PDA

View Full Version : OT..American War Of Independence..what if ??



MB_Avro_UK
05-20-2006, 05:13 PM
hi all,

I am not a historian but I have an interest in history.

As far as I understand,the American War of Independence was sparked by the British demand for higher taxes.

The taxes were raised as I understand to fight the French and a couple of other European nations who wanted their Imperial 'slice' of the British 'American colonies'.

If the 'American Colony' had ACCEPTED this tax and a revolution had not taken place how would world history have changed assuming that America had remained a British Colony?

I may be 'off the wall' here but to me this subject is of interest and worthy of a few moments thought.



Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Bearcat99
05-20-2006, 05:23 PM
The break with Britain was inevitable. If not the Stamp Act or the Tea Tax there would have been something else.. the issue of slavery that almost tore the country apart would have most likely been a possible cause...... Not to mention that at the time Europe was carving up the continent like a turkey... that too awas a part of the equation.....

Undertow22
05-20-2006, 05:28 PM
I can't see America staying a colony under the British. The colonists were very independant and didn't really share the same identity as the home country. If it wasn't taxation without representation, it would have been some other gripe....say maybe slavery.

EDIT; Bearcat you read my mind, and you are a faster typer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif You beat me by 5 seconds.

NekoReaperman
05-20-2006, 05:47 PM
au contrare, something like 75% of the colonists wanted to remain under the british crown, and another sizable portion didnt care either way

horseback
05-20-2006, 05:58 PM
The Mustang would STILL have won the war!

Always wanted to be the first to say that in a thread.

Seriously, Bearcat has it right. The psychological change from 'Englishman' to 'American' had already taken place long before the British government decided that the colonies should start paying taxes. The only way that could have been avoided was to have never entered into a period of benign neglect in the first place.

From the early 1600s until the Seven Years' War (what we call the Frech and Indian War), the Crown left the colonists pretty much alone. Telling us to pay for our defense after the poor showing of the British Army (at least where we could see it, here in what are now the States) without giving us seats in the House of Commons was a grave tactical error.

Even had we been given seats in Parliament, as I said, the psychological change was already made, and the dye was cast. 1776 or later, a break became ineveitable by the time Charles II was invited back.

cheers

horseback

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-20-2006, 06:15 PM
During the English Civil war (1640's), amongst the most fervent and effective religious preachers for the Parliamentarians were American colonists who made the trip over to spread their revolutionary zeal. I think from this you can sense the seeds of dissent had been sown in the colonies, or amongst certain groups of colonists anyway.

Chuck_Older
05-20-2006, 06:18 PM
I grew up in Boston. I live there now. One of the last remaining bright spots of life in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (did you know that technically, there are only 48 States? Virginia and Massachusetts are Commonwealths) is the History. I can go to a Museum tomorrow, about 5 miles from the keyboard I'm tapping on, and see some of Paul Revere's silver work. I can visit Lexington and Concord anythime I like, and I can tell you what happened at Breed's Hill. Actually, my Father has in his possesion a relic of that 'battle'- a powder horn with a sketch of the fight scratched on it, made by a Colonial participant

Bearcat and horseback have pretty good insights on this. I'd like to add though:

Some of our Founding Fathers were quite opportunistic. There was a reason some of them left England.

Take John Hancock for example. Hancock was all but a Tory until it became clear he couldn't continue to bribe English authorities to look the other way when his shady shipments came in. So- Down with the King's rule in the Colonies!

Really, many of the guys in organizations like the Sons of Liberty were just rabble rousers. 'No Taxation without Representation' was a convenient, if nontheless accurate, chord to strike for men like Hancock who saw opportunity show it's face.

In my opinion, the break with England would have come later if it hadn't happened sooner. As stated above, the regard the Colonists received for defense was less than ideal, and the ever-present threat of War with France would likely have come to fruition again. I can easily see England clamping down hard on it's American colony in support of that war for both resources and sailors, and the colonists would have considered themselves very ill-used by basically a foreign despot making them fight his battles.

AKA_TAGERT
05-20-2006, 06:20 PM
Basically it would be very much like it is today, except that we would have bad teeth too

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-20-2006, 06:21 PM
And warm beer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Chuck_Older
05-20-2006, 06:22 PM
Not so! I refuse to say "shed-yule"

DmdSeeker
05-20-2006, 06:27 PM
Interesting thread.

I can understand why the Americans posting in this thread assume that because thier forfathers had both rejected the European continent and had a pioneering spirit the break with England was inevitable; but I'd like to ask them what, in thier own eyes, diffentiates them from Australia?

Blutarski2004
05-20-2006, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
did you know that technically, there are only 48 States? Virginia and Massachusetts are Commonwealths)


..... Chuck is incorrect on this point. Virginia is a commonwealth. Massachusetts is a kleptocracy.

Chuck_Older
05-20-2006, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
did you know that technically, there are only 48 States? Virginia and Massachusetts are Commonwealths)


..... Chuck is incorrect on this point. Virginia is a commonwealth. Massachusetts is a kleptocracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Chuck_Older
05-20-2006, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Interesting thread.

I can understand why the Americans posting in this thread assume that because thier forfathers had both rejected the European continent and had a pioneering spirit the break with England was inevitable; but I'd like to ask them what, in thier own eyes, diffentiates them from Australia?

A few months trip in a boat, or a few thousand miles. Dealer's choice.

The fledgling US Navy was effective; The "Pirate" Jones raided England. The socio-economic culture of the American colonies was not the same as the Australian one to the British, and the American colonies were indeed close enough to govern in a much different way than that of Australia's situation. On paper it may seem the same, but if that paper is a map...

Undertow22
05-20-2006, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Interesting thread.

I can understand why the Americans posting in this thread assume that because thier forfathers had both rejected the European continent and had a pioneering spirit the break with England was inevitable; but I'd like to ask them what, in thier own eyes, diffentiates them from Australia?

The main difference in my opinion is availability natural resources. The North American Continent had(has) unlimited sources of lumber, land for farming, freshwater, and mountains. The result is that Americans were less dependent on the homeland. We bacame self sustaining very fast.

I_KG100_Prien
05-20-2006, 06:59 PM
I say the split was bound to happen. People left mother England to come to the "New World" to start a fresh life for themselves and have the chance for a, if not more independent, but "different" lifestyle.

Plus, at the time think about the difficulties that distance can play in the King governing his Colonies, especially when it took some time to get a message across so to speak. The Colonies were, at the time, very isolated from the Euopean world and taking things into their own hands and becoming independant made the most sense.

I wager there could have been a little less upheval and ultimatly bloodshed had "Mother England" had a little less in the pride department, and had been willing to just let her children go.

As for taxation to support war with France and Spain over rights to lands in the "New World" come on now, that's just a convienent excuse considering that there had been bad blood and fighting between the Brits and French since the Dark Ages.

Sometimes I think the French never forgave the trouncing the English gave them at Agincourt :P

SkyChimp
05-20-2006, 07:07 PM
You think this was about a tax???? It was about a lot of abuses on the part of the Great Britain. Read the Declaration of Independence. It mentions a few of them:

(Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776)

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

BSS_Goat
05-20-2006, 07:30 PM
The redcoat was overmodelled and the Brown Bess was porked.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-20-2006, 07:34 PM
This thread needs more Thomas Paine.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
05-20-2006, 07:45 PM
Oh dear he's whipped out his declaration out! Now its gona get nasty.



He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.


there he goes waving his manly firmness about in front of the people again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Thank god we live in an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

Next he will be complaning about the violence inherant in the system.

SkyChimp
05-20-2006, 08:02 PM
Redcoats. Phhhpt. Nothing but a bunch of tea-taxing-tinkerbells.

TC_Stele
05-20-2006, 08:06 PM
I thought the main gripe wasn't necessarily the higher taxes but more having to do with "no taxes without representation." It was easy to raise taxes on the colonists if they didn't have that representation.

And yes. I think its fair to assume that the MUSTANG would have won that war in 10 days.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
05-20-2006, 08:10 PM
Yup thats what James Madison probably thought just before they showed up to give his house an extreme make over http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

oopps got in before me there Stele I was refering to redcoats and their winged fairyishness

Thank god Mel Gibson is there to put the record straight aye?

Just be thankful the death star was not complete or we would have pwned jooz noobs for sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bearcat99
05-20-2006, 08:19 PM
Bottom line if not taxes something else.. the split was inevitable... There were too many ways for an enterprising capitalist to make money here on his own and NOT be beholdfen to the kihng... the crown knew it too.. thats why they tried to stop it...

Gold_Monkey
05-20-2006, 10:05 PM
Quote:
Bottom line if not taxes something else.. the split was inevitable... There were too many ways for an enterprising capitalist to make money here on his own and NOT be beholdfen to the kihng... the crown knew it too.. thats why they tried to stop it...

Amen BC, Ain't that the truth! plus the Colonists just couldn't get used to driving on the "wrong side" of the road

WWSensei
05-20-2006, 10:14 PM
I think one reason was that a lot of the people that settled America or came to America had a beef with the monarchy. Some had a distaste for the idea of a monarchy government. Just note the almost angry response Washington gave when "King Washington" was whispered soon after the war.

BTW, I live in the other Commonwealth of Virginia about 5 miles from the Yorktown battlefield where Cornwallis surrendered. The redoubts and some of the trenches and fortifications are still there.

AKA_TAGERT
05-20-2006, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Interesting thread.

I can understand why the Americans posting in this thread assume that because thier forfathers had both rejected the European continent and had a pioneering spirit the break with England was inevitable; but I'd like to ask them what, in thier own eyes, diffentiates them from Australia? The Roos

Akronnick
05-20-2006, 11:53 PM
Now this anecdote may be apocryphal, but I remember hearing somewhere that for July 4, 1776, King George III wrote in his diary:"Nothing of consequence happened today"

Jungmann
05-20-2006, 11:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Interesting thread.

I can understand why the Americans posting in this thread assume that because thier forfathers had both rejected the European continent and had a pioneering spirit the break with England was inevitable; but I'd like to ask them what, in thier own eyes, diffentiates them from Australia?

Everybody who came to America wanted to be there. Still applies.

My 2 cents about the inevitable split--Britain treated the Colonies like all their colonies, as a cash cow, to be taxed up the wazoo, to make the Yankees have to buy British goods off British ships at higher prices than they'd pay elsewhere (say, the French), and as a handy garden for all that good stuff they couldn't grow at home (tobacco). Americans finally got p***ed.

gx-warspite
05-21-2006, 12:48 AM
You Americans are funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Read up on your history a bit. The independence movement was really small, with only about 10-30% of the colonist population supporting it. A similar segment was decidedly royalist, and the vast majority simply didn't care. After the revolution, there was a mass exodus of over 100,000 royalists to Canada - the most faithful of the faithful.

The Declaration of Independence is a propaganda piece. You'll find similar texts any time there's a revolt, and, of course, 90% of those are forgotten because the revolts fail. Every two-bit dictator that comes to power through a coup issues something similar, that sounds glorious and exaggerates the situation.

Fact is, that the colonies were a net financial burden to Britain, their upkeep and protection cost more than what little tax they gave. The taxes on the colonies were remarkably low, they had the least tarriffs of any major colony or state in the world at the time. You might want to read how, after the end of the war, taxes were immediately raised because the colonies found out how expensive government really is.

The revolutionaries had to drum up fake propaganda like the "Boston Massacre" in their newspapers, packs of lies, and still popular support for the revolution was low. In fact, when the White House was burned down during the War of 1812, there was considerable consternation that the British would re-establish colonial rule. Due to the taxes levied by the state governments, British rule was seen with great nostalgia among the populance. You guys should read about the recruiting and provisioning problems the army had during the War of 1812.

gx-warspite
05-21-2006, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Jungmann:
Everybody who came to America wanted to be there. Still applies.

My 2 cents about the inevitable split--Britain treated the Colonies like all their colonies, as a cash cow, to be taxed up the wazoo, to make the Yankees have to buy British goods off British ships at higher prices than they'd pay elsewhere (say, the French), and as a handy garden for all that good stuff they couldn't grow at home (tobacco). Americans finally got p***ed.
A pack of lies.

British taxes on the American colonies were almost nil, not covering even administration costs - never mind the cost of defending them. Taxes in the states were far higher after independence than before.

knightflyte
05-21-2006, 01:05 AM
You Americans are funny

Read up on your history a bit. The independence movement was really small, with only about 10-30% of the colonist population supporting it. A similar segment was decidedly royalist, and the vast majority simply didn't care. After the revolution, there was a mass exodus of over 100,000 royalists to Canada - the most faithful of the faithful.

The Declaration of Independence is a propaganda piece. You'll find similar texts any time there's a revolt, and, of course, 90% of those are forgotten because the revolts fail. Every two-bit dictator that comes to power through a coup issues something similar, that sounds glorious and exaggerates the situation.

Fact is, that the colonies were a net financial burden to Britain, their upkeep and protection cost more than what little tax they gave. The taxes on the colonies were remarkably low, they had the least tarriffs of any major colony or state in the world at the time. You might want to read how, after the end of the war, taxes were immediately raised because the colonies found out how expensive government really is.

The revolutionaries had to drum up fake propaganda like the "Boston Massacre" in their newspapers, packs of lies, and still popular support for the revolution was low. In fact, when the White House was burned down during the War of 1812, there was considerable consternation that the British would re-establish colonial rule. Due to the taxes levied by the state governments, British rule was seen with great nostalgia among the populance. You guys should read about the recruiting and provisioning problems the army had during the War of 1812.

_______________________________________________

Got Track?

Von_Rat
05-21-2006, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
You Americans are funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Read up on your history a bit. The independence movement was really small, with only about 10-30% of the colonist population supporting it. A similar segment was decidedly royalist, and the vast majority simply didn't care. After the revolution, there was a mass exodus of over 100,000 royalists to Canada - the most faithful of the faithful.
__________________________________________________ _____

this doesn't show the british military in a very good light does it. they couldnt defeat a revolution that had only about ten percent of the people supporting it, even when they had a similar number supporting them? i guess those brit generals should of been shot for incompetance.



_________________________________________________
The Declaration of Independence is a propaganda piece. You'll find similar texts any time there's a revolt, and, of course, 90% of those are forgotten because the revolts fail. Every two-bit dictator that comes to power through a coup issues something similar, that sounds glorious and exaggerates the situation.
_________________________________________________
is that 90percent of the texts are forgotten, or 90percent of revolts fail? if its the latter it means the british military was really incompetant.

in war both sides use propoganda. just cause its propoganda doesnt mean its wrong.

hmmm i gotta admit your the 1st person ive heard of comparing the founding fathers to two bit dictators. i guess you consider the u.s the same as a two bit dictatorship?



__________________________________________________ _____

Fact is, that the colonies were a net financial burden to Britain, their upkeep and protection cost more than what little tax they gave. The taxes on the colonies were remarkably low, they had the least tarriffs of any major colony or state in the world at the time. You might want to read how, after the end of the war, taxes were immediately raised because the colonies found out how expensive government really is.
__________________________________________________ _______________

it wasnt just the amount of taxes, it was about having a say in them.

wow go figure, after a long and expensive war, the americans had to raise taxes higher than they had been in prewar peacetime.



__________________________________________________ __

The revolutionaries had to drum up fake propaganda like the "Boston Massacre" in their newspapers, packs of lies, and still popular support for the revolution was low. In fact, when the White House was burned down during the War of 1812, there was considerable consternation that the British would re-establish colonial rule. Due to the taxes levied by the state governments, British rule was seen with great nostalgia among the populance. You guys should read about the recruiting and provisioning problems the army had during the War of 1812.
_________________________________________________

once again this really puts the british military in a bad light. the americans had all these problems like recuriting and provisions and with "British rule was seen with great nostalgia among the populance", but still the best the british could do was to settle for a draw? i guess the british military was hoplessly incompetant in 1812 too.


btw im not trying to put down the british military, imo they were among the best in the world at the time. im just trying to show my opinion of the comments made. if the support for the revolution was really as small as stated the brits couldnt help but win,, but they didnt. ergo there was enough support to defeat one of the best militarys in the world. the actual numbers will never be known, nor do they matter. because all that matters is there were enough to win against a very formidable opponent. this alone should tell you the revolution was inevietable.

Fork-N-spoon
05-21-2006, 03:08 AM
Yet another topic that I know little abouthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Just to clear up an error I thought some might like to know that four states in the United States officially designate themselves "commonwealths": Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. I thought for sure that Maryland was a "commonwealth," but wikipedia claims other wise.

"Commonwealth" is also used in the U.S. to describe the political relationship between the United States and the overseas unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico and of the Northern Marianas.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
05-21-2006, 03:54 AM
SkyChimp:
You think this was about a tax???? It was about a lot of abuses on the part of the Great Britain. Read the Declaration of Independence. It mentions a few of them...

A few of them... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

If someone had posted the equivalent number of gripes on this forum about this sim he would have been blasted into a solar orbit and accused of being a 'Whiner'... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HellToupee
05-21-2006, 04:03 AM
this doesn't show the british military in a very good light does it. they couldnt defeat a revolution that had only about ten percent of the people supporting it, even when they had a similar number supporting them? i guess those brit generals should of been shot for incompetance.

but they were rarely defeated in battle, the biggest issue was they had not enough man power to put down the rebellion, there was no central power like european countries eg take the capital the country surrenders when they conquerored the closest thing to a capital they just moved somewhere else.

They couldnt help but lose, on the otherside of the world with reinforcements and such half the world away, the american armies when defeated would just withdraw inland and form another, british armies were mostly stuck holding costal cities .

There was help from France and Spain to i belive against the british.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-21-2006, 04:19 AM
Uh-oh, now you've done it HellToupee. Now some irate American is going to post something like "Well at least we didn't rely on German mercenaries" Then someone's going to reply "Oh yeah? What about Von Steuben?" Then someone'll post "Yeah, takes a German to get a good war rolling..."

It will all end in tears, mark my words.

puhakka-GB
05-21-2006, 05:16 AM
Do these colonials really think that Washington's guerilla rabble, whom the Americans would today class alongside al-qaeda in the terrorists stakes, could possibly have defeated Cornwallis in a stand up fight if the British had truly put their backs into it??? And as for the Mustang winning the war,what war. Instead of the entente cordiale of 1904,if the British government had entered into a mutual defence treaty with Imperial Germany, western and northern France could retun to the English crown, there would have been no war in the west in 1914 and the German army transported around the world by the Royal Navy would have made further conflict unthinkable! Pax Brittanica.

foxyboy1964
05-21-2006, 05:33 AM
"All men are created equal"?...how many of the guys who signed that were slave owners?

