A bit of history.

S

Scrapiron45

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2018
Messages
222
Just a reminder that the American revolution began 250 years ago on April 19 when just after dawn, rebellious Virginia Minutemen challenged British troops who were on a mission to destroy rebel stockpiles near Concord.
Approximately 25000 Americans died in a war for the right to govern themselves including the right to keep and bear arms.
We're still fighting for this right today.
Tell your children.
 
The American Revolution was initiated by malcontents, tax avoiding smugglers and behind the scene land speculators. There was a huge amount of Indian land west of the Appalachian mountains. See the map in Indian Reserve, all of the Indian lands were off limit to the Colonists by order of King George. Since land was wealth, King George had to go.

Obviously since the American Revolution both countries have changed, but are we "better" for the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812? (the forcing function for the War of 1812 was Canada) Was Britain really an oppressive nation? The Revolutionary War was a Civil War as not all of the people wanted separation with the UK. Was all the death, destruction, and debt really worth it?

It was for all those who profited from the War. Loyalist land was confiscated by the winners. After the War, the UK gave all the Indian Lands to the US Government, which then sold Indian lands for pennies on the square mile to organized groups of wealthy purchasers.

William Blount was one. I have visited his Mansion in Knoxville TN.

IMG_3298 William Blount House.JPG
William at one point had 2.5 million acres of Indian lands, William Blount was a little too greedy, and some of his land grab attempts involved the British Empire against Spain. This was against the interest of the American Congress, and things sort of fell apart. However, you can see what was typical of the plutocracts of the era.

It was all about the money.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3298 William Blount House.JPG
    IMG_3298 William Blount House.JPG
    190.1 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
First major RevWar engagement in Virginia was the Battle of Great Bridge on December 9, 1775. Lord Dunmore, the British Governor, was forced to flee.

It should be remembered that only about a third of the colonists were in favor of the Revolution. A third were loyalists (Tories) and the rest were neutral. The Revolution was actually a true civil war.

The Revolution would have been lost were it not for the intervention by the French. That intervention was one of the major causes of the downfall of the French monarchy. They bankrupted themselves by helping the Americans.

Of course they helped the Americans not out of generosity, but because of what they perceived to be their own geopolitical interests.
 
Last edited:
AlexanderA said:
First major RevWar engagement in Virginia was the Battle of Great Bridge on December 9, 1775. Lord Dunmore, the British Governor, was forced to flee.

It should be remembered that only about a third of the colonists were in favor of the Revolution. A third were loyalists (Tories) and the rest were neutral. The Revolution was actually a true civil war.

The Revolution would have been lost were it not for the intervention by the French. That intervention was one of the major causes of the downfall of the French monarchy. They bankrupted themselves by helping the Americans.

Of course they helped the Americans not out of generosity, but because of what they perceived to be their own geopolitical interests.
Click to expand...

I believe we have repaid that debt. Twice as a matter of fact in WWI and II.
 
Slamfire said:
Obviously since the American Revolution both countries have changed, but are we "better" for the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812? (the forcing function for the War of 1812 was Canada) Was Britain really an oppressive nation? The Revolutionary War was a Civil War as not all of the people wanted separation with the UK. Was all the death, destruction, and debt really worth it?
Click to expand...
It was a civil war just based on the fact that it was a british colony. It was the British against the British.

People talk about the second civil war. We've had at least four in the current borders of the US. Not to mention countless smaller insurrections.

AlexanderA said:
It should be remembered that only about a third of the colonists were in favor of the Revolution. A third were loyalists (Tories) and the rest were neutral. The Revolution was actually a true civil war.
Click to expand...

There were more loyalists in the south than the north. Like Slamfire said, it was all about the money.

It's always about the money.
 
Slamfire said:
The American Revolution was initiated by malcontents, tax avoiding smugglers and behind the scene land speculators. There was a huge amount of Indian land west of the Appalachian mountains. See the map in Indian Reserve, all of the Indian lands were off limit to the Colonists by order of King George. Since land was wealth, King George had to go.

Obviously since the American Revolution both countries have changed, but are we "better" for the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812? (the forcing function for the War of 1812 was Canada) Was Britain really an oppressive nation? The Revolutionary War was a Civil War as not all of the people wanted separation with the UK. Was all the death, destruction, and debt really worth it?

