The following refer to At 11:33 PM 9/20/2001 -0400, you wrote: Was the American Revolution inevitable? By Francis D Cogliano, April 2001 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_economy/empire/american_revolution_01.sht At 06:42 PM 9/23/2001 -0400, you wrote: >I must admit that I do disagree with him >about political resolution not being attempted... I'd agree with that. I believe that had their early attempts to do so expressed the offers made on their final attempts, they would likely have succeeded. >Any British historian will (almost by definition) have a different >"objective" viewpoint from that of an American historian because we have a >different perspective. If you are in a car following another involved in a wreck and I am standing on a nearby street-corner, we will both be witnesses to the same wreck, but the version we tell of the event will differ as a result of our vantage point. If we are both objective in what we report, would our accounts not be complementary rather than contradictory? But if we were to ask each of the drivers involved for their view of things, they could be expected to less objective and thereby more contradictory. I am idealistic enough to believe that historians who make a sincere effort to be objective will not be found to be contradictory in any substantive way. I've given up on so many of my ideals that I'd really hate to give that one up! > The American colonies existed for the greater good >of the Mother Country - that was why we had colonies in the first place. But of course. This was not lost on the colonies themselves. We would be well to remember that when we consider actions/reactions in the story of the war. >Consequently, any colony wishing to break free was acting against the >purpose of colonisation and therefore the people involved were rebels >against lawful authority. It makes sense to me that the British authorities would see things that way. And "from their point of view", it makes perfect sense. >Whereas Americans see Washington, Samuel Adams et >al as freedom fighters against the imposition of British rule, O.k., let's flip over that coin we just tossed. Does it not also make sense that, "from their point of view", it was a very reasonable way for them to have looked at things. >we see them >as rebels against rightful rule. I suspect that the terminology labels the >writer's nationality! Without a doubt. But at some point, I'd like to get into a denotation/connotation analysis of the use of that word. When the word is used by objective historians to refer to those attempting to achieve independence, it means (denotes) one thing. When Brit/loyalist partisans refer to themselves as "loyalists" (a positive term) but refuse to call their opponents as anything besides "rebels", they intend it to be a negative term (the antonym of tory). Now we get into the negative connotation of the word. This negative/positive combination of terms is a trustworthy way to spot a partisan (of either ilk). >In all the reading I've done, I don't recall ever seeing an American writer >calling the leaders of the colonists "rebels". I have, both in their writing and in their private conversation, but they mean it in its literal denotation, not in its negative connotation. > Similarly, I don't think >that the war has been seen as "inevitable". Historians usually don't use >the word - inevitability is only obvious with hindsight. I can see how one could take that view. However, I have read the writings of some "otherwise objective" historians who express the view that if it had not succeeded the first time, it would have very likely have come about sooner or later. >The 1767 Townshend Duties were a blunder - but it was the colonists who had >differentiated between "internal" and "external" taxes, saying they would >pay the latter. The 1767 Duties were "external" - but then the colonists >changed their minds... Lord North seems to have stumbled into further >conflict in 1773/4 over the Tea Act, which had absolutely nothing to do with >America but led to the Boston Tea Party. My daughter, an idealistic home-schooler, teaches her kids that it was all about "taxation without representation". I try to tell her that I thought it had much more to do with a reaction to *any* "taxation without". The colonies had gone their own way for so long, they simply didn't want to be taxed by parliament "at all". > The last thing that Britain wanted >was conflict with her colonies - wars cost a lot of cash for a start, and >Britain had other things to deal with at the time - domestic problems were >always more important!! The colonials in my view, were extremely well-informed on European political currents. The reverse was not true. >It always struck me that the colonists wanted their cake and to eat it as >well. They maintained that they were British subjects abroad and so were >entitled to the "liberties" of Englishmen. Fine - but they didn't want to >be subject to the same taxes as Englishmen. They would have been happy to have continued being Brits forever under "salutary neglect". For many, many years, they had defended themselves when all was at stake were their lives (the Seven Years War was much more about saving colonies than it was about saving colonists). They were accustomed to taxing themselves and governing themselves. Britain had waited entirely too long to expect success in tightening the strings of control on the colonies. They'd have fared much better if they had merely continued benefiting from their existence. > The Stamp Duty