NationStates Jolt Archive

Simply put, were the American Founding Fathers right in Revolting against the procieved tyranny of the British Government?

EDIT: To clarify, the "Founding Fathers referred to were the Leaders of the American Revolution, such as Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson.

Simply put, were the American Founding Fathers right in Revolting against the procieved tyranny of the British Government?

Yes.

I might add that they willingly risked death, privation, and the loss of their families and property.

On the other hand, they did not randomly massacre unarmed civilians. So while they might be considered insurgents, they cannot be considered the equivalent of modern day terrorists - who explicitly employ attacks against unarmed civilians as a primary tactic.

I would like to point out that the "founding fathers" are to my belief, those who emigrated in the 17th century. They were long dead by the time of the revolution, in the mid to late 18th century.

They won.

So they're freedom fighters.

Had they lost, Washington would've ended in the history books as a footnote under "hanged for treason".

I would like to point out that the "founding fathers" are to my belief, those who emigrated in the 17th century. They were long dead by the time of the revolution, in the mid to late 18th century.

The "founders" of the nation state known as the United States of America, was founded by the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Everyone else prior to that was a British colonist.

Simply put, were the American Founding Fathers right in Revolting against the procieved tyranny of the British Government?

Of course. The tyranny of the Royal government was very real - the colonials had little to no say in their own government. They weren't even governed by Parliament, but largely by the King's privy council, which had no clue about the realities of colonial life and governed arbitrarily. All the colonials originally wanted was some say in how they were governed - they either wanted government by, and representation in, the British Parliament, or else a parliament of their own. When they couldn't get that peacefully, they resorted to revolution. When the King tried to force them back into line, they declared independence.

Terrorists... but then you people still support the IRA so you clearly havent changed.

It all depends on who you mean by "Founding Fathers." Some people, when they say, "Founding Fathers," mean the Puritans who originally settled here. Others mean the signers of the Declaration of Independence, those who actually fought in the War of Independence, or those who drafted the Constitution. It all depends on you're talking about.

I clarified my original statment. Hopefully, this reduces the confusion.

Since they were fighting for political reorientation and autonomy from a foreign power, I will say they were justified.

I wouldn't call them terrorists, though. I would call them guerillas. They used unorthodox fighting methods against a traditional-style army.

What went on with the citizenry (meaning any civilian vs. civilian intimidation or pressuring) is a natural effect of any rebellion. People will be all for their side and consider anyone who sympathizes as turncoats and traitors. This happened again in the civil war, and is happening (though to a lesser extent) today with the public regarding war in Iraq.

They were not terrorists because they did not employ terror tactics against innocent civilians.

They were not terrorists because they did not employ terror tactics against innocent civilians.

True, but be fair. The the nearest enemy civilians were on the other side of the Atlantic, it would've been a long swim. ;)

Terrorists... but then you people still support the IRA so you clearly havent changed.

Most support for the IRA dried up after 9/11 and they've theoretically disarmed now anyway.

They won.

So they're freedom fighters.

Had they lost, Washington would've ended in the history books as a footnote under "hanged for treason".

Best answer so far IMHO.

On the other hand, they did not randomly massacre unarmed civilians. So while they might be considered insurgents, they cannot be considered the equivalent of modern day terrorists - who explicitly employ attacks against unarmed civilians as a primary tactic.

True. But the British did.

I believe they probably were justified in revolting, but on the whole the world would be a much better place today if they hadn't.

True. But the British did.

Sorry, we get cranky when people chuck our tea away. :)

Yes.

I might add that they willingly risked death, privation, and the loss of their families and property.

On the other hand, they did not randomly massacre unarmed civilians. So while they might be considered insurgents, they cannot be considered the equivalent of modern day terrorists - who explicitly employ attacks against unarmed civilians as a primary tactic.
I agree. The American Founders had the ability and courage to muster armies and fight fairly against the British.

I agree. The American Founders had the ability and courage to muster armies and fight fairly against the British.

Although they only really won when they fought guerilla style. The actual proper battlefield battles were usually won by the British.

Still, can't blame them for fighting that way when there's little chance of a victory on the battlefield. But it's pretty stupid when blindly nationalistic Americans bitch about the Vietnamese using 'cowardly' tactics then praise the revolution.

