ARCHIVED
 alphajaguars
24/365 Crew
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2001  NC, USA
 
 Posts: 12996 Feedback: 100% (3) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/10/2012 11:11:51 PM
Originally Posted By KingGhidora:
The true motivation for the war came long before the tax issues. It came from the church specifically through George Whitefield to everyone's favorite atheist, Ben Franklin. Yes Franklin was totally motivated by the preaching of Whitefield who preached that the "born to your position in life" stuff they preached in the Church Of England was total bunk. Instead of being obligated to go to church Whitefield taught that a person should be motivated by intense desire to serve God freely. Free will was not a common belief in that day in fact. It was still the early days of the Protestant Reformation and most Protestant churches believed in predestination. Whitefield learned his preaching style and much of his attitude from Johnathan Edwards, the famous fire and brimstone preacher who died shortly before the war. Edwards is often belittled by the left for his hellfire and damnation messages such as the famous "Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God" message he preached. But what really made these people different is they taught that everyone was created equal in God's eyes. Edwards invented the hellfire and damnation style of preaching BTW. He used emotion to encourage the common man to not only serve God but also to preach the word. That was a big no no for the Church Of England and the American version of that church, the Anglican Church. Common men did not preach. Those guys threw all that out the window and encouraged everyone to take up preaching the word. Edwards was old and settled into his church by the time this got going but Whitefield was young and he started another great tradition, the traveling revival meeting that eventually became the tent revival that we still see today. They made the common man feel equal to the kings and queens and nobles of Europe. George Whitefield was a rock star for his time. His name was known throughout the colonies and his revivals were greatly sought and anticipated. THAT is what really motivated the American Revolution. It's also why people like Jefferson detested slavery. They thought (correctly) that even the "lowly black man", often considered sub-human at the time, to be the total equal of every other human on earth including the kings and queens. This became a hugely popular movement in the colonies. It was the biggest reason people felt they no longer needed to be the subjects of the royalty. They wanted self rule and that is what drove the desire to break away from England. Yes France helped out a lot and eventually they adopted the same kind of thinking only in France it became the French Revolution where they threw the old religious leaders out on their ear (bodies no longer attached). It became the reign of terror in France. But they got their inspiration to end the role of the royalty from us. They just failed to come up with a new system of government and they paid a terrible price for it. But the whole basis of the American Revolution was born in the head of Johnathan Edwards and spread by George Whitefield. If you want something that is extremely important and almost unknown (sadly) this is it. BTW I was a history major in college with an area of concentration in this time period. I'm still a historian in that I produce historical documentaries. Just for the record the drunks in the pubs were the ones who most felt the urge to finally become even with the royalty types who had always harassed them with taxes, forced service in the military, and lots of other things. In particular those who weren't property owners were really oppressed. That's why you saw so many of the revolutionary types come out of the taverns. Nicely put! |
|
|
tc556guy
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 NY, USA
 
Posts: 40288 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/11/2012 4:42:05 AM
Originally Posted By KingGhidora:
Just for the record the drunks in the pubs were the ones who most felt the urge to finally become even with the royalty types who had always harassed them with taxes, forced service in the military, and lots of other things. In particular those who weren't property owners were really oppressed. That's why you saw so many of the revolutionary types come out of the taverns. In part because the taverns were the public meeting places for much of society at the time. Although there was absolutely a rougher subset that frequented the pubs and proved useful to those encouraging rebellion....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2012 4:23:58 AM
[Last Edit: 2/12/2012 4:59:55 AM by KingGhidora]
Thanks alphajaguars.
In part because the taverns were the public meeting places for much of society at the time.
