Britain's All Time Greatest Foe: George Washington

[przyk]

What is so odd? The American War for Independence was a struggle for, well, independence and freedom from tyranny.

Just what "tyranny" were the colonies being subjected to?

The American Civil War was ostensibly about freeing the slaves.

It was about the Southern states fighting for independence from the North. Just like the colonists did in 1776. Yes, there were reasons the Southern states wanted independence from the North (slavery) just like there were reasons the colonists wanted independence from the British Empire (taxes). But in both cases part of a nation wanted to secede, and the govenment moved to prevent it. You could argue that slavery was unethical, but even today we don't grant nations the right to invade other nations just because one doesn't agree with the local laws and practices of the other. The US government accordingly officially justified reclaiming the Southern states by declaring the secession illegal.

I know a lot of you dislike Wikiquotes, but I have even changed my custom user title to prevent accusations of what sort of person I am. Przyk is correct. The Americans did instigate The War of 1812

So the following is from Wikipedia:

The Americans declared war in 1812 for several reasons, including trade restrictions brought about by Britain's ongoing war with France, the impressment of American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support of American Indian tribes against American expansion, outrage over insults to national honor after humiliations on the high seas and possible American desire to annex Canada.

You see, it was the Brits doing dirty again. My, but they can be annoying! Who do they think they are?

So? I already said the Americans didn't declare war without reason. My point was that the war wasn't about Britain wanting to reclaim its former colonies. Britain didn't even start the war, and even if Britain wanted a war, the middle of the Napoleonic war was a bad time for it.

Let's get this clear here: I'm not saying the British were angels - they commanded the most powerful Empire in history at one point and flexed their muscles for their own gain like anyone with that kind of power would, but if the worst you can come up with is taxes and trade blockades and the destruction of public buildings in a war that America declared, you might want to rethink your comparison with the Nazis. When you start a war on a nation, whatever your reasons for doing so, you have to accept that they're going to shoot back.

[Pandaemoni]

Just what "tyranny" were the colonies being subjected to?

In addition to taxes...the Intolerable Acts: (i) made it illegal to hold town meetings, (ii) reorganized the government of Massachusetts so that the British were in direct control of it and not the colonists who had to live within the State (without representation of the colonists in Britain *or* in Massachusetts at that point), (iii) gave the governors the right to move trials of British officials back to Britain...problem being colonists couldn't afford to go to Britain to testify, so the de facto effect in many cases was to immunize British officials from trial, hence Washington referred to this as the "Murder Act"; (iv) required that colonists house and feed British troops.

The Stamp Act forced people to pay more for anything required to have a royal stamp (from playing cards, to marriage licenses, to newspapers) because Parliament thought the Americans weren't giving enough back...and the tax was passed without any representation of the colonists who were viewed as ungrateful children for objecting to it. It was claimed the act and various other taxes on Tea, molasses, sugar, glass, paper and may other items were passed to pay for defense of the colonies, but most of the money went to pay pre-existing debts of the British (which were mostly incurred defending Caribbean colonies, as they were far more lucrative that the 13 American colonies).

Emissaries (including Ben Franklin) went to England to make appeals on behalf of the colonists, but Franklin himself was ridiculed by them and admonished that the colonists simply needed to obey, or else. Franklin was leaning against rebellion prior to that event, he wanted to broker a peaceful solution. Parliament would have none of that.

It was about the Southern states fighting for independence from the North. Just like the colonists did in 1776. Yes, there were reasons the Southern states wanted independence from the North (slavery) just like there were reasons the colonists wanted independence from the British Empire (taxes).

Prior to the the Civil War, the United States NEVER took away a single slave from anyone. The South seceded because they feared that the Union *might* take away slaves...and even that is giving the confederates too much credit. Very few seriously believed that Lincoln would abolish slavery outright. Most thought he would erode the power of slave states over time by supporting the admission of free states or otherwise marginalizing the arguments of slave states.

