 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / August 2008John Adams -- The Colossus Of American Independence
Negative... Because said letter has not been authenticated to our satisfaction in this thread -- and placed in proper context -- as someone more intelligent and better educated than Pogue Hogg could do. However, John Adams reluctantly came to the conclusion that Independence from Great Britain was the only solution for the American colonists. He was correct. JEFFERSON himself referred to ADAMS as the Colossus of Independence. George III and his ministers had rejected out of hand any Fair-Minded Compromise with the colonists. Edmund Burke understood all this very well -- so does Tony Blair's SON -- who said to his father words to the effect that whatever mistakes his father made as Prime Minister he could hardly ever be expected to make such a bad mistake as Lord North, who lost the American colonies. <g> Only LAGGARDS and SLUGGARDS such as Pogue Hogg do not understand that today. Pogue Hogg should learn some American History before he, once again, flaunts his Colossal Ignorance and bears his arse for a good, swift kicking. His Starter Source should be _John Adams_ by David McCullough [Yale College '58]. There is also an excellent television series with another Yale graduate, Paul Giamatti, son of a former President of Yale University, in the starring role. Pogue Hogg is clearly cunniculan-pygan ignorant of the unfolding events of 1775 and 1776 in America and in Great Britain. Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this. Pogues On The Run... Enjoy!  SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor "James Hogg" <Jas.HoggOUT@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message news:rs5c94pf3p95e4hu2ehke7g1ss1gd6k42j@4ax.com... > On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:31:40 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines" > <panther@excelsior.com> wrote: > >>Correct... >> >>"The Rights of Englishmen." >> >>King George III and his ministers refused to honor them with respect to >>the American colonists. >> >>BIG MISTAKE... >> >>Hence the initially reluctant change in the mind of Our Pathfinder to >>Independence -- John Adams. > > It seems, then, that you accept that this letter, signed by JA > and written from the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, is an > accurate reflection of the sentiments espoused by John Adams > before his change of mind. > > James Partially... Ben Franklin was a GRADUALIST and a REALIST. He knew that SEDUCTION was preferable to RAPE -- and more enduring -- when it came to POLITICS as well as Romance. Franklin "ENABLED" and GUIDED Adams, who was sometimes obnoxious -- as Adams himself admitted. Many of Franklin's papers are at Yale. But it was ADAMS who was The Colossus of Independence. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor >> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:31:40 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines" >> <panther@excelsior.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > some like Ben Franklin were for independence from day one but they were a > minority. > Negative... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > JEFFERSON himself referred to ADAMS as the Colossus of Independence. Adams was also a proto-fascist who feared the common man voting and he was extremely anti-free speech and xenophobic as his alien and sedition acts show. he was a freat man in the war for independence and a disaster afterwards. >Negative... > >Because said letter has not been authenticated to our satisfaction in this >thread -- and placed in proper context -- as someone more intelligent and >better educated than I could do. In other words, you are saying that the letter might not have been written by John Adams but could be the work of another person at the Continental Congress who had exactly the same initials and shared exactly the same opinions as John Adams. Thanks for the clarification. I first brought that quotation to your attention as a good example of poor political prescience, cocksure statements that are very soon proved to be completely wrong. Here, for your amusement, are two more examples, both concerning the Falkands War: "Our judgement is that the presence of the Royal Marines garrison ... is sufficient deterrent against any possible aggression." Margaret Thatcher, February 1982. The Argentians invaded the Falklands in April 1982. "The British won't fight." General Leopold Galtieri, April 1982. Maggie drove the Argentinians out in June 1982. James > >Negative... > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > James ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A signal event in world history. Maggie brought down a dictatorship by sinking the cruiser Belgrano and the Gurka capture of an Argentine division. The Argentine military government was left in disgrace after their defeat in the Malvinas. Cheers, David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> "Our judgement is that the presence of the Royal Marines garrison >> ... is sufficient deterrent against any possible aggression." [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >The Argentine military government was left in disgrace after their >defeat in the Malvinas. Those self-appointed military geniuses showed that they couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery. James >A signal event in world history. >Maggie brought down a