# Two hundred and forty years ago, this very day.



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Two hundred and forty years ago, this very day.
A group of wealthy Englishmen , convinced that the government that had denied them the political rights that they, as Englishmen, thought themselves entitled to, despairing that they'd ever get those rights, proclaimed independence from the motherland. That they themselves would, naturally, become the new ruling elite was, of course, far from their minds.....
Enjoy the day, with my best wishes.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Still think America has a better government than England. Not perfect, but better.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

A problem with democracy is that, arguably, we get the government that we deserve. Look at the choice that we've got, and look at the choice that you've got!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Two hundred and forty years ago, this very day.
> A group of wealthy Englishmen , convinced that the government that had denied them the political rights that they, as Englishmen, thought themselves entitled to, despairing that they'd ever get those rights, proclaimed independence from the motherland. That they themselves would, naturally, become the new ruling elite was, of course, far from their minds.....
> Enjoy the day, with my best wishes.


Not all of the Founding Fathers were English, their wealth (to whatever extent, if any) was generally immaterial to the underlying political principles they espoused, and the actual date of the adoption of Virginian Richard Henry Lee's Resolution for Independence by the Continental Congress was July 2nd, 1776. Thomas Jefferson's (primarily) _Declaration of Independence_ - a formalized articulation and justification of that resolution - was adopted on July 4th. So, July 2nd is the actual date of independence; we Americans (and, apparently, some Brits) seemed to have screwed that up a bit!

I know your goal was really to stir the socioeconomic class warfare pot, Chouan, but I thought you ought to have your facts straight before you go off on one of your injudicious and mischievous pseudo-intellectual tangents...


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Chouan said:


> A problem with democracy is that, arguably, we get the government that we deserve. Look at the choice that we've got, and look at the choice that you've got!


"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Winston S. Churchill

"Well, Doctor, what have we got-a Republic or a Monarchy?" some lady, to Benjamin Franklin, to which he replied "A Republic, if you can keep it."

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." various attributions


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> *Not all of the Founding Fathers were English*, their wealth (to whatever extent, if any) was generally immaterial to the underlying political principles they espoused, and the actual date of the adoption of Virginian Richard Henry Lee's Resolution for Independence by the Continental Congress was July 2nd, 1776. Thomas Jefferson's (primarily) _Declaration of Independence_ - a formalized articulation and justification of that resolution - was adopted on July 4th. So, July 2nd is the actual date of independence; we Americans (and, apparently, some Brits) seemed to have screwed that up a bit!


Indeed? The only one that I'm aware of who might not have been English was a bloke called Paca. The others were English and were following the principles of other Englishmen like John Locke and Tom Paine. I know that, once they'd become independent they became Americans, but until then they were British subjects, and true-born Englishmen, demanding the rights of Parliamentary democracy granted under the Bill of Rights.



Tiger said:


> I know your goal was really to stir the socioeconomic class warfare pot, Chouan, but I thought you ought to have your facts straight before you go off on one of your injudicious and mischievous pseudo-intellectual tangents...


If that were true you shouldn't have risen to, what you perceived as, the bait. It wasn't, however.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Ronald Reagan said, "It only takes once to vote it out."


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Indeed? The only one that I'm aware of who might not have been English was a bloke called Paca. The others were English and were following the principles of other Englishmen like John Locke and Tom Paine. I know that, once they'd become independent they became Americans, but until then they were British subjects, and true-born Englishmen, demanding the rights of Parliamentary democracy granted under the Bill of Rights.
> 
> If that were true you shouldn't have risen to, what you perceived as, the bait. It wasn't, however.


A simple search of just the signers of the Declaration will show that some were Scottish, Welsh, and Irish. Many more of the Founding generation weren't English, either.

I didn't take the bait, Chouan. I corrected your historical inaccuracies; truth is preferable to fiction in this case!


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

If our signers were mere Englishmen doing Englishmen things, we wouldn't be where we are today. But they were not. They were giants. Hence the radical difference between our societies.

