Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In London there is a statue of Cromwell in front of Parliament staring down a bronze head of Charles I on Westminster Abby.
I laughed every time I walked in between them.
There is also a plaque on Gloucester Place that states that Benedict Arnold died at that location, a great American patriot.
God dam history if fun!!!!!!!!!!!!
Arnold was considered one of if not the first, hero of the Revolution. HE was a Patriot who was screwed over by the armchair warriors and other misfits. He ended up betraying his cause after his cause betrayed him.
holy shit you just said a whole lot of shit, and I agreed with it all. LOL
Arnold's service to the revolution unquestionable was great.
He fought and was wounded for the revolution. His actions were heroic without question and yes he probably was still another of those people who save the Republic in its dark hours.
And he was passed over for advancement because of politics and it pretty obviously was unjust
Nevertheless his treason was a vile act for which he should have been hung.
Major Andre, swung for being a spy and he wasn't a even a traitor.
"All revolutions devour their own children." -Ernst Rohm
---
His treason was a vile act. I just always wonder how many of his compatriots would have done differently.
Not true. Petty Jealousy? You're mad.
Never mad, just wrong at times. Arnold, although wounded truly by the actions of the Congress, was a still ranking Major General and Military Governor of Philadelphia. Peggy Shippen captured not only his heart for herself but his loyalty for the Crown. The Shippens were Loyalists. The history is clear on these matters.
Ahh, psychobabble biographies? Motives are known? History is clear on details we would both agree on. The correlations you draw to form conclusions are where we would most likely disagree. Ben Franklin's son was a Torie, no? He did fight with his son, though. There were many rebels with loyalist friend and relatives. Guilt by association is a weak argument.
Sure, the wife most likely fed his angst, but won over a strong man like him over to the other side -- against everything he fought for, bled for, spent his fortune for? Romantic nonsense posing as historical fact. Those who draw romantic conclusions from unproven premises are speaking psychobabble.
Never mad, just wrong at times. Arnold, although wounded truly by the actions of the Congress, was a still ranking Major General and Military Governor of Philadelphia. Peggy Shippen captured not only his heart for herself but his loyalty for the Crown. The Shippens were Loyalists. The history is clear on these matters.
Ahh, psychobabble biographies? Motives are known? History is clear on details we would both agree on. The correlations you draw to form conclusions are where we would most likely disagree. Ben Franklin's son was a Torie, no? He did fight with his son, though. There were many rebels with loyalist friend and relatives. Guilt by association is a weak argument.
Sure, the wife most likely fed his angst, but won over a strong man like him over to the other side -- against everything he fought for, bled for, spent his fortune for? Romantic nonsense posing as historical fact. Those who draw romantic conclusions from unproven premises are speaking psychobabble.
You are psychobabbling Dante. Do you have a fevah? To suggest that Peggy's loyalties did not affect that of Arnold makes reason stare. She offered all the important motives for betrayal~sex, money, power~either in her own person or through access to others who could offer those enticements.
Arnold's service to the revolution unquestionable was great.
He fought and was wounded for the revolution. His actions were heroic without question and yes he probably was still another of those people who save the Republic in its dark hours.
And he was passed over for advancement because of politics and it pretty obviously was unjust
Nevertheless his treason was a vile act for which he should have been hung.
Major Andre, swung for being a spy and he wasn't a even a traitor.
"All revolutions devour their own children." -Ernst Rohm
---
His treason was a vile act. I just always wonder how many of his compatriots would have done differently.
Interesting question. I know of several minor acts of betrayal and treason but not one of Arnold's magnitude, but that does not mean there wasn't another one like Arnold.
Ahh, psychobabble biographies? Motives are known? History is clear on details we would both agree on. The correlations you draw to form conclusions are where we would most likely disagree. Ben Franklin's son was a Torie, no? He did fight with his son, though. There were many rebels with loyalist friend and relatives. Guilt by association is a weak argument.
Sure, the wife most likely fed his angst, but won over a strong man like him over to the other side -- against everything he fought for, bled for, spent his fortune for? Romantic nonsense posing as historical fact. Those who draw romantic conclusions from unproven premises are speaking psychobabble.
You are psychobabbling Dante. Do you have a fevah? To suggest that Peggy's loyalties did not affect that of Arnold makes reason stare. She offered all the important motives for betrayal~sex, money, power~either in her own person or through access to others who could offer those enticements.
that's just it. I never said "Peggy's loyalties did not affect that of Arnold"
keep making up arguments and winning them -- against yourself. your attempt to make life imitate some artistic romantic notions is amusing.