It was for all those who profited from the War. Loyalist land was confiscated by the winners. After the War, the UK gave all the Indian Lands to the US Government, which then sold Indian lands for pennies on the square mile to organized groups of wealthy purchasers.

William Blount was one. I have visited his Mansion in Knoxville TN.

View attachment 1261142
William at one point had 2.5 million acres of Indian lands, William Blount was a little too greedy, and some of his land grab attempts involved the British Empire against Spain. This was against the interest of the American Congress, and things sort of fell apart. However, you can see what was typical of the plutocracts of the era.

It was all about the money.
Click to expand...
Neat place. Got a chance to tour/visit as well.
 
I've been reading a series of alternate history stories beginning in 1976, the Bicentennial of the defeat of the colonial rebellion. The British Empire in North America includes The Original Thirteen, Canada, and the relatively undeveloped lands across the Appalachians. Everybody seems (Is written) to be about as well off.
 
Jim Watson said:
I've been reading a series of alternate history stories beginning in 1976, the Bicentennial of the defeat of the colonial rebellion. The British Empire in North America includes The Original Thirteen, Canada, and the relatively undeveloped lands across the Appalachians. Everybody seems (Is written) to be about as well off.
Click to expand...
What's the name of the series?
 
Scrapiron45 said:
Just a reminder that the American revolution began 250 years ago on April 19 when just after dawn, rebellious Virginia Minutemen challenged British troops who were on a mission to destroy rebel stockpiles near Concord.
Approximately 25000 Americans died in a war for the right to govern themselves including the right to keep and bear arms.
We're still fighting for this right today.
Tell your children.
Click to expand...

jstert said:
stockpiles of what? the british mission was to seize or destroy colonials’ ARMS, a most crucial and often overlooked point. thus our second amendment was forged in blood and fire at america’s moment of conception.
Click to expand...

Mmmm...

Not quite.

Our Second Amendment was "forged", not 13 years after 1775 (at the time of the Constitutional Convention and its subsequent ratification), but 14 years later, after the First Congress sent a list of 12 Amendments to the States for ratification, ten of which were subsequently ratified (including the Second Amendment) as the Bill of Rights on 12/15/1789.


The issue of the RKBA revolved around more than one factor, but the biggest political one was as a means of protection against tyranny. There was great..."suspicion"...revolving around giving the new federal government so much power and authority, which is why the whole issue of a Bill of Rights came about in the first place.

Including rights into the Constitution WAS a point of contention during the Constitutional Convention, but it was ultimately dropped in favor of focusing on actually getting a workable Constitution drafted and out to the States for ratification. The issue of protecting rights, along with some other political hot topics of the time, were so contentious as to have been seen as dragging the Convention out so long as to have become ineffective in the end.

Thus it became the issue of the States, who sought such amendments as guarantors against an overpoweringly oppressive federal government. In fact, two States (North Carolina and New York, if I remember correctly) thought that a Bill of Rights, specifically including the RKBAs, was important enough that if the First Congress didn't address this, they pretty much said "We're pulling out of the Union".


Remember...the States at the time of the American Revolution, and the few years afterwards, were essentially individual countries loosely bound together in a common cause. They each had their own governments, their own laws, even their own currencies.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Mmmm...

Not quite.

Our Second Amendment was "forged", not 13 years after 1775 (at the time of the Constitutional Convention and its subsequent ratification), but 14 years later, after the First Congress sent a list of 12 Amendments to the States for ratification, ten of which were subsequently ratified (including the Second Amendment) as the Bill of Rights on 12/15/1789.


The issue of the RKBA revolved around more than one factor, but the biggest political one was as a means of protection against tyranny. There was great..."suspicion"...revolving around giving the new federal government so much power and authority, which is why the whole issue of a Bill of Rights came about in the first place.

Including rights into the Constitution WAS a point of contention during the Constitutional Convention, but it was ultimately dropped in favor of focusing on actually getting a workable Constitution drafted and out to the States for ratification. The issue of protecting rights, along with some other political hot topics of the time, were so contentious as to have been seen as dragging the Convention out so long as to have become ineffective in the end.

Thus it became the issue of the States, who sought such amendments as guarantors against an overpoweringly oppressive federal government. In fact, two States (North Carolina and New York, if I remember correctly) thought that a Bill of Rights, specifically including the RKBAs, was important enough that if the First Congress didn't address this, they pretty much said "We're pulling out of the Union".


