Angel Moroni - Declaration Of Independence

[Anijen]

I agree he was not by any standard a military genius Washington lost more battles than he won. But he was composed, indefatigable, and able to learn from his mistakes. He was convinced he was on the side of destiny almost to the point of arrogance. He could not be bribed, corrupted or compromised, and based on his bravery during several battles apparently believed he could not be killed.

The siege at Boston Washington's makeshift army kept more than 10,000 British troops bottled up in the city for over 9 months. On Bunker hill the British made 3 frontal assaults before they gained victory but it cost them more than 1000 lives. When word of the battle reached London several British officers made the statement; " that a few more such victories and the entire British army would be annihilated."

And Washington's loss of men were from like I said before mostly from desertion, disease or from the weather...

it bugs me a little bit when people study criticisms about our founding fathers and then tout it as factual evidences that he was less the person he actually was. The truth is you or I was not there and we can not know, but there is much history also that says he was a good man of unwavering character and a fair military man.

Regards Anijen

and one who respects Washington and thinks he has been one of the best Presidents in the US history the next would be Reagan Boo ya

[Legalbryan]

Washington made his share of mistakes (siege of New York comes to mind) but his handling of the Boston siege and the taking of Boston was masterfully done (Battle of Trenton also comes to mind, without that win America probably looses the war). The two things that he did exceptionally well was 1) He surrounded himself with good people like Nathaniel Greene and Henry Knox. Neither of these exceptional men would have made it as far as they did in a traditional army like England's because they did not have the military training that many felt was necessary. Washington recognized their talents and it is largely because of men like Knox and Greene that the war was won. 2) Washington was already a myth in his own time. Wherever he went the troops perked up and morale improved. He was regarded as a towering figure even in 1776. He was able to attract men to the cause that may not have ever come.

So, was Washington a military genius, hardly. He was often indecisive and unsure of what to do. Was he a true patriot? Undoubtedly. It is very clear if you read any credible history of Washington that he believed in the cause of America and was no mere Hessian. It is also clear that he was going to benefit financially if

America was freed from England's economic grip, but he was already rich and would have remained so even had there been no war.

Is there any man that is more responsible for the American's triumph? It would be hard to find one person who did more for the cause then Washington from the military standpoint, despite some of his failings.

[Legalbryan]

it bugs me a little bit when people study criticisms about our founding fathers and then tout it as factual evidences that he was less the person he actually was. The truth is you or I was not there and we can not know, but there is much history also that says he was a good man of unwavering character and a fair military man.

A perfect example of this is the Jefferson mythology of Sally Hemmings. Modernity has already convicted Jefferson of hypocrisy because his supposed relation to Ms. Hemmings and his stance on human rights as the drafter of the Dec. of Independance and the Virginia Bill of Rights. Although he did say that he feared for the fate of America because he believed in a just God who would comdemn slavery. More to the point, the "evidence" that he was the father of the Hemmings relationships is shaky at best. DNA can never prove that the Hemmings are related to Thomas Jefferson, only to some Jefferson. Thomas' younger brother is probably the likely culprit in this case. He was known to frequent with the slaves more then the white folk. The other evidence is the Oral history of the Hemmings family, which actually started after the death of Thomas Jefferson. Well, it is certainly more romantic and noteworthy to be the scion of Thomas Jefferson, President of the US, then his slightly mentally handicapped younger brother.

But the jury is already out and the verdict has been returned because there is some need amongst us to find faults with the founding fathers. Maybe we feel we cannot live up to these great men? Maybe we some how feel better about ourselves when we find out that others have skeletons in their closets? Whatever the reason, it annoys me too.

[katherine the great]

But the jury is already out and the verdict has been returned because there is some need amongst us to find faults with the founding fathers. Maybe we feel we cannot live up to these great men? Maybe we some how feel better about ourselves when we find out that others have skeletons in their closets? Whatever the reason, it annoys me too.

