It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Were Freemasons Involved In The American War for Independence and French Revolution

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grey
But the people were used, decieved ... I trully believe that even most of the Free Masons that caused a lot of the things during this period and others, really didn't know they were mere puppets dancing on strings.


I agree with most of your earlier post, but I disagree with the above; I don't think anyone was used or deceived. The air of change spread quickly in the colonies, and intoxicated the people. The Revolution here was the first shot in making the ideas of the Enlightenment a reality. Once ideas like that, which create great passion, become embedded in us, they drive us to the barracks. Sometimes the results are good (as in our case) or bad (as with the Bolsheviks).




posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I will point out the fallacies in your argument quickly, for the sake of people being able to have some 'closure' in life.

You said there were no famines when Australia or the USA were founded.

What a genius! The lands had to be COLONIZED to found their own countries, and there you have it. The Royalty/Elite who call themselves Royal knew what had to be done to preserve their power structure in the long run.

And there you have it, the complex series of wars between countries, the rush to colonize as collective intention (between the Elite, under the impression that they were competing), the Virginia Company, and the seeming overthrow of the Monarchy it was all orchestrated.

The very landing of Hernan Cortes in Central America was extremely well-planned, as he arrived in the year that the Aztecs expected the return of the plumed serpent, a description he JUST HAPPENED to match (being white, among other things), with his attire, and feathered cap.

The people thought he was there to save them, this makes some a little more emotional than others.

I didn't learn American history in school, you're right, I learnt Canadian history in school, and they made it sound like colonization was the spread of freedom too, don't fret.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I don't expect anyone to really have any knowledge of Australian Colonial history but a good book to read on the subject is "The Fatal Shore" by Robert Hughs.

Transportation was not "second only to the death sentance" - it was an option available to judges for crimes commited by persons that had no other means to support themselves - the nature of the crime counted for naught, the bulk of transported convicts were convicted of minor stealing offences like a loaf of bread or a purse of money.

Also the mortality rate during transportation was not that bad, although once the task was handed over to private companies it worsened significantly as they "cut corners" to increase profitability.
The same was true in the Americas, although once they were free of "Imperial Rule" the found an even more economical way - slavery.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 05:29 AM
link   
You both show an astounding lack of knowledge on the subject.

Akilles. Not only were there no famines in England in the period in question but there were no rumours of famines either. So once again your point is totally and utterly irrelevant. The only famines in this case were found at the destinations - a total contradiction of your argument.

MrNecros. If we discount the First Fleet to Australia, the task of transportation began with private companies. It wasn't handed over at a later date as you so claim and in fact conditions improved later in history, again totally contrary to your statement. Of course, you could claim that the fact that one government voyage justifies your claim but then you are merely twisting your argument.
I would suggest that you read Charles Bateson's "Convict Ships" for further enlightenment.

"By the time the exiles were being transported in the 1840s and onwards, a more enlightened routine was in place which even included the presence on board of a Religious Instructor to educate the convicts and attend to their spiritual needs."

As for mortality rates not being that bad?

In the 6 ships of the Second Fleet, there were 278 people who died on the voyage.

". . . The landing of those who remained alive despite their misuse upon the recent voyage, could not fail to horrify those who watched.
As they came on shore, these wretched people were hardly able to move hand or foot. Such as could not carry themselves upon their legs, crawled upon all fours. Those, who, through their afflictions, were not able to move, were thrown over the side of the ships; as sacks of flour would be thrown, into the small boats."

freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com...

Hardly the paradise holiday cruise that you would have us all believe.

Some expired in the boats; others as they reached the shore. Some fainted and were carried by those who fared better. More had not the opportunity even to leave their ocean prisons for as they came upon the decks, the fresh air only hastened their demise.

members.iinet.net.au...

The links below explain why the punishment of transportation was secondary only to the death penalty. One may have also been transported for a minor crime but that is irrelevant to this discussion.

www.nationalarchives.ie...

www.uplink.com.au...

