One for the Brits.......and the Yanks...

[Smoothie104]

The American Revolution, In the U.S. it is taught that we fought bravely and won our Independence. People I have met from England say that over there it is generally said that they gave it to us, and didn't really care.

What are your thoughts?.......oh this should be a good one.

[EvanL]

The revolution was a good thing for the american peoples morale, but it totally screwed over the African American population. Perhaps if the revolution didnt happen in that fashion that the african american population would be alot more well off.
Just some thoughts.

[Deuterium]

I would recommend a good History course in the revolution. I believe that England did decide the price had gotten to high to maintain a presence. Now is that called giving up or called getting beat is debatable. Even with Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown England could have continued the fight.

[MARK.TIGGER]

only thing i was ever taught about it was it happened not the events leading up to it or the battles etc. Have only read a little about it and am not really interested in it. I would say it helped the British when they entered the peninsular wars of the late 18th early 19thc.
But other than that its a few battle honours and dstinctions on regiments flags and uniforms. EG the Brandywine patch

[Flagg]

Does anyone know of any good books regarding the American Revolutionary War?

I reckon we're due yet another re-interpretation of the conflict in book or documentary......not like that revisionist Hollywood movie Mel Gipson starred in.

I think it's fair to say the Poms could have continued the war and likely won, but at significant or potentially catostrophic expense to the ongoing administration/security of the rest of their empire.

[FallenAngel]

I was taught that only about 40% of the colonist actually supported the revolution. It was these few that fought against the british actively.

The only real reason why American won the war, was because France got involved on our side. With the British Empire as big as it was back then...they had to do some massive re-deployments to other colonies, as well as at home against a possible cross-channel invasion. In the end, the cost of continuing to fight in the Americas outwieghed the small benifits of cheap cotton and tobacco ;)

[Ratamacue]

It's possible that if the British continued, they would have won. However, by Yorktown, the French were giving us quite a bit of support, which may as the conflict went on have included significant numbers of soldiers (or did they have soldiers there by Yorktown? My knowledge of the Revolution is a little sketchy).

It's still quite a feat for a bunch of lowly colonist farmers/hunters to have defeated and overthrown the most powerful nation in the western world, and something I'm proud of (no offense to the Brits ;) )

[CX20]

I am a bit of a historian and have just finished reading an excellent book on the Revolutionary War. One of the best points raised was regarding the raid on the Concorde jail. Amongst the cannons discovered there were three French 24 pounder siege guns, which weighed 5600 pounds and required 8-10 men and 6 horse just to move them. These were not mere field artillery pieces, and it is widely accepted that their purpose was to threaten British shipping in Boston harbour. The British had no such weapons in country at the time, so they did not capture them from us. I have read that Samuel Adams had been dealing with the French prior to 1775-6 and that he burned various letters incriminating them in providing various items.

In other words, the ideological "spontaneous uprising by peace loving farmers against unprovoked aggression" myth is destroyed. The French had been involved for a long time. The American revolutionaries were merely the pawns in the long standing Anglo-French rivalry. The French sought to open a new front to occupy the British, and the majority of the Americans fought not for freedom, but to accquire land and property owned by their neighbours whilst doing so under the banner of a moral crusade for freedom. At one point the British Army had whole battalions and regiments consisting of Continental Army deserters too, so the "freedom" ideology wasn't shared by even the most professional soldiers that Congress had to offer!

In all truth we could have continued and eventually won the war, and if our King hadn't been going insane at the time and Parliament had refused to commit more troops we could have done so.

A good quote by Hannah Griffits, a Pennsylvania Quaker, from 1785 after witnessing the corrupt behaviour of the "new elite" in power in America.

"The glorious fourth - again appears,
A day of days - and year of years,
The sum of sad disasters,
Where all the mighty gains we see,
With all their boasted liberty,
Is only change of masters."

[Zach R.]

After Clinton's defeat in NY, I would deffinately say the British were screwed from that second on.