You are psychobabbling Dante. Do you have a fevah? To suggest that Peggy's loyalties did not affect that of Arnold makes reason stare. She offered all the important motives for betrayal~sex, money, power~either in her own person or through access to others who could offer those enticements.
that's just it. I never said "Peggy's loyalties did not affect that of Arnold"
keep making up arguments and winning them -- against yourself. your attempt to make life imitate some artistic romantic notions is amusing.
What you said is immaterial and has no weight in the argument. The evidence is quite clear that Peggy was the lever in moving Arnold to the other side. You have offered nothing to the contrary.
It was said at the time, I believe, that the actual causes of the colonial revolution of 1776 would never be known. The causes assigned by our schoolbooks may be dismissed as trivial; the various partisan and propagandist views of that struggle and its origins may be put down as incompetent. Great evidential value may be attached to the long line of adverse commercial legislation laid down by the British State from 1651 onward, especially to that portion of it which was enacted after the merchant-State established itself firmly in England in consequence of the events of 1688. This legislation included the Navigation Acts, the Trade Acts, acts regulating the colonial currency, the act of 1752 regulating the process of levy and distress, and the procedures leading up to the establishment of the Board of Trade in 1696. These directly affected the industrial and commercial interests in the colonies, though just how seriously is perhaps an open question – enough at any rate, beyond doubt, to provoke deep resentment.
Over and above these, however, if the reader will put himself back into the ruling passion of the time, he will at once appreciate the import of two matters which have for some reason escaped the attention of historians. The first of these is the attempt of the British State to limit the exercise of the political means in respect of rental-values. In 1763 it forbade the colonists to take up lands lying westward of the source of any river flowing through the Atlantic seaboard. The dead-line thus established ran so as to cut off from preemption about half of Pennsylvania and half of Virginia and everything to the west thereof. This was serious. With the mania for speculation running as high as it did, with the consciousness of opportunity, real or fancied, having become so acute and so general, this ruling affected everybody. One can get some idea of its effect by imagining the state of mind of our people at large if stock-gambling had suddenly been outlawed at the beginning of the last great boom in Wall Street a few years ago.
For by this time the colonists had begun to be faintly aware of the illimitable resources of the
country lying westward; they had learned just enough about them to fire their imagination and
their avarice to a white heat. The seaboard had been pretty well taken up, the freeholding farmer had been pushed back farther and farther, population was coming in steadily, the maritime towns were growing. Under these conditions, “western lands” had become a centre of attraction. Rental values depended on population, the population was bound to expand, and the one general direction in which it could expand was westward, where lay an immense and incalculably rich domain waiting for preemption. What could be more natural than that the colonists should itch to get their hands on this territory, and exploit it for themselves alone, and on their own terms, without risk of arbitrary interference by the British State? – and this of necessity meant political independence. It takes no great stress of imagination to see that anyone in those circumstances would have felt that way, and that colonial resentment against the arbitrary limitation which the edict of 1763 put upon the political means must therefore have been great.
The actual state of land-speculation during the colonial period will give a fair idea of the
probabilities in the case. Most of it was done on the company-system; a number of adventurers would unite, secure a grant of land, survey it, and then sell it off as speedily as they could. Their aim was a quick turnover; they did not, as a rule, contemplate holding the land, much less settling it – in short, their ventures were a pure gamble in rental-values.13 Among these pre-revolutionary enterprises was the Ohio company, formed in 1748 with a grant of half a million acres; the Loyal Company, which like the Ohio Company, was composed of Virginians; the Transylvania, the Vandalia, Scioto, Indiana, Wabash, Illinois, Susquehanna, and others whose holdings were smaller.
It is interesting to observe the names of persons concerned in these undertakings; one can not escape the significance of this connexion in view of their attitude towards the revolution, and their subsequent career as statesmen and patriots. For example, aside from his individual ventures, General Washington was a member of the Ohio Company, and a prime mover in organizing the Mississippi Company. He also conceived the scheme of the Potomac Company, which was designed to raise the rental-value of western holdings by affording an outlet for their produce by canal and portage to the Potomac River, and thence to the seaboard. This enterprise determined the establishment of the national capital in its present most ineligible situation, for the proposed terminus of the canal was at that point. Washington picked up some lots in the city that bears his name, but in common with other early speculators, he did not make much money out of them; they were appraised at about $20,000 when he died.
