On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:57:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/15/2021 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:15:07 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/15/2021 5:25 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:45:09 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Not long. It's going down the tubes right now. Our government's logical and moral contradictions are now coming back to haunt us, since it was based on the phony premise that our founding fathers were really interested in personal liberty, when all they were really interested in was grabbing as much land and resources as possible in order to get rich. They weren't overtaxed by the British, as they claimed. At the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the average colonist was paying 1 schilling per year in taxes to the British government, while the average Briton was paying 29 schillings. And the Boston Tea Party was totally phonied up. Everybody, including the courts, recognized that an income tax was a taking of property in violation of the 5th Amendment until the hoi polloi ratified the 16th Amendment.
>>>>>>>> You can invent anything you like Bill. WHAT do you know about taxation of a group that had to sell their goods 2,000 miles away by ship? Until cotton they didn't even HAVE and income and still had to pay taxes. When you haven't even a passing understanding of history, why are you commenting? Feeding people? Virtually everyone in this country was a farmer before the war of independence and they fed THEMSELVES. But they still had to pay taxes and they had NO MONEY from which to pay them. Can you suggest to me where you ever got the idea that somehow Americans didn't have the human right of Freedom and the right to self determination.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tell me little man, what did George Washington say when they offered him a kingship? Or was that covered in your class on Marxism?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tell me what was "phonied up" about the Boston Tea Party when it was the British East Indies Company that reported the loss of 90,000 lbs of tea in Boston harbor. So WHAT was it that was "phonied up"? People who don't read history should not be telling us anything about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What are you blathering on about the 16th Amendment. If was ALWAYS understood that a government had to be paid for. The only arguments were in what form it would take, The Supreme Court ruled most of those methods unconstitutional so you have absolutely no say in that and your opinions are null and void.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you trying to look somehow intelligent by making uninformed accusations?
>>>>>>> Wow, Tom, you really don't know what you are talking about! I can completely contradict all of your arguments, if anyone is interested in hearing it, by citing references to very well-respected works on U.S. history. And I'm no Marxist; where do you get that stuff? Just another straw man argument? I'm a conservative. To answer just one of your incorrect assertions: originally it was contemplated that the federal government would be financed by excise taxes. Income taxes were considered to be just a seizure of an individual's property under a different name. But the real question is, why do you find it necessary to continually insult other members of the group? Can't you discuss the issues like a gentleman? I'm really starting to think that Frank Krygowski and John Slocum are right about you.
>>>>>> Sorry Bill, but conservatives do not argue that the Boston Tea Party was phony. This was reported to the Crown by the East Indies company itself. Any references you got are poppycock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "As a result of the Boston Tea Party, tension between Great Britain and the colonies grew, which led to Great Britain imposing what would be known as the Intolerable Acts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Explanation:
>>>>>> As an act of showing how upset they were about the new tax imposed on tea (or in other words, as a way of showing the British a piece of their mind), the colonists in Massachusetts decided to throw 342 trunks of tea into the Boston Harbor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, the colonists didn't achieved their main goal, which was to get Great Britain to understand them. Instead, in some way, this had a totally opposite effect. For instance, It did get the attention of the King and Parliament (they were furious).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They decided that the colonists must be punished, just as a naughty child was punished for destroying something which belonged to his parents. The list of punishments was long and severe."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This ended up with the Boston Harbor being closed down by the British Navy. And this led to another tea party and comments by John Adams, "Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails. This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These led to the entire nullification of ALL tax laws on colonists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "American writers were for many years apparently reluctant to celebrate the destruction of property, and so the event was usually ignored in histories of the American Revolution. This began to change in the 1830s, however, especially with the publication of biographies of George Robert Twelves Hewes, one of the few still-living participants of the "tea party", as it then became known."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is no doubt where you got the idea that the Boston Tea Party was phony. American writers and most especially the leftists will contradict ANY American history using things like this. If you are taken in by this, you have been looking in the wrong spot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you even know what an excise tax is? Governments are supposed to be underwritten by those being governed and NOT some specific subgroup that you feel you may trample upon. Again. if you don't know, the Supreme Court overruled that idea. What can I say?
>>>>>
>>>>> I should add that American won the revolutionary war because they were British soldierly and knew their enemy well. Great Britain hadn't stood against an army of their own caliber that many times before and when they did it usually turned out bad for the British who were fighting DISTANCE from their supplies. Marching in columns is a very bad defense against an enemy who doesn't show himself and are accurate shooters from hunting. It took WW 1 to break British generals from this stupid practice. Charging across a no-man's land with your enemy in fortifications with rapid firing weapons is not the most intelligent military strategy. Of course I say that from the experience of high speed hit and run.
>>>>>
>>>> Go reread the campaigns of the Boer Wars. British invented
>>>> khaki, bicycle regiments to enhance infantry, Kichener
>>>> invented concentration camps, many other innovations to a
>>>> successful conclusion. Similarly to our Revolution, the
>>>> Boers had longer range rifles and dispersed irregulars but
>>>> took 2d place nonetheless.
>>>
>>> The book _The Mosquito_ by Winegard claims that mosquitos were one of the most important factors in the
>>> success of the American revolution. The traitorous revolutionaries were much more knowledgeable about
>>> when and where the mosquitos spread malaria, yellow fever, etc.
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> And Washington, in 1777 ordered that the members of the Continental
>> forces be vaccinated against smallpox.
>>
>> But, mosquito's? I would wonder as the British had by the late 1700's
>> been active in tropical countries such as India and China for some
>> time and must have been familiar with mosquito's, and was the
>> relationship between mosquito's and sickness realized in the 1700's?
>
>I read the book a while ago, then gave it away. But as I recall, there
>was no widespread understanding of the link between mosquitoes and
>disease. The term "malaria" comes from bad air, and the air in swampy
>lands was thought to be the cause of the disease.
>
>But the Americans knew much more about where the swampy lands were and
>the times of year that malaria and yellow fever ran rampant. The British
>bumbled around an unknown country and suffered heavy losses of manpower.
>
>Here's a brief article:
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101806002.html

I wonder... After all the colonies were essentially British and I
believe it is estimated that roughly a third of the "colonists" were
pro "The Motherland" so it does seem likely that British forces, who
had been fighting in the "new world" for about 20 years before the
"Great Mutiny" might have become aware of the various sicknesses that
were common.

I only did a very quick look but it appears that Smallpox was seen as
the greatest danger and both the British and Colonists (at a later
date) inoculated their troops against it.
But, who knows now. So much utter foolishness has been written about
wars that nearly 250 years later who knows what actually happened (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.