America's founding fathers

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I think I know relatively a lot about them and what they did but what is the general left thinking opinion on them? Well, most of them were slave owners <_< , and didn&#39;t they not originally want to have the Bill of Rights in the constitution until the anti federalists had pressed it enough? They were also against letting blacks and women participate in elections and politics. So, they suck,(I think most of you will agree) and don&#39;t deserve to have there face on every single piece of money.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by The wise old [email protected] 17 2004, 03:29 PM
I think I know relatively a lot about them and what they did but what is the general left thinking opinion on them? Well, most of them were slave owners <_< , and didn&#39;t they not originally want to have the Bill of Rights in the constitution until the anti federalists had pressed it enough? They were also against letting blacks and women participate in elections and politics. So, they suck,(I think most of you will agree) and don&#39;t deserve to have there face on every single piece of money.
Bunch of elitist, anti-democratic old wankers who founded a nation that&#39;s never broken the habit. :D

It always makes me laugh how the right always laud them as heroes of democracy and decry the left for supporting true heroes like Che.

[antieverything]

The true intentions of the Constitution are clouded by the propaganda that was released surrounding it...the sort of stuff you read in college like the Federalist Papers.

The good stuff is the actual Constitutional debates wherein Madison carried the day stating that "the primary responsibility of government" is to protect the "minority of the oppulent" against the "majority that toils under all the hardships of life and secrety sighs for a more equal distribution of its blessings." There was only one disenting voice...which was crushed. Jefferson, who tended to be somewhat of a real democrat, was out of the country at the time though it isn&#39;t clear whether it would have made a difference had be been there. Correspondance suggests he agreed with Madison&#39;s reasoning.

An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labour under all the hardships of life, & secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this Country, but symtoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded against on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded against? Among other means by the establishment of a body in the Govt. sufficiently respectable for its wisdom & virtue, to aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice by throwing its weight into that scale. Such being the objects of the second branch in the proposed Govt. he thought a considerable duration ought to be given to it. He did not conceive that the term of nine years could threaten any real danger; but in pursuing his particular ideas on the subject, he should require that the long term allowed to the 2nd branch should not commence till such a period of life, as would render a perpetual disqualification to be re-elected little inconvenient either in a public or private view. He observed that as it was more than probable we were now digesting a plan which in its operation would decide for ever the fate of Republican Govt. we ought not only to provide every guard to liberty that its preservation could require, but be equally careful to supply the defects which our own experience had particularly pointed out.

--James Madison

So, you see...that while elites don&#39;t like to talk about class in front of the bewildered herd, it is at the forefront of the debate when they are behind closed doors&#33;

[Leninist thug]

James Madison eats shit&#33;

"A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State. In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists."

The Federalists # 10


Read an An ECONOMIC INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...697634?v=glance (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029024803/002-0168444-2697634?v=glance)

[Sabocat]

"More than 40% of all presidents have come from upper class/elite.

15% from upper & upper middle

More than 25% from upper middle class

15% came from middle and lower middle class.

Only Andrew Johnson came from lower class."

Lies My Teacher Told Me

James W. Loewen



All the founding fathers worked and wrote to portect the propertied class.

[timbaly]

I think the general leftist consensus is that they were a step above the British Imperial government and that they were a step towards a morecapitalistic society. Their ideas aboiut slaves and women were just a sign of the time, so it&#39;s not as bad as if someone thought that way in today&#39;s world. But I bet someone will argue against that.

[LuZhiming]

....The fact that the role these fascists had in exterminating Native Americans hasn&#39;t even been mentioned yet is a bit strange. Anyone who commits such atrocities should recieve nothing but contempt towards the men&#39;s actions from leftists.

[insurgency03]

liars all of them thats all i got to say.

[KickMcCann]

well, Thomas Paine was quite good, and once the "founding fathers" showed their true aristcratic colours, he abandoned support for them and left America. He then went to France where he helped initiate the French Revolution.
Many people in America have never heard of him, and because he was probably the most leftist out of all of them, those who do know of Thomas Paine do not respect him or honour him in the same tone as say washington or jefferson.

all they did was replace a English aristocracy with an American one

[Anarchist Freedom]

I think what the founding father did was a great thing and thomas jefferson and ben franklin are revolutionaries if ive ever seen one. Having slaves was bad but at the time they didnt know any better because thats the way society was back then. They came out with an idea that has never been tryed really sadly it went down the shitter because of people like bush. I mean a quote like "revolution is like thunder we need it every now and then".

[Sabocat]

Yeah, the founding fathers were great. Wiped out the indigenous peoples, stole their land and then got a bunch of peasant farmers and workers convinced to fight for freedom, when what it really was about was freedom from any taxation, and the right to grab land and resources.

After defeating England, what did the peasant farmers, workers, indigenous indians, and women actually get? A new boss...same as the old boss that&#39;s what.

Jefferson at one point owned about 300 slaves. In the day, when a "master" died, sometimes, they would free their slaves. Jefferson freed one on his death. He passed the rest on like equity. Truly a great deed for a man that believed all men were created equal eh?

[Hampton]

In Jefferson&#39;s "Notes on the State of Virginia" he conjectured:

Blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the white in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them? This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people.

He went on to say that if blacks are to be free they must "be removed beyond the reach of mixture" with whites.

And owning another human being is never in style, no matter the day or age.

[Hate Is Art]

I think what the founding father did was a great thing and thomas jefferson and ben franklin are revolutionaries if ive ever seen one. Having slaves was bad but at the time they didnt know any better because thats the way society was back then. They came out with an idea that has never been tryed really sadly it went down the shitter because of people like bush. I mean a quote like "revolution is like thunder we need it every now and then".

When people right this utterly contemptible bullshit it just pisses me off> How can you consider owning another human being, treating them like shit paying them nothing, using them like a whore ever excusable.

So what it was 200 odd years ago, it&#39;s still a fucking joke you idiot&#33;&#33; It was never right to exploit people like that and it never will be.

In 300 years will we say that the holocaust was acceptable because " they didnt know any better because thats the way society was back then."

Utter Shite.

[Se7en]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 08:41 AM
well, Thomas Paine was quite good, and once the "founding fathers" showed their true aristcratic colours, he abandoned support for them and left America. He then went to France where he helped initiate the French Revolution.
Many people in America have never heard of him, and because he was probably the most leftist out of all of them, those who do know of Thomas Paine do not respect him or honour him in the same tone as say washington or jefferson.

all they did was replace a English aristocracy with an American one
I have a lot of respect for Tom Paine.