had been imposed >on the English since the 1690s; import taxes had been levied for centuries; >the tax on tea in Britain was 119% (!), but the colonists objected to the 3d >tax. I doubt that there was any tax, with any rationale, that could have been imposed on the colonists without a similar reaction. But then, I am one of those irreverent souls who sees the collection of taxes as infringements upon the rights of New Englanders to smuggle! >It seems that Cogliano thinks that once the war had started, Britain was >"bound" to lose it - but Sam Adams said "In plain truth, we see that the >American Revolution was only saved from being an abortive rebellion by two >factors: one - the character of Washington; the other - the marshalling >against England of European powers." That doesn't smack of inevitability!! I am not sure I'd say that it was inevitable, but those in rebellion (see, I used the R word, but note the positive connotation!) were well attuned to the European balance of power and desire of France to bloody Britain's nose. Any study of the diplomatic corps from the colonies leaves one impressed at how little they brought to any table compared to what they took away. Henry Kissinger could take lessons from them! >Oh dear - it looks as though I've delivered a lecture. Mea culpa!! I'll >try to keep further contributions short... There is no problem with the length of your post. You will eventually come to know Ed St.Germain. I set the maximum post length a couple of years ago to fit Ed's longest post (when he was posting a journal, in parts). Glad to have you. John Robertson
Greetings It seems to me that Dr. Cogliano presents only A British viewpoint. Mine's different in places, so - may I chip in with my "two penn'orth" please? "We" refers to Brits, throughout! I must admit that I do disagree with him about political resolution not being attempted... Any British historian will (almost by definition) have a different "objective" viewpoint from that of an American historian because we have a different perspective. The American colonies existed for the greater good of the Mother Country - that was why we had colonies in the first place. Consequently, any colony wishing to break free was acting against the purpose of colonisation and therefore the people involved were rebels against lawful authority. Whereas Americans see Washington, Samuel Adams et al as freedom fighters against the imposition of British rule, we see them as rebels against rightful rule. I suspect that the terminology labels the writer's nationality! In all the reading I've done, I don't recall ever seeing an American writer calling the leaders of the colonists "rebels". Similarly, I don't think that the war has been seen as "inevitable". Historians usually don't use the word - inevitability is only obvious with hindsight. The second Marquis of Rockingham repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 and appears to have sorted out the first major upheaval; it wasn't until the Declaration of Independence that the colonists complained about the Declaratory Act. Furthermore, Rockingham reduced the molasses duty to the 1d. per gallon that the colonists said they could afford and they paid it from 1766 until July 1776. The 1767 Townshend Duties were a blunder - but it was the colonists who had differentiated between "internal" and "external" taxes, saying they would pay the latter. The 1767 Duties were "external" - but then the colonists changed their minds... Lord North seems to have stumbled into further conflict in 1773/4 over the Tea Act, which had absolutely nothing to do with America but led to the Boston Tea Party. The last thing that Britain wanted was conflict with her colonies - wars cost a lot of cash for a start, and Britain had other things to deal with at the time - domestic problems were always more important!! It always struck me that the colonists wanted their cake and to eat it as well. They maintained that they were British subjects abroad and so were entitled to the "liberties" of Englishmen. Fine - but they didn't want to be subject to the same taxes as Englishmen. The Stamp Duty had been imposed on the English since the 1690s; import taxes had been levied for centuries; the tax on tea in Britain was 119% (!), but the colonists objected to the 3d tax. It seems that Cogliano thinks that once the war had started, Britain was "bound" to lose it - but Sam Adams said "In plain truth, we see that the American Revolution was only saved from being an abortive rebellion by two factors: one - the character of Washington; the other - the marshalling against England of European powers." That doesn't smack of inevitability!! Oh dear - it looks as though I've delivered a lecture. Mea culpa!! I'll try to keep further contributions short... Cheers Marjie.
Hi List: I'm wondering if anyone has a CD called Maryland and Deleware Patriots 1775 - 1783. I need what info that is on this CD regarding my ancestor, Thomas Leazenby. I currently have the Web TV system and not a cumputer so cannot use a CD. Any help at all will be most appreciated. Thanks! Karen Conley klconley@webtv.net
Greetings and salutations. I am hoping someone on the list may be able to help me. I am attempting to locate a roster of the ships crew. Does anyone know of any sources that may contain a roster? Does anyone have access to a published source that contains one? I am hoping to find a Mathew (Matthew) Starbuck on the roster. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Sincerely, Tim Cooper P.S> God Bless the USA.