Although they only really won when they fought guerilla style. The actual proper battlefield battles were usually won by the British.

Still, can't blame them for fighting that way when there's little chance of a victory on the battlefield. But it's pretty stupid when blindly nationalistic Americans bitch about the Vietnamese using 'cowardly' tactics then praise the revolution.

I've been told that Washington used "proper battlefield" style, even when it meant losing, because he was more of a politician than a general.

The argument is that France would not have intervened for a band of guerillas. The United States had a standing, continental army; it was something tangible to support. A claim to legitimacy, if you will.

They were not terrorists because they did not employ terror tactics against innocent civilians.

Actually, I've heard that it was very dangerous to be a Loyalist in heavily-Patriot territory (and probably the same vice versa). That's not random, but still...

True. But the British did.

Also according to The Patriot, good Southern boys freed their slaves while mean Brits made them fight.

Tarleton is famous for tactics against the civilian population, but, in all fairness, he *was* fighting a war in which insurgents were indistinguishable from passive civilians. He certainly didn't do anything on the level of burning a church filled with people, as depicted in Gibson's film.

That sort of stuff is Nazi material, not British Imperial.

Simply put, were the American Founding Fathers right in Revolting against the procieved tyranny of the British Government?

EDIT: To clarify, the "Founding Fathers referred to were the Leaders of the American Revolution, such as Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson.yes. they (Congress) presented their case to the Court of England many times. they brought forth greivences and they were either ignored or brushed aside. they tried every diplomatic venue that was available to them. The final options were either to bend over and take it, or to Revolt.

Also according to The Patriot, good Southern boys freed their slaves while mean Brits made them fight.

Tarleton is famous for tactics against the civilian population, but, in all fairness, he *was* fighting a war in which insurgents were indistinguishable from passive civilians. He certainly didn't do anything on the level of burning a church filled with people, as depicted in Gibson's film.

That sort of stuff is Nazi material, not British Imperial.

I think Gibson generally has a thing against the English. Braveheart and The Patriot, both exceedingly historically inaccurate movies designed to paint the English and British respectively as evil.

Course, he'd never dare star in a film about one of the times the Scottish, at the order of the French, marched south, raping and pillaging as they went only to be repelled by a massively outnumbered English army.

We need another revolution.

Also according to The Patriot, good Southern boys freed their slaves while mean Brits made them fight.

Tarleton is famous for tactics against the civilian population, but, in all fairness, he *was* fighting a war in which insurgents were indistinguishable from passive civilians. He certainly didn't do anything on the level of burning a church filled with people, as depicted in Gibson's film.

That sort of stuff is Nazi material, not British Imperial.

Mel Gibson doesn't let petty things like accuracy get in the way of a story. For that matter, Hollywood in general is quite happy to chuck accuracy out the window if they think an inaccurate portrayal of events will sell more tickets.

:rolleyes:

Although they only really won when they fought guerilla style. The actual proper battlefield battles were usually won by the British.

I didn't know they fought guerilla style. [not American]

I think Gibson generally has a thing against the English. Braveheart and The Patriot, both exceedingly historically inaccurate movies designed to paint the English and British respectively as evil.

Course, he'd never dare star in a film about one of the times the Scottish, at the order of the French, marched south, raping and pillaging as they went only to be repelled by a massively outnumbered English army.

I halfway expected The Passion to turn out something like this:

Pontius Pilate: What do you want me to do with the man called Jesus, King of the Jews?

Jewish crowd: Let him go!

Pilate: Okay, sounds good.

(British redcoats surround the area. Medieval longbowmen suddenly appear on rooftops and windows, aiming their bows at various people)

British Cavalry Officer: By the authority of his majesty King Henry VIII, you are all hearby under arrest for treasonous congregation and slander against the English crown and church!

Pilate: I heard nothing of this!

BritOfficer: That is because you are a papist. (shoots Pilate)

Judas Iscariot: (running toward Pilate) No! Father!

BritOfficer: (shoots Judas) Imputent whelp! (turns to his officers) Kill the rest of these traitors!

(longbowmen dump tar on the Roman centurians and burn them alive)

BritOfficer: (turns to the Jewish crowd, pleasantly) The Balfour Declaration states clearly that all Hebrews shall be given a Jewish state in Palestine in exchange for killing Jesus Christ the Son of God and pledging allegiance to the English king.