I hear you guys voted to regain some independence! Brexit or something. Welcome to the club. We did that a quarter of a millennium ago.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> If our signers were mere Englishmen doing Englishmen things, we wouldn't be where we are today. But they were not. They were giants. Hence the radical difference between our societies.


Mere Englishmen? But they were, that was their whole point.



Pentheos said:


> I hear you guys voted to regain some independence! Brexit or something. Welcome to the club. We did that a quarter of a millennium ago.


We'd lost no independence, despite what the Leave campaign said. Neither had we lost any sovereignty. Brexit is a retrograde step, voted for by xenophobes and those who hanker after our past, and those who wish to get rid of the European protections to the environment, employment rights, civil liberties and everything else that the neo-liberals don't like.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> A simple search of just the signers of the Declaration will show that some were Scottish, Welsh, and Irish. Many more of the Founding generation weren't English, either.
> 
> I didn't take the bait, Chouan. I corrected your historical inaccuracies; truth is preferable to fiction in this case!


Some may have had some Welsh or Scottish or Irish ancestry; I should, I suppose, have described them as British. However, the political rights that they demanded were those of an Englishman, literally.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Some may have had some Welsh or Scottish or Irish ancestry; I should, I suppose, have described them as British. However, the political rights that they demanded were those of an Englishman, literally.


Not "may have"; some were Scottish, Welsh, and Irish. No need to equivocate!

Yes, they demanded the rights they were entitled to, but did not receive, from Parliament and the monarchy. Jefferson's _Declaration _ sums it all up nicely...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Yes, they demanded the rights they were entitled to, but did not receive, from Parliament and the monarchy. Jefferson's _Declaration _ sums it all up nicely...


Indeed, their rights as Englishmen, as laid out in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Not "may have"; some were Scottish, Welsh, and Irish. No need to equivocate!


Matthew Thornton was of an English family living in Limerick, so might be mistakenly called Irish, John Adams' great-grandfather was Welsh (which hardly makes _*him*_ Welsh!), William Williams has a Welsh surname, but I can't find any Welsh ancestry, William Floyd's great-grandfather was Welsh, Francis Lewis *was* Welsh, but legally English, as Wales wasn't regarded as a separate political region then. John Witherspoon was a Scot, so there's your first entirely non-English signatory, John Morton was Finnish,. James Smith was born in Ulster, but I can't find any record of his parentage. George Taylor was born in Ireland of English parents, James Wilson was a Scot, as was George Ross and William Hooper. Thomas McKean was Ulster Irish, Charles Carroll was Irish.

So, you've got four Scots, one Finn, one Ulsterman, one Irishman and one Welshman out of how many? 56? That leaves 48 Englishmen. Not much in the way of Historical inaccuracy, I would suggest.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Matthew Thornton was of an English family living in Limerick, so might be mistakenly called Irish, John Adams' great-grandfather was Welsh (which hardly makes _*him*_ Welsh!), William Williams has a Welsh surname, but I can't find any Welsh ancestry, William Floyd's great-grandfather was Welsh, Francis Lewis *was* Welsh, but legally English, as Wales wasn't regarded as a separate political region then. John Witherspoon was a Scot, so there's your first entirely non-English signatory, John Morton was Finnish,. James Smith was born in Ulster, but I can't find any record of his parentage. George Taylor was born in Ireland of English parents, James Wilson was a Scot, as was George Ross and William Hooper. Thomas McKean was Ulster Irish, Charles Carroll was Irish.
> 
> So, you've got four Scots, one Finn, one Ulsterman, one Irishman and one Welshman out of how many? 56? That leaves 48 Englishmen. Not much in the way of Historical inaccuracy, I would suggest.


I would suggest that inaccuracy _*is*_ inaccuracy, despite your equivocation. Your tendency to split hairs (as demonstrated in various threads) seems to have abandoned you now that you've been proven incorrect. Perhaps you'll show others the same linguistic leeway, and not pounce on every jot and tittle?