Aunconscious@aol.com wrote: -snip- >I am completely confused about whether they were loyalists. If they were >Militia then they weren't loyalists? Not at the same time. But it was a long 7 years. I think those who could claim honestly loyalty to either Britain or to 'the cause' at different times were the norm, rather than the exception. What side they were on at war's end is usually what they are remembered for. The most well known example might be Col. Arnold, the hero of Saratoga--- and later a loyalist. Richard stockton, Signer of the Declaration could probably have [tried to] claim lands as a Loyalist, as he signed Howe's pardon in 1776. He signed a loyalty oath to NJ shortly afterwards, so he wasn't even an 'official' Loyalist for long. William Gilliland, in northern NY is on both the hero and villain rolls. Early on he supported the rebels with money and leadership-- but by wars end he had changed his mind and was supporting Britain. Some local histories ignore his loyalist history & others ignore his patriotic service. There have to be some prominent examples of those who were slow to join the rebels, but were on the winning side in the end, but I can't think of any offhand. Jim
At 09:20 AM 9/23/2001 -0400, you wrote: >=snip= > > As for their having been "Loyalists," well, again > > I can't prove anything, but I suspect that they employed > > their Yankee Ingenuity, which is to say, They Lied > >While I have no knowledge of the Vermont/Quebec movement of "Loyalists" I >have spent some time studying in depth the "Loyalists" who evacuated >Penobscot (now Castine, Maine) for St Andrews (now New Brunswick) and >environs. I have an acquaintance, Dr. Christine Swager, born in Canada, retired educator (Univ. of SC), and author of historically accurate novels for young people ("Black Crow and White Cockades"). Chris told me a story about her loyalist ancestor in the Castine area who found that his home was on the wrong side of the line and physically moved the house to be on his intended side of the line. If important to anyone, I'll try to get more specifics on the story. John Robertson
"Birchtown was founded as a settlement of free blacks in 1783, in the aftermath of the American Revolution. Loyalists who had fought on the side of the British became refugees, forced to flee their birthplace. " http://nsaccess.ns.ca/~birchhall/heritage.htm
=snip= > As for their having been "Loyalists," well, again > I can't prove anything, but I suspect that they employed > their Yankee Ingenuity, which is to say, They Lied While I have no knowledge of the Vermont/Quebec movement of "Loyalists" I have spent some time studying in depth the "Loyalists" who evacuated Penobscot (now Castine, Maine) for St Andrews (now New Brunswick) and environs. Their behavior pattern appears to have been similar to that of those in the Vermont/Quebec area. Penobscot is a bit unique when compared to other Loyalist settlements because of the number of true refugees who lived there for about two years. Following Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown, a number of New York Loyalists, recognizing that the war was, for all purposes, lost migrated from New York to Penobscot in the belief that the Penobscot Bay/River would be the new dividing line between the new United States and the remainder of British North America. If fact, civil officers had been nominated and a name for this new "province"; i.e., New Ireland, had been proposed. When one categorizes the "Penonbscot Loyalist" land grants, one ends up with four categories: (1) locals whe ended up within the territory occupied by the Britsh military, (2) loyal refugees who migrated from New York, (3) polititiansand other miltiary "camp followers" (commissarys, etc.), and (4) "others." Categories (3) and (4) present the problem of corruption. It appears to me that anyone with the proper connections managed to get a grant of land (such as the minor children of Governor and Provincial Secretary). Many who received grants, shortly thereafter returned to Penobscot and sold their grants. I suspect that the Vermont/Quebec "loyalist migration" followed these lines; i.e., they saw an opportunity to get something for nothing. As for lying under oath at the end of the RevWar, I have found perjury to be quite prevalent when the risk of getting caught was slight. Across the Bay from the British position at Penobscot all the land between the Sheepscot and Penobscot rivers was part of the so-called "Waldo Patent" wherein the unsold hereditary rights where confiscated by Massachusetts as the heirs where "notorious Tories." Gen'l Henry Knox (whose wife was a Waldo grandaughter) purchased quit claims from the other heirs and attempted to become a land baron. In the mean time settlers had moved in and "squatted" on Knox's land. This led to the Massachusetts General Court establishing a commision to resolve rights. The task of the "Honorable Commissioners" was to establish the value of the 100 acres which best encompassed the settler's improvements. The settler then paid Knox that amount and received clear title or else sold his improvements to someone who knew of the lien on the property. The prices established for these 100 acre lots was based on a physical survey of the quality of the land plus whether the settler "squatted" before April 1775, after 1783 or between those two dates. In one case, I found about 25% of the claims could be proven to moved the settlement date foirward to take advantage of the lower prices. In one case, the "settler" testified he settled in March 1775 -- this "settler" was born in 1772! Bob Brooks
