about the failure to properly integrate the Colonies into British rule, the final Solution was, and is, Commonwealth and self-rule. Although, I expect the original plan was for london to retain some form of overaching control.

Apparently me and the historiography

Phillips assertions are not wild. The only thing his critiuqe is missing is the schathing Marxist rhetoric that usually comes part and parcel with these.

I do take issue with a fair few of his points but due to the duration of the conversation I have lost my earlier inclinations

The idea that the Brits were "less racist" is absurd. The idea that the Brits were at the cutting edge of enfranchisement is also absurd. The British were able to reconcile granting base liberties to others becuase their world veiw was colored by class. The idea that liberty should be extended to all civilzed men fits nicely within the zeitiglest.

Americans could not frame it in such a way and were forced into other avenues.

The founders did not truly beleive in the common man like they are portrayed. I certainly wouldn't be so overly critical of them like PVC is. If nothing else they should be rewarded for not turning an enlightenment revolution into an orgy of blood and immorality (I'm looking at you Robisperre)

Yes, I'll give you that. The cynical prediction that the Americans would establish their own Dukes within twenty years never came to pass and I'm sure the character of the original Founding Fathers is in large part responsible for that.

However, I should like to see evidence that there was a more comprehensive franchise after the Reform Act 1867

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867

[rvg]

No, this is about your "freedom vs Tyranny" narrative. You're right, if you're a white male property holder - otherwise not so much.

Had to start somewhere.

but you do have a constant hang up about taxation and government, an argument led by the rich for the rich. Appreciating your history puts that into perspective.

It's not about money, it was never about money, it was about principles. The last incarnation of British taxes on imported goods (with tea being amongst those) was purely symbolic. Knowing how unpopular import taxes were, the crown made them so low that anyone who could afford to buy imported goods would have barely noticed the tax. The people still did not accept that. It wasn't because the tax was outrageously high, it was because of principles. Principles matter. They did back then and they do now.

You found one Officer in the twitchy post-War era who was subsequently removed from post and forced to retire. Obviously, 20 years later he would have been court marshalled, but he was at least punished.

You wanted an example and I gave you one.

Failure to obey the orders of your superiors is insubordination - during this period militia were subordinate to Regular army, they were not "subserviant". You're just being silly to try and get a rise out of me.

I suppose you imagine there was some great class divide. Hardly - Washington could have gone to school in England and thence into the Army, or directly into the Navy. The latter was more-or-less a meritocracy at this point.

Look, just because that was the way things were doesn't mean that it was just. All I'm pointing out is the injustice of the status quo and Washington's utter refusal to accept that injustice.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Had to start somewhere.

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. 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.

It's not about money, it was never about money, it was about principles. The last incarnation of British taxes on imported goods (with tea being amongst those) was purely symbolic. Knowing how unpopular import taxes were, the crown made them so low that anyone who could afford to buy imported goods would have barely noticed the tax. The people still did not accept that. It wasn't because the tax was outrageously high, it was because of principles. Principles matter. They did back then and they do now.

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.

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 wanted an example and I gave you one.

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.

Look, just because that was the way things were doesn't mean that it was just. All I'm pointing out is the injustice of the status quo and Washington's utter refusal to accept that injustice.

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.

[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?

[Greyblades]

You're just being silly to try and get a rise out of me.

Seriously, this guy just doesnt get pissed no matter how stupid or inflamatory the argument.

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.

An interesting point is that if the americans stayed with britain it wouldnt have become the superpower it is today, by becoming a seperate nation without loyalties to a preexisting power it became the go to place for the entire world's worth of people wanting a new life. If it had stayed it wouldnt have had the huge influx of manpower, culture and radical thinkers and might just be another unimportant american colony in the vein of mexico and brazil.