Chuck_Older
05-21-2006, 05:58 AM
SkyChimp-

I think you might misunderstand me. I never said the American Revolution was (solely) about a tax. That was the convenient given reason.

puhakka-

It's not news to anyone with a bit of knowledge about history that the Founding Fathers of the USA would today most likely land in jail....but this isn't even new news if you take my meaning. that situation is about 40 years old. Al-Queda has little to do with that, and in addition, the exploits of the most notorious and invasive warrior for the Colonies, John Paul Jones, included a formal letter of apology to the lady of the house, after he had broken into an English Estate, looking to take a political hostage, which itself was in response the the gross mistreatment, deprivation, and condemnation to death by exposure, that American sailors were enduring on British prison hulks off the canadian coast that winter. the intention was to releive the inhuman treatm,ent of these helpless men in a politicl prisoner exchange. That's hardly what the situation is with Al-Queda, no matter how you spin it. It's more than a small exaggeration to say that the actions of men like Jones are the equivelent of Al-Queda. Jones is the only man I can possibly think of on the US side that came even close to the 'terrorist' ideal and his actions were extremely mild by the standards of Al-Queda. He used the threat of force more than the terror of death, and in any case he was a recognised sea captain whose job was waging conventional war, not a recruiter and organiser of terror cells in England. I can't think of another man who comes close to your descriptions, if there is another can you please point him out?

Chuck_Older
05-21-2006, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
Oh dear he's whipped out his declaration out! Now its gona get nasty.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.


there he goes waving his manly firmness about in front of the people again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Thank god we live in an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

Next he will be complaning about the violence inherant in the system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bloody peasant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

foxyboy1964
05-21-2006, 06:14 AM
There are many reasons why people go to war, probably as many reasons as there are combatants. Jones was a Scot. Many Scottish Jacobites went to America after the failed rebellion of 1745. I wonder if Jones and men like him were just carrying on the war against the Hanoverians?

Chuck_Older
05-21-2006, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by foxyboy1964:
There are many reasons why people go to war, probably as many reasons as there are combatants. Jones was a Scot. Many Scottish Jacobites went to America after the failed rebellion of 1745. I wonder if Jones and men like him were just carrying on the war against the Hanoverians?

Jones actually was an interesting figure before the war. He was named John Paul, the Jones was affected after some legal trouble in which he killed a mutineer on a ship on which he was captain, and he made his way to the Americas. A sordid tale, the man dies after Jones wounded him, his family made a stink, Jones was arrested.

Some of his drive against the English easily could have come from the '45 but some of it also came from his father's old boss, who young John Paul didn't like (also there is speculation he was illegitimately sired by Dad's boss). Jones was a moody and easily wounded man. Most of Jone's inspiration was probably the good old quest for glory, though. A fascinating subject. During the American revolution, Jones didn't see eye to eye with many powerful men, like Hancock

On one occasion, after Jones returned from a cruise, the local equivelent of the tax man came up to him as he was disembarking from his ship. The man told him that he owed the King money for mooring (forgetting about the war apparently, since it was still a new thing). Jones whipped out his sword and cried, "The King? By God, if you're a servant of the King then I have a warrant for your Head!", and the man squeaked and ran off. Jones was a fascinating man. Russian Admiral, too

Blutarski2004
05-21-2006, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Fact is, that the colonies were a net financial burden to Britain, their upkeep and protection cost more than what little tax they gave. The taxes on the colonies were remarkably low, they had the least tarriffs of any major colony or state in the world at the time.

..... Fascinating. Why do you suppose that Great Britain maintained its North American colonies for so long?

Bearcat99
05-21-2006, 07:58 AM
Wars are fought for two reasons... money (read land, resources or whatever material gain you can think of) and power..... things like religion and political gripes are usually the excuses used but it is always and will always be about maoney and power. Therefore the American revolution like the civil war as well was inevitable... just as the next one will be.

RCAF_Irish_403
05-21-2006, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
You Americans are funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Read up on your history a bit. The independence movement was really small, with only about 10-30% of the colonist population supporting it. A similar segment was decidedly royalist, and the vast majority simply didn't care. After the revolution, there was a mass exodus of over 100,000 royalists to Canada - the most faithful of the faithful.

The Declaration of Independence is a propaganda piece. You'll find similar texts any time there's a revolt, and, of course, 90% of those are forgotten because the revolts fail. Every two-bit dictator that comes to power through a coup issues something similar, that sounds glorious and exaggerates the situation.

Fact is, that the colonies were a net financial burden to Britain, their upkeep and protection cost more than what little tax they gave. The taxes on the colonies were remarkably low, they had the least tarriffs of any major colony or state in the world at the time. You might want to read how, after the end of the war, taxes were immediately raised because the colonies found out how expensive government really is.

The revolutionaries had to drum up fake propaganda like the "Boston Massacre" in their newspapers, packs of lies, and still popular support for the revolution was low. In fact, when the White House was burned down during the War of 1812, there was considerable consternation that the British would re-establish colonial rule. Due to the taxes levied by the state governments, British rule was seen with great nostalgia among the populance. You guys should read about the recruiting and provisioning problems the army had during the War of 1812.

The Declaration of Independence is one of the great political tracts of all time. It neatly contains all of the major ideals of the Enlightenment on one page. It's pronouncements sparked democratic revolutions across the globe. If it's a mere propaganda piece, then it's the most morally relevent chunk of propaganda ever delievered

Aaron_GT
05-21-2006, 08:20 AM
Bearcat wrote:

Bottom line if not taxes something else.. the split was inevitable...

I'd agree, and with SkyChimp too. If you look at the Declaration of Indepdence and then look at things the Leveller movement produced in the 1640s they contain essentially the same grievances. Not that this is necessarily surprising given that some of the Leveller movement ended up in the American colonies to try to get away from repression. The slight irony is that Cromwell very nearly decamped to the American Colonies prior to the English Civil Wars, and ultimately became a despot himself, thus driving more people to move to the American Colonies.

Aaron_GT
05-21-2006, 08:23 AM
Everybody who came to America wanted to be there.

Actually England transported criminals there prior to opening up Australia for that purpose. Plus America was, for the English, somewhere that it was possible to go to to get away from England and so a choice of exclusion. In the 17th century the Indian and Australian colonies were not available.

Aaron_GT
05-21-2006, 08:32 AM
once again this really puts the british military in a bad light. the americans had all these problems like recuriting and provisions and with "British rule was seen with great nostalgia among the populance", but still the best the british could do was to settle for a draw? i guess the british military was hoplessly incompetant in 1812 too.

In the 1770s Britain was engaged in other wars and was stretched militarily. Since the American colonies were a net drain on resources and the prize of India was up for grabs and promised to be more useful financially and strategically. Given this and some military cockups on the part of the British the British didn't feel that victory was going to be achievable in the context of troops being required elsewhere. The 1812 war was very much in the context of the wars in Europe.

Aaron_GT
05-21-2006, 08:34 AM
..... Fascinating. Why do you suppose that Great Britain maintained its North American colonies for so long?

Probably to annoy the French :-)

WOLFMondo
05-21-2006, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... Fascinating. Why do you suppose that Great Britain maintained its North American colonies for so long?

Probably to annoy the French :-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably very true. The US Independance was part of the greater rivalry between the UK and France.


Originally posted by Von_Rat:

once again this really puts the british military in a bad light. the americans had all these problems like recuriting and provisions and with "British rule was seen with great nostalgia among the populance", but still the best the british could do was to settle for a draw? i guess the british military was hoplessly incompetant in 1812 too.


A draw is the best you can get in some cases. The British were fighting all over the world in those years. With the French directly assisting the US side in the war of Independance it kind of tied things up. The British also acheived some monumental victories in those years too.

Xiolablu3
05-21-2006, 09:04 AM
WHat you guys have to realise is that in Britain, the revolutionists in the US would have been seen exactly as you guys see freedom fighters in Iraq right now, or fighters in Afganistan - as terrorists wanting to fight the law.

No doubt the terrorists/freedom fighters in Iraq think they are fighting for God/freedom/against the American Oppressor just like the fighters in 1800's. fighting the 'evil colonials.'

Britain saw the American fighters as terrorists, nothing more. Its just a point of view.

Remember that its the victors which write the history.

Also the declaration of independance, it only applied to white Americans remember http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-21-2006, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by knightflyte:
After the revolution, there was a mass exodus of over 100,000 royalists to Canada - the most faithful of the faithful. Well now that does explain why Crop-Duster is the way he is

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
05-21-2006, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

Bloody peasant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Chuck I never realy noticed before but that sure looks like Bender the robot standing next to jimmy in that photo.

In fact I delved into the fbi archives (note the g-man on Jimmy's right) and found this shocking digital enhancement http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Proof that aliens did indeed invade the sixties

Public cover up released to press:-

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/Jimmychamp.jpg

True image taken from federal photo lab:-

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/Jimmychampredo.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-21-2006, 09:41 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/Jimmychampredo.jpg
BIGHT MY SHINNY METAL 67 CHEVY IMPALA A$$

panther3485
05-21-2006, 09:56 AM
Hi there, Jungmann

Quote:
"Everybody who came to America wanted to be there."

What about the African slaves?


panther3485

Chuck_Older
05-21-2006, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
WHat you guys have to realise is that in Britain, the revolutionists in the US would have been seen exactly as you guys see freedom fighters in Iraq right now, or fighters in Afganistan - as terrorists wanting to fight the law.

No doubt the terrorists/freedom fighters in Iraq think they are fighting for God/freedom/against the American Oppressor just like the fighters in 1800's. fighting the 'evil colonials.'

Britain saw the American fighters as terrorists, nothing more. Its just a point of view.

Remember that its the victors which write the history.

Also the declaration of independance, it only applied to white Americans remember http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No. I don't think so

the US didn't go start a colony in Iraq, sponsor it, then begin a policy of what to the Iraqi people were unconsionable actions, against which they revolted, and then the US did not go in to quell a rebellion

The US went there to fight for it's interests. One of the reasons, which people conveniently forget, is that Iraq violated numerous terms of the treaty set up from the First Gulf War. To not act on that would be a policy of Appeasement. I think Chamberlain set the example on that subject

We did not set up a government, we removed one. Iraq has not had it's "freedom" removed by the "US". For one thing the "US" wasn't the only nation there, and for another Iraq really didn't have nuch "freedom" allowed it by it's government, for example, religion was oppresed.

Invading Iraaq and then giving them free elections does not equal setting up a colony, and freedom fighters are fighting the wrong folks if they are fighting the US in Iraq. We don't want to govern Iraq. Most of us want nothing to do with Iraq.

Your example is a terrible one I'm afraid and it's a little bit like propaganda if you ask me

As far as slavery goes...slavery did not begin or end with either the introduction of the first African to the colonial soil, or with the Emancipation Proclamation, and neither was it solely the white man who traded in African slaves. Also, not every African was a slave, not even in this area.


Slavery was a time-honored tradition before 1778, and in the Roman Empire it was an institution. Private citizens sold themselves into slavery to escape debt. They were slaves for a number of years. Also in the Roman Empire, there was no real racist attitude.

Mentioning that in this discussion is nothing but a cheap sensasionalist angle to stir up emotions. It's a fact that slavery existed in the Colonies and in the US. What's the point? that the Declaration of Independence was hypocritical because Tom Jefferson was a slave owner? You do know a bit about Jefferson, right?

Aaron_GT
05-21-2006, 10:17 AM
The US Independance was part of the greater rivalry between the UK and France

I'd argue it was also, in a way, the final bout of the English Civil Wars. It reminds me of the book that Jonathan Freedland wrote suggesting that the American Colonies got the revolution that failed in England in the 1640s, and perhaps if the English revolution/Civil Wars had succeeded, and the movement of the Levellers and like-minded people had been in the ascendant in England then perhaps Britain would now be more like the USA is now. I'm not totally convinced by this argument though as despite lots of the same rhetoric from the 1640s reappearing in the American colonies in the 1770s there were significant differences too that appeared over the intervening century. The Levellers, for example, were more rooted in religion, as their equivalent of the Declaration of Independence shows.

Blutarski2004
05-21-2006, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
In the 1770s Britain was engaged in other wars and was stretched militarily. Since the American colonies were a net drain on resources and the prize of India was up for grabs and promised to be more useful financially and strategically. Given this and some military cockups on the part of the British the British didn't feel that victory was going to be achievable in the context of troops being required elsewhere. The 1812 war was very much in the context of the wars in Europe.


..... Great Britain was not involved in any other wars when the American Revolution broke out in 1776. France only intervened in 1778. Spain and Holland did so a year or two later.

Blutarski2004
05-21-2006, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Also the declaration of independance, it only applied to white Americans remember http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


..... I must have missed that clause. How do you explain the existence of free blacks in the USA of that period?

slarsson
05-21-2006, 10:38 AM
"England is the pit whence we Americans were delved. Within her boundaries our language grew and was enriched until it became, for range and vigor if not for beauty and precision of sound, the most perfect instrument of verbal expression ever known. England gave us the English bible, which has been the main source of our profound idealism through all our years. She gave us our common law, and such respect for legal customs and restraints as we have shown. From England we brought our basic notions of representative government, of liberty under the law, of town and village communities, and of home life. Our revolt against the homeland, carried out as it was by Englishmen in the spirit of English ideals, was one of the most characteristic things that English people have ever achieved."

Odell Shepard, Trinity College.

Jungmann
05-21-2006, 11:43 AM
Hi there, Jungmann

Quote:
"Everybody who came to America wanted to be there."

What about the African slaves?


panther3485


A valid point, I suppose, but tiresome.

African slavery was invented by Africans, was spread to the Middle East by Moslem Arabs, and became trans-Atlantic when the British began farming their plantations in the Carribean islands. Slaves came to the New World on British ships, bound head to foot; a fifty-percent loss of cargo en route was an acceptable margin. Slavery is a sin, but it's a sin of our species, not America alone, and all who participated in it share its shame.

Cheers,

Von_Rat
05-21-2006, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
this doesn't show the british military in a very good light does it. they couldnt defeat a revolution that had only about ten percent of the people supporting it, even when they had a similar number supporting them? i guess those brit generals should of been shot for incompetance.

but they were rarely defeated in battle, the biggest issue was they had not enough man power to put down the rebellion, there was no central power like european countries eg take the capital the country surrenders when they conquerored the closest thing to a capital they just moved somewhere else.

They couldnt help but lose, on the otherside of the world with reinforcements and such half the world away, the american armies when defeated would just withdraw inland and form another, british armies were mostly stuck holding costal cities .

There was help from France and Spain to i belive against the british. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


if they didnt have enough manpower to defeat rebellion, that means the rebellion was widespread enough and determined enough to win. if it was that widespread and determined it was inevietable. thats my point.

as to the ,brits couldnt help but lose because of distance theory, i point to india, a vast heavily populated country on the other side of the world. the brits did just fine there. despite the greater distance, french interferance and no central capitol there either.

ploughman
05-21-2006, 12:12 PM
Don't forget the French. The defeat they handed to us at the Battle of Chesapeake was pretty handy for you fellows.

horseback
05-21-2006, 12:44 PM
As regards help for the former colonies from France and Spain, what'd you expect? Anytime a Superpower gets a teet caught in the wringer, everyone with a grudge is going to pile on.

About Bearcat's contention that it all comes down to money and power, I'm not completely sure that I accept that, unless you include the perception of personal freedom in your definition of power. The basic conflict was the British government's sudden interest in controlling (and in some cases, 'milking') people who had been essentially independent of government 'protection' quite successfully for over 100 years.

cheers

horseback

ploughman
05-21-2006, 12:46 PM
Anytime a Superpower gets a teet caught in the wringer,


Ouch.

Bearcat99
05-21-2006, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Jungmann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hi there, Jungmann
Quote:
"Everybody who came to America wanted to be there."
What about the African slaves?
panther3485

A valid point, I suppose, but tiresome.

African slavery was invented by Africans, was spread to the Middle East by Moslem Arabs, and became trans-Atlantic when the British began farming their plantations in the Carribean islands. Slaves came to the New World on British ships, bound head to foot; a fifty-percent loss of cargo en route was an acceptable margin. Slavery is a sin, but it's a sin of our species, not America alone, and all who participated in it share its shame.
Cheers, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be all that as it may be I think the context of his statement was.... that not everyone who came to America wanted to be here.
Also for the record.. African slavery bore no resemblence to what became the European African slave trade at all or the horrors that came with it.

Xiolablu3
05-21-2006, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
WHat you guys have to realise is that in Britain, the revolutionists in the US would have been seen exactly as you guys see freedom fighters in Iraq right now, or fighters in Afganistan - as terrorists wanting to fight the law.

No doubt the terrorists/freedom fighters in Iraq think they are fighting for God/freedom/against the American Oppressor just like the fighters in 1800's. fighting the 'evil colonials.'

Britain saw the American fighters as terrorists, nothing more. Its just a point of view.

Remember that its the victors which write the history.

Also the declaration of independance, it only applied to white Americans remember http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No. I don't think so

the US didn't go start a colony in Iraq, sponsor it, then begin a policy of what to the Iraqi people were unconsionable actions, against which they revolted, and then the US did not go in to quell a rebellion

The US went there to fight for it's interests. One of the reasons, which people conveniently forget, is that Iraq violated numerous terms of the treaty set up from the First Gulf War. To not act on that would be a policy of Appeasement. I think Chamberlain set the example on that subject

We did not set up a government, we removed one. Iraq has not had it's "freedom" removed by the "US". For one thing the "US" wasn't the only nation there, and for another Iraq really didn't have nuch "freedom" allowed it by it's government, for example, religion was oppresed.

Invading Iraaq and then giving them free elections does not equal setting up a colony, and freedom fighters are fighting the wrong folks if they are fighting the US in Iraq. We don't want to govern Iraq. Most of us want nothing to do with Iraq.

Your example is a terrible one I'm afraid and it's a little bit like propaganda if you ask me

As far as slavery goes...slavery did not begin or end with either the introduction of the first African to the colonial soil, or with the Emancipation Proclamation, and neither was it solely the white man who traded in African slaves. Also, not every African was a slave, not even in this area.


Slavery was a time-honored tradition before 1778, and in the Roman Empire it was an institution. Private citizens sold themselves into slavery to escape debt. They were slaves for a number of years. Also in the Roman Empire, there was no real racist attitude.

Mentioning that in this discussion is nothing but a cheap sensasionalist angle to stir up emotions. It's a fact that slavery existed in the Colonies and in the US. What's the point? that the Declaration of Independence was hypocritical because Tom Jefferson was a slave owner? You do know a bit about Jefferson, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. The Romans didnt pretend all men were equal

2. I am sure people of Iraq love what America is doing.

3. I am sure the British thought that what they were doing was in the 'best interests of the Pioneers too, just like Iraq/Afganistan

4. I think the settlers in the early USA also removed a government it didnt approve of.

5. America/UK have secured a large oil supply and a base in the Middle East by setting up its own government.

6. The fighters in Iraq believe wholeheartedly they are fighting an invading power, just like the early settlers in USA vs Britian. USA is hated in the Middle East by the majority and they dont want them there.