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."

[fuerzasocialista]

Founding Fathers that built a country on the back of genocide, slavery and tyranny. In history class the teachers try to fluff it up and make it sound like it wasn&#39;t so bad but lets be honest, you can&#39;t cover up the facts no matter how much you try.

[Munchimoniam]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 02:05 AM
....The fact that the role these fascists had in exterminating Native Americans hasn&#39;t even been mentioned yet is a bit strange.
That word is flung around way to often. Please demonstrate the links between the doctrines of the founding fathers and what Mussolini called fascism.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history...1/muss_fascism/ (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/undergrad/modules/hi153/bibliography/week_11/muss_fascism/)

I can see none.

[Al Creed]

Washington was a drunk, Adams was an idiot, Jefferson was a living contradiction, and Franklin wanted to conquor Canada.

The only one worth their shit was Tom Paine.

[Eastside Revolt]

To me, Thomas Paine is the only one who remains radical and noteworthy in our time.

"Better fare hard with good men than feast it with bad."

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice"

"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."

"From such beginnings of governments, what could be expected, but a continual system of war and extortion?"

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it."

Also, you should read his letter to George Washington while imprisoned in France, even he could see the trouble that was ahead.

[FatFreeMilk]

Yeah, the founding fathers were great. Wiped out the indigenous peoples, stole their land and then got a bunch of peasant farmers and workers convinced to fight for freedom, when what it really was about was freedom from any taxation, and the right to grab land and resources.

Actually, that was all before their time. And during the fight for independance many colonists were rather neutral to the whole situation. They knew that who ever ruled them, they were still gonna be fucked.It was those crazy militia men who tried to get people to fight for the Patriots.

Washington was actually quite dedicated to his cause. He didn&#39;t get paid for anything and in fact spent about &#036;100,000 of his own money for the war.

I really don&#39;t like any of those fuckers though.

But Thomas Paine, he was cool.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I have been thinking about this a little more and I don&#39;t think that Thomas Jefferson was really all that bad... This was after-all before socialism had been "discovered" but certainly the original America was a step up from the monarchy in Britain.

[Anarchist Freedom]

I agree 100 percent that there slave owning was completely outright wrong and i will never think otherwise but you realize what they did in that time never was succesful when tried it ended in defeat or crashing in on itself. They did good things and bad things which everyone does. Wheather they did more negative things then positive Im not sure but i know they at least did a few good things....

[LSD]

They did good things and bad things which everyone does.

hmm.... sound pretty...well..... human to me.

A bunch of rich white dudes didn&#39;t want to pay taxes on sugar, and were scared to shit that a bunch of French motherfuckers were going to squat on their turf.
They were all racist and sexist and had no desire to help anyone but their own rich asses. These selfish egomaniacs killed thousands out of their self-serving desire to fund their own pockets and stick it to the english. They never gave a damn about the people, and just wanted to rule them themselves without the British crown spoiling their fun.
Slave-owning, mass-murdering, oppressive, narsicistic, sexist, racist, classist, arrogant sons of *****es&#33;&#33;




...but they created the most democratic state in the history of the world and inspired nearly every revolution to follow....



So where they good guys or bad guys??

Sorry, no such thing as black and white in this world.... Isn&#39;t history fun?

[Zingu]

"For the people, by the people" <--A load of bullshit

I&#39;m ashamed of being an American, full of Imperialism, racism, discrimination, war crimes, atrocities and class domination from the start. Its time that America should be judged for its crimes against millions around the world, really, America, is the only real "rouge" state in the world. There is a book called "Rouge State: A guide to the world&#39;s only superpower".

[Zingu]

"For the people, by the people" <--A load of bullshit

I&#39;m ashamed of being an American, full of Imperialism, racism, discrimination, war crimes, atrocities and class domination from the start. Its time that America should be judged for its crimes against millions around the world, really, America, is the only real "rouge" state in the world. There is a book called "Rouge State: A guide to the world&#39;s only superpower".

[Zingu]

"For the people, by the people" <--A load of bullshit

I&#39;m ashamed of being an American, full of Imperialism, racism, discrimination, war crimes, atrocities and class domination from the start. Its time that America should be judged for its crimes against millions around the world, really, America, is the only real "rouge" state in the world. There is a book called "Rouge State: A guide to the world&#39;s only superpower".

[LSD]

I&#39;m ashamed of being an American, full of Imperialism, racism, discrimination, war crimes, atrocities and class domination from the start.

Don&#39;t be ashamed. do something.

You&#39;re not responsible for where you were born, you&#39;re only responsible for what you do and what action you take.

You&#39;r forefathers may have been imperalist twats, but their revolution was one of the most important in world history. Don&#39;t oversimplify things.

[LSD]

I&#39;m ashamed of being an American, full of Imperialism, racism, discrimination, war crimes, atrocities and class domination from the start.

Don&#39;t be ashamed. do something.

You&#39;re not responsible for where you were born, you&#39;re only responsible for what you do and what action you take.

You&#39;r forefathers may have been imperalist twats, but their revolution was one of the most important in world history. Don&#39;t oversimplify things.

[LSD]

I&#39;m ashamed of being an American, full of Imperialism, racism, discrimination, war crimes, atrocities and class domination from the start.

Don&#39;t be ashamed. do something.

You&#39;re not responsible for where you were born, you&#39;re only responsible for what you do and what action you take.

You&#39;r forefathers may have been imperalist twats, but their revolution was one of the most important in world history. Don&#39;t oversimplify things.

[Zingu]

Don&#39;t be ashamed. do something.

Thats what I think defines a true leftist from a fake one, a real Communist/Socialist/Anarchist is one who is in activism or something even more. I guess I&#39;m going to have to add questioning America&#39;s past deeds to my list of school revolutionary actions. :P

[Zingu]

Don&#39;t be ashamed. do something.

Thats what I think defines a true leftist from a fake one, a real Communist/Socialist/Anarchist is one who is in activism or something even more. I guess I&#39;m going to have to add questioning America&#39;s past deeds to my list of school revolutionary actions. :P

[Zingu]

Don&#39;t be ashamed. do something.