You assume the worst of people. Of all of the candidates, Thomas Jefferson is the most likely to have fathered Sally Hemming's children. Why is it finding fault with him to think so? It doesn't make him an adulterer as his wife had already passed away when his relationship with Sally would have started. Maybe he genuinely cared about her, but convention would not allow a public relationship. Maybe it was a relationship of convenience. Her children claimed that Thomas Jefferson was their father. Why would they make that up if it was really his younger brother? Jefferson eventually freed all of Sally's children while he didn't do so with other families. Looking at all of the current evidence, I think it is most likely that Thomas Jefferson himself had a relationship with one of his slaves. Big deal.

[ERMD]

I never said America was owned by England.

I said America was owned by the Crown. The Crown owns England, it owns Scotland, it owns my house (a shocking fact to most Englishmen who, like me, spend years paying their mortgage), it owns much of the "free world", and it still owns the Virginia Company/America.

You guys are not owned by us, you are owned by the same people who own us. You may not believe it but it is true and there are people out there, mostly Americans, who know the truth and have written very authorititive works on the subject.

I challenge you to research this and see if I'm not right. Start with the Federal Reserve.

Alan

You don't happen to wear a tinfoil hat, do you?

[Legalbryan]

You assume the worst of people. Of all of the candidates, Thomas Jefferson is the most likely to have fathered Sally Hemming's children. Why is it finding fault with him to think so? It doesn't make him an adulterer as his wife had already passed away when his relationship with Sally would have started. Maybe he genuinely cared about her, but convention would not allow a public relationship. Maybe it was a relationship of convenience. Her children claimed that Thomas Jefferson was their father. Why would they make that up if it was really his younger brother? Jefferson eventually freed all of Sally's children while he didn't do so with other families. Looking at all of the current evidence, I think it is most likely that Thomas Jefferson himself had a relationship with one of his slaves. Big deal.

I have no problem if he is, don't matter to me one way or another. But the reason it bugs me is because there are people out there with an agenda, and that agenda is to spread false information about the founders such as this because they want to knock the founders down a notch.

Of course her children claimed that, would you rather your father be a powerful president, great thinker and revolutionary then the slower younger brother who never did anything? The evidence is actually rather poor that he is the father, and there is never going to be any evidence, one way or another, to prove it was, the best we can do is prove that Ester is descended from a Jefferson male (not Lewis Woodson, who was long believed to be the descendant and where most of the Hemmings oral history comes from, he was ruled out by DNA tests). In fact, Sally herself was not freed in his will, but some of her issue were.

The whole scandal was started by a reporter who had a politcal axe to grind against Jefferson when he was president and used this as a muckraking technique against him. It was based upon no factual information. A

[grego]

Legalbryan wrote:

Well, I just read through most of this tripe and I think I smell Birchers in the air. The first two references are barely readable. Its not that they were just poorly written, but the arguments were hardly comprehensible. The central thesis behind all of these links is that there is some central group of people who are running the world (think Robert Ludlam bad guys and you get the picture). While these types of conspiracies are hardly new or original, I think Ocam's razor is applicable. As someone who is a lawyer and the son of a Constitutional law professor I am quite confident that our laws are not controlled by a central governing conspiracy, certainly John Roberts is not taking orders from a bunch of European bankers. Heck, I can write a law and have it put in the books with a few signatures and a majority of the vote in just about every state.

I won't ague that the IMF and the World Bank don't execute a large degree of power, but to argue that we have to throw away all of our laws and go back to some Lockean state of natural laws is insane and frankly dangerous. If you are a Bircher or a FREEPer, or whatever, I would strongly advise that you wake up and look around you.

Please, tell me about the Federal Reserve.

Next, please tell me if you have ever cited a case before 1938, or heard one cited in any of your time in the courts.

I imagine the articles were too difficult for you to understand and comprehend, but I understand that. I actually read the articles before, and am still reading them againj, as they are a little long and complicated; which means, to me, that either you have an extreme proclivity for super fast reading and understanding, or you didn't read them. (I imagine you know which one I imagine you did.)

-=-=-=

ERMD, Legalbryan,

Please tackle the issues, or say you can't/ don't want to, thanks. Mocking instead doesn't work.

Legalbryan, you *are* a lawyer, aren't you? I know you can do better than that... I would hate to imagine you argue cases in court that way.

-=-=-=

Anyway, it's very possible, maybe even probable, that a servant of the Lord, such as one of the Three Nephites or John, was placed there to help.