7. Iraq is a colony of the USA in all but name. Look at how many US businesses are taking over the country.

8. I wish I had never posted in this damn thread now, as I dont really care, its hundreds of years ago.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
05-21-2006, 01:58 PM
So does this thread have get to 7 pages before it gets locked or do I have to start posting 8 page essay's about how bad I am ?

Cos I am Bad man waaaaaay Bad.

I am badder than a bad things bad bad bits!

And joo know it!

Because I am so bad

Thats bad in bad way not like in a bad bad way !

That would be just to dang bad and I am just like too super bad to be that freaking bad man!

Yup bad thats what I said, bad.

You can tell I am bad because thats what it says on my wallet.

Check it out there it is Bad.

B.A.D

Sheet if I was a Dog all the other dogs would cross the street cos they would know that I was a bad dog.

Yup just do ma business in the street right there because I am a bad *** mofoing bad dog man!

Why the hell else would you think that I got this guy here with the little shovel and the plastic bag to scoop up my little doggy badness's?

Yp joo gezzed it co's I is the Badness and joo best be thank full that I aint an Elephant because if I was I would be the badest!

Did I tell you I was bad? Probably not because the minit you saw me you probably said to your self there goes one freaking big eleophant!

Yeah you know what I am talking about dont yah ?

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-21-2006, 02:05 PM
I really did touch a nerve when I dissed Dana in the Eurovision thread, didn't I? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

MB_Avro_UK
05-21-2006, 02:15 PM
hi all,

A friend of mine who has studied in depth the War of Independence (he is a table-top war-gamer with a massive collection of model soldiers) told me that 90% of British soldiers were American. Can this be right?

Maybe there was confusion as to who was British and who was American?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ploughman
05-21-2006, 02:17 PM
Well getting back to the original propostion, I'd just like to thank that small band of committed citizens for kicking out King George all those years ago and creating a nation state comitted to acheiving a more perfect state basded on rational liberal enlightenment ideas that has always been a beacon to the rest of the world and has, in its maturity, seen fit to emerge, from time to time, from it's philosophical and geographical isolation to try and sort things out.

Which I think means any other time-line that didn't include the USA would probably be one even more fraught than the one in which we live.

And that concludes my butt nuzzling for this year.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-21-2006, 02:24 PM
As an ironic aside, my hometown has a large painted statue of King George III on the seafront. It would have been one of the last things G.I.s saw before embarking for Omaha beach.

ploughman
05-21-2006, 02:25 PM
Doth thoust liveth in Weymouth, son of Dorset?

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-21-2006, 02:27 PM
That I do zur, that I do.

ploughman
05-21-2006, 02:31 PM
http://www.cyberport.co.uk/historyfile/portland_and_weymouth/d_day/d_day.htm

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-21-2006, 02:39 PM
Ah yes, one of my old projects. Did most of the research for the 50th anniversary. Got loads of interviews with vets of all nations if anyone wants to wait a few days while I type them up again. Not many aviation ones, though. Best story is a Big Red One medic who went right through to Czechoslovakia.

ploughman
05-21-2006, 02:46 PM
You did that mate? Good on you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-21-2006, 02:57 PM
Well, I didn't do that that actual site, but it all stems from original research by my team all those years ago. Pleased to see it didn't go to waste. Weymouth being the only British town outside London that has official U.S. representation at WWII commemorations is down to me and a U.S. Army colonel I met once.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
05-21-2006, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
I really did touch a nerve when I dissed Dana in the Eurovision thread, didn't I? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Lmao

Look man I done already told yah that I am bad. See this trunk? Its got Baaaad rit all the way up the one side and pretty soon all they way upside yer head.

Cos I am bad n thats a fact.

Soo dont be wailing on my girl Dana cos she is just like me B.A.D and you know what that spells dont yah.

Thats right bad!

Now where is that guy with the scoop cos I am fixing to do me some more badness right here!

And I aint touchin it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stelr
05-21-2006, 03:10 PM
[

1. The Romans didnt pretend all men were equal

2. I am sure people of Iraq love what America is doing.

3. I am sure the British thought that what they were doing was in the 'best interests of the Pioneers too, just like Iraq/Afganistan

4. I think the settlers in the early USA also removed a government it didnt approve of.

5. America/UK have secured a large oil supply and a base in the Middle East by setting up its own government.

6. The fighters in Iraq believe wholeheartedly they are fighting an invading power, just like the early settlers in USA vs Britian. USA is hated in the Middle East by the majority and they dont want them there.

7. Iraq is a colony of the USA in all but name. Look at how many US businesses are taking over the country.

8. I wish I had never posted in this damn thread now, as I dont really care, its hundreds of years ago.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm....

Wonder where you are getting all your "facts?"

Have you been to the country/region? Have you talked to people there? Have you eaten with them in their homes and heard what they had to say about their situation? Have you witnessed, first hand, their reactions to the so call "freedom fighter" you refer to after an attack on the civilian poplulation...market places, mosques, etc.?

If you haven't, I recommend you do before just repeating the censored, vetted, excuse for "news" we are fed daily in the media. My experience is they get it wrong more than right. If you can't travel there, I recommend at least getting info from multiple sources before forming an opinion. I read liberal & conservative papers, including (shocking http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif) non-US sources, have been to both counties as well as a few others in the region several times, and still don't believe I have a good grasp on what's really happening in a certain country or region to say what these folks or those folks really think about the situation.

Sorry, but terrorists cannot be given the same honor and respect we give freedom fighters or even insurgents.

I don't agree with our own definitions for terrorists...and we have many. The UN has one definition, different from our State Dept, which has a definition different from our own Dept of Defense, etc. etc. The problem nowadays is that the term terrorist has been watered down to apply to just about anybody we shoot at.

IMHO, the difference between a terrorist and any other adversary is the target. A terrorist attacks innocent civilians to create an atmosphere of "terror" and causing the civilian populace to lose faith in the govt's ability to protect them (i.e. provide for the common defense).

I viewed our adversaries in Afghanistan very different from our enemies in Iraq. The Taliban (and some opportunistic Warloards) fought us as the "invaders" and continue to fight an insurgent battle along the eastern border with Pakistan. They rarely attack civilian targets, unless they are civilian contractor convoys headed to resupply our FOBs. I do not consider these folks terrorists. Enemy combatants, yes...terrorists, no.

OTOH, in Iraq, the enemy targets innocent civilians with the specific goal to kill as many innocents as possible and hope the media splashes the horrific act all over the papers and internet. Thus, earning the title of terrorist.

These are just my personal definitions and for me, it keeps the lines pretty clear. Don't misunderstand, both receive the same treatment in my sight picture, but one gets the double tap. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

ploughman
05-21-2006, 03:30 PM
My sister and her man, a Southern Baptist who used to play 'ball' for Memphis came over last year and I showed them God's capital; York. He stood in front of York Minster, the largest gothic cathedral in Northern Europe an he said;

"That's a real nice church."

Bastard.

Jester_159th
05-21-2006, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:....God's capital; York.....

Is thee a Yorkshireman then Ploughman?

ploughman
05-21-2006, 03:50 PM
Oi have that privilege.

Although, due to me father been active on the Queen's coin oi was born in Wiltshire.

Jester_159th
05-21-2006, 03:52 PM
Thank God for that. I thought I were the only Yorkie round these parts.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-21-2006, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
hi all,

A friend of mine who has studied in depth the War of Independence (he is a table-top war-gamer with a massive collection of model soldiers) told me that 90% of British soldiers were American. Can this be right?

Maybe there was confusion as to who was British and who was American?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

There were certainly loyalist American units (including kilted highlanders), but 90% of British forces seems a bit high. Perhaps during certain engagements. Both sides used Native Americans and the British used Hessian mercenaries (as opposed to Hanoverians who would be fighting for the same king as the British). As mentioned, the French sent troops to aid the Colonists, and, of course, to stick one up the British.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-21-2006, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Jester_159th:
Thank God for that. I thought I were the only Yorkie round these parts.

Anyone here from Watford? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

ARCHIE_CALVERT
05-21-2006, 04:30 PM
Old Mother Shipton said the last thing she saw was Yellow Men followed by fire... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

horseback
05-21-2006, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Well getting back to the original propostion, I'd just like to thank that small band of committed citizens for kicking out King George all those years ago and creating a nation state comitted to acheiving a more perfect state basded on rational liberal enlightenment ideas that has always been a beacon to the rest of the world and has, in its maturity, seen fit to emerge, from time to time, from it's philosophical and geographical isolation to try and sort things out.

Which I think means any other time-line that didn't include the USA would probably be one even more fraught than the one in which we live.

And that concludes my butt nuzzling for this year. Butt nuzzling acknowleged, with thanks.

Please remember to shave next time.

cheers

horseback

Pentallion
05-21-2006, 09:05 PM
Well, if the American Revolution had been postponed even for a few decades, Napolean wouldn't have sold most of the western french holdings to the US. Instead, the French and British would have carried their European conflict to North America. But had the Revolution been postponed, say, only 20 years, then England would have been caught up in the battle just when Napolean was tramping all over Europe. That would bring the French to the US side for certain. England would have been stretched too thinly to fight Napolean and hold the US. Europe would have had to come first and the US would have gotten free much easier.

I think it would have meant Napolean would have survived and stayed in power.

djetz
05-21-2006, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
the issue of slavery that almost tore the country apart would have most likely been a possible cause...

I'm not sure I quite follow what you're trying to say here, Bear. I'm assuming you know that Britain outlawed slavery long before America did, and that Britain was the prime mover in trying to establish an international law against slavery and that the Royal Navy was the only really effective force in fighting the slave trade between the American Revolution and the US Civil war. That provoked a brief war in 1812.

That being the case, do you mean to say that if the Americans hadn't revolted against the British when they did they would soon have revolted to protect the slave trade? That seems like a reasonable extrapolation.

It's worth pointing out that while the British were fighting the American slave trade they were shipping convicts to Australia in conditions as bad as (and sometimes worse than) the African slaves suffered in their journey to the Americas. A couple of my ancestors got here that way.

People seem more willing to overlook that - because those people were "convicts" - without taking into account the fact that the great majority of them were convicted of shoplifting, and a significant minority of them were transported for their political beliefs. More serious crimes than that would generally get you hung in Georgian England.

So I'm not trying to say the British were really keen on humanitarianism in their fight against the slave trade, I guess my point is that we can't really judge the people of 200 years ago by the standards of today, because nobody in power, British or American, was really convinced that racism wasn't the natural order of things. Some of the people who wrote the Declaration of Independance were slave owners, and I seriously doubt any of them thought that "All men are created equal" applied to people who were of different colours, religions, or ancestory than themselves.

It's also worth pointing out that New Zealand and Australia were the first countries in the world to grant universal suffrage to their citizens; New Zealand in 1893, Australia in 1894. Finland was the first European country to grant universal suffrage to its citizens in 1906. The US didn't do it until 1920. And didn't do it effectively until the 60s civil rights movement forced it to happen.

wayno7777
05-21-2006, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (did you know that technically, there are only 48 States? Virginia and Massachusetts are Commonwealths)
Pennsylvania is also a Commonwealth.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Nimits
05-21-2006, 10:27 PM
. . . and Texas is more of country . . .

WWMaxGunz
05-21-2006, 10:35 PM
British and Dutch moved a lot of slaves but that was purely commercial. Did convicts bound
for Australia get branded Duke of York? US cotton was pushing Brit wool trade down so they
changed their tune on slavery? The mercantile system even without official slavery still
amounts to the same thing if not worse and when did Britain finally end that? Hello India?
France was still about it in Vietnam... errr, French Indochina, in more recent times.

Australia where the Brits set up the new penal colony after Georgia became off-limts wasn't it?
Whites were indentured so at least their children were not born slaves. No need to ask why
Australia has so much Irish blood is there? What did Alexis Sayles say about his visit there?
He was going through customs when they asked if he had a criminal record. He replied, "No, I
didn't think you still needed one.".

US war for independance there were the Redcoats, the Bluecoats and the Greencoats who were the
Tories that fought for Britain. End of war, the Loyalists had to run and many went to Canada
and were given free land on the border by the Crown. To this day their families have some kind
of distinction, some Order of the Crown for what it's worth.

I can't say about all the Tories as there were also a lot of Swedes and Germans settled as well.

King George Washington took a force out into the hills of PA and busted up the moonshiners and
tobacco growers who felt they didn't need to pay taxes they hadn't been asked about. First
Federal Agency created and still the most powerful, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
was created to collect taxes and control trade of those things, the big easy money of the time.
Did anyone go out and poll the populace? No. George and Congress set up the deal and got the
money flowing. Been that way ever since only more every year or so. The acorn didn't fall far
from the oak in spite of all the talk as actions have shown.

Copperhead310th
05-21-2006, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
You Americans are funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Read up on your history a bit. The independence movement was really small, with only about 10-30% of the colonist population supporting it. A similar segment was decidedly royalist, and the vast majority simply didn't care. After the revolution, there was a mass exodus of over 100,000 royalists to Canada - the most faithful of the faithful.

The Declaration of Independence is a propaganda piece. You'll find similar texts any time there's a revolt, and, of course, 90% of those are forgotten because the revolts fail. Every two-bit dictator that comes to power through a coup issues something similar, that sounds glorious and exaggerates the situation.

Fact is, that the colonies were a net financial burden to Britain, their upkeep and protection cost more than what little tax they gave. The taxes on the colonies were remarkably low, they had the least tarriffs of any major colony or state in the world at the time. You might want to read how, after the end of the war, taxes were immediately raised because the colonies found out how expensive government really is.

The revolutionaries had to drum up fake propaganda like the "Boston Massacre" in their newspapers, packs of lies, and still popular support for the revolution was low. In fact, when the White House was burned down during the War of 1812, there was considerable consternation that the British would re-establish colonial rule. Due to the taxes levied by the state governments, British rule was seen with great nostalgia among the populance. You guys should read about the recruiting and provisioning problems the army had during the War of 1812.

Man you're Nucking Futz! Just what have you been smoking? Serously get a helmet or somthing.
your heads a tad on the soft side. Wouldn't want you to have an permanent damage there.
Oh and while you out pick a few American History book Printed in the USA. lol
Seriously...the British half a long term memory problem. They can't remember all the women and children they raped & butcherd in Ireland & Scottland....let alone in the colonies.

Copperhead310th
05-21-2006, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by djetz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
the issue of slavery that almost tore the country apart would have most likely been a possible cause...

I'm not sure I quite follow what you're trying to say here, Bear. I'm assuming you know that Britain outlawed slavery long before America did, and that Britain was the prime mover in trying to establish an international law against slavery and that the Royal Navy was the only really effective force in fighting the slave trade between the American Revolution and the US Civil war. That provoked a brief war in 1812.

That being the case, do you mean to say that if the Americans hadn't revolted against the British when they did they would soon have revolted to protect the slave trade? That seems like a reasonable extrapolation.

It's worth pointing out that while the British were fighting the American slave trade they were shipping convicts to Australia in conditions as bad as (and sometimes worse than) the African slaves suffered in their journey to the Americas. A couple of my ancestors got here that way.

People seem more willing to overlook that - because those people were "convicts" - without taking into account the fact that the great majority of them were convicted of shoplifting, and a significant minority of them were transported for their political beliefs. More serious crimes than that would generally get you hung in Georgian England.

So I'm not trying to say the British were really keen on humanitarianism in their fight against the slave trade, I guess my point is that we can't really judge the people of 200 years ago by the standards of today, because nobody in power, British or American, was really convinced that racism wasn't the natural order of things. Some of the people who wrote the Declaration of Independance were slave owners, and I seriously doubt any of them thought that "All men are created equal" applied to people who were of different colours, religions, or ancestory than themselves.

It's also worth pointing out that New Zealand and Australia were the first countries in the world to grant universal suffrage to their citizens; New Zealand in 1893, Australia in 1894. Finland was the first European country to grant universal suffrage to its citizens in 1906. The US didn't do it until 1920. And didn't do it effectively until the 60s civil rights movement forced it to happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok i'll comment on this.

The insitution of slavery is at it's very core an economic VACUME. No free nation can contenuie to prosper while upholding slavery as the source of all it's labor force. A fact that the Conferates had came to realise as early as 1863. There were several members of the confederate congress oppsed to the issue of slavery. but for no other reason than it clogged up the owrk force and hamperd the economy. how so? well lets look at the situation.
The south's Primary source of income from the early 1800's on was agriculture. Bumper crops, rice, tabacco, and latter cotton. Now let's say i'm a big plantation owner. i have say 26-30 slave families living on my land, working for me and i have to pay them? what? NOTHING. They sustain thier own gardens, grow thier own food, and tend my crops and reproduce even MORE ppl to work my lands for free. thus increasing my wealth.
So with all that....why am i going to take gold from my coin purse and pay it to the poor white man down the road to do this work for me when it is already being done for free by the slaves that i own out right. and it cost me nothing more than a few livestock and some seed.

Now what's the poor guy down the road going to do? he cant find work, his land are poor and produce little to nothing to sustain his family on..let alone turn any kind of real profit. and I and the other large plantation owners can produce so much more than the little guys can so we flood the markets and drive down the price and force the little guys who the majoirty of are far to poor to even own one slave let alone 20 0r 30, to tend & work his own lands himself.
Thus the 90% of the southern population of free men cannot find work to feed thier families, and can produce barely enough on thir own lands, if they have them, to survive on.
Thus you have created an economic vacume by the Elite of the country/region forcing the intituion of slave labor. And this was relized far to late in this country. The yankees didn't want free men of color migrating north for this very reason and Linclons 1st solution to the problem was to deport them back to Africa.
And the southern politicians were well aware of this economic vacume. Sadly the majority of these same souther politiacns were the very same ones who OWNED THE PLANTATIONS. So they had a vested intrest in keeping slavery going...even though it was widly disliked by the majority of the southern population.
In the end slavery was the crack cocain of the 1800's and the only wa for the C.S.A tosave it's self was to quit cold turkey. And in time they would have. had the south won the war for thier independance Jeff Davis would have lost a bid foranother 6 year term Robert E. Lee would have won the by popular vote. And Lee was Frimly opposed to slavery. He saw it as an Abomantation to God, and being the deeply religious man he was would have brought it to an end in short order.
And who is to blame for slavery? As much as i'd like to put this one off on the French..the truth is it was the Dutch. At that point in world history the Dutch were the worlds largest importers of slaves into North America. And were were they imported to? Every where. But 80% of all the slaving ships that came to North America were ships registerd at the Port of BOSTON to Dutch trading comanies.
Sot he very idea that the brittish were doing anything substantial to stem the tide of slavery is laughable. all they had to do was declare war on the Dutch Merchant ships.

but bear is right. it would hae been some other issiue to cause the colonies to break with england. And it would have mostlikly had been slavery.since the folks in Boston stood to loose a large bit of profits if the dutch slavers were not permitted to port thier slave ships in boston harbor. and they could no longer supply slave labor to the souther aristocrates plantation owners.

