Sounds like a worthwhile read. As a reactionary Canadian, and therefore a partisan of the Redcoats and the United Empire Loyalists, this sounds a lot more balanced than the usual hagiography from American historians about the American Revolution.
Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:
If, like me, you’ve always had a hard time squaring the narrative of the American Revolution with the requirements of common sense, you might get something out of Sydney George Fisher’s “The True History of the American Revolution.” Writing around 1900 (i.e. before the establishment of the American Imperium), Fisher tackles the conflict by going back to the original sources, and divesting himself of the bullshit. In Fisher’s telling, the Revolution was an extension into the New World of Whig-Tory political jockeying, one which allowed the Patriot colonists to opportunistically impose their will on their countrymen. In this version of the Revolution the Patriots come off not as noble idealists, but as proto-SJWs. They can’t be appeased, because they don’t want to be appeased, and all of their spoutings about the Rights of Man are resorts to the most self-serving kind of sophistry. Fisher:
Before I…
View original post 4,070 more words
Patriactionary 
electricangel
September 18, 2017 at 9:51 am
The American founders, viewed from the point of view of their king, were traitors. The Revolution left the colonies poorer, with higher tax rates. Slaves would have been freed earlier and without a destructive civil war. And from what I can tell, you Canucks eventually got your independence, albeit without the sense of having fought for it.
Imagine a British North America with Canada and the States united. Now take away all the territories seized from Spain and Mexico and the Indians. It’s an intriguing thought.
As for me, I start to realize that much of the patriotism in the USA is just following a winner. But we haven’t really won since The Machiavellian statecraft makers of WW2 picked us up an empire from the fractured bits of Britain’s. That patriotism will go away, and maybe what remains will be loyal to place and people.
rednig
September 18, 2017 at 6:43 pm
What territory did Spain actually control? Mule trains left Ciudad de Mexico and ran for their lives all the way to El Paso del Norte, then ran again just to reach Albuquerque. Come to think of it, they still do. Spain, then Mexico, used to pay 100 pesos (when the peso was valued at $1.86 USD and gold sold for 22 bucks an ounce) for a Native American man’s scalp, 50 for a woman’s, and 25 for an infant. The ‘skins never got over it. No, Mexico had a few small colonies north of Mexico City. Ditto France and the Louisiana territory.
As for Native American territories, most of the nations sided with the US. How do you think the wealth of Mexico was defeated by a fairly poor nation (then) like the US. Blame the dems for the genocidal tactics of the nation, not the nation herself.
American imperialism started with the Indian wars, and upgraded to war with Mexico. It was the Spanish war that made us an empire. But, Machiavellian state craft is hot and cutting correct. Well put. Be blessed!
electricangel
September 19, 2017 at 2:09 pm
I wonder if a British-ruled USA would have gone to war with Spain over Florida? They did seize some land in the Pacific Northwest, where Port Angeles WA was founded by Spain. There was a tenuous grasp Spain and Mexico held; do recall that British policy was not to try to Manifest Destiny the continent.(MD is the 19th century’s America, F— yeah!)
As to Indians: they seem to have survived pretty well in Mexico, and it seems also in Canada, if the percentages of Indian blood in those countries means anything. I suspect population pressure would have had a British-ruled NA seize those lands in any case.
Thanks for the pointers.
Will S.
September 19, 2017 at 12:37 pm
Yep.
I think it’s unfortunate that English-Canadians and Americans aren’t part of the same nation. They should be – under the Queen! Or, if secession was necessary, we could have invited some other member of King George III’s family to come over here, and have an American Kingdom. 🙂
rednig
September 20, 2017 at 4:32 am
Will, America had several queens. One was King George, a fussy overbearing waste. The last un was Obama and his snide, underhanded way to kill the nation.Quebec was offered a place as a territory (and voted on it), but they would have had to be all-English speaking. Puerto Rico is struggling to attain that.
rednig
September 20, 2017 at 4:38 am
Chica, Mexico is anti-Native American. The Tarahumara lost 9,000 people in a planned famine, and were backed by the ugly ducklings, Hildabeast and Coke-Nose Billy Clinton. At that same time, as many as 15,000 Tonono may have starved to death when the government, over the protests of the state of sonora, sold their farms and ranches out from under them. Drive-by shootings, slavery (over 8 million estimate in Mexico, half a million in the US), most of them Native Americans taken to ‘civilize’ them. Canada is a lot better, but still makes trouble for people. We call it liberalism.
