U.s. Founding fathers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

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.

I guess we should have waited a few more years to rebel then lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Yes..states rights...the right for people of a given state to own slaves. smh

---

Specifically, whether ot not the Fed Govt had the power to say "you cant do something" thats not in the constitution. This is where Judicial interpretation comes into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

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

But alas, this thread is now very much off topic, and admittently, I am to blame. If anyone would like to further the discussion for causes/effects of civil war, then I will happily continue elsewhere

Back on topic

What I know about the "Founding Fathers" (In quotes cause I'm not sure who exactly is or isn't)
1. The legend of Washington skipping a silver dollar across the Potomic was not to make Jefferson jealous; he was trying to kill a duck
2. Ben Frankling invented the gloryhole
3. The Aaron Burr/Alexander Hamilton feud started as a debate regarding the taste of Sam Adam's lager
4.Sam Adam's is in fact a lager
5. Patrick Henry was apparently into bdsm as well, and would chain his wife in the basement for days at a time
6. John Hancock signed his nam extra large, not only so the king could read it without his glasses, but also because he had a grudge against a fellow signatory named Charles Cotesworth Pickney, who had to sign his name at the bottom and extra small because of the huge (han)cock at the top

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

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.

---

Because Benjamin Franklin has been mentioned many times (and in an unfavorable light by some) I feel the need to post something on him, since I have already posted on George Washington.

Some seem to think that there was no attempt to reach out to Great Britain with peaceful intentions. There was. Over the course of several years there were missives sent to Parliament (remember, back then it took months to send letters overseas) and there were interactions with nobles who were "stationed" in the colonies. On December 22, 1754 Franklin wrote a letter to Governor William Shirley. By reading this letter, it is easy to see that there is an attempt to relate to Britain and it's representatives how strenuous and difficult it was to live as an extension of another country...under rule of a government so far away with no representation.

The letter can be found here

He then later wrote to Joseph Galloway, which was nearly a letter of warning. The British full well knew how those in the colonies felt. Furthermore, it is eroneous to state that Franklin was the impitus of it all. It was no one single person, it was a collective...otherwise how would the Americans (many of whom were armed with pitchforks and other farming implements) have defeated the well-armed British? Does anyone really believe that a handful of 50 to 60 men incited all of America to rise up in arms? Not hardly. That's like saying one group of current Tea Partiers are going to convince all of America to revolt. Not gonna happen.

Oh, and as to how Franklin felt about slavery...

And for anyone truly interested enough to do a bit of reading on Franklin

Our Founding Fathers were once revered in this country as divinely inspired, courageous visionaries. But now, after the past 100 years of "enlightenment," we've come to realize that they were nothing but old, white, racist, heathens. The "myth" of our Christian founding has been obliterated and, at best, we now know that they were no more than "deists" at best.

That's what the progressives have had to do to the memory of those great men. Men who — while not perfect, certainly, men with flaws — were in fact, mostly Christian and nearly all believers.

In order to restore the country, Americans have to restore the men who founded it on certain principles to the rightful place in our national psyche.

How about the man known at the time as "the father of the American Revolution," but now has become all but forgotten; Samuel Adams. Here is a story about him with the help of a man named Stephen McDowell, a historian from the Providence Foundation.

In the first two years of the War for Independence, the Americans had seen a few successes but many more defeats. If you ever get frustrated or down in your life, remember that George Washington lost every single battle he fought for over a year during the opening stages of the war.

By 1777, prospects were grim with little hope of overall victory in the war. By September, the army had been driven out of New York and New Jersey and had lost the strategic Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York.

On September 11, Washington was defeated at the Battle of Brandywine in Delaware; Americans had 200 soldiers killed, 500 wounded and 400 captured. Keep in mind that Washington only had about 14,000 troops. With the defeat, his troops deserted and numbers fell to only 6,000.

Ten days later in Pennsylvania, another 300 soldiers were killed or wounded and 100 captured at the Paoli Massacre.

By now, only 20 members of the Continental Congress even remained together and they met to decide whether they should even continue the struggle for liberty or if it was now a lost cause.

One of those present was Samuel Adams, a delegate from Massachusetts who had been involved in the cause of independence from the beginning. In fact, he had earned the title, "Father of the American Revolution" for his leadership since even before the Stamp Act in 1765.

King George was well aware of Adams' leadership in the rebellion, placing a bounty on his head and sending troops to capture him and kill him. In fact here is what the British order said as reported by the British officer in charge: "Our business was to seize a quantity of military stores and the bodies of Messrs. Hancock and Adams."

Samuel Adams suffered greatly for the cause. The British virtually destroyed his home; he had to leave his family for long periods of time and he was in continual danger of capture and death.

But Adams' faith in God and the cause of liberty were greatly needed that day in late September 1777. He spoke to his fellow congressmen, telling them "Gentlemen," he said, "your spirits appear oppressed with the weight of the public calamities."

