Posted on 07/04/2006 4:57:26 AM PDT by radar101
This was not published in the NYT
It was in last week's WSJ. Click on the article and check it out if you don't believe me.
This is a little piece of history, it is not part of the NYT's plot to betray AMerica. It is interesting too.
This was not published in the NYT
It was in last week's WSJ. Click on the article and check it out if you don't believe me.
This is a little piece of history, it is not part of the NYT's plot to betray AMerica. It is interesting too.
History remembers and immortalizes the revolution and civil war but some of the bloodiest longest lasting fighting took place out of sight In Michigan and all around the great lakes. There are few monuments aside from the place names left behind. There must be thousands upon thousands of bodies that were buried in unmarked graves or left to nature in the forests of this region.
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but in eastern Mass, in the late 1700s whites and Indians living side by side in the same village? That really does sound HIGHLY unlikely.
My point is though that the author in the very first paragraph implies the men were biggoted sexists for not having a vote for non-citizens and/or their wives and mothers. THIS WAS THE 1770S! 98% of the world had NO VOTE AT ALL!
Hmmmm. I always find the dustbin of history to be an interesting place.
If our revolution had not gone the way it did, if we had not been so fortunate, we might all be in that dustbin.
Revolutions are risky things. Ask all those beheaded french. You start out on the "right side" and then things work out so that you can end up on the wrong side. I guess accounts of the French Revolution have always horrified me.
Yes, in the 1770s there were still a lot of Indians on Cape Cod. Even now there are areas that are considered Indian areas - near Mashpee, I think. There was a lot of litigation to get their land back too.
And don't ask what I'm smoking. I'll get blamed for second-hand smoke! LOL
I finally remembered the name of the tribe on Cape Cod. It's the Wampanaog Indians. They have a big pow wow every year and there are a lot of Indian burying grounds in the area. For decades they were suing to get their lands back. Most of them are in the Mashpee area which is just south of the Town of Barnstable. Believe it or not, they're still there and very active.
I can believe Indian areas and Indian villages in Eastern Mass, however I also know due to the common attitudes of the day (OK, call it prejudice) in other places in the country at least, say Pennsylvania, the Indians had villages, and the (white) settlers had villages....as housing discrimination was not illegal. In Mass also black slaves were never used extensively (especially by the late 18th Century). Hence I would very much suspect that in the 1770s a rural town in New England, as it is even today, would be 98% white anyway...and people voted as families (hence only the father voting) so by the thinking of the day, no bigotry or discrimation in "the white men of the village" voting, as that's really the only men you would have at that time and place.
Am I advocating such practices today? No, but it wasn't some discriminatory plot by white men...its just life in a village in the 1770s. The tone set by the article just bothered me.
(I also get pissed when professors, so cleverly (they think) give an example counter intuitive, like "A CEO of a fortune 10 corporation spent $5,000,000 remodeling the board room, when SHE went to the board to explain her......." Such methods of implying things are, in my oppinion, attempted manipulation of thinking, and most liberal attitudes, being emotionally based, are caught, not directly taught.)
Of course!!
The communists are the smart ones who should be admired and revered. Not the stupid grunts in the military who defend these idiots right to be an idiot. And those slave loving founding fathers - whew, don't get them started on those people. Gee, they actually used the term "Creator" and they really meant "God". Religion is only for the people not smart enough to realize that THEY are gods.
Okay, enough sarcasm for one day. Into the shower then off to stuff my face with hot dogs at a picnic then play time w/ sparklers & other small pyrotechnics.
I just finished reading "For Want of a Nail: If Burgoyne had won at Saratoga" by Robert Jobel. It's an elaborate alternate history (with fake footnotes!) of what happens after Burgoyne wins at Saratoga, covering the two great countries that occupy North America, the North American Confederation beginning with the original 13 Colonies and Canada, and the country of Jefferson, founded in Texas by Revolutionaries that flee the colonies after the war is lost, which then essentially takes over Mexico and merges with it, becoming the Mexican Empire that then takes over the West, Alaska, Central America, Hawaii, and even Eastern Siberia.
Throughout history the "multitude" has always been feared by the aristocracy and their clients.
Julius Caesar was feared by the aristocracy because of his bond with the common people.
Likewise the intelligentsia and their clients feared and loathed Ronald Reagan while the common people loved him.
I would like to read a book like that.
The Loyalists were the clients of the English Aristocracy. They swore alligence to the King.
Conservatives swear alligence to no king. They are FREEMEN and will die for freedom.
It's no accident that this forum is called FREE REPUBLIC.
Read 'Born Fighting' for a primer on freedom and the founding of America.
In other words, Democrats
This a common misconception (stereotype).. And at one time it was true. The Jacksonian democrats migrated in mass from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party during the Reagan presidency. They were called "Reagan Democrats".
Now the Republican Party is the party of the common man.
Go to this link: Average Joe is a Republican
Thanks Madame...I always wondered about that.
You're absolutely correct.
I remember reading somewhere about an interview with an old Russian bubba (grandmother) who was asked:
What's the best form of government?
Her reply: "good czar".
Then she was asked: What's the worst form of government?
Her reply: "bad czar".
Loosen up.
Obviously I'm not talking about Loyalists in today's world. I'm talking in the context of the 1770s. And I can tell you that the "conservatives" of that era, while they might have been loyal to a king, have more in common with today's conservatives than do the rabble of that day. Now, again, you are certain to take me wrong, and conclude that I am talking about the people that signed the Declaration if Independence. I'm not. I'm talking about the yahoos that took innocent men and women out of their homes in the middle of the night, terrorizing them, actually, and doing them bodily harm.
People were killed, maimed, tarred and feathered, had property taken with not a thought to due process, and the people doing this were not conservatives. Don't kid yourself. They were the MOB; they were socially, mentally, and politically akin to today's Democrats. They have nothing in common with the folks I have been proud to be associated with on Free Republic for the past eight years.
And thanks, but I have read many books on the days of the Revolution, although I must say I haven't read this particular one. I may read it, at your suggestion, but it won't convince me to judge eighteenth century people by 21st century standards.
Absurd. Reagan Democrats are nothing whatsoever liek Jacksonian Democrats. Such a statement demonstrates no comprehension of either the 19th or the 20th centuries. While I too am a fan of Donald Rumsfled, and I too beleive the Republican Party to be the Party of the "common man", the Republican Party is characterized by decency and restraint. Jacksonian Democrats were little more than uncouth rabble, who showed their respect for the Nation by trashing the White House in manner so vile that it was not equalled until the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton. If you want to find the "Jacksonian Democrats" of today, you'll find them sucking up to either one or both of the Clintons, not Ronald Reagan or G.W. Bush.
You got me checking out about voting in Massachusetts during the Revolutionary times.
"Most of the states decree that only white males are eligible to vote, and most limit the vote to those white males who own a certain amount of property. (In other words, if you are a renter you can't vote.) Since only a small minority of white males own enough property to qualify, the vast majority of the population is denied the vote. By some estimates, less than 5% of the population are eligible to vote in the election of 1800.
AND
"1777-1807: Women lose the right to vote in all states.
The states of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey which had previously allowed women to vote rescind those rights."
It's amazing that in many places only land owners could vote. Some allowed anyone to vote if they paid any kind of tax in the previous year.
If you look back on our history and try to be objective (impossible) it seems that the war boiled down to the nouveau riche pirates, shippers and businessmen against the old money Loyalists. People like Paul Revere and the other patriots we hear about in Lexington were moneyed landowners, acclaimed silversmiths, and tavern owners - not oppressed, starving dirt farmers.
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.