There was no actual grievance against the United States at the time they seceded. On the other hand, once they beseiged a U.S. military personnel, the U.S. had clear legal right to to kill every last belligerent in Charleston harbor...but we did not. When they finally fired on the fort, we still showed restraint.

The South never seriously attempted to redress their (entirely imagined) grievances through direct negotiation, they attempted to solve them by seceding, and by firing on U.S. troops.

You could argue that slavery was unethical, but even today we don't grant nations the right to invade other nations just because one doesn't agree with the local laws and practices of the other.

(A) You don't have to argue that slavery is unethical. That argument ended long ago. You can state without any reservation or hesitation that slavery is unethical.

(B) We "don't grant nations the right to invade other nations..." poppycock. First, neither the American Revolution nor the U.S Civil War involved anyone invading "other nation." We were a part of the British Empire prior to the Revolution. The South was a part of the Union. We do as a general rule grant nations the right to end unethical local laws WITHIN THAT SAME NATION, and that's what we were talking about in the Civil War. The South seceded because they feared not winning the political debate on that issue.

Secondly, we often do allow nations to intervene militarily in other nations to prevent human tragedy. The Russian, British and French intervention in the Greek War of Independence form the Ottomans (in the 1820s) was one example. The French intervened in Syria in the 1860s in response to deaths and continued threats against Christians living there (the so-called "French Expedition"). America intervened in both the Cuban and the Filipino wars for independence from Spain. We sent troops into Haiti under Woodrow Wilson *and* Clinton. Somalia? Kosovo? Rwanda? East Timor? Most recently we butted in when people tried to declare their independence in Libya. We may well yet intervene militarily in Syria. If what you said were the law, then had any nation intervened to prevent the Holocaust, they would have been wrong to do so.

The US government accordingly officially justified reclaiming the Southern states by declaring the secession illegal.

Yes, in response to armed attacks on U.S. soldiers and military fortifications, along with theft on a massive scale of federal assets throughout the South by State governments, the U.S. somehow found a reason to think the acts of the Confederates were not legal.

Britain didn't even start the war, and even if Britain wanted a war, the middle of the Napoleonic war was a bad time for it.

Impressment is the forced slavery of American sailors, making them work on British ships in hazardous conditions for no pay for years, and the British most certainly started that. It's not even as morally justified as a draft, since a draft is nation conscripting its own citizens (and the British formally acknowledged in the Treaty of Paris that we were free of them, decades earlier). If I tried to kidnap you and you shot me in the attempt, would you not be outraged if someone seriously suggested that YOU started it, and that YOU were in the wrong?

you might want to rethink your comparison with the Nazis. When you start a war on a nation, whatever your reasons for doing so, you have to accept that they're going to shoot back.

I do agree that the British were not the Nazis, but the notion that we should have let them kidnap at gunpoint and enslave U.S. citizens and that that action would somehow NOT be an act of war is a strange one. If I steal your wallet, and you punch me in the face, you are not morally culpable for starting that fight.

Our causes were just in both the War of 1812 and in the American Revolution. I can't say that about all U.S. military action, but I have very few reservations in those cases.

[keith1]

The initial split from British colonial citizenry and the Crown back in England: The Crown was left tight for cash after quelling the French/Indian War, that they mugged and extorted their own loyal colony members for the funds discrepancies they were having in the coffers, back in England. They were robbing their own citizens. In actual affect, King George, under cash-strapped conditions, began to "eat his own young", his own citizenry. The U.S. would perhaps still be English in sovereignty today, or a situation like Canada...if not for the unworthy behavior of the conniving thief and low-life scum, King George and his undeserving criminal mafioso crony organization.
End of story.