Laurie Nevada <Aunconscious@aol.com> wondered about ancient Andrew(s) who fought on *our* side as Patriots during the Revolution, probably in Vermont, 1781 anyway, then went to Quebec as "Loyalists" at an unspecified date, then I suppose moved back to Vermont again some time later. My 3 and 4G slots on the family tree, Powers and Burch aka Burtch, did a similar thing. Generally in the seventeen eighty somethings, they were rebel Patriots serving with the Vermont militia against you-know-who. In about 1803 my Powers moved to Quebec with their Burch clan in-laws. the Burchs at least being faux Loyalists (and the Burchs get a quite a writeup in Lindsay Reeks' "Ontario Loyalist Ancestors," of which I have only a very few Burch pages, in spite of Quebec and in spite of their Revolutionary War vet status.) So, how did it come to pass that I am the descendant of Vermont's own Rebel Patriot Quebec Loyalists? (This on the QT lest the DAR have me taken out and shot.) I only found out about this very recently and have not had time to research, but I suspect that my people may have gone to Quebec for the same reason that they had gone to Vermont in about the mid to somewhat latter 1700s -- either to Get Rich Quick or at least to avoid going broke. It had to be a very strong motivation to get them to endure a French cuisine up there, and money is certainly a strong motivation. Even I might consider a French chef for an evening if I was paid enough. As for their having been "Loyalists," well, again I can't prove anything, but I suspect that they employed their Yankee Ingenuity, which is to say, They Lied. The whole bunch had in fact taken up arms against the Redcoats. To be sure, being Vermonters and so being folks who had much more quarrel with New York than with England in 1776, they were I suppose kind of lukewarm patriots, but at least their muskets were on the right side, the right side being our side of course. The only idea I can dream up to explain how they became Loyalists is that they saw Canada as profitable, and being a Loyalist was a prerequisite to the door of Canada (I imagine), so they transmogrified themselves into Loyalists (on paper). Maybe Laurie's Andrew(s) people did something like that too. If there are any other ideas, or any other parallel clans, I would like to know too, just like Laurie. Lester Powers Founding Member, UUABR ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Hello I am new to this list and confused. I have been researching the surname Andrew(s) and I am confused. I have found Thomas Andrew on the Revolutionary War Rolls: Pay roll of Capt. Peleg Mattison's Company of Militia for service done on an Expedition to the Northward, Shaftsbury, 1781. (Anyone have any details on this expedition?) I have found John Andrew and Jacob Andrew (brothers) on a pay roll of Capt. shadrach Phelps' Company, Col. Cornelius Doughty's Regiment in a Regiment of foot of the State of Vermont, from the 23rd day of October to the 3rd of November in the Alarm at Castleton 1781 (what was the alarm at castleton? Google.com isn't helping me there) These people (along with other siblings) were on a Petition for land in the Townships of Sutton and Potton, Quebec, claiming to be Loyalists. Their residence is South of ye Line. They didn't get the land. They aren't listed anywhere as loyalists (that I have found). I found leads that John and Jacob were in the companies of Kings Rangers and Loyal Rangers Stationed in Lower Canada. I have sent for the records and haven't received them yet to find out if these are my guys. The family settled in Alburh, Vermont with the expection of one that I know of. John lived in Christie's Manor, Quebec and eventually made is way to Vermont. I am completely confused about whether they were loyalists. If they were Militia then they weren't loyalists? I feel like I didn't pay close enough attention in school regarding the events of the Revolutionary War. Genealogy is a definate history lesson. Laurie Nevada
I am a newcomer to this list, and I'm really not sure how to go about my studies of the Revolution, and thus lost about how to proceed here. One example question over on my side is, "What the deuce was 'Capt. Joshua Hazen's Company in Col. Wood's Reg't. that marched to Brookfield [Vermont] in the Alarm, Oct. 1780.'" There are plenty more just like that, but they seem random, with no pattern. My project is to write a family history in a narrative format, almost all story, seldom any charts. My audience is my three nieces and one nephew, all but one in elementary school, and not one of them in the least bit interested in genealogy, especially the niece who has left elementary school behind and "discovered boys." However, at school recently one younger niece was absolutely mortified to learn in class, I imagine during a lesson in American history, that her rival is descended from Betsy Ross. Thus, I got a frantic E-mail from her dad (my brother), begging for material from OUR family history to shoot down that Betsy Ross brat. I couldn't because I had no idea what the "Alarm" of 1780 was regarding Brookfield, Vermont, nor any of the other Alarms, actions, doings -- not even what looks like a spy mission undertaken personally by OUR folks. My local library has almost nothing I can find about Vermont during the Revolution. I can't get much further than to learn that Vermont nearly struck a separate cease fire with the Redcoats, and that would just give away ball and powder to the Betsy Ross advocates, which simply wouldn't do. That opportunity to entice a niece into her family heritage came and went, of course. Too late now. But there might be another opportunity