High Priest Caiaphas: Sir, the Roman authorities here allow us to run our own community independently. We have complete freedom here, and we merely allow the Roman officials to come and help us oversee things. This man Jesus is our king.

BritOfficer: (fiercely) You have no king but England! Now you can *freely* choose to kill the Son of God, in the name of the all-powerful Anglican Church.

(redcoats force bayonets on the Jews, making them hang Jesus on a cross)

Jesus: Lord, into your hands I commend my FREEEEEDOMM!!!

Narrator: After Christ died, King Henry VIII had the pieces of the true cross separated and sent to each rebellious kingdom as a warning.

I believe they probably were justified in revolting, but on the whole the world would be a much better place today if they hadn't.
For the sake of pettyness I have to inform you, sir, that that is complete and utter speculation! hmmpf!

I halfway expected The Passion to turn out something like this:

Pontius Pilate: What do you want me to do with the man called Jesus, King of the Jews?

Jewish crowd: Let him go!

Pilate: Okay, sounds good.

(British redcoats surround the area. Medieval longbowmen suddenly appear on rooftops and windows, aiming their bows at various people)

British Cavalry Officer: By the authority of his majesty King Henry VIII, you are all hearby under arrest for treasonous congregation and slander against the English crown and church!

Pilate: I heard nothing of this!

BritOfficer: That is because you are a papist. (shoots Pilate)

Judas Iscariot: (running toward Pilate) No! Father!

BritOfficer: (shoots Judas) Imputent whelp! (turns to his officers) Kill the rest of these traitors!

(longbowmen dump tar on the Roman centurians and burn them alive)

BritOfficer: (turns to the Jewish crowd, pleasantly) The Balfour Declaration states clearly that all Hebrews shall be given a Jewish state in Palestine in exchange for killing Jesus Christ the Son of God and pledging allegiance to the English king.

High Priest Caiaphas: Sir, the Roman authorities here allow us to run our own community independently. We have complete freedom here, and we merely allow the Roman officials to come and help us oversee things. This man Jesus is our king.

BritOfficer: (fiercely) You have no king but England! Now you can *freely* choose to kill the Son of God, in the name of the all-powerful Anglican Church.

(redcoats force bayonets on the Jews, making them hang Jesus on a cross)

Jesus: Lord, into your hands I commend my FREEEEEDOMM!!!

Narrator: After Christ died, King Henry VIII had the pieces of the true cross separated and sent to each rebellious kingdom as a warning.

LMFAWO!!!

they were Anglo-phobic masters of propaganda I would call them rebels (and my enemy's at that :mad: )

It depends on which one you talk about. Some, like Patrick Henry and Sam Adams, would be considered terrorists these days, as Patrick Henry hinted his desire to see George III dead. A few, like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, were wild visionaries, and while they spoke of bold things and wrote propaganda, they did so only after the fighting began. But the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were simply dissidents that tried their best to end the fighting, and that included independence.

Simply put, were the American Founding Fathers right in Revolting against the procieved tyranny of the British Government?

EDIT: To clarify, the "Founding Fathers referred to were the Leaders of the American Revolution, such as Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson.

They were Revolutionaries and the American Revolution at its heart was an ugly civil war. Those who held “counter-revolutionary” views (at the time they were called Tories) had their property taken, their houses torn down, and were often driven out of their communities (tarred and feathered at times) or killed out-right. In George there was a reign of terror in which one group decided to get revenge on another group by making up charges and reciting them to whoever would listen. There were professional informants and secret police/spies (unofficial of course). It was not some glamorous united struggle.

I didn't know they fought guerilla style. [not American]
Actually yes, Americans developed a strike and run tactic that took advantage of American rural dress (namely buckskins) and there are a number of occasions where American forces would wait next to a road in the brush and fire on the marching redcoats (red is probably not a good color to wear when fighting in the woods).

Like Vietnam, the Americans controled the countryside and the British the cities. Pitched battles usually went to the British, but they couldn't crush the revolution.

I wouldn't say they were terrorists, but they weren't fighting using the accepted rules at the time either.