He then told them that they could not show it to the American public. He told Congress: "Our affairs, it is said, are desperate! If this be our language, they are indeed. If we wear long faces, long faces will become fashionable. The eyes of the people are upon us."

Sam Adams knew that if Congress openly showed their fear to the people, the cause of liberty would be over. He also told them, "We have proclaimed to the world our determination 'to die freemen, rather than to live slaves' ... we have appealed to heaven for the justice of our cause, and in heaven have we placed our trust. Numerous have been the manifestations of God's providence in sustaining us."

Then he said, "In the gloomy period of adversity, we have had 'our cloud by day and pillar of fire by night.' We have been reduced to distress, and the arm of omnipotence has raised us up... Let us still rely in humble confidence on him who is mighty to save. Good tidings will soon arrive."

His confidence and faith in God convinced them.

Adams' statement also turned out to be prophetic, as it wasn't long after this that one of the most significant battles in history took place — one of the seven most important battles of all time happened after that. British General John Burgoyne was defeated by colonial forces under the command of Horatio Gates at Saratoga, New York. General Washington called it a "signal stroke of Providence. The arm of Omnipotence" was evident in the victory.

Afterward, Congress approved a resolution, which included Adams' call for a national day of "Thanksgiving." But Sam Adams did not intend the day to be set aside for eating turkey and pie while watching football and parades. Instead, it was set aside for "solemn thanksgiving and praise."

Here's the way he described that praise: "With one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor ... and that together with their sincere acknowledgments of kind offerings they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the public councils of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the Providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States the greatest of all blessings: independence and peace; that it may please him to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people and the labor of the husbandman, that our land may yield its increase; to take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under His nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consists in righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy Ghost."

Oh my goodness, call the ACLU. Where were the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State? The PSCS? Or the NSA, the FBI or the CIA? They were nowhere at our founding. That twisted, perverted, nonsense came over 100 years later. Check the Constitution, you'll find no mention of it — zero.

What you will find is protection from the state for religion. Look up the Constitution of Massachusetts — a constitution that Sam Adams helped write. It is the world's oldest constitution, still in use. Take a look at how perverted our thinking has become on this issue.

Samuel Adams was there at the beginning. There's a reason this man is only known now for beer.

Roughly two thirds of the American colonials did not support the rebels - did not feel the King's oppression in the same way as Washington, Adams or Paine did; obeyed Parliament's laws and kept the King's peace. I like to think that, while the US owes much to its founders, it also owes a debt of gratitude to the Loyalists and the neutrals who endured oppression and deprivation by the American revolutionary forces and authorities, and by withstanding such persecution made their own contributions to the new nation's growth and character: to Loyalists such as Flora MacDonald. This is her story -

The most famous Loyalist was Flora MacDonald. She was known as a heroic woman in Scotland before she ever came to North Carolina. When in Scotland, she had saved the life of "Bonnie Prince Charlie"--Charles Stuart, whose grandfather had been king of England and Scotland. Charles had started a rebellion in Scotland in an effort to regain the throne. At the bloody Battle of Culloden in 1746, his army was defeated and he was almost captured by the enemy British soldiers. Flora MacDonald helped
him to escape.

In 1774, Flora MacDonald and her husband, Allan, came to North Carolina with their family. Before they were allowed to make the voyage from Scotland, they had to take an oath, along with all the other Highlanders from Scotland, that they would remain forever loyal to the British Crown.

The MacDonald family settled on a plantation called Killiegray in Anson County. In 1776, the royal governor, Josiah Martin, formed an army to fight the revolutionary movement. Allan MacDonald became a major in that army. Along with his son and son-in-law, he was part of 1,600 North Carolina troops who marched off to the coast to join British troops.

Before the army left, Flora MacDonald, riding a beautiful white horse, came to the camp to cheer the men on. She called to them to fight bravely and remain loyal to the king. She rode with them during their first day’s march and spent the night with them before returning home.

On February 27, 1776, the Loyalists were soundly defeated by the Patriot militia at Moore’s Creek Bridge near Wilmington. Major MacDonald, their son, and their son-in-law were taken captive. Courageously, Flora MacDonald visited and comforted the families of others whose men had been killed or captured.

The Revolutionary state government seized Killiegray, and Flora MacDonald was left homeless and nearly penniless. She eventually returned to Scotland, where she was reunited with her husband after a separation of nearly six years. When she died in 1790, nearly 4,000 friends and neighbors came to honor the courageous Scotswoman at her funeral.

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentpr...list_Women.pdf

It seems to me that Benjamin Franklin - father of another prominent Loyalist - was arguing first for an equal union with the Mother country, so that the 13 colonies, whose population was just 2.5 million at the time, should be able to undo Acts of Parliament and grant themselves freedoms that the even the British (population 5.8 million) did not have; and when he could not achieve this, denounced the system he wanted to join as corrupt and defiling: a union of the living with the dead. Yet he would avoid war unless compelled to it "by dire necessity".