For the record, there were far more advocates for independence than simply the list of signers of the _Declaration of Independence_. I understand that this attenuates your "elitism" view, but you'll survive!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Sort of hard to square a popular uprising with lack of popular support. There certainly was division amongst the states on the course of the movement and I'm sure that it was not supported by everyone, but enough did support it.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Let us be consistent. Chouan refers to a recent terrorist immigrant to Belgium as a Belgian, so clearly anyone living in an English colony was English. This is equally valid or invalid thinking.

The colonial revolution was largely about wealthy merchants wishing to be free of trade restrictions. The original Boston Tea Party participants were xenophobes culturally appropriating blah blah blah. Let us tar and feather the Remain elitists!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> I would suggest that inaccuracy _*is*_ inaccuracy, despite your equivocation. Your tendency to split hairs (as demonstrated in various threads) seems to have abandoned you now that you've been proven incorrect. Perhaps you'll show others the same linguistic leeway, and not pounce on every jot and tittle?
> 
> For the record, there were far more advocates for independence than simply the list of signers of the _Declaration of Independence_. I understand that this attenuates your "elitism" view, but you'll survive!


Where was my inaccuracy, apart the one that I've already acknowledged, in my using English rather than British? There's nothing here that you've written that refutes what I wrote in my original post, essentially, the men, the "giants", so-called, who proposed and wrote and presented the Declaration did so on the basis of their rights as Englishmen, whether they were Welsh or Scots or Irish. Their guiding principles were those of England.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Where was my inaccuracy, apart the one that I've already acknowledged, in my using English rather than British? There's nothing here that you've written that refutes what I wrote in my original post, essentially, the men, the "giants", so-called, who proposed and wrote and presented the Declaration did so on the basis of their rights as Englishmen, whether they were Welsh or Scots or Irish. Their guiding principles were those of England.


Translation: although I was factually incorrect, I choose to believe that it does't matter and I am therefore still correct.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Where was my inaccuracy, apart the one that I've already acknowledged, in my using English rather than British? There's nothing here that you've written that refutes what I wrote in my original post, essentially, the men, the "giants", so-called, who proposed and wrote and presented the Declaration did so on the basis of their rights as Englishmen, whether they were Welsh or Scots or Irish. Their guiding principles were those of England.


There will be an elementary reading and comprehension class in Ely, Cambridgeshire at 3pm today; I suggest you attend...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> Let us be consistent. Chouan refers to a recent terrorist immigrant to Belgium as a Belgian, so clearly anyone living in an English colony was English. This is equally valid or invalid thinking.


A person of British origin living in one of the Thirteen Colonies was as British as a British person living in Britain. These people only became American after Independence, when America came into existence, before then there was no America, as a political expression that they could be a citizen of.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> There will be an elementary reading and comprehension class in Ely, Cambridgeshire at 3pm today; I suggest you attend...


There won't, I'm afraid, as I'll still be teaching my Year 8s.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> A person of British origin living in one of the Thirteen Colonies was as British as a British person living in Britain. These people only became American after Independence, when America came into existence, before then there was no America, as a political expression that they could be a citizen of.


Agreed somewhat; some former British Colonies in North America wrote their own constitutions apart from British rule prior to July 2nd, indicating that they believed themselves to be States independent of the British Empire.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> There won't, I'm afraid, as I'll still be teaching my Year 8s.


There's always _McGuffey Readers_, if they're still in print!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> There's always _McGuffey Readers_, if they're still in print!


Never heard of them I'm afraid. Mine are assessing the quality of the British army of the 1850's, based on the training, recruitment, conditions and leadership, and the performance during the Crimean War.

Just out of interest, could you point out the errors of comprehension that you seemed to be referring to in your previous post?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Agreed somewhat; some former British Colonies in North America wrote their own constitutions apart from British rule prior to July 2nd, indicating that they believed themselves to be States independent of the British Empire.


Indeed, and if one looks at these constitutions they seem to be based on the principles of John Locke, and the political rights contained in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Indeed, and if one looks at these constitutions they seem to be based on the principles of John Locke, and the political rights contained in the Bill of Rights.