dictatorship by sinking the cruiser >Belgrano and the Gurka capture of an Argentine division. >The Argentine military government was left in disgrace after their >defeat in the Malvinas. The Argentinian invasion, ironically, was a good thing for the people of the Falklands in one important respect. In 1981 the UK had denied Falkland Islanders full British citizenship under the British Nationality Act. After the war, Maggie "Double Standards" Thatcher could hardly continue to treat the Islanders as second-class citizens, so a new act was required, the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983. James > A signal event in world history. > Maggie brought down a dictatorship by sinking the cruiser > Belgrano and the Gurka capture of an Argentine division. > The Argentine military government was left in disgrace after their > defeat in the Malvinas. My recollection is that the Ghurkha battalions fought in none of the major actions of that particular conflict but were used mainly to spearhead the advances and on aggressive patrols before the actions. The major attacks were by Parachute Regiment and Guards battalions. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> A signal event in world history. >> Maggie brought down a dictatorship by sinking the cruiser [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The major attacks were by Parachute Regiment and Guards battalions. ISTR that the Gurkhas were engineers, and thus probably not involved in much (if any) actual fighting. Mind you, their presence caused something near panic amongst the Argentinians - who claimed that sending 'savages' against them was a war crime... Although was was really did cause panic was a misguided pep-talk by the Argentinian high command who said that the Marines and Paras were "not supermen"... It was a bizarre campaign from the British point of view - there was no armour involved (so that the antitank guns could make up for the lack of artillery...) It was mostly special forces (Marines and Paras) - the nearest to regular infantry were the Guards... SignatureJohn Briggs >>> A signal event in world history. >>> Maggie brought down a dictatorship by sinking the cruiser [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > artillery...) It was mostly special forces (Marines and Paras) - the > nearest to regular infantry were the Guards... The whole thing was fought by what are known as 'elite troops'. The really odd one was that the Rifle Brigade had been trained for exactly this sort of campaign for the last couple of hundred years, and weren't used. But they did use a Guards battalion that had come straight from ceremonial duties, and turned out not to be up to the fitness standard required for the campaign. As far as I'm aware no satisfactory explanation for the rather odd choice of battalions outside the usual 5th Commando Brigade structure has ever been given. Oh yes, they did send a few of the teeny tiny light tanks from the Household Cavalry, not sure if they actually did anything except cover the flanks of the attacking columns... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>> A signal event in world history. >>>> Maggie brought down a dictatorship by sinking the cruiser [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Household Cavalry, not sure if they actually did anything except cover the > flanks of the attacking columns... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ground_forces_in_the_Falklands_War 1st Bn, 7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles (Lt Col David Morgan) So not just engineers.. Armour * Reconnaissance Troops (Lt. Mark Coreth) B Squadron, Blues and Royals * o 4 x FV101 Scorpion CVR(T) (Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked)) o 4 x FV107 Scimitar CVR(T) (Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked)) o 1 x FV106 Samson CVR(T) (Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked)) > Armour > * Reconnaissance Troops (Lt. Mark Coreth) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > o 1 x FV106 Samson CVR(T) (Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance > (Tracked)) Like I said, a few teeny tiny tanks that don't seem to have done very much. It's an interesting mix of vehicles, the FV101 has a 76mm gun and isn't too unlike a WWII light tank with extra 'toys' but the FV107 has the RADEN cannon which was designed for shooting up main battle tanks from the side from ambush and is more or less useless for the sort of fighting that was both expected and encountered in the Falklands, although it is about 10% lighter... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> Armour >> * Reconnaissance Troops (Lt. Mark Coreth) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > both expected and encountered in the Falklands, although it is about 10% > lighter... They might have proved useful if the Argentinian armour (whatever they might have had) had come out to play (Or they needed to assault Port Stanley) They did have lower than human ground pressure which was maybe of some use ... >>> Armour >>> * Reconnaissance Troops (Lt. Mark Coreth) [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > might have had) had come out to play (Or they needed to assault Port > Stanley) Did they have any? More to the point, did they have any that was vulnerable to a 76mm gun or was that seen as an infantry support weapon. > They did have lower than human ground pressure which was maybe of some use > ... That was also said at the time, but again, nobody has ever put any evidence forward that other vehicles couldn't have been used. More likely the Household Cavalry made sufficient noise to get some small representation in the inevitable glory. Once the British got ashore there was only ever going to be one winner... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. <SNIP> >> They might have proved useful if the Argentinian armour (whatever they >> might have had) had come out to play (Or they needed to assault Port >> Stanley) > > Did they have any? in the invasion they landed with some LVTP-7(?) apcs (Marines) and I think they might have had some armoured cars. Not sure what was on the island when the Poms came back. > More to the point, did they have any that was vulnerable to a 76mm gun or > was that seen as an infantry support weapon. *** Heaviest tank the had was a Tam.. Sort of a done on the cheap Leopard I on a Marder base.. Don't know if they had any on the islands. But the 76mm could have been used against bunkers (Yes, Milan is more accurate.. but.. ) >> They did have lower than human ground pressure which was maybe of some use >> ... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Once the British got ashore there was only ever going to be one winner... Hilarious! Pogue Hogg, still stinging, whinging and whimpering from the massive arse-kicking he has received in both this_John Adams -- The Colossus of American Independence_ thread AND the _Hamburgers -- An American Delicacy_ thread is NOW trying to salve his embarrassment by pretending to educate us all about The Falklands War, while he looks for a dark corner in which to crouch, hide and lick his wounds. Further, he's so dumb he doesn't even realize that ELLIPSIS is a subset of ELISION. A higher-level English course, which Pogue Hogg is deeply in need of, will cover ELISION as a subject area and ELLIPSIS as one example of the Art and Science of Good Writing -- using ELISION. Pogue Hogg needs to learn about ELISION writ large -- not just ELLIPSIS. Educating these cunniculan-pygan lower-class, ragamuffin Englishmen is a full-time job. But someone has to do it -- else they'll all turn into football hooligans, drunks and knife-wielding burglars -- sprinkling new bastards all over _This Sceptred Isle_. How Sweet It Is! Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this. Pogues On The Run... Enjoy! SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum >Further, he's so dumb he doesn't even realize that ELLIPSIS is a subset of >ELISION. > >A higher-level English course, which Pogue Hogg is deeply in need of, will >cover ELISION as a subject area and ELLIPSIS as one example of the Art and >Science of Good Writing -- using ELISION. Haven't you got a linguistics textbook "laying around", as you would say in your substandard English? Such books are essential for him (not "for he who") who wishes to pontificate on matters beyond his ken. Try The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. In linguistics, elision is purely a phonological term. It's not the same as ellipsis. Stick to making vulgar guttersnipe comments about women's weight. That's just about your level, Dave. Better still, go away and hide, as you always do when proven wrong. James >>Negative... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > person at the Continental Congress who had exactly the same > initials and shared exactly the same opinions as John Adams. If you actually knew anything about the events or the times, you would know that the mails were very insecure. Mail was often opened and read. Sometimes, mail would be intentionally destroyed. It's even possible, for political or criminal reasons, that letters could be re-written and forged for various purposes - that would be more dificult, but a spy agency might be able to pull it off. Jefferson used code in some of his mail, and made careful reference to prior letters, for those reasons. In any case, the passage you quoted was inapt for your purposes, as the following links show. The following two links go to books that indicate Hogg is confused about the context, and that in fact it indicated that early on, as I said, the desire was for equal treatment as British citizens, rather than independence from Britain. http://books.google.com/books?id=iztS-2kaqIwC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=adams+%22We+ cannot+in+this+country+conceive+that+there+are+men+in+England%22&source=web&ots= F5-vvMmzlJ&sig=UECweGY0Rsxm4ci2I9Ae6truLqo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct =result http://books.google.com/books?id=Fv9sC51QgyYC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=adams+%22We+ca nnot+in+this+country+conceive+that+there+are+men+in+England%22&source=web&ots=HT pMNHgFn3&sig=inpFth5hBe7rvzei_-YGCWuJqMY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=r esult#PPA23,M1 >The following two links go to books that indicate Hogg is confused about the >context, and that in fact it indicated that early on, as I said, the desire >was for equal treatment as British citizens, rather than independence from >Britain. Who is confused? What's the relevance of all this (now snipped) talk about opened mails and forged letters? What you say here (that early on there was no desire for independence) is exactly what was said in the letter I quoted, signed JA (not you, but probably John Adams): "We cannot in this country conceive that there are men in England so infatuated as seriously