Patrick Henry was an inveterate and voracious engrosser of land lying beyond the dead-line set by the British State; later he was heavily involved in the affairs of one of the notorious Yazoo companies, operating in Georgia. He seems to have been most unscrupulous. His company’s holdings in Georgia, amounting to more than ten million acres, were to be paid for in Georgia scrip, which was much depreciated. Henry bought up all these certificates that he could get his hands on, at ten cents on the dollar, and made a great profit on them by their rise in value when Hamilton put through his measure for having the central government assume the debts they represented. Undoubtedly it was this trait of unrestrained avarice which earned him the dislike of Mr. Jefferson, who said, rather contemptuously, that he was “insatiable in money.”
Benjamin Franklin’s thrifty mind turned cordially to the project of the Vandalia Company, and he acted successfully as promoter for it in England in 1766. Timothy Pickering, who was Secretary of State under Washington and John Adams, went on record in 1796 that “all I am now worth was gained by speculations in land.” Silas Deane, emissary of the Continental Congress in France, was interested in the Illinois and Wabash Companies, as was Robert Morris, who managed the revolution’s finances; as was also James Wilson, who became a justice of the Supreme Court and a mighty man in post-revolutionary land-grabbing. Wolcott of Connecticut, and Stiles, president of Yale College, held stock in the Susquehanna Company; so did Peletiah Webster, Ethan Allen, and Jonathan Trumbull, the “Brother Jonathan,” whose name was long a sobriquet for the typical American, and is still sometimes so used. James Duane, the first mayor of New York City, carried on some quite considerable speculative undertakings; and however indisposed one may feel towards entertaining the fact, so did the “Father of the Revolution” himself – Samuel Adams.
A mere common-sense view of the situation would indicate that the British State’s interference with a free exercise of the political means was at least as great an incitement to revolution as its interference, through the Navigation Acts, and the Trade Acts, with a free exercise of the economic means. In the nature of things it would be a greater incitement, both because it affected a more numerous class of persons, and because speculation in land-values represented much easier money. Allied with this is the second matter which seems to me deserving of notice, and which has never been properly reckoned with, as far as I know, in studies of the period.
See, Dante, you fail on this, cause your logic imploded.
Another take on the American Revolution. From Albert Jay Nock's "Our Enemy, the State (http://mises.org/etexts/ourenemy.pdf) A bit of a read, but instructive.
It was said at the time, I believe, that the actual causes of the colonial revolution of 1776 would never be known. The causes assigned by our schoolbooks may be dismissed as trivial; the various partisan and propagandist views of that struggle and its origins may be put down as incompetent. Great evidential value may be attached to the long line of adverse commercial legislation laid down by the British State from 1651 onward, especially to that portion of it which was enacted after the merchant-State established itself firmly in England in consequence of the events of 1688. This legislation included the Navigation Acts, the Trade Acts, acts regulating the colonial currency, the act of 1752 regulating the process of levy and distress, and the procedures leading up to the establishment of the Board of Trade in 1696. These directly affected the industrial and commercial interests in the colonies, though just how seriously is perhaps an open question – enough at any rate, beyond doubt, to provoke deep resentment.
Over and above these, however, if the reader will put himself back into the ruling passion of the time, he will at once appreciate the import of two matters which have for some reason escaped the attention of historians....
...
next time give an address with a link to the pdf file. pdf files can be viewed without adobe. they can be put in html form for viewing on the web
next time give an address with a link to the pdf file. pdf files can be viewed without adobe. they can be put in html form for viewing on the web
Sorry about that. I'm still fairly new at using a computer, so I will keep that in mind. I honestly didn't know that could cause a problem.
As to what Mr. Nock wrote I stand behind it. I can't think of any conflict in history that didn't involve some people wanting to take what belongs to others.
Lew Rockwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rockwell met Murray Rothbard for the first time in 1975, while working for Hillsdale. Rockwell credits Rothbard with convincing him to wholly reject statism:
"It was clear to me at the time that Murray Rothbard was Mises's successor, and I followed his writings carefully. I first met him 1975, and knew immediately that he was a kindred spirit.... I cannot remember the day that I finally came around to the position that the state is unnecessary and destructive by its nature that it cannot improve on, and indeed only destroys, the social and economic system that grows out of property rights, exchange, and natural social authority but I do know that it was Rothbard who finally convinced me to take this last step."
Statism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It may refer to the ideology of statism that holds that:
Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The concept of statism, which as seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.
next time give an address with a link to the pdf file. pdf files can be viewed without adobe. they can be put in html form for viewing on the web
Sorry about that. I'm still fairly new at using a computer, so I will keep that in mind. I honestly didn't know that could cause a problem.
As to what Mr. Nock wrote I stand behind it. I can't think of any conflict in history that didn't involve some people wanting to take what belongs to others.
