American Revolution

[Didacus]

My ancestry is clouded with military dodgers.

But they are mainly on a side branch though...

[Lilllabettt]

Who fired the first shot?

Declaring independence isn't the same as starting a war (just or not.)

The British could have let them go. It was them that decided it was worth a war to try to keep them.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='24 February 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1267054707' post='2062630']
Who fired the first shot?

Declaring independence isn't the same as starting a war (just or not.)

The British could have let them go. It was them that decided it was worth a war to try to keep them.
[/quote]

When the South tried to secede, we forced those states to remain in the Union. It only makes sense that Britain would try to retain its properties.

That said, I have decided that the colonists were probably justified in revolting.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='24 February 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1267054990' post='2062633']
When the South tried to secede, we forced those states to remain in the Union. It only makes sense that Britain would try to retain its properties.

That said, I have decided that the colonists were probably justified in revolting.
[/quote]


I do not buy the revisionism about the Civil War being about states rights. I think it was about slavery. In which case I think there was moral imperative to end slavery wherever it was. But not so much a moral imperative to hang on to a tax base (i.e., the American colonies.)

[Winchester]

Actually, the North had discovered "free" Irishmen were cheaper than slaves and their commercial senses were so offended there was a war.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' date='09 June 2009 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1244581892' post='1887295']
Don't tread on me!

(I think we should all also note our own government now violates more rights than King George's did back in the day. Secession I say!)
[/quote]
We tried that, but apparently the yankees don't like rebellion so much when people don't like what they don't. [quote name='Resurrexi' date='09 June 2009 - 09:14 PM' timestamp='1244600058' post='1887469']
I don't think that freedom of speech should exist, but you're right that I should probably take a closer look at the history behind the American Revolution.
[/quote]
It's great to say that when one is the party who chooses what is said and what isn't. The oppressed aren't typically as cheerful about it.

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='24 February 2010 - 06:47 PM' timestamp='1267055263' post='2062634']
I do not buy the revisionism about the Civil War being about states rights. I think it was about slavery.
[/quote]
You really ought to review US History.
If the war was not about slavery, explain these quotes:
[quote name='Abraham Lincoln, 1st Inaugural Address' date='4 March 1861']I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.[/quote]

[quote name='ibid']I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service . . . holding such a provision to be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.[/quote]

[quote name='Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Horace Greeley' date='22 August 1862']My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.[/quote]

[quote name='Winchester' date='24 February 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1267056634' post='2062647']
Actually, the North had discovered "free" Irishmen were cheaper than slaves and their commercial senses were so offended there was a war.
[/quote]
Bingbingbing.

Edited February 25, 2010 by USAirwaysIHS

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='24 February 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1267057911' post='2062657']
It's great to say that when one is the party who chooses what is said and what isn't. The oppressed aren't typically as cheerful about it.[/quote]

“We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which - as We have before said and must again and again repeat - it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State." (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, 23)

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='tabarnak9' date='06 July 2009 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1246942642' post='1913302']
As a hoosier who loves the history of his state, prior to the revolution, Indiana was suppose to be under the jurisdiction of Quebec.

Now what does this mean? It meant that the language of Indiana and it's surronding areas where supposed to be French and the religion was supposed to be Catholic. Refer to the Quebec Act which is considered to be one of the "Intolerable Acts."

Now Lower Canada, Present Day Quebec, did not want to join the American Colonists because of the fact that they knew where they stood with the British. With the British, French Canadians enjoyed the protection of their culture and the protection of the Catholic Faith. With the Revolutionaries, the French Canadians did not know what future awaited them. So, they decided to stay with a sure thing which was to fight on the side of the British against the colonists.

The French at Vincennes Indiana sided with the American Colonist. They were promised by the American Colonists that they could keep their culture, language, and most importantly their catholic faith.

Well, What happened? The eradication of the French language, followed by the eradication of the German Language about 125 years later.

And guess what else happened? The persecution of Catholic Priests in Indiana.
[url="http://web.usi.edu/boneyard/mccutc65.htm"]http://web.usi.edu/boneyard/mccutc65.htm[/url]

Well, had the Revolution not happened, the colonies would be in the same shape as Canada. Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and all the other states around them would be primarily French-Speaking. The French were the only European Group that actually got along with the Indians. So, there probably would not have been a trail of tears.

