Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Yet another UK Browncoat here (though I really think we should call ourselves Redcoats )

I'm down in Portsmouth, Hampshire

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BITTERBIERCE:
Ah, there's nothing quite like the sound of a hundred concealed US guns cocking all at once.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Like the concealed American Militia that shot at the British Army riding into Washington DC under a flag of truce in 1814 to accept the capitals surrender (after the Redcoats shot the US Army to pieces in the field at Bladensburg)?

(Note: If you shoot a Major Generals horse out from under him when he's under the protection of a white flag he just might be riled up enough to burn the White House)

Sorry I just couldn't resist it

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BITTERBIERCE:
Yeah, it's odd how much we'd learned from the redcoats in the war of Independants (excuse me, Independence). It's just that we couldn't find innocent women and children around to butcher like at Lexington and Concord or random Algonquins, so we had to pick on your poor armed troops. Sorry, couldn't resist.

And anway, don't you have the wrong site? Being a redcoat- aren't you looking for the Alliance website? I hear you won a good victory in Serenity Valley.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BITTERBIERCE:
Oh, I forgot, one last thing- you do know the burning was direct ordered retaliation for the burning of York, right? They don't sell the reason for the burning as some dastardly colonial deed in Brit history books, do they?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hotpoint:
You do know that many of the worst atrocities of the American War of Independence were carried out by the "Patriot" side right? If you don't believe me look up the Gnadenhutten massacre for example

Interesting spin on things. Of course I could counter argue that since slavery is apparently legal in the Alliance, and that the slave owning landed classes are very much on top in the Alliance, they have more in common with the American Rebels.

You know we Brits abolished slavery here in England in 1772 and that fear we'd do the same in the Colonies was a major reason for the Rebellion right?

In any case if you'd like to argue this matter further (and good naturedly I hope) how about you start a thread in Real World FFF.NET and we can take the topic there instead of continuing to hijack this thread?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hotpoint:
No actually it wasn't in direct retaliation for just the Burning of York (Modern day Toronto then Capital of Upper Canada) but for all the other Canadian Towns burned too.

The firing on the White Flag likely did colour Major General Robert Ross's view on exactly how many buildings he was going to burn though.

Once again we can take this to REAL WORLD FFF.NET if you want?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BitterBierce:

Quote:

---

You do know that many of the worst atrocities of the American War of Independence were carried out by the "Patriot" side right? If you don't believe me look up the Gnadenhutten massacre for example

---

I don't know anything of the frickin' kind. I know I can tit for tat you all day long with this one, so let's avoid the "many of the worst" weasel words, shall we? Also, in a technical historical irony, keep in mind the people who did the "Patriot" atrocities were British. I wonder who they learned their ways from, dad.

Quote:

---

You know we Brits abolished slavery here in England in 1772 and that fear we'd do the same in the Colonies was a major reason for the Rebellion right?

---

Darn, we'll never know. If only there were some document that listed the colonial's grievances against the Crown, then we could...hey!*

You know, you mighta coulda got away with that one if the Americans' hilariously named Founding Fathers hadn't kept such fantastic and voluminous notes. Unfortunately for your argument they did and we know precisely what was on their mind.

Quote:

---

In any case if you'd like to argue this matter further (and good naturedly I hope) how about you start a thread in Real World FFF.NET and we can take the topic there instead of continuing to hijack this thread?

---

Hey, I was just picking up where you left off, cochise. You were the one who "couldn't resist". You want to keep this one up, respond to this there.

*- Please don't make me spell that out.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BitterBierce:
I don't know anything of the frickin' kind. I know I can tit for tat you all day long with this one, so let's avoid the "many of the worst" weasel words, shall we? Also, in a technical historical irony, keep in mind the people who did the "Patriot" atrocities were British. I wonder who they learned their ways from, dad.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BitterBierce:
Darn, we'll never know. If only there were some document that listed the colonial's grievances against the Crown, then we could...hey!*

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BitterBierce:
You know, you mighta coulda got away with that one if the Americans' hilariously named Founding Fathers hadn't kept such fantastic and voluminous notes. Unfortunately for your argument they did and we know precisely what was on their mind.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BitterBierce:
Hey, I was just picking up where you left off, cochise. You were the one who "couldn't resist". You want to keep this one up, respond to this there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BitterBierce:
Then why did you say it was for a white flag disruption? I guess what I'm really asking is, which time are you telling the truth, this time or the last? You know, just to clear it up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BitterBierce:

Actually it was on written orders of the Crown's representative given immediately after York.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BitterBierce:

Since your take makes no sense (they either torched towns or they didn't, I don't know of any historical proportional representation in rampages), I will assume you just kinda have a "differential truth equation".

---

Quote:

---

John Murray, fourth Earl of Dunmore, the last royal governor of Virginia, in April 1772 expressed his conviction to Lord Dartmouth, Bntish secretary of state for the colonies, that "in case of a War" the slaves, "attached by no tye to their Master or to the Country" would "join the first that would encourage them to revenge themselves by which means a Conquest of this Country would inevitably be effected in a very short time." Dunmore's fears were shared by many white Virginians, though none expected that three years later Dunmore himself would attempt "a Conquest of this Country" with the help of African-American slaves.

