French block airlift of British troops to Basra

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message .. .
I attempted to post thia at ~10:40 EDT
But the Bellsouth news server has been having
problems (issues, so called) here today.
Therefore I am submitting the article again.
My apologies if, in fact, this is a duplicate
--
Rostyk


Stephen Harding wrote:
Brian Sharrock wrote:

Slight semantic problem; the loyalists(sic) _were_ British.
They didn't 'side with' the British, they were British, remained
British and refused to follow the rebellious smugglers, slave-owners,
land-owner and lawyer clique into an armed French-funded
insurrection. History _does_ record that they were treated badly
by the revolting colonists.

So is this the current Euro spin on the American Revolution?

Just a bunch of criminal, low life types, cajoled by the perfidious
French, into breaking away from "The Empire", where most wanted to
stay?

My, my how the politics of anti-Americanism spins its web.

Perhaps slightly overstated, but there's a good amount of truth
in that. The residents of the British colonies: English colonists,
Britishers, et al, did have a number of grievances about their
treatment. But they weren't being particularly oppressed

Bostonians thought different. How many British cities were under
military occupation?

or
treated more harshly than the people living in the British Isles.

Generally speaking, this is so. In fact, one might argue that people
in America had more freedom. It was when HMG began to restrict those
freedoms that the colonists began to resist.

But the local gentry far from central control quite naturally
took the opportunity to avoid paying their taxes.

Uh, no. "The local gentry" was paying quite a bit in tazes.
Especially of the local variety.

Similarly
for the more common folk.

Who were also paying quite a bit in tazes.

And the revolutionary ideas from
the continent surely did have a sympathetic audience, whether
the French did any organized meddling or not.

Most of the "revolutionary ideas from the continent" [sic] originated
in Britain. John Locke etc. However, their influence was quite
minimal. It was excessive bungling and heavy handedness by HMG which
forced the plunge toward rebellion. The American colonies had been
relatively free of "homeland" governence, and so enjoyed a fairly
large degree of freedom. After the French and Indian War, the British
government took a more concerted interest in her colonies, and thus
began to clamp down on those freedoms. Inadvertantly for the most
part, including increased tazation. Now it was not that the colonists
did not desire to pay tazes (any more than anyone ever wants to pay),
but that such matters had largely always been authorized by the
provincial governments, and not in London. When London attempted to
place new tazes on the colonies, it was exercising powers that
hitherto the colonies had enjoyed with a fair degree of autonomy.
What the bungling British boffins in London did not understand was
that once freedoms are given, they are not easily revoked without
resistance. The event that specifically led to the war, the "Boston
Tea Party," though was not actually over the tax, which was quite
small, almost imperceptively so, but over the fact the the East India
Company, in order to bail it out of a poor fiscal situation, had been
given a monopoly of the tea trade, which meant that Colonial shippers
were no screwed. All in the name of perpetuating British (but not
extending to British colonials) mercantalism. The "Tea Party" itself
did little financial damage, but Parliament in a state of total
stupidity and desire to make a show of its power passed the
non-intercourse acts and occupied Boston. An incredibly moronic move
which scared the bejesus out of all the colonies and turned a local
dispute into a continental one. Very dumb. At that point, the
colonies began to take measures to arm themselves, and it became only
a matter of time before some spark set off violence. It is almost
incredible that it took a full year to do so.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

On 6 Oct 2003 10:20:45 -0700, (Michael P. Reed) wrote:
In message , "Keith Willshaw" wrote:

Its hardly likely since Washington himself and so served however
many so called loyalists who sided with the British during
the war of Independence were indeed punished, in fact
many fled to Canada

Captured loyalists were treated like any other prisoners of war
(captured deserters who subsequently enlisted in the British Army are
an entirely different matter-though the fact many did so under duress
certainly muddled matters). Few were punished. Of those that "fled"
after the war, they did so primarily because they considered
themselves British and not Americans so chose to live under British
rule rather than American governance. Few fled for their safety.
Some 80,000 (high end estimate) loyalists were deemed to have "fled,"
but another estimated 400,000 remained. Few were mistreated, and it
was quite common for Continental officers, e.g., to marry loyalists
or, at the very least, women from nominally loyalist families during
and after the war (B. Arnold was not all that exceptional in that
regard). Most of the really-bad-mistreatment of loyalists came in the
tit-for-tats in areas where governmental control had been lost; the
southern states and the Mohawk Valley etc. Even of the 80,000 or so
"refugees" only 3,000 or so submitted property loss claims to HMG and
of these, only about 2/3 were considered legit. While the treatment
of loyalists was less than spectacular in many instances, it was not
the wholesale persecution that British (and by inheritance, Canadian)
propoganda made it out to be then and ever since. In general,
Americans were treated much worse at the hands of the British (but
again not as bad as propaganda has made it out to be).