[Epictetus]

Crossing rivers swollen in winter to surprise his opponent was guerrilla.
It would make sense that higher echelon incompetent leaders in England would be frightened of innovative young "up-and-coming" leadership, and would be happy to see them stationed away at the furthest remote colonies. This can be seen in the others perspective, that America was a beautiful place to be stationed, away from excessive and incompetent overlord command, free to purchase large low-cost properties, and live a life of an intelligent gentlemen leader on one's own god-like turf...with little presence or pressure from distant upper-management lecturers.

You do realize that George Washington was born in Virginia and inherited land from his father there?

To address the subject of George Washington seriously again: he along with America's other founding fathers were the first group in the world to fight (successfully) against the divine right of kings. The American Revolution antedates the French Revolution by 13 years, so while there may have been 'something in the air' at the time, perhaps if the Americans had not inspired and even supported the French the world would not have changed until 1848, when again there was an 'Arab Spring' of sorts. Or who can say? Maybe Russia in 1917 would have been when men at last threw off the yoke of royal oppression. Maybe it would never have happened to this day...

We might have had to wait much longer and the basic freedoms might have taken a different form that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you want to call these American revolutionaries slavers and terrorists, go right ahead, but acknowledge your debt to them too please.

[Epictetus]

Just what "tyranny" were the colonies being subjected to?
It was about the Southern states fighting for independence from the North. Just like the colonists did in 1776. Yes, there were reasons the Southern states wanted independence from the North (slavery) just like there were reasons the colonists wanted independence from the British Empire (taxes). But in both cases part of a nation wanted to secede, and the government moved to prevent it. You could argue that slavery was unethical, but even today we don't grant nations the right to invade other nations just because one doesn't agree with the local laws and practices of the other. The US government accordingly officially justified reclaiming the Southern states by declaring the secession illegal.

All this is so but with a slightly different spin. The North objected to slavery not just because it was unethical, but because they wanted access to that labor for factories, but never mind that! Similarly, the South realized they could hardly fight in favor of slavery, so they claimed the war was about a state's right to secede. Lincoln took this up and The North claimed that the war was not so much about the abolition of slavery but the right of secession from the Union.


So? I already said the Americans didn't declare war without reason. My point was that the war wasn't about Britain wanting to reclaim its former colonies. Britain didn't even start the war, and even if Britain wanted a war, the middle of the Napoleonic war was a bad time for it.

I think most Americans feel that Britain did start it with their unreasonable demands. Reread the thread, many have reminded us what the beef was (beeves were??)

Let's get this clear here: I'm not saying the British were angels - they commanded the most powerful Empire in history at one point and flexed their muscles for their own gain like anyone with that kind of power would, but if the worst you can come up with is taxes and trade blockades and the destruction of public buildings in a war that America declared, you might want to rethink your comparison with the Nazis. When you start a war on a nation, whatever your reasons for doing so, you have to accept that they're going to shoot back.

The Americans didn't declare war. They declared independence, though of course you're right, they knew damn well how the British would feel about that, and it was a de facto war declaration

Excuse my response format. It seemed a good idea at the time.

[keith1]

You do realize that George Washington was born in Virginia and inherited land from his father there?

These details are not needed to emphasize that the first U.S. Generals were initially loyal British colony citizens and military personnel, trained by the British military training institutions of the day. Born in Virginia-hopefully you need no reminder-that at that time, Virginia was a British colony.

To address the subject of George Washington seriously again: he along with America's other founding fathers were the first group in the world to fight (successfully) against the divine right of kings.

First a King had to set the conditions that a group (raised and trained under the same Crown, if that fact alone is not utterly ironic, I know not another) could pull such a successful action to fruition, a Crown had to be the apex of clown failure.

The American Revolution antedates the French Revolution by 13 years, so while there may have been 'something in the air' at the time, perhaps if the Americans had not inspired and even supported the French the world would not have changed until 1848, when again there was an 'Arab Spring' of sorts. Or who can say? Maybe Russia in 1917 would have been when men at last threw off the yoke of royal oppression. Maybe it would never have happened to this day...