Thats what I think defines a true leftist from a fake one, a real Communist/Socialist/Anarchist is one who is in activism or something even more. I guess I&#39;m going to have to add questioning America&#39;s past deeds to my list of school revolutionary actions. :P

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:41 PM
Actually, that was all before their time. And during the fight for independance many colonists were rather neutral to the whole situation.
Right after the "revolutionary war", the government tried to force Native Americans to assimilate (a.k.a. Americanization), and those who wouldn&#39;t would be systematically killed off.

The Indian Removal Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act) is an example of this.

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:41 PM
Actually, that was all before their time. And during the fight for independance many colonists were rather neutral to the whole situation.
Right after the "revolutionary war", the government tried to force Native Americans to assimilate (a.k.a. Americanization), and those who wouldn&#39;t would be systematically killed off.

The Indian Removal Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act) is an example of this.

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:41 PM
Actually, that was all before their time. And during the fight for independance many colonists were rather neutral to the whole situation.
Right after the "revolutionary war", the government tried to force Native Americans to assimilate (a.k.a. Americanization), and those who wouldn&#39;t would be systematically killed off.

The Indian Removal Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act) is an example of this.

[DaCuBaN]

You&#39;r forefathers may have been imperalist twats, but their revolution was one of the most important in world history.

I disagree; Whilst it may seem important for a colony to break away from an imperial empire, what actually changed as a result of it? 300 years later, and it&#39;s as if it never happened. Sure, there&#39;s been somewhat of a role-reversal between the US and UK, but it&#39;s the same kind of assholes who run the show.

You&#39;ve gone from being ruled by a man who quite literally thought he was god&#39;s gift to mankind, to being ruled by groups of people who think alike.

Nonetheless, you are right:

Don&#39;t be ashamed. do something.

[DaCuBaN]

You&#39;r forefathers may have been imperalist twats, but their revolution was one of the most important in world history.

I disagree; Whilst it may seem important for a colony to break away from an imperial empire, what actually changed as a result of it? 300 years later, and it&#39;s as if it never happened. Sure, there&#39;s been somewhat of a role-reversal between the US and UK, but it&#39;s the same kind of assholes who run the show.

You&#39;ve gone from being ruled by a man who quite literally thought he was god&#39;s gift to mankind, to being ruled by groups of people who think alike.

Nonetheless, you are right:

Don&#39;t be ashamed. do something.

[DaCuBaN]

You&#39;r forefathers may have been imperalist twats, but their revolution was one of the most important in world history.

I disagree; Whilst it may seem important for a colony to break away from an imperial empire, what actually changed as a result of it? 300 years later, and it&#39;s as if it never happened. Sure, there&#39;s been somewhat of a role-reversal between the US and UK, but it&#39;s the same kind of assholes who run the show.

You&#39;ve gone from being ruled by a man who quite literally thought he was god&#39;s gift to mankind, to being ruled by groups of people who think alike.

Nonetheless, you are right:

Don&#39;t be ashamed. do something.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 06:56 PM
"For the people, by the people" <--A load of bullshit

I&#39;m ashamed of being an American, full of Imperialism, racism, discrimination, war crimes, atrocities and class domination from the start. Its time that America should be judged for its crimes against millions around the world, really, America, is the only real "rouge" state in the world. There is a book called "Rouge State: A guide to the world&#39;s only superpower".
You don&#39;t have to be what you don&#39;t be live in. That why you cane be born in India with out being a Hindu. Plus no one said that you must live here.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 06:56 PM
"For the people, by the people" <--A load of bullshit

I&#39;m ashamed of being an American, full of Imperialism, racism, discrimination, war crimes, atrocities and class domination from the start. Its time that America should be judged for its crimes against millions around the world, really, America, is the only real "rouge" state in the world. There is a book called "Rouge State: A guide to the world&#39;s only superpower".
You don&#39;t have to be what you don&#39;t be live in. That why you cane be born in India with out being a Hindu. Plus no one said that you must live here.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 06:56 PM
"For the people, by the people" <--A load of bullshit

I&#39;m ashamed of being an American, full of Imperialism, racism, discrimination, war crimes, atrocities and class domination from the start. Its time that America should be judged for its crimes against millions around the world, really, America, is the only real "rouge" state in the world. There is a book called "Rouge State: A guide to the world&#39;s only superpower".
You don&#39;t have to be what you don&#39;t be live in. That why you cane be born in India with out being a Hindu. Plus no one said that you must live here.

[LSD]

I disagree; Whilst it may seem important for a colony to break away from an imperial empire, what actually changed as a result of it?

The French Revolution.
The Russian Revolution.
The First democratic country in almsot 2000 years...


Sure, there&#39;s been somewhat of a role-reversal between the US and UK, but it&#39;s the same kind of assholes who run the show.

There&#39;s been a lot more than that.

Look I&#39;m by no means a fan of the United States, but to claim that the America Revolution was unimportant is just being ignorant of history. Whether the current American government and society are what they should be (and it would be hard to argue they are) is irrelevent to the importance of a revolution over 200 years ago.


You&#39;ve gone from being ruled by a man who quite literally thought he was god&#39;s gift to mankind, to being ruled by groups of people who think alike.

Who me?

You aren&#39;t calling me American are you....

[LSD]

I disagree; Whilst it may seem important for a colony to break away from an imperial empire, what actually changed as a result of it?

The French Revolution.
The Russian Revolution.
The First democratic country in almsot 2000 years...


Sure, there&#39;s been somewhat of a role-reversal between the US and UK, but it&#39;s the same kind of assholes who run the show.

There&#39;s been a lot more than that.

Look I&#39;m by no means a fan of the United States, but to claim that the America Revolution was unimportant is just being ignorant of history. Whether the current American government and society are what they should be (and it would be hard to argue they are) is irrelevent to the importance of a revolution over 200 years ago.


You&#39;ve gone from being ruled by a man who quite literally thought he was god&#39;s gift to mankind, to being ruled by groups of people who think alike.

Who me?

You aren&#39;t calling me American are you....

[LSD]

I disagree; Whilst it may seem important for a colony to break away from an imperial empire, what actually changed as a result of it?

The French Revolution.
The Russian Revolution.
The First democratic country in almsot 2000 years...


Sure, there&#39;s been somewhat of a role-reversal between the US and UK, but it&#39;s the same kind of assholes who run the show.

There&#39;s been a lot more than that.