[BMF]

until 1780, the brittish kept a constant garisson of 21,000 troops in the colonies. however, after the battles of saratoga, the war turned south forth for the brits. saratoga proved that the colonials could beat the brits in a standing fight, and it brought the french in on our side. the french had one major thing we didnt: a navy. Im just finishing off my history degree here in college, and from what ive read on it (which i admit is not as much as it could be, im by no means well-read on the subject), I highly doubt that the brits let us win. It looks more like there finally came a point when they knew they were beaten. they had much more trouble reinforcing from england, and cornwalis ended up cornered between our troops and french naval ships at yorktown.

oh, and the general who won that decisive pair of battles at saratoga? Benedict Arnold. without that man we would have lost the war. if i remember correctly, during verious battles he had 6 horses shot out from under him, got hit in the leg twice, yet he still commanded his troops from the front

[Fioraon]

We handed their arses to them. It would have been stupid for the British to stay, even after they crush the American Armies that still puts life back to the 1760's. America didn't win until our second constitution was writen when the United State's showed the world that even the yankees had the ability to run their own states without the mother land.

[Flagg]

I am inclined to agree with CX20 in that the story of the Colonies and the Revolutionary War presented a "coldwar-like" battlefield for the most powerful nations of the day(England & France) to fight either directly or by proxy rather than just a heroic story of the "home team" shedding the chains of tyranny.

But I think it's absolutely understandable how history books focus on a localized and sanitized story...because who wants to be reminded of the considerable role outside forces can play on local events?

I also agree motivations for participating in the conflict may have been financial for many of the participants on BOTH sides...let's face it....most decisions to act or not include a financial aspect to the decision.

I'd be keen to get the title/author of the book you mentioned CX20.

[Royal]

I've only looked at aspects of the War at the tactical level (& to a lesser extent the naval side) so I'm no expert.

I'm inclined to agree with CX20 that it was a colonial 'sideshow' to the major issues of the day in Europe and Aisa - a war fought largely by proxy by the Americans for the French and to a lesser extent, the Germans by the British (a significant part of the 'British' army was German).

In the end the British did not reniforce failure because of public opinion at home leading to pressure in parliament (see any paralells anyone? ;) ). The fact that the King was barking is an incidental. The fact is that India and the direct threat from across the channel were far more important in the British mind, so the resources were pushed elsewhere.

We lost - noone just gives up in a war, but had we directed the might of the empire (and in particular the Royal Navy) it would have been a very different outcome...

[mocking_loudly_died]

Damn it all to hell, you maniacs!....you could have crushed the future imperialist threat. :lol:

[Mark Sman]

CX20: ""In other words, the ideological "spontaneous uprising by peace loving farmers against unprovoked aggression" myth is destroyed.""
ME: He he, spirited agrairian reformers, the backbone of any new history.


Zach R.: ""After Clinton's defeat in NY, I would deffinately say the British were screwed from that second on.""
ME: Ya, but Clinton's latest victory in NY might get them back.

Royal: ""(a significant part of the 'British' army was German).""
ME: There's one fact that doesn't generally get much airtime. KGL 'yeeeha!'
But Hanoverians and Prussians and Walachians, Oh my! French army employed bukku Krauts too.

[Longbranch]

The whole point behind controling the colonies was to extract money from them. While Great Britian lost the revolutionary war in battle (for whatever reason), they were successful in re-taking control of American finances. The Federal Reserve Bank came into being in 1913. It is a private corporation and NOT a part of the U.S. Treasury Department. The purpose of the Federal Reserve is to make money for its owners.

A hundred years ago, the U.S. had roads, schools, hospitals, universities, police, fire departments, and a standing military – all without corporate taxes, personal income taxes, sales taxes, state taxes nor user fees. Today, the U.S. had roads, schools, hospitals, universities, police, fire departments, and a standing military – now with the assorted corporate and personal taxes.