Read your history, man. The British won the French/Indian War, but their funds were so badly exhausted, that they criminally extorted their own colony citizenry. Doing such an imbecile act, at a ripe time when thoughts of the times of Kings as being "out-serving of their usefulness", even to the level of criminal act to bolster example to it's credible truth...further serves to show why it's time had come.
And it did. The King made it happen.

If you want to call these American revolutionaries slavers and terrorists, go right ahead, but acknowledge your debt to them too please.

I don't recall saying anything to warrant that statement. You must be confused with some other poster

[Epictetus]

Yes when I said 'If you want to call these American revolutionaries slavers and terrorists, go right ahead, but acknowledge your debt to them too please.' I was using the general form of you addressing everyone, but especially my good Ozzie mate, Asguard.

I think we are in general agreement (excuse the pun),Keith and I'm not sure what we're going on about anymore.

As for przyk's:

"you might want to rethink your comparison with the Nazis."

Again, I was only half-serious, but what led me to think of it is that with the English: here we have these blonde-haired, blue-eyed white guys in red uniforms who think their the best and jolliest fellows to ever walk the Earth, and they spend a good deal of time (about a thousand years now??) taking advantage of whomever they can. Sure they're not the only ones, but with their Nordic good looks and marching about in a disciplined way, I couldn't help draw a comparison to another bunch of goose-steppers, who are rightly vilified by all decent people everywhere - so I find it odd that just because of Beatlemania, or the Spice Girls, or something, Imperial Britain is much better thought of than Hitler's crew. That's all!

Shall we return to the subject of Britain's greatest foe? All I can say is they should have foes!

[przyk]

In addition to taxes...the Intolerable Acts: (i) made it illegal to hold town meetings, (ii) reorganized the government of Massachusetts so that the British were in direct control of it and not the colonists who had to live within the State (without representation of the colonists in Britain *or* in Massachusetts at that point), (iii) gave the governors the right to move trials of British officials back to Britain...problem being colonists couldn't afford to go to Britain to testify, so the de facto effect in many cases was to immunize British officials from trial, hence Washington referred to this as the "Murder Act"; (iv) required that colonists house and feed British troops.

The Stamp Act forced people to pay more for anything required to have a royal stamp (from playing cards, to marriage licenses, to newspapers) because Parliament thought the Americans weren't giving enough back...and the tax was passed without any representation of the colonists who were viewed as ungrateful children for objecting to it. It was claimed the act and various other taxes on Tea, molasses, sugar, glass, paper and may other items were passed to pay for defense of the colonies, but most of the money went to pay pre-existing debts of the British (which were mostly incurred defending Caribbean colonies, as they were far more lucrative that the 13 American colonies).

Emissaries (including Ben Franklin) went to England to make appeals on behalf of the colonists, but Franklin himself was ridiculed by them and admonished that the colonists simply needed to obey, or else. Franklin was leaning against rebellion prior to that event, he wanted to broker a peaceful solution. Parliament would have none of that.

And in your opinion, is the word "tyranny" the best to describe that state of affairs?

(A) You don't have to argue that slavery is unethical.

No, but you could try arguing that the North was right to fight to retain the Southern states on the basis that slavery is unethical.

(B) We "don't grant nations the right to invade other nations..." poppycock.

Well try invading another nation, and give "to remove the dictator" as your official reason for doing so, and see how the UN responds.

Don't get me wrong here: I'd love to see the UK or US or France walk in and remove a despot if they could do it without leaving the country in a mess afterwards. But my impression is that they'd need to find another excuse to justify it.

First, neither the American Revolution nor the U.S Civil War involved anyone invading "other nation." We were a part of the British Empire prior to the Revolution. The South was a part of the Union. We do as a general rule grant nations the right to end unethical local laws WITHIN THAT SAME NATION, and that's what we were talking about in the Civil War. The South seceded because they feared not winning the political debate on that issue.

How does that fundamentally change the point I was making?

