Posted on 10/20/2003 8:06:44 AM PDT by jonalvy44
No, really? < / sarcasm> And this point has what bearing on the argument at hand?2. The patriots of the day represented the majority of the populace with Loyalists representing approx 30%.Besides, this happened because the radical Whigs were able to wrangle control of a number of different legislatures and, in Massachusetts, a number of town meetings. The Whigs were radicals, not conservatives.
Is that so? Cites, please, and a definition of your terms. Only the most radical of the radicals, Samuel Adams, favored a complete split with England (which you seem to use to define "patriot,") by 1776. As a matter of fact, most of the consesus work done around forming a Continental Army following June of 1775 (Breed's Hill) was watered-down in consensus because Adams feared alienating the more conservative Whig representatives from other colonies because most of them did not want to split with England. Look it up.A stat more frequently cited is: 33 1/3% were patriot-leaning, 33 1/3 % were Loyalist-leaning, and 33 1/3% were outright indifferent to the question.
3. The English gov't was oppressive in its handling of the colonial legislatures, at times disbanding them. Thus attempting to silence the voice of the American colonists.
The English government didn't disband colonial legislatures. It didn't have the power to do so. The Royal Governor did, as did Thomas Hutchinson in Massachusetts when he disbanded the General Court after Adams announced he was sending a delegation to attend a Continental Congress in the late summer/early autumn of 1775. But Hutchinson wasn't acting on orders from England---he was operating under his own authority.
There is another comparison we could make between the Tories (Loyalists) and Democrats today: Willingness to surrender autonomy and control to a foreign gov't (King George or the United Nations).
The English government wasn't a "foreign" government. You're completely redefining terms here: the colonies were English colonies. Americans considered themselves colonists.
I do appreciate your efforts to point out discrepencies in my article, but once again, you are wrong. Democrats today are on the wrong side of the issue, just as the Tories of that day were.
Therein lies your only rhetorical "link" between Tories and Democrats.
Your attempts to argue that provide conclusive evidence in my mind that you are both a Democrat and a Bush-hater.
So because I know the history of our country a lot better than you do, I'm a Democrat and a Bush-hater? So be it.
I know it drives most Democrats mad to think their "patriotism" is being questioned, but not only is their patriotism being questioned, so is their loyalty.
This is absolutely precious: my patriotism is being questioned by someone who'd fail junior high school American history . . .Not only are you an idiot, you're a belligerent one as well. Why don't you read a book and grab a clue about what you're writing about BEFORE you put pen to paper? Chuckleheads like you make real conservatives wince with embarassment.
Attacking my screen name---a bold admission of an extremely weak argument.
I'm very familiar with the Loyalists. I prefer the use of the term "Tory" as the Loyalists were not loyal to their colonial neighbors, but rather an oppressive monarchy.
You've demonstrated that you really have no clue what you're writing about. You are the author of that piece, aren't you. My apologies, but that was really sad.
I think "New Copperheads" would be a better comparison --- all the way down to a failed and disgruntled former general being their best electorial hope.
It's in the oldest traditions of the Democrat party to put politics and power above any other consideration.
Well, maybe Lieberman and Gebheart are still Rats, but the other 7 dwarfs are Copperheads for sure.
What next: Ho's really a great guy because he fought the Japanese for us?
Can we agree (without making a direct comparison to Tories) that the country would in fact be better off if we tarred and feathered the Democrats and sent them to New Brunswick?
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.