Where does all this tax money go? To the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank.

http://www.bankindex.com/read.asp?ID=1385

http://65.40.245.240/money/fedownrs.htm

http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml


The IRS is not part of the U.S. Treasury, it is the collection arm of the Federal Reserve. Other agencies also not part of the U.S. Federal Government are the Secret Service, DEA and BATF. These are corporate entities that are connected to the Federal Reserve. If none of this is of any interest, think of it this way. ALL Federal firearms laws that contradict the 2nd Amendment are there as control measures on behalf of the owners of the Federal Reserve. The BATF's primary purpose is to prevent the possibility of another revolution kicking out the European banking families that control the U.S. government and U.S. economy.

P.S. Anyone else note that one of the first things done in Iraq the past few months, was to install a PRIVATELY run Central Bank, that is now initiating a 15% flat tax? Iraqis have never had to pay any income taxes until now.

[Zach R.]

If Clinton runs for prez, know that Guiliani's gonna blow her outa the water.

[Flagg]

P.S. Anyone else note that one of the first things done in Iraq the past few months, was to install a PRIVATELY run Central Bank, that is now initiating a 15% flat tax? Iraqis have never had to pay any income taxes until now.

I don't think your post is entirely accurate.....I'm pretty sure Iraqis were taxed under Saddam quite harshly.....but not necessarily evenly...more along the lines of a Mafia protection racket.....the rationale behind using a flat tax system is the KISS philosophy.....look at Russia...recent evidence suggest that the old russian tax system was too harsh and too few actually paid tax for various reasons.....now with a flat taxation system...participation has increased dramatcially...

Although I do agree with your main point...the less tax the better.

[Longbranch]

Oil resources were state-owned in Iraq. Oil sales paid for schools, roads, police, hospitals, military, and yes the dictatorship as well. Gasoline was 5 cents a gallon in Iraq. There were no taxes until now.

The oil fields are now regarded as privately owned resources, so oil revenues will no longer be used to provide infrastructure for the country.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett042103.asp

[oldsoak]

getting back to the question - bearing in mind 18th century communications and the whole question of being able to supply an army 3000 miles from home, I think the Brits had a pretty tall order. One could argue that it was the British government of the time that lost the war, simply because they were not smart enough to give way on key issues. The establishment simply did not understand that the colonies were attracting radical thinkers who wanted a new deal in the new world. Militarily, the Brits were without doubt the only power who could have fought the war and won. Not easily, but a possibility. Politically, they were so blind in handling the situation that victory would have been short lived. They managed to push an English speaking colony with strong ties to the motherland into the arms of an ancient rival who didnt even speak the same language. :cantbeli: Had they been clever, you would have had a megapower. Imagine the entire American continent under British control until it became independent like Canada did. Imagine an America and Canada combined - all those people, all that natural resource - power and money without end....mebbe its a good thing the Brits lost ! ;) Just MHO.
rgrds

[Fioraon]

America was a mistake, and the King fertilized the baby and kept fertilizing even after the baby started growing. Birth was inevitable.

[Vance]

I was taught that we fought for our freedom and our land, because the British were, not oppressing us, but treating us rather badly, and we had enough of it. We then faught the Brits for awhile, then later on the French and Spanish came and helped us. Eventually, the British surrendered at Yourktown. I remember hearing that the British band played 'When the world turned upside down' while they were surrendering to George Washington.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Rematch, Rematch!

rofl

[James]

America was a mistake, and the King fertilized the baby and kept fertilizing even after the baby started growing. Birth was inevitable.

America was a mistake?

PM me. We should meet in person and discuss this mistake.

[mocking_loudly_died]

America was a mistake, and the King fertilized the baby and kept fertilizing even after the baby started growing. Birth was inevitable.

America was a mistake?

PM me. We should meet in person and discuss this mistake.

Fight, fight, fight, fight! :lol:

[Fioraon]

America was a mistake, and the King fertilized the baby and kept fertilizing even after the baby started growing. Birth was inevitable.

