U.s. Founding fathers

[Thorne]

Well, in the case of revolutionary war, its pretty clear that tyranny is not an accurate word to describe the British. Maybe "good intentioned" works better

No, tyranny is the right word. Regardless of what else the British brought to the Colonies, they tried to maintain the peerage system, basically a holdover of the feudal system, where a handful of privileged men were given control over lands and persons simply by dint of birth. These men were placed above common law, answerable only to the king, and could imprison or execute any commoner on a whim. This is the system the Colonist leaders wanted to discard.

Unfortunately, we seem to be steering in that direction once again.

In the Civil War, putting an end to slavery was a very good thing . . . but thats assuming that was the reason the war was fought in the first place

Slavery was one aspect of the Civil War, among the least important at the time. Slavery was a doomed institution anyway, a last gasp of agrarianism which would have ended with the rise of industrialism. Tractors and cotton gins would have made slavery too expensive to continue, and world opinion would have been the final straw. It might even be argued that forcibly freeing the slaves did more damage to the eventual civil rights movement than if they had been freed voluntarily. The race-hatred and resentment of the slave states might not have become so ingrained into society.

[tedteague]

[QUOTE=Thorne;877160]No, tyranny is the right word. Regardless of what else the British brought to the Colonies, they tried to maintain the peerage system, basically a holdover of the feudal system, where a handful of privileged men were given control over lands and persons simply by dint of birth. These men were placed above common law, answerable only to the king, and could imprison or execute any commoner on a whim. This is the system the Colonist leaders wanted to discard.

Unfortunately, we seem to be steering in that direction once again.


I'm sorry, but I don't see how the British were tyranical at all. They didn't enforce the few laws they never repealled

[MMI]

No, tyranny is the right word. Regardless of what else the British brought to the Colonies, they tried to maintain the peerage system, basically a holdover of the feudal system, where a handful of privileged men were given control over lands and persons simply by dint of birth. These men were placed above common law, answerable only to the king, and could imprison or execute any commoner on a whim. This is the system the Colonist leaders wanted to discard.

Unfortunately, we seem to be steering in that direction once again.


Slavery was one aspect of the Civil War, among the least important at the time. Slavery was a doomed institution anyway, a last gasp of agrarianism which would have ended with the rise of industrialism. Tractors and cotton gins would have made slavery too expensive to continue, and world opinion would have been the final straw. It might even be argued that forcibly freeing the slaves did more damage to the eventual civil rights movement than if they had been freed voluntarily. The race-hatred and resentment of the slave states might not have become so ingrained into society.

That is so wrong, Thorne, and quite untypical of you. I cannot believe you don't know it. In fact to suggest aristocrats could execute commoners on a whim, that they were accountable only to the king and were above common law is so intrue that it must be a deliberate untruth, blind acceptance of revolutionary propaganda, or pure ignorance.

Ever since the English Civil War - if not before then (I'm thinking of Magna Carta) - the King has been subject to the law, even though the laws were made in the monarch's name. And just as King George was monarch subject to the consent of Parliament, so all other peers of the realm were subject to all the laws of the land.

True the aristocracy had privilege. It was the same sort of privilege that the rich and the educated have in ... ummm, let's think ... in modern USA, for example. Of course, they had titles too, and that gave them added presence and an entré into hgh society, but by that time, the real power was moving away from the Lords and Ladies and into the coffers of the merchants, explorers and industrialists, who were marrying their daughters to impoverished counts, barons and dukes in order to acquire greater prestige.

As for slavery, had you not revolted, there'd have been no American Civil War because slavery was abolished by Britain throughout all of its possessions years before it happened in America. Peacefully.

[tedteague]

That is so wrong, Thorne, and quite untypical of you. I cannot believe you don't know it. In fact to suggest aristocrats could execute commoners on a whim, that they were accountable only to the king and were above common law is so intrue that it must be a deliberate untruth, blind acceptance of revolutionary propaganda, or pure ignorance.

Ever since the English Civil War - if not before then (I'm thinking of Magna Carta) - the King has been subject to the law, even though the laws were made in the monarch's name. And just as King George was monarch subject to the consent of Parliament, so all other peers of the realm were subject to all the laws of the land.

True the aristocracy had privilege. It was the same sort of privilege that the rich and the educated have in ... ummm, let's think ... in modern USA, for example. Of course, they had titles too, and that gave them added presence and an entré into hgh society, but by that time, the real power was moving away from the Lords and Ladies and into the coffers of the merchants, explorers and industrialists, who were marrying their daughters to impoverished counts, barons and dukes in order to acquire greater prestige.

As for slavery, had you not revolted, there'd have been no American Civil War because slavery was abolished by Britain throughout all of its possessions years before it happened in America. Peacefully.

Thats very true, in fact. The US is only one of two states to have abolished slavery through war

[DuncanONeil]

And the Lords and Ladies have returned to the USofA! Only they now call themselves Senators and Representatives!

That is so wrong, Thorne, and quite untypical of you. I cannot believe you don't know it. In fact to suggest aristocrats could execute commoners on a whim, that they were accountable only to the king and were above common law is so intrue that it must be a deliberate untruth, blind acceptance of revolutionary propaganda, or pure ignorance.

Ever since the English Civil War - if not before then (I'm thinking of Magna Carta) - the King has been subject to the law, even though the laws were made in the monarch's name. And just as King George was monarch subject to the consent of Parliament, so all other peers of the realm were subject to all the laws of the land.

True the aristocracy had privilege. It was the same sort of privilege that the rich and the educated have in ... ummm, let's think ... in modern USA, for example. Of course, they had titles too, and that gave them added presence and an entré into hgh society, but by that time, the real power was moving away from the Lords and Ladies and into the coffers of the merchants, explorers and industrialists, who were marrying their daughters to impoverished counts, barons and dukes in order to acquire greater prestige.

As for slavery, had you not revolted, there'd have been no American Civil War because slavery was abolished by Britain throughout all of its possessions years before it happened in America. Peacefully.