Although there was absolutely a rougher subset that frequented the pubs and proved useful to those encouraging rebellion....... That's true. It was the meeting place of not only those on the lowest rungs of the societal ladder but many upstanding citizens frequented there too. But it is also true that those on the lowest rungs of society had the least to lose and the most to gain by creating a society of equals. The Revolution was definitely started by the mob in the street especially in Boston. These people had nothing really so any attempt to change that situation was a great idea to them. And they knew about Whitefield and Edwards making the American church treat everyone as total equals. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York were no different from the common, self taught evangelist in these American churches despite their seats in the House Of Lords and their role in the British monarchy. People are not taught that the Brits considered this blasphemy and so did many Americans (the Tories were almost all Anglican Church members - that's the group that wanted to stay loyal to England). The right to preach the Word Of God was taken from the seminary trained priests and given to the common man who felt his calling to preach. That created a whole lot of very gifted preachers too because only those who could really inspire people were able to start a church and preach all the time. Many places had no churches before that but the evangelists would come to town and before long they would build a church. It didn't say Anglican Church on the sign outside either. The whole movement was called the Great Awakening. There was a second Great Awakening later too. Whitefield wasn't exactly welcomed by the established churches like the Anglicans. They usually refused to let him preach in their church so he would have a revival anywhere he felt like it. He was pelted with everything from rotten fruit to dead cats too. Many really didn't like him. But many others loved him and his message. Schools have totally abandoned teaching the role of religion in the Revolution because the left wants us all to believe that our government was not formed from Christian ideals but the very notion of the equality of all men, which was central to the desire to break away from royal rule, came directly from the churches here in the US. They would rather us believe the whole motivation for the Revolution was that the mobs in the street got tired of Limey taxes. That just isn't true. Certainly that was part of it but the Americans knew they were being taxed to pay for the French and Indian War. They just didn't want to give money to the royal government of England. It was far more important than complaining about taxes. Most of that mob they talk about didn't pay that much in tax in the first place. Yes they got really ticked about the Tea Tax because that is the one tax that really hit home with that mob. But there were far more taxes that came before the Tea Tax. The Stamp Act was a far bigger imposition when it came to the amount of tax collected. The plain fact is it was pretty dang hard to get money from people who didn't have any money and the mob didn't have any money. It's the same today. The people who make very little pay very little in tax. Of course they do pay Social Security which is quickly stolen by the government (which is the same thing that is happening to the Post Office BTW - the government stole their retirement money and they have to bankrupt the USPS to make it look like the fault of the postal worker for daring to make a living wage). You just can't get blood from a turnip as they say. Anyone who tells you that religion had nothing to do with the Revolution is an uneducated person. It probably isn't his fault but it's true. Religion had everything to do with the Revolution. Too many special interest groups, on both sides of the aisle in Congress, don't want you to know that because it means they aren't the ultimate power in our system of government. From the beginning God was considered the ultimate power in our government. "We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights..." including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They don't want you pursuing happiness. They want you working for them and that includes Dems and Repubs. |
|
|
|
alphajaguars
24/365 Crew
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2001 NC, USA
Posts: 13147 Feedback: 100% (3) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/12/2012 7:59:35 AM
Originally Posted By KingGhidora:
Thanks alphajaguars. In part because the taverns were the public meeting places for much of society at the time.
Although there was absolutely a rougher subset that frequented the pubs and proved useful to those encouraging rebellion....... That's true. It was the meeting place of not only those on the lowest rungs of the societal ladder but many upstanding citizens frequented there too. But it is also true that those on the lowest rungs of society had the least to lose and the most to gain by creating a society of equals. The Revolution was definitely started by the mob in the street especially in Boston. These people had nothing really so any attempt to change that situation was a great idea to them. And they knew about Whitefield and Edwards making the American church treat everyone as total equals. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York were no different from the common, self taught evangelist in these American churches despite their seats in the House Of Lords and their role in the British monarchy. People are not taught that the Brits considered this blasphemy and so did many Americans (the Tories were almost all Anglican Church members - that's the group that wanted to stay loyal to England). The right to preach the Word Of God was taken from the seminary trained priests and given to the common man who felt his calling to preach. That created a whole lot of very gifted preachers too because only those who could really inspire people were able to start a church and preach all the time. Many places had no churches before that but the evangelists would come to town and before long they would build a church. It didn't say Anglican Church on the sign outside either. The whole movement was called the Great Awakening. There was a second Great Awakening later too. Whitefield wasn't exactly welcomed by the established churches like the Anglicans. They usually refused to let him preach in their church so he would have a revival anywhere he felt like it. He was pelted with everything from rotten fruit to dead cats too. Many really didn't like him. But many others loved him and his message. Schools have totally abandoned teaching the role of religion in the Revolution because the left wants us all to believe that our government was not formed from Christian ideals but the very notion of the equality of all men, which was central to the desire to break away from royal