TEH AMERICAN REVOLOOTION

[alfred russel]

8) This is a big one for me--the British government in the late 18th/early 19th century were a bunch of overindulged aristocratic douchebags who were not concerned with facilitating rapid economic development on another continent.

And the early American leaders didn't tend that way too?

Lets just focus on this one: and the answer is no. Who were the american leaders: Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson are probably the most important. A lawyer, a scientist, and two relatively wealthy farmers. Not a single aristocratic title among them. I actually don't know of an american leader with a british aristocratic title, though a few people helicoptered in with them (some of which were invented).

The population of the American colonies was probably about a third of the british isles at the time of the revolution. So I would expect that as British subjects, Americans would be granted about a quarter of the titles, have a quarter of the senior military leadership positions, a quarter of the senior government positions, and have key economic roles in major companies. Of course this was in no way the case, these American "aristocrats" had no titles, no political positions in their national government, no representation in parliament, no senior military roles, and I'm not aware of a senior role in a British company of the time.

In addition, American merchants were prohibited from engaging in trade with half of the world, which was the exclusive domain of a British company. When a small group of colonists resorted to vandalism to protest this situation, the government responded by closing one of the major ports of country. Can you tell me the last time an english port was closed under similar circumstances?

[Razgovory]

Ugh, a world unified under the Union jack. Bad food, bad teeth and buggery.

Have you been to Britain recently? A lot of it is almost civilized.

Yes.

My Brother went there last year.  He found them a very uncivilized people.  He liked the French and Germans much better.  At least he couldn't understand it when they insulted him.  Worst of all were the Dutch who are just scum.

[Sophie Scholl]

Lets just focus on this one: and the answer is no. Who were the american leaders: Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson are probably the most important. A lawyer, a scientist, and two relatively wealthy farmers. Not a single aristocratic title among them. I actually don't know of an american leader with a british aristocratic title, though a few people helicoptered in with them (some of which were invented).

Sir William Johnson and later his son Sir John Johnson.  It was to the American's great advantage that Sir William died just prior to the war and that his son wasn't as skilled as he was.  Do a wiki search on Sir William especially, fascinating individual.

[Ed Anger]

Ugh, a world unified under the Union jack. Bad food, bad teeth and buggery.

Have you been to Britain recently? A lot of it is almost civilized.

Yes.

My Brother went there last year.  He found them a very uncivilized people.  He liked the French and Germans much better.  At least he couldn't understand it when they insulted him.  Worst of all were the Dutch who are just scum.

I found the Brits who I met for work or the airport folk going through Heathrow hell were quite nice. The rest of the population are surly, pudgy and poorly dressed fucks. Plus the place felt dirty.

And the last German I met gave me a lecture about American foriegn policy. So fuck them too.

[alfred russel]

Lets just focus on this one: and the answer is no. Who were the american leaders: Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson are probably the most important. A lawyer, a scientist, and two relatively wealthy farmers. Not a single aristocratic title among them. I actually don't know of an american leader with a british aristocratic title, though a few people helicoptered in with them (some of which were invented).

Sir William Johnson and later his son Sir John Johnson.  It was to the American's great advantage that Sir William died just prior to the war and that his son wasn't as skilled as he was.  Do a wiki search on Sir William especially, fascinating individual.

I was trying to refer to an american leader on our side.

[Sophie Scholl]

Why would someone with power and influence tied into remaining a loyal British subject join the revolutionaries?  It doesn't make sense.  Probably the closest would be... Charles Lee?  Unsure.

[garbon]

I don't know if British people are civilized or not. I get stuck listening to their accents...which makes them all seem brilliant!

[alfred russel]

Why would someone with power and influence tied into remaining a loyal British subject join the revolutionaries?  It doesn't make sense.

Edmund Burke had a few ideas on that.

[Sophie Scholl]

Why would someone with power and influence tied into remaining a loyal British subject join the revolutionaries?  It doesn't make sense.

Edmund Burke had a few ideas on that.

Ideas sure, but he didn't take actions, did he?  He made nice speeches, but still retained his titles and positions within the government and nation that was fighting the Americans, even if he was in the opposition party.

