European Monarchies

[betiko]

No one gives a god damn shit

We didn't revolt so we could care about European shitarchies

if it wasn't for france and our revolution + our help in in your war of independance versus the english , you guys wouldn't be an independent country in the first place.


in other news, we forgot one, sealand.

you guys want to be a sealand citizen? order your new nationality now and get a sealand baroness title+ a sealand mug for free!!

http://www.sealandgov.org/

[Gillipig]

No one gives a god damn shit

We didn't revolt so we could care about European shitarchies

if it wasn't for france and our revolution + our help in in your war of independance versus the english , you guys wouldn't be an independent country in the first place.


in other news, we forgot one, sealand.

you guys want to be a sealand citizen? order your new nationality now and get a sealand baroness title+ a sealand mug for free!!

http://www.sealandgov.org/

I're read of that country, facsinating, the possibilities that neautral waters provide...
Just build a plattform on neutral waters and you can create your own country as no existing country has claimed the waters surrounding it.

[betiko]

No one gives a god damn shit

We didn't revolt so we could care about European shitarchies

if it wasn't for france and our revolution + our help in in your war of independance versus the english , you guys wouldn't be an independent country in the first place.


in other news, we forgot one, sealand.

you guys want to be a sealand citizen? order your new nationality now and get a sealand baroness title+ a sealand mug for free!!

http://www.sealandgov.org/

I're read of that country, facsinating, the possibilities that neautral waters provide...
Just build a plattform on neutral waters and you can create your own country as no existing country has claimed the waters surrounding it.

I think it's not recognized by the UN though...

I saw that a norwegian company was selling an oil platform for 1 nrwegian crown on ebay and no one bought it.
Bummer, could've created my own kingdom and I would be a prince of the north sea too. Now I can just become a Lord of Sealand for a higher price!

[KoolBak]

I thought this said European Motorcycles

[TA1LGUNN3R]

No one gives a god damn shit

We didn't revolt so we could care about European shitarchies

if it wasn't for france and our revolution + our help in in your war of independance versus the english , you guys wouldn't be an independent country in the first place.


in other news, we forgot one, sealand.

you guys want to be a sealand citizen? order your new nationality now and get a sealand baroness title+ a sealand mug for free!!

http://www.sealandgov.org/

Um... American revolution happened first, and French Revolution was inspired by the American one.

-TG

[betiko]

No one gives a god damn shit

We didn't revolt so we could care about European shitarchies

if it wasn't for france and our revolution + our help in in your war of independance versus the english , you guys wouldn't be an independent country in the first place.


in other news, we forgot one, sealand.

you guys want to be a sealand citizen? order your new nationality now and get a sealand baroness title+ a sealand mug for free!!

http://www.sealandgov.org/

Um... American revolution happened first, and French Revolution was inspired by the American one.

-TG

Do'h you re right! Don t even know how I said that, selective oblivion maybe!

[mrswdk]

My American friend says the revolution was primarily a land grab and that the 'taxation without representation' stuff was just a way of claiming the moral high ground so the colonial leaders could put a positive PR spin on ditching their agreements with the UK. Apparently Washington himself managed to yoink a lot of land and shove it in his personal portfolio after the revolution.

I know almost nothing about the revolution except TEA PAAARTY F*CK YEAH so I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows more.

[Army of GOD]

My American friend says the revolution was primarily a land grab and that the 'taxation without representation' stuff was just a way of claiming the moral high ground so the colonial leaders could put a positive PR spin on ditching their agreements with the UK. Apparently Washington himself managed to yoink a lot of land and shove it in his personal portfolio after the revolution.

I know almost nothing about the revolution except TEA PAAARTY F*CK YEAH so I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows more.

Your American friend is an idiot. Britain threw a bunch of taxes (tea tax, stamp act, etc.) As well as the Intolerable Acts (Americans were forced to house British troops following the French and Indian War) and Americans just wanted a more local government.

[Dukasaur]

My American friend says the revolution was primarily a land grab and that the 'taxation without representation' stuff was just a way of claiming the moral high ground so the colonial leaders could put a positive PR spin on ditching their agreements with the UK. Apparently Washington himself managed to yoink a lot of land and shove it in his personal portfolio after the revolution.

I know almost nothing about the revolution except TEA PAAARTY F*CK YEAH so I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows more.