What was that necessity? The right to trade with enemies. How is that for the common good of the old and new lands?

Is that why his son repudiated him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

... how would the Americans (many of whom were armed with pitchforks and other farming implements) have defeated the well-armed British?

---

By getting the French to pay for the rebel army's weapons and uniforms, and eventually to fight for them, too.

Interesting post, MMI. It just goes to show that each side had their heroes, and heroines. But, like beauty, loyalty and heroism is in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Roughly two thirds of the American colonials did not support the rebels

---

I haven't been able to verify this. As near as I can figure, a large part of the general populace were indifferent one way or the other. The wealthy land-owners (like Allan MacDonald) were more loyalist, perhaps, while the merchant classes favored the rebellion.

Quote:

---

I like to think that, while the US owes much to its founders, it also owes a debt of gratitude to the Loyalists and the neutrals who endured oppression and deprivation by the American revolutionary forces and authorities, and by withstanding such persecution made their own contributions to the new nation's growth and character

---

Naturally, none of the rebels or neutrals (or even loyalists) suffered "oppression and deprivation" at the hands of the British forces and , or their Hessian mercenaries.

Quote:

---

Flora MacDonald helped him (Bonnie Prince Charles) to escape.

---

By dressing him as a maid. Of course, she was a Jacobite, a rebel if you will, and was later imprisoned in the Tower of London for her actions.

Quote:

---

In 1774, Flora MacDonald and her husband, Allan, came to North Carolina with their family. Before they were allowed to make the voyage from Scotland, they had to take an oath, along with all the other Highlanders from Scotland, that they would remain forever loyal to the British Crown.

---

Gee, I wonder why? Probably because they had already been in revolt once!

Quote:

---

The MacDonald family settled on a plantation called Killiegray in Anson County. In 1776, the royal governor, Josiah Martin, formed an army to fight the revolutionary movement. Allan MacDonald became a major in that army.

---

"Although they tried to stay out of the trouble, eventually everyone had to choose a side. Since Allan MacDonald had signed an oath of loyalty to England in order to receive a military commission, the MacDonalds decided to remain loyal to the king."
Not quite as heroic as you put it, but understandable.

Quote:

---

Before the army left, Flora MacDonald, riding a beautiful white horse, came to the camp to cheer the men on. She called to them to fight bravely and remain loyal to the king. She rode with them during their first day’s march and spent the night with them before returning home.

---

Apparently, this is a local legend, which may or may not be true. Makes for a good story, though.

Quote:

---

The Revolutionary state government seized Killiegray, and Flora MacDonald was left homeless and nearly penniless.

---

Or, as I read it, their home was robbed by angry local Patriots, and she had to live with one of her daughters.

Quote:

---

She eventually returned to Scotland, where she was reunited with her husband after a separation of nearly six years.

---

Not quite. Allan was released in 1777 as part of a prisoner exchange and took command of the 84th Regiment of Foot (Royal Highland Emigrants), Second Battalion in Nova Scotia, where Flora joined him in 1778. Then she returned to Scotland, in 1779.

As you can see, there are different ways to tell the story, depending on which facts you manage to dig up, and how they are presented. As near as I can tell, the only really memorable act she performed was in helping Prince Charles, which rightly gave her a lot of recognition among the North Carolina Scots community. She was, through her husband, a land-owner and had been in the Colonies for less than 2 years when the war reached her. For my money, if she is the most famous of the British loyalists during the Revolution, it's a sad commentary on those loyalists.

How odd that most of the Revolutionary War Historians have estimated that only between 15 and 20 percent of the white population of the colonies were Loyalists.

Thats hardly 2 thirds of anything. Its 1/5th at best.

Quote:

---

Interesting post, MMI. It just goes to show that each side had their heroes, and heroines. But, like beauty, loyalty and heroism is in the eye of the beholder.

---

So it seems, but I don’t really think we’re talking about acts of heroism, so much as providing inspiration to the new American nation. It's interesting to note the resistance to the idea that Loyalists could provide any inspiration or example to America

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI
Roughly two thirds of the American colonials did not support the rebels

---

haven't been able to verify this. As near as I can figure, a large part of the general populace were indifferent one way or the other. The wealthy land-owners (like Allan MacDonald) were more loyalist, perhaps, while the merchant classes favored the rebellion.

---

Except that the MacDonalds were impoverished before they came to America. And some of the merchants were very wealthy indeed.