America was a mistake?

PM me. We should meet in person and discuss this mistake.

Yes, it was. But so are many fine humans. Why, do you not agree?

[Marxist203]

The American Revolution, In the U.S. it is taught that we fought bravely and won our Independence. People I have met from England say that over there it is generally said that they gave it to us, and didn't really care.

What are your thoughts?.......oh this should be a good one.

From what Ive learned the US were generally losing their "War for independence" it was only when their allies, the French! moved more troops into the southern colonies that made the English back off. The threat of fighting the French on two continents was not a good idea to the English...so really, the Americans didn't win the war. The French won it for them ;)

The French also gave you yanks the Statue of Liberty...

[Marxist203]

America was a mistake, and the King fertilized the baby and kept fertilizing even after the baby started growing. Birth was inevitable.

America was a mistake?

PM me. We should meet in person and discuss this mistake.

Fight, fight, fight, fight! :lol:

haha...how much money is that guy willing to pay to quite possibly get his ass kicked? yes, lets take my cash, buy a plane ticket fly to some place and try and beat some internet person up...What a brilliant plan!*Sarcasm*

[Fioraon]

The French also gave you yanks the Statue of Liberty...

And its the most wonderful worthless chunk of metal in the eastern skyline.

[Ratamacue]

I consider the Statue of Liberty to be one of the greatest symbols of freedom we have, and I thank France for that. But to say we would have lost the revolution without them is highly arguable.

As for what Fioroan said about the US being a "mistake," I don't think that he meant that the US was a "terrible mistake," but rather "an accidental occurance."

[Fioraon]

I consider the Statue of Liberty to be one of the greatest symbols of freedom we have, and I thank France for that. But to say we would have lost the revolution without them is highly arguable.

As for what Fioroan said about the US being a "mistake," I don't think that he meant that the US was a "terrible mistake," but rather "an accidental occurance."

Hence the word wonderful.

And yes.

[Marxist203]

I think American Foriegn policy would be more even handed and the world would have a better view of them if they came about independence the way Canada and Australia did. I mean, really. Most nations have no real hard feelings about our Nations...Except, Saudi Arabia seems not to approve of Canada :slap:

[California Joe]

Read the book "Liberty" by Thomas Fleming. It is the best historically accurate account of the American Revolution there is. It should be mandatory reading in American High School history classes.

There was great dissent in England to the war being waged on what many British considered fellow Englishmen. William Pitt spoke out constantly against the war. The King was determined that he not lose face by allowing the colonists to set colonial policy with their insubordinate behavior. It became a political pissing contest. Britain had expended huge money and manpower keeping the French and Indians at bay during the 7 years war and felt the colonies owed their share for that defense. The colonies believed that as freemen they had the right to representation in the house in Britain.

[Fioraon]

But there was a repeal in '65. Americans were proud to be English knowing that their system of government worked. The majority was heard and gained a partial victory. But then the idiot of a king felt the need to pass the Declaratory Act in '66. Englishmen living in America didn't just turn around and say to hell with them, they battled London for nearly fifteen years.

"The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us."

[obd]