Copperhead310th
05-21-2006, 11:41 PM
Oh and if anyone ever wonders were the south got the idea to succedd the union from....
it's rigth here:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

And to fact: Any state may still to this day succeed from the union based on these same princibles. But that will never happen. lol

panther3485
05-22-2006, 04:47 AM
Hi again, Jungmann

Yes, I agree that all who particpated in the Slave Trade share the guilt, not just Americans by any means at all; I think every European colonial power, for a start, was into it at some stage. No slur against Americans in particular; slavery was/is a human crime - by humans, against other humans.

Sorry, but I just couldn't remain silent when you said, "Everybody who came to America wanted to be there".


Best regards,
panther3485

P.S. - Thanks Bearcat - that's exactly what I meant; no more and no less!

Bearcat99
05-22-2006, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by djetz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
the issue of slavery that almost tore the country apart would have most likely been a possible cause...

I'm not sure I quite follow what you're trying to say here, Bear. I'm assuming you know that Britain outlawed slavery long before America did, and that Britain was the prime mover in trying to establish an international law against slavery and that the Royal Navy was the only really effective force in fighting the slave trade between the American Revolution and the US Civil war. That provoked a brief war in 1812.

That being the case, do you mean to say that if the Americans hadn't revolted against the British when they did they would soon have revolted to protect the slave trade? That seems like a reasonable extrapolation.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.... that's exactly what I mean.... even though the Civil War wasn't entirely about slavery on it's moral grounds... although it was partly it, was largely about the economic disparities between the agrarian south and the industrial north and the representational disparities within the system.... even at 3/5 of a person the slave population in the south did alter the representation and considering that these extra people had no say whatsoever in the system..... it gave an advantage to the south..... that the north didnt have and the south was not about to give up these perks.... thier whole economy was based on slave labor... although the north was not "innocent" of benifittting from the slave trade either.
And again.. I am not saying that the slave trade would have caused the split if the other issues hadn't.. but that it could very well have wound up being just another possible cause. I am also not trying to divert the issue by addressing who was or was not the biggest contributor to the slave trade. Lets face it the slave trade and the land grab over here and all the riches that came with it saved Europe.... thats a historical fact but not the issue being discussed here. The bottom line is the revolution was inevitable......and England's defeat in the issue was also inevitable.... at best (or worse I guess...) it could have dragged on longer.. but the eventual outcome would have been the same. The slave trade was just another line in the long list of evil deeds that humanity has perpetrated on itself and to this day is continuing to do in our own pride and arrogance....

As far as comparisons to current events.... There is no way in the world you can compare the current "Freedom Fighters" in Iraq to Americans in the revolution. Americans wertent going around blowing up churches.. or setting them on fire.. they werent killing innocent civillians... won and children.. to make a "statement" and although they felt their cause was just and it did have a definite religious undertone to it, they didnt claim to be doing the will of GOD by such murderous cowardly acts.. but claimed to eb excercising thier GOD GIVEN RIGHT to self government.. a big difference. So please Xiolablu3 ... I know you probabvly are like so many othewrs around here who have your anti U.S. axe to grind...or tat the very least an anti current administration axe to grind... which of course youare entitled to grind away.. just not here... try to keep it historical and please .... please dont sully the memory of true Freedom Fighters worldwide by calling these murderous cowardly pigs in Iraq freedom fighters. The validity of the U.S. cause there is indeed a highly debateable subject... however the "nobility" of those killers or thier cause is not. If they had the Iraqi people at the core of thier cause they wouldnt be killing so many of them.

Now lets get back to history shall we.....

Jester_159th
05-22-2006, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
You Americans are funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Read up on your history a bit. The independence movement was really small, with only about 10-30% of the colonist population supporting it. A similar segment was decidedly royalist, and the vast majority simply didn't care. After the revolution, there was a mass exodus of over 100,000 royalists to Canada - the most faithful of the faithful.

The Declaration of Independence is a propaganda piece. You'll find similar texts any time there's a revolt, and, of course, 90% of those are forgotten because the revolts fail. Every two-bit dictator that comes to power through a coup issues something similar, that sounds glorious and exaggerates the situation.

Fact is, that the colonies were a net financial burden to Britain, their upkeep and protection cost more than what little tax they gave. The taxes on the colonies were remarkably low, they had the least tarriffs of any major colony or state in the world at the time. You might want to read how, after the end of the war, taxes were immediately raised because the colonies found out how expensive government really is.

The revolutionaries had to drum up fake propaganda like the "Boston Massacre" in their newspapers, packs of lies, and still popular support for the revolution was low. In fact, when the White House was burned down during the War of 1812, there was considerable consternation that the British would re-establish colonial rule. Due to the taxes levied by the state governments, British rule was seen with great nostalgia among the populance. You guys should read about the recruiting and provisioning problems the army had during the War of 1812.

Man you're Nucking Futz! Just what have you been smoking? Serously get a helmet or somthing.
your heads a tad on the soft side. Wouldn't want you to have an permanent damage there.
Oh and while you out pick a few American History book Printed in the USA. lol
Seriously...the British half a long term memory problem. They can't remember all the women and children they raped & butcherd in Ireland & Scottland....let alone in the colonies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So let me get this straight. You say he's nut's to believe what he reads in English history books......But it's perfectly reasonable to take as gospel anything printed in an American history book?

Oh and from the sound of the rape and pillage comment seems you actually think Mel Gibson's films like Braveheart and The Patriot are historically accurate??

(where as there were without doubt such actions committed by British trops from time to time, it has never been as frequent as in some other armies.....And even US troops have been guilty of such actions from time to time. So in summary; there's not a single army worldwide that is totally innocent of such actions)

Seems to me he might not be the only one with a soft skull m8.

Seriously though, quite a few posters here are making a basic mistake. They seem to be trying to apply our modern morals and ways of thinking to a time when people's way of thinking, way of life and overall view of the world was completely different.

I honestly don't think we can judge their actions since we have never experienced their world. The best we can do fairly is discuss the implications of their actions on the modern world and the possible "what if" scenarios if they had acted differently, or the wars in question had had a different outcome.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-22-2006, 06:45 AM
History is a river that will never reach the sea. Some people can dip a cupped hand into it and drink a little. Others try to dam it, or divert it's course. It just keeps flowing. We're all in the same boat in that river. Some people are happy sitting back and enjoying the ride. Others want to be the captain. Some get seasick. The river keeps flowing. It bends and forks, sometimes it flows fast over a rocky bed and threatens anyone riding on that particular stretch. That's when brave people and navigators are useful. We have no control over where the river has been. We can have a say in where the river is going. But it will never reach the sea.

panther3485
05-22-2006, 06:51 AM
Very erm..... philosophical today, aren't we Low_Flyer?

Quite good though.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

WOLFMondo
05-22-2006, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by stelr:

7. Iraq is a colony of the USA in all but name. Look at how many US businesses are taking over the country.


Hmmm....

Wonder where you are getting all your "facts?"
[/QUOTE]

Fox news. :P

1 word. Haliburton. Just look at how many contracts those guys have with both the occupying powers and the rebuilding of Iraq. Haliburton IS Iraq right now.


Originally posted by stelr:
Sorry, but terrorists cannot be given the same honor and respect we give freedom fighters or even insurgents.

Thats subjective, as is the use of those terms.
Take the IRA, probably one of the worlds most famous insurgent organisations. To the Irish they are freedom fighters, to the British they are terrorists. Simple summary of the situation yes, but it sums it up nicely.

And no, its really no different from Iraq except the British has occupied Northern Ireland for so long there accepted there by a vast amount of people.

Its the same thing with the Nepalese Maoists, the Basque sepratists etc. Both have used violence, rightly or wrongly, to put there message across. To there governments they are terrorists and should be locked up, to the people they represent they are hero's and freedom fighters and there army.

stathem
05-22-2006, 07:36 AM
When parents bring their child up, they try to instil their own values and to give the child the self confidence to make its way in the world. Particularly in the case of a first born child, as that child becomes a youth, and starts to assert its own independence, the inexperience of the parents can often mean that they struggle to let go. In the late teens this will often lead to rebellion and conflict, and the first born will often leave the fold and make its way in the world very successfully due to confidence instilled during the critical period of its early childhood when the parents had the time and energy to lavish attention on it; married to the anger and sense of independence formed by the rejection it felt when the later children came along.

As the youth matures into an adult, a lasting, mutual friendship will often develop between the first born and the now more worldly-wise parents. Should the parents get into difficulties, the first born will usually answer the call for help.

And finally, when the parents move into their dotage, the first born will inherit the family business€¦

bazzaah2
05-22-2006, 07:45 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

LStarosta
05-22-2006, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Nimits:
. . . and Texas is more of country . . .

And Michigan's a mitten.

foxyboy1964
05-22-2006, 07:48 AM
Hey Low_Flyer, those your words?...nice...I liked it anyway.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-22-2006, 07:54 AM
Yep, all mine. If I can paraphrase John Lee ******, sometimes it's in me and it's gotta come out. Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And nice one from stathem.

Lucius_Esox
05-22-2006, 08:25 AM
I like this


"England is the pit whence we Americans were delved. Within her boundaries our language grew and was enriched until it became, for range and vigor if not for beauty and precision of sound, the most perfect instrument of verbal expression ever known. England gave us the English bible, which has been the main source of our profound idealism through all our years. She gave us our common law, and such respect for legal customs and restraints as we have shown. From England we brought our basic notions of representative government, of liberty under the law, of town and village communities, and of home life. Our revolt against the homeland, carried out as it was by Englishmen in the spirit of English ideals, was one of the most characteristic things that English people have ever achieved."

Odell Shepard, Trinity College.


And Stathems comments above...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Makes a lot of sense to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stathem
05-22-2006, 09:00 AM
Thanks chaps, glad you liked it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I guess the flames will be along presently.

HayateAce
05-22-2006, 09:03 AM
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

foxyboy1964
05-22-2006, 09:21 AM
The sword distribution system has served us well for a thousand years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif btw, nice car in your sig...

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-22-2006, 09:30 AM
The Agreement of the People, as presented to the Council of the Army.

October,1647.

An Agreement of the People for a firm and present peace upon grounds of common right.

Having by our late labours and hazards made it appear to the world at how high a rate we value our just freedom, and God having so far owned our cause as to deliver the enemies thereof into our hands, we do now hold ourselves bound in mutual duty to each other to take the best care we can for the future to avoid both the danger of returning into a slavish condition and the chargeable remedy of another war; for, as it cannot be imagined that so many of our countrymen would have opposed us in this quarrel if they had understood their own good, so may we safely promise to ourselves that, when our common rights and liberties shall be cleared, their endeavours will be disappointed that seek to make themselves our masters. Since, therefore, our former oppressions and scarce-yet-ended troubles have been occasioned, either by want of frequent national meetings in Council, or by rendering those meetings ineffectual, we are fully agreed and resolved to provide that hereafter our representatives be neither left to an uncertainty for the time nor made useless to the ends for which they are intended. In order whereunto we declare: €"

That the people of England, being at this day very unequally distributed by Counties, Cities, and Boroughs for the election of their deputies in Parliament, ought to be more indifferently proportioned according to the number of the inhabitants; the circumstances whereof for number, place, and manner are to be set down before the end of this present Parliament.

II.

That, to prevent the many inconveniences apparently arising from the long continuance of the same persons in authority, this present Parliament be dissolved upon the last day of September which shall be in the year of our Lord 1648

III.

That the people do, of course, choose themselves a Parliament once in two years, viz. upon the first Thursday in every 2d March[1], after the manner as shall be prescribed before the end of this Parliament, to begin to sit upon the first Thursday in April following, at Westminster or such other place as shall be appointed from time to time by the preceding Representatives, and to continue till the last day of September then next ensuing, and no longer.

IV.

That the power of this, and all future Representatives of this Nation, is inferior only to theirs who choose them, and doth extend, without the consent or concurrence of any other person or persons, to the enacting, altering, and repealing of laws, to the erecting and abolishing of offices and courts, to the appointing, removing, and calling to account magistrates and officers of all degrees, to the making war and peace, to the treating with foreign States, and, generally, to whatsoever is not expressly or impliedly reserved by the represented to themselves: Which are as followeth.

1. That matters of religion and the ways of God's worship are not at all entrusted by us to any human power, because therein we cannot remit or exceed a tittle of what our consciences dictate to be the mind of God without wilful sin: nevertheless the public way of instructing the nation (so it be not compulsive) is referred to their discretion.

2. That the matter of impresting and constraining any of us to serve in the wars is against our freedom; and therefore we do not allow it in our Representatives; the rather, because money (the sinews of war), being always at their disposal, they can never want numbers of men apt enough to engage in any just cause.

3. That after the dissolution of this present Parliament, no person be at any time questioned for anything said or done in reference to the late public differences, otherwise than in execution of the judgments of the present Representatives or House of Commons.

4. That in all laws made or to be made every person may be bound alike, and that no tenure, estate, charter, degree, birth, or place do confer any exemption from the ordinary course of legal proceedings whereunto others are subjected.

5. That as the laws ought to be equal, so they must be good, and not evidently destructive to the safety and well-being of the people.

These things we declare to be our native rights, and therefore are agreed and resolved to maintain them with our utmost possibilities against all opposition whatsoever; being compelled thereunto not only by the examples of our ancestors, whose blood was often spent in vain for the recovery of their freedoms, Buffering themselves through fraudulent accommodations to be still deluded of the fruit of their victories, but also by our own woeful experience, who, having long expected and dearly earned the establishment of these certain rules of government, are yet made to depend for the settlement of our peace and freedom upon him that intended our bondage and brought a cruel war upon us.

[1] I. e. in March in every other year.

Xiolablu3
05-22-2006, 09:40 AM
ALthough it says quoted by Stehler, the above quote is actually by me.

7. Iraq is a colony in all but name.

I meant that America/Britain are installing the governments THEY approve of. If a communist Government looked like winning, do you think they would take them seriously? I dont.



But to be honest, this discussion will never end, so I dont really care if some people dont agree. I havent even read the last few pages, only this last one.

I dont want to fall out with people who disagree with me, but if you cant see that to some people, the fighters in Iraq are freedom fighters NOT terrorists, then you are just kidding yourselves. I am not saying its right, just how it is.

stelr
05-22-2006, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stelr:

7. Iraq is a colony of the USA in all but name. Look at how many US businesses are taking over the country.


Hmmm....

Wonder where you are getting all your "facts?"
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fox news. :P

1 word. Haliburton. Just look at how many contracts those guys have with both the occupying powers and the rebuilding of Iraq. Haliburton IS Iraq right now.


Originally posted by stelr:
Sorry, but terrorists cannot be given the same honor and respect we give freedom fighters or even insurgents.

Thats subjective, as is the use of those terms.
Take the IRA, probably one of the worlds most famous insurgent organisations. To the Irish they are freedom fighters, to the British they are terrorists. Simple summary of the situation yes, but it sums it up nicely.

And no, its really no different from Iraq except the British has occupied Northern Ireland for so long there accepted there by a vast amount of people.

Its the same thing with the Nepalese Maoists, the Basque sepratists etc. Both have used violence, rightly or wrongly, to put there message across. To there governments they are terrorists and should be locked up, to the people they represent they are hero's and freedom fighters and there army.[/QUOTE]

Although Haliburton has had a majority of the contracts with the military in the past (I'm not qualified to talk about civilian contracts since I have no experience here), specifically providing services to our military folks in harms way, I can tell you it is because not many companies do the type of things they do or provide the military skill sets required. Not only were they the cheapest bidder...in some cases they were the only bidder.

They received their largest "sole source" contract during the Clinton administration and have pretty much dominated the scene ever since. They are the only ones that can come into a FOB and know exactly what logistics needs are and have them in place and operating in short order. They are good at what they do, but lots of personnel turnover.

As to the IRA vs. Al Queda, I have little knowledge of the fighting in N. Ireland. However, if it is no different, as you claim, then the majority of the IRA core must be made up of people from different countries, not Ireland, and brought in to kill Irish people. If it is the same, then the IRA must be bombing the h*ll out of Irish citizens to get them to lose faith in the British govt's ability to protect them. Is this what's happening in N. Ireland?

That said, I understand the gist of your point and can agree inpart. Here is how I see the difference. When factions of the IRA attacked innocent civilians by bombings in London, they were properly classified as terrorists. Albeit, their "end state" was the same as more conventional factions, their methods set them apart. I'm definitely no expert on the IRA, so maybe someone else from the region can shed some light here, but I seem to recall there was a major rift between the factions and eventually the attacks against civilians ceased. The "freedom fighters," or insurgents, to me would be the home BNs of the IRA that limit their fight to the POHMs (sorry to my British Army buds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

Another example would be the difference between the Irgun and the Palmach/Haganah while the Jews were trying to get the Brits to leave Palastine. The Irgun committed acts of terrorism (blowing up the King David Hotel in '46 and blowing up the British Embassy in Rome) while the Haganah stuck stricly to military targets. Even these acts of terorism are borderline though IMHO since they attacked official British govt offices, not just arbitrary citizens going to work on the bus or in the tube.

Just my opinion. I'm sure many will disagree and say I'm trying to separate the fly sh*t from the pepper.

stelr
05-22-2006, 10:44 AM
I dont want to fall out with people who disagree with me, but if you cant see that to some people, the fighters in Iraq are freedom fighters NOT terrorists, then you are just kidding yourselves. I am not saying its right, just how it is.


Well...I suppose I'm just kidding myself then. I suffer from not having the insight or experience that you apparently have.

We will have to agree to disagree. OTOH, I don't believe you are kidding yourself. I do believe you are misinformed and hope that you could actually talk to some Iraqi families. It might be enlightening, but could be disillusioning to one committed to certain beliefs or causes.

Information has no "side." Facts are not right or wrong...they just are. How we associate them and evaluate them and form opinions are where can have discourse and disagreement.

Just keep an open mind and be open to info from all sides, not just info that supports a tightly held and/or "popular" opinion.

Bearcat99
05-22-2006, 03:37 PM
I dont want to fall out with people who disagree with me, but if you cant see that to some people, the fighters in Iraq are freedom fighters NOT terrorists, then you are just kidding yourselves. I am not saying its right, just how it is.

I'm sure there are some. H@ll... to the above mentioned "freedom fighters" themselves... why they arent "freedom fighters" they are....... martyrs...... yeaaahhhhhh thats the ticket.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I wonder if the families of the Iraqi civilians killed by these "freedom fighters", some while they worshipped.... feel the same way... but again.... current events arent the issue.......