As you couldn’t verify or refute my assertion, I thought I’d try: it may be that I have to refute myself! Apparently it was none other than John Adams who came up with the 1/3 for the revolution, 1/3 against, and 1/3 neutral, and this has seemingly been repeated up until 2000 when a certain Robert Colhoun said that 40, 45 … even more than 50 percent of the white population supported the rebel cause while only 15 to 20 percent remained loyal to the Crown. (I note that den has discovered this, too.) How Colhoun knew better in 2000 than Adams did at the time is something I cannot explain.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I like to think that, while the US owes much to its founders, it also owes a debt of gratitude to the Loyalists and the neutrals who endured oppression and deprivation by the American revolutionary forces and authorities, and by withstanding such persecution made their own contributions to the new nation's growth and character

---

Naturally, none of the rebels or neutrals (or even loyalists) suffered "oppression and deprivation" at the hands of the British forces and , or their Hessian mercenaries.

---

Of course they did: but there’s no need for me to talk about that on an American website – there’s no end to claims of British atrocities in American versions of the history. I am pointing out that the rebels behaved just as badly.

And, yes, we did use Hessian mercenaries. So did the American Revolutionaries.

Quote:

---

Flora MacDonald helped him (Bonnie Prince Charles) to escape.
By dressing him as a maid. Of course, she was a Jacobite, a rebel if you will, and was later imprisoned in the Tower of London for her actions.
In 1774, Flora MacDonald and her husband, Allan, came to North Carolina with their family. Before they were allowed to make the voyage from Scotland, they had to take an oath, along with all the other Highlanders from Scotland, that they would remain forever loyal to the British Crown.

Gee, I wonder why? Probably because they had already been in revolt once!

---

Precisely, but if you just want to answer your own questions, perhaps there’s no point in my responding. Would you allow people with a history of rebellion travel to a volatile country without giving assurances of loyalty? George Washington, I would add, would also have sworn an oath of loyalty when he joined the British Army’s Virgina Regiment – but he broke his word. The MacDonalds were clearly more honourable than he, and America should draw lessons from that: that loyalty is an admirable thing, and when one gives one’s word of honour, one should be bound by it.

Quote:

---

The MacDonald family settled on a plantation called Killiegray in Anson County. In 1776, the royal governor, Josiah Martin, formed an army to fight the revolutionary movement. Allan MacDonald became a major in that army.
"Although they tried to stay out of the trouble, eventually everyone had to choose a side. Since Allan MacDonald had signed an oath of loyalty to England in order to receive a military commission, the MacDonalds decided to remain loyal to the king."
Not quite as heroic as you put it, but understandable.

---

As you noted above, the oath the MacDonalds took was to enable them to travel to America, not so that Allan would obtain a commission in the Army, as you now suggest. They went to N Carolina in 1774, but Allan did not join the Royal Highland Emigrants until 1775 or 1776. I don’t quite know how heroically I put it (I was quoting another source after all) but I do see their decision to support the Crown as noble, and the point to be drawn from it is how one must accept one’s duty to one’s country. Surely you can’t denigrate that?

Quote:

---

Before the army left, Flora MacDonald, riding a beautiful white horse, came to the camp to cheer the men on. She called to them to fight bravely and remain loyal to the king. She rode with them during their first day’s march and spent the night with them before returning home.
Apparently, this is a local legend, which may or may not be true. Makes for a good story, though.

---

The story is repeated without mentioning it is only a legend in my own quoted source. It is clearly well-believed, and if it is not true, then, just like Arthur and the burnt cakes, or Robert the Bruce and the spider, it ought to be.

But this gives me an opportunity to criticise your own sources (although I know Tantric will disapprove). She’s evidently a Carolinian, and has an Irish name. I could be forgiven for supposing she’s a Catholic. She seems to have an ambivalent view about Flora and I wonder if she disapproves of her Presbyterianism, or if, being both American and Irish, there’s an irrational anti-Anglo Saxon gene in her make-up that cannot forgive the fact that the MacDonalds took the oath and kept it. She’s certainly unable to distinguish between English and British, nor does she seem to know that there was a difference between the Scots and the Jacobites. The Jacobites included English, Irish and (of course) the French, as well as Scots (mostly Highlanders): the Government army included Scots (mostly Lowlanders), Ulstermen and Hessians as well as English. The Jacobites wanted to remove the Hanoverians from the throne and restore the James II – admittedly of Scottish descent, but 2nd generation English and focused on the bigger prize, St Edward’s crown, not the Scottish one, not because they believed that the Stuarts were the rightful rulers, but because they believed in absolute monarchy and hoped for greater religious freedom (a euphemism for Catholic supremacy). They consider Parliament to be illegal, as well as the Union between England and Scotland.

Frankly, in any conflict of evidence, I would be disinclined to accept her account before any other.

Quote:

---

The Revolutionary state government seized Killiegray, and Flora MacDonald was left homeless and nearly penniless.
Or, as I read it, their home was robbed by angry local Patriots, and she had to live with one of her daughters.

---

How you managed to obtain that reading is beyond me: “Revolutionary state government” is quite different from “angry local patriots”. Flora was made homeless by the rebel government in a deliberate political act, and the fact that she had to hide causes me to believe that she feared for her safety. Remember, Ms Kerrigan told us that Flora settled in Wilmington among a substantial population of other Scots. Who were the angry local patriots?