They were Freedom Fighters for two reasons:

1.) They declared war on a country and fought as an army as one nation against another.

2.) They did not partake in the killing of innocents for political gain. The atrocities of the revolution were mainly commited by the British soldiers.

Of course. The tyranny of the Royal government was very real - the colonials had little to no say in their own government. They weren't even governed by Parliament, but largely by the King's privy council, which had no clue about the realities of colonial life and governed arbitrarily. All the colonials originally wanted was some say in how they were governed - they either wanted government by, and representation in, the British Parliament, or else a parliament of their own. When they couldn't get that peacefully, they resorted to revolution. When the King tried to force them back into line, they declared independence.


I always wanted to say " I aggree with dishounorable scum " Well actually not always ...in fact I just looked at the name and said to myself .." hmmm is it ok to aggree with dishonorable scum " ? What if they are merely disreputable ? And must they be scum ? They could have been misunderstood.
So I would like to say that I aggree with Disreputable misunderstandings . but that makes no sense.

so to make it short ...." what he said "..^^^^

They were Freedom Fighters for two reasons:
2.) They did not partake in the killing of innocents for political gain. The atrocities of the revolution were mainly commited by the British soldiers.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! There were many atrocities commited by the revolutionaries against the loyalists. Loyalists, who were counter-revolutionary, had their property taken/destroyed, were driven out of their communities, or killed out-right. Mob violence against those who did not support the cause (even before fighting broke out) was common.

Many people joined the Revolution to gain positions of power and glory. The Founding Fathers it must be remembered where the colonial elite, yet below the elite of England. By over-throwing British rule they established themselves as an elite subserviant to no one.

There were many cases were the Revolution was coopted by local conflicts, one group out of power joining the British to go against the local government in hopes of gaining power for themselves. Local governments sided with the Revolution to crush undesirable elements. And vice a versa.

And not to forget one of the (great) unspoken elements of the American Revolution was a backlash against slaves being freed by courts in England (anger of "judical activism" and fear such events could also happen in the colonies under continued British rule).

Actually yes, Americans developed a strike and run tactic that took advantage of American rural dress (namely buckskins) and there are a number of occasions where American forces would wait next to a road in the brush and fire on the marching redcoats (red is probably not a good color to wear when fighting in the woods).

Like Vietnam, the Americans controled the countryside and the British the cities. Pitched battles usually went to the British, but they couldn't crush the revolution.

I wouldn't say they were terrorists, but they weren't fighting using the accepted rules at the time either.

Agreed, except I would call them terrorists, at least at the level of those in Iraq(You have to realize that technology back then would make it a lot harder to kill both innocent civilians and enemy troops. When bullets and blades were the primary way of killing, nobody could drive a horse laden with gunpowder into a crowd of tories, and blow themselves up.

They were not terrorists because they did not employ terror tactics against innocent civilians.
Oh, please. What about tarring and feathering tax collectors? Forming mobs and dragging these men through the streets before dowsing them with hot tar, covering them with feathers and hanging them up. And then you have to take the tar off, which effectively removed 2 or 3 layers of skin. It's like getting a 2nd degree burn on every inch of your body.

That not enough, then what about the destruction of English merchant ships? the torching of warehouses? Dragging loyalists from their homes, looting them, and then beating them senseless? Propogandists like Sam Adams constantly wrote about how evil the British were. Take the Boston Massacre- angry mobs begin threating British troops and throwing rocks at them. Someone yells something like "Why don't you fire on us?". Jumpy soldiers open fire, 5 die. The next day it's in the papers as "A Massacre", and there are illustrations of menacing British soldiers gunning down unarmed women and children. Sounds an awful lot like the propoganda used by many Islamic terrorists to show how evil America is.

That is called terrorism. Destruction of the economy, attacking innocent civilians to scare people, and excessive propoganda and de-humanization of the enemy.

Now, I suppose you ought to know, I am American. I do not hate my country, but I don't buy into the version of the American Revolution we learn in Elementary School. The story of America's creation is neither one of god-like heroes, nor is it one of Satanic criminals. It is simply the story of people on opposing sides of an issue. To us they are liberators, to the British they are terrorists.

It's all about your point of view.

Simply put, were the American Founding Fathers right in Revolting against the procieved tyranny of the British Government?