Agreed - this is not in dispute.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I may be on error here and if i am then doubtless my friend brother Chouan will correct me; but I believe this thread to be an invitation. My American friends are less than 250 years from their birthright as fellow Englishmen. 250 years is but a drop in the ocean to our nation, as if you merely popped out to the offy for more booze. We are, each of us, made of the good stuff that the other countries envy. God bless America and God save the queen.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Admirable sentiments Shaver, but that's quite a long trip to the offy. I fear for the comfort of your thirsty guests.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

No proper Englishman would wait until the last moment to replenish the tipple. The offy run is to prevent thirst the afternoon following.

And also useful for a sly rogering of an aquaintance's missus.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> I may be on error here and if i am then doubtless my friend brother Chouan will correct me; but I believe this thread to be an invitation. My American friends are less than 250 years from their birthright as fellow Englishmen. 250 years is but a drop in the ocean to our nation, as if you merely popped out to the offy for more booze. We are, each of us, made of the good stuff that the other countries envy. God bless America and God save the queen.


Indeed. I was seeking to stress the connections between our countries; that the US is a different development of a similar, indeed originally identical, political idea.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Indeed. I was seeking to stress the connections between our countries; that the US is a different development of a similar, indeed originally identical, political idea.


I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. Common Law forms the foundation of American jurisprudence.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Just out of interest, could you point out the errors of comprehension that you seemed to be referring to in your previous post?


Previously pointed out; prefer to avoid redundancy.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Indeed. I was seeking to stress the connections between our countries; that the US is a different development of a similar, indeed originally identical, political idea.


Anyone wishing to read Chouan's original post will see that it was a not-so-veiled socioeconomic remark designed to instigate and agitate Americans on Independence Day; normalcy set in a bit later.

I don't mind the instigation, but the equivocation that followed was a bit unbecoming...


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> No proper Englishman would wait until the last moment to replenish the tipple. The offy run is to prevent thirst the afternoon following.
> 
> And also useful for a sly rogering of an aquaintance's missus.


Your iffy runs sound quite diverting.

Sadly, really good traditional off-licences are few and far between. I suppose that is no hindrance to a visit to one being used as a pretext however.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I have to admit I had to look "offy" up. Interesting that you have somewhat the same set up in the UK as some states here do when it comes to the selling of alcohol. 

There are huge regional disparities such as no selling on alcohol on Sundays (sometimes all day, sometimes until noon). Other states beer and wine can be sold at regular grocery store while liquor is sold only at state owned liquor stores. Of course, this means that folks cannot simply pop in around the corner and instead must drive sometimes 10-20 miles. The world is a simpler place when there is no competition allowed.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Anyone wishing to read Chouan's original post will see that it was a not-so-veiled socioeconomic remark designed to instigate and agitate Americans on Independence Day; normalcy set in a bit later.
> 
> I don't mind the instigation, but the equivocation that followed was a bit unbecoming...


The fact is that the remark in question wasn't designed to agitate Americans. 
That some, if not all, Americans see the "Founding Fathers" as not being fallible mortals, and people with a personal agenda, is more to do with American perceptions of the origins of their country. I, for one, have yet to see a person engaged in politics who was not, at some point, motivated by personal gain, whether social, financial or political. Who stood to benefit from American Independence more than those who signed the Declaration? In Britain's case, who stood to gain the most from the "Grand Remonstrance", the ordinary people of England, or the members of Parliament who signed it? That the "Founding Fathers" themselves stood to gain from Independence doesn't mean that they are condemned.......


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> The fact is that the remark in question wasn't designed to agitate Americans.
> That some, if not all, Americans see the "Founding Fathers" as not being fallible mortals, and people with a personal agenda, is more to do with American perceptions of the origins of their country. I, for one, have yet to see a person engaged in politics who was not, at some point, motivated by personal gain, whether social, financial or political. Who stood to benefit from American Independence more than those who signed the Declaration? In Britain's case, who stood to gain the most from the "Grand Remonstrance", the ordinary people of England, or the members of Parliament who signed it? That the "Founding Fathers" themselves stood to gain from Independence doesn't mean that they are condemned.......


I think there are few people who don't see the Founding Fathers as anything but flawed human beings. It's the sum of the achievements and what the founding of the nation represents. There were few societies in the mid 18th century where such was not the case. One could argue that in light of the systems of government in place in France, Russia and the states of Germany, the English and American systems were enlightened.