WWMaxGunz
05-22-2006, 07:26 PM
End of WWII and West germany was occupied mostly by US troops and government.
And there was no small amount of bad blood over it, many wrongs were done.
Compared to the war it was paradise.
That occupation was not over instantly.
The terrorists did operate there and a some still do. It is not about freedom.

Was West Germany in transition at the time or was West germany an American colony?

Is West Germany somehow a puppet to America? If you think so then you need help.

If any Iraqis think that violence will get the US out sooner they are IDIOTS.

What is happening is mostly foreign to Iraq money and people go there to keep the US
tied up and slow bleed and don't care at all for Iraqi people except to keep them
from being independant.

Iran wants to control Iraq. Saudi wants to control Iraq. The rest want some piece
for themselves. None of them wants to see Iraq secular, all want to see failure.
Iraq is perfect for that, easy to divide and lead by the nose and kill each other.
How stupid these people are who can't see past one month let alone one year in a
place so ancient and kids so impatient led by olders with agendas and dreams of power.

God I wish that Bush wasn't so dumb. Iraq is now the most effective terrorist training
camp in the entire world. Killing terrorists? It is just weeding out the losers while
cranking up the recruitment worldwide. This ain't honor, it's idiocy. Iraq = tarbaby.

AKA_TAGERT
05-22-2006, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
End of WWII and West germany was occupied mostly by US troops and government.
And there was no small amount of bad blood over it, many wrongs were done.
Compared to the war it was paradise.
That occupation was not over instantly.
The terrorists did operate there and a some still do. It is not about freedom.

Was West Germany in transition at the time or was West germany an American colony?

Is West Germany somehow a puppet to America? If you think so then you need help.

If any Iraqis think that violence will get the US out sooner they are IDIOTS.

What is happening is mostly foreign to Iraq money and people go there to keep the US
tied up and slow bleed and don't care at all for Iraqi people except to keep them
from being independant.

Iran wants to control Iraq. Saudi wants to control Iraq. The rest want some piece
for themselves. None of them wants to see Iraq secular, all want to see failure.
Iraq is perfect for that, easy to divide and lead by the nose and kill each other.
How stupid these people are who can't see past one month let alone one year in a
place so ancient and kids so impatient led by olders with agendas and dreams of power.

God I wish that Bush wasn't so dumb. Iraq is now the most effective terrorist training
camp in the entire world. Killing terrorists? It is just weeding out the losers while
cranking up the recruitment worldwide. This ain't honor, it's idiocy. Iraq = tarbaby. In 1941 it only took one attack to wake up this sleeping giant.. In 2001 everyone is so PC that they can not even call the enemy the enemy.. thus it will take more than one attack.. I only hope and pray that when it does come it can be shown that it came through out open southern boarder.. Then maybe.. just maybe we will toss the PC lingo to the side call a spade a spade and do the right thing which in turn will slove two problems in one.

WWMaxGunz
05-22-2006, 10:35 PM
What you forgot Taliban and Afganistan?

We never finished in Afganistan. Now we have Iraq and better trained terrorists than
ever in history thanks to "We know where the WMD's are." which was a lie.

In case you never watched the whole show, 9-11 attacks were not carried out by any army
of any government. Only trail led to Afganistan and Taliban and Al Quaeda.

Sleeping Giant or Drunk Texan with shotgun? Oh, I'm not being PC! Just realistic.

Mexico? They come and go freely, 1 of 8 is inside the US. GOP wants to keep em here
to work for less, errrr, do jobs Americans won't do (for 1/2 min wage, what they don't say).
AFAIK at least one of the 9-11 bunch came in through Canada. Wanna invade there too?

Budget for Immigration has been cut so bad that when illegal immigrants get caught in
crimes the police don't bother notifying Immigration as they can't afford to respond.
That must be something Clinton set up that Bush can't change in over 5 years, right?

AKA_TAGERT
05-22-2006, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What you forgot Taliban and Afganistan? We never finished in Afganistan. What are you talking about? What does who we attacked after 911 have to do with the attitude here at home with regards to waking up and calling the enemy the enemy? ie My 1st point. In 1941 it only took one attack for "most" at home to wake up and call the enemy the enemy and go after them full force.. Now "most" are hand wringing over what to call them let alone going after them with any force let alone full force! As for finishing..

BINGO SON!

That is what I am talking about.. due to all the PC hand wringing going on and wanting everyone to like us we wont do what it takes (full force) to allow ourselves to win! Here is the main reason why

White Guilt and the Western Past (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/WHITE_GUILT/WhiteGuiltandWesternPast.MDI)

Read it then get back to me about not finishing. The guilt of the past keeps us from doing what needs to be done in the present! Full Force! History shows, Peace follows total victory! Without total victory, there is no peace.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Now we have Iraq and better trained terrorists than
ever in history thanks to "We know where the WMD's are." which was a lie. Not true on both counts.. But if being anti-american is what you need to give your self a sence of "moral legitimacy".. Well don€t be too hard on yourself, you are in good company! In 1941 you would have been the exception to the rule, but today.. Today your part of the hand wringing majority. So read the link I gave you.. than maybe you will realize just how wrong you are.. maybe.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
In case you never watched the whole show, 9-11 attacks were not carried out by any army of any government. Only trail led to Afganistan and Taliban and Al Quaeda. In case you never read my post I never said they were a army or a government, I simply said we are too PC to call them the enemy. If you can not even call the enemy the enemy what chance do you stand of beating them?


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Sleeping Giant or Drunk Texan with shotgun? Oh, I'm not being PC! Just realistic. Not realistic, but a real hip mainstream hand wringer for sure.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Mexico? They come and go freely, 1 of 8 is inside the US. GOP wants to keep em here
to work for less, errrr, do jobs Americans won't do (for 1/2 min wage, what they don't say). AFAIK at least one of the 9-11 bunch came in through Canada. Wanna invade there too? My 2nd point you missed.. I pray that when, not if, but when the next attack comes they conclude they came through our southern border.. Not to give us a reason to attack Mexico.. but to wake us up to the fact that our boarders are being over run to the point there is no boarder. Because it will take an attack of equal or larger scale to force both parties to drop their reasons for leaving it open and do the right thing. Thus killing two birds with one stone


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Budget for Immigration has been cut so bad that when illegal immigrants get caught in
crimes the police don't bother notifying Immigration as they can't afford to respond.
That must be something Clinton set up that Bush can't change in over 5 years, right? Man I think you are hopless and that link will not do you any good.. your too far gone.. Because this is not a bush vs. clinton or dem vs rep thing let alone a you vs me thing! It is about the "mindset" of the most of the leaders and the most of the people in the USA (read lib baby boomers) who care more about what others think of them than doing the right thing. Bush can only do so much.. if the majority of the people are too worried about what other people or countries think of them, than Bush is limited in what he can do. Simply put, Bush is not a dictator who can do what ever he wants to do. If the people are too weak to do what needs to be done, than so is the power of the pres to do what needs to be done. Sure he can deply troops for a certain amount of time, but without the support of the people his time is limited. Long story short, if the caliber of people today is what we had running around in the USA in 1941 we would all be speaking German right now. But who knows, give it a shot, read that link and get back to me.. But hurry before some hang wringing mod deletes it because it has the word white in it.

WWMaxGunz
05-23-2006, 12:44 AM
What's this white guilt shi+? Sorry hoss, my people came here from Canada.

And you don't believe that the terrorists in Iraq are better trained than ever?
Please, talk to some VETS who have returned from there. We passed the 'next level' already
over a year ago. There's Irani officers been captured as well. Or is that not PC?

You don't believe that the admin had Colin Powell stand up and tell us they knew where the
WMD's were? Funny, I was waiting to give blood at the VA when I watched his powerpoint
schpiel. I was totally assured that they knew exactly where the weapons were. I even
backed the need to invade for which I feel stupid, fooled again!

Perhaps you don't remember the revelations of the Pentagon Papers. Perhaps you never READ
them. I did in 1974 when the government docs were released. Hand wring my azz, that was
a dirty play and I don't give a cr@p what other people think, I LOST RELATIVES AND NEIGHBORS
TO THAT MESS. I've seen the price the US paid and who here got the big bucks in return.

You want to get your opinion from the GOP and Fox then go ahead. I watch what happens and
pay attention to the whole show, not just take a party line.

We're STUCK in Iraq and it was a stupid mistake. Maybe you should donate a kid or something
if you feel so bloody great about it, probably wouldn't phaze you anyway. Be proud.

In the meantime I can hope for a miracle that things die down and we can leave since we
can't until then. Maybe if people can give up their gas hogs there won't be so much money
going to pay for terrorists (since the money comes from oil exporters) but that's not bloody
likely either. It's like asking addicts to give up on drugs or cigarettes or whatever, they
say 'what problem' and paddle up denial. Yes, it's the PC hand wringers that are causing
the problems, that's the ticket. Attacking Iraq because of WMD's and gassing people (back
when Bush was funding Saddam billions a year) and Al Quaeda was there (up in the uncontrolled
part of the country but let's make it out like Saddam had em in there) only there were no
WMD's and only broken programs (oops, our intel was, uhhh, fooled, except that before the
war they had people saying it was far from certain but Fox and the Admin said they were
wrong) so maybe things just were never so clear cut as we were told directly they were.

There's PC and then there's GOP party line that CAN'T admit a mistake let alone a lie.
I ain't either but you are definitely in the second category Tagert.
Did you ever serve in the military?

CornbreadPattie
05-23-2006, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by stelr:

Sorry, but terrorists cannot be given the same honor and respect we give freedom fighters or even insurgents.

Save the drama for your momma


Originally posted by stelr:

OTOH, in Iraq, the enemy targets innocent civilians with the specific goal to kill as many innocents as possible and hope the media splashes the horrific act all over the papers and internet. Thus, earning the title of terrorist.

With the possible exception of it happening in Iraq and spreading on the internet, the title of terrorist has been earned by General Paul W Tibbets, the late Charles W. Sweeney, and several hundred pilots over Dresden.

That either means terror is a normal part of war or that rules bend to the situation. Either way it should be a crime.


Originally posted by stelr:
Hmmm....

Wonder where you are getting all your "facts?"

Have you been to the country/region? Have you talked to people there? Have you eaten with them in their homes and heard what they had to say about their situation? Have you witnessed, first hand, their reactions to the so call "freedom fighter" you refer to after an attack on the civilian poplulation...market places, mosques, etc.?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stelr:
If you haven't, I recommend you do before just repeating the censored, vetted, excuse for "news" we are fed daily in the media. My experience is they get it wrong more than right. If you can't travel there, I recommend at least getting info from multiple sources before forming an opinion. I read liberal & conservative papers, including (shocking http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif) non-US sources, have been to both counties as well as a few others in the region several times, and still don't believe I have a good grasp on what's really happening in a certain country or region to say what these folks or those folks really think about the situation.

There isn't just "liberal" and "conservative" resources in the USA. The black-and-white society that that statement implies is too good to be true, especially since most people in this country are niether conservative nor liberal. So it sounds like you read magazine columns, maybe listen to news radio, and maybe warm up to that friend that never says no, the TV.

I'm different. I never watch TV, I don't need the radio (unless it's a two way for emergencies), I am not seduced by passionate magazine articles either. But when I do turn on the TV to see what's on every 12 days or so here's what I find:

Fox News - Liberal media is biased and is killing us all. The president is indisputable and has done a great job. Praise the despot!

MSNBC - President's ratings are at an all-time low. Possible scandals...cover ups...

AND IT NEVER CHANGES..... Bush gives a raw deal and the liberal media is still there to cover it.....and the other's shift in between and the rest of the world just seems to have it's head out of it's ***.

There is no need to state your opinion, I already know people that watch the news, thank you.




Originally posted by stelr:

I don't agree with our own definitions for terrorists...and we have many. The UN has one definition, different from our State Dept, which has a definition different from our own Dept of Defense, etc. etc. The problem nowadays is that the term terrorist has been watered down to apply to just about anybody we shoot at.

IMHO, the difference between a terrorist and any other adversary is the target. A terrorist attacks innocent civilians to create an atmosphere of "terror" and causing the civilian populace to lose faith in the govt's ability to protect them (i.e. provide for the common defense).....

OTOH, in Iraq, the enemy targets innocent civilians with the specific goal to kill as many innocents as possible and hope the media splashes the horrific act all over the papers and internet. Thus, earning the title of terrorist.

It's either all or nothing... are civilians going to be treated like combatants? Are civilians being killed on the front lines? Two words: Willy- Pete

panther3485
05-23-2006, 03:56 AM
This thread seems to have strayed a lot from the original topic!

I appeal to you guys; 1700's please, gentlemen. Leave the current affairs for another forum!

By the way, I believe that the American War of Independence was pretty much inevitable. I also believe that the American colonists were bound to win sooner or later. Just my 20c worth!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Best regards to all,
panther3485

AKA_TAGERT
05-23-2006, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What's this white guilt shi+? Sorry hoss, my people came here from Canada. LOL! And "most" of the people from Canada came from where? Nice try son.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And you don't believe that the terrorists in Iraq are better trained than ever?
Please, talk to some VETS who have returned from there. We passed the 'next level' already over a year ago. There's Irani officers been captured as well. Or is that not PC? Son, your talking to a 12+ year military veteran who has several buddies that are still in the military and several who recently retired from the military, one of which has 18 years in the special forces and another that spent a year in Afganistan. As for better trained.. I don€t know what you think that means, thus far all it has ment to our troops is the terrorist are better at dying for a cause, so in that since yes they are better. As for IRAN officers being captured in IRAQ? Welcome to 2002! In that was about the time that Rumsfeld made note of that, and on that note, I and my veteran buddies think it is great that the terrorist are coming to IRAQ to die instead of NYC. PERFECT! Could not ask for more! Glad to hear that better terrorist training taught them that! Oh and by buddies.. I don€t mean some nub your type to once or twice on the interment, I mean guys you worked with 24/7 in the field, shared your food with and slept in the same fox hole with.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You don't believe that the admin had Colin Powell stand up and tell us they knew where the WMD's were? Funny, I was waiting to give blood at the VA when I watched his powerpoint schpiel. I was totally assured that they knew exactly where the weapons were. I even backed the need to invade for which I feel stupid, fooled again! Well you got the fool part right


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Perhaps you don't remember the revelations of the Pentagon Papers. Perhaps you never READ them. I did in 1974 when the government docs were released. Hand wring my azz, that was a dirty play and I don't give a cr@p what other people think, I LOST RELATIVES AND NEIGHBORS TO THAT MESS. I've seen the price the US paid and who here got the big bucks in return. Boo Hoo MAX just realized that life is not fair and that government is not perfect!


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You want to get your opinion from the GOP and Fox then go ahead. I watch what happens and pay attention to the whole show, not just take a party line. Canada is calling!


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
We're STUCK in Iraq and it was a stupid mistake. Maybe you should donate a kid or something if you feel so bloody great about it, probably wouldn't phaze you anyway. Be proud.

In the meantime I can hope for a miracle that things die down and we can leave since we
can't until then. Maybe if people can give up their gas hogs there won't be so much money going to pay for terrorists (since the money comes from oil exporters) but that's not bloody likely either. It's like asking addicts to give up on drugs or cigarettes or whatever, they say 'what problem' and paddle up denial. Yes, it's the PC hand wringers that are causing the problems, that's the ticket. Attacking Iraq because of WMD's and gassing people (back when Bush was funding Saddam billions a year) and Al Quaeda was there (up in the uncontrolled part of the country but let's make it out like Saddam had em in there) only there were no WMD's and only broken programs (oops, our intel was, uhhh, fooled, except that before the war they had people saying it was far from certain but Fox and the Admin said they were wrong) so maybe things just were never so clear cut as we were told directly they were.

There's PC and then there's GOP party line that CAN'T admit a mistake let alone a lie.
I ain't either but you are definitely in the second category Tagert. Did you ever serve in the military? YAWN.. Your since of "moral legitimacy" is showing.. like I said, that link would not help, your too far gone.

WOLFMondo
05-23-2006, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by stelr:

As to the IRA vs. Al Queda, I have little knowledge of the fighting in N. Ireland. However, if it is no different, as you claim, then the majority of the IRA core must be made up of people from different countries, not Ireland, and brought in to kill Irish people. If it is the same, then the IRA must be bombing the h*ll out of Irish citizens to get them to lose faith in the British govt's ability to protect them. Is this what's happening in N. Ireland?


The difference with the IRA is funding. The IRA recived funding and weapons directly from less reputable nations although despite in the UK, the IRA and its political wing was banned and its leaders were not allowed to broadcast on TV or campaign for funds, they were in the United States, which has a large Catholic base. Gerry Adams and Martin Mc******ss (self confessed terrorist) were allowed to gather funds to buy weapons in the US despite protests from the UK.


The IRA targetted protestant catholics and unionists and the British.

While the people doing the fighting were Catholic Irishmen, the funding came from all over the world. Same as Al Queda and the Iraq insurgents, just from diffference countries.

In Iraq its the same end these guys want, i.e. the US and UK out but because its seen by some a s a crusade, like minded Arabs and Muslims are drawn to assist Iraqi's wanting the US and UK out.

Its a bit like the French assisting the United States during the war of independance.

HellToupee
05-23-2006, 05:02 AM
I meant that America/Britain are installing the governments THEY approve of. If a communist Government looked like winning, do you think they would take them seriously? I dont.


well Hamas in palastine perfect example of that.

RCAF_Irish_403
05-23-2006, 05:43 AM
well, this thread has definitely turned into a pile a poo

Bearcat99
05-23-2006, 05:54 AM
If this thread doesnt get back on topic and stay there Ill lock it. Enough already. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif


Originally posted by panther3485:
This thread seems to have strayed a lot from the original topic!
I appeal to you guys; 1700's please, gentlemen. Leave the current affairs for another forum!
By the way, I believe that the American War of Independence was pretty much inevitable. I also believe that the American colonists were bound to win sooner or later. Just my 20c worth!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Best regards to all,
panther3485

I think pretty much all the European nations were on shaky ground over here... they were so busy fighting amongst themselves and they brought that over here.. but there was enough of a 3rd party with its own intrests that werent tied up in Europe to make the split inevitable.. even if some other country like France or Spain.. who were the biggest contenders outside of England..... they couldnt hold onto thier colonies over here in NA either...

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-23-2006, 06:40 AM
For those more interested in following the course of written constitutions (the British are still waiting for one of their own, btw) the following links may be of interest. As I've already posted 'An agreement of the people' from 1647, I've left it out. Perhaps I should also include the Gettysburg address and the 13th ammendment, or the European Convention on human rights, but there's enough here for the genuinely interested to be getting on with. I make no apology for including so much Thomas Paine - I feel his contibution to both the American and French revolutions is often sadly neglected. Of particular note is the section in the last link containing constitutions from various modern nations. If you follow these links, you'll appreciate the derivative nature of such matters and hopefully concur that it's a very rare political animal indeed that acts purely for the people they so often claim to represent. These links are by no means exhaustive and are posted in the hope that at least some of you will delve further into such matters, emerging with a greater understanding and respect for what people of all nations have done in an attempt to better the lot of their fellow man.