Your American friend is an idiot. Britain threw a bunch of taxes (tea tax, stamp act, etc.) As well as the Intolerable Acts (Americans were forced to house British troops following the French and Indian War) and Americans just wanted a more local government.

Actually the colonies were mostly self-governing already. About the only thing controlled by Britain was defense and foreign relations. Britain was spending a fortune defending the colonies, and the new taxes and the quartering of troops were an attempt to make the defense of the colonies pay for itself. All in all, it was a reasonable deal. Soon after the Revolution, Americans were paying far higher taxes to the federal government than they had ever paid to Britain.

Britain also had treaties with most of the Indian tribes beyond the Appalachians. The colonists considered the Indians non-humans. They wanted the right to exterminate the Indians and expand beyond the Appalachians at will. So yeah, it was largely motivated by a land grab, and a genocidal land grab at that.

None of this changes the fact that there were a lot of idealists serving in the American Revolution who genuinely wanted a new, egalitarian society. Enough of their ideals did get incorporated into the new nation to give it a unique libertarian flavour that has never quite been duplicated anywhere else. Still, for the most part, the idealists were sold out by Virginia landowners and New York moneybags who wanted a mercantilist oligarchy. The average guy was not significantly better off after the Revolution than before. The only thing that had changed was that the parasites living off his taxes were living in New York and Washington instead of London and Cardiff.

[saxitoxin]

My American friend says the revolution was primarily a land grab and that the 'taxation without representation' stuff was just a way of claiming the moral high ground so the colonial leaders could put a positive PR spin on ditching their agreements with the UK. Apparently Washington himself managed to yoink a lot of land and shove it in his personal portfolio after the revolution.

I know almost nothing about the revolution except TEA PAAARTY F*CK YEAH so I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows more.

Your American friend is an idiot. Britain threw a bunch of taxes (tea tax, stamp act, etc.) As well as the Intolerable Acts (Americans were forced to house British troops following the French and Indian War) and Americans just wanted a more local government.

Actually the colonies were mostly self-governing already. About the only thing controlled by Britain was defense and foreign relations. Britain was spending a fortune defending the colonies, and the new taxes and the quartering of troops were an attempt to make the defense of the colonies pay for itself. All in all, it was a reasonable deal. Soon after the Revolution, Americans were paying far higher taxes to the federal government than they had ever paid to Britain.

Britain also had treaties with most of the Indian tribes beyond the Appalachians. The colonists considered the Indians non-humans. They wanted the right to exterminate the Indians and expand beyond the Appalachians at will. So yeah, it was largely motivated by a land grab, and a genocidal land grab at that.

None of this changes the fact that there were a lot of idealists serving in the American Revolution who genuinely wanted a new, egalitarian society. Enough of their ideals did get incorporated into the new nation to give it a unique libertarian flavour that has never quite been duplicated anywhere else. Still, for the most part, the idealists were sold out by Virginia landowners and New York moneybags who wanted a mercantilist oligarchy. The average guy was not significantly better off after the Revolution than before. The only thing that had changed was that the parasites living off his taxes were living in New York and Washington instead of London and Cardiff.

lolwut

Virtually all of the (limited) colonial-aboriginal conflicts that had occurred prior to the U.S. westward expansion had nothing to do with land. The King Phillip War between the Wampanoag and the New England Confederation was typical of the types of wars between colonists and Native Americans, that largely had to do with cultural discord rather than ambitions of conquest (in that case the Wampanoag sachem had ordered the killing of John Sassoman, a popular Massachussett Indian [also the first Native American to graduate from Harvard], he was arrested and acquitted, but was understandably insulted by the arrest and declared war).

Open war between the colonists and Native Americans came after the British fielded their tribal allies like the Choctaw and Mohawk as auxiliary troops against U.S., Spanish, and French forces. After the Treaty of Paris, Britain then threw them all to the dogs. They negotiated safe transfer of loyalist whites to Canada but negotiated no similar accommodation for their tribal allies whom they'd drawn into the conflict and then simply abandoned to the victorious power. The U.S. treated Britain's Indian allies as conquered nations, in keeping with the norms of international relations, as they were the losing belligerents in war. Tribes that had allied themselves with the U.S., like the Catawba, avoided this fate and largely maintained their pre-revolutionary status.

My American friend says the revolution was primarily a land grab and that the 'taxation without representation' stuff was just a way of claiming the moral high ground so the colonial leaders could put a positive PR spin on ditching their agreements with the UK. Apparently Washington himself managed to yoink a lot of land and shove it in his personal portfolio after the revolution.

