Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    26 Aug '15 22:111 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Give an example or zip it.
    See the edit. Your idea that the American Revolution was just changing one group of rich rulers for another is stupid and ahistorical in the extreme.

    More from Mr. Wood:

    The Revolution not only radically changed the personal and social relationships of people, including the position of women, but also destroyed aristocracy as it had been understood in the Western world for at least two millennia. The Revolution brought respectability and even dominance to ordinary people long held in contempt and gave dignity to their menial labor in a manner unprecedented in history and to a degree not equaled elsewhere in the world. The Revolution did not just eliminate monarchy and create republics; it actually reconstituted what Americans meant by public and state power and brought about an entirely new kind of popular politics and a new kind of democratic officeholder."

    RAR, pp. 7-8

    (emphasis supplied)
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10116
    27 Aug '15 00:431 edit
    First of all, who is Mr. Wood?

    Secondly, are you to have us believe that men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not wealthy educated men? Without men like these, the Revolution would never have come about, or if it had, it would have failed.

    Granted, the wealth in the Americas at that time was not comparable to that in Europe, but they were wealthy by American standards. The fact that America did not have comparable wealth to Europe is why Americans enjoyed the freedoms they did for as long as they did. Indeed, we used to have a Republic where states minded their own affairs, but now those days are gone. Now the elites rule through the Executive Branch and you have to be royalty to enter office with either a Bush or Clinton last name.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    27 Aug '15 01:06
    Originally posted by whodey to No1Marauder
    First of all, who is Mr. Wood?

    Secondly, are you to have us believe that men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not wealthy educated men? Without men like these, the Revolution would never have come about, or if it had, it would have failed.

    Granted, the wealth in the Americas at that time was not comparable to that in Euro ...[text shortened]... utive Branch and you have to be royalty to enter office with either a Bush or Clinton last name.
    "...the wealth in the Americas at that time was not comparable to that in Europe..."
    --Whodey

    Whodey's belief seems to come from the US patriotic myth claiming or implying that
    nearly all of the white American colonists in 1775 were oppressed poor people.
    On the contrary, most white American colonists evidently were at least as well off as
    they (or their recent ancestors) had been in Europe.
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10116
    27 Aug '15 01:23
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "...the wealth in the Americas at that time was not comparable to that in Europe..."
    --Whodey

    Whodey's belief seems to come from the US patriotic myth claiming or implying that
    nearly all of the white American colonists in 1775 were oppressed poor people.
    On the contrary, most white American colonists evidently were at least as well off as
    they (or their recent ancestors) had been in Europe.
    The Americas were a developing economy that had not rivaled Europe as of yet. There were essentially only two sources of wealth in Colonial America, commerce and the ownership of land. Granted, America had far more opportunity economically than the overpopulated rigid social structure of Europe, which is why they came.

    In fact, if it had not been for France supporting the rebels in the Revolution, the Revolution would have failed.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    27 Aug '15 02:19
    Originally posted by whodey
    First of all, who is Mr. Wood?

    Secondly, are you to have us believe that men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not wealthy educated men? Without men like these, the Revolution would never have come about, or if it had, it would have failed.

    Granted, the wealth in the Americas at that time was not comparable to that in Europe, but they we ...[text shortened]... utive Branch and you have to be royalty to enter office with either a Bush or Clinton last name.
    There's no sense even responding to such drivel; your ignorance of even basic facts (like George Washington wasn't particularly well-educated having been privately tutored only until he was 15) make rational discussion impossible. And, of course, you end with silly propaganda.

    Stay ignorant; Wood's books are way over your head. The Radicalism of the American Revolution won a Pulitzer in 1993. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_S._Wood
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10116
    27 Aug '15 10:10
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    There's no sense even responding to such drivel; your ignorance of even basic facts (like George Washington wasn't particularly well-educated having been privately tutored only until he was 15) make rational discussion impossible. And, of course, you end with silly propaganda.

