merphie said:
Check out my location. No offense taken, though. You Canadians ...merphie said:
The same applies to the American Rebellion. The Rebels didn't defeat the British any more than the Vietnamese defeated the US, they just prevented them from winning until they gave up. At which point they'd won.
The English Civil Wars. Intially, Parliamentary forces were raised from local militias - the local Trained Bands. The King had a small professional army and mercenaries. Parliament held off defeat (just) until Cromwell created the New Model Army, full-time professionals, well-trained and competently led, and under his personal command, not a committee's. After that it was just a matter of time. That period was a major influence in democratic and republican philosophy, including the US Constitution.
To some, a standing army would inevitably lead to tyranny. Government would find the temptation to use it irresistible in the long run. As it happens, that view was too extreme. The Constitution does appear to have prevented it, anyway.
CapelDodger said:Check out my location. No offense taken, though. You Canadians ...
One force surrendered at Yorktown, not the whole army. The British still held New York and other ports, and were in no great danger of losing them. The government decided to give it up.merphie said:
It's surprising how little awareness there is of that period, given its impact on the modern world. Parliamentary republican rule in an urbanised, advanced country. It was both a test-bed and a seed-bed of democratic and liberal ideas. Militarily it was very interesting as well. I suppose it lacks a charismatic figure like Napoleon. Cromwell and the Puritans give it no glamour, and while the Cavaliers were more charismatic they were also losers.
From what I hear they don't have the full-hearted support of the military.
I think it was Goebbels who said you can get people to accept anything if you persuade them of a threat.CapelDodger said:
From what I hear they don't have the full-hearted support of the military.
CapelDodger said:
Absolute monarchy went out with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when James II was deposed for a) being a closet Catholic, b) trying to restore absolute monarchy, and c) getting in the way of business. Another period with reverberations down to the US Constitution. George "Mad Dog" III had influence through the aristocratic interest and sycophants ... I could ramble on, but the fall of Yorktown meant the fall of a Prime Minister and a new government. Which had nver wanted the war. Men of business. Even though this happened Abroad, shouldn't it feature a little in US history? The nature of the enemy?merphie said:
Well, you get the Colonies, which is British Empire stuff, and the Rebellion is obviously part of British history. There's probably more about Canada than you get in the US. The Civil War loses out to the Crimea, but the US kicks in again in WWII. Eventually... Then there's the Cold War, which is history now, hard to leave the US out of that.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Universal suffrage has proved a disaster, just as every sensible person predicted. Bush doesn't need to march into Congress at the head of a company of marines. But I'd love to get him drunk and dare him to.
That's not dawn's early light ... that's Washington burning.Meadmaker said:
Catholics still aren't entirely emancipated over here; they're not allowed to dilute their gene-pool with the Royal Family. A symbolic loss, but a remnant of harsher times. England's enemies were for a long time Catholic, its allies Protestant, when religion and politics were closely connected. To be a Catholic smelt of treason, and when prices were high and wages were low, guess who the rioters came for. Their own community in Maryland probably sounded very attractive. From the pictures I've seen, it used to be terribly nice.