[spinner]

Yes, obviously.

No, Washington lost a lot, and the real Revolutionaries won a lot. Green Mountain Boys, Swamp Fox, all the great guerrilla fighters -- these were the true heroes and victors of the Revolution. Washington was largely a rent-seeker, he became general for the money, he was not a true revolutionary.

Washington was a lousy general, signer of the Alien and Sedition Act, and suppressor of the Whiskey Rebellion. He was a tyrant. I do not admire him. I know more about him than most who do admire him. If you knew more about him, you likely would not admire him either.

Several others have already done an admirable job defending Washington, but a few additional points bear mention here.

First, to compare the stature and the accomplishments of Washington to those of Ethan Allen (leader of the Green Mountain Boys) or Francis Marion (the Swamp Fox) is laughable. Allen was no patriot, he was a crass opportunist at best, a traitor at worst, and certainly no military genius as his bumbling during the Canadian campaign makes clear. Francis Marion proved a far more reputable character than Allen, but trying to elevate a guerilla leader to the status of commander of the entire army is ludicrous. True Marion's forces formed a useful adjunct to the main army of Nathaniel Greene during the southern campaigns, but they were at best an annoyance to the British and not a serious threat. Acting alone Marion's guerillas at most could have precipitated a protracted, brutal guerilla conflict, not the decisive victory that Washington's regulars gave us.

Furthermore, the real mark of Washington's greatness comes from what he did apart from his service as a commander. At the height of his fame near the end of the Revolutionary War, he could have easily established a military dictatorship of the kind that so many revolutionary generals have (most notably during the Newburgh Conspiracy). Instead he relinquished power. Very few characters in history have had the character to turn down the potential for such power when it was thrust upon them, and had Washington behaved differently we would be living in a far different country. This example established the military's subservience to the civil government, paving the way for 200+ years of civilian leaders rather than military coups.

True he was likely a competent general at best, and he was not the saint that legend has built him up to be. But the good far outweighs the bad by any measure, and he was indispensable to the founding of the republic.

[Deborah]

If Washington was such a bad general, then all I have to say is it's a good thing God was behind this nation and the fact that we succeeded is evidence of a greater miracle than I previously thought.

[Legalbryan]

Grego,

You are right that I didn't read every last word in both articles, although I read up to the footnote part, enough to understand the main points they are trying to make. My reading comprehension is fine, but thanks for your concern. When I said it was unreadable, I meant that it was not written very well. I would invite others on the board to try and get through either of the first two links and discover for themselves how cohesive of a publication these are. I don't have the energy or the time to go into a line by line refutation of the main points, but I will give a basic retort to what I see as the main theory being purported here. Basically the claim is we were duped by those who negotiated the main treaties after the Revolutionary war and in actuality we never left the British Crown, and through various tax structures and banking structures the crown is still receiving financial benefits from America.

The main response I have is that many of the "facts" that are reported here, might actually have some merit, but they are so divorced from any reality as to have almost no meaning. Let me use an analogy to explain what I mean. Einstein, who was one of the first to conceive of quantas of light, never bought in to the quantum mechanics theory because, even though it made a lot of sense and seemed right, quantum mechanics does not mesh very well with reality. E.g. quantum mechanics do not explain causal relationships, hence Einstein could never admit that the theory did anything to explain reality. Basically this is what I think of about these theories. There are certainly some strange things going on here, and I won't deny that Britain and some of the institutions there have benefited greatly from our relationship with them. However, this theory, in reality explains nothing. The fact is that we don't swear allegiance to the crown, we do not follow modern English legal precedent, our political system is completely divorced from theirs. So why waste all the time and energy worrying about it. In fact, I've spent way way to much time already and am now done.

[thesometimesaint]

The Alien and Sedition Acts were signed by John Adams. Both George Washington and John Adams were both Federalists. The A&S Acts led to the defeat and disappearance of the Federalist Party with the election of Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/m...tones/sedition/

[grego]

Taxes to pay off a "national debt" for fake money by a private bank isn't close enough to reality for you?

Once more, have you ever cited or heard cited a case before 1938?