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

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/magna.html

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/index.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/index.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/index.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

http://www.history-magazine.com/codenap.html

http://www.leftjustified.org/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/wtp/wtp.html

panther3485
05-23-2006, 07:10 AM
Hi Bearcat,

Quote:
"I think pretty much all the European nations were on shaky ground over here... they were so busy fighting amongst themselves and they brought that over here.. but there was enough of a 3rd party with its own intrests that werent tied up in Europe to make the split inevitable.. even if some other country like France or Spain.. who were the biggest contenders outside of England..... they couldnt hold onto thier colonies over here in NA either..."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Agreed. I don't think any of the European powers could have held sway for long from that time. Given all the conditions that prevailed, I think the USA, or an independent nation very much like it, would have developed regardless.

Even the American Civil War almost a century later could in all likelihood only have ended one way, IMHO. [Hope I'm not opening another can of worms there!]
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Aaron_GT
05-23-2006, 09:36 AM
As I've already posted 'An agreement of the people' from 1647


Thanks for doing that - it saved me some typing!

MB_Avro_UK
05-23-2006, 02:35 PM
Hi all,

I was the Original Poster and I have learned a lot so far http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I'm a Brit and was wondering if the American War of Independence resulted in the only British Colony that was lost as a result of military conflict during the 18th and 19th Centuries?

And at a time when the British Empire was at its height.

Did all Americans at that time view themselves as 'rebels'?

Also guys....PLEASE keep this thread on topic...current political issues are NOT 18th Century.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Bearcat99
05-23-2006, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi Bearcat,
Quote:
"I think pretty much all the European nations were on shaky ground over here... they were so busy fighting amongst themselves and they brought that over here.. but there was enough of a 3rd party with its own intrests that werent tied up in Europe to make the split inevitable.. even if some other country like France or Spain.. who were the biggest contenders outside of England..... they couldnt hold onto thier colonies over here in NA either..."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Agreed. I don't think any of the European powers could have held sway for long from that time. Given all the conditions that prevailed, I think the USA, or an independent nation very much like it, would have developed regardless.

Even the American Civil War almost a century later could in all likelihood only have ended one way, IMHO. [Hope I'm not opening another can of worms there!]
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
Best regards,
panther3485

I had a thread in here called the "Who we are" thread. It was a poll.. Ill have to post another one... I dont know what happened to it.

telsono
05-23-2006, 03:54 PM
In the past 6 months I have finished reading biographies on both Ben Franklin and John Adams. The causes of the American Revolution can be rightfully put at the feet of those who administered the colonies.

"He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within."


Delegations were sent from the Colonies to England to treat on these matters decades prior to 1776. Ben Franklin was involved in some of these ventures. The Colonist wanted to have some say in the process of taxation, either with their own members in Parliament or some sort of consenting authority via the Colonial legislatures.Certain interested parties like the Penn family with there great land grant, didn't want the colonist to gain any representation in Parliament and saw to it that it was snuffed out by their allies. The Penns were notorius for their autocratic rule in Pennsylvania. By how these honest men came forward and placed their greviences forward to only be bemused and attacked by their cousins across the pond it doesn't take a genius to see why Franklin went to England a solid Loyalist and returned a revolutionary.

"He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature."

The Boston Massacre was mentioned earlier, Paul Revere had a hand in the propaganda there as he made that famous engraving of the scene that provoked so many people. There was a trial for the British soldiers and only the two that had initially fired their weapons were convicted. To say that these men were provoked was certainly a truth, as stones and other objects were placed in those hardened iceballs thrown at them, but luckily they had an appointed lawyer who was able and saw the need to put justice ahead of personal belief. That man was John Adams.
But again the people did feel that they were under they were being placed underfoot as they had to house these soldiers in their own houses and the colonial legislatures taxed them to feed and pay them.

"For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:"

Some of the other greviances that the Colonists had were the restriction over manufactured goods. NONE were allowed to be produced in the Colonies, only in England. This meant that all goods, beyond what a smith could forge, had to be shipped in across the pond.

Slavery was an issue that was divisive amongst the colonist. Abigail Adams when she viewed the building of the original Whitehouse she thought the whole process slow and inefficient. She watch the two owners of the slaves chat away as their slaves worked slowly carting off stones from the site. New England day laborers, in her opinion, were more efficient and industrious than what she had seen there.

These are just a few comments, and a little rambling. It does seem that Ben Franklin was right when he talked about the misue of the American Colonies by the British crown, to hinder its industries and character, that grew inspite of the hand that guides the government.

Remember as Franklin also said which is my retort to the Patriot Act:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Also, Machiavelli commented to control a people you need to slowly remove their rights by little bits so that they would not notice their loss.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-23-2006, 04:03 PM
Hi Avro,

There were indeed 'loyalists' Americans who fought on behalf of the British.

A very good book on the subject is 'The Fate Of A Nation: The American Revolution Through Contemporary Eyes' by William E. ******* and Hugh Rankin. (1975) Phaidon Press.
ISBN 0 7148 1644 2

Loads of period documents and illustrations coupled with a balanced narrative that explains the conflict and the views of the people involved, making inroads into the propaganda of both sides. It's one of my 'Desert Island Books'. If you have even a passing interest in the subject, see if your local library can track down a copy.

MB_Avro_UK
05-23-2006, 04:18 PM
Thanks Low_Flyer,

I'm new to the subject and it seems to me to be worth reading up on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards from north London,
MB_Avro.

I_KG100_Prien
05-23-2006, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

I was the Original Poster and I have learned a lot so far http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I'm a Brit and was wondering if the American War of Independence resulted in the only British Colony that was lost as a result of military conflict during the 18th and 19th Centuries?

And at a time when the British Empire was at its height.

Did all Americans at that time view themselves as 'rebels'?

Also guys....PLEASE keep this thread on topic...current political issues are NOT 18th Century.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Glad you learned something Avro. I know I don't really know too much about the history of Britain except a few little points that are part of a couple of my historical interests (Read the 14th C. and Hundered Years War)..

However, it's really not surprising that this thread has de-railed itself into a politically fueled quagmire. It just had the fuel for it. It was only a matter of time before someone brought Iraq into it, and you see how things fell into place.

Personally were I a moderator on this board I doubt this thread would have made it to 7 pages in length... The Lock would have occoured long ago. I'm not some kind of censor but one thing I've definatly learned in my short 25 years on this planet is that the hardest thing to change in another human being is their Opinion and what they believe in. People are set in their ways, and for some reason it always seems Political Debates never stay civil for long..

So please, lets save the Political assault threads where they belong, on other boards, and keep this one free of the headache.

MB_Avro_UK
05-23-2006, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

I was the Original Poster and I have learned a lot so far http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I'm a Brit and was wondering if the American War of Independence resulted in the only British Colony that was lost as a result of military conflict during the 18th and 19th Centuries?

And at a time when the British Empire was at its height.

Did all Americans at that time view themselves as 'rebels'?

Also guys....PLEASE keep this thread on topic...current political issues are NOT 18th Century.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Glad you learned something Avro. I know I don't really know too much about the history of Britain except a few little points that are part of a couple of my historical interests (Read the 14th C. and Hundered Years War)..

However, it's really not surprising that this thread has de-railed itself into a politically fueled quagmire. It just had the fuel for it. It was only a matter of time before someone brought Iraq into it, and you see how things fell into place.

Personally were I a moderator on this board I doubt this thread would have made it to 7 pages in length... The Lock would have occoured long ago. I'm not some kind of censor but one thing I've definatly learned in my short 25 years on this planet is that the hardest thing to change in another human being is their Opinion and what they believe in. People are set in their ways, and for some reason it always seems Political Debates never stay civil for long..

So please, lets save the Political assault threads where they belong, on other boards, and keep this one free of the headache. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point I_KG 100_Prien http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif,

Let's see how this thread goes...

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Copperhead310th
05-23-2006, 10:26 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-23-2006, 10:35 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-23-2006, 10:54 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-23-2006, 10:55 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

joeap
05-24-2006, 03:19 AM
Soooo, was the US a democracy in the 18th century? Was any country? Better to judge by the standards of the time. What do you all think the American revolutionaries meant by the "tyranny" of the British crown?

panther3485
05-24-2006, 04:16 AM
Hi there, joeap

By today's standards in Western countries, any nation that did not allow adults of both sexes to vote in elections probably would not be considered a 'democracy'.

But this has been a relatively recent development and during the 19th century for example, those countries that allowed universal male suffrage would no doubt have thought of themselves as very enlightened, modern 'democracies' then!
I suspect the general feeling would have been that women did not 'need' to vote (after all, their husbands voted and wasn't that enough? And besides, what did women know of such things?)

Then, before that in some countries, it was only men who were landowners that were entitled to vote. The uneducated peasantry didn't need to vote, did they? Besides, what would they know of such things? Better to leave the decision-making to those who were fit for it - the wealthy, educated elite!

Ahem!


I'm not too sure what the electoral arrangements were in the American colonies and the young emerging USA of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Perhaps somebody here can clue us up on that? Not my strong area, I'm afraid!


Best regards,
panther3485

joeap
05-24-2006, 06:07 AM
I think all male citizens could vote in the US, that is all free (ie. white for the most part as slaves wre obviously excluded) male citizens, regardless if they were simple farmers or landowners or clockmakers...I am pretty sure it was only the landowning aristocracy that was enfranchised in the Uk for a long time.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-24-2006, 06:15 AM
Wasn't the whole starting point of the rebellion that the colonists didn't have members of Parliament? 'No taxation without representation' and all that. That representation would have been on the British model, and only available to male landowners. Perhaps this was a useful grieveance for those with their own agenda to hang thier coat on?

WWMaxGunz
05-24-2006, 06:29 AM
I thought that the list in the Declaration was pretty clear without going into total detail.
No representation and a load of screwey laws. People that came here were not supposed to be
making lives so much as providing cheap materials and a chump market for the homeland. There
had to be a change and that was seen coming at many levels of the society.

Funny how the same guys then would be labelled today and acted upon if they got too loud.

Bearcat99
05-24-2006, 06:58 AM
OK you 3... this is the last warning.. the next one who crosses the line will be given a time out.

You know who you are..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Bearcat99
05-24-2006, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Wasn't the whole starting point of the rebellion that the colonists didn't have members of Parliament? 'No taxation without representation' and all that. That representation would have been on the British model, and only available to male landowners. Perhaps this was a useful grieveance for those with their own agenda to hang thier coat on?

Yes if I am not mistaken you are right... as flawed as our system was and in many ways still is in it's implementation... you have to admit.. a lot of this stuff was really revolutionary (no pun intended) at the time.

mortoma1958
05-24-2006, 07:35 AM
Don't forget the fact that many came here to escape religious persecution, going all the way back a hundred or more years before. Many were afraid that under British rule, that such problems would crop up yet again. There were many factors which led us to revolt, not just a few.

WWMaxGunz
05-24-2006, 09:27 AM
A lot did come to escape religious persecution indeed from at least two church-states.
Church of England and Roman Catholic Church both.

A lot of people were shipped to the south here as slaves both indentured and total slaves.

And a bunch came over just to take advantage of the situation, some with hefty land grants
and other official sweet deals.

From the start there were 13 seperate 'states' each with their own laws. As a new country
there just was not enough stability to from the start have everything even, the states did
and still keep a lot of power to themselves. Thus what was right for some was not for the
rest. The slavery issue was fought over for well more than 30 years before 1860.

That all accounts for a lot of the disparity in views, ethics and philosophies that we still
have the echoes of today.

It's not all bad and not all good but slowly I think we can work much of it out. At least
if the cheating and the outside influences let that happen. Wars do not help and avoidable
wars are not good for the economy or anything else but the few who profit. We've had
presidents since Lincoln and others point that out continually. Even the founders had some
to say on that. The biggest danger throughout our history remains from within.

Bear, I've quit feeding the trolls but I ain't about to put up with outright mudslinging.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-24-2006, 10:15 AM
So can we trace the beginnings of when Americans began to think of themselves as a nation rather than an English colony? As WWMaxGunz has pointed out, many came to get away from the English system rather than to perpepuate it. Many of the passengers on the Mayflower originated from an established religious commune in Holland, for instance, they were seeking a new life even further away from England's influence, not closer to it. Was the emergence of a land owning elite due to the original settlers, either by accident or design? Or was this due to the system imposed upon them by the English government? Would the continuation of a puritan republic in England have maintained closer ties with the colonies? Was the English class systen ever fully eradicated from the American psyche? Or was it replaced with a more subtle hierarchy based on wealth? Did the revolution go far enough? I must confess that hindsight is a wonderful gift, but was the civil war as inevitable as the revolution?

Aaron_GT
05-24-2006, 11:19 AM
Would the continuation of a puritan republic in England have maintained closer ties with the colonies?

The word 'puritan' gets bandied around a lot, but the religious landscape in mid seventeenth century England was rather complex. There was a brief flowering of religious tolerance, but in general the Commonwealth (Cromwell's regime) was not very religiously tolerant, leading to some groups leaving. To a certain extent this was in reaction to the Catholic leanings, in a relatively tolerant way, of Charles I, which was in stark contrast to the anti-Papal rhetoric of James I (which is where things start to tie in with Scottish religion of course). In fact John Lilburne (of the Levellers) actually proposed a return to the monarchy given the despotism and intolerance of the Commonwealth.

So in summary a continuation of puritanism (if by this you mean the Commonwealth, and no Restoration) would probably have made things worse.

Probably the Glorious Revolution of William of Orange and the Bill of Rights, while staunchly anti-Catholic, probably brought England closer to the colonies, but then this regime was replaced by the Hannoverian one.

Aaron_GT
05-24-2006, 11:31 AM
I think all male citizens could vote in the US, that is all free (ie. white for the most part as slaves wre obviously excluded) male citizens, regardless if they were simple farmers or landowners or clockmakers...I am pretty sure it was only the landowning aristocracy that was enfranchised in the Uk for a long time.

I thouhght the Constitution didn't really prescribe how voting within States was to occur, simply that a slate of Electors should be chosen which then votes for president.

MLudner
05-24-2006, 02:21 PM
Here is the answer to your question, MB, expressed by Mr. Jefferson:

"A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled.
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with [inherent and] inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, [begun at a distinguished period and] pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to [expunge] their former systems of government. The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of [unremitting] injuries and usurpations, [among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, but all have] in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world [for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.]

"He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

"He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

"He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.

"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

"He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly [and continually] for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

"He has refused for a long time after such dissolutions to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the state remaining, in the meantime, exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without and convulsions within.

"He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

"He has [suffered] [Changed by Congress: obstructed] the administration of justice [totally to cease in some of these states] [Changed by Congress: by] refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

"He has made [our] judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

"He has erected a multitude of new offices, [by a self-assumed power] and sent hither swarms of new officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

"He has kept among us in times of peace standing armies [and ships of war] without the consent of our legislatures.

"He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; for protecting them by a mock trial from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states; for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world, for imposing taxes on us without our consent; for depriving us [added by Congress: in many cases] of the benefits of trial by jury; for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences; for abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these [states] [Changed by Congress: colonies]; for taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments; for suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

"He has abdicated government here [withdrawing his governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection.] by declaring us out of his protection, and waging war against us.

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

"He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy [Added by Congress: scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally] unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

"He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

"He has [Added by Congress: excited domestic insurrection among us, and has] endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions [of existence].

"[He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture and confiscation of our property.

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivatng and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people for whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.]

"In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuries.

"A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a [Added by Congress: free] people [who mean to be free. Future ages will scarcely believe that the hardiness of one man adventured, within the short compass of twelve years only, to lay a foundation so broad and so undisguised for tyranny over a people fostered and fixed in principles of freedom].

"Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend [a] [Added by Congress: an unwarrantable] jurisdiction over [these our states]. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here, [no one of which could warrant so strange a pretension: that these were effected at the expense of our own blood and treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great Britain: that in constituting indeed our several forms of government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league and amity with them: but that submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if history have may be credited: and,] we [Added by Congress: have] appealed to and their native justice and magnanimity [as well as to] [Changed: and we have conjured them by] the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which [were likely to] [Changed: would inevitably] interrupt our connection and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity, [and when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our harmony, they have, by their free election, reestablished them in power. At this very time too, they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch and foreign mercenaries to invade and destroy us. These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former love for them, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We might have been a free and a great people together; but a communication of grandeur and of freedom, it seems, is below their dignity. Be it so, since they will have it. The road to happiness and to glory is open to us, too. We will tread it apart from them, and] [Changed: We must therefore] acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our [eternal] separation [Added: and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends]!

"We therefore the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, do in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these [states reject and renounce all allegiance and subjection to the kings of Great Britain and all others who may hereafter claim by, through or under them; we utterly dissolve all political connection which may heretofore have subsisted between us and the people or parliament of Great Britain: and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states,] and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.
"And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

This version was not ratified, but it lists the grievances as the Patriots saw them.

Bearcat99
05-24-2006, 02:23 PM
I was wondering when you would get here professor.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-24-2006, 02:32 PM
America will be composed of several european states,a french section,a british section,a dutch section...you name it!

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-24-2006, 02:40 PM
But would they live in peace and harmony?

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-24-2006, 02:46 PM
No way!!! europeans invented "modern warfare"http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And if america did not unite as a whole and european states were created,peoply will become loyal to their state and won't bother to make any rebellion.

MLudner
05-24-2006, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I was wondering when you would get here professor.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


I was avoiding it to avoid being banned after getting into a knock-down drag-out with some leftist yahoo. In the end I could not avoid the temptation.

I'm doomed...

WWMaxGunz
05-24-2006, 05:57 PM
There were the Puritans who some descendants seem to feel they own the country or should be
able to dictate how everyone should act, who should run for office... always good for a
witch hunt and finding someone to burn. BTW, I have one ancestor that was there 1615 but
left for Nova Scotia when her old man died so I'm not picking on outsiders there.

New York City started as Nieuw Amsterdam (sp?) and was anything but Puritanistic.

The DuPonts were given a lot of land by the King of France. Hello Delaware.

William Penn got a huge tract and was very fair minded from the start.

I dunno the history of Virginia past Jamestown but tobacco revenue made up like 20% of the
Crown income.

Georgia was a Penal Colony.

A very mixed bag that never started as a whole by any means.

How many Hugenots ended up in the US? I know of at least some descendants in the states.
We have people of all bloods here in solid numbers before 1900.