Ralph McGreggor
September 20, 2017 at 2:01 pm
Except you still have the face of a 90 year old British woman on your coins, and happily refer to yourselves as “Her Majesty’s subjects.” So the Canucks kind of got their independence, if you consider reverencing a foreign monarch as independence.
Will S.
September 21, 2017 at 2:10 am
You don’t get it. Britain doesn’t rule us. Her Majesty’s capacity as Queen of Canada is entirely separate from her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom, which is entirely separate from her capacity as Queen of Australia, and so on. The Monarch is head of state for Canada; the head of Canada’s government is the Prime Minister of Canada, who is the leader of the party that formed the government, by being elected.
We are independent. I know it’s tough for many Americans to understand that, but since the Statute of Westminster in 1931, we have completely governed ourselves.
rednig
September 18, 2017 at 6:27 pm
The American founders viewed King George as a traitor and something of a perversion..this was used as a Biblical inducement to break away.
Will S.
September 19, 2017 at 12:39 pm
Yes. That was wrong, and absurd. King George III may have been mad, but he was could hardly be a traitor, by definition: being the ruler, he literally couldn’t betray himself.
feeriker
September 19, 2017 at 4:06 pm
Whatever Mad Georgie was, he couldn’t been even one quarter of the tyrant our imperial federal overlords are today.
Will S.
September 19, 2017 at 6:26 pm
Exactly! I’m sure that, had the revolutionaries foreseen what the world is like today, they would have run back to Britain, crying “Save us from such a future!” 😉
rednig
September 21, 2017 at 2:35 am
Will, King George was head of the Church of England. He was a traitor to God, therefore the kingdom. Logic! His first duty was as subject to God, and he rejected that. Therefore: He was a traitor. Queen Victoria was, as I understand, very careful to remember her status as a believer. And, no, Canada and the US would be lousy as one nation. The US is far too Native American. We had no kings, no nobility, and each person–men and women–were their own governing body. No, the founding fathers were very up on what they were doing. Had England actually allowed us some freedom without crush taxes and treating us as livestock, we would have remained British for a time, at least. But then you must come back to Native Americans, who made up a large part of US citizenry, we have no kings because we were all democracies. We knew what we were doing when we fought for the fledgling US. Most Native Americans in that conflict fought against Europe.
Will S.
September 21, 2017 at 6:43 am
rednig, you are aware of the Mohawks, who mostly were United Empire Loyalists, and remained loyal to the Crown?
They settled in my part of Ontario, among other areas of Ontario and Quebec.
So not all Indians joined in the American experiment; some even resisted it forcefully.
rednig
September 22, 2017 at 3:38 am
Yep. One brother-in-law is from Watertown, a Mohawk. Not a great deal of loyalty remains since Canada started to jack-boot the Mohawks (see Oka, Canada; see the Island, trapped by Canadian gov.). For that matter, according to the Mohawks, Only one-third sided with the Brits in the war. The rest either remained neutral or sided with the US. You miss the point, that we’re democratic societies, not under a king. Each man and woman had the right to say no to war and stay home, or what side they fought for, Sickened by royal decrees here and everywhere, all of mine sided with the colonies. When the newly formed democrat party ‘punished’ the Iroquois, not a single Brit protested. When the Tarahumara were dying by the thousands in the 1990s, not a paper in Canada, Mexico, the US, or Europe bothered to mention it. They’re all silent on the issue of slavery as well, yet millions of children and women are in bondage in North America. Peace, walk in beauty.
Will S.
September 22, 2017 at 7:26 am
The Oka Crisis was unfortunate, but both it and the isolation of Akwesasne / Cornwall Island came about because of the militancy of the Warriors’ Society folks; they vandalized the Canada Customs office on Cornwall Island, so the Canadian government wisely said “Fuck ’em”, and moved the office off the reserve, back onto the mainland, forcing people to go through Customs to get into the rest of Canada. Oh well. It’s their own damned fault, for embracing those troublemakers.
Yes, the young hotheads among the Haudenosaunee have no love for Canada any more, unlike their ancestors. Oh well.
feeriker
September 19, 2017 at 4:05 pm
A very interesting and thought-provoking read. I’ve always been deeply skeptical of the “official” history of any nation, my own no exception. I’d definitely like to dive deeper into this.
Will S.
September 19, 2017 at 6:43 pm
All nations of course having founding myths, some of which may even be partially true. 😉