Anyway, surely Flora’s fortitude in the face of such intolerance is admirable.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

She eventually returned to Scotland, where she was reunited with her husband after a separation of nearly six years.

---

Not quite. Allan was released in 1777 as part of a prisoner exchange and took command of the 84th Regiment of Foot (Royal Highland Emigrants), Second Battalion in Nova Scotia, where Flora joined him in 1778. Then she returned to Scotland, in 1779.

---

I’m inclined to accept the Wikipedia version you have provided rather than my own, but I don’t think it makes any difference to my argument or yours.

Quote:

---

As you can see, there are different ways to tell the story, depending on which facts you manage to dig up, and how they are presented. As near as I can tell, the only really memorable act she performed was in helping Prince Charles, which rightly gave her a lot of recognition among the North Carolina Scots community. She was, through her husband, a land-owner and had been in the Colonies for less than 2 years when the war reached her. For my money, if she is the most famous of the British loyalists during the Revolution, it's a sad commentary on those loyalists.

---

It’s not her fame that’s important, but the inspiration she gave her fellow Loyalists, and the legacy she has left to America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

It's interesting to note the resistance to the idea that Loyalists could provide any inspiration or example to America[

---

I'm not denying that Loyalist actions could provide inspiration, or at least admiration, among Americans. I just don't know of any. The only one quoted here is apparently not verifiable, and is largely interpreted as being legend rather than history. It might be true, and if so is certainly admirable on her part.

Quote:

---

Except that the MacDonalds were impoverished before they came to America. And some of the merchants were very wealthy indeed.

---

You were right, they were impoverished. I missed that, sorry. But the article by Deanna Kerrigan does say that MacDonald gave his oath in order to receive a commission, not in order to emigrate.

Quote:

---

I am pointing out that the rebels behaved just as badly.

---

As has been noted many times, in many places, bad things happen in war, committed by all sides.

Quote:

---

Would you allow people with a history of rebellion travel to a volatile country without giving assurances of loyalty?

---

I haven't found anything that says that Allan MacDonald was a Jacobite or a rebel. He was a Captain when Flora married him, presumably in the British Army. As such he would naturally have taken an oath of loyalty.

Quote:

---

George Washington, I would add, would also have sworn an oath of loyalty when he joined the British Army’s Virgina Regiment – but he broke his word.

---

Washington resigned his commission sometime after the French and Indian War. I don't know what kinds of oaths he might have made, but breaking those oaths in light of what he perceived as wrongdoing by the Crown does not, in my opinion, impugn his honor.

Quote:

---

I do see their decision to support the Crown as noble, and the point to be drawn from it is how one must accept one’s duty to one’s country. Surely you can’t denigrate that?

---

The fact that MacDonald held to his oath is certainly worthy of admiration. It's doubtful that Flora would have been required to pledge any oath: as a wife it would have been expected of her to support her husband's decisions.

Quote:

---

The story is repeated without mentioning it is only a legend in my own quoted source. It is clearly well-believed, and if it is not true, then, just like Arthur and the burnt cakes, or Robert the Bruce and the spider, it ought to be.

---

LOL! Yeah, there are many stories which ought to be true, whether they are or not.

Quote:

---

She’s evidently a Carolinian, and has an Irish name. I could be forgiven for supposing she’s a Catholic.

---

I haven't been able to find anything about Deanna Kerrigan. By your own admission you are guessing about her background and motives. Perhaps it's your irrational dislike of Irish-Catholics which are leading you to your conclusions? :)

Quote:

---

How you managed to obtain that reading is beyond me: “Revolutionary state government” is quite different from “angry local patriots”. Flora was made homeless by the rebel government in a deliberate political act, and the fact that she had to hide causes me to believe that she feared for her safety. Remember, Ms Kerrigan told us that Flora settled in Wilmington among a substantial population of other Scots. Who were the angry local patriots?

---

According the the Wikipedia article, "After her husband was taken prisoner, Flora remained in hiding while the American Patriots ravaged her family plantation and took all her possessions." It says nothing about the government.

A Wikipedia article (which is consistent with other articles I found) regarding the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge where Allan MacDonald was captured states that "The battle had significant effects within the Scots community of North Carolina, where Loyalists refused to turn out when calls to arms were made later in the war, and many were routed out of their homes by the pillaging activities of their Patriot neighbors."

Quote:

---

Anyway, surely Flora’s fortitude in the face of such intolerance is admirable.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

It’s not her fame that’s important, but the inspiration she gave her fellow Loyalists, and the legacy she has left to America.

---

I will concede that her actions were admirable, and are still admired by the descendants of the Scottish loyalists surviving in North Carolina today. I'm not certain I could be inspired by someone who gave up and returned to Scotland at least 5 years before the Revolution ended, though. However, she was in her late 50's by then, hardly the age to be roughing it in the Americas.