    Stay ignorant; Wood's books are way over your head. The Radicalism of the American Revolution won a Pulitzer in 1993. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_S._Wood
    Apparently you missed what I said.

    "There were essentially only two sources of wealth in Colonial America, commerce and the ownership of land."

    So from an American perspective at that time, Washington was well off.

    Ever been to Mt. Vernon? How many Americans had as much land?

    Of course, you unwittingly go to prove my other point which was that there are far more wealthy individuals in Europe.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13064
    27 Aug '15 10:52
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You're a clown with an abysmal ignorance of history and virtually everything else.

    " it was the Revolution, more than any other single event, that made America into the most liberal, democratic, and modern nation in the world."

    Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, p. 7.
    Here we go with "abysmal" again. I guess I should have ignored it when Duchess kept using it. Now I am having a hard time getting it out of my mind. Lordy mercy.
  8. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    27 Aug '15 11:59
    Originally posted by Phranny
    "Face it, in order to become President you either must be filthy rich or sell out to those who are. Which do you prefer?" I would prefer to join others and work towards fixing that which is broken. I feel Bernie Sanders is a good choice.
    Feelings can be deceptive.
  9. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    27 Aug '15 12:04
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    See the edit. Your idea that the American Revolution was just changing one group of rich rulers for another is stupid and ahistorical in the extreme.

    More from Mr. Wood:

    The Revolution not only radically changed the personal and social relationships of people, including the position of women, [b]but also destroyed aristocracy as it had been underst ...[text shortened]... ular politics and a new kind of democratic officeholder."

    RAR, pp. 7-8

    (emphasis supplied)
    Much of what the revolution accomplished (according to Mr. Wood) has been lost to modern Statism, which began with the adoption of the Constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    27 Aug '15 13:11
    Originally posted by whodey
    Apparently you missed what I said.

    "There were essentially only two sources of wealth in Colonial America, commerce and the ownership of land."

    So from an American perspective at that time, Washington was well off.

    Ever been to Mt. Vernon? How many Americans had as much land?

    Of course, you unwittingly go to prove my other point which was that there are far more wealthy individuals in Europe.
    Of course, Washington was wealthy though he gained most of his wealth by marrying the richest widow in Virginia. But you also claimed he was "well educated" which he was not.

    Further, you claimed that the Revolution would have been impossible without the wealthy. This is rubbish. The Revolution started among the small farmers and tradesman of New England. They were the backbone of the Revolution, not a few wealthy individuals.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    27 Aug '15 13:13
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Much of what the revolution accomplished (according to Mr. Wood) has been lost to modern Statism, which began with the adoption of the Constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation.
    BS. The nation would have never survived and/or prospered under the inadequate central government set up by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
  12. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    27 Aug '15 14:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    First of all, who is Mr. Wood?
    Never seen Good Will Hunting?

    http://www.whysanity.net/monos/goodwill6.html
  13. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    7443
    27 Aug '15 16:29
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You're a clown with an abysmal ignorance of history and virtually everything else.

    " it was the Revolution, more than any other single event, that made America into the most liberal, democratic, and modern nation in the world."

    Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, p. 7.
    To be honest, anyone who claims that the USA are "the most liberal, democratic, and modern nation in the world" is worse than merely a clown.
  14. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    27 Aug '15 16:36
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    To be honest, anyone who claims that the USA are "the most liberal, democratic, and modern nation in the world" is worse than merely a clown.
    Maybe try reading the entire sentence.

    Wood and No1 were talking about the era immediately following the American Revolution, not 2015.
  15. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    27 Aug '15 17:50
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    BS. The nation would have never survived and/or prospered under the inadequate central government set up by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
    Nobody, not even you, knows what "would have happened". We know what has happened, and it doesn't resemble either the original Union, nor the adopted Constitutional government. All of the warnings of the antifederalists have come true.
Back to Top