Look I&#39;m by no means a fan of the United States, but to claim that the America Revolution was unimportant is just being ignorant of history. Whether the current American government and society are what they should be (and it would be hard to argue they are) is irrelevent to the importance of a revolution over 200 years ago.


You&#39;ve gone from being ruled by a man who quite literally thought he was god&#39;s gift to mankind, to being ruled by groups of people who think alike.

Who me?

You aren&#39;t calling me American are you....

[DaCuBaN]

The French Revolution.
The Russian Revolution.


Neither of these were colonial states. If you&#39;re arguing that they were &#39;inspired&#39; by the American war of Independance, then my opinion of both has gone through the floor.


The First democratic country in almsot 2000 years...


When the US started as a country, was it democratic? Is it now democratic? When the US split from the UK, we had a system of government incredibly similar to the one we have today. The fact remains that those living in the US had no say in the running of their world, and this contributed to their desire for independance, along with many other factors.

&#39;Democracy&#39; was not one of them.


You aren&#39;t calling me American are you....

&#39;You&#39; was not directed at anyone in particular. It&#39;s merely indictive of my poor grasp of the English language :rolleyes: ;)

[DaCuBaN]

The French Revolution.
The Russian Revolution.


Neither of these were colonial states. If you&#39;re arguing that they were &#39;inspired&#39; by the American war of Independance, then my opinion of both has gone through the floor.


The First democratic country in almsot 2000 years...


When the US started as a country, was it democratic? Is it now democratic? When the US split from the UK, we had a system of government incredibly similar to the one we have today. The fact remains that those living in the US had no say in the running of their world, and this contributed to their desire for independance, along with many other factors.

&#39;Democracy&#39; was not one of them.


You aren&#39;t calling me American are you....

&#39;You&#39; was not directed at anyone in particular. It&#39;s merely indictive of my poor grasp of the English language :rolleyes: ;)

[DaCuBaN]

The French Revolution.
The Russian Revolution.


Neither of these were colonial states. If you&#39;re arguing that they were &#39;inspired&#39; by the American war of Independance, then my opinion of both has gone through the floor.


The First democratic country in almsot 2000 years...


When the US started as a country, was it democratic? Is it now democratic? When the US split from the UK, we had a system of government incredibly similar to the one we have today. The fact remains that those living in the US had no say in the running of their world, and this contributed to their desire for independance, along with many other factors.

&#39;Democracy&#39; was not one of them.


You aren&#39;t calling me American are you....

&#39;You&#39; was not directed at anyone in particular. It&#39;s merely indictive of my poor grasp of the English language :rolleyes: ;)

[LSD]

Neither of these were colonial states. If you&#39;re arguing that they were &#39;inspired&#39; by the American war of Independance, then my opinion of both has gone through the floor.

Don&#39;t denegrate the power of inspiration, and certainly don&#39;t minimize the historical importance of either the French nor Russian revolution.

I agree that neither went far enough or turned out the way we might have liked, but both resulted in systems better than the ones they replaced and both have had lasting importance.


When the US started as a country, was it democratic? Is it now democratic? When the US split from the UK, we had a system of government incredibly similar to the one we have today. The fact remains that those living in the US had no say in the running of their world, and this contributed to their desire for independance, along with many other factors.

&#39;Democracy&#39; was not one of them.

In 1776, the United States of America was the most democratic country in the world.

It would remain so for most of the next century.

It wasn&#39;t "full democratic" but then neither was Athens, they were both still pioneers.


You&#39; was not directed at anyone in particular. It&#39;s merely indictive of my poor grasp of the English language

oh thank god... for a momment there I was deeply insulted. :D

[LSD]

Neither of these were colonial states. If you&#39;re arguing that they were &#39;inspired&#39; by the American war of Independance, then my opinion of both has gone through the floor.

Don&#39;t denegrate the power of inspiration, and certainly don&#39;t minimize the historical importance of either the French nor Russian revolution.

I agree that neither went far enough or turned out the way we might have liked, but both resulted in systems better than the ones they replaced and both have had lasting importance.


When the US started as a country, was it democratic? Is it now democratic? When the US split from the UK, we had a system of government incredibly similar to the one we have today. The fact remains that those living in the US had no say in the running of their world, and this contributed to their desire for independance, along with many other factors.

&#39;Democracy&#39; was not one of them.

In 1776, the United States of America was the most democratic country in the world.

It would remain so for most of the next century.

It wasn&#39;t "full democratic" but then neither was Athens, they were both still pioneers.


You&#39; was not directed at anyone in particular. It&#39;s merely indictive of my poor grasp of the English language

oh thank god... for a momment there I was deeply insulted. :D

[LSD]

Neither of these were colonial states. If you&#39;re arguing that they were &#39;inspired&#39; by the American war of Independance, then my opinion of both has gone through the floor.

Don&#39;t denegrate the power of inspiration, and certainly don&#39;t minimize the historical importance of either the French nor Russian revolution.

I agree that neither went far enough or turned out the way we might have liked, but both resulted in systems better than the ones they replaced and both have had lasting importance.


When the US started as a country, was it democratic? Is it now democratic? When the US split from the UK, we had a system of government incredibly similar to the one we have today. The fact remains that those living in the US had no say in the running of their world, and this contributed to their desire for independance, along with many other factors.

&#39;Democracy&#39; was not one of them.

In 1776, the United States of America was the most democratic country in the world.

It would remain so for most of the next century.

It wasn&#39;t "full democratic" but then neither was Athens, they were both still pioneers.


You&#39; was not directed at anyone in particular. It&#39;s merely indictive of my poor grasp of the English language

oh thank god... for a momment there I was deeply insulted. :D

[commiecrusader]

Whatever motivated their actions, you have to respect the founders of America for standing up to a power they disagreed with. Not necessarily like them but respect them. And the revolution showed the rest of the world that it was possible to beat a monarchy, and there was another system, even if it is far from perfect.

They were inspirational wankshafts.

[commiecrusader]

Whatever motivated their actions, you have to respect the founders of America for standing up to a power they disagreed with. Not necessarily like them but respect them. And the revolution showed the rest of the world that it was possible to beat a monarchy, and there was another system, even if it is far from perfect.

They were inspirational wankshafts.

[commiecrusader]

Whatever motivated their actions, you have to respect the founders of America for standing up to a power they disagreed with. Not necessarily like them but respect them. And the revolution showed the rest of the world that it was possible to beat a monarchy, and there was another system, even if it is far from perfect.