EDIT: To clarify, the "Founding Fathers referred to were the Leaders of the American Revolution, such as Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson.

They are unique. And yes, the fact we won, defines them as freedom fighters than terrorist.

However the unique thing about them is they DID have enlightenment ideas regarding freedom, and benevolent government. They didn't just fight for their country, a LOT of their beliefs and causes were directly related to liberty making them freedom fighters.

They could have been rebels and become monarchy and noble figures. But they didn't even though THEY succeeded. Their actions in the time of their seat of power proved that they were freedom fighters.

They could have become another stalin, mussolini, hitlter, but chose not to. This makes them freedom fighters.

They are unique. And yes, the fact we won, defines them as freedom fighters than terrorist.

However the unique thing about them is they DID have enlightenment ideas regarding freedom, and benevolent government. They didn't just fight for their country, a LOT of their beliefs and causes were directly related to liberty making them freedom fighters.

They could have been rebels and become monarchy and noble figures. But they didn't even though THEY succeeded. Their actions in the time of their seat of power proved that they were freedom fighters.

They could have become another stalin, mussolini, hitlter, but chose not to. This makes them freedom fighters.

They sound more like spoiled brats to me. Mostly self government. Lower taxes than anyone in europe but poland. Strongest military in the world protecting them, for free. India had it twice as bad, and didn't have to go to shooting the british and attacking other indians.

They are unique. And yes, the fact we won, defines them as freedom fighters than terrorist.

However the unique thing about them is they DID have enlightenment ideas regarding freedom, and benevolent government. They didn't just fight for their country, a LOT of their beliefs and causes were directly related to liberty making them freedom fighters.

They could have been rebels and become monarchy and noble figures. But they didn't even though THEY succeeded. Their actions in the time of their seat of power proved that they were freedom fighters.

They could have become another stalin, mussolini, hitlter, but chose not to. This makes them freedom fighters.


Freedom for white males, that is... not for everybody, as you seem to imply there.

American Founding Fathers, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?
they were both(at-the-same-time)...Terrorists AND Freedom Fighters.

They sound more like spoiled brats to me. Mostly self government. Lower taxes than anyone in europe but poland. Strongest military in the world protecting them, for free. India had it twice as bad, and didn't have to go to shooting the british and attacking other indians.

That's because what you know of them is about as much as what a grade school kid knows. An AMERICAN grade school kid. The best way to know the type of people they were is to read their writings which are an expression of themselves. They weren't spoiled brats. Shit, they went through more physical and mental tribulation than you'll EVER experience. Hell, calling people who went through the extremites of nature, sacrifice, and fate spoiled while you type this in your room with a fucking computer. Who's the spoiled brat in this equation? They EARNED their legends. They didn't become notable men overnight. They achieved throughout their lives which put them in Independence Hall in 1776. The most you'll ever earn is carpal tunnel syndrom you spoiled little bastard.

Freedom for white males, that is... not for everybody, as you seem to imply there.

Correct. Though Benjamin Franklin was the only real non-hypocrite, the times were different and the dependency of economy of the country was far different. Because of it, they promoted their ideals at the best they could reasonably ACHIEVE without sabatoging their attempt to succeed in the face of dire times. Nevertheless, they created the foundation FOR people to be free. "All men are created equal" for instance is something Lincoln and Martin Luther King used.

However, give them some credit. If you gave Americans cotton pickers and the cotton gin and the ability to change their economy over night, the founding fathers would have been the first to abolish slavery. That is the type of men they mostly were. Of course, as usual, I have to remind ignorant people that they even created a law to outlaw the import of slaves in twenty years. Had they NOT thought heavily of the slavery issue, they would have cared less enough to make such a law to undercut the economy of the southern colonies.

Slavery itself was an import of europe and there were even indentured servants who were white in Colonial times. The slavery that YOU think about didn't happen till Eli Whitney's cotton gin revolution which was long after the death of the founding fathers. Back then, there wasn't exactly segregation feelings. Everybody was to busy goddamned working.

Terrorists... but then you people still support the IRA so you clearly havent changed.

that's really not so any more, I personally met a British Intelligence operative in BiH who said 'these days the Yanks have wised up, it's those damned Australians now!'

