First, I’m a woman.
2nd, I understand your points, but there is a fine line. As a student of the RevWar the colonials were a lot more organized than we. As of now our side is just a rabble. And the Founders organized very well on a large scale, not just a bunch of mobs which ultimately won’t get us anywhere but a few rioters stood down. They got representatives at the very top level to draw up proposals and offer conciliatory measures, even as actual war proceeded.
As for George, he was never a British officer, which was one of his resentments against the Crown. He was forever relegated to colonial militia, which as all colonials, were treated as not really British citizens (even if you actually came off the boat from Britain). He could not advance that way. GW is BTW my very favorite human of all time. I get your point GW was a subject of Britain but it’s still an important point, and could’ve been used as an argument against the British regarding “treason”.
This argument is often denied by Yankees of the Civil War discussion.
As it was, again, this is closer to civil war than any of the others, as they were mostly simple seperatist movements, as opposed to real infighting. In our case now, wouldn’t we truly be fighting over who runs the gov?p and thus, this entire land mass? That makes our actions highly consequential. As opposed to simply wanting to part ways.
So were the Colonials. It depends on where on the "organized" spectrum you choose your comparison point.
"As it was, again, this is closer to civil war than any of the others, as they were mostly simple seperatist movements, as opposed to real infighting.
Which is why what is coming will be RWII and NOT CWII. Because it WILL be "real infighting". In RWI, Revolutionaries and Loyalists were intermingled across the colonies, just as communists and Constitutionalist are intermingled across the states today.
My bad-
I don’t insist you do anything you confused ridiculous woman.
As for myself I will JOYFULLY be the kind of traitor George Washington was.