They were inspirational wankshafts.

[refuse_resist]

In 1776, the United States of America was the most democratic country in the world.

It would remain so for most of the next century.
Slavery and genocide sure is democratic. :rolleyes:



Whilst it may seem important for a colony to break away from an imperial empire, what actually changed as a result of it? 300 years later, and it&#39;s as if it never happened. Sure, there&#39;s been somewhat of a role-reversal between the US and UK, but it&#39;s the same kind of assholes who run the show.
You&#39;re right. That&#39;s exactly what happend. Once it broke off and became its own nation they all saw it as an opportunity to start their own imperialist state.

[fuerzasocialista]

You&#39;re right. That&#39;s exactly what happend. Once it broke off and became its own nation they all saw it as an opportunity to start their own imperialist state


Preach on brother man&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Wreaking havoc on the world and not looking back&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[LSD]

Slavery and genocide sure is democratic.

In 1776, the United States of America was the MOST democratic country in the world.

Black and white labels may be fun, but they&#39;re not accurate.

Sure it had slavery, but so did everyone else. I never claimed it was a great place to live, merely that it pinoeered democracy.


You&#39;re right. That&#39;s exactly what happend. Once it broke off and became its own nation they all saw it as an opportunity to start their own imperialist state.

Shut up and read your history.

I know "bashing" the US is good fun, but to deny what happened just makes you seem ignorant.

Yes, the US was racist and expansionist and I am no fan of its "founding fathers", but the US went further than any other state had in over 2000 years, and that&#39;s something you must at least respect.



...still glad I&#39;m not American though...

[commiecrusader]

Sure it had slavery, but so did everyone else. I never claimed it was a great place to live, merely that it pinoeered democracy.
I totally agree. And not only white people had slaves either. Indians enslaved many asian people for a long time, and still retain a lot of racial hatred for them in many places.


Shut up and read your history.

I know "bashing" the US is good fun, but to deny what happened just makes you seem ignorant.

Yes, the US was racist and expansionist and I am no fan of its "founding fathers", but the US went further than any other state had in over 2000 years, and that&#39;s something you must at least respect.
Yeah go Lysergic. Like I said, whilst you may not like them, what they did, or the country they created, at least they stood up for what they believed in and fought off an oppressive monarchy. RESPECT.

[refuse_resist]

As far as the American "Revolution" inspiring revolutions to come, you&#39;re wrong there. The government of the United States actually thought the French Revolution was too radical and started the Alien Sedition Acts. Only after that did they see what the Bolsheviks did as the "greatest threat to the American way of life".

When the Constitution and Bill of Rights first came into place, the government wanted a loose interpretation of them, while at the same time there existed many loopholes and its only been obvious throughout the years, including up until now obviously. During the war for independence, many colonists actually wanted to remain loyal to the monarchy, and their ways of life were merely the same as they were back when it was still a colony. The reason why they thought it would be important to break away was so that they would be able to make profits on their own, without having to give any to the British. George Washington and many of the others were strongly against political factions or anyone who called for any kind of radical change. They even said the people couldn&#39;t make decisions for themselves so they always needed someone above them to tell them what to do.

It&#39;s been said many times the U.S. isn&#39;t a democracy but a "constitutional republic".

I don&#39;t see why you defend them so much if you claim you didn&#39;t like them. It was just another example of feudalism and capitalism.


Shut up and read your history.
Right back at you. ;)


...still glad I&#39;m not American though...
Sure you are. :lol:


Like I said, whilst you may not like them, what they did, or the country they created, at least they stood up for what they believed in and fought off an oppressive monarchy. RESPECT.
It was fought off to be replaced with another oppressive regime. Does that really make any difference? While those who were in charge of everything may have changed, everything else stood the same.

[FatFreeMilk]

The government of the United States actually thought the French Revolution was too radical and started the Alien Sedition Acts.
The Alien and Sedition acts were put into place by the federalists to make it more difficult for immigrants to vote for the anti feds. and so they couldn&#39;t talk shit on Adams.


When the Constitution and Bill of Rights first came into place, the government wanted a loose interpretation of them, while at the same time there existed many loopholes and its only been obvious throughout the years, including up until now obviously
Again, it was the federalists that wanted a loose interpretation. The didn&#39;t completley rule the government.


During the war for independence, many colonists actually wanted to remain loyal to the monarchy,
No, the New England colonist wanted to remain loyal.


It&#39;s been said many times the U.S. isn&#39;t a democracy but a "constitutional republic".

yeah, beacuse that&#39;s what we are.

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

There are always objective material causes of every revolution, and the U.S. one ain&#39;t any different in that regard.

One of the most important, if not the most important. causes of the American Revolution -- and one studiously avoided mentioning to the present day (hint) -- is that the colonists were chafing at the restrictions the british had placed on their land hunger. The british had bigger plans than the colonists interests, and actually intended to honor (for the interim anyway) their treaties with the indians. Remember: at this time, the british held only the NE corner of North America -- half of that only recently wrested from the still combative french. There were &#39;international considerations&#39;, you see...

The colonists weren&#39;t having any of that guff -- they wanted the Indian Lands, and they wanted it pronto. There were the other, more political, concerns of course; and while these may have gotten more attention for propaganda reasons, and passed into hagiographic U.S. history, the giant land-grab that is the U.S. zeitgeist remains the ur cause of the friction which drove the colonists to rebel against the mother country.

And today I read a delightful precis and analysis of Thomas Paine&#39;s life, times and work at: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/sep2004/pain-s30.shtml

One great revolutionary and propagandist, was Tom Paine&#33;

And Thomas Paine the historical figure is proof against the lie that Jefferson, Washington et al. "didn&#39;t know any better" about human rights.
Bullshit.
As someone alluded above, we could just as well say that the present U.S. ruling-class doesn&#39;t know any better what it does -- wihch would be a monstrous lie.
Jefferson knew full well that he was supposed to free all his slaves -- but ended up freeing only the "worthies".
Classic liberal.

[ComradeRed]

No, the New England colonist wanted to remain loyal. No, the south wanted to remain loyal. Remember, the south has been, and always will be, reactionary. Being independent was "too radical" for them. I wonder what they would say at the thought of communism... :lol:

[LSD]

As far as the American "Revolution" inspiring revolutions to come, you&#39;re wrong there. The government of the United States actually thought the French Revolution was too radical and started the Alien Sedition Acts. Only after that did they see what the Bolsheviks did as the "greatest threat to the American way of life".

um... I think you need to look up the meaning of "inspiring".