They were Freedom Fighters for two reasons:

1.) They declared war on a country and fought as an army as one nation against another.

2.) They did not partake in the killing of innocents for political gain. The atrocities of the revolution were mainly commited by the British soldiers.

Devil's advocate time here, and don't call me a traitor to America, many of my people died to make this country possible! but Americans did commit atrocities includeing rape, torture and destruction of property against persons loyal to the British rule.
Very many of them fled to Canada, includeing the famous Jacobite heroine, Flora MacDonald who is imortalized in the 'Skye Boat Song'.
It was war, and there were bad things done on both sides. It is wrong to say the British or the Americans were more cruel or bad in this war, there is ample evidence to both the misbehavior and the greatness of both sides. my opinion, We won, England get used to it, America, give it a rest!

Correct. Though Benjamin Franklin was the only real non-hypocrite, the times were different and the dependency of economy of the country was far different. Because of it, they promoted their ideals at the best they could reasonably ACHIEVE without sabatoging their attempt to succeed in the face of dire times. Nevertheless, they created the foundation FOR people to be free. "All men are created equal" for instance is something Lincoln and Martin Luther King used.

However, give them some credit. If you gave Americans cotton pickers and the cotton gin and the ability to change their economy over night, the founding fathers would have been the first to abolish slavery. That is the type of men they mostly were. Of course, as usual, I have to remind ignorant people that they even created a law to outlaw the import of slaves in twenty years. Had they NOT thought heavily of the slavery issue, they would have cared less enough to make such a law to undercut the economy of the southern colonies.

Slavery itself was an import of europe and there were even indentured servants who were white in Colonial times. The slavery that YOU think about didn't happen till Eli Whitney's cotton gin revolution which was long after the death of the founding fathers. Back then, there wasn't exactly segregation feelings. Everybody was to busy goddamned working.

So, because they thought it would be important to promote their ideals and kill their opponents so they could apply said ideals to their society, that makes them freedom fighters. As opposed to the terrorists in Iraq, who think it's important to promote their ideals and kill their opponents so they can apply their ideals to their society...

The only difference being that one promoted enlightened ideals, the other religious ideals.

Course, he'd never dare star in a film about one of the times the Scottish, at the order of the French, marched south, raping and pillaging as they went only to be repelled by a massively outnumbered English army.

Wow. And you're ciriticising Gibson for historical inaccuracy!

This was not a Scotland vs England campaign, as I'm sure you well know. This was a religious and royalist war-most of lowland/Protestant Scotland were as scared of Charlie as were the English aristocracy. His Scottish troops were for the most part, Highland and Catholic.
And as for being repelled, Charles's Scottish troops started the famous Scottish sporting tradition of deciding that the thing was won and going home to look after business there, just a wee bit too early.... ;)

"History is written by the victors" as the saying goes.

In addition, according to thefreedictionary.com (www.thefreedictionary.com) definition, the founding fathers were indeed terrorists regardless of whether or not their cause was a noble one.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


One however can also acknowledge that they were fighting for freedom. Surely that also defines them as freedom fighters?

In all, the question of whether the founding fathers are terrorists or freedom fighters is a trick question considering that they are trully both.

They only really fought the War at the beging to get richer as History is Written by the vicotrs all of this was thrown away sdo it made them look good and that fact the US was created by French to be a thorn in the side of the British , and that In fact there where as many Americans in the British Army as there was in Washingtons and that even in the Founding Fathers there where many that had foot in both of Camps , Ben Franklin was best friends with the Head British Agent and Gave him Information, Parlement had given practially all they wanted at the end of the first year of the War so there was no need to realy to carry on the war only for Greeds sake but certian members of the Hireachary of the Rebel Camp, the Real Freedom Fighters in the AWI are probably the slaves.The British Shouldn't of Brough their Indian Allies inot the conflict it was that caused many of the large support base among the Colonial lower classes to switch their support, if they hadnt it would of probably ended slightly differently

They only really fought the War at the beging to get richer as History is Written by the vicotrs all of this was thrown away sdo it made them look good and that fact the US was created by French to be a thorn in the side of the British , and that In fact there where as many Americans in the British Army as there was in Washingtons and that even in the Founding Fathers there where many that had foot in both of Camps , Ben Franklin was best friends with the Head British Agent and Gave him Information, Parlement had given practially all they wanted at the end of the first year of the War so there was no need to realy to carry on the war only for Greeds sake but certian members of the Hireachary of the Rebel Camp, the Real Freedom Fighters in the AWI are probably the slaves.The British Shouldn't of Brough their Indian Allies inot the conflict it was that caused many of the large support base among the Colonial lower classes to switch their support, if they hadnt it would of probably ended slightly differently


What?