rule, came directly from the churches here in the US. They would rather us believe the whole motivation for the Revolution was that the mobs in the street got tired of Limey taxes. That just isn't true. Certainly that was part of it but the Americans knew they were being taxed to pay for the French and Indian War. They just didn't want to give money to the royal government of England. It was far more important than complaining about taxes. Most of that mob they talk about didn't pay that much in tax in the first place. Yes they got really ticked about the Tea Tax because that is the one tax that really hit home with that mob. But there were far more taxes that came before the Tea Tax. The Stamp Act was a far bigger imposition when it came to the amount of tax collected. The plain fact is it was pretty dang hard to get money from people who didn't have any money and the mob didn't have any money. It's the same today. The people who make very little pay very little in tax. Of course they do pay Social Security which is quickly stolen by the government (which is the same thing that is happening to the Post Office BTW - the government stole their retirement money and they have to bankrupt the USPS to make it look like the fault of the postal worker for daring to make a living wage). You just can't get blood from a turnip as they say. Anyone who tells you that religion had nothing to do with the Revolution is an uneducated person. It probably isn't his fault but it's true. Religion had everything to do with the Revolution. Too many special interest groups, on both sides of the aisle in Congress, don't want you to know that because it means they aren't the ultimate power in our system of government. From the beginning God was considered the ultimate power in our government. "We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights..." including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They don't want you pursuing happiness. They want you working for them and that includes Dems and Repubs. I have to assume you know about David Barton and Wall Builders. He taught me about this guy who I use as an example of the leaders we had during the Revolution that we don't learn about anymore. |
|
|
tc556guy
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 40344 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/12/2012 10:33:31 AM
Originally Posted By KingGhidora:
Schools have totally abandoned teaching the role of religion in the Revolution because the left wants us all to believe that our government was not formed from Christian ideals but the very notion of the equality of all men, which was central to the desire to break away from royal rule, came directly from the churches here in the US. They would rather us believe the whole motivation for the Revolution was that the mobs in the street got tired of Limey taxes. That just isn't true. Certainly that was part of it but the Americans knew they were being taxed to pay for the French and Indian War. They just didn't want to give money to the royal government of England. It was far more important than complaining about taxes. Most of that mob they talk about didn't pay that much in tax in the first place. Yes they got really ticked about the Tea Tax because that is the one tax that really hit home with that mob. But there were far more taxes that came before the Tea Tax. The Stamp Act was a far bigger imposition when it came to the amount of tax collected. The plain fact is it was pretty dang hard to get money from people who didn't have any money and the mob didn't have any money. It's the same today. The people who make very little pay very little in tax. Of course they do pay Social Security which is quickly stolen by the government (which is the same thing that is happening to the Post Office BTW - the government stole their retirement money and they have to bankrupt the USPS to make it look like the fault of the postal worker for daring to make a living wage). You just can't get blood from a turnip as they say. Anyone who tells you that religion had nothing to do with the Revolution is an uneducated person. It probably isn't his fault but it's true. Religion had everything to do with the Revolution. Too many special interest groups, on both sides of the aisle in Congress, don't want you to know that because it means they aren't the ultimate power in our system of government. From the beginning God was considered the ultimate power in our government. "We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights..." including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They don't want you pursuing happiness. They want you working for them and that includes Dems and Repubs. It was motivated by self-interest. THAT isn't what is usually taught now. And by self-interests, I mean the ones who were the most vocal tended to be the ones who'd have benefited the most from not having that expense. And yes, it also isn't usually taught that the taxes the colonials were being asked to pay were but a fraction of what was being paid in England. Thats one thing that blew the Crowns mind.,..they felt that they were asking the colonists to start carrying what was only their fair share of the costs of governance. Yes, religion was more important in the day because, along with the poubs and taverns, the church ( not with a big C ) played so much importance in the daily lives, particularly in New England. Of course you have to take into account the colonial differences on that issue. the Southern colonists didn't exactly look on the New Englanders with much love or trust, seeing as how those foilks were only but a couple of generations removed from some hard core religious fundamentalism. There was a whole lot less unity between the colonies that is generally taught now. Some had to be practically dragged kicking and screaming into the Revolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2012 2:10:10 PM
[Last Edit: 2/12/2012 2:11:52 PM by KingGhidora]
There were a lot of reasons the Revolution started for sure. Self interest was definitely high on the list. But what drove a big part of the self interest in many people was the idea that all people were created equal. That was totally foreign to the royal government and to the whole of England really and to much of America. I really just pointed it out because the OP asked for information that wasn't commonly known about the Revolution. I didn't mean to imply it was the only reason the war started. There were a lot of them but it did explain a lot of why the Americans, who did assume they protected themselves for the most part with their freely owned firearms, didn't want to pay their taxes. It mixed right in with their self interest too. They were used to not paying taxes. But remember the battle cry was about taxation without representation. They were complaining about being governed by the monarchy. They hated King George. They called him a tyrant loudly and often.
