Posted on 07/11/2014 11:58:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If I had the money it would be a price on ayers head.
What made the English monarchy legal? “Divine Right of Kings’’? If anything it was the Crown that was illegal.
From King George’s standpoint, certainly. And from a purely objective standpoint, what Washington and the Minutemen and all the rest of the Revolutionaries did was no different than what the Underground did in WWII or the VC did in Viet Nam.
And I for one am glad a handful of our colonists had the guts to do what they did. The whole world is their beneficiary.
If they had lost — and make no mistake, that was always a distinct possibility — history would read much differently. Not just for us blokes ‘ere in the Western Colonies, but all over Planet Earth.
It depresses me to no end that a studied comparison of the differences between Bill Ayers and George Washington even has to be written.
What’s next, a clinical deconstruction of the differences between rat turds and nuclear submarines?
I believe you are a poor student of history. Washington and the militia engaged in open combat with British and Hessian regulars. There were guerrilla tactics used, but not by the Continental Army. Washington knew full well that he had to defeat the British openly in order to be considered legitimate.
No, they were not. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of non-combatants in an effort to destabilize society by pointing out the existing government’s inability to protect. There is nothing particularly ambiguous about it, and Washington, et al, don’t qualify.
Concord was "open combat?" The Brits were ambushed from the side of the road, and harassed all the way back to Lexington. And the attack at Trenton was hardly "open combat," since most of the Hessian mercs were drunk. And it was the middle of the night.
You're trying hard to apply a different standard to "our" guys than you would to someone else. But the fact is, the Revolutionaries could easily be classified as terrorists.
But that's just a label. The cause for which they fought was just. I think the world -- and even the vanquished British -- would ultimately admit that. But then you get into an "end justifies the means" argument.
Personally, I don't care what label you slap on the Revolutionaries. And I don't care what equivalencies you draw between them and today's so-called freedom fighters. We won. And I am the heir to that legacy -- both good and bad.
The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list
There were also some guerrilla actions taken, similar to what the French and their Indian allies did against the Brits and colonials in the Seven Years' War. They met them straight up at the Concord Bridge and on the Green at Lexington; they did harass them from the bushes on their trek back to Boston, though.
They were dug in at Bunker and Breeds Hill and did not form lines as did the Brits...does that count?
No...they were not terrorists.
The actions of the Continentals were only illegal from the British perspective. It's not a surprise that Ayers would seize on an opportunity to express his anti-Americanism.
Revolutions are always legal in the first person, such as “our revolution”. It’s only in the third person, “their revolution”, when they’re illegal.
Gee, and here I thought this was going to be another screed about how evil GW was because he had slaves.
Guess I was wrong!
I don’t think you read any of the article.
Actually he was never much of a guerilla.
Someone has been watching “1776”! LOL
The communist crypto-muslim we have now would be at the extreme opposite of our first President.
The Patriots that perpetrated the Boston Tea Party destroyed over a million dollars worth of tea, and caused the King much distress.
Standing around waving flags is great, but to be effective protest must produce a negative impact on the oppressor.
Every year! (Except this one — I didn’t notice if it was on ... then again, there was a Batman marathon on MeTV....)
It was on again, TCM. I was too busy but we recorded and watched later this week.
You still do not understand the difference between lawful combatants (soldiers) and terrorists. One targets the armed forces of the enemy while the other targets civilians.
Washington was not involved in Lexington, nor Concord. Do you consider Yorktown to be a terrorist act? How about Ticonderoga? Breeds Hill? Cowpens?
Oh no?
“The following year he led another expedition to the area to assist in the construction of a fort at present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Before reaching that point, he and some of his men, accompanied by Indian allies, ambushed a French scouting party. Its leader was killed, although the exact circumstances of his death were disputed. This peacetime act of aggression is seen as one of the first military steps leading to the global Seven Years’ War.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_in_the_French_and_Indian_War
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.