On a personal note, MMI, I want to say that, while I have always enjoyed history, especially military history, I was never that well read on more than the basics of the American Revolution. Your posts have been education in themselves and have certainly inspired me to do additional research into areas I hadn't even known existed. Thanks for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I haven't been able to find anything about Deanna Kerrigan. By your own admission you are guessing about her background and motives. Perhaps it's your irrational dislike of Irish-Catholics which are leading you to your conclusions? :)

---

I married one (to the disgust of my Orange father)!

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

On a personal note, MMI, I want to say that, while I have always enjoyed history, especially military history, I was never that well read on more than the basics of the American Revolution. Your posts have been education in themselves and have certainly inspired me to do additional research into areas I hadn't even known existed. Thanks for that.

---

Same here - although I previously had little interest in history. Thanks to you, to den, to stealth and everyone else who has joined in from time to time.

But don't think I'm gonna stop arguing over it now ... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne
I haven't been able to find anything about Deanna Kerrigan. By your own admission you are guessing about her background and motives. Perhaps it's your irrational dislike of Irish-Catholics which are leading you to your conclusions?

---

I married one (to the disgust of my Orange father)!

---

I knew there was a reason for it!

Thanks Thorne!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Precisely, but if you just want to answer your own questions, perhaps there’s no point in my responding. Would you allow people with a history of rebellion travel to a volatile country without giving assurances of loyalty? George Washington, I would add, would also have sworn an oath of loyalty when he joined the British Army’s Virgina Regiment – but he broke his word. The MacDonalds were clearly more honourable than he, and America should draw lessons from that: that loyalty is an admirable thing, and when one gives one’s word of honour, one should be bound by it.

---

Seems as Washington's oath of military service is not a true issue. Unless you'd like to claim it succeeds discharge.
"Late in 1757, Washington reluctantly returned to his home at Mount Vernon, having failed to overcome a long bout with dysentery. His health improved enough for him to rejoin his soldiers in the spring campaign of 1758. Later that year he joined John Forbes in his march on Fort Duquesne. A somewhat disillusioned Washington resigned his command a few months later." (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1191.html)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I married one (to the disgust of my Orange father)!

...

---

Once called my dad a "dirty Englishman" during a face to face argument. I was prepared so the instantaneous punch failed to land. And no I did not hit him!

I might have married an Irish girl, Thorne, but I still support The Rangers. So maybe that gene is there, after all ... yes, I think you're right ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I might have married an Irish girl, Thorne, but I still support The Rangers. So maybe that gene is there, after all ... yes, I think you're right ...

---

Ahh! I've been a Ranger fan since Eddie Giacomin played in goal, without a mask or all of the padding modern tenders wear!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

Because Benjamin Franklin has been mentioned many times (and in an unfavorable light by some) I feel the need to post something on him, since I have already posted on George Washington.

Some seem to think that there was no attempt to reach out to Great Britain with peaceful intentions. There was. Over the course of several years there were missives sent to Parliament (remember, back then it took months to send letters overseas) and there were interactions with nobles who were "stationed" in the colonies. On December 22, 1754 Franklin wrote a letter to Governor William Shirley. By reading this letter, it is easy to see that there is an attempt to relate to Britain and it's representatives how strenuous and difficult it was to live as an extension of another country...under rule of a government so far away with no representation.

The letter can be found here

He then later wrote to Joseph Galloway, which was nearly a letter of warning. The British full well knew how those in the colonies felt. Furthermore, it is eroneous to state that Franklin was the impitus of it all. It was no one single person, it was a collective...otherwise how would the Americans (many of whom were armed with pitchforks and other farming implements) have defeated the well-armed British? Does anyone really believe that a handful of 50 to 60 men incited all of America to rise up in arms? Not hardly. That's like saying one group of current Tea Partiers are going to convince all of America to revolt. Not gonna happen.

Oh, and as to how Franklin felt about slavery...

And for anyone truly interested enough to do a bit of reading on Franklin

---

Great man, as an Engineer in school, I have nothing but respect for his scientific achievements. But he was human, and not a perfect one at that. I don't know what negative stuff have been said about him, (Or rather haven't taken the time to check) but this is one reason I'm not a particular fan of the guy. Upon the rule of New France (Canada), he was convinced the way forward was unifying the entire continent under one language and religion. This did not really go over well with the French who lived in Quebec. Anyone imposing religion on someone else seems like someone who shouldn't speak on the matter imho.

http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPCONTENTSE1EP4CH1LE.html

Again, great work with lightening! Thanks Benji

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

Great man, as an Engineer in school, I have nothing but respect for his scientific achievements. But he was human, and not a perfect one at that. I don't know what negative stuff have been said about him, (Or rather haven't taken the time to check) but this is one reason I'm not a particular fan of the guy. Upon the rule of New France (Canada), he was convinced the way forward was unifying the entire continent under one language and religion. This did not really go over well with the French who lived in Quebec. Anyone imposing religion on someone else seems like someone who shouldn't speak on the matter imho.

http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPCONTENTSE1EP4CH1LE.html

Again, great work with lightening! Thanks Benji

---

No one is perfect. But there are NO politicians today (that I know of) who feel the same way the founding fathers felt about serving their country. The only people that come close are some military personnel.