Secondly, we often do allow nations to intervene militarily in other nations to prevent human tragedy. The Russian, British and French intervention in the Greek War of Independence form the Ottomans (in the 1820s) was one example. The French intervened in Syria in the 1860s in response to deaths and continued threats against Christians living there (the so-called "French Expedition"). America intervened in both the Cuban and the Filipino wars for independence from Spain. We sent troops into Haiti under Woodrow Wilson *and* Clinton. Somalia? Kosovo? Rwanda? East Timor? Most recently we butted in when people tried to declare their independence in Libya.

I get the impression that in many of these cases the foreign aid only came after a revolution started locally.

If what you said were the law, then had any nation intervened to prevent the Holocaust, they would have been wrong to do so.

Er, Britain and France declared war on Germany in response to Germany invading Poland.

Impressment is the forced slavery of American sailors, making them work on British ships in hazardous conditions for no pay for years, and the British most certainly started that. It's not even as morally justified as a draft, since a draft is nation conscripting its own citizens (and the British formally acknowledged in the Treaty of Paris that we were free of them, decades earlier). If I tried to kidnap you and you shot me in the attempt, would you not be outraged if someone seriously suggested that YOU started it, and that YOU were in the wrong?

You apparently completely missed my point. You don't need to convince me that America had good reason to start the war. I already said that America didn't start the war without reason. This is the third time I'm saying it. My point is that Britain didn't start, or even provoke, the war for the purpose of reclaiming its former colonies. This is the third time I'm saying that too.

I do agree that the British were not the Nazis, but the notion that we should have let them kidnap at gunpoint and enslave U.S. citizens and that that action would somehow NOT be an act of war is a strange one.

I never said that. What I was saying was, to use your own analogy:

If I steal your wallet, and you punch me in the face, you are not morally culpable for starting that fight.

I'd be right to punch you in the face, but if you're a gigantic thug it'd still be odd if I complained that you punched me in the stomach in the subsequent fight. Especially if I complained 200 years after I made a truce with you that ended the fight and included an agreement that you'd stop trying to take my wallet from me.

To make this clear: I am not trying to justify Britain's actions during its past imperial period. I am specifically addressing Epictetus's insistence of twisting history and suggesting that Britain should be hated now for stuff that happened 200 years ago.

[przyk]

Imperial Britain is much better thought of than Hitler's crew.

Imperial Britain doesn't exist anymore.

[keith1]

You will discover I have no real voice in any of this...and I apologize for the lip service my perspective enabled here...

Whatever happened is dead and buried, it's original intent or gist long lost in time.
My five gens didn't step on these shores until after all dust settled from the Civil War and tracts of land were available in Iowa. Illinois. They were a fresh influx of American-English that were more interested in the land-acquiring opportunities, as the lands they possessed in England were owned at a time of great migration of peoples from Ireland (famine?)/ and other regions near-by, maybe Londoners getting out of the city/local growth in population in England, not the old England they were accustomed to, etc.... I take this as the reason they came to America, but I'm not certain. I get the feeling they were blue (one child died on the crossing ship--they had lots of children), reluctant, but with funds enough to purchase a county-sized tracts., so not without means. Money moves from homeland when it needs to find opportunity.
I guess I'm an opportunist at heart. I'm kind of melancholy too about the whole business. I'm out West, and I'm running out of new West....Oh bother. Maybe it's time to go home. Or maybe a warm place in France.

[Rhaedas]

In addition to taxes...the Intolerable Acts: (i) made it illegal to hold town meetings, (ii) reorganized the government of Massachusetts so that the British were in direct control of it and not the colonists who had to live within the State (without representation of the colonists in Britain *or* in Massachusetts at that point), (iii) gave the governors the right to move trials of British officials back to Britain...problem being colonists couldn't afford to go to Britain to testify, so the de facto effect in many cases was to immunize British officials from trial, hence Washington referred to this as the "Murder Act"; (iv) required that colonists house and feed British troops.