The Washington family was independently wealthy long before the revolution. Your friend was probably thinking about questions regarding Washington's expense account, which was the subject of a popular non-fiction book recently. Washington declared he would not take any salary, but would submit receipts to be reimbursed for his expenses. His expenses ended up being very expensive, though my understanding is that it didn't have anything to do with crookedness, but was simply the customary way of life for the aristocracy. Things like fine wines and ceremonial sabers would be normal expenses of a monarch at the time and Washington styled himself as a non-hereditary king; people bowed to him, his birthday was a state celebration, and,

Washington was transported through the city in a canary-yellow carriage drawn by six white stallions and ornamented by gilded cupids and Washington's coat-of-arms. The horses hoofs were painted marble black and their teeth cleaned before every outing.

http://books.google.com/books?id=cWifz_

[Dukasaur]

Virtually all of the (limited) colonial-aboriginal conflicts that had occurred prior to the U.S. westward expansion had nothing to do with land. The King Phillip War between the Wampanoag and the New England Confederation was typical of the types of wars between colonists and Native Americans, that largely had to do with cultural discord rather than ambitions of conquest (in that case the Wampanoag sachem had ordered the killing of John Sassoman, a popular Massachussett Indian [also the first Native American to graduate from Harvard], he was arrested and acquitted, but was understandably insulted by the arrest and declared war).

Open war between the colonists and Native Americans came after the British fielded their tribal allies like the Choctaw and Mohawk as auxiliary troops against U.S., Spanish, and French forces. After the Treaty of Paris, Britain then threw them all to the dogs. They negotiated safe transfer of loyalist whites to Canada but negotiated no similar accommodation for their tribal allies whom they'd drawn into the conflict and then simply abandoned to the victorious power. The U.S. treated Britain's Indian allies as conquered nations, in keeping with the norms of international relations, as they were the losing belligerents in war. Tribes that had allied themselves with the U.S., like the Catawba, avoided this fate and largely maintained their pre-revolutionary status.

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/proclamation-of-1763.html

British settlers in the colonies along the coast had an insatiable appetite for more land. Much of the coastal area was already settled and new arrivals and high birthrates were increasing the population. They needed room to expand. The settlers had spent a lot of blood and money during the war in order to drive out France and take over its land. Now that the war was over, they were ready to claim their prize - the rich frontier that lay over the mountains, all the way to the Mississippi.

... and that's from a very patriotic American website putting the best possible spin on it.


... and here's one from a not-so-pro-American viewpoint, which points out that one of the major motivators was a need to protect slavery, which had been banned in England in 1772, but not in the colonies:
http://allotherpersons.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/did-slavery-cause-of-the-revolutionary-war-yes-book-review-of-slave-nation/

Although the Somerset decision was binding in England, it was not the law of the land in the American colonies… yet. However, the charters from Britain that created the various colonies contained so-called “repugnancy clauses” which said that the Americans could not make legislation that was contrary to British laws. And in 1766, Britain passed the Declaratory Act which gave the British parliament power over “all cases whatsoever” involving American laws.

This made Southerners concerned, for two reasons. First, they were worried that American slaves would hear about the Somerset decision, and try to escape to England where they would be declared free per the decision’s precedent. But even more, they were worried that slavery in America was endangered, as explained in the book:

The possibility of a British rejection of slavery anywhere in the empire appalled the (southern) plantation owners… because slavery was a necessary underpinning of their prosperity. Slavery was the foundation of the economic and social environment that their leaders represented and protected.

The riches that flowed from slave ownership were threefold: the value of the slaves themselves, both as capital and as security for loans; the value of the product they produced, including more slaves; and the value of the land they cleared and planted.

Slavery in the southern colonies made white slave owners the wealthiest group on the mainland…

The importance of slavery to the southern colonists had its roots in the pre-Revolutionary period. As a result of a rebellion by poor whites in 1676, Virginia shifted its labor force from a mix of black slaves and white indentured servants to slaves alone.

So, yeah. Among the major rights the colonists were protecting were not just the nice ones they teach in school like the right to free speech and the right to a trial by jury, but largely the right to murder the red man and steal his land, and the right to keep the black man in chains.

[Army of GOD]

I don't think blogs count as valid sources

[Dukasaur]

I don't think blogs count as valid sources

Unless you want to change your username to Symmetry, you might want to analyse the message and not the messenger.