[Neil]

Ideas sure, but he didn't take actions, did he?  He made nice speeches, but still retained his titles and positions within the government and nation that was fighting the Americans, even if he was in the opposition party.

Burke was titled?

Interesting fact:  If you're in the opposition party, you're not part of the government.

[Josquius]

Lets just focus on this one: and the answer is no. Who were the american leaders: Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson are probably the most important. A lawyer, a scientist, and two relatively wealthy farmers. Not a single aristocratic title among them. I actually don't know of an american leader with a british aristocratic title, though a few people helicoptered in with them (some of which were invented).

'Lets just focus on this one'?
Odd how it just so happens to be the least important and the only where you have the slightest of a point (aristocracy- though that wasn't what I was referring to). So the others are admitted to be wrong?

Titles mean very little. The ruling classes are the ruling classes. I couldn't care less if they're Lord Snooty Snot or Mr. Big Head. They both have equal tendancies towards keeping their own interests at heart and ignoring the population as a whole.

In addition, American merchants were prohibited from engaging in trade with half of the world, which was the exclusive domain of a British company. When a small group of colonists resorted to vandalism to protest this situation, the government responded by closing one of the major ports of country. Can you tell me the last time an english port was closed under similar circumstances?

I couldn't tell you the last time but I do recall one particular time- post civil war Sunderland was barred from engaging in the coal trade and all rights for that were given to Newcastle.
Other similar events were not too uncommon.


You're drastically missing the point here.
Were things unfair for the Americans at the time?- Yes. Its silly to say otherwise
If the Americas were to stay under Britain would the same situation continue for all time?- No. Its stupid to say otherwise.

[CountDeMoney]

We should have remained a colony, or at the very least, leveraged our "victory" in order to gain normal representation in Parliament.

Ghey.

[Sophie Scholl]

Burke was titled?

Interesting fact:  If you're in the opposition party, you're not part of the government.

Ok, so title is false, but position isn't.  Property rights and all that too.  As to the second part, it depends on what you are defining.  He still served in the House of Commons, even if the Whigs weren't the dominant power.  He still had voting rights and was working within the bounds of British politics.  Also, when Lord North's government fell prior to the end of the war, he held a position in the government.

[Neil]

Burke was titled?

Interesting fact:  If you're in the opposition party, you're not part of the government.

Ok, so title is false, but position isn't.  Property rights and all that too.  As to the second part, it depends on what you are defining.  He still served in the House of Commons, even if the Whigs weren't the dominant power.  He still had voting rights and was working within the bounds of British politics.  Also, when Lord North's government fell prior to the end of the war, he held a position in the government.

Being in the House of Commons isn't the same as being in the government.

At any rate, Burke deserves credit for not allowing his lust for reform turn him into a traitor, the way so many Americans did.

[jimmy olsen]

8) This is a big one for me--the British government in the late 18th/early 19th century were a bunch of overindulged aristocratic douchebags who were not concerned with facilitating rapid economic development on another continent.

And the early American leaders didn't tend that way too?

Lets just focus on this one: and the answer is no. Who were the american leaders: Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson are probably the most important. A lawyer, a scientist, and two relatively wealthy farmers. Not a single aristocratic title among them. I actually don't know of an american leader with a british aristocratic title, though a few people helicoptered in with them (some of which were invented).

The population of the American colonies was probably about a third of the british isles at the time of the revolution. So I would expect that as British subjects, Americans would be granted about a quarter of the titles, have a quarter of the senior military leadership positions, a quarter of the senior government positions, and have key economic roles in major companies. Of course this was in no way the case, these American "aristocrats" had no titles, no political positions in their national government, no representation in parliament, no senior military roles, and I'm not aware of a senior role in a British company of the time.

In addition, American merchants were prohibited from engaging in trade with half of the world, which was the exclusive domain of a British company. When a small group of colonists resorted to vandalism to protest this situation, the government responded by closing one of the major ports of country. Can you tell me the last time an english port was closed under similar circumstances?

We know that's what happened, but we're talking about a situation in which a government led by Pitt formed some kind of compromise with the colonists thus preventing the revolution from occurring.