later on. Rather than war against Betsy Ross all scattergun, I am hoping that there is a book specifically about Vermont in the Revolution (in-print and in-budget; that is, paperback and cheap). Or maybe a commonly found general Revolution book that might have a decent Vermont chapter at my local library. Any nominees? Somehow I doubt this, and may have to remain disorganized. One incident that could have dramatic potential is some sort of reconnaissance activity "after the retreat of the inhabitants from Strafford" Vermont, with reference to the "Strafford Alarm and the Safety of the Inhabitants," possibly in August of 1777 or thereabouts. The doings of the Thetford, Vermont people in all of this would be especially interesting. Thetford was one of our hat racks. Context is everything in all this. Did the Redcoats really go after places like Strafford and Brookfield, Vermont? If so, why the blazes did they do that? Lester Powers lesterps@juno.com (PS: I generally prefer print resources rather than the net because due to technical reasons I cannot get net stuff to a printer, thus can't curl up with it. Web sites, for me, also require a drive across town.) ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
It might also be pointed out that the choice of Cincinnatus was a concious effort to set the example of the citizen soldier (separation of military from state) who served the Republic and then returned to private life rather than taking over the government. Washington was setting an example as were his officers....both for the Army they were de-commissioning and for future armies. They wanted to prevent any of the marauding that occurred after the Civil War when other behavioral examples of Conquering Armies were followed. ~malinda "Ed St.Germain" wrote: > The society was formed May13, 1783, at the Verplanck House in Fishkill, > N.Y. It was named after the fifth century B.C. legendary Roman > citizen-soldier and statesman Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus. Original > chapters were limited to the 13 colonies and France, Americas essential > ally. > > This first veterans service organization was founded primarily by Maj. > Gen. Henry Knox, commander of the Continental Army artillery and the > nations first secretary of war. Knox served as secretary-general of the > Society under George Washington, who was its president-general until his > death in 1799. Founding principles included preservation of liberty, > promotion of national unity and extension of benefits to officers in > need and their families. > > Eligibility in the Society was offered to officers who either served for > the duration of the war, were deranged (declared no longer needed by > Congress) or who served honorably for three years. Of 5,795 officers > eligible, 2,403 joined (41 percent). The largest percentage of members > hailed from Delaware. Some 243 French officers also joined. Charter > members (eligible Revolutionary War officers) had to become members > within six months of demobilization of the Continental Army in November > 1783. > > The Societys credo was "the glory of the soldiers cannot be completed > without acting well the part of citizens. And that members did to the > fullest extent. > > Approximately 29 percent of delegates to the Constitutional Convention > of 1787 were members. They also held four positions in Washingtons > cabinet and 18 percent of the seats in the first Congress. > > Though members were prominent in state politics, law, medicine, > commerce, finance and industry, art and education, the Societys > importance faded after 1812 because of its dwindling membership. > > Its last bona fide member died in 1854 in New York, but it still exists > today as a hereditary society. > > Best regards, > Ed > -- > For Revolutionary War information on the Internet, your first choice > should be AMERICANREVOLUTION.ORG > > ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com
John, I hope this is ok to do. To those of you who are interested: I have just been notified by Clearfield Company 200 East Eager Street Baltimore, MD 21202 410-625-9004 They are now reprinting the book Item No. 2240 The Commander-in-Chief's Guard: Revolutionary War, by Carlos E. Godfrey. 302 pp., illus., paper. (1904), repr. 2001. ISBN 0-8063-0518-5 $29.50 plus $3.50 shipping and handling for one book. I though some of you might be interested as it is a hard book to come by and expensive when you do find it. Carole Pacific NW jhollin@pacifier.com
At 11:33 PM 9/20/2001 -0400, you wrote: >Was the American Revolution inevitable? >By Francis D Cogliano, April 2001 >http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_economy/empire/american_revolution_01.sht Some questions for thought: 1. Is Cogliano's viewpoint THE British viewpoint or A British viewpoint? 2. Would you describe his viewpoint as objective or partisan? 3. Can it be found that his viewpoint differs in any significant way from that of an objective American historian? 4. What is Cogliano's answer to his own question: "Was the American Revolution inevitable?" 5. When objective British historians/writers use the term "rebels", do they intend a different connotation to the word from that intended by British partisans? 6. When hearing the resistance movement in the colonies described as "rebels", would an objective American historian perceive a different meaning to the term than would an American having a partisan interest in the conflict? 7. How common is it for objective American historians to refer to the colonial resistance movement as "rebels"? How common is it for Americans with a partisan view of the war to do so?