It doesn&#39;t matter whether they "liked" what they inspired, they still inspired it.

The American role in sparking the French Revolution is undisputed history.


One of the most important, if not the most important. causes of the American Revolution -- and one studiously avoided mentioning to the present day (hint) -- is that the colonists were chafing at the restrictions the british had placed on their land hunger. The british had bigger plans than the colonists interests, and actually intended to honor (for the interim anyway) their treaties with the indians. Remember: at this time, the british held only the NE corner of North America -- half of that only recently wrested from the still combative french. There were &#39;international considerations&#39;, you see...

Actually, I was taught that.

But comming from a country that was fiercly on the British side, I guess that&#39;s only natural.


Sure you are.

I don&#39;t see why you defend them so much if you claim you didn&#39;t like them. It was just another example of feudalism and capitalism.

Hey, my home town was occupied by your "Founding Fathers", I have no love for them.


It was fought off to be replaced with another oppressive regime. Does that really make any difference? While those who were in charge of everything may have changed, everything else stood the same.

Bullshit.

If you honestly don&#39;t believe that the American Revolution "changed things", than the education system in your country is even worse that the American one.

It wasn&#39;t CLOSE to perfect, but it was MUCH closer to democracy than any other contemporary country.

Like it or not, it&#39;s a fact.

[commiecrusader]

It was fought off to be replaced with another oppressive regime. Does that really make any difference? While those who were in charge of everything may have changed, everything else stood the same.
I don&#39;t care what system they created. Everyone can see it sucks. And I don&#39;t care if they didn&#39;t change much. The point is that they stood up to a power that was oppressing them, and got rid of it. For that they should be respected, not for anything else, but just because they stood up to and beat the dominant power of the day.

[Forward Union]

My sig sums it up...

"When I was a boy, the Sioux owned the world. The sun rose and set on their land; they sent ten thousand men to battle. Where are the warriors today? Who slew them? Where are our lands now? Who owns them?" - Chief Sitting Bull

[FatFreeMilk]

No, the south wanted to remain loyal. Remember, the south has been, and always will be, reactionary. Being independent was "too radical" for them. I wonder what they would say at the thought of communism...

The south isn&#39;t as bad as you think it is, or was. Did you know New England was the first to think about seceding from the union?
What do you mean too radical?
Richard Wright was from the south and he became a communist btw. A disillusioned one, but still.

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

There have been many worker and union struggles in the South, and there are communists and other progressives there -- it&#39;s just that they&#39;ve been hung out to dry by the AFL-CIO, the CPUSA, you-name-em, etc. (aren&#39;t there Southerners on this website, who could elaborate themselves?)

Where the KKK is more organized than unions in "right to work" states -- which seem almost a mere service infrastructure for military bases -- you can&#39;t expect there to be high consciousness generally about a &#39;Red South&#39; (and I don&#39;t mean Republican &#39;red&#39;). With capitalist mass-media hegemony, all we&#39;re going to get are Andy Griffith, Boss Hawg/Dukes/NASCAR/Smokey & The Bandit and Yogi Bear/Huckleberry Hound/Woody Woodpecker/Song of the South/Gone With The Wind stereotypes (which all tie into the Post Bellum &#39;Winning of the Wild, Wild West&#39; zeitgeist... Whew&#33;)

It all comes down to the same issue everywhere, doesn&#39;t it?: forging our own organizations AND our own media and collective, comprehensive worldview.

[ComradeRed]

The south isn&#39;t as bad as you think it is, or was. Did you know New England was the first to think about seceding from the union? Seceding from the union? As in the Civil War?? Or do you mean secede from the Articles of Confederation?


What do you mean too radical?
Richard Wright was from the south and he became a communist btw. A disillusioned one, but still. I mean "radical" as in still tolerably capitalist by the skin of their teeth. There have been some decent southerners, and an abnormal number of evil ones(Jesse Helms, George Bush, et al).

The South is always the last to accept what has been elsewhere, I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if in 50 years they legalize gay marriages but still hate the homosexuals.

[FatFreeMilk]

Seceding from the union? As in the Civil War?? Or do you mean secede from the Articles of Confederation?

No, I mean after the war of 1812. They got together at the Hartford convention and discussed asking the gov. to pay them back for damages incurred during the war and then about the thought of seceding. They were treasonous sonsa*****es&#33;

Still, I don&#39;t think the south was that bad...

[Guerrilla22]

They were all elitist, except for Franklin and Jefferson. The entire constitution was constructed in order to ensure that the wealthy class (them) maintained their wealth and property. Which is why the Articles of Confederation were thrown out. If you read the Federalist Papers by Madison and Hamilton you&#39;ll see that they were extremely paranoid about total majority rule and were affraid of something like Marx described nearly a hundred years later, taking form in America.

[refuse_resist]

The Alien and Sedition acts were put into place by the federalists to make it more difficult for immigrants to vote for the anti feds. and so they couldn&#39;t talk shit on Adams.
Whether they were Federalists or non-Federalists makes no difference. This is what they want us to believe. Just like many acts that have been passed in the past as well as present have had very broad meanings to them that make them easier to be abused.


There are always objective material causes of every revolution, and the U.S. one ain&#39;t any different in that regard.
There has yet to be a revolution in the U.S. What happend back then was by no means revolutionary. Saying that it was a revolution contradicts what a true revolution is all about.


Bullshit.

If you honestly don&#39;t believe that the American Revolution "changed things", than the education system in your country is even worse that the American one.

It wasn&#39;t CLOSE to perfect, but it was MUCH closer to democracy than any other contemporary country.

Like it or not, it&#39;s a fact.
Stop calling it a revolution :angry:

This is just something that was sugar coated throughout history. The fact that they stood up to a world power and replaced it with literally nothing new in no way makes it a revolution. In no way was it the most democratic country to ever exist.
It was a power grab by the colonial bourgeoisie.

History is something that over the years has been told by the conquerers and has been distorted a lot.

There have been many more "democratic" nations besides the U.S. that have existed and currently exist, but even they aren&#39;t really good examples.