The early 1770s were a period of slave unrest in Virginia, prompting the city of Williamsburg to establish a night watch in July 1772 to apprehend "disorderly People, Slaves as well as others." Slave restiveness increased when news of the Somersett case reached the colonies in September 1772. James Somersett, a slave taken to England by his master Charles Steuart, had run away. Recaptured and in chains in the hull of a ship bound for Jamaica, he sued for his freedom. In June 1772, Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, held that slavery "is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law." As "the law of England" neither "allowed" nor "approved" of slavery, Mansfield ruled that "the black must be discharged."

Mansfield's decision outlawed slavery only in England; it did not apply to British colonies. But that was immaterial to American slaves. In January 1773, the General Court in Boston received the first of three petitions in which slaves pleaded their freedom with the argument that Mansfield's decision should indeed apply to the colonies, where they were "held in a state of Slavery within a free and christian Country."

By September 1773, the first of Virginia's 250,000 slaves were also trying to get "out of the Colony, particularly to Britain" - so noted John Austin Finnie's advertisement for runaways Bacchus and Amy - "where they imagine they will be free." The king was on their side - or so slaves thought - and against their masters, who feared a British-instigated slave revolt. Following the discovery in November 1774 of slaves conspiring to desert "when the English troops should arrive," James Madison wrote to William Bradford of his conviction that "If america & Britain come to an hostile rupture I am afraid an Insurrection among the slaves may & will be promoted" in an attempt to preserve Virginia for the crown of King George III.

When tensions between Dunmore and Virginia's ruling elite increased in early 1775, the ground was well prepared for his lordship to "arm all my own Negroes and receive all others that will come to me who I shall declare free," as he wrote to Dartmouth on March 1. Dunmore could argue that since the colonists were clamoring for English law, they could get a taste of it, Somersett and all. The slaves, on the other hand, considered the government in London and its local representatives to be sympathetic to their cause, and they were only waiting for the sign to take up arms to "reduce the refractory people of this Colony to obedience."

Armed conflict was looming, and Dunmore ordered Royal Marines to seize the gunpowder stored in the Williamsburg Magazine during the night of April 20-21. When Virginia threatened to erupt in open violence, Dunmore backed down. Forced to pay restitution for the powder, Dunmore lost his temper in front of the town leaders. Williamsburg resident Dr. William Pasteur heard the governor say that he would "declare freedom to the slaves and reduce the City of Williamsburg to ashes." He boasted he would have "all the slaves on the side of the government". By mid-May, rumors of Dunmore's plans had spread all the way to Boston, from where General Thomas Gage, Governor of Massachusetts, informed Dartmouth: "We hear that a Declaration his Lordship has made, of proclaiming all the Negroes free, who should join him, has Startled the Insurgents."

Gage was jumping the gun but not by much. On June 8, Dunmore fled Williamsburg for the safety of the man-of-war Fowey at Yorktown. The Virginia Convention quickly assured the governor of his own personal safety but expressed its extreme displeasure of this "most diabolical" scheme "meditated, and generally recommended, by a Person of great Influence, to offer Freedom to our slaves, and turn them against their Masters." But Dunmore felt that he had no alternative. His ranks reduced to some 300 soldiers, sailors, and loyalists, he let it be known that he welcomed supporters of any skin color. As word spread along the coast, about 100 black runaways reached Dunmore's fleet during the fall of 1775. In early November his troops routed a corps of Virginia militia at Kemp's Landing. That was the signal for the publication of Dunmore's long-anticipated proclamation to American slaves.

Dated November 7, it declared "all indented Servants, Negroes, or others (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining his MAJESTY'S Troops, as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper Sense of their Duty, to his MAJESTY'S Crown and Dignity" This was not a general emancipation of slaves and indentured servants. Dunmore invited only those slaves to his banner who were owned by rebels, and of those, only males could bear arms.

The response was overwhelming. By December 1, about 300 runaways were carrying muskets and wearing the garb of Lord Dunmore's Ethiopian Regiment, the words "Liberty to Slaves" emblazoned on their chests

---

Quote:

---

This was not a general emancipation of slaves and indentured servants. Dunmore invited only those slaves to his banner who were owned by rebels, and of those, only males could bear arms.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StarSong:
Oh fiddlesticks, that was pure pragmatism, not ethics. Heck, your very own link says so --

Quote:

---

This was not a general emancipation of slaves and indentured servants. Dunmore invited only those slaves to his banner who were owned by rebels, and of those, only males could bear arms.

---

And if the Crown was so big on stopping slavery, why were they impressing not only their own folks but ours as well into the Navy a generation later? Or heck, shipping Scots over here as indentured a generation earlier?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StarSong:

Look, there is a Loyalist argument that makes sense, and is legitimate in the context of the times -- namely, that we were freeloaders who wanted the benefits of the Crown without ponying up for 'em. That's how a lot of the folks there, and more than a few here saw 'em.

But the slavery thing? Nuh-uh. Let's leave the PC restrospectives alone, shall we? As already noted, there are REAMS of paper written at the time on our side and yours. Slavery just ain't there as a grudge, man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StarSong:
So let's not whitewash our roles in history, eh? We've done bad things, you've done bad things, but on the balance Americans and Brits both are pretty darn decent people. Heck, our cultures are both given to overly-critical self analysis as well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StarSong:
So how about we just leave the past in the past, eh? It's fun to read about, but it don't make no sense refighting wars that were over centuries before any of us were born.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Interesting. But I'm tempted to 'jack' further and bring up something that actually matters, like how we define "terrorism" and how a nation or military deals with a weaker enemy willing to go to unconventional extremes to achieve its goal.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

---