Ok, we seem to disagree on how closely you imagine something to be, and how close it is.

[spinner]

Taxes to pay off a "national debt" for fake money by a private bank isn't close enough to reality for you?

Once more, have you ever cited or heard cited a case before 1938?

Ok, we seem to disagree on how closely you imagine something to be, and how close it is.

Grego,

Up to now I have forgone any debates with you on your conspiracy theories. However, after reading through one of the articles you linked, I feel that some sort of response should be mustered. I doubt the response will do any good as the articles you have linked are so schizoid and unreasoning that I have to assume that anybody ascribing to their 'logic' will no be persuaded by reasoned facts. Still, I can't help myself...

First, above you call the national debt fake money. Wrong. It is unfortunately very real. It exists because America lacks the political willpower to limit expenditures to our income. The loans, even if no greenbacks physically change hands, fund very concrete goods and services provided by the federal government, which I could list out in excruciating detail.

It would take several days to list all of the fallacies put forward in the article which I read of yours (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/queen.htm); a few representative slices must suffice. I must add, though, it is rather difficult to dispute the article as a whole, as these ramblings lack any coherent thesis making it difficult in turn to find a specific portion to debunk. It is a convenient style of argument for the conspiracy theorist because their arguments are scattered like the feathers on the wind, and although a critic may refute numerous such theories, many more will still be floating on the breeze and the conspiracy theorist can proclaim that these points remain un-refuted. So, recognizing the relative futility of trying to refute this article wholesale, below follow a few pieces of this sloppy and paranoid piece of work:

Now, you also have to realize that King George was not just the King of England, he was also the King of France. Treaty of Peace * U.S. 8 Statutes at Large 80.

If the author understood anything about European nobility, he should know that they adored nothing so much as titles, and yes King George (and all English monarchs from William the Conqueror until the mid-19th century) was the titular king of France. A mere historical oddity from the fact that England was conquered by a Norman 700 years earlier and was loathe to drop its claim to a land where they had not had any real holdings since shortly after the 100 Years' War. Asserting that George III was the actual king of France, however, is so divorced from reality as to beggar belief.

On January 22, 1783 Congress ratified a contract for the repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received dating from February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. owes the King money which is due January 1, 1788 from King George via France. Is this not incredible the King funded both sides of the War.

Actually it's not even a little incredible. First, it appears to rest on the faulty assumption that George III's claim to the kingship of France had any merit, which it did not. And even assuming that it did, it would not be surprising if the English funded the Americans in some way. It is well known, for instance, that during their decades of war for independence from the Hapsbergs in the 1600's, the Dutch frequently made loans to the Spanish. Why? Because they could charge the Spanish (who had bad credit) usurious credit rates and the Spanish, with nowhere else to turn for loans, had to pay them back. The Dutch would never loan too much for fear of default, and the Spanish would normally pay them back for fear of never getting any loans in the future. And the Dutch made a handsome profit off of their enemies. It would not be the least bit surprising if British institutions did loan to the Americans in the same way--it was to their advantage to do so! Nor is it surprising that the Americans would try not to default on these loans, and for exactly the same reason you try not to default on your credit card debt.

Many people tend to blame the Jews for our problems. Jewish Law governs the entire world, as found in Jewish Law by MENACHEM ELON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL, to wit:

"Everything in the Babylonian Talmud is binding on all Israel. Every town and country must follow all customs, give effect to the decrees, and carry out the enactment's of the Talmudic sages, because the entire Jewish people accepted everything contained in Talmud. The sages who adopted the enactment's and decrees, instituted the practices, rendered the decisions, and derived the laws, constituted all or most of the Sages of Israel. It is they who received the tradition of the fundamentals of the entire Torah in unbroken succession going back to Moses, our teacher."

We are living under what the Bible calls Mammon. As written in the subject Index, Mammon is defined as ("Civil law and procedure").

Now turn to the "The Shetars Effect on English Law" -- A Law of the Jews Becomes the Law of the Land, found in "The George Town Law Journal, Vol 71: pages 1179-1200." It is clearly stated in the Law Review that the Jews are

the property of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon Kings. It also explains that the Talmud is the law of the land. It explains how the Babylonian Talmud became the law of the land, which is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code. The written credit agreement -- the Jewish shetar is a lien on all property (realty) and today it's called the mortgage! The treatise also explains that

the Jews are owned by Great Britain and the Jews are in charge of the Baking system.