Being that I have a reputation for long winded posts I will try ot keep this short and to the point: The American Revolution was won by the revolutionary forces with help from various places, including the French. Yes it is true that Britain possessed a much more capable military and had a vast advantage in men and material and should they have wished to "go all out", they probably could have crushed us. Yet, as always, war does not exist in a vaccum. There are always political and economic considerations to be made. The simple fact is that Britain realized its colonial control over America would be extremely costly and would require a significantly greater military/economic effort. Plus they were already going through a period of almost continuous war and struggle so they were worn out. They were broke. This is not to take away from the Americans, who fought with greater skill and were at least the equal of the British in bravery. Although it could be argued that Brtish tatics were deigned to take advantage of numbers and firepower and didnt reflect a lack of skill, I think it is clear that the British failed to react quickly enough and adapt to the American colonists way of warfare, which was also dictated by (lack of) numbers and firepower!!!Of course they were fighitng to protect their homes and land while the "Redcoats" were thousands of mile off home. Just as in Vietnam, where the US lost becasue it was deemed not worth the cost, the British withdrew and lost its colony. If this post is intended to be a whole "well we coulda taken you out but you wernt worth it to us, you were just so pitiful"...bullcrap kinda post where the Brits make themselves feel better than well, my post will probably be bashed. Anyway, just wanted to dispell the myth that in America we are taught that it was this great struggle for freedom and we fought alone against a superior foe and won by conviction in the rightness of our cause etc etc etc..... Of course we are taught the reality of the colonialists greed and that many of them cared more about making an extra $$$ than the principles of freedom, the fact that not all colonists wanted to break away and there were convincing arguments from all sides, etc etc etc.. We are also taught the atrocity's we committed agasint British soldiers as well as those committed against us by the Brits as well as those committed as "blue on blue" type although that term doesnt really fit but you get my point.....Oh well, so much for a short one. I will keep trying hehehe

[Longbranch]

I think American Foriegn policy would be more even handed and the world would have a better view of them if they came about independence the way Canada and Australia did.
I can't speak for Australia, but Canada is not an independent country. The Federal Government of Canada is a corporation, with shareholders just like any other corporation. The majority shareholder in the Corporation of the Government of Canada is the British Monarchy. Canada is "owned" like any other company. Which is why we have Crown Corporations "owned" by the Federal Government. Which is why Queen Elizabeth's face in on much of our currency. We, the people of Canada, are tenants using the assets of the Federal Government. For the right to use these assets (land, resources, water…) we pay taxes to the Government.

Feudalism is not extinct. I suspect Australia is under the same umbrella we are.

[Machine]

Some of you posting on this thread crack me up. Oh, and don't forget the second failed attempt in 1812. Give it up, what a joke. rofl

[Smoothie104]

Cali Joe,

I have that book, I agree.

[Marxist203]

I think American Foriegn policy would be more even handed and the world would have a better view of them if they came about independence the way Canada and Australia did.
I can't speak for Australia, but Canada is not an independent country. The Federal Government of Canada is a corporation, with shareholders just like any other corporation. The majority shareholder in the Corporation of the Government of Canada is the British Monarchy. Canada is "owned" like any other company. Which is why we have Crown Corporations "owned" by the Federal Government. Which is why Queen Elizabeth's face in on much of our currency. We, the people of Canada, are tenants using the assets of the Federal Government. For the right to use these assets (land, resources, water…) we pay taxes to the Government.

Feudalism is not extinct. I suspect Australia is under the same umbrella we are.

Ok Buddy, I dont know which country you live in. But our foriegn policy is determined by the people we elect into office. Which at the moment seems like the Liberals...being as they are the only party that can be elected with out destroying our way of life.

Canada does indeed make its own foriegn policy Comrade, please see the Turbot war, please also take a look at how we stayed out of the Iraq war...I think the Gulf War 2 is a perfect example of Canada's independent Foriegn policy.

So really, buddy. Shaddap!

[Longbranch]

Marxist203, I'm Canadian. What you're talking about now is independent foreign policy. What you mentioned earlier was how Canada "came about independence". I said we didn't come about independence because Canada is owned by someone other than Canadians. Chevrolet decides on matters for Chevrolet… to a point. But they ultimately answer to the head office of General Motors. Canada decides policy for Canadians to a point, but we ultimately answer to our head office: The Windsors, the Bank of England and assorted European shareholders.

The Americans fought the British from 1776-1781 to break free. India revolted (a little less violently) in the 1940s to break free of Great Britian. Canada… did nothing. Britian spent over 200 years fighting Indians and other Europeans for this country, and by the mid 1800s they had it – filled with farmland, trees, minerals, gold, fish and wildlife… worth however much money… and they just gave it away?