The Stamp Act forced people to pay more for anything required to have a royal stamp (from playing cards, to marriage licenses, to newspapers) because Parliament thought the Americans weren't giving enough back...and the tax was passed without any representation of the colonists who were viewed as ungrateful children for objecting to it. It was claimed the act and various other taxes on Tea, molasses, sugar, glass, paper and may other items were passed to pay for defense of the colonies, but most of the money went to pay pre-existing debts of the British (which were mostly incurred defending Caribbean colonies, as they were far more lucrative that the 13 American colonies).

Emissaries (including Ben Franklin) went to England to make appeals on behalf of the colonists, but Franklin himself was ridiculed by them and admonished that the colonists simply needed to obey, or else. Franklin was leaning against rebellion prior to that event, he wanted to broker a peaceful solution. Parliament would have none of that.

My understanding of history...

All of this was a strain on the colonists, but they put up with it, probably as we deal with scandals and hypocrites today in politics. Complain to each other, but no real action.

It took Thomas Paine's Common Sense to spark the next level.

And as for the OP, Washington is one of my top admired persons in history. He was one of the few that "got" what the Revolution was all about, because many started talking about him being king afterwards, and he refused. He was a reluctant President too, and that's the best kind.

[keith1]

The "Intolerable Acts" find close comparisons in today's America of incompetent wealth "royal-like" intrusion into public "colonist-like" processes:
Redistricting, Voter Suppression, "Choose you own threat" gun laws, Bank bail-outs, Unwarranted fuel mark-ups, Using the poor to pay the rich more income, Using governments funds to fund wars to benefit oil company profiteers, tax-free privileges, etc.
It might be reasonable to assume a similar "breaking point" could be imminent or close at hand in the modern version of this model.

[Epictetus]

My understanding of history...

All of this was a strain on the colonists, but they put up with it, probably as we deal with scandals and hypocrites today in politics. Complain to each other, but no real action.

It took Thomas Paine's Common Sense to spark the next level.

And as for the OP, Washington is one of my top admired persons in history. He was one of the few that "got" what the Revolution was all about, because many started talking about him being king afterwards, and he refused. He was a reluctant President too, and that's the best kind.

This is what I've been saying all along. Thank you. And if I may quote myself from above:

George Washington along with America's other founding fathers were the first group in the world to fight (successfully) against the divine right of kings. The American Revolution antedates the French Revolution by 13 years, so while there may have been 'something in the air' at the time, perhaps if the Americans had not inspired and even supported the French the world would not have changed until 1848, when again there was an 'Arab Spring' of sorts. Or who can say? Maybe Russia in 1917 would have been when men at last threw off the yoke of royal oppression. Maybe it would never have happened to this day...

We might have had to wait much longer and the basic freedoms might have taken a different form that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you want to call these American revolutionaries slavers and terrorists, go right ahead, but acknowledge your debt to them too please.

[Epictetus]

The "Intolerable Acts" find close comparisons in today's America of incompetent wealth "royal-like" intrusion into public "colonist-like" processes: Redistricting, Voter Suppression, "Choose you own threat" gun laws, Bank bail-outs, Unwarranted fuel mark-ups, Using the poor to pay the rich more income, Using governments funds to fund wars to benefit oil company profiteers, tax-free privileges, etc.
It might be reasonable to assume a similar "breaking point" could be imminent or close at hand in the modern version of this model.

I thought the breaking point was imminent last fall with the 99% movement and all that. Where are they now?

[keith1]

I thought the breaking point was imminent last fall with the 99% movement and all that. Where are they now?

Ask me again after the election. If there is a hint of impropriety...or should I say, it's a long way to November...

[quadraphonics]

I'm guessing but Canada, Australia, and New Zealand might give a hint: instead of a president you might have a prime minister and (optionally) a Queen.

That's begging the question of whether those countries would have become (quasi-)independent from the UK absent the American Revolution.