[saxitoxin]

Virtually all of the (limited) colonial-aboriginal conflicts that had occurred prior to the U.S. westward expansion had nothing to do with land. The King Phillip War between the Wampanoag and the New England Confederation was typical of the types of wars between colonists and Native Americans, that largely had to do with cultural discord rather than ambitions of conquest (in that case the Wampanoag sachem had ordered the killing of John Sassoman, a popular Massachussett Indian [also the first Native American to graduate from Harvard], he was arrested and acquitted, but was understandably insulted by the arrest and declared war).

Open war between the colonists and Native Americans came after the British fielded their tribal allies like the Choctaw and Mohawk as auxiliary troops against U.S., Spanish, and French forces. After the Treaty of Paris, Britain then threw them all to the dogs. They negotiated safe transfer of loyalist whites to Canada but negotiated no similar accommodation for their tribal allies whom they'd drawn into the conflict and then simply abandoned to the victorious power. The U.S. treated Britain's Indian allies as conquered nations, in keeping with the norms of international relations, as they were the losing belligerents in war. Tribes that had allied themselves with the U.S., like the Catawba, avoided this fate and largely maintained their pre-revolutionary status.

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/proclamation-of-1763.html

British settlers in the colonies along the coast had an insatiable appetite for more land. Much of the coastal area was already settled and new arrivals and high birthrates were increasing the population. They needed room to expand. The settlers had spent a lot of blood and money during the war in order to drive out France and take over its land. Now that the war was over, they were ready to claim their prize - the rich frontier that lay over the mountains, all the way to the Mississippi.

... and that's from a very patriotic American website putting the best possible spin on it.


... and here's one from a not-so-pro-American viewpoint, which points out that one of the major motivators was a need to protect slavery, which had been banned in England in 1772, but not in the colonies:
http://allotherpersons.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/did-slavery-cause-of-the-revolutionary-war-yes-book-review-of-slave-nation/

Although the Somerset decision was binding in England, it was not the law of the land in the American colonies… yet. However, the charters from Britain that created the various colonies contained so-called “repugnancy clauses” which said that the Americans could not make legislation that was contrary to British laws. And in 1766, Britain passed the Declaratory Act which gave the British parliament power over “all cases whatsoever” involving American laws.

This made Southerners concerned, for two reasons. First, they were worried that American slaves would hear about the Somerset decision, and try to escape to England where they would be declared free per the decision’s precedent. But even more, they were worried that slavery in America was endangered, as explained in the book:

The possibility of a British rejection of slavery anywhere in the empire appalled the (southern) plantation owners… because slavery was a necessary underpinning of their prosperity. Slavery was the foundation of the economic and social environment that their leaders represented and protected.

The riches that flowed from slave ownership were threefold: the value of the slaves themselves, both as capital and as security for loans; the value of the product they produced, including more slaves; and the value of the land they cleared and planted.

Slavery in the southern colonies made white slave owners the wealthiest group on the mainland…

The importance of slavery to the southern colonists had its roots in the pre-Revolutionary period. As a result of a rebellion by poor whites in 1676, Virginia shifted its labor force from a mix of black slaves and white indentured servants to slaves alone.

So, yeah. Among the major rights the colonists were protecting were not just the nice ones they teach in school like the right to free speech and the right to a trial by jury, but largely the right to murder the red man and steal his land, and the right to keep the black man in chains.

Sorry, I really can't respond to this. I put forth a fairly detail-rich explanation that is based in a conventional understanding of American Indian history (just trust me when I tell you I'm kinda an expert on) and you responded with a 3-line quote from "... a hobby website for an amateur American history enthusiast [sic]" that - honestly - appears to have horribly confused the cause and effects of the U.S. landgrab that occurred during the Plains Indian Wars with entirely different issues that guided relations with Algonquin-speaking peoples in the 18th century. And then there's something about black slavery randomly tacked onto the end, which wasn't even something being discussed. The cherry on this shit cake is "the U.S. revolution wasn't about free speech!" (which I agree with, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the nuances of tribal relations).

But, you know, whatever.