The British North America Act
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/const//loireg/p1t1-1.html

The BNA Act in 1867 was not our independence, it was a formality giving us the name of Canada, nothing else. And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire. The Canadian Parliament still needed the approval from the British Parliament for all legislation to be passed here.

British North America Act, 1867 – III. -- EXECUTIVE POWER.
9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

This is why Canada went to war automatically in 1914 with Great Britian. Canadian troops were forced to serve under British command during WWI. Canada had no power in determining her own political fate until the The Statute of Westminster (1931).

The Statute of Westminster (1931)
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/british_history/7178

What the Statute of Westminster did was give Canada the political freedom to make all domestic and foreign decisions for herself, no longer needing the approval of the British Crown or British Parliament. But the fact that we're no longer required to assist Great Britian in wars, and are able to sign our own trade and treaty agreements, hasn't changed one bit the aspect of ownership of the Canadian Federal Government. On the heels of the Statute of Westminster came the birth of the Bank of Canada in 1934. The face of the British Crown stepped off the political stage, but remains in full force in the background, and controls this country through the field of finance.

The Liberal Party is not the Government of Canada. They represent the Government of Canada in Parliament. As with hockey, Mats Sundin represents the Toronto Maple Leafs on the ice – but the hockey players and the Leaf owners are two separate things. The political parties are the hockey players, and the Government of Canada owns the team. The British own the Government of Canada.

[martinexsquaddie]

rofl
news to me mate I thought Canada was the belgium of the americas
mind you its way more fun calling Canadians Yanks than it is calling americans canadians :backhand:

[Flagg]

mind you its way more fun calling Canadians Yanks than it is calling americans canadians

Heeheehee......same down here...Canucks can REALLY get bent out of shape over it... ;)

Which is quite surprising as the ones I've met anywhere I've traveled have been a fantastic bunch of people.....

The Americans don't seem to give a rat's ass if they're mistaken for Canadian...mind you.....in recent years...I guess that's the safest approach to take!

[oldsoak]

Getting a trifle confused with being told the UK owns Canada or something of the like. So Canada can make its own foreign and domestic policy decisions without UK involvement ? But how nice, They really do deserve it these splendid Canadian chaps - seriously though, short of having a day in the calendar marked Canadian Independence day I fail to see how the Canadians could be considered anything other than a fully paid up member of the Independence club. They dont ask the UK for permission to do this that or the other and are not controlled, taxed or recieve payment from Westminster - ( a good thing as incompetence should always be home grown. ) - thats makes Canada out from under the old girls thumb, with her own family to boot and therefore independent . Just MHO ;)
If the UK does own Canada still, I must get on to them to send me to BC - I'm told the fishing is out of this world.
rgrds

[Longbranch]

They don't ask the UK for permission to do this that or the other and are not controlled, taxed or recieve payment from Westminster
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/
BANK OF CANADA ACT
CONSTITUTION OF THE BANK
Bank constituted
(2) The Bank is a body corporate.
R.S., c. B-2, s. 3.
–––––
CAPITAL AND SHARES
Capital
17. (1) The capital of the Bank shall be five million dollars but may be increased from time to time pursuant to a resolution passed by the Board of Directors and approved by the Governor in Council and by Parliament.
Shares
(2) The capital shall be divided into one hundred thousand shares of the par value of fifty dollars each, which shall be issued to the Minister to be held by the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
–––––

Her Majesty owns the Bank of Canada. The personal and corporate income taxes paid by Canadians are the profits of the Bank of Canada. These profits go to Her Majesty. Her Majesty and the Bank of England absorb more than 10% of the GNP of Canada every year. Her Majesty and associates allow for independent internal and foreign policies for Canada, as long as the profit stream is not interrupted. Should that tax stream ever be jeopardized, Canada would experience a tremendous overt intervention from her owners overseas.