Where I live there are many ethnic clubs that maintain their own buildings and are generally
open and friendly to everyone. Once I got to know the place, I live in one very nice city at
least on average. I can eat authentic Hungarian cooking just down the street not 1/2 mile.

In the first decades of US history the whole thing near fell apart more than once over states
rights, taxes and border squabbles. Perhaps when England attacked in 1812 it did us a favor
in uniting again against a common enemy. We got a couple of pretty good songs out of it to
boot, The Battle of 1814 and The Star Spangled Banner.

MLudner
05-24-2006, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
For those more interested in following the course of written constitutions (the British are still waiting for one of their own, btw) the following links may be of interest. As I've already posted 'An agreement of the people' from 1647, I've left it out. Perhaps I should also include the Gettysburg address and the 13th ammendment, or the European Convention on human rights, but there's enough here for the genuinely interested to be getting on with. I make no apology for including so much Thomas Paine - I feel his contibution to both the American and French revolutions is often sadly neglected. Of particular note is the section in the last link containing constitutions from various modern nations. If you follow these links, you'll appreciate the derivative nature of such matters and hopefully concur that it's a very rare political animal indeed that acts purely for the people they so often claim to represent. These links are by no means exhaustive and are posted in the hope that at least some of you will delve further into such matters, emerging with a greater understanding and respect for what people of all nations have done in an attempt to better the lot of their fellow man.

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

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/magna.html

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/index.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/index.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/index.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

http://www.history-magazine.com/codenap.html

http://www.leftjustified.org/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/wtp/wtp.html

I have already read all of those, they are in my personal library (I also have the collected writings of Thomas Paine), save for that last which was so predictably vacuous that for a moment I thought I had blundered into a black hole......or at least so far into the vacuum of deep space that I could not see even a single star. The merest of pretense.

MLudner
05-24-2006, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I was wondering when you would get here professor.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


It seems you have been in this soup from the start.

How ever did you survive this long? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-24-2006, 06:09 PM
You insist on poking a Bear, not once but twice? He is not a fish.

MLudner
05-24-2006, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by NekoReaperman:
au contrare, something like 75% of the colonists wanted to remain under the british crown, and another sizable portion didnt care either way

I'll see your Au contraire and raise you one more:

Au contraire. Exact numbers are not known as the Gallop and Zogby organizations were not yet in existence.

But, it was divided by thirds approximately. Early on the middle leaned a bit toward the crown, but they had swung the other way toward the end.

MLudner
05-24-2006, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You insist on poking a Bear, not once but twice? He is not a fish.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I believe he will recognize the friendly nature of my replies.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

MO_JOJO
05-25-2006, 04:07 AM
I think had the colonists remained loyal to the king and followed his plans, France would have ceased to exist at some point in the early 1800's, followed by Spain. But regardless, people want local jurisdiction and control, and revolution is inevitable. Unless you're Canadian.

RCAF_Irish_403
05-25-2006, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
For those more interested in following the course of written constitutions (the British are still waiting for one of their own, btw) the following links may be of interest. As I've already posted 'An agreement of the people' from 1647, I've left it out. Perhaps I should also include the Gettysburg address and the 13th ammendment, or the European Convention on human rights, but there's enough here for the genuinely interested to be getting on with. I make no apology for including so much Thomas Paine - I feel his contibution to both the American and French revolutions is often sadly neglected. Of particular note is the section in the last link containing constitutions from various modern nations. If you follow these links, you'll appreciate the derivative nature of such matters and hopefully concur that it's a very rare political animal indeed that acts purely for the people they so often claim to represent. These links are by no means exhaustive and are posted in the hope that at least some of you will delve further into such matters, emerging with a greater understanding and respect for what people of all nations have done in an attempt to better the lot of their fellow man.

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

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/magna.html

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/index.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/index.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/index.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

http://www.history-magazine.com/codenap.html

http://www.leftjustified.org/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/wtp/wtp.html

I have already read all of those, they are in my personal library (I also have the collected writings of Thomas Paine), save for that last which was so predictably vacuous that for a moment I thought I had blundered into a black hole......or at least so far into the vacuum of deep space that I could not see even a single star. The merest of pretense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last link is a page dedicated to a posting of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.......vacuous? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

stathem
05-25-2006, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by MO_JOJO:
I think had the colonists remained loyal to the king and followed his plans, France would have ceased to exist at some point in the early 1800's, followed by Spain. But regardless, people want local jurisdiction and control, and revolution is inevitable. Unless you're Canadian.

That's not strictly true; Perfidious Albion was never really interested in dismantling or obliterating the other European powers, just ensuring that none of them had controlling interests in the others. See "balance of power politics"

The British Army (and the Portuguse) fought to liberate Spain in the first half of the second decade of the 19th century, not to occupy or enslave it.

Bearcat99
05-25-2006, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by MO_JOJO:
I think had the colonists remained loyal to the king and followed his plans, France would have ceased to exist at some point in the early 1800's, followed by Spain. But regardless, people want local jurisdiction and control, and revolution is inevitable. Unless you're Canadian.

Nahhhhh I dont think so.. plus keep in mind that the ruling families of these countries were mostly related by blood or marriage.. not that that ever stopped any wars.. but I agree with stathem.. I think Britain would have been happy just having the lions share of control over Europe... and had the colonies remained loyal to Britain I also think that a lot of the fighting between the Euros over here in America might have lasted longer... but as has been said.. the split was inevitable.... There was just too much money and resources over here for someone to just work it and then hand it over to the crown...

stathem
05-25-2006, 07:06 AM
Quick question, when did you buy Louisiana off the French?

Rattler68
05-25-2006, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by Jungmann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Interesting thread.

I can understand why the Americans posting in this thread assume that because thier forfathers had both rejected the European continent and had a pioneering spirit the break with England was inevitable; but I'd like to ask them what, in thier own eyes, diffentiates them from Australia?

Everybody who came to America wanted to be there. Still applies.

My 2 cents about the inevitable split--Britain treated the Colonies like all their colonies, as a cash cow, to be taxed up the wazoo, to make the Yankees have to buy British goods off British ships at higher prices than they'd pay elsewhere (say, the French), and as a handy garden for all that good stuff they couldn't grow at home (tobacco). Americans finally got p***ed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overstated. Ever seen the movie Amistad? I think that a few Africans and West Indians would disagree that they wanted to be there.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-25-2006, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
Quick question, when did you buy Louisiana off the French?

1803. I believe the land purchased was somewhat bigger than modern Louisiana. Jefferson got it for $15,000,000.

stathem
05-25-2006, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Quick question, when did you buy Louisiana off the French?

1803. I believe the land purchased was somewhat bigger than modern Louisiana. Jefferson got it for $15,000,000. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks L_F. I guess the price would have been somewhat higher if the British had still been in control.

jensenpark
05-25-2006, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by MO_JOJO:
I think had the colonists remained loyal to the king and followed his plans, France would have ceased to exist at some point in the early 1800's, followed by Spain. But regardless, people want local jurisdiction and control, and revolution is inevitable.
Unless you're Canadian.

Hardee har har...someone made a funny.

MLudner
05-25-2006, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
For those more interested in following the course of written constitutions (the British are still waiting for one of their own, btw) the following links may be of interest. As I've already posted 'An agreement of the people' from 1647, I've left it out. Perhaps I should also include the Gettysburg address and the 13th ammendment, or the European Convention on human rights, but there's enough here for the genuinely interested to be getting on with. I make no apology for including so much Thomas Paine - I feel his contibution to both the American and French revolutions is often sadly neglected. Of particular note is the section in the last link containing constitutions from various modern nations. If you follow these links, you'll appreciate the derivative nature of such matters and hopefully concur that it's a very rare political animal indeed that acts purely for the people they so often claim to represent. These links are by no means exhaustive and are posted in the hope that at least some of you will delve further into such matters, emerging with a greater understanding and respect for what people of all nations have done in an attempt to better the lot of their fellow man.

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

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/magna.html

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/index.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/index.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/index.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

http://www.history-magazine.com/codenap.html

http://www.leftjustified.org/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/wtp/wtp.html

I have already read all of those, they are in my personal library (I also have the collected writings of Thomas Paine), save for that last which was so predictably vacuous that for a moment I thought I had blundered into a black hole......or at least so far into the vacuum of deep space that I could not see even a single star. The merest of pretense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last link is a page dedicated to a posting of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.......vacuous? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you go any deeper than the first page?

I did.

The first page is the merest of pretense.

MLudner
05-25-2006, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Quick question, when did you buy Louisiana off the French?

1803. I believe the land purchased was somewhat bigger than modern Louisiana. Jefferson got it for $15,000,000. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks L_F. I guess the price would have been somewhat higher if the British had still been in control. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Napoleon would not have sold it to them. Jefferson; yes, the British; no. But, then, considering that Napoleon lost the wars in the end, the British might have just taken it.

MLudner
05-25-2006, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Quick question, when did you buy Louisiana off the French?

1803. I believe the land purchased was somewhat bigger than modern Louisiana. Jefferson got it for $15,000,000. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somewhat bigger, yes: It reached all the way to the Pacific Ocean in modern day Oregon and Washington.

Bearcat99
05-25-2006, 02:45 PM
This is why I just love history so mucvh.. it is so fascinating to see how we do.... the cause and effect of it all.....

MLudner
05-25-2006, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
hi all,

I am not a historian but I have an interest in history.

As far as I understand,the American War of Independence was sparked by the British demand for higher taxes.

The taxes were raised as I understand to fight the French and a couple of other European nations who wanted their Imperial 'slice' of the British 'American colonies'.

If the 'American Colony' had ACCEPTED this tax and a revolution had not taken place how would world history have changed assuming that America had remained a British Colony?

I may be 'off the wall' here but to me this subject is of interest and worthy of a few moments thought.



Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

It would have made a huge difference in the First World War at least. The Kaiser would not have stood a chance had the British had American manpower to draw on from the start.

MLudner
05-25-2006, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Rattler68:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jungmann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Interesting thread.

I can understand why the Americans posting in this thread assume that because thier forfathers had both rejected the European continent and had a pioneering spirit the break with England was inevitable; but I'd like to ask them what, in thier own eyes, diffentiates them from Australia?

Everybody who came to America wanted to be there. Still applies.

My 2 cents about the inevitable split--Britain treated the Colonies like all their colonies, as a cash cow, to be taxed up the wazoo, to make the Yankees have to buy British goods off British ships at higher prices than they'd pay elsewhere (say, the French), and as a handy garden for all that good stuff they couldn't grow at home (tobacco). Americans finally got p***ed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overstated. Ever seen the movie Amistad? I think that a few Africans and West Indians would disagree that they wanted to be there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivatng and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people for whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.]"

That's how Thomas Jefferson looked at it.

telsono
05-25-2006, 04:29 PM
It does seem at times that what Jefferson says does not really correspond to what he does. Slavery is one such issue. Upon his death he freed only several slaves.
Napoleon needed money in a hurry at the time of the Louisiana Purchase. The US were worried about British and French policies hindering their trade along the Mississippi and approached the French for the purchase of New Orleans and the outlet to the Gulf of Mexico to protect our trade interest. The slave revolt in Haiti had caused the loss of a French Army that was going to be used to attack the British via the Mississippi. It certainly was a great deal at the time. A tremendous one for the price.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-25-2006, 04:30 PM
How many slaves did Jefferson own?

Undoubtedly one of the ablest leaders a nation ever had, but his practices seem at odds with his teachings.

telsono
05-25-2006, 04:45 PM
Jefferson is known to have owned at least 50 slaves. Besides Monticello he owned two other farms in which slave labor were used. Part of a wedding present to his daughter was one of these properties and at least 12 slaves to run it.

horseback
05-25-2006, 06:25 PM
As regards slavery: to the shame of the 'Enlightened Western European," anyone other than a northern (Christian) European was looked upon by our ancestors as somewhat less than a man prior to the 19th century. Pale Caucasian Arabs, 'swarthy' Italians and Greeks, dark-skinned caucasian Indians (the ones from the subcontinent on the right), asians in all their varieties, Pacific Islanders, native Americans (which run a wide gamut of racial types & mixes) and black Africans all were looked down upon and treated as property or serfs to some degree(of course, they would have been terribly insulted to know that these 'lesser' peoples looked at them in much the same way.)

It took a tremendous leap of intellect (and even greater moral courage) to believe that these were all men created in God's image and publicly say so in the late 1700s.

That a few people did so, and were able to point at Jefferson's and the other Founding Fathers' words and make the reality stand next to the ideal so that we could see how far we had to go was a great gift to all of us, and the work that they started was not completed until well after--oh hell, we're not even close yet, anywhere on this earth.

Who are you to make judgements about men like Washington, Jefferson or Adams on the basis of what you read in a few books or magazines, or far more likely, from watching the History Channel?

cheers

horseback

MLudner
05-25-2006, 06:27 PM
He purchased a total of 19 slaves during his life. Like the vast majority of his personal debt, the rest were inherited from his father in law.

Jefferson was as born into slavery as were his slaves. What you see in Jefferson is the clash between his ideals and reality.

In a Slave Economy (A modified Socialist Economy, I might add) you cannot compete without them and will go bankrupt if you attempt to employ majority free labor.

Just ask Henry Clay. Henry Clay was a Kentuckian, and early on he became a public figure. His first public acts of note occured when Kentucky was drafting its first State Constitution: Henry Clay went from one end of Kentucky to the other making stump speeches and campaigning aggressively for a FREE soil constitution that would make Kentucky a free state.
He lost. Kentucky entered the Union as a slave state.
In order to run his plantation he soon discovered the necessity of becoming a slaveholder since he lived in a slave state and despite his very public opposition to slavery he himself became a slave owner.

Henry Clay was one of Abraham Lincoln's most influential mentors.

Reality sometimes trumps one's ideals. Jefferson's first piece of legislation back in the Virginia House of Burgesses was a measure that would have out-lawed slavery in Virginia. He was too junior to floor the measure himself and he asked a sympathetic friend in the House whom he knew shared his view of the matter to propose it. His friend told him it would never pass, of course, but he agreed that it had to be tried.
Jefferson would rue that day for the rest of his life.
The man rose and tabled the legislation. Instantaneously he was under vitriolic assault, suffering condemnation and excoriation of such a bitter and ad hominem nature that Jefferson withered. Jefferson eternally regretted putting that man through that and felt responsible for what he had suffered.

Hind-sight is almost 20/20 vision, but living in their present you would not have had that.

MLudner
05-25-2006, 06:56 PM
On the subject of slavery:

First - The US was founded with slavery already in existence, it was not our idea. There was a strong Abolitionist movement in the colonies before the US was founded, and half of the States began the process of emancipation as soon as independence was achieved. The US Consitution set a date for the elimination of the slave trade and as soon as that date came the African Slave Trade was discontinued in the US. The US Constitution also contained provisions whcih encouraged emancipation and placed slave states at a disadvantage. Unique among nations, the US was formed by a VOLUNTARY association; no one HAD to join. This was why slavery could not be immediately ended, because the States from Maryland south would never have signed on.

Second - Slavery came into existence on this continent not by any intent or plan, but came about through conditions at the time that made it unfortunately necessary. Early on there was a lack of labor and indentured servants could not entirly supply the need. The problem is that an indentured servant is bound to his employer for only a term of years or for a sum of money, both of which equal the cost of passage across the pond. The indentured servant, if sufficiently industrious (and many were) could do work on the side and save enough money to buy-out of his contract early. The employer then had to pay for another costly passage. This is where the Arabs come in. For centuries the Arabs had been taking slaves from Subsaharan Africa and Europeans learned of this from them. Those West Africans then supplied the labor shortage. Unfortunately, in the Southern colonies their entire society and economic system then developed around slavery.

To be continued when time allows...

Blutarski2004
05-25-2006, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
On the subject of slavery:

For centuries the Arabs had been taking slaves from Subsaharan Africa and Europeans learned of this from them. Those West Africans then supplied the labor shortage. Unfortunately, in the Southern colonies their entire society and economic system then developed around slavery.

To be continued when time allows...


===> The Arabs and Ottomans and piratical North African states routinely also seized immense numbers of caucasian europeans as slaves. The galleys of the Ottoman navy were all crewed by slave rowers. Some authorities argue that the numbers of caucasians put into slavery during the period of Muslim ascendancy equalled the numbers of Africans taken.

One interesting observation I have made is that slavery as a European institution disappeared as soon as the very labor-intensive Caribbean sugar cane industry was supplanted by the devlopment of beet-derived sugar. It's not commonly known that the Caribbean Island during the 17th and 18th centuries representedsome of the most valuable commercial real estate on the planet because of the sugar cane crops raised there. Once the need for massive numbers of cheap labor disappeared, so did slavery as an economic institution in Great Britain.

WWMaxGunz
05-26-2006, 07:27 AM
Slavery and slave trade existed in Africa as well. Losers of wars that survived were taken
as slaves if not sacrificed though the children of the slaves were not slaves. Slave trade
moved between African nations and continued after Muslim control moved in. I've seen records
of silver and livestock traded to African nations for shiploads of slaves.

AFAIK the first Euros to take slaves from Africa was Portugal in IIRC 1510 but maybe it's 1610.

luftluuver
05-26-2006, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Slavery and slave trade existed in Africa as well. Losers of wars that survived were taken
as slaves if not sacrificed though the children of the slaves were not slaves. Slave trade
moved between African nations and continued after Muslim control moved in. I've seen records
of silver and livestock traded to African nations for shiploads of slaves.

AFAIK the first Euros to take slaves from Africa was Portugal in IIRC 1510 but maybe it's 1610. You mean 'modern' Euros? Rome was taking slaves from Africa a long time before the 1500s.

MB_Avro_UK
05-26-2006, 12:37 PM
MLudner...many thanks for your informed replies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I'm also interested in the 'mindset' of the Colonists.

It has been mentioned that those of English origin (what would be their percentage of all European immigrants?)emigrated from England as they were not satisfied perhaps with the social/political 'status-quo' in England.

Were many other English immigrants perhaps seeking economic opportunities in America and were they perhaps the majority?

In other words,was there a 'split' of ideology towards the war between those English who had left for economic aspirations and those who had left for political aspirations?

From what I am beginning to realise,the War of Independence was perhaps a complex issue and not a simple 'Red v Blue' situation.(Apologies for making an IL2 term of comparison!).

If there was a 'split', what were the effects after the war? And was there significant English/British immigration to America after the war?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

horseback
05-26-2006, 03:49 PM
There were several reasons to emigrate to the American colonies from Britain, and from my reading on the subject, the overwhelming majority in the original 13 States (plus Maine) were descended from inhabitants of the British isles. There were some significant pockets of Dutch around New York, and a number of German communities (religious immigrants mostly) in Pennsylvania, but by and large, in the late 1700s most were from the British Isles.

It should be recognized that most crossed the Atlantic in those days with the understanding that they would not be coming back very often, if at all.