to suspect the Congress, or people here, of a wish to erect ourselves into an independent state. If such an idea really obtains among those at the helm of affairs, one hour's residence in America would eradicate it. I never met one individual so inclined." Are you really saying that someone forged a letter purporting to come from John Adams, describing the climate of opinion in America in a way that is actually a true reflection of the situation in the early phase of the revolution? What would be the point of forging a letter which told the truth? Aren't forged letters and such dirty tricks intended to misrepresent, to discredit, to spread confusion? I haven't made any statement on this matter which is demonstrably untrue, but you and your pal Hinesy, in your desperate desire to prove me wrong, seem to have abandoned all semblance of logic. James >>The following two links go to books that indicate Hogg is confused about >>the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > what was said in the letter I quoted, signed JA (not you, but > probably John Adams): Hines: >>John Adams was one smart fellow -- and the one man who, more than any >>other, >>was responsible for the push for the Declaration of American Independence >>from Great Britain in 1776. Hogg: > Isn't John Adams the prescient man who wrote: > "We cannot in this country conceive that there are men in England > so infatuated as seriously to suspect the Congress, or people > here, of a wish to erect ourselves into an independent state. If > such an idea really obtains among those at the helm of affairs, > one hour's residence in America would eradicate it. I never met > one individual so inclined." ME: If you actually knew what you are talking about, you would know in its initial phases, the conflict was not about parting with Britain, it was about getting equal treatment as citizens from parliament and the king. Squeal all you want Hogg, but you're just digging yourself a deeper hole, in which you will find no root for your argument. Previously, Hines sagely pointed out that John Adams was "a smart fellow". You replied to Hines that if Adams was so smart, why did he write words to the effect that the colonies didn't want independence. I subsequently pointed out to you that in the initial phases, the colonist wanted their rights as British citizens respected, and later were driven to seeking independence. I also point out that the letter that was supposedly from John Adams, was only signed "JA", and that during those times, mail was insecure and sometimes tampered with. Stupidly, you have rooted deeper into the mire. 1) it's possible the letter wasn't written by Adams at all, and therefore irrelevant to whether he was smart or not. 2) if it was written by Adams, it only reflected the general attitude in the American colonies at the time, therefore making your criticsm of Hines saying he was smart, stupid. 3) you try to cover your a.s by saying no one would have an interest in forging the letter becasue it favored staying with Britain. That's dumb on your part, becasue it ignores the various motives of the various groups in the colonies and in Britain, that might want to misrepresent Adam's opinions. Not all the leading elites of the 13 colonies were of the same opinions about the situation with Britain, and showing a conciliatory opinion of an important person might have had some percieved benefits to some. It took months for letters to cross the Atlantic, and who knows what perceived motives might have existed then? 4) trying to obfuscate instead of admiiting that Hines had bested you, only makes you look dwarfish to informed readers.... Obviously, Hogg has been bested by Hines.... Hilarium maximum !!! > "We cannot in this country conceive that there are men in England > so infatuated as seriously to suspect the Congress, or people [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > James >Obviously, Hogg has been bested by Hines.... Hilarium maximum !!! Your Latin is even worse than his. What is this "cheerful maximum" of which you speak? And no matter how much you try to wriggle your way out of this, you cannot deny the following: A Usenet message posted in August 2008 included the following passage: "in its initial phases, the conflict was not about parting with Britain, it was about getting equal treatment as citizens from parliament and the king." A letter posted in October 1775 included the following passage: "We cannot in this country conceive that there are men in England so infatuated as seriously to suspect the Congress, or people here, of a wish to erect ourselves into an independent state. If such an idea really obtains among those at the helm of affairs, one hour's residence in America would eradicate it. I never met one individual so inclined." Both these passages say pretty much the same thing. Hell, they were even signed with the same initials, JA. I don't see why the second message should necessarily be a forgery or a misrepresentation of the views of the writer. Unlike the first message which enjoys the benefit of hindsight, the second was a statment that just turned out to be wrong some nine months later. History is full of quotations like that. Like Winston Churchill's words in 1939: "Atomic energy might be as good as our present day explosives, but is unlikely to produce anything very much more dangerous." James >>Obviously, Hogg has been bested by Hines.... Hilarium maximum !!! > > Your Latin is even worse