For the Americans bored by all this, your nation is in the same boat. The Federal Reserve Bank is owned primarily by Europeans. American income taxes are the profits of the Federal Reserve, and the majority of that money goes to the European shareholders. This is why I've said the outcome of the military operations of the American Revolution are nothing more than eye candy. The U.S. won the war, but they lost the game. Most Americans (and Canadians for that matter) just don't know it.

By the way oldsoak, the same game is going on in Britian. The British Parliament was put in place so that the commoners would stop revolting against the Crown. Today the Crown enjoys all the benefits of rule as they did 200 years ago, without the day to day headaches of being responsible for the welfare of the people. Now when things go wrong, Blair's head will roll as opposed to Elizabeth's. The Royals and their backers are still on top, because they control the supply and use of money. This is why the Royals didn't pay taxes until a decade or so ago… it didn't matter because the tax money was going to them, not Parliament. This is why they didn't put up a fight when the demand became strong that they pay their "fair share". What they pay now in taxes goes right back into their own pockets.

[martinexsquaddie]

Time to pass round the sliver paper lined hats :roll:
UK gets no money from the state of canada neither does the crown.
oh no look out the black helicopters and lizards are coming :cantbeli:

[vitiaz]

Flagg,

"Does anyone know of any good books regarding the American Revolutionary War? "

Try "Rabble in Arms" by Kenneth Roberts

[LongWayToTheTop]

Wrong area, btw Marxist203 grow up.

[Marxist203]

Australia helped out alot 1 SASR soldier was KIA, we have about 900-950 soldiers in Iraq right now i feel for the british and Yanks there doing a good job and our boys are doing a good job too i dont get the rebels were trying to help the country but they still attack NATO its stupid if you ask me so for all those Australians, Americans, and British respect your country and remember what there fighting for lads oh sorry about the Rest of the countries in Iraq helping its just that AUS,USA,UK did most of the work in iraq hope i dont have to go there if i get accepted in the army in about 3 months. Alright so i wont go on just them boys have my support and please dont protest why waste your time and your contries money on riots its stupid.


well i posted this in the wrong place, so sorry lol dont flame me aye :P

Wicked! SASR served in the American war of Independance! No way! *Sarcasm*

[oldsoak]

Egad, better get out the old SERE kit and dark glasses. Must let the men in black know what I now now about HMG's secret slush fund funded by Canadians ( top blokes ). I have no doubt of the sincerity of the allegations, but with if this info availiable on the net as it appears to be, why nuffin done 'bout it ?
..martin , get that safe house ready, the lizards are here...

[Lobo]

I've found this:

As the Revolution raged on, Spain came to the unofficial aid of the American colonies by sending money, weapons, medicine, and military supplies. When Spain declared war on Britain in 1779, Bernardo de Gálvez, the governor of Spanish Louisiana, immediately attacked and captured the British forts along the southern Mississippi River. Then he moved against Mobile in British West Florida and captured it. The next target was Pensacola, and in two months of heavy fighting, it too fell. By keeping the British occupied in the Gulf of Mexico, the Spanish kept the British from sending troops and supplies to support their efforts against the thirteen colonies, and thus played an enormous part in the success of the Americans in their war for independence.

Bernardo de Gálvez was the only officer on any side in the Revolution who came out undefeated. The Battle of Pensacola was among the longest and hardest battles of the American Revolution. Yet, this remarkable general is relatively unknown. Only a statue in Washington, DC and one in New Orleans, and a city in Texas (Galveston) stand in tribute to this man who helped win the American Revolution.

Do you know when I found it? No, not in a Spaniard website but here:
http://www.nps.gov/casa/home/casahist.htm

It seems somebody in Florida is proud of the Spaniard heritage while it's not very Politically Correct to talk about our imperial past letting other people write OUR history. Then happens that some people dare to write likes "the undefeated admiral Nelson". He, he... Do you know how and where he lost his right arm?