Franklin was a prodigious inventor. Among his many creations were the lightning rod, glass armonica (a glass instrument, not to be confused with the metal harmonica), Franklin stove, bifocal glasses and the flexible urinary catheter. Franklin never patented his inventions; in his autobiography he wrote, "... as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."

Guess why he invented the Franklin (pot bellied) stove... it was because the number one cause of death for women was their skirts catching on fire as they cooked over open flames.

In 1736, Franklin created the Union Fire Company, one of the first volunteer firefighting companies in America. In the same year, he printed a new currency for New Jersey based on innovative anti-counterfeiting techniques which he had devised.

His inventions also included social innovations, such as paying forward. Franklin's fascination with innovation could be viewed as altruistic; he wrote that his scientific works were to be used for increasing efficiency and human improvement. One such improvement was his effort to expedite news services through his printing presses.

One of the things that kids today believe is that Franklin supported slavery. It is so easy to research this and find that not only was he against slavery, he was an abolitionist.

No one's perfect, I know I'm far from it. But if we're going to remember a person for his scientific accomplishments, I could care less if he supported slavery (I'm talking 1700s). It happened, it's over, and irrelevant. It definitely helps his reputation that he was an abolitionist, but as a politician his views on forced conversion is appalling.

Franklin was a great man, but this one flaw is tragic. It's appalling that someone so revered was so intolerant towards another religion when his peers decided to draft a document allowing for freedom of religion, an amazing accomplishment. I don't really respect him as a politician, or humanitarian. I feel that some people will propogate half a truth to give him an almost mythical status instead of being completely honest. Admire the real person, appreciate that despite Franklin's intolerance, there were better men that fought for tolerance and won.

When one is reviewing things said by Franklin conserning Canada or any topic one should keep in mine the context and time period in which they were said.

Before the Revolution Franklin was a looking out for the intrests of the Brittish Crown in the New World.

As stated by the Historian Jared Sparks; Franklin, when the War between Brittian and France drew to a close:

"...published anonymously a tract, entitled The Interest of Great Britain Considered, in which be advanced reasons for keeping Canada. His views are briefly stated in a letter to Lord Kames, written a short time before. "No one can more sincerely rejoice than I do, on the reduction of Canada; and this is not merely as I am a colonist, but as I am a Briton. I have long been of opinion, that the foundations of the future grandeur and stability of the British empire lie in America; and though, like other foundations, they are low and little now, they are, nevertheless, broad and strong enough to support the greatest political structure that human wisdom ever yet erected. I am, therefore, by no means for restoring Canada. If we keep it, all the country from the St. Lawrence to the Mississippi will in another century be filled with British people. Britain itself will become vastly. more populous, by the immense increase of its commerce; the Atlantic sea will be covered with your trading ships; and your naval power, thence continually increasing, will extend your influence round the whole globe, and awe the world! If the French remain in Canada, they will continually harass our colonies by the Indians, and impede if not prevent their growth; your progress to greatness will at best be slow, and give room for many accidents that may for ever prevent it. But I refrain, for I see you begin to think' my notions extravagant, and, look upon them as the ravings of a mad prophet." The same sentiments were more fully explained and defended in the Canada Pamphlet, as the above mentioned tract has usually been called.

He argued, that the possession of Canada was essential to the security of the British colonies against the Indians on the frontiers, whom the French had always continued to keep in their interest, and who were instigated by them to commit depredations and outrages upon the inhabitants; and, moreover, that, politically considered, this security was a justifiable ground for retaining a territory, which had been acquired in open war by the blood and treasure of the nation. It would, likewise, defeat for ever the ambitious designs of France for extending her power in America by seizing a large part of the continent and confining the British settlements to a narrow line along the coast, which design had long been manifest, and was indeed the principal cause of the war. Forts and military posts would afford but a feeble barrier, as experience had proved. He repudiated the idea advanced by some, that this was an affair of the colonies alone and he showed, that the whole British empire was as much concerned in it as any of its remote parts; that the wealth, strength, and political power of Great Britain would be immensely increased by the growing prosperity of the colonies, if they were encouraged and protected by a wise policy and a due regard to the ties by which they were united to the mother country.

