U.s. Founding fathers

[MMI]

I suppose "everyone" includes British posters?

I recall learning that there was an uneasy peace between the English/British colonies and the French Nouvelle France, broken now and again by incursions into each others' territories, or into disputed areas by the French or British colonies.

The Battle of Jomonville Glen, which was started by a certain George Washington, was the trigger to the Seven Years War, a conflagration that spread around the whle world and found Britain fighting against Fance and its allies (incuding, at various times, Russia,Holland, Spain, Austria and a handful of German dukedoms and principalities).

Because the colonials refused to fight for themselves, Britain had to commit considerable forces to the North American theatre, in addition to those fighting elsewhere, and at no small cost. Consequently, it tried to raise taxes from the colonies to go towards defraying the cost of defending them ... bearing in mind their provocative acts that kicked everything off in the first place and their failure to put up any significant defence themselves. However, it has to be said that the methods used by the British were presumptious, arbitrary and heavy-handed, giving opportunity for the Republicans within the colonies to foment discontent.

Furthermore, Britain entered into treaties with the Indians agreeing that they would be allowed to retain certain lands in return for trade. Apparently, these treaties affected George Washington's personal ambitions to acquire more land and cost him a lot of money. This, coupled with the fact that his career prospects within the British Army were damaged because of Fort Necessity (following Jumonville) meant that his loyalty to the Crown was now in question.

The taxes demanded by Britain were seen as an attempt to usurp the authority of the colonial governments' right to raise taxes, and a boycott of British goods ensued. Eventually Britain had to recognise that the radical colonies would always do as they wished and gradually removed nearly all of the direct taxes it had imposed. Tea, alone, was still taxed directly.

However, this was a symbol of British power and authority and so tea remained boycotted by the radicals/republicans. The boycott was threatened by the fact that, eventually, Britain reduced the tax on tea, and. to prevent cheap tea being bought by the colonials, a group of republicans destroyed a cargo being landed in Boston: the Boston Tea Party.

This brings us to John Hancock, a wealthy merchant and smuggler whose name is associated with the Boston Tea Party because of his speech inciting such action on the day before it took place.

Another "Father" was Tom Paine, a malcontent, privateer (licenced pirate), professional revolutionary, and "political quack", who was fired from his job for lying, and who could not even run a tobacco shop. After leaving England to join the French Revolution, he went to America to stir up trouble for his Motherland by declaring that the differences between Britain and the colonies were irreconcilable.

Thomas Jefferson is a hard man to criticise because he was an enlightnened man and a profound thinker and philosopher, and his republicanism is not to be held against him, neither is his hostility to British imperialism per se.

Until you consider the Louisiana Purchase, where he doubled the size of the Union and brought about conflict with Spain in one unconstitutional and imperialist act. As a Francophile, he sowed the seed of the 1812 War by trading with France and supporting its wars against Britain, and by allowing British deserters from the Royal Navy to claim US nationality, and then to object when the RN boarded American ships to recapture those deserters, now serving on those ships instead.

He also advocated the abolition of slavery, although he owned several himself, and he advocated and instigagted the removal of Indians "beyond our reach" or for their "elimination" where they were found to have assisted Britain during the War.

He was an opponent of women in politics - something which neither he nor the nation was ready for.

OK this is an intentional demolition job: I've avoided the good things I've seen, because I enjoy being provocative, and because I do believe that none of the Founding Fathers is really the hero he has been made out to be. I'm no historian, so maybe you can rebut everything I've said about Washington, Hancock, Paine and Jefferson, and maybe there are better men than these, whom I have not even mentioned; but maybe also, they conspired together to carry out actions that furthered their own personal interests as much as, if not more than, those of their fellow republicans, and certainly to the disadvantage of their Loyalist compatriots. Maybe the truth is not to be found in school text books (either American or British).

[Thorne]

I suppose "everyone" includes British posters?

This is a wonderful post, my friend! Great job.
It's amazing how the same points of history, looked upon from two different points of view, can appear so radically different. I seriously doubt that anything you've said can be considered false. It's only in the interpretation of events and personalities that any arguments might ensue.

OK this is an intentional demolition job: I've avoided the good things I've seen, because I enjoy being provocative,

Not you, surely!

and because I do believe that none of the Founding Fathers is really the hero he has been made out to be.

I have to agree. One thing that history shows us beyond any doubt is that heroes are not always on the right side, and that much of the time any righteousness they have is self-righteousness. Then too, villains are seldom as bad as they are portrayed. In fact, it can be very difficult to tell which is which, depending upon which side you are viewing them.

Maybe the truth is not to be found in school text books (either American or British).

A truth all of us would be well advised to understand, and remember.

Thanks again for a great post.

[Thorne]

^
That ought to really frost his balls. I'm sure he expected me to return fire in spades.

Sorry, MMI. You enjoy being provocative, I enjoy being contrary.

[MMI]

Thanks again for a great post.

I need to lie down ... I feel a little giddy.

[Thorne]

I need to lie down ... I feel a little giddy.

LOL! Up the rebels!

[leo9]

Maybe the truth is not to be found in school text books (either American or British).

One of my first lessons in scepticism.

My mother spent WW2 at college in America, so when my history class got around to the American Revolution, she helpfully lent me her old textbooks. Reading them side by side with the school's British texts was illuminating... an unexpected lesson in how the same facts can be given completely opposite spins.

[Thorne]

One of my first lessons in scepticism.

I learned the same lesson, a long time ago. Back in the dark ages, before the Internet, I had a history teacher assign a lesson for our study of the American Revolution. Our public library had copies of both the Encyclopedia Americana and the Encyclopedia Britannica. We had to use both sources for a short paper about, I think, the Boston Tea Party. Turns out the lesson was more about being aware of your sources than the Revolution.