As for mortality rates during the voyage?
The death rates for the ships of the Second Fleet were one death to every 3.1 convicts embarked on the Neptune, one death to every 3.5 convicts embarked on the Scarborough and one death to every 7.1 convicts embarked on the Surprise.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Come on, Leveller. you are going to discount all other factors that led to an increase in colonization other than being convicted (and basically that meaning a 1/3 death sentence according to you).

What about something like the Great Fire of London, in the Year of (y)Our Lord 1666. I mean, countless people's homes burnt down, how would we know what this made ordinary peasants think. I am sure scores left for the New World after that disaster.

It only takes one guy yelling on the street corner "A New Life in The New World" over and over again to get the thought into people's head, maybe they are making a new start, maybe I can be a part of it. Of course, there was nothing new about it, except the same old exploitation of the many by the few.

Theres NO WAY you would have gotten me out of England without a Royal decree. How do you explain the favoritism that was shown towards 'Elite' families with royal grants of huge tracts of land?

No famines or struggles for common people in England between 1500 and 1850, then, Leveller?



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles

No famines or struggles for common people in England between 1500 and 1850, then, Leveller?


*sigh*
Is that the best that you can come up with? What have the 1500s s got to do with colonisation? Colonisation didn't start until the 1600s.
As for "struggles for the common people"? Way to go on generalisation.
Your specific point was that King George created a famine scare to encourage colonisation - what the heck has a "struggle" over the generalised period of 350 years got to do with that argument?

Now if you'd have only included Ireland and the potato famine in your theory, you might have had a point. I've even mentioned it myself but your grasp of history seems so poor you couldn't even grab at that. There is evidence that Irish emigration to the colonies was accelerated by Britain's refusal to help during the potato blight and there is the possibility of conspiracy. The Irish might have been purposefully neglected so that they could go and colonise the far away shores. But again, this has nothing to do with the claim that you made. You may take my theory and run with it though.

As to why people would leave England voluntarily? It's quite simple. Many were paid to go. As I've also already stated, there were religious reasons for emigrating - you only have to take a look at the Mayflower to see that this was so.

Honestly akilles, before you make a statement, try grounding it in a tiny bit of historical fact. You'll find that this might make you look less ignorant.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Leveller - I went to school in Australia and have studied its history as part of my manditory high school education.
The mortality of the second fleet was well noted and documented and is quite infamous - it was not typical of the whole process from that point forward, private fleets were more closely regulated as a result, not to say that transportation was a luxury cruise, but it was a one way tickets so you didn't have to much of a que at the complaints desk back in London.

Georgian England was not a nice place, there were many reason people would want to leave it voluntarilly, the common myth that everyone that was transported to the colonies was a murderer, rapist or a robber is folly.
Also convict labour was one of the incentives to go as a free settler, most households were allocated at least one if not several convicts for domestic duties and were even paid to have this service.
It was quite a good deal really, there was nowhere that they could run off to and if they did get out of line then the Red Coats could pretty much round them up and tie them to a tree and flog them for just about anything.
Pretty much the same as it was back in England though to be honest, except it would be the local money lender gangs rather than government troops.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Leveller - I went to school in Australia and have studied its history as part of my manditory high school education.


Yeah right. You've lived in every single country on the planet at one time or another according to your ravings. If the discussion turns to Patagonian sheep farming, I'm sure we'll find you claiming that you were schooled there also.
Australian history is studied in the UK as well my friend. You wanna know why? Because it is also British history. You therefore hold no monopoly on knowledge just because of your statement above.

Your statement that private fleets were more closely regulated is totally and utterly contradictory to fact. Once the merchants found out they could make a lot of money transporting, any half assed company with a boat was floating off with a full passenger list.
Thanks for contradicting akilles though. We do agree on one point - people didn't always have to be forced to leave England. Your statement that England was a mess and that's why people left is false though. Although there were hardships within society, England at that time was the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. Compared to the rest of Europe, it was a Utopia.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
We're not contradicting each other, and you are still the only one who believes what comes out of your mouth.

Yes, conditions were made purposely bad for peasants, you know, to encourage them on their way.

The question is whether COLONIZATION happened naturally (even as a natural economic consequence), and the answer is, oh hells no!