In 1940, Britain could simply have accepted Germany's control of mainland Europe and carried on with their own business.

Sure, supposing "their own business" amounted to exactly "be Hitler's bitch, until he has the free time and spare troops to annex you outright."

Beyond that, Pandaemoni has already done a pretty good job addressing various elisions and oversights in your output, but something should be said about your moral equivocation between American Revolutionaries and the Slave Power. It makes a big difference that one of those causes was principled and justified, and the other was craven and evil.

Oh, and the answer to this one:

And in your opinion, is the word "tyranny" the best to describe that state of affairs?

Is: "yes, emphatically." It's not a coincidence that the first several Amendments in the Bill of Rights deal explicitly with these issues (not to mention, various fundamental features of the Constitution itself). Of course, the Declaration of Independence makes exactly the case in question as eloquently as anyone is ever likely to, so one wonders why you bother posing these questions when the answer was made so clear well over 200 years ago. We fought a major war over this shit - and you think we're somehow being flip by calling it "tyrrany?"

[quadraphonics]

No, but you could try arguing that the North was right to fight to retain the Southern states on the basis that slavery is unethical.

Why would he do that? That one is as settled as the question of the morality of slavery. The only people who argue otherwise are racist apologists for the Slave Power, who attempt insulting semantic diversions about "economics" or "federalism," as if the South's entire economy wasn't based on slavery, or their issues with "federal power" about anything other than the fate of slavery.

Well try invading another nation, and give "to remove the dictator" as your official reason for doing so, and see how the UN responds.

Yeah, just look at Libya.

Oh, wait...

But my impression is that they'd need to find another excuse to justify it.

The positions of the UNSC are necessarily going to tell you all about great power politics, and not about whatever theoretical laws of war you were ostensibly addressing. Frankly I can't tell what point you were after there.

[Epictetus]

Nice work Quad. Keep up the good fight: decency vs polemics.

[przyk]

I just noticed this thread was still receiving replies.

That's begging the question of whether those countries would have become (quasi-)independent from the UK absent the American Revolution.

That's why I said "I'm guessing", "might", "give a hint"...

Beyond that, Pandaemoni has already done a pretty good job addressing various elisions and oversights in your output, but something should be said about your moral equivocation between American Revolutionaries and the Slave Power. It makes a big difference that one of those causes was principled and justified, and the other was craven and evil.

*sigh*

When I post stuff here, is it too much to ask that people reply to what I said in context? Here's the throwaway comment I made that started this:

In 1776? Probably not. That said, I find it odd you complain Britain fought to hold onto its territories in 1776, yet it doesn't seem to bother you that the US did exactly the same thing in 1861.

I don't remember offhand exactly what it was that gave me this impression, but Epictetus seemed to be acting as though the act of the British fighting to hold onto their colonies in itself was wrong.

Is: "yes, emphatically." It's not a coincidence that the first several Amendments in the Bill of Rights deal explicitly with these issues (not to mention, various fundamental features of the Constitution itself). Of course, the Declaration of Independence makes exactly the case in question as eloquently as anyone is ever likely to, so one wonders why you bother posing these questions when the answer was made so clear well over 200 years ago. We fought a major war over this shit - and you think we're somehow being flip by calling it "tyrrany?"

Are you serious? The average colonist was living in terror for their life? Saying the wrong thing in public could so easily get them arrested or executed? That's the sort of living conditions the word "tyranny" brings up to me. Yes, you might have had it bad, and I am in no way saying the revolutionary war was unjustified, but you could also have had it a lot worse.

[przyk]

Why would he do that? That one is as settled as the question of the morality of slavery.

Again, context: argue based on the morality of slavery, as opposed to declaring secession illegal.

Yeah, just look at Libya.

Oh, wait...

From the same post you quoted:

I get the impression that in many of these cases the foreign aid only came after a revolution started locally.

For fuck's sake.