I don&#39;t care what system they created. Everyone can see it sucks. And I don&#39;t care if they didn&#39;t change much. The point is that they stood up to a power that was oppressing them, and got rid of it. For that they should be respected, not for anything else, but just because they stood up to and beat the dominant power of the day.
So? Just because they stood up to a power they didn&#39;t like doesn&#39;t mean they should be respected. Things didn&#39;t change of course for a reason. Saying you would respect an oppressive regime to replace another oppressive one is absolutely ludicris.


I don&#39;t understand you guys: commiecrusader and LAD. Both of your arguements are the equivalent of saying "I get drunk everyday, but I&#39;m not an alcoholic."

[LSD]

I don&#39;t understand you guys: commiecrusader and LAD. Both of your arguements are the equivalent of saying "I get drunk everyday, but I&#39;m not an alcoholic."

That is a very strange analogy.


There has yet to be a revolution in the U.S. What happend back then was by no means revolutionary. Saying that it was a revolution contradicts what a true revolution is all about.

Stop calling it a revolution

Revolution: n., ..7. a. A complete overthrow of the esablished government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it; a forcible substitution of a new ruler or form of government.

Guess what, it was a revolution.


This is just something that was sugar coated throughout history. The fact that they stood up to a world power and replaced it with literally nothing new in no way makes it a revolution. In no way was it the most democratic country to ever exist.
It was a power grab by the colonial bourgeoisie.

History is something that over the years has been told by the conquerers and has been distorted a lot.

Again, don&#39;t assume I was educated by those "conquerors"

My education was not pro-american, but history is history.


There have been many more "democratic" nations besides the U.S. that have existed and currently exist, but even they aren&#39;t really good examples.

...sigh...

Name a more democractic country in 1777 or 1792.


In no way was it the most democratic country to ever exist.

see above.

[commiecrusader]

I don&#39;t understand you guys: commiecrusader and LAD. Both of your arguements are the equivalent of saying "I get drunk everyday, but I&#39;m not an alcoholic."
What on earth are you on about? How is saying &#39;they should be respected because they fought and won against a power that was oppressing them&#39; which is my argument, anything like saying &#39;I get drunk everyday, but I&#39;m not an alcoholic&#39;?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by FatFreeMilk+--> (FatFreeMilk)Washington was actually quite dedicated to his cause. He didn&#39;t get paid for anything and in fact spent about &#036;100,000 of his own money for the war.[/b]

He got it all back and more...the city of Washington, D.C. sits on a swamp that he sold to the new government at a very handsome profit.


Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected]
...but they created the most democratic state in the history of the world and inspired nearly every revolution to follow..

Nope.

The Athenian Republic shares the honor with the (brief) Paris Commune as the "most democratic state in the history of the world".

As to "inspiration", the record is mixed. I would nominate the French Revolution of 1789 as the most "inspirational" in Europe and possibly elsewhere.

Joseph Goebbels agreed; when the Nazis took power, he proclaimed on Berlin radio that "the year 1789 is now repealed&#33;"


In 1776, the United States of America was the most democratic country in the world.

I believe Switzerland might challenge that claim...though I&#39;m not sure. Holland might also have a few words to say on the subject.


Sure it had slavery, but so did everyone else.

Well, the British, French, and Dutch certainly did (in their colonies). But I believe most of continental Europe no longer practiced slavery by 1776...certainly not even remotely on the scale of the new United States.


The American role in sparking the French Revolution is undisputed history.

I think French historians would dispute it. :lol:

Actually, I think the French Revolution was probably a half-century or more "in the making"...and arose primarily because of domestic crises.

Both the Americans and the French seemed to have drawn a good deal of "moral inspiration" from tales of the Roman Republic.


refuse resist
There has yet to be a revolution in the U.S.

Here I must disagree. The presidential election of 1860 and the civil war that followed it was a bourgeois revolution in every meaningful sense of the word.

Prior to that election/war, the national government of the United States was essentially dominated by the landed/slave-holding aristocracy of the south; afterwards, it was dominated by the capitalist class...as it has been ever since.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Freedom Writer]

Hehe, rockabillys say "The south will rise&#33;" Hehe, I have few rockabilly friends.

:D

[LSD]

The Athenian Republic shares the honor

Granted.

To be fair, in my earlier posts I had written most democratic in 2000 years, but I guess I shortened it on that one.


with the (brief) Paris Commune as the "most democratic state in the history of the world".

What?

You mean the Paris of the French Revolution or of 1871??

Both occured after the American Revolution.


In 1776, the United States of America was the most democratic country in the world.

Clearly I mean the "history of the world" up to that point, I certainly stated that repeatedly.

No one would realistically claim that the US in 1776 was more democratic that states to come, merely those before (again, excluding Athens).


As to "inspiration", the record is mixed. I would nominate the French Revolution of 1789 as the most "inspirational" in Europe and possibly elsewhere.

Actually, I think the French Revolution was probably a half-century or more "in the making"...and arose primarily because of domestic crises.
Absolutely, but the example of a succesful revolution in America only strengthened the revolutionary movement. Not to mention the fact that due to French support of the Americans, there was repeated contact between the revolutionists there and French thinkers.

I didn&#39;t say that America caused the French revolution, but it certainly influenced it.


Joseph Goebbels agreed; when the Nazis took power, he proclaimed on Berlin radio that "the year 1789 is now repealed&#33;"

Well there&#39;s a credible source&#33; :D


I believe Switzerland might challenge that claim...though I&#39;m not sure.

The Ancien Regime period?

The time in Swiss history that today&#39;s peacful and democratic historians try best to forget?

From 1536 to 1798, Switzerland was a violent, broken, and distinctly feudalist state.

Hardly democratic&#33;


Holland might also have a few words to say on the subject.

The Republic of the Seven United Netherlands?

You&#39;re closer there, but I&#39;d maintain that the US of 1792 was still more democratic. Sure, the US congress wasn&#39;t exactly the most representative body in the world, but I&#39;d propose is was still better than the States General and certainly better than the oft abused Stadtholder system, which was basically just another name for an Orange-Nassau monarchy.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Japan outlawed slavery in the 1500s.

[LSD]

Japan outlawed slavery in the 1500s.

Well there&#39;s law and then there&#39;s practice.