than his. And yet you understood it... ;-)) >What is this "cheerful > maximum" of which you speak? > And no matter how much you try to wriggle your way out of this, > you cannot deny the following: It was you who got the implications of the "JA" letter wrong, not me. Hines: >>John Adams was one smart fellow -- and the one man who, more than any >>other, >>was responsible for the push for the Declaration of American Independence >>from Great Britain in 1776. Hogg: > Isn't John Adams the prescient man who wrote: > "We cannot in this country conceive that there are men in England > so infatuated as seriously to suspect the Congress, or people > here, of a wish to erect ourselves into an independent state. If > such an idea really obtains among those at the helm of affairs, > one hour's residence in America would eradicate it. I never met > one individual so inclined." ME: If you actually knew what you are talking about, you would know in its initial phases, the conflict was not about parting with Britain, it was about getting equal treatment as citizens from parliament and the king. Squeal all you want Hogg, but you're just digging yourself a deeper hole, in which you will find no root for your argument. Previously, Hines sagely pointed out that John Adams was "a smart fellow". You replied to Hines that if Adams was so smart, why did he write words to the effect that the colonies didn't want independence. I subsequently pointed out to you that in the initial phases, the colonist wanted their rights as British citizens respected, and later were driven to seeking independence. I also point out that the letter that was supposedly from John Adams, was only signed "JA", and that during those times, mail was insecure and sometimes tampered with. Stupidly, you have rooted deeper into the mire. 1) it's possible the letter wasn't written by Adams at all, and therefore irrelevant to whether he was smart or not. 2) if it was written by Adams, it only reflected the general attitude in the American colonies at the time, therefore making your criticsm of Hines saying he was smart, stupid. 3) you try to cover your a.s by saying no one would have an interest in forging the letter becasue it favored staying with Britain. That's dumb on your part, becasue it ignores the various motives of the various groups in the colonies and in Britain, that might want to misrepresent Adam's opinions. Not all the leading elites of the 13 colonies were of the same opinions about the situation with Britain, and showing a conciliatory opinion of an important person might have had some percieved benefits to some. It took months for letters to cross the Atlantic, and who knows what perceived motives might have existed then? 4) trying to obfuscate instead of admiiting that Hines had bested you, only makes you look dwarfish to informed readers.... Obviously, Hogg has been bested by Hines.... Hilarium maximum !!! > I subsequently pointed out to you that in the initial phases, the colonist > wanted their rights as British citizens respected, and later were driven > to > seeking independence. Citizens? SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> I subsequently pointed out to you that in the initial phases, the >> colonist [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Citizens? subjects. you are an anal fool blackguard. you are acting like hines. >>> I subsequently pointed out to you that in the initial phases, the >>> colonist [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > subjects. > you are an anal fool blackguard. you are acting like hines. No. He's being horribly specific about the rights they wanted. Rights that didn't exist for some considerable time. There was no universal suffrage, there was a property qualification. There was no right to exemption from taxation, there was no right of exemption from the press, there was no right to bar soldiers from being billeted on people's homes. There was a right to bear arms, there was a right to free speech, there was the right to trial by jury So what rights, exactly, did they want? SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>> I subsequently pointed out to you that in the initial phases, the >>>> colonist [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > So what rights, exactly, did they want? representation in parliment like any other english "borough". the cry no taxation without representation is rather ironic as the colonists faced much lower taxes than the people in ol'blighty did. and at the time might have been he lowest taxes in the world. what they teach us about the revolution and its causes really doesn't stand up to close scrutiny and the "intolerable acts" were not as unfair as American history portrays them. it was really a land grab. some of the colonies were proprietory colonies, owned by great families who held title and the residents were tenants, with the revolution all those tenants became land owners and the great families were tossed out, the Penns did sue after the war and received some compensation for the loss of their lands in pennsylvania. New England ,Virgina, plus most of New York I think New Jersey were not run that way but carolinas,delaware, georgia, maryland,, and pennsylvania were pennsylvania were >>>>> I subsequently pointed out to you that in the initial phases, the >>>>> colonist [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > representation in parliment like any other english "borough". Do you have a source for that one please? As far as I'm aware they never asked. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>> No. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > As far as I'm aware they never asked. http://colonial-america.suite101.com/article.cfm/a_declaration_of_rights English Liberties and the Colonists Rights The document went on to declare that this congress had been assembled to "to obtain such establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties, may not be subverted". They also claimed historical precedence for their actions saying that they had only acted "as Englishmen, their ancestors, in like cases have usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties". Then they claimed that "the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following Rights." 1.. "All the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural born subjects within the realm of England" 2.. "The foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, a right in the people to participate in their legislative council" 3.. "A free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures . subject only to the negative of their sovereign" 4.. That British Parliament does not have the authority for any form of "taxation, internal or external, for raising revenue on the subjects in America without their consent." 5.. "The respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and . being tried by their peers". 6.. "The immunities and privileges granted and confirmed to them by royal charters, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws." 7.. "A right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the King" without fear of prosecution; and "that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same, are illegal" the full document http://www.usconstitution.net/intol.html >>>> No. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > the full document > http://www.usconstitution.net/intol.html So they never did ask then. They denied the right of the crown to tax them and demanded their own elected assembly from the start. The rest of it is fine sounding flannel. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>> I subsequently pointed out to you that in the initial phases, the >>> colonist [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > subjects. > you are an anal fool blackguard. you are acting like hines. Yes, from other of his posts, that is a distinct possibility. However, from post you refer to, only an anal retentive tendency has been exihibited.... > > I subsequently pointed out to you that in the initial phases, the colonist > > wanted their rights as British citizens respected, and later were driven [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach > Time for tea. Am I correct in remembering that if they'd had their 'rights as British citizens' they'd have paid more taxes than they did? Surreyman > > "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Surreyman But without representation, in either case. >> > "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > But without representation, in either case. In 1776! Who had representation then? The vote was limited to property holders. Voters had to openly declare who they voted for, and stood a good chance of a thumping if they voted the wrong way in most rural constituencies. Just about the only seat in parliament that was actually open to some sort of open competition was Westminster. The reality is that if they'd wanted some representation they could have bought some in exactly the same way that everyone else did then. You can't convince me that Ben Franklin wasn't well connected enough, bright enough or rich enough to fail to buy a seat or two if he'd wanted to. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. On Aug 7, 10:21 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> > "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach > Time for tea. What would have been the price of 13 seats in 1775? > On Aug 7, 10:21 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > What would have been the price of 13 seats in 1775? I seem to remember that one was sold for £120 and another for £200, although that's a memory from a long time ago. The chances are that they'd have been better advised to go for 'pocket boroughs', seats in the gift of a very rich man who owned most of the property in the area. They probably wouldn't have had too many problems picking up some of those from Whig peers who were sympathetic. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >The chances are that they'd have been better advised to go for 'pocket >boroughs', seats in the gift of a very rich man who owned most of the >property in the area. ISTR Franklin writing polemics to British newspapers at the time of the Boston Tea Party under the psudeonym of 'Old Sarum Elector', which was a pretty direct reference to the most notorious rotten borough of the time. >They probably wouldn't have had too many problems picking up some of those >from Whig peers who were sympathetic. No, but then I think Franklin was pretty clear that representation in a UK parliament wasn't the issue, the key point really being 'No taxation'. Gavin Bailey SignatureWinXP great improvement. Now take less time than ever before for PC to say 'Registry corrupt. System halted.' - Bart Kwan En On Aug 25, 4:20 am, Die Whigphilosophie der Geschichte im Hefeweizen <g.j.bai...