[Dukasaur]

I put forth a fairly detail-rich explanation that is based in a conventional understanding of American Indian history (just trust me when I tell you I'm kinda an expert on)

Yeah, yeah, it was a wonderfully erudite post. However, it was smoke and mirrors. First you wowed us with your understanding of the King Philip War, which happened long before the Revolution and really had nothing to do with it, and then while the audience still had their head spinning in amazement you pulled a rabbit out of a hat and flashed us forward to events that happened mostly during the War of 1812, long after the Revolution. Dazzled by your taschenspielerei, very few in the audience noticed that the years immediately before the Revolution just vanished in the haze.

I, on the other hand, was staying more-or-less on topic and speaking about events directly leading up to 1776.

[saxitoxin]

I put forth a fairly detail-rich explanation that is based in a conventional understanding of American Indian history (just trust me when I tell you I'm kinda an expert on)

Yeah, yeah, it was a wonderfully erudite post. However, it was smoke and mirrors. First you wowed us with your understanding of the King Philip War, which happened long before the Revolution and really had nothing to do with it,

I think a reasonable person understands what "the King Phillip War between the Wampanoag and the New England Confederation was typical of the types of wars" means. During the 150-year period from settlement to the U.S. revolution that is the form every colonial-tribal conflict took, with the exception of the First Pequot War, until the pattern was broke at Dunmore's War and we saw a foreshadowing of territorial conflict that would erupt a generation later, in the early 19th century.

In U.S. grade schools they lump (I assume for reasons of efficiency in instructing to 10 year olds, which is understandable) all White-Native conflict into a single cause - land acquisition. You are trying to hang your hat on this very reductionist understanding of the complexity of American Indian history that simply does not exist outside 4th grade classrooms. I don't mean to be rude, I just don't know how else to explain the fallacy that's frustrating you.

and then while the audience still had their head spinning in amazement you pulled a rabbit out of a hat and flashed us forward to events that happened mostly during the War of 1812, long after the Revolution.

Uhhh ... the Choctaw, whom I'd mentioned as a British ally during the U.S. revolution, actually allied with the U.S. side during the War of 1812. As evidenced yet again, here, all I can tell you is that your posts are continuing to demonstrate the errors that occur when one tries to compact a 150 year historical arc into a neat, 3-line explanation, or to reduce 900+ different Native-American nations into "the Indian side."

[TA1LGUNN3R]

[Phatscotty]

No one gives a god damn shit

We didn't revolt so we could care about European shitarchies

if it wasn't for france and our revolution + our help in in your war of independance versus the english , you guys wouldn't be an independent country in the first place.

well....I think we would have won and been independent, but yes France helped us to get better results from our negotiations with the British. Don't forget France and America almost went to war just a decade later. France didn't really like that fact that we were claiming Independence when they wanted us to go back to war against England.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlYE9h-vDF4&t=1m10s

Now I have to read this whole thread

[Dukasaur]

I put forth a fairly detail-rich explanation that is based in a conventional understanding of American Indian history (just trust me when I tell you I'm kinda an expert on)

Yeah, yeah, it was a wonderfully erudite post. However, it was smoke and mirrors. First you wowed us with your understanding of the King Philip War, which happened long before the Revolution and really had nothing to do with it,

I think a reasonable person understands what "the King Phillip War between the Wampanoag and the New England Confederation was typical of the types of wars" means. During the 150-year period from settlement to the U.S. revolution that is the form every colonial-tribal conflict took, with the exception of the First Pequot War, until the pattern was broke at Dunmore's War and we saw a foreshadowing of territorial conflict that would erupt a generation later, in the early 19th century.

In U.S. grade schools they lump (I assume for reasons of efficiency in instructing to 10 year olds, which is understandable) all White-Native conflict into a single cause - land acquisition. You are trying to hang your hat on this very reductionist understanding of the complexity of American Indian history that simply does not exist outside 4th grade classrooms. I don't mean to be rude, I just don't know how else to explain the fallacy that's frustrating you.

I have no difficulty understanding that things have multiple causes, thank you very much. Of course not all colonial-native conflicts were caused by, or solely caused by, a desire for land acquisition. Still, it was the biggest cause, most of the time.

Dunmore's War, far from being anomalous or merely a "foreshadowing" was in fact at the very core of events leading up to the American revolution. The colonists were completely unwilling to honour the boundaries established by the Treaty of Paris, by the Proclamation of 1763, by the Treaty of Fort Stanwick, or any other line that the British created in order to prevent war. Dunmore's War can be seen not as the beginning of a conflict, but actually as the culmination of a series of conflicts. How far back you want to stretch the chain is debatable. At the very least you can see it being the result of the flood of new settlements starting in 1768, but really the provocation goes back all the way to the 1740 Act of the virginia legislature illegitimately claiming the Ohio Country for Virginia.