I think most of us are smart enough to be able to see the subtleties and the human flaws enough to appreciate that.

I realize it gives you some comfort to think of at least some sliver of American society as knuckle draggers perhaps only a few rungs removed from Neanderthal Man but to paraphrase you, it's more to do with your perception of the origin of the country and it's people than with reality.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> The fact is that the remark in question wasn't designed to agitate Americans.
> That some, if not all, Americans see the "Founding Fathers" as not being fallible mortals, and people with a personal agenda, is more to do with American perceptions of the origins of their country. I, for one, have yet to see a person engaged in politics who was not, at some point, motivated by personal gain, whether social, financial or political. Who stood to benefit from American Independence more than those who signed the Declaration? In Britain's case, who stood to gain the most from the "Grand Remonstrance", the ordinary people of England, or the members of Parliament who signed it? That the "Founding Fathers" themselves stood to gain from Independence doesn't mean that they are condemned.......


This is classic Chouan, i.e., instigate, agitate, and distort all in the name of left wing political ideology and then quickly shift the goalposts and pretend not to understand why the posts have caused rancor.

Your first sentence is dishonest. Your second sentence is an insulting slur. The rest is prosaic generalities. This is a far cry from your original post, which was designed to incite and was filled with historical inaccuracies.

I hope your students won't emerge too damaged from their teacher's warped ideology and poor character...


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

This skepticism could be tempered by the fact that these wealthy men privately and publicly espoused egalitarian views. I'll concede that history whitewashes and lionizes (and I'd point to a few wars where the mainstream hasn't caught up) but the writings of the prominent colonists were consistent and come off very genuine. 
Here in the states, we are assured that the Declaration signers were well aware that they were risking fortune and their very lives. From Franklin's quip that "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" to the various tales of the fates that became them. 
Am I being to sentimental to think that modern leaders pale in comparison?


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Wow! I dont know where this perception that US-ers somehow worship the Founding Fathers themselves. They were all flawed men in one form or another. Their collective ideas is where they gain their "cred", to use the vernacular. But the hero worship, to the extent it ever existed, goes right out the window by about the junior high school years when students in preparation for the Constitution test have to grapple with the 3/5ths business in Article 1. Further, any 8th grader should already know by that time about Jefferson's preferences in women and Franklin's "errata". King Arthur is likely more esteemed here than the any of the Founders as an individual.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Joseph Peter said:


> Wow! I dont know where this perception that US-ers somehow worship the Founding Fathers themselves. They were all flawed men in one form or another. Their collective ideas is where they gain their "cred", to use the vernacular. But the hero worship, to the extent it ever existed, goes right out the window by about the junior high school years when students in preparation for the Constitution test have to grapple with the 3/5ths business in Article 1. Further, any 8th grader should already know by that time about Jefferson's preferences in women and Franklin's "errata". King Arthur is likely more esteemed here than the any of the Founders as an individual.


Yet look at some of the posts on this thread, one member describes them as "giants", another takes serious umbrage at the suggestion that they could possibly have had self-interest in their actions!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> This is classic Chouan, i.e., instigate, agitate, and distort all in the name of left wing political ideology and then quickly shift the goalposts and pretend not to understand why the posts have caused rancor.


To be blunt, this is bollix.



Tiger said:


> Your first sentence is dishonest. Your second sentence is an insulting slur. The rest is prosaic generalities. This is a far cry from your original post, which was designed to incite and was filled with historical inaccuracies.


No, it isn't. It is your chosen perception that makes you think it so. What inaccuracies? That I used the word English rather than British, when they were nearly all English?



Tiger said:


> I hope your students won't emerge too damaged from their teacher's warped ideology and poor character...


Warped ideology? In what way? Because it doesn't coincide with yours? Poor character? On what basis do you make that rather personal ad hom assertion?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Yet look at some of the posts on this thread, one member describes them as "giants", another takes serious umbrage at the suggestion that they could possibly have had self-interest in their actions!