Remember...the States at the time of the American Revolution, and the few years afterwards, were essentially individual countries loosely bound together in a common cause. They each had their own governments, their own laws, even their own currencies.
Click to expand...
Just as the First, Third, and Fourth Amendments were a response to British overreach in those areas, so was the Second. Yes, the Bill of Rights wasn’t enacted until later, but it was British abuse of general warrants, writs of assistance, etc. that eventually led to the 4thA, and it was General Gage’s draconian gun control edicts, and his attempts to enforce them, that ultimately led to the 2ndA (after kicking off the Revolutionary War on 4/19/1775, of course).
 
benEzra said:
Just as the First, Third, and Fourth Amendments were a response to British overreach in those areas, so was the Second. Yes, the Bill of Rights wasn’t enacted until later, but it was British abuse of general warrants, writs of assistance, etc. that eventually led to the 4thA, and it was General Gage’s draconian gun control edicts, and his attempts to enforce them, that ultimately led to the 2ndA (after kicking off the Revolutionary War on 4/19/1775, of course).
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

However, Neither the First nor the Second Continental Congress addressed these issues (for a variety of reasons, not to get that involved in this particular posting), nor under the Articles of Confederation drafted and implemented during the Second Continental Congress.

This was because at these times the States were fairly explicitly recognized as sovereign countries in their own right, and only loosely bound in what really amounted to a "treaty" between nations. (Or treaties, if you consider the fact that this relationship shifted a bit between the times of the First and Second Continental Congresses.)

Under the Articles of Confederation, what was outlined with respect to arms had to do with obligations to the political entities of each State and that of the Confederation overall. Not a "RKBA" as we would recognize it at all.

The issue of a Bill of Rights came about because of the transition of the government from under the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution because this new federal government would be granted a whole boatload of power and authority over the States...States which, before, were essentially sovereign nations unified under a glorified treaty called the Articles of Confederation.
 
Last edited:
following on @benEzra, my point was that the british didn’t march out of boston to arrest a political orator or shutter a newspaper or collect unpaid taxes. and, the bill of rights wasn’t conceived out of the blue following independence years later. the crown’s attempted arms seizure of 4/19/1775 was specifically planned and preceded by similar british attempts, and colonials’ ripostes, in nh and elsewhere in ma, in 1774 (“massachusetts powder alarm”). at home the crown had already shown its prescience to disarm potential rebels with the proscription acts directed at scottish highlanders. the writers of our constitution were keen students of history and had lived these events. thus “the shots heard round the world” ensured that our rkba would ultimately rank very highly as our second amendment.

how sad our colonial forebears must be to see the massachusetts rulers of today.

i highly recommend this book for another take on our revolution:

 
Last edited:
"By the rude bridge that arched the flood/Their flag to April's breeze unfurled/Here once the embattled farmers stood/And fired the shot heard 'round the world"
Concord Hymn by Ralph Waldo Emerson 1837
After the Battle of Bunker Hill, Thomas Gage, British C-in-C North America wrote to the Secretary at War;
"These people show a spirit and conduct against us they never showed against the French. They are now spirited up by a rage and enthusiasm as great as ever people were possessed of and you must proceed in earnest or give the business up."
 
Slamfire said:
The American Revolution was initiated by malcontents, tax avoiding smugglers and behind the scene land speculators. There was a huge amount of Indian land west of the Appalachian mountains. See the map in Indian Reserve, all of the Indian lands were off limit to the Colonists by order of King George. Since land was wealth, King George had to go.

Obviously since the American Revolution both countries have changed, but are we "better" for the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812? (the forcing function for the War of 1812 was Canada) Was Britain really an oppressive nation? The Revolutionary War was a Civil War as not all of the people wanted separation with the UK. Was all the death, destruction, and debt really worth it?

It was for all those who profited from the War. Loyalist land was confiscated by the winners. After the War, the UK gave all the Indian Lands to the US Government, which then sold Indian lands for pennies on the square mile to organized groups of wealthy purchasers.

William Blount was one. I have visited his Mansion in Knoxville TN.

View attachment 1261142
William at one point had 2.5 million acres of Indian lands, William Blount was a little too greedy, and some of his land grab attempts involved the British Empire against Spain. This was against the interest of the American Congress, and things sort of fell apart. However, you can see what was typical of the plutocracts of the era.

It was all about the money.
Click to expand...
It is always about the money.