The Continental Army actually met with the British Army on the field of battle on numerous occasions. And the Founders weren't detonating powder kegs to try to kill as many British children as possible.

Wow. And you're ciriticising Gibson for historical inaccuracy!

This was not a Scotland vs England campaign, as I'm sure you well know. This was a religious and royalist war-most of lowland/Protestant Scotland were as scared of Charlie as were the English aristocracy. His Scottish troops were for the most part, Highland and Catholic.
And as for being repelled, Charles's Scottish troops started the famous Scottish sporting tradition of deciding that the thing was won and going home to look after business there, just a wee bit too early.... ;)

I'm not talking about the Jacobite rebellion. I'm talking about battles like Nevilles Cross and Flodden Field. On both occasions the English were busy fighting the French, and so Scotland reckoned they could use the opportunity to march south. On both occasions a small rag tag English army was rasied by the northen nobility and repelled the Scottish Invaders.

Flodden Field was a particuarly stunning victory. 40,000 Scottish with 5000 French reinforcements, versus 20,000 English. The commanders had agreed to meet at the battle field and not take the hill. Regardless, the Scottish went back on their word and positioned themselves on a hill, aiming the expensive cannon they had just purchased from Genoa at the English army. However, they got the tragetory wrong, and this big advantage was squandered.

In the end, 10,000 Scottish lay dead including half the nobility and the king of Scotland. The English lost around 500 men. Let's see Gibson make a movie about that.

Terrorists.

The founding fathers weren't terrorrists as they didn't kill civilians.
How many civilians were killed in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, ...?

Freedom Fighters, it is undeniable that Monarchy is an illegitimate form of government in comparison to the Republican Democracy that the Founders were fighting the tyranny of British terrorism to establish.

Freedom Fighters, it is undeniable that Monarchy is an illegitimate form of government in comparison to the Republican Democracy that the Founders were fighting the tyranny of British terrorism to establish.define "legitimate form of Gov."
Disclaimer: you are going to get you ass kicked...whatever you reply :-)

define "legitimate form of Gov."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

------------------------

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

-------------------------

dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal...
government of the people, by the people, for the people

-------------------------

snif snif ... is that sheep? is that cows? No, its Trollshit.

yes, this is aimed at you, Our Constitution.

Give me an instance of British terrorism before the war began, if you please. They can't be after the war began, or thats retailiation before the attack.

Freedom Fighters, it is undeniable that Monarchy is an illegitimate form of government in comparison to the Republican Democracy that the Founders were fighting the tyranny of British terrorism to establish.
Remind me...who was defending the colonies before the revolution?

If you agree with what they are doing/did/about to do their freedom fighters
If you don't agree they are terrorists

Most were freedom fighters, but many were terrorists. The leaders (i.e., Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, et. al.) were definitely freedom fighters.

snif snif ... is that sheep? is that cows? No, its Trollshit.

yes, this is aimed at you, Our Constitution.

Give me an instance of British terrorism before the war began, if you please. They can't be after the war began, or thats retailiation before the attack.

Anglo-Spanish War, 1728 spreads to Florida
British attack on Fort Duquesne Nov 25, 1758
British attack on French Ticonderoga July 26, 1759
British attack on the Cherokee Indians Aug 10, 1760
British attack on Quebec 1759
British attack on Montreal 1760
British attack on Detroit 1760
British use of smallpox biological warfare under the command of General Jeffrey Amherst in 1763.
British attack on Boston Oct.1 1768
British attack on Boston, March 5, 1770 aka The Boston Massacre
Governor William Tryon of North Carolina 1771, ordered 1200 troops to attack 2000 civilians


I could go on, if you want. There are several hundred instances, very well documented.

Remind me...who was defending the colonies before the revolution?

nobody except the colonists themselves.