They were giants. They were flawed human beings but they were also giants.

Please keep in mind that the U.S. at firs mulled the idea of electing a king as well as contemplating calling the President "your majesty". This is what they knew.

Consider George Washington. He did what very few men in history were able to do. Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler all were unable to resist seizing power when they had the opportunity to do so. Washington is pretty much alone with Moses in being able to put his nation ahead of himself.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Is the only attack that exists that slavery was accepted, as it was in England at the time? This is applying modern standards of morality to past generations, and that leaves me thinking that no more legitimate offense could be found.

Please note that to be entirely factual, one can only speak of "_a_ male Jefferson" when alluding to Hemmings, as that is the extent of DNA evidence that exists. In popular culture, filmmakers, artists, writers and poets have ignored the continuing historical debate and presumed the veracity of the consensus view, that Jefferson was indeed the father of Hemings' children. Wanting a story to be true does not make it so..

Regardless, the governmental system that they established was the best around. Sadly, it was poorly maintained by subsequent generations.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Joseph Peter said:


> Wow! I dont know where this perception that US-ers somehow worship the Founding Fathers themselves. They were all flawed men in one form or another. Their collective ideas is where they gain their "cred", to use the vernacular. But the hero worship, to the extent it ever existed, goes right out the window by about the junior high school years when students in preparation for the Constitution test have to grapple with the 3/5ths business in Article 1. Further, any 8th grader should already know by that time about Jefferson's preferences in women and Franklin's "errata". King Arthur is likely more esteemed here than the any of the Founders as an individual.


Most reasonable people agree with the first half of this statement, Joseph Peter.

However, can you please clarify how the "Three-Fifths Compromise" in Article One Section Two of the Constitution, Jefferson's "preferences in women" and Franklin's "errata" reflect poorly on the Founding Generation? Lord knows there's many things that do, but how do these that you cite?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Yet look at some of the posts on this thread, one member describes them as "giants", another takes serious umbrage at the suggestion that they could possibly have had self-interest in their actions!


So of course, then, you must attack all Americans! Remarkable how the dolts who scream about racism, genderism, plutocracy, elitism, and the supposed perniciousness of religion are so damned quick to utilize stereotypes!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> To be blunt, this is bollix.
> 
> No, it isn't. It is your chosen perception that makes you think it so. What inaccuracies? That I used the word English rather than British, when they were nearly all English?
> 
> Warped ideology? In what way? Because it doesn't coincide with yours? Poor character? On what basis do you make that rather personal ad hom assertion?


1) No, it is spot on, as evidenced for years on AAAC.

2) You absolutely agitated and incited in your initial post; claims to the contrary now are simply dishonest attempts at backtracking, mixed liberally with cowardice. In addition, believing that all Americans view the Founders as flawless is both a perfidious and dishonest stereotype, and insults Americans by implying stupidity. Fortunately, this is all beyond dispute, as it is in print for all to see. Lastly, because your obtuseness has exceeded all rational bounds, I will again list your inaccuracies from your initial post. Please read it slowly, so that you may become demystified, and cease asking repeatedly for what has already been provided:
a) Your reference to the Founding Generation consisting of all Englishmen was false.
b) Your presupposition/insinuation that all of that generation were wealthy elites who made decisions solely based on that premise is also inaccurate, as it ignores, for instance, the political and moral principles involved.
c) The Resolution of Independence was adopted on July 2nd, not July 4th. You were historically inaccurate here as well.

3) Your ideology is warped because it is so unyielding, even when faced with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. You're more Beardian than Beard (or should I say more Marxian than Marx?). I don't give a damn what your politics are; I do care when you so carelessly spew historical inaccuracies, falsehoods, and injurious stereotypes! Finally, as to your demonstrably poor character - in light of the above, when a person is so quick to lie, distort, stereotype, and slur other people, they are presumed - with much reason - to be considered of poor character.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tempest said:


> Is the only attack that exists that slavery was accepted, as it was in England at the time? This is applying modern standards of morality to past generations, and that leaves me thinking that no more legitimate offense could be found.
> 
> Please note that to be entirely factual, one can only speak of "_a_ male Jefferson" when alluding to Hemmings, as that is the extent of DNA evidence that exists. In popular culture, filmmakers, artists, writers and poets have ignored the continuing historical debate and presumed the veracity of the consensus view, that Jefferson was indeed the father of Hemings' children. Wanting a story to be true does not make it so..
> 
> Regardless, the governmental system that they established was the best around. Sadly, it was poorly maintained by subsequent generations.