I understand your point vis a vis "turncoats," but your description of
the treatment of the loyalists is somewhat exaggerated.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

For more propanganda but from the other side, see http://www.islandnet.com/~jveinot/cghl/loyalist.html
Perhaps an historical balance can be achieved.

Neither side treated the others well. The losers fled, subject to terrorism that did not end with the war, unlike the terrorism
suffered by the victors.

The individuals and families that benefited from the loyalists' siezed/auctioned/forfeited properties make interesting reading.
Much 'old wealth' is found or perhaps originates there.

Ooroo

Rod Bray

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. -- Mark Twain

Rod Bray wrote in message ...
On 6 Oct 2003 10:20:45 -0700, (Michael P. Reed) wrote:
In message , "Keith Willshaw" wrote:

Its hardly likely since Washington himself and so served however
many so called loyalists who sided with the British during
the war of Independence were indeed punished, in fact
many fled to Canada

Captured loyalists were treated like any other prisoners of war
(captured deserters who subsequently enlisted in the British Army are
an entirely different matter-though the fact many did so under duress
certainly muddled matters). Few were punished. Of those that "fled"
after the war, they did so primarily because they considered
themselves British and not Americans so chose to live under British
rule rather than American governance. Few fled for their safety.
Some 80,000 (high end estimate) loyalists were deemed to have "fled,"
but another estimated 400,000 remained. Few were mistreated, and it
was quite common for Continental officers, e.g., to marry loyalists
or, at the very least, women from nominally loyalist families during
and after the war (B. Arnold was not all that exceptional in that
regard). Most of the really-bad-mistreatment of loyalists came in the
tit-for-tats in areas where governmental control had been lost; the
southern states and the Mohawk Valley etc. Even of the 80,000 or so
"refugees" only 3,000 or so submitted property loss claims to HMG and
of these, only about 2/3 were considered legit. While the treatment
of loyalists was less than spectacular in many instances, it was not
the wholesale persecution that British (and by inheritance, Canadian)
propoganda made it out to be then and ever since. In general,
Americans were treated much worse at the hands of the British (but
again not as bad as propaganda has made it out to be).

I understand your point vis a vis "turncoats," but your description of
the treatment of the loyalists is somewhat exaggerated.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

For more propanganda but from the other side, see http://www.islandnet.com/~jveinot/cghl/loyalist.html
Perhaps an historical balance can be achieved.

Neither side treated the others well. The losers fled, subject to terrorism that did not end with the war, unlike the terrorism
suffered by the victors.

Since there wasn't such as a POW facility, rather than a
work camp until this century, it's redundent to say that
the victors treated the loses badly throughout history.
The Roman empire is still the only empire that ever
treated prisoners fairly, since they actually
normal races, rather than marathons like the French do.

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Vince Brannigan wrote:


A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
of the pro-Revolution crowd.

Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.

It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.

Whilst smuggling was common on both side of the Atlantic, in the UK it
was accepted that it was against the law, where as in the colonies the
attitude was that whether it was against the law or not it should be
allowed, smuggling was one of the new American freedoms


The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
their benefit./

Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.

Much of the 'political' agitation which helped lead up to the revolt
in the colonies was orchestrated by a few 'professional' agitators who
had skipped to the colonies after the UK had become to hot for them.
The story they promoted in America was much the same as they had tried
in the UK, but in the US they managed to get serious backing from a
number of the large landowner/business men in the colonies, who could
see that independance would be financialy beneficial for them and
their friends.


The OP had stated the revolution was a "French funded insurrection". It was
not significantly funded by them until well into the event. If you're trying
to decide to be loyalist or rebel, French participation has little to do with
it.

The French were slow to join in mainly because funding revolution in
the enemies back yard can and was in this case too, be a double edged
sword. The hope of ruining the financial succcess in the UK was to
much to give up though and eventually the French provided substantial
support both in funds men and material, and went to war with the UK as
well. Unfortunately for the French, although they engineered
independance for part of the American colonies, it cost them dear
financially, and the terms of the peace negotiated with the UK led
rapidly to financial ruin for France, and their own revolution.

The position that the American Revolution was largely driven by a small group
of self-interested people (better money making possibilities with
independence) basically follows the political thinking of liberal or
downright Marxist thinking academics.

nonsense. it long predates marxism and the reality of loyalist elements
makes analysis critical.

Presence of loyalist elements merely gives the conflict a "civil war" component.
You revolt against someone. In largely free, and reasonably prosperous colonial
society of 1770's, a significant number of people choosing to remain loyal would
not be unusual.

The European/American world of the 18th and 19th centuries was very
much driven by capitalism and the generation of wealth, this was the
reason for the success of British Empire, the USA, and the short lived
German Empire. Some colonists saw this and the USA was born




no they were not. Butr even if they were they were in itofr the money.

You're wrong. The American colonies had a very large middle class. A high
percentage of property owners, particularly farmers, but also tradesmen and
professionals. It's something very few societies have been able to accomplish.