We are living under the Babylonian Talmud, it is were all of our problems come from. It was brought into England in 1066 and has been enforced by the Pope, Kings and the Christian churches ever since. It is total and relentless mind control, people are taught to believe in things that do not exist.

Anti-semitic tripe like this sounds like something from "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and does not deserve comment (other than to say I'm getting hungry thinking about the Jews' "Baking system" (sic)).

Now before you scream that the UCC is unconstitutional I'm sorry people, you are not a party to any constitution. Read the case cite below.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520

Wow, talk about selective citation! How many mounds of famous Supreme Court, Federal Appellate Court, and Federal District Court cases, which have reached the opposite conclusion, did these guys have to wade through before finding this one obscure state court case from 1854 Georgia? Grego, if you accept sloppy work like this you have forfeited any right to ever complain about the work of Ed Decker, the Tanners and their ilk again.

I could go on, but I am no longer amused by debunking this shoddily written and paranoid garbage.

[MormonMason]

Mormon folklore??? Doesn't someone have to be a "Mormon" to be spreading Mormon folklore? Manly P. Hall was not "Mormon."

[Alan]

I recently listened to a documentary on BBC radio about Washington. A recently retired British general has written a book about Washington because he admires him so much. However, what surprised me was his frank admission that Washington was probably a murderer. Apparently he had a load of French soldiers who had surrendered to him (while he was fighting for the British) shot in cold blood. Apparently Washington actually killed them himself and the French are still livid about it.

I didn't know this about Washington and I must admit to being quite disappointed.

On the other issue of the Crown, all I can say is that one day it will be obvious and then you will remember what I said. We are all ruled by an elite who have enslaved us by using Lucifer's plan and putting the whole earth up for sale.

With regard to the Book of Mormon, I am convinced the traditional interpretation of Nephi's vision is incorrect. It just does not fit with the facts. It has to relate to some future event in my opinion. Earlier I mentioned that the British monarch is still the head of state in Canada, well that is not all. She is also the head of state in the West Indies and some small South American countries. Indeed some Carribean islands are still British colonies. So we must be loking at a future war to free the Americas from their mother gentiles. Unless, of course, we British are not Gentiles!

Alan

[Deborah]

However, what surprised me was his frank admission that Washington was probably a murderer. Apparently he had a load of French soldiers who had surrendered to him (while he was fighting for the British) shot in cold blood. Apparently Washington actually killed them himself and the French are still livid about it.

I didn't know this about Washington and I must admit to being quite disappointed.

"Probably" assumes an assumption or interpretation. What is the source of such an accusation? I think in most cases we will never know the real story because the parties aren't here to tell their sides. Therefore history can best be judged by the outcomes of what took place and not on what some people though happened when the other side is never told.

[grego]

First, above you call the national debt fake money. Wrong. It is unfortunately very real. It exists because America lacks the political willpower to limit expenditures to our income. The loans, even if no greenbacks physically change hands, fund very concrete goods and services provided by the federal government, which I could list out in excruciating detail.

Dude, it's fake!! Who makes it and how is it "made"? What backs it up? Who does America owe it to? Why is there interest on it? If it can't be paid off, is part of America, such as public lands under UN control, being used as collateral or payment? Who runs the Federal Reserve, and is it a private bank or not? Is it constitutional to have a national private bank? This is some pretty basic stuff and where I would suggest starting. Please, find the names of the board members of the bank. Maybe call someone qualified in the government and ask.

Why can agencies seize property "on suspision" without habeus corpus or trial? Which amendment to the Constitution allows for that? Why are these people stripped of property guilty until proven innocent?

I could go on and on and on, but others on other sites already have. I suggest you investigate.

-=-=-=

On the other issue of the Crown, all I can say is that one day it will be obvious and then you will remember what I said. We are all ruled by an elite who have enslaved us by using Lucifer's plan and putting the whole earth up for sale.