There are many things about the Revolution that aren't taught now. It's almost as bad as the mythology period where Washington and his cherry tree became famous. And it's true that leaders like Muhlenberg are totally overlooked. |
|
|
|
tc556guy
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 40352 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/12/2012 2:49:20 PM
Originally Posted By KingGhidora:
There are many things about the Revolution that aren't taught now. It's almost as bad as the mythology period where Washington and his cherry tree became famous. And it's true that leaders like Muhlenberg are totally overlooked. Part of that problem are folks who are HAPPY having the folks in their history portrayed as faultess icons, and berate modern historical methods as "revisionism" How long was Bens advice to younger men on older women hushed up because it was viewed as unseemly to be coming from a Founder. |
|
|
Bohr_Adam
Caliphate Sleeper Agent
Life Member
Joined: Feb 2001 IN, USA
Posts: 47933 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/12/2012 2:58:27 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By KingGhidora:
There are many things about the Revolution that aren't taught now. It's almost as bad as the mythology period where Washington and his cherry tree became famous. And it's true that leaders like Muhlenberg are totally overlooked. Part of that problem are folks who are HAPPY having the folks in their history portrayed as faultess icons, and berate modern historical methods as "revisionism" How long was Bens advice to younger men on older women hushed up because it was viewed as unseemly to be coming from a Founder. Wasn't it in his autobiography? I know I read it when I was quite young, and we had that book at home. |
|
|
tc556guy
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 40355 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/12/2012 3:05:49 PM
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Wasn't it in his autobiography? I know I read it when I was quite young, and we had that book at home. There was a push in the 19th and early 20th century to bury the piece. Its experienced a re-birth in the 20th century |
|
|
alphajaguars
24/365 Crew
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2001 NC, USA
Posts: 13160 Feedback: 100% (3) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/12/2012 3:44:12 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By KingGhidora:
There are many things about the Revolution that aren't taught now. It's almost as bad as the mythology period where Washington and his cherry tree became famous. And it's true that leaders like Muhlenberg are totally overlooked. Part of that problem are folks who are HAPPY having the folks in their history portrayed as faultess icons, and berate modern historical methods as "revisionism" How long was Bens advice to younger men on older women hushed up because it was viewed as unseemly to be coming from a Founder. I have no issue with FACTUAL discussions of the Founder's faults as humans. Where I take exception is when people do not use the original sources for their information. For example, there was a book written about Washington in 1926 that flipped the history on its head. There was not a single footnote in that entire book supporting the author's opinions. However, it is now regularly used as a source for other works that keep those fallicies alive. I also take exception with the "cherry tree" story for the same reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2012 9:51:45 PM
[Last Edit: 2/12/2012 10:01:15 PM by KingGhidora]
Part of that problem are folks who are HAPPY having the folks in their history portrayed as faultess icons, and berate modern historical methods as "revisionism" How long was Bens advice to younger men on older women hushed up because it was viewed as unseemly to be coming from a Founder. I learned that Franklin was promiscuous when I was in elementary school. Nothing was hid except the steamy details that aren't usually appropriate for people 11 years old. Your post implies there hasn't been revisionism in the way history is taught in recent years. That's just not true. The fact that it is claimed consistently that the US was formed without any influence of Christianity is a perfect example. That's just as blatantly revisionist as the cherry tree story. Now students aren't taught much of anything about the founders except that Jefferson got his slave pregnant and Franklin was a philanderer. The chances of recently educated students knowing who Locke and Hume were is extremely remote. As for those who want "faultless icons" that thinking hasn't been popular since 1840. Seriously. That's the time period the history book that taught that bunk was tossed out of schools. It was a "biography" about Washington written by Parson Weems and it was only popular for a few decades when more reliable reading material wasn't available. Weems sold books as a traveling salesman and he sold a lot of his own works. Don't you think you might want to portray current attitudes accurately? I don't like revisionism from anyone and there has been plenty of it from the education establishment in recent years only now it's all negative. That's probably worse than a positive spin actually because it makes people hate their own country instead of giving them a role model even if it's a false role model. At least they get taught some morality by the cherry tree story. They are taught to be immoral when they hear about Franklin's dalliances. And I don't want to debate the relative nature of morality. I've seen too many friends die from the thinking that came out of the "sexual revolution". |
