reply to post by stumason
Hey, just wondering if anyone else for that matter, know anything on the first war of independence. I was taught about this in school (England) and
never really questioned it, but a few years ago, I found a number of references which claimed that although America 'won' the first war of
independence, reparations were to be paid to England, or 'Britain' for the cost of the war, not to mention loans, that had been used to fund
AMERICA's side of the war.
“The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and The Struggle to Create America” by Gary B. Nash, published by the Penguin
Group, NYC 10014, 2005.
The book above gives a history of the events leading to the 1775-1783 Revolutionary War. It pays particular attention to the very significant
contributions made by ordinary men, women, slaves of both genders and Native Americans.
For a quick overview of the Treaty of Paris of 1783 ending the War, see
en.wikipedia.org...(1783)
For the actual treaty, see Yale University’s Avalon Project at
www.yale.edu...
It has been some time since I last read the Treaty, but I do not recall any mention of reparations payable by the United States to Great Britain or
any of its citizens. The only mention of reparations is referred to in the book mentioned above, when GB offered to pay reparations to slave owners
for slaves that took up their offer for emancipation should they leave their masters and join the British Army. Upwards of 10,000 slaves did just
that. But none of the slave owners would accept the amounts offered.
GB paid close attention to keeping their promise to the FREED slaves by first sending them to Nova Scotia where they found the soil and climate
unfavorable. The Brits then moved them to a new state, Sierra Leone, on Africa's west coast.
The newly free 13 colonies were indeed in very bad financial shape. Americans not only resented paying taxes to King George, they resented with equal
vigor paying taxes to any of the 13 new independent states. The Continental Army had barely weathered several mutinies in the last year of the war -
1781 - because of the persistent failure of the Continental Congress to pay them, to feed them or to furnish the promised uniforms. Wives of soldiers
were put to begging from door to door for food.
It is highly doubtful if the Continental Army would have survived the winter of 1781-82. But alas, Lord Cornwallis surrendered before the onset of
winter. On 19 October 1781, the papers were signed by Cornwallis and Thomas Symonds (the most senior British naval officer present), and the pair
officially surrendered. About 7,000 British troops became prisoners of the American forces. Note: About ½ of the forces on the American side were
French and Canadian units. End of note.
From what I understand, America has been mason controlled since the birth of America, just over 2 centuries ago. If this is true, I really don't see
how America WON, apart from the fact that they said they won and England said nothing. It also raises questions as to England’s intent, if England
had offered this treaty and America agreed, it sounds like either they were over a barrel, or 'independence' was just a staged coup d’état as it
was seen as an inevitability. America was far to big for England to police, it would only grow in its size, scope and self sustainability, the more I
think the more it just seems to be an intelligent move and one that could've well been discussed back then. Sorry if this is slightly off topic . .
You know Mr S/M, the one thing I regret most as I get closer to the Biblical three score and 10 years, is that I never “joined” the Masons despite
having 3 invitations. I have never been a “joiner” but that was one mistake I do regret. I know enough about the Masons (and Shriners) to know
there is NO conspiracy to control America or the world. Like a lot of benevolent organizations, they have made and are making a valuable contribution
to the well-being of America.
Why did puny America win the War with the superpower of its day? I offer my opinion. In large part it was because the British 1) thought the colonies
would return on their own and 2) there were serious internal divisions in GB that prevented either the Whigs or the Tories from gaining a majority
position that the populace would support. Despite the success of the Glorious Revolution (1688) Parliament was still struggling between the Houses of
Lords and Commons. Commons had not yet achieved its dominance. For Americans it was an opportune time.
I agree that at least from one perspective, the Revolution was just a coup d’état, replacing the titled nobility of Europe with a slave owning
landed gentry. The group we call our Founding Fathers. Analogous to the Catholic’s “Church Fathers.” There were many who wanted a REAL
revolution and they got a little bit. For example New Jersey gave women the full right to vote in 1778 but it was withdrawn in 1825. And etc.
1775 America was not nearly as large as India which England did well enough in running. Size was not an issue then, IMO. GB tried to limit the growth
of the colonies with a BLUE LINE drawn on maps which was to be the limit for white - English - settlements. This preserved much of the land WEST of
the Appalachians for Native Americans. Unfortunately for the NAs, the whites ignored the rule. I believe it was the ambition of the settlers here that
drove them to revolt. I think the Brits did not realize how valuable this land would become. Nor, I'm sure, did any in the 13 American colonies. But
See King James Bible,
“Where there is no vision, the people perish . . ” Proverbs 29:18.
[edit on 05/05/2008 by donwhite]