Usurpations through and across the Appalachians were taking place throughout the century. The founding of Derry (now Harrisburg, PA) on land reserved for the Iroquois occurred in 1719, and from then on settlement on lands that had been guaranteed to the natives never really stopped. They abated every now and then, but were almost never rolled back. They contributed greatly to the constant low-level warfare along the frontier, they contributed to the outbreak and the conduct of the Seven Years War, they contributed to the British need to keep armies in America and raise taxes to pay for them.

The colonists' outrage over the British taxes was hypocritical. The taxes were there to pay for the upkeep of the British Army, and the British Army was there to fight wars that the colonists were starting through their refusal to honour any boundaries and to settle Indian lands at will, which brings us full circle to where this conversation began.

[saxitoxin]

Dunmore's War, far from being anomalous or merely a "foreshadowing" was in fact at the very core of events leading up to the American revolution.

Well, I can most definitely say this is the first time I have ever heard anyone make this claim. In fact, I'm pretty sure that interpretation has never before been advanced by anyone prior to this thread on the Conquer Club message boards. You are either a historical trailblazer or just very, very badly out of your depth.

While I'm looking forward to "the 2000 Teen Choice Awards led up to the September 11 attacks," (which, as with your, ahem, unique take on Dunmore's War is certainly true in its basic chronological sense), since you chose to blow past the observations I made of your other basic factual errors, I think it would be most productive if I just take my chips to the cashier now. Great effort, though, Dukasaur!

[Gillipig]

Dunmore's War, far from being anomalous or merely a "foreshadowing" was in fact at the very core of events leading up to the American revolution.

Well, I can most definitely say this is the first time I have ever heard anyone make this claim. In fact, I'm pretty sure that interpretation has never before been advanced by anyone prior to this thread on the Conquer Club message boards. You are either a historical trailblazer or just very, very badly out of your depth.

While I'm looking forward to "the 2000 Teen Choice Awards led up to the September 11 attacks," (which, as with your, ahem, unique take on Dunmore's War is certainly true in its basic chronological sense), since you chose to blow past the observations I made of your other basic factual errors, I think it would be most productive if I just take my chips to the cashier now. Great effort, though, Dukasaur!

I'm impressed by your ability to ridicule here but does that post really contain any argument whatsoever? You sem to be relying an awful lot on comedy, in a discussion about history trying to be funny just makes it look like you don't have any real arguments.

[Dukasaur]

Dunmore's War, far from being anomalous or merely a "foreshadowing" was in fact at the very core of events leading up to the American revolution.

Well, I can most definitely say this is the first time I have ever heard anyone make this claim. In fact, I'm pretty sure that interpretation has never before been advanced by anyone prior to this thread on the Conquer Club message boards. You are either a historical trailblazer or just very, very badly out of your depth.

While I'm looking forward to "the 2000 Teen Choice Awards led up to the September 11 attacks," (which, as with your, ahem, unique take on Dunmore's War is certainly true in its basic chronological sense), since you chose to blow past the observations I made of your other basic factual errors, I think it would be most productive if I just take my chips to the cashier now. Great effort, though, Dukasaur!

I'm impressed by your ability to ridicule here but does that post really contain any argument whatsoever? You sem to be relying an awful lot on comedy, in a discussion about history trying to be funny just makes it look like you don't have any real arguments.

+500 saxibucks

[saxitoxin]

Dunmore's War, far from being anomalous or merely a "foreshadowing" was in fact at the very core of events leading up to the American revolution.

Well, I can most definitely say this is the first time I have ever heard anyone make this claim. In fact, I'm pretty sure that interpretation has never before been advanced by anyone prior to this thread on the Conquer Club message boards. You are either a historical trailblazer or just very, very badly out of your depth.

While I'm looking forward to "the 2000 Teen Choice Awards led up to the September 11 attacks," (which, as with your, ahem, unique take on Dunmore's War is certainly true in its basic chronological sense), since you chose to blow past the observations I made of your other basic factual errors, I think it would be most productive if I just take my chips to the cashier now. Great effort, though, Dukasaur!

I'm impressed by your ability to ridicule here but does that post really contain any argument whatsoever?

No, my previous post contained argument. This one just contains ridicule. To each according to his need.