Common reasons for immigrating were:

1. Religious. Practice of other than Church of England approved Christianity was generally frowned upon, at a minimum. This does not mean that religious refugees to the New World uniformly practiced religious tolerance, it merely means that their practices were not well tolerated in Britain or their native land in Europe.

Anyone who belonged to a religious group (Calvinist, Quaker, Puritan or even Jewish) not well liked by the majority in their homeland might easily have contemplated migrating to the Americas to create their own community where they were able to worship as they thought proper. Americans still tend to be more religious than Europeans, and take their religious beliefs more seriously.

2. Economic. European society was quite stratified. You were expected to be pretty much limited to your father's social status, and law and custom largely limited wealth to the aristocrats and royalty. A commoner could acquire land and wealth, but it was much harder to do so, and his position was much more precarious. The Americas offered a great deal of land free for the taking, with the real possibilty of economic independence if not actual wealth to whoever was willing to take the risk and do the work.

3. Freedom/independence/self determination. See Number 2, above. Also, there was the added possibility of glory for the conqueror, explorer or the man who brought back great wealth or territory for the Crown. Some were no doubt drawn by the lack of direct supervision by the English authorities. Certainly, the adventurer types weren't always terribly concerned with the letter of the law. There were also some political refugees, and no doubt, the younger sons of the aristocracy who hoped to establish a power base for themselves. These soon made their own way into the frontier society, or in some extreme cases were driven back to Europe.

However, the more numerous average common farmer was also largely freed from the demands of those placed above him in Britain, and that freedom was quickly cherished and taken for granted. Demands for a 'piece of the pie' from a Crown that appeared to do little for him and showed him no respect in the process did not go over well.

We say here that "all politics are local." A voter's motivations are usually driven by issues that directly affect him and his family.

A family farmer in Virginia had little in common with a farmer in say, East Anglia or Kent. He had no taxes to speak of, or landlord, or anything like similar local authorities. His sole concern was to produce sufficient crops to feed his family plus an excess to sell for the tools and goods he couldn't make or grow himself. He would be a member in good standing with his church, and that usually formed the basis for his social support system and friendships.

On the frontiers, you could add the concern with protection from Indian (or French or Spanish) raiders, which emphatically wasn't going to come from the British Army or the Royal Navy.

The 'split' you speak of, MB_Avro, usually occured within two years of crossing the Atlantic in most cases.

cheers

horseback

MB_Avro_UK
05-26-2006, 04:38 PM
hi horseback,

Thanks for the helpful post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Your Para 2) I think is important.I can understand the motives !!

Maybe I should emigrate??

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-26-2006, 05:51 PM
If you can wait until December, the National Army Museum in Chelsea is staging an American revolutionary event -

http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/whatsOn/familyEve...christmasRevolution/ (http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/whatsOn/familyEvents/christmasRevolution/)

It's well worth popping along there anyway - some great exhibits.

SkyChimp
05-26-2006, 05:54 PM
I don't speak freaky deaky Dutch.

http://www.dvdreleaselist.com/images/capture_goldmember04.jpg

MLudner
05-26-2006, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
MLudner...many thanks for your informed replies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I'm also interested in the 'mindset' of the Colonists.

It has been mentioned that those of English origin (what would be their percentage of all European immigrants?)emigrated from England as they were not satisfied perhaps with the social/political 'status-quo' in England.

Were many other English immigrants perhaps seeking economic opportunities in America and were they perhaps the majority?

In other words,was there a 'split' of ideology towards the war between those English who had left for economic aspirations and those who had left for political aspirations?

From what I am beginning to realise,the War of Independence was perhaps a complex issue and not a simple 'Red v Blue' situation.(Apologies for making an IL2 term of comparison!).

If there was a 'split', what were the effects after the war? And was there significant English/British immigration to America after the war?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Horseback was able to reply faster, and accurately as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I will try to stick to those things he did not cover.

The mindset was dependent on the basic view to which the individual prescribed, much like politics today. Roughly a third of the Colonists were Patriots who actively participated in the Revolution in one way or another, another third were Tories who remained loyal to the Crown and England. The other third were in-between. In the early part of the war they tended to lean toward the Crown, but as the War progressed and the Patriots began to gain victories and it looked like final victory might be possible they tended to lean toward the Patriots.

Immigration statistics were not kept in those times like they are today, so it would be quite difficult to come to an understanding of the make-up of immigrants; especially since immigration was completely unregulated in those times and no one was really counting.

However, after the War most Tories moved to Canada .... which was just fine with the Patriots who thought that was where they belonged anyway .... with the French ...... and now we know why Canada is what it is today. (http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif Tongue-in-cheek, ay, I'm only kidding, ay, so don't get all bent out of shape, then, ay)

I do not think that the English formed a significant proportion of immigrants after Independence, but they're still moving here to this day. The reasons the English were coming here are pretty much the same as all of the others: More freedom, better chance to make a good living or flat-out get rich, become a land-owner, escape persecution and/or oppression.

Some of your questions really cannot be answered in any scientific manner, but only with conjecture. In those days statistics were not kept like they are now. Markets were unregulated and people pretty much just went about their business, some succeeding and others failing, and personal lives. People came and went as they came and went and life went on.


I won't be around this weekend, and I'll be a busy, busy bee early next week. Good weekend to everyone http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

panther3485
05-26-2006, 11:35 PM
Some good stuff coming out here, guys.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

In particular, excellent last post from horseback and good supplement from MLudner.

Thinking about all this, it wasn't just the Americas that British migrants were going to, of course. Among others, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia also come to mind.

Although the early ships to my home country Australia, for example, contained significant numbers of convicts (more unwilling migrants!), free settlers from Great Britain and Ireland followed in considerably greater numbers, founding the colonies that were destined to federate in 1901.


But for sheer numbers, I think the tide of human migration from Britain and Europe to the Americas, over five centuries, makes all the others look fairly small. Considerable risk for most, failure for some, but the chance for a new and better life, in a 'new world', with new rules!

And just think, how profoundly and completely has it shaped the World we live in today?


Best regards to all,
panther3485

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2006, 04:25 AM
Very complex indeed and needing some corrections and caveats.

Depending on decade and century conditions varied widely.
Early on, 16th century it was near a death sentence for large numbers of immigrants. Average
life span very short, life brutal. But be young enough and lucky enough and work hard you get
something. First Jamestown colony, everyone died.
17th century still very hard except maybe some places where enough people supported each other.
18th century and some places pleasant by euro standards but still very rough and frontier where
a not rich could make a place was hard living.

Much of the land was owned through large, really massive grants by kings and parcelled out.
The families that got the upper hand then are still mostly well off today. The small farmer
had to buy or sharecrop from those. You could always move farther out or get marginal land.

Whatever you did, you had to compete with the big guys. It did not help that what you sold
was devalued and what you bought came dear and taxed heavier and heavier. Compete and that!
Yeah, the really rugged took what they could carry or pack out and went total self-survival
at least until they could return to 'civilization' with a load of high value items like furs
if they didn't get killed over those. There were many French who did exactly that for long
periods and got along well with many of the native peoples. Not just French but I look at
the extent of French penetration into the continent and I think they were the most but perhaps
that's just from more records and maybe early access to rivers that went deep.

Yet city life as established was not so rough especially as time went and in many ways I
think I would have preferred to Europe where pollution was a problem at least before sewers
and septic were I dunno either invented or put to use. There is a reason why the wine was
mixed in the water where it was crowded there between taste and microbes. I am not making
that up either! Not everywhere but not just a few little places was that true, too many
people for the land and technology to drink freely rivers and streams. I would move away
if I could and never have I understood how people could let that be here as well, but greed
and stupidity have their way.

I've read that one French governor went out to Quebec and when they got there his wife went
right back to France and joined a convent! That was at the time equivalent to divorce. How
rough the frontier was is very hard to exaggerate at all. And all those decades there was
always a frontier as rough and rougher than most could take.

Who wants to emigrate? Many did but find population numbers and out of Europe it was not a
flood by any means.

Germans to Penns Woods yes. There was also a large percent of Swedes in Delaware with the
blood still much in evidence. German and Swedish also in much of Maryland. I know that
Kentucky had and still has much German blood. It must be hidden or something how much of
German came to and multiplied the middle at the least but then through WWI and WWII if you
were german blood then you did not advertise wisely. Sometimes PA seems half German and
a lot of Swedish. But then I've seen a lot of Hungarian too from mid-PA and west. They
all did settle strongly, get along and lived safer and good prosperous. The famous Kentucky
and Pennsylvania Rifles were made by those immigrants and their descendants even long before
the revolution as the best IMO skills and craftsmen in those areas also came. Lot of iron
and coal in the Appalachian Mountains as well as virgin hardwood right at hand. Given a
good community the roughness was not an imposition I am sure, that is why what decade and
where is so important.

Swedes also went into the north I am not sure how much later. In the far north of Maine
they established New Sweden right out near the Alagash River but I don't know the year.
It is some of the prettiest country I know and what they say is they called it that because
it reminded them so much of Sweden itself. Wildlife, white birch, spruce, fir and pine and
over 12 feet of snow falls in winter. Clean air and water, what is not to love? LOL!

And as far as French-English and Canada and how it is today? When the English took over
Canada it went VERY BAD for the French. Many families were broken up, children and parents.
Many fathers and brothers killed. How much over allegiance to crown and how much over
religion I don't know for sure but up that way even to the 1960's and 70's it is not jokes
about race but French and English -- I grew up with this. Church was not something to make
jokes of, it was a division for many and still may be but not so much as the rest of the
world keeps moving in. When we buried my Father and were over in New Brunswick with French
friends, one of his old buddies asked me directly did he really feel as he had said? Yes
he did very much love those people I don't have room to say, but with the religious gulf they
lived with Colin still had to ask. My Father was a very intelligent and reasonable man.
Back in the history, when the English went and did that there were many French who stayed
even subjugated and kept the land but whole broken masses fled west along the Saint John
and then south clear down the Mississippi to mix with native and some part Spanish blood
there, and other French still. Where else did Creole come from, eh?

More mixed bag, before the colonies of other Euros formed east there were already over 2/3
of a million with Spanish blood in the New World all through the Carribean, into South and
Central America and Mexico. They did not just stop there.

How do all these get along? Sometimes they did and sometimes it was blood. When a monarchy
or family or religion or money enters into it be sure there was suffering. And the big-time
losers still screwed over are you-know-who that was here before all that started. I would
feel a lot worse for them except long before they did likewise to the ones they invaded in
less formal fashion, as those had also done the same to the true Native Americans. But then
from anthroplogy I think there is not much of the world at all where the original people are
still in control of their first home and not conquered and blended out. Good thing from a
biological POV but not the best thing to say of humanity.

Perhaps the most complex thing is that it's worked as well as it has and not so far?

panther3485
05-27-2006, 04:42 AM
Hi there, WWMaxGunz

Very interesting post, thanks for that.

Yes, 500 years, migrants from so many countries and for so many reasons, huge variations in conditions and circumstances, huge range of possible outcomes.

A vast subject I think, and one worthy of volumes of books and more. Doubt if we could really do it justice here, eh?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Lav69
05-27-2006, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
You might want to read how, after the end of the war, taxes were immediately raised because the colonies found out how expensive government really is.

Wouldn't this be taxation "WITH" representation? Makes paying taxes easier.

Also there was nothing fake about the Boston massacre. Paul Reevere may have twisted some of the details due to his hatred of the British, but it did happen.

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2006, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, WWMaxGunz

Very interesting post, thanks for that.

Yes, 500 years, migrants from so many countries and for so many reasons, huge variations in conditions and circumstances, huge range of possible outcomes.

A vast subject I think, and one worthy of volumes of books and more. Doubt if we could really do it justice here, eh?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

No, we can't. Best I can do is try and point at scope and show some about depth but really
a degreed historian would do better perhaps. I have personal observations from much moving
around and knowing people but still others can make me look like a stick-in-the-mud stay at
home. I really think that it would take a historian with ethnology studies and maybe some
languages under the belt or hat to write a series of volumes as all what I have read are
missing slices here and there.

Really what is needed is people free and with enough extra part time to educate for all life
and then no more reasons to hate. The ones who hate then would be treated as insane which
does happen. IMO that is what Hitler and pals were. It's only when they come into power
by lying to sane but not very smart people that the big trouble happens.

I'll be 50 soon and it's taken me this long to amass what I seem to understand. Perhaps
humanity just has not the ability, we should know more than I do now before leaving home.

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2006, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Lav69:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
You might want to read how, after the end of the war, taxes were immediately raised because the colonies found out how expensive government really is.

Wouldn't this be taxation "WITH" representation? Makes paying taxes easier.

Also there was nothing fake about the Boston massacre. Paul Reevere may have twisted some of the details due to his hatred of the British, but it did happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The taxes didn't just get taken across the ocean probably helped.
Suddenly things not addressed by the crown were made to be, and besides George had wants as
the published expense reports he hit congress up for show. Ice cream, booze and prostitutes
show up in 100's of gallons, by the keg and not just a couple in that order.

OTOH, congress was not for a long time a paid position while now even after only two years
you get full paid retirement for life!

panther3485
05-27-2006, 07:57 AM
Hi again, WWMaxGunz

Quote:
"I'll be 50 soon and it's taken me this long to amass what I seem to understand. Perhaps
humanity just has not the ability, we should know more than I do now before leaving home."

Yes, I'm not much older than you and I still have a great deal to learn.

History has always been a favourite subject but I must confess that I have tended to concentrate on certain specific areas, to the relative neglect of others. I'm fairly weak on American history.

One good thing I find about talking to people on this forum and others, it helps to remind me of my weaknesses and on occasion, has encouraged me to study areas of knowledge I might otherwise never have explored.

Thanks again for your thought provoking posts.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

MB_Avro_UK
05-27-2006, 03:20 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi again, WWMaxGunz

Quote:
"I'll be 50 soon and it's taken me this long to amass what I seem to understand. Perhaps
humanity just has not the ability, we should know more than I do now before leaving home."

I agree panther3485 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

My eyes have been opened so far and I'll do a bit more Googling.The 1812 war also interests me.

How many countries have us Brits been at war with at some time or another? The Germans call us 'Island Monkeys'and they can't understand as to why we had an Empire that encompassed about 70% of the world. Come to think of it...neither can I http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2006, 03:43 PM
British military tradition is extensive, kind of like old Roman in ways?
Don't forget Africa and not just the North African parts.

I had played Hearts of Iron II (can't find the CD now) and amazed at the span of the Empire
even during the 40's. But then even the Netherlands had holdings I had no idea about down
in the Java-New Guinea area. And I really think that Britain screwed up at Singapore with
the defenses only aimed out to sea as it were. HOI2 is not for the faint at heart even just
to start at!

panther3485
05-27-2006, 09:17 PM
Hi there, MB_Avro_UK

Yeah mate, I'm constantly encountering new and fascinating things to think about or study. Reckon I'd never have time to cover it all, even if I lived to be 300 years old!

As for the British Empire, I'm just as amazed as many others, how vast it was at its zenith. With the World developing and changing as it was, the fairly rapid loss of said empire was pretty much a forgone conclusion, IMHO.

But I guess in many ways too, it hasn't been a total loss. I sense another vast subject looming on the horizon!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

PBNA-Boosher
05-27-2006, 11:07 PM
DID YOU KNOW: that at the time of the American Revolution, American colonists were paying some of the LOWEST taxes in the entire British empire? (This includes all the new acts and taxes imposed upon us by the British) Our revolution ultimately came about because Britain tried to enforce Mercantilism upon us, (which, under our charters, they had a right to do) But, apparently, it seemed, if an American can't smuggle things into his colony, gosh darn it, he's got to go to war!!!

MB_Avro, I appreciate the thoughts, but come on. We're talking about my people here, Americans. We're used to doing things our way, even if they're sometimes (okay, a lot of the time) crazy, redundant, and occasionally downright stupid. Custer's Last StandHowever, we must remember all those things the world has seen because Americans, through our mix of brainyness, stupidity, random luck, and culture composition, have come up with some awesome stuff and have made such terrible mistakes:

-Vegetarian Sushi!
-Fortune Cookies
-The 1903 Wright Flyer
-The Cotton Gin
-The Reuben Sandwich
-Virtually every other greasy food on Earth.
-Ironclad Warships
-Repeating rifles
-The Gatling Gun
-First to the Moon (Russia gets credit for first into space!)
-January 15, 1919 = First time ever people were drowned in a flood of 2.5 million gallons of Molasses. (Boston) Article on it here (http://members.tripod.com/%7Eearthdude1/molasses/molasses.jpg)
-First to suggest a "League of Nations," (1918 Armistice) Also one of the first not to join it.
-etc...

slarsson
05-28-2006, 12:02 AM
The Boston "Massacre"?

"Although hardly a massacre this event was a milestone on the road to American independence, being the first powerful influence in forming an outspoken Anti British public opinion.

On Monday March 5, 1770, after a weekend of minor clashes, the conflicts between Boston Garrison Soldiers and colonialists came to a head. Insults exchanged between a British soldier and a local merchant ended with a butt-stroke of a musket. This lead to a small riot, and the Boston Garrison responded with a small squad of soldiers under the command of Captain Thomas Preston. The colonial mob taunted and menaced the squad, but it wasn't until Private Hugh Montgomery was struck by a thrown club that any action occurred. When Montgomery returned to his feet he took aim into the crowd and fired, his compatriots joined him, under no command of Preston. Three colonialists were killed and two mortally wounded.

The real significance of this event was that it gave rebellious leaders propaganda against the British. Sam Adams has been accused of actually instigating the whole event for just this purpose. Popular legend has made these colonials who died heroes and martyrs, they were neither. It is widely accepted now that those who died were no more than the unlucky members of an angry crowd. The British were tried for thier acts, defended by John Adams, and were aqcuited."

Hyperbole is a wonderful thing

Aaron_GT
05-28-2006, 01:34 AM
Yeah mate, I'm constantly encountering new and fascinating things to think about or study. Reckon I'd never have time to cover it all, even if I lived to be 300 years old!

I know what you mean! There is so much to learn about or do, or contribute. I wish I had three lifetimes to fit it all in (and the money to allow me to do it all!)

Aaron_GT
05-28-2006, 01:39 AM
-Virtually every other greasy food on Earth.

You forgot the British contribution to world cuisin.. the chip.


-First to the Moon (Russia gets credit for first into space!)

To be pedantic the USA was the first to land people on the moon, but the Russians were the first to get something at the moon. Both are impressive achievements. It scares me to think how primitive in modern terms the Apollo technology was with computers with the processing power of a modern calculator, yet it worked!

Anyway you forgot some important American contributions:

- The transistor
- The integrated circuit
- The laser

We wouldn't be installing IL2 from a CD onto our PCs without those!