@delete.me.dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:49:29 +0100, "William Black" > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > WinXP great improvement. Now take less time than ever before > for PC to say 'Registry corrupt. System halted.' - Bart Kwan En ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have read/heard that the colonies wanted the benefits of British governance without the responsibility (tax payments) of supporting the decades of Redcoat defense against the French and the Indians. When the time came to pay for all the troops and forts, the colonies objected. Better to be taxed by local governments than by a government "overseas." Cheers, David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > On Aug 25, 4:20 am, Die Whigphilosophie der Geschichte im Hefeweizen > <g.j.bai...@delete.me.dundee.ac.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> a UK parliament wasn't the issue, the key point really being 'No >> taxation'. > I have read/heard that the colonies wanted the benefits of British > governance without the responsibility (tax payments) of supporting > the decades of Redcoat defense against the French and the Indians. Patently untrue. Until what we over here call the French and Indian War, and you over there refer to as the Seven Years War, the position of England and later, Britain on the North American Colonies was benign (to us) neglect. The English had other things on their minds - a Civil War, A King to behead, a "Populist" Dictator to behead, and a King to re-install. So you were kinda busy. In the meantime, the North American colonies had had to provide their own protection and government, and build their own economies. During the French and Indian War, You gous did send a bunch of troops over to generally beat on the French, and annex Canada. All well and good, but among other things, it showed us that the American troops, after a slightly fitful beginning as organized units, could fight just as well as the British troops, and that 3 generations of self reliance had produced a viewpoint quite alien to that of the "Mother Country". At the same time, various of the British upper crust say the now rather prosperous colonies as a cash cow to be milked, and set about trying to do so in their usual manner of truculent incompetence. > When the time came to pay for all the troops and forts, the colonies > objected. Better to be taxed by local governments than by a government > "overseas." The forts were built, for the most part, by local traders and local governments. More like that by the time you guys decided to station troops in what's now the United States permanently, (and entirely supported by foraging off the local economy,) there was no need for them. Throw in stupid and heavy-handed Royal Governors, and a whimsical system of taxation and trade restrictions intended to, among other things, prop up the personal portfolios of Parliament. (The Boston Tea Party was the result of an attempt to prop up the ailing fortunes of the East India Company) Basically, the British government screwed up a free lunch. SignaturePete Stickney Any plan where you lose you hat is a bad plan > The English had other things on their minds - a Civil War, A King to > behead, > a "Populist" Dictator to behead, and a King to re-install. So you were > kinda busy. People from the American colonies played a reasonably distinguished part in those wars. Or doesn't that count? . (The Boston Tea Party was the result of > an attempt to prop up the ailing fortunes of the East India Company) And here was me thinking it was American smugglers who were unhappy because of a reduction in the duty on tea. I do have to add that by 1776 the HEIC had become a part of the British government (That happened in 1773) the first Governor General had just been appointed and he was busy going about regularising the now vast British holdings in India and was also establishing the first formal European style educational establishments on the sub continent. The HIAC was doing booming business, which is probably why they decided that they didn't need the tea taxes from America... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> I have read/heard that the colonies wanted the benefits of British >> governance without the responsibility (tax payments) of supporting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >and later, Britain on the North American Colonies was benign (to us) >neglect. True, although the neglect was relative - there were periodic spats over the authorities of appointed governors and colonial assemblies long before the Seven Years War. >During the French and Indian War, You gous did send a bunch of troops over >to generally beat on the French, and annex Canada. All well and good, >but among other things, it showed us that the American troops, after a >slightly fitful beginning as organized units, could fight just as well as >the British troops, and that 3 generations of self reliance had produced a >viewpoint quite alien to that of the "Mother Country". >At the same time, various of the British upper crust say the now rather >prosperous colonies as a cash cow to be milked, and set about trying to do >so in their usual manner of truculent incompetence. That's one interpretation. Here's another - the colonies made zero direct financial contribution to the cost of the regular military and naval forces which had been employed in fighting the war on the North American continent. The issues at stake were fairly fundmental