Get rid of some French-English wars, and you have eliminated the entire justification for sending shiite loads of supplies to remote locations like India, and Canada.

Doesn't sound like a big deal? Imagine being a hungry peasant watching ships leave full of cargo, food for months, would you get on that boat? It was well planned, it was intentional, and it was NOT about spreading freedom.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles


The question is whether COLONIZATION happened naturally (even as a natural economic consequence), and the answer is, oh hells no!

Doesn't sound like a big deal? Imagine being a hungry peasant watching ships leave full of cargo, food for months, would you get on that boat? It was well planned, it was intentional, and it was NOT about spreading freedom.


Oh Jeez. With that first comment you have disregarded the whole of historical evolution and natural migration patterns. By your way of logic, man would never have even left a cave in Africa if he wasn't pushed.
Have you ever thought that there might be people out there who naturally evolve into thinking that the grass may be greener on the other side? Or do you assume that whatever the conditions (they're irrelevant in this context) that people are always satisfied with their lot? That, my friend, is a denial of human nature. We can see this working every day of our lives. People leave jobs, they move homes, they emigrate - not necessarily because their immediate conditions are harsh, but because they believe that there will be something better further along. And the reality? The majority of the time they don't need coaxing. It is a basic, natural human desire to try and find better conditions for oneself. I have conceded that conditions in England were not paradise, but as I have already stated, neither were they elsewhere in Europe. It was totally natural for people to look for a new promised land.

As for colonisation being well planned and shiploads of food? Please. Don't make me laugh.

The first couple of attempts at colonisation were an unmitigated disaster.

members.aol.com...

The Mayflower passengers only survived because of the generosity of the native Americans. When they got to the US they couldn't even scratch their butts without their help. Half of them didn't even survive the winter.
And their reason for leaving England? Religion

xroads.virginia.edu...

teacher.scholastic.com...

As for MrNecros' claim that conditions for transport improved?

US: www.ucalgary.ca...

"From 1845 to 1848 the Great Famine in Ireland resulted in 85,000 émigrés to North America in 1847 alone. This massive demand for trans-Atlantic shipping meant that once again old and unseaworthy ships were pressed into service. These ships, termed "coffin ships", were often unsanitary and unsafe. Many sank during the course of the voyage, and typhus and dysentery beset passengers. Most of these ships landed in Canada, where the surviving passengers were sent to the quarantine station at Grosse Isle. During 1846 and 1847, 30,000 people died from disease in transit between Europe and North America."

(Notice the already mentioned Potato Famine?)

Australia: www.leicesterandleicestershire.com...

" Although the convicts of the first fleet arrived in relatively good condition, the same cannot be said for those that followed during the rest of the century. Cruel masters, harsh discipline and scurvy, dysentery and typhoid resulted in a huge loss of life."


In Australia, conditions were not much different. The first settlements were also disasters. Hardly the meticulously planned colonisation which either of you claim. The very nature of the continent meant that planning was impossible. As I've already stated the Second Fleet was a washout - it became known as the "Death Fleet".

www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au...







[edit on 3-3-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I just love how forginers think they know more about American History than we do.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by svcadet32]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by svcadet32
I just love how forginers think they know more about American History than we do.



American history? Is there such a thing?


One thing you should be aware of though, svcadet - the colonisation of America is not just US history. It is British history too - the early colonists were English people who left English shores.

Just as an incidental. I visit the exact spot where the Pilgrim Fathers departed to America a couple of times a month when I'm out on business and the Mayflower steps are only a few miles away from my home.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
You need to un-Forget the truth.

The methodical part was removing already existing inhabitants.

The 'fronted' reason for the extermination was merely conflict between colonizers and natives, and natural conditions such as disease spreading among the Indians is stated as a majority killer (which it was, but how incidentally it occurred cannot be proven, but it seems white people could not be oblivious they were introducing diseases that decimated entire peoples, shouldn't they limit their actions somewhat?).

What really occurred in the New World (esp. in the beginning with the Aztecs etc) was the destruction of remnants of ancient knowledge. They cared more that information be destroyed, in the name of heresy of course, but killing the indigenous people was a sick, and necessary (in their eyes, the nobility of Europe who demanded this be done in the name of God) side effect.

