Marseilles is now 30-40% Muslim. Excessive violence, riots, and rapes!

[Wulfhere]

If the motivation was money it would have been safer to be a Tory. Indeed, Tories tended to be wealthier. A number of revolutionaries lost their homes and fortunes. Why would John Hancock, a wealthy man, risk his fortune to lead a revolt that before Saratoga was a long shot if his motivation was money?

The revolution was a revolt against taxes. If Tories were wealthier, no doubt the revoltionaries wanted to be wealthier still. As for those who lost fortunes - well, it was a gamble. And once started, they had to see it through or be hung for treason.

[Joe McCarthy]

The revolution was a revolt against taxes. If Tories were wealthier, no doubt the revoltionaries wanted to be wealthier still. As for those who lost fortunes - well, it was a gamble. And once started, they had to see it through or be hung for treason.

I'm unsure what you're saying here. If you're saying the American Revolution was a glorified tax dodge that makes no sense as the revolutionaries still had to pay taxes under the new American government.

The cause of the rebellion is found in the Intolerable Acts. If you'd care to defend Lord North's policy there, I'd be eager to see it.

[Wulfhere]

I'm unsure what you're saying here. If you're saying the American Revolution was a glorified tax dodge that makes no sense as the revolutionaries still had to pay taxes under the new American government.

The cause of the rebellion is found in the Intolerable Acts. If you'd care to defend Lord North's policy there, I'd be eager to see it.

Which are the Intolerable Acts, exactly? I can, however, easily defend Lord North's policy simply by saying he was the legitimate representative of the crown. Argue against him, yes - get your parliamentary lobby to vote against him, yes - but don't take up arms against your king.

[Joe McCarthy]

These are the Intolerable Acts. They were the crux of the revolution:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts

That a monarch could be resisted had clear precedent in English history. If a monarch could not respect the rights of his subjects he could expect trouble. The Intolerable Acts were tyrannical.

[Wulfhere]

These are the Intolerable Acts. They were the crux of the revolution:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts

That a monarch could be resisted had clear precedent in English history. If a monarch could not respect the rights of his subjects he could expect trouble. The Intolerable Acts were tyrannical.

Intolerable according to the propaganda of the traitors.

This was not a revolt by the whole nation against a corrupt monarch - in fact, George III, Farmer George, was quite well liked - it was a revolt by a small group of people intent on splitting the nation for their own personal benefit. And they conspired wth foreign enemies to do so.

It wasn't just a tax dodge, but an opportunity for lining their own pockets. Taxation was simply another item of propaganda.

[Joe McCarthy]

Intolerable according to the propaganda of the traitors.

This was not a revolt by the whole nation against a corrupt monarch - in fact, George III, Farmer George, was quite well liked - it was a revolt by a small group of people intent on splitting the nation for their own personal benefit. And they conspired wth foreign enemies to do so.

It wasn't just a tax dodge, but an opportunity for lining their own pockets. Taxation was simply another item of propaganda.

If it was such a small group how did they win?

The revolution was actively supported by almost half the populace. The Tories were less than half as numerous.

Anyhow, I think we can ascribe British failure to political ineptitude by North with the Intolerable Acts and military ineptitude by Cornwallis in the Yorktown campaign. Few realize that we were losing the war until Cornwallis decided to pin himself against the sea.

[Wulfhere]

If it was such a small group how did they win?

The revolution was actively supported by almost half the populace. The Tories were less than half as numerous.

Anyhow, I think we can ascribe British failure to political ineptitude by North with the Intolerable Acts and military ineptitude by Cornwallis in the Yorktown campaign. Few realize that we were losing the war until Cornwallis decided to pin himself against the sea.

Yes, the British military campaign was certainly fought quite badly. Not necessarily, or wholly, through ineptitude, though. Perhaps a fundamental distaste at fighting fellow Englishmen might have played a part in the lacklustre prosecution of it.

[Magister Eckhart]

Yes, the British military campaign was certainly fought quite badly. Not necessarily, or wholly, through ineptitude, though. Perhaps a fundamental distaste at fighting fellow Englishmen might have played a part in the lacklustre prosecution of it.

More has to do with a lack of communication with the home country and the inability to coordinate attacks between northern and southern commanders. By the end the British tended to be poorly supplied and have lower morale too; separated from your home country by the Atlantic Ocean with a poor supply line and an even poorer communications link is just asking to lose.

Further, as the revolutionaries murdered Tories and burned their property, many of them fled to Canada, meaning that as time went by the percentage of the population supporting the revolution grew larger and larger. As early as 1779, the Iroquois, all supporters of the British cause because of the English respect for their laws and property, were wiped out as a military force because the Continentals marched through their territory and burned their crops, salted their fields, and bayoneted their children. When men like General Sullivan were willing to deploy troops like colonial Einsatzgruppen, it's little surprise that the country went almost entirely pro-Revolution by the last three years of the war. I probably would myself, if it came down to accepting "liberty" or being killed, I would pick "liberty" over death too.

[Wulfhere]

More has to do with a lack of communication with the home country and the inability to coordinate attacks between northern and southern commanders. By the end the British tended to be poorly supplied and have lower morale too; separated from your home country by the Atlantic Ocean with a poor supply line and an even poorer communications link is just asking to lose.

Further, as the revolutionaries murdered Tories and burned their property, many of them fled to Canada, meaning that as time went by the percentage of the population supporting the revolution grew larger and larger. As early as 1779, the Iroquois, all supporters of the British cause because of the English respect for their laws and property, were wiped out as a military force because the Continentals marched through their territory and burned their crops, salted their fields, and bayoneted their children. When men like General Sullivan were willing to deploy troops like colonial Einsatzgruppen, it's little surprise that the country went almost entirely pro-Revolution by the last three years of the war. I probably would myself, if it came down to accepting "liberty" or being killed, I would pick "liberty" over death too.

And talking of Canada, the Americans tried to invade it more than once - unsuccessfully, fortunately.

[Argyll]

And talking of Canada, the Americans tried to invade it more than once - unsuccessfully, fortunately.

Just curious, does your religion allow non white people? I read many parts of the Oera Linda Book, so I'm guessing not.