Over here in the western part of the state, the Chickasaws gave away western Tennessee and a part of Kentucky for $300k to be paid out at $20k per annum over 15 years 🫣. They were promised other land out west, but we all know how that turned out with the trail of tears.
Willie Blount's protégé was a war hero who in 1814 (really 1815) took a little trip, down the mighty Mississip and caught the bloody British at a town called New Orleans (I can hear Johnny Horton singing it now).
Yep, Andrew Jackson, one of the founders of the democratic party, negotiated 2,172,000 acres from the native americans for currency and promise of other land out west. It is an interesting part of manifest destiny and American history. It wasn't long after the deal that Jackson began his campaign for the White House.
For now he continues to be on the $20 bill, although the treasury has talked about Harriet Tubman replacing him in on the bill in 2030.
Since this is THR, it is interesting to note that Andrew Jackson won a duel back in 1806. It involved horse racing and someone saying some unkind words about the character of his wife. The duel involved .66 or .7 bore pistols. Here is a link to the pistol and a short synopsis... https://www.highcaliberhistory.com/post/a-presidential-pistol
If you are bored, some info below about The Jackson Purchase as it is known...

Jackson Purchase | Tennessee Encyclopedia

The Jackson Purchase included the area of West Tennessee and […]
tennesseeencyclopedia.net tennesseeencyclopedia.net
 
wayneinFL said:
It was a civil war just based on the fact that it was a british colony. It was the British against the British.

People talk about the second civil war. We've had at least four in the current borders of the US. Not to mention countless smaller insurrections.



There were more loyalists in the south than the north. Like Slamfire said, it was all about the money.

It's always about the money.
Click to expand...
My kids get in trouble at school for arguing in history class. I have taught them that all things in life come down to money, power, religion, or love. Generally in that order with the last two interchangeable.

The text books make the colonists out to be mostly separatists who only wanted freedom from perceived oppression by a tyrant king due to their uncanny morals and an anger against evil. Any loyalists were the rotten scoundrels who were generally awful people to begin with (per context clues of the history books). Reality has to hit somewhere… Boston Tea Party was a riot. The loyalists were the ones who were trying to do things the right way (generally). The separatists were the ones who wanted less govt oversight, which in many cases meant that they would be a little more free to do things that were illegal, not pay taxes on taxed things, and run amuck. Had the war ended differently they would be regarded as pirates, thugs, thieves, and traitors.

The kids teacher made the civil war out to be about the single issue of slavery. I had taught the kids that it was about an established way of life being forced to change by people from somewhere else. That change would have made the northern states even more economically powerful and left the deep south clamoring for labor and losing money hand over fist until they were forced to sell out to the northerners for a fraction of the value of their homes, land, business, etc. Was the north righteous and cared only for the abolition of slavery? Absolutely not, they were racially motivated, and didn’t want to see any person of color held to the same regard as a white man. Women also were “less than” in comparison to men. If that weren’t the case then there would not have been decades before women’s suffrage, the 14th amendment, and civil rights.

The JFK files recently released seem to show a lot more depth to the power struggle between the communist nations and democratic nations, with notable pecking order squabbles in both groups. Castro was trying to gain power on the international scale, and a whole lot of Americans took issue with that, which almost escalated to the US being directly involved in military action in Cuba which would have probably led to war with Russia.

Money is power. Power makes money. Religion unites groups together into powerful forces who end up controlling a lot of money. Love is its own thing, and is realistically the most pure thing to fight for.
 
I still find it bitterly ironic, that of the original thirteen colonies, at least seven of them were among the very first states to incrementally start restricting the right to keep and bear arms among their citizens, removing entirely the right to bear arms and placing severe infringements on the right to keep arms.

"The cradle of liberty," indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Happy Patriots Day
Replies
9
Views
618
p35
P
Husker1911
  • Locked
Celebrate April 19, Patriot's Day
Replies
18
Views
936
Nehemiah Scudder
N
G
  • Locked
April 19th - My Wedding Anniversary...
Replies
5
Views
593
45Badger
4
C
  • Locked
American Hero: Samuel Whittemore (80 Years Old!) Attacks Redcoats on April 18, 1775
Replies
13
Views
886
Walt Rauch
W
M
  • Locked
238 years ago today...
Replies
21
Views
2K
Kevin Rohrer
Kevin Rohrer
Back
Top