|
|
|
Bohr_Adam
Caliphate Sleeper Agent
Life Member
Joined: Feb 2001 IN, USA
Posts: 47989 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/12/2012 10:00:19 PM
Originally Posted By KingGhidora:
Part of that problem are folks who are HAPPY having the folks in their history portrayed as faultess icons, and berate modern historical methods as "revisionism" How long was Bens advice to younger men on older women hushed up because it was viewed as unseemly to be coming from a Founder. I learned that Franklin was promiscuous when I was in elementary school. Nothing was hid except the steamy details that aren't usually appropriate for people 11 years old. Your post implies there hasn't be revisionism in the way history is taught in recent years. That's just not true. The fact that it is claimed consistently that the US was formed without any influence of Christianity is a perfect example. That's just as blatantly revisionist as the cherry tree story. Now students aren't taught much of anything about the founders except that Jefferson got his slave pregnant and Franklin was a philanderer. The chances of recently educated students knowing who Locke and Hume were is extremely remote. I don't like revisionism from anyone and there has been plenty of it from the education establishment in recent years only now it's all negative. That's probably worse than a positive spin actually because it makes people hate their own country instead of giving them a role model even if it's a false role model. At least they get taught some morality by the cherry tree story. They are taught to be immoral when they hear about Franklin's dalliances. And I don't want to debate the relative nature of morality. I've seen too many friends die from the thinking that came out of the "sexual revolution". The only place I have ever heard anyone speak of the US being formed without any influence of Christianity, is in right wing sensationalist hit pieces claiming that it was is being taught. Same with the "kids can't pray in schools now." The facts are alway different, when you start to dig. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2012 10:06:55 PM
[Last Edit: 2/12/2012 10:17:34 PM by KingGhidora]
The only place I have ever heard anyone speak of the US being formed without any influence of Christianity, is in right wing sensationalist hit pieces claiming that it was is being taught. Same with the "kids can't pray in schools now." The facts are alway different, when you start to dig.
Good grief. Maybe if you did some digging you'd see how wrong you are. I had a debate with a high school honors history class about the history of the US. I am also aware of the popularity of revisionist historians like Howard Zinn and I know how popular he is on the college campus of today. I've worked closely on projects with people with doctorates in history in recent years. I certainly know what he had to say. This thread has turned political now so it's useless IMO. I won't bang my head against a brick wall. You're wrong sir. I know that for a fact. Maybe you should ask an historian (me). But I won't be here. Goodbye. If you want to read about true revisionism read this article. |
|
|
|
tc556guy
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 40389 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/13/2012 12:30:48 AM
Originally Posted By KingGhidora:
I learned that Franklin was promiscuous when I was in elementary school. Nothing was hid except the steamy details that aren't usually appropriate for people 11 years old. Your post implies there hasn't been revisionism in the way history is taught in recent years. How old are you. The stuff I am talking about as far as hiding Bens stuff was a 19th and early 20th century phenomenon. Of course there have been recent attempts at political correctness in teaching history...but a lot of whats being taught now is also an attempt to correct mistakes of the past when an inclusive history was NOT being taught. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/23/2012 8:50:15 PM
If you read "American Insurgents, American Patriots", it gives a great insight into the role of religion among the
revolutionaries. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2012 3:24:11 PM
Crispus Attucks was one - supposedlythe first- man to die in the Boston Tea Party massacre. He was black or of mixed heritage.
|
|
|
|
tc556guy
Member
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2004 NY, USA
Posts: 44316 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/8/2012 5:45:19 PM
Originally Posted By banzai70:
Crispus Attucks was one - supposedlythe first- man to die in the Boston Tea Party massacre. He was black or of mixed heritage. This has actually been talked about quite a bit, especially with the movement over the last 20+ years of being more inclusive to minority contributions in US history |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2012 1:04:10 PM
Do one on what life was like for the average grunt private in either/both armies.
How about the submarine attack the colonists tried against a British ship? What about Benedict Arnold making a bunch boats then attacking the British navy, tying it up long enough that winter set in screwing with their invasion plans? |
|
|
|
PBIR
I want you to take a step back...
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2004 TN, USA
Posts: 30389 Feedback: 100% (45) Link To This Post |
Posted: 5/13/2012 1:10:42 PM
One of my favs is that the colonies had official religions, most of which stayed in place well past statehood and into the 19th century. NH & NC didn't remove theirs until close to the 20th century.
|
|
ARCHIVED