Granted, they won't teach that in a History Course in Amerika.

After all, Even after our white house and Washington DC was burned to the ground by British and Canadian forces in the war of 1812, Americans are still taught that they won the war of 1812.

Yet if you cross the Ambassador's bridge in Detroit Michigan to Windsor Ontario, you get a completely different story of the revolutionary war and the war of 1812.

So, simple answer,

Cultures and Languages were eradicated after the revolutions end. And no tolerance was given to Catholics in the frontier.

We got our American Melting pot from this revolution,

but the Canadian Mosaic, honestly, is much better.
[/quote]
Wow, I've never seen this point of view from an American before. Cool

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='24 February 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1267059223' post='2062668']
Wow, I've never seen this point of view from an American before. Cool
[/quote]

The American Revolution. One of the only time periods in which a few men, supported by 33% of the population, overthrowing the rule of a monarchy, are somehow considered "legitimate authority" by many modern Catholics. Nice.

Some of the Northern states threatened secession due to the War of 1812. The governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut both told Congress to bug off, because they weren't sending their militias to invade Canada. They correctly pointed out that invading Canada with the militia was unconstitutional: it was not using the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress an insurrection or repel an invasion. It was an unabashed land grab, and they would take no part in it. Thankfully, this type of respect for the Constitution and recognition of the legitimate purposes of war was done away with by the time of the Mexican-American War. Yay, Polk!

This type of "unreliability" of militias is why, in great part, the State instituted the draft. The militia have real jobs on the side. They fight when they truly need to protect their homes and families, then go home. A standing army, constantly on the State payroll, do not have jobs on the side. They are paid to fight, and they'll fight for pay. The difference between the stranding army and the militia is just a simple and inescapable economic truth. The militia refused to fight in wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement. The State can't have that.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 25, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Didacus]

Urrghhh...




Quebec needs its own thread.







An 'independant' thread.












That was lame...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='24 February 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1267058136' post='2062660']
“We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which - as We have before said and must again and again repeat - it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State." (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, 23)
[/quote]
The problem is how do we trust the State to tell us what is true and false?
The modern state will be far more interested in securing its own power than in actual truth.

I certainly don't want what is true and false and what can and can't be published dictated to me by the Obama administration.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='24 February 2010 - 06:47 PM' timestamp='1267055263' post='2062634']
I do not buy the revisionism about the Civil War being about states rights. I think it was about slavery. In which case I think there was moral imperative to end slavery wherever it was. But not so much a moral imperative to hang on to a tax base (i.e., the American colonies.)
[/quote]

What everyone else said- Lincoln was just trying to preserve the Union.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='24 February 2010 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1267067858' post='2062712']
What everyone else said- Lincoln was just trying to preserve the Union.
[/quote]

He was trying to preserve his loot. The South was being slapped with the palm and the backhand, by the tariffs. The tariffs were jacked right before the war, after a few years of relatively tolerable tariffs after they had already been slapped with tariffs of over 50% in the 1830's. The South was literally forced to sell its cotton to the North, when it could get a much better deal sending it to Britain. The South was also literally (through the violence of the tariff) forced to buy its machinery from the North, while it could again get better deals working with Europe. The North was effectively keeping the South as nice, big slave. A milk cow. Immediately after the South began preparations to defend itself from Northern aggression, the first words that crossed Lincoln's lips were not, "They'll not get away with seceding while they have all those poor enslaved blacks, those scoundrels!" No, the first words on his lips were "What will become of my tariff?"

Charles Dickens's newspaper properly pegged it: [font="Georgia"][size="2"]"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel." http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html

Historical revisionism is when you go back to try to alter the reality of what happened. That happened during and immediately after the war, continuing well into the 1980's. That it was all about trying to free the slaves. The victor always writes the history. But people are beginning to realize they're not winners if they believe lies.

~Sternhauser
[/size][/font]

[Vincent Vega]

We finally agree on a political matter, Sternie.

A hearty +1 to you.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='24 February 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1267073358' post='2062740']
We finally agree on a political matter, Sternie.

A hearty +1 to you.
[/quote]

Cheers.

~Sternhauser