Amen and amen. But there will be little joy in saying, "I told you so."

Those that have ears to hear, will hear; and eyes to see, will see.

-=-=-=

With regard to the Book of Mormon, I am convinced the traditional interpretation of Nephi's vision is incorrect. It just does not fit with the facts. It has to relate to some future event in my opinion. Earlier I mentioned that the British monarch is still the head of state in Canada, well that is not all. She is also the head of state in the West Indies and some small South American countries. Indeed some Carribean islands are still British colonies. So we must be loking at a future war to free the Americas from their mother gentiles. Unless, of course, we British are not Gentiles!

Can I use your comments to start another thread on this topic, Alan?

[spinner]

Dude, it's fake!! Who makes it and how is it "made"? What backs it up? Who does America owe it to? Why is there interest on it? If it can't be paid off, is part of America, such as public lands under UN control, being used as collateral or payment? Who runs the Federal Reserve, and is it a private bank or not? Is it constitutional to have a national private bank? This is some pretty basic stuff and where I would suggest starting. Please, find the names of the board members of the bank. Maybe call someone qualified in the government and ask.

Why can agencies seize property "on suspision" without habeus corpus or trial? Which amendment to the Constitution allows for that? Why are these people stripped of property guilty until proven innocent?

I could go on and on and on, but others on other sites already have. I suggest you investigate.

I actually have investigated. I have a law degree and understand pretty well the legal issues you are bringing up. I work in international finance and also reckon I have pretty sound understanding of our financial systems, otherwise I wouldn't earn the fees that I do. Facts, Grego, facts are what make the world turn, not your scattershot suspicions and vague imputations of any international institution. Now if the research you are suggesting that I conduct involves more links to websites as demonstrably ridiculous as the ones you previously linked to (my rebuttal of which you have conveniently ignored), I pass.

[Alan]

grego

Please be my guest. I would be interested in your views and think a thread on this issue would be enlightening.

With regard to the "fake money" discussion, of course our money is fake. It has been that way for some time but the abandoning of the gold standard in the early 20th century was an obvious clue. Today money is based on confidence alone. The minute confidence is lost the whole thing will come down like a pack of cards. Unfortunately, very few people will see it coming so great hardship will ensue. The question is not whether this will happen but when.

Alan

[Helmuth]

structurecop wrote:

Most responsible historians regard Washington as a very poor military leader.

Thank you, structurecop. That was really my only point initially.

anijen wrote:

Our republics founders there were many outstanding individuals, and yet each of them Franklin, Hamilton, [John] Adams, Jefferson and Madison acknowledged Washington to be his superior.

Jefferson is the only good anti-federalist in your list, and he was very much opposed to the power-grubbing anti-liberty game that was played by Hamilton, John Adams, and Washington. On Madison's loyalties, well, it depends which Madison you mean -- Hamiltonian Madison, Jeffersonian Madison, or (ugh) Madisonian Madison!

Legalbryan wrote:

Wherever he went the troops perked up and morale improved.

I think this claim is inaccurate. Before he took command (on July 2, 1775), the revolutionaries besieging Boston were a happy, zealous, individualistic army. Washington came in and tried to make it more like an authoritarian European-style army, imposing draconian discipline, creating a huge difference in officers vs. normal soldiers' pay whereas previously the difference was small, generally stamping out morale, and ultimately causing 80% of the 17,000 soldiers whose enlistments expired to leave the army (only 3,500 re-enlisted). Perhaps you have evidence the remaining 20% felt perky because of Washington?

Legalbryan wrote:

Is there any man that is more responsible for the American's triumph?

Yes, many. How about Sam Adams? It's safe to say he did far more for the Revolution than Washington.

spinner wrote:

First, to compare the stature and the accomplishments of Washington to those of Ethan Allen (leader of the Green Mountain Boys) or Francis Marion (the Swamp Fox) is laughable. Allen was no patriot, he was a crass opportunist at best, a traitor at worst, and certainly no military genius...

I never claimed the contrary about Allen. The point I was making was that there were lots of things going on in the war other than the battles commanded by Washington, and that the extra-Washingtonian fighters were far more successful than Washington's forces. The guerrillas and independent individualistic militias fought far more intelligently and successfully than Washington's European-model army.