These points were illustrated by a mass of facts, indicating a profound knowledge of the history and condition of the colonies, and of the commerce and political interests of Great Britain. It had been said, that Canada ought to be left to the French as a check to the growth of the colonies, which might in process of time become too formidable to be controlled by a distant master. To which he replied, "A modest word, this check, for massacring men, women, and children;" and suggested the easier method adopted by Pharaoh for preventing the increase of the Israelites.

The success of this pamphlet was as great as the author could desire. By the advocates of the measure, which he supported, it was held up as irrefutable; and by the opposite party, who attempted an answer, it was praised as spirited, able, and ingenious, and as containing every thing that could be said on that side of the question. It was believed to have produced an influence on the minds of the ministry, which was felt at the negotiation for peace.

At any rate, Canada was retained. The author afterwards acknowledged his obligation to his friend, Mr. Richard Jackson, for assistance in preparing the pamphlet for the press; but it is not known to what extent or in what manner this assistance was rendered.

It is a curious fact, that Franklin was thus instrument in annexing Canada to the British dominions, which was in reality the first step in the train of events, that led in a few years to the independence of the, colonies; a result, which be afterwards contributed so much to accomplish, but which at this time was as little anticipated by him, as by any member of the British cabinet."

If he advised one religion for Canada under Brittish rule, it was due to all the dificulties presented when any monarch attempts to rule a nation of multiple faiths at odds with each other evidenced by the numerous wars in Europe; of which Brittian and France in paticular had become well versed and experienced.

Things changed over time apparently for Franklin more over but not nessesarally.

During the founding of the United States...it was Franklin who was one of the strongest and most outspoken suporters for the freedom of religion in our new nation.

But then, that new nation wasn't going to be ruled by any one man or woman.

Before that time no one had really seized the opportunity to seperate a state from a religion.

Actually, Thorne, I meant I still support Glasgow Rangers

I can't make any connection between the New York Rangers (or even the Detroit Red Socks) and my marrying an Irish girl and pissing off my father

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

But then, that new nation wasn't going to be ruled by any one man or woman.

---

There does seem to be a misconception that the "old" country was ruled by one man. Ever since the Charter of Liberties (1100), the monarch's rule has been subject to limitations of the law. The English Civil War (1642–1651) and the Glorious Revolution (1688) established finally and legally that the monarch ruled subject to the consent of Parliament. So, although the British forces fought in America in the name of the King, they were sent there by a duly elected Parliament.

Had George Washington accepted the kingship of America, he would have had greater powers than the British King George, in all likelihood.

So remind me again why it was that even in the late 1800's and early 1900's said members of parliment still scurried back and forth in an attenpt to curry favor with said monarchs?

I mean..if the King is just a figure head...why bother?

Oh thats right even though power had to be shared with the various members of nobility on different occassions the monarch still retained a great deal of actual power despite what was written on paper.

Fortunately Mr Washington was a very honorable man and refused such offers becuase he believed that perhaps the people of this new nation had found a better way to govern themselves where one rises to power out of a sence of duty and merit as opposed to being held under the tyranny of those who came to power through the hapenstance of their birth.

Because the traditions and trappings of Parliament have all been set up to preserve the myth the the monarch rules the country. But no King or Queen has held any real power for centuries. OK - only the monarch can dissolve Parliament, or declare war, or do a few other things that no-one else can, but just let them try without first being told to by Parliament or by the Privy Council. It would bring about a constitutional crisis of immense proportions. I would suggest it could destroy the United Kingdom as we know it, and probably the Commonwealth too.

The King did not have any power worth speaking about, but he did have something that was every bit as important. He had relatives and friends in high places. Many of the old men sitting in the House of Lords were the King's uncles, cousins, nephews or were related by marriage, and, because they sat in Parliament, they had powers the King did not. So the King could influence events by persuading a like-minded Lord Something-or-Other to vote for or against a particular resolution.

Furthermore, Members of Parliament who sat in the House of Commons would frequently owe their position to the patronage of aristocratic landowners, who would make sure that only candidates they approved of were voted for in the Rotten Boroughs within their domains. Thus, they had to do their masters' bidding if they wanted to keep their Seats.

People rose to power in GB in the same way that people rise to power in US: through influence, wealth and preference. And it seems to me that these factors are influenced more by birth than by ability. Duty and merit have nothing at all to do with it.

As for Mr Washington's honour, didn't he preside over a country that promised, in the Treaty of Paris, to pay all legitimate debts to loyalists, to restore confiscated property, and not to confiscate loyalist property in future, and didn't that country allow debts to loyalists remain unpaid, fail to restore confiscated property and continue to confiscate loyalist property in settlement of unpaid debts? What honour is there in allowing the first international treaty your country signs to be ignored in such a way?

Or was the Treaty signed with no intention of trying to honour it?

Washington I believe signed it in good faith, but he couldn't control the purse strings...that was Congress.

As for the GB's Monarchy and its paths to power....sounds a lot to me like what they call in the south a "good ole boy" system...and whether its an official power or not...power it is all the same.