Actually, slavery was not accepted in England at the time, even though British ships were engaged in the slave trade. Indeed, slavery was not recognised in English law, which was why Granville Sharp was able to use the Courts to gain the freedom of those slaves whom he found in London, the principle being that a slave is free once he sets foot on English soil. Of course, the laws which obtained in British colonies were not necessarily identical to those of England (which included Wales), and some colonies did recognise and allow slavery.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> 1) No, it is spot on, as evidenced for years on AAAC.
> 
> 2) You absolutely agitated and incited in your initial post; claims to the contrary now are simply dishonest attempts at backtracking, mixed liberally with cowardice. In addition, believing that all Americans view the Founders as flawless is both a perfidious and dishonest stereotype, and insults Americans by implying stupidity. Fortunately, this is all beyond dispute, as it is in print for all to see. Lastly, because your obtuseness has exceeded all rational bounds, I will again list your inaccuracies from your initial post. Please read it slowly, so that you may become demystified, and cease asking repeatedly for what has already been provided:
> a) Your reference to the Founding Generation consisting of all Englishmen was false.
> ...


You appear to have serious problems with your comprehension of written English, which your rant clearly demonstrates....... It doesn't justify your attacks on my character though. 
I do urge you to try to understand written English though, as I'm sure that it will be useful to you in your career as well as in your private life. For example, where I write "*some, if not all, Americans see the "Founding Fathers"** as not being fallible mortals*"; this clearly, to even a moderate intellect, is, very clearly, _*not*_ saying that "*all Americans view the Founders as flawless*", as you seem to think. Can you not comprehend that? Is that *really* not clear to you? Really?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> You appear to have serious problems with your comprehension of written English, which your rant clearly demonstrates....... It doesn't justify your attacks on my character though. I do urge you to try to understand written English though, as I'm sure that it will be useful to you in your career as well as in your private life. For example, where I write "*some, if not all, Americans see the "Founding Fathers"** as not being fallible mortals*"; this clearly, to even a moderate intellect, is, very clearly, _*not*_ saying that "*all Americans view the Founders as flawless*", as you seem to think. Can you not comprehend that? Is that *really* not clear to you? Really?


I've heard that rats are at their most dangerous when cornered/trapped. Above is an illustration of this principle.

Your only defense against a plethora of remarks is a weak one; this solidifies the veracity of everything I've written. Let's dismantle your only defense:

When people write things such as "many/most/some, if not all" they do so to hedge their bets, i.e., they believe that the statement may be universal, but are allowing for wiggle room. For example, "many, if not all, politicians are corrupt" indicates that the writer believes in the near-universality of the corruption of politicians, but allows for the fact that there may be some who are not corrupt.

This is precisely what is occurring in your statement, "*some, if not all, Americans see the "Founding Fathers"** as not being fallible mortals..." *If you want us to believe that you were referring to simply "Some Americans," why would you include the phrase "if not all"? *It serves no purpose (if you're being truthful).* However, its presence modifies the "Some Americans" to mean that you believe that Americans generally believe in the infallibility of the Founders, with the necessary wiggle room to cover your tail (as you're now trying to do). So, once again, Chouan is either being inaccurate, dishonest, or is demonstrating poor writing skills (this is the least likely explanation).

I know my "modest intellect" pales in comparison to your prodigious one, Chouan. I'll continue to read your posts, in hope of developing far better writing and comprehension skills. Perhaps I'll become one of your students, so I too can learn about the world from an ideologically biased perspective!

My wife and I leave for Europe today, so I will have limited ability to respond to what is sure to be more feral Chouanian distortion. Remember, _McGuffey Readers_ will help your deficiency!


----------