This is very important in interpreting the motivation in favor of revolution.
American colonists by and large were not landless, propertyless, angry people
with nothing to lose by going against a powerful colonial establishment.


On the other hand many felt that they had every thing to gain from
achieving independance. It is interesting that the constitution they
adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
second house and an elected king. Certainly history has shown that
their gamble paid off, and one wonders how much better some of the
other colonies may have done if they had been given independance
sooner. It is also interesting to observe that the loss of the
southern colonies did not really hold back the UK and in fact was the
dawning of a century of world domination through trade.

Peter

Am Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:13:48 -0400, schrieb Stephen Harding
:


You're wrong. The American colonies had a very large middle class. A high
percentage of property owners, particularly farmers, but also tradesmen and
professionals. It's something very few societies have been able to accomplish.

This is very important in interpreting the motivation in favor of revolution.
American colonists by and large were not landless, propertyless, angry people
with nothing to lose by going against a powerful colonial establishment.



Wasn't the french revolution primarily driven by the middle classes as
well? Historyically, as tought in the school, these revolutions (like
those of 1848) were a move of the people who had economic power to
gain political power as well.

Owe
--
My from-adress is valid and being read.
www.owejessen.de

Peter McLelland wrote:


It is interesting that the constitution they
adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
second house and an elected king.

Actually no. The US federal system was a complex balance of powoer on
both national and local levels that had no UK counterpart. States in
fact were much closer to the UK model than the Federal government.



Vince

Owe Jessen wrote:

Wasn't the french revolution primarily driven by the middle classes as
well? Historyically, as tought in the school, these revolutions (like
those of 1848) were a move of the people who had economic power to
gain political power as well.

That is consistent with Jenkins's resource mobilization theory, used
by sociologists to explain the success of movements as they bring
time, money, materiel, and human resources and talents to bear on
issues.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Peter McLelland wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Vince Brannigan wrote:


A description of some activities in the American colonies. Not a characterization
of the pro-Revolution crowd.

Smuggling was rampant and England as well at the same time. Prominent people
also benefited from it, as they did from piracy as well. Doesn't make England
an nation of pirates, or any opposition to the crown driven by it.

It's a lame, one dimensional characterization.

Whilst smuggling was common on both side of the Atlantic, in the UK it
was accepted that it was against the law, where as in the colonies the
attitude was that whether it was against the law or not it should be
allowed, smuggling was one of the new American freedoms

"Smuggling" in America was often simply not selling, or more importantly,
not buying, goods from Britain as required of a good colony.

Remember, the concept of having a colony was to buy raw materials from
the colony at low cost, and then sell manufactured goods from those raw
materials at high cost.

The issue of whether the owners were in the majority is meaningless.
rich americans are currently in the minority but control everything for
their benefit./

Fair enough. But if you're talking revolution, and a very risky one at that,
you'd better have more than the landed, propertied gentry involved. You need
some help from common people who think the activity is going to get them more
than just killed, imprisoned or financially destitute.

Much of the 'political' agitation which helped lead up to the revolt
in the colonies was orchestrated by a few 'professional' agitators who
had skipped to the colonies after the UK had become to hot for them.
The story they promoted in America was much the same as they had tried
in the UK, but in the US they managed to get serious backing from a
number of the large landowner/business men in the colonies, who could
see that independance would be financialy beneficial for them and
their friends.

Ahhh yes, the evil corporate interests were doing their despicable deeds
even then! And they did it much as they do it today, with such skill and
subtlety, that the dumb public has no clue they've been manipulated.

I hear this all the time about todays politics, so it is interesting to
see this theme being retrofitted to past history.


SMH

Vince Brannigan wrote:

Peter McLelland wrote:


It is interesting that the constitution they
adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
second house and an elected king.

Actually no. The US federal system was a complex balance of powoer on
both national and local levels that had no UK counterpart. States in
fact were much closer to the UK model than the Federal government.

I believe David McCulloch's book "John Adams" says that a committee was
formed to study various forms of democratic government through history,
in order to attempt to discover strengths and weaknesses of the various
forms. I think John Adams was a member of this committee because of an
earlier work he did on the subject.

The prime mover was of course James Madison, who certainly borrowed
ideas on democratic governance from others, but the form of the US
government, as defined by its Constitution, was pretty well original
in its sum.

Certainly not a rip off ["mere improvement"] of the British system.


SMH

Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
Peter McLelland wrote:


It is interesting that the constitution they
adopted was merely an improved version of the UK one with and elected
second house and an elected king.

Actually no. The US federal system was a complex balance of powoer on
both national and local levels that had no UK counterpart. States in
fact were much closer to the UK model than the Federal government.


I did say improved and I do mean that there are may aspects of the
original US constitution which were an improvement on that which had
gone before, but the powers of the President are very closely related
to the powers which were held by the monarchy at that time. Certainly
the US constitution was never as radical as some of the French
versions before Napoleon got his sticky hands on power.

Peter