At the height of his fame near the end of the Revolutionary War, he could have easily established a military dictatorship of the kind that so many revolutionary generals have (most notably during the Newburgh Conspiracy).

I am not at all sure this would have been at all easy for him. But yes, to his credit he didn't try any such black and tyrannical evil.

Deborah wrote:

If Washington was such a bad general, then all I have to say is it's a good thing God was behind this nation and the fact that we succeeded is evidence of a greater miracle than I previously thought.

In my opinion the war was largely won by generals and commanders (and non-officers!) other than Washington. And yes, probably won with divine assistance as well.

thesometimesaint wrote:

The Alien and Sedition Acts were signed by John Adams.

You're right, I lose!!!! How could I have been mixed up on that? Anyway, I did know it was during Adams' administration, once, my mind must be rusty, thank you for correcting my error.

Taxing liquor and taking down the Whiskey Rebellion still puts Washington on the side of the Bad Guys in my twisted book of historical revisionism, however.

Alan wrote:

However, what surprised me was his frank admission that Washington was probably a murderer. Apparently he had a load of French soldiers who had surrendered to him (while he was fighting for the British) shot in cold blood.

Well, unless you're going to call all soldiers who have successfully made a kill murderers, and all war murder, I think this label may be a bit strong. These were soldiers he killed, not civilians. Yes, this is a stain on his character, since they had surrendered, but murderer?

~~~~

In conclusion, I do think Washington was a tyrant, but he was not a totally evil person, not as bad a guy as, say, Hamilton (boo!!) and he did give a mighty good Farewell Address when he stepped down from the presidency, so we can thank him for that.

I am an enthusiastic patriot, I love the founding fathers and the principles of liberty this country was based on. Ironically, I think some of those disagreeing most strongly with me and defending Washington are closer to those who are closest to me politically as far as supporting liberty.

Certainly I used to adore Washington as well as y'all do. But because I feel so strongly about the American Revolution, I like to read about it, and in learning history here and there, I have had to conclude that Washington stood for some things and did some things that are absolutely opposed to the principles of liberty that I believe in. And, yes, that he performed less than impressively as general of the Continental Army. And that the "Founding Fathers" we like to talk about were not all one group -- the Founding Fathers that signed the Declaration of Independence were an almost completely different group of people than those who signed the Constitution; read the signatures and you'll see there's virtually no overlap, that only a few names appear on both. And that many of the really good pro-Dec. of Ind. guys (such as Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason and Thomas Jefferson himself) *opposed* the Constitution vehemently, and others (Sam Adams, George Clinton, Ben Franklin) opposed it more moderately.

Anyway, let's not forget the Liberty that is our heritage, and while we watch it today slipping or slipped away, let it not be said that we stood by and did nothing. Though we may disagree on which founders we like, let us fight to restore the Republic they forged.

For Freedom!!!

Helmuth

[Deborah]

In my opinion the war was largely won by generals and commanders (and non-officers!) other than Washington. And yes, probably won with divine assistance as well.

But one of the qualities of a good leader is to be able to choose men under him who do have the abilities he lacks.

I have had to conclude that Washington stood for some things and did some things that are absolutely opposed to the principles of liberty that I believe in. And, yes, that he performed less than impressively as general of the Continental Army. And that the "Founding Fathers" we like to talk about were not all one group -- the Founding Fathers that signed the Declaration of Independence were an almost completely different group of people than those who signed the Constitution

Once again proving the point that God had a hand in all this. He will use men, with whatever faults, to acheive his purposes.

[Helmuth]

But one of the qualities of a good leader is to be able to choose men under him who do have the abilities he lacks.

Washington did not choose the other generals. That was done by the Continental Congress. And the leaders of the independent local militias were, of course, elected by the militia members who were not interested in Washington's opinion, even if distance had not made it logistically impossible for him to offer it. Initially at least, even the militias who had joined themselves with the main army surrounding Boston elected their own leaders; I'm not sure if this democratic practice continued throughout the war or if Washington was able to stomp it out.

So there were not that many lesser officers that Washington actually appointed, is my understanding.