Japan Tries to Erase Taint of Sex Slavery (http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040617-101112-3059r.htm)
Japan War Slaves get &#036;4.8M (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1046321.stm)

[redstar2000]

It would seem that your knowledge of European history exceeds my own...though a discussion between the Dutch and the newly-created confederation in America on "democracy" would have been interesting. (I suspect both would have repudiated the concept vigorously.)

But it&#39;s difficult for me to see the American oligarchy as "more democratic" than the Athenian Republic. Most, if not all, of the the new states had extensive property qualifications for both voting and holding public office. I believe that sort of thing was abolished even prior to the rise of Pericles in Athens.

It also seems to me that the question of American "influence" on the French Revolution of 1789 is...contentious. Sure, there had to be some...but was it really as significant as you imply?

I can&#39;t recall any contemporary French references to the American revolution during the years 1789-1793...but, admittedly, my reading is quite limited. I believe both Franklin and Jefferson were in Paris during the years prior to 1789...but were they not both diplomats and thus largely confined to "court circles" -- that is, the people who were overthrown and exiled (or executed) after 1789.

Lafayette was no doubt influenced by the Americans, but he was a "moderate" during the revolution and had, I think, little influence on events.

Had the "mob" of Paris read a French translation of Tom Paine&#39;s Common Sense before Bastille?

It seems to me that the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man" went much further than anything that even the most "radical" Americans (except Tom Paine) had in mind in 1776 or even 1793.

Thus, I would argue that it was really the French Revolution that represented a radical departure in world history...there really had been "nothing like it" since the days of the old Athenian Republic.

You balked, I noticed, at my citation of Joseph Goebbels ("The year 1789 is now repealed").

He was not a stupid man. I think he knew his enemy.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[LSD]

But it&#39;s difficult for me to see the American oligarchy as "more democratic" than the Athenian Republic. Most, if not all, of the the new states had extensive property qualifications for both voting and holding public office. I believe that sort of thing was abolished even prior to the rise of Pericles in Athens.

I entirely agree&#33;

Athens, at least prior to the war, was definetly more democratic than the US. But remember that Athens had its own aristocratic tendencies as well as an entrentched class system and very prevalent slavery, much like early America.


Lafayette was no doubt influenced by the Americans, but he was a "moderate" during the revolution and had, I think, little influence on events.

It seems to me that the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man" went much further than anything that even the most "radical" Americans (except Tom Paine) had in mind in 1776 or even 1793.

Yes, but of course, Lafayette wrote the Declaration of the Righs of Man...with much consultation from Jefferson&#33;


Had the "mob" of Paris read a French translation of Tom Paine&#39;s Common Sense before Bastille?

I don&#39;t think the revolution was caused by America, but I think that once it began the direction it attempted to take was. Many of of the leaders of the National Assembly had read Paine and Jefferson and Franklin and were quite inspired by a "successful revolution". The United States was proof that "it could work".

There probably would have been a revolution in France regardless, but I don&#39;t think it would have nescessarily attempted a democratic reform.


Thus, I would argue that it was really the French Revolution that represented a radical departure in world history

Yes it was.

It radically transformed Europe; it ended French feudalism, prioneered European nationalism, ended the era of aptheotic monarchs, and was a model of a popular revolution that people would remember for centuries. Even the Directorate provided a model of what not to do and led to the establishment of constitutional and democratic "checks and ballances"

I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any doubt the French Revolution was more important than the American, but that doesn&#39;t mean the American wasn&#39;t an influence of the former.

It was.

[refuse_resist]

Guess what, it was a revolution.
Just because a bunch of people got together to overthrow their rulers and replace them with similar ones doesn&#39;t make it a revolution (from a leftist perspective). I was referring to what changed as a result of this "revolution", as well as who benefited from it.


What on earth are you on about? How is saying &#39;they should be respected because they fought and won against a power that was oppressing them&#39; which is my argument, anything like saying &#39;I get drunk everyday, but I&#39;m not an alcoholic&#39;?
Nevermind :rolleyes: :lol:


Here I must disagree. The presidential election of 1860 and the civil war that followed it was a bourgeois revolution in every meaningful sense of the word.

Prior to that election/war, the national government of the United States was essentially dominated by the landed/slave-holding aristocracy of the south; afterwards, it was dominated by the capitalist class...as it has been ever since.
Yeah, you&#39;re right.

[LSD]

Just because a bunch of people got together to overthrow their rulers and replace them with similar ones doesn&#39;t make it a revolution.

Actually, that is the definition of "revolution".


(from a leftist perspective)

I see...

so your basic contention is that the American Revolution was not a communist revolution?

Not exactly a groundbreaking theory.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
Yes, but of course, Lafayette wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man...with much consultation from Jefferson&#33;

Those sneaky bastards&#33; :o

Well, that&#39;s twice you&#39;ve nailed me on factual historical errors (Switzerland being the other). :P

So I&#39;d better resolve to "look stuff up" before I joust with you again.


Even the Directorate provided a model of what not to do and led to the establishment of constitutional and democratic "checks and balances".

Is it your view that the "terror" was the "wrong" thing to do?

Has it not been the case (thus far) that the "checks" have been directed against the masses and the "balances" have always favored the ruling class?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Hugo_ChaveZ]

Well if you like the historical materialist conception of history theory you would not be so harsh on US-founding fatthers, the thing is that the world, i mean the whole world wasn&#39;t experiencing social revolutions like today, so i think it was just a stage in history, even capitalism is part of that stage of history, part of socialism because capitalism itself leads to socialism


Hugo_ChaveZ

[LSD]

Is it your view that the "terror" was the "wrong" thing to do?

In short, yes.


Has it not been the case (thus far) that the "checks" have been directed against the masses and the "balances" have always favored the ruling class?

Yes, but then so has every other system before it. A system of democratic responsibility and accountability is a step forward. Granted it still favour&#39;s ther ruling class, but less so than a system with no accountability.

Ultimately, any institutionalized government, especially in a capitalistic environment, will favour the ruling class. At least with some "checks and ballances", that favour doesn&#39;t express itself quite as violently.

[Valkyrie]

I always thought it was interesting that basically a bunch of old guys were able to take this country with cannonballs & muskets and not the greatest means in getting around, but we are having such a hard time of it.

does anyone know exactly how many colonists acutally fought in the Revolutionary War and how many British?

[Valkyrie]

So, I did a little research and came up with 7,000 soldiers on the Colonist side. Don&#39;t have the numbers for the Brits, yet.