Indians rarely fought TO THE DEATH amongst each other before White people came. The reasoning was simple! You are attempting to win, but you are not giving up the future of your tribe, and neither is the other tribe. It was a territorial (which couldn't be owned) battle which could not be won completely, almost sport, albeit violent.

Even getting shot in the leg meant death once White people introduced those to Indian tribes, and encouraged them to fight one another, by any means necessary, covert or overt, and by changing the Indian way of life it was slowly destroyed. Only the extent to which this has occurred can be debated. The level of the Native population, also, can only be estimated prior to 1500 AD.

America was not a divided country before White people came, why did it take so long to 'unite' it?
Leveller, there are two aspects to this, you chose the one of lesser importance, "latent structure is the master of obvious structure", and you chose the latter.

Thanks for the info about the hardships of would-be colonizers, it really does show how people were pawned off, merely objects of the Crown to be moved into place.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
You need to un-Forget the truth.

The methodical part was removing already existing inhabitants.




How the heck do we end up on a discussion about the extermintion of native inhabitants when your argument was about colonial conditions aboard ship and reasons for leaving?
One again you've jumped to an irrelevance to try and back a lost point.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   
The Leveller "logic" of saying that "If we ignore the First Fleet then we can say that colonisation began with private fleets and that conditions improved rather than got worse" is about as Masonic as you can get - he genuinally believe he has a valid and logical argument, he just has to ignore the whole facts.
....oooops what was that...they got better....you mean that it was all of a sudden NOT second only to the death sentance?
Heck your even wackier than that Alex Kenedy turkey who used to post in all the same threads as me to say that he was ignoring me.
Face it Leveller, you are nothing more than a random noise generator - I'm sure I could write a simple PERL script to replace you here.

...on a side note...


Originally posted by svcadet32
I just love how forginers think they know more about American History than we do.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by svcadet32]


Heh heh...I don't normally quote people or make fun of their posts (I'm sure there are many Freemasons who would say otherwise...) but this is just the biggest fattest fish in a very small barrel.

I just wish I'd seen whatever svcadet32 has removed....



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNECROS
The Leveller "logic" of saying that "If we ignore the First Fleet then we can say that colonisation began with private fleets and that conditions improved rather than got worse" is about as Masonic as you can get - he genuinally believe he has a valid and logical argument, he just has to ignore the whole facts.




Actually, I concede there.
But it is a typo. Conditions didn't improve and I stand by that claim.
The facts that I gave showing that conditions worsened and my further statements that conditions worsened would show this to be so.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   
...and still neglecting to mention they got better afterwards.
It was only the second and third fleets that had the big mortality rates, but then again I wouldn't expect most people, even Australian educated, to know much beyond the First Fleet.
I know that convicts were transported to the Americas and even South Africa, but not so much is made of it.
Anyone know of how many were sent to the Americas for convict labour?



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNECROS
...and still neglecting to mention they got better afterwards.



Every single link I have posted shows that the situation onboard worsened.
Where are your links to prove otherwise?
Neither you nor your alter-ego have supplied one piece of evidence to back up your claim.

[edit on 13-3-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
What about the Great Fire of London 1666, and its significance to Freemasonry?

I always liked the story that it was a baker's fault, personally. It seemed like a real scapegoat thing to do!

And when I was in London, how could I not notice the work of the Great Architect of the Universe, I mean London, Frances Wren?



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
What about the Great Fire of London 1666, and its significance to Freemasonry?

I always liked the story that it was a baker's fault, personally. It seemed like a real scapegoat thing to do!

And when I was in London, how could I not notice the work of the Great Architect of the Universe, I mean London, Frances Wren?



You're almost as well travelled as Mr Necros. Coincidence?

As for the Great Fire - www.luminarium.org....

I would like to think that Christopher Wren was a Freemason, but unfortunately there is no proof. As for the significance to Freemasonry? Well, the fire destroyed St Paul's cathedral. If Wren was a Freemason, Freemasonry helped to rebuild the city.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join