1. #51
    WOLFMondo's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,906
    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.
    Share this post

  2. #52
    Xiolablu3's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    8,755
    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
    Share this post

  3. #53
    AKA_TAGERT's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,799
    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
    Share this post

  4. #54
    Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

    Bloody peasant

    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

    Proof that aliens did indeed invade the sixties

    Public cover up released to press:-



    True image taken from federal photo lab:-



    Share this post

  5. #55
    AKA_TAGERT's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,799

    BIGHT MY SHINNY METAL 67 CHEVY IMPALA A$$
    Share this post

  6. #56
    Hi there, Jungmann

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

    What about the African slaves?


    panther3485
    Share this post

  7. #57
    Chuck_Older's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,024
    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
    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?
    Share this post

  8. #58
    Aaron_GT's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,131
    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.
    Share this post

  9. #59
    Blutarski2004's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,020
    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.
    Share this post

  10. #60
    Blutarski2004's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,020
    Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
    Also the declaration of independance, it only applied to white Americans remember

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