Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[Ben Kenobi]

How long did George III spend trying to defeat the American rebels? Wasn't it 6 or 8 years? And Lincoln was only doing it for 4 years, right?

This is coming from an American?

What year did the Revolutionary war start?

What year did it end?

Are you sure you're an American, Gribbler?

[Ben Kenobi]

They could vote after the civil war, you gigantic mother****ing ******. What do you think the 15th amendment was?

What do you think Jim Crow was?

[giblets]

Ben, are you retarded? The fighting started in 1775, the war was basically won in 1781, but the peace treaty wasn't signed until 1783. I figured that if I wrote 6 years you would claim it ended in 1783, and if I wrote 8 years you would claim it ended in 1781 so I included both.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, are you retarded? The fighting started in 1775, the war was basically won in 1781, but the peace treaty wasn't signed until 1783. I figured that if I wrote 6 years you would claim it ended in 1783, and if I wrote 8 years you would claim it ended in 1781 so I included both.

There are basic facts. The peace treaty wasn't 'till 1783.

As for casulties, there were 50k American casulties and close to 700k American casulties in the American civil war, not even in the same ballpark. Had Lincoln been willing to let the colonies go, as George did, without the whole devastation of the South, then yes, many American lives would have been saved.

[Ecthy]

Are you actually implying George III could have won back the colonies if he had really wanted?

[giblets]

Are you actually implying George III could have won back the colonies if he had really wanted?

IIRC he never gave up on winning back the colonies, he just lost the support of Parliament.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you actually implying George III could have won back the colonies if he had really wanted?

Absolutely. They believed in the end that they were better off with the Americans as friends and trading partners. They fought harder against the French than the Americans.

[Ecthy]

So you're saying the war ended because George III decided he'd rather have the colonies as friends than as subjects, but he could have won them back had he chosen to do so? Is that what you're saying? Complete deliberation, no strategic dead end?

[Ben Kenobi]

So you're saying the war ended because George III decided he'd rather have the colonies as friends than as subjects, but he could have won them back had he chosen to do so? Is that what you're saying? Complete deliberation, no strategic dead end?

His aim, to do the best for his subjects and by his former subjects turned out to be the right decision for both. America prospered and so did Britain. Lincoln cannot say the same.

[Ecthy]

That's not my point. Lincoln pursued for victory when he had a chance to win, and he won. George III made peace when he realized he had no chance to win. You have the burden of proof for your argument that indeed he could have won the war but made peace for what reason exactly? Because he saw the future? The truth is he had lost militarily in America and politically at home. How can you even compare the two entirely different situations without admitting this?

I'm also astonished that "as a historian", a profession you occasionally play to when it comes explaining to the way you think, you'd rather engage in virtual "what ifs" than soberly reconstruct the two decision making situations. I'm saying this because I've studied history and in a long time I haven't come across an argument that would try and glorify a course of action or a decision not for the context it was made in but ratehr from historical hindsight of over 200 years later. I mean honestly, do we havea clue what "would" have happened "if" Lincoln had made peace? It doesn't make sense.

Edit: sorry for the edits.

[Lorizael]

His aim, to do the best for his subjects and by his former subjects turned out to be the right decision for both. America prospered and so did Britain. Lincoln cannot say the same.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's not my point. Lincoln pursued for victory when he had a chance to win, and he won. George III made peace when he realized he had no chance to win.

George III never had any intention of stepping the war up to the point where they could have defeated the Americans. They were, however, concerned about French incusions and fought them accordingly.

I am saying that if George III fought the Revolutionary War, the same way Lincoln fought the Civil War, he would have devastated the US. He had far larger manpower and navy.

The truth is he had lost militarily in America and politically at home. How can you even compare the two entirely different situations without admitting this?

The Union also lost many battles in the Peninsular War, but the overall strategy, was different. Cornwallis did not conduct the Revolutionary war in the same manner as Winfield Scott and his Anaconda plan. The Union, from the very start, fought the war as a war of attrition to deprive the south of the resources that she needed and use the overwhelming manpower and industrial advantages to win.

I'm also astonished that "as a historian", a profession you occasionally play to when it comes explaining to the way you think, you'd rather engage in virtual "what ifs" than soberly reconstruct the two decision making situations.

I am reconstructing the decision process and the arguments of Pitt, etc. Their argument was, just as I stated, that the primary antagonist of the Revolutionary war was France, not the US, and they deployed accordingly. Pitt had no desire to fight the US.

This is why when the government fell and Pitt came to the forefront, he pushed for reconcilation and truce.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm crying with laughter right now

[Ben Kenobi]

Lorizael:

Are you suggesting that the South prospered after the Civil War to the extent that America prospered after the Revolutionary war?

[Hauldren Collider]

THE SOUTH LOST, YOU ********! Of course they didn't ****ing prosper! The American revolution was successful, on the other hand. Jesus, you're stupid!