The society was formed May13, 1783, at the Verplanck House in Fishkill, N.Y. It was named after the fifth century B.C. legendary Roman citizen-soldier and statesman Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus. Original chapters were limited to the 13 colonies and France, Americas essential ally. This first veterans service organization was founded primarily by Maj. Gen. Henry Knox, commander of the Continental Army artillery and the nations first secretary of war. Knox served as secretary-general of the Society under George Washington, who was its president-general until his death in 1799. Founding principles included preservation of liberty, promotion of national unity and extension of benefits to officers in need and their families. Eligibility in the Society was offered to officers who either served for the duration of the war, were deranged (declared no longer needed by Congress) or who served honorably for three years. Of 5,795 officers eligible, 2,403 joined (41 percent). The largest percentage of members hailed from Delaware. Some 243 French officers also joined. Charter members (eligible Revolutionary War officers) had to become members within six months of demobilization of the Continental Army in November 1783. The Societys credo was "the glory of the soldiers cannot be completed without acting well the part of citizens. And that members did to the fullest extent. Approximately 29 percent of delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were members. They also held four positions in Washingtons cabinet and 18 percent of the seats in the first Congress. Though members were prominent in state politics, law, medicine, commerce, finance and industry, art and education, the Societys importance faded after 1812 because of its dwindling membership. Its last bona fide member died in 1854 in New York, but it still exists today as a hereditary society. Best regards, Ed -- For Revolutionary War information on the Internet, your first choice should be AMERICANREVOLUTION.ORG
One of my Revolutionary War ancestors was a Charter member of the Maryland Society of Cincinnati. I notice other Revolutionary War veterans also had that designation. Can anyone tell me what is/was. Joan
This is what I have been looking for...our war from the British viewpoint. Was the American Revolution inevitable? By Francis D Cogliano, April 2001 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_economy/empire/american_revolution_01.sht ml <A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_economy/empire/american_revolution_ 01.shtml">BBC Online - History - Society and Economy - Empire - American Revolutio</A>n <A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/">BBC Online Homepage - Welcome</A> [homepage if you cant access above urls] 1 of 6 Introduction The Stamp Act Violent opposition Liberties endangered A lesson learned Go further Printable version In 1775, war broke out between the British and the American colonists. By 1776, the colonists had declared themselves independent and in 1783, following a prolonged and bloody war, Britain was forced to recognise the independence of the United States. Was American independence inevitable?
As most list managers have done during this stressful time, I have not tried to keep the list "on topic". Most list managers felt that it served a more useful purpose to allow people to express their fear, horror, anger, grief, support and statements of unity. It allowed list members to be informed of expressions of support and condolences from those outside the US, which they might otherwise have missed. It is now time to return to the list topic. Please do not reply to this message on the list. As usual, you may respond to jr@jrshelby.com. John Robertson List manager
Excellent commentary about "What do we do? I very much agree with all that you say. It is too bad that we will no longer be able to openly share our thoughts on this list. See the following: > Subj: [A-REV] List manager comments: No debate of national policy here > Date: 9/19/01 7:02:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time > From: jr@jrshelby.com (John Robertson) > To: AMERICAN-REVOLUTION-L@rootsweb.com > > I have allowed some venting and expression of grief, anger, patriotism, > support and all the other emotions we have all experienced over the last > few days. Within reason, I will continue to do so for a while. > > The list is *not* open to a debate of national policy. You may conduct > that in private or you may do it elsewhere, which in either case will be > none of my concern. But you will not do it here. > > This is not negotiable. Do *not* respond to the list regarding this > post. As usual, you may respond to jr@jrshelby.com if you wish. > > John Robertson > List manager
I have allowed some venting and expression of grief, anger, patriotism, support and all the other emotions we have all experienced over the last few days. Within reason, I will continue to do so for a while. The list is *not* open to a debate of national policy. You may conduct that in private or you may do it elsewhere, which in either case will be none of my concern. But you will not do it here. This is not negotiable. Do *not* respond to the list regarding this post. As usual, you may respond to jr@jrshelby.com if you wish. John Robertson List manager