ones concerning the philosophy of government, and I don't think it's useful to characterise the protagonists on one side with a description straight out of a revolutionary polemic tract of the time. >More like that by the time you guys decided to station troops in what's now >the United States permanently, (and entirely supported by foraging off the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >portfolios of Parliament. (The Boston Tea Party was the result of >an attempt to prop up the ailing fortunes of the East India Company) The Boston Tea Party was the culminating act of a colonial embargo on dutied tea. The East India Company had less interest in the colonial market - an issue only raised to divert the British government from a more fundamental attack on legal basis of the Company - than the government did in asserting what they saw as the parliamentary right to impose duties on American imports. The Tea Party was yet another incident in the struggle over who had the authority to tax. >Basically, the British government screwed up a free lunch. Basically, the colonists wanted one. Gavin Bailey -- Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost." Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En > On Aug 7, 10:21 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > What would have been the price of 13 seats in 1775? However I suspect that it was the State Govenors that they wanted to buy. Andrew Swallow > > On Aug 7, 10:21 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Andrew Swallow What state governonrs? >>> On Aug 7, 10:21 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > What state governonrs? New York, Maryland, Virginia etc. See the Declaration of Independence for a list of New World Colonies with Governors. They were appointed by the Monarch. King Gorge III lived in England. See "Taxation without representation" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution> Andrew Swallow >> On Aug 7, 10:21 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Andrew Swallow England had forced royal governors on the colonies, Massachusetts which had always elected its own was forced to accept royal govs. God Bless MASSACHUSETTS, and particularly JOHN ADAMS, for setting off what became the successful American Revolution and War of Independence against a Tyrannical King, George III, and his ministers in distant Great Britain. SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor >>> What would have been the price of 13 seats in 1775? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > England had forced royal governors on the colonies, Massachusetts which > had always elected its own was forced to accept royal govs. > God Bless MASSACHUSETTS, and particularly JOHN ADAMS, for setting off what > became the successful American Revolution and War of Independence against > a Tyrannical King, George III, and his ministers in distant Great Britain. Why 'tyrannical. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> God Bless MASSACHUSETTS, and particularly JOHN ADAMS, for setting off what >> became the successful American Revolution and War of Independence against >> a Tyrannical King, George III, and his ministers in distant Great Britain. > > Why 'tyrannical. Standard insult used by propagandists. If Gorge III had been a genuine tyrant the leaders of the American Revolution would have been tortured to death by the secret police. Andrew Swallow >>> God Bless MASSACHUSETTS, and particularly JOHN ADAMS, for setting off >>> what became the successful American Revolution and War of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Andrew Swallow The words "tyrant" and "despot" have become curse words, but they had non-negative connotations in classical use. In Greek history, a tyrant was somebody who managed to top a coalition government. They just mean "capable of exercise of arbitrary authority". -- Les Cargill > God Bless MASSACHUSETTS, and particularly JOHN ADAMS, for setting off what > became the successful American Revolution and War of Independence against a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Don't forget your noble kicking out of that Tyrannical King in your own little island, too. Surreyman >>> > "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >You can't convince me that Ben Franklin wasn't well connected enough, bright >enough or rich enough to fail to buy a seat or two if he'd wanted to. Continuing on the theme of alternate history brought up by "Julia" in another thread, here's a hypothetical question for experts on this period: IF the American colonies had been granted representation at Westminister on the same terms as franchise in Britain, i.e. forty-shilling freeholders, how many people in the colonies would have been able to vote? James >>> > "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >You can't convince me that Ben Franklin wasn't well connected enough, bright >enough or rich enough to fail to buy a seat or two if he'd wanted to. He wanted to be able to buy a local seat where his neighbours could thump miscreants. Also he wanted to be bribed (preferably with nubile early teens, if the tall tales are true) for his own vote. Possibly he wanted some local lords created, including a certain well-connected person. Who can blame him. Peter Skelton > > > "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Who had representation in England in the 1700s! Surreyman |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.