[geeks] Percentages & mail list
lionel4287 at gmail.com
Thu May 29 21:08:41 CDT 2008
On May 29, 2008, at 5:19 PM, Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com>
> On May 29, 2008, at 14:41 , Nadine Miller wrote:
>> And even those that turned out to be "rebels" in some cases really
>> didn't want to be. The Declaration wasn't intended to be a
>> document of rebellion, even though it was interpreted that way. If
>> you read it in the context of the letters of the period, it's a
>> statement of their position, and their expectations of what the
>> Crown's responsibilities towards the *contracts* that the Colonial
>> companies had agreed to. If the Crown (well, strictly speaking
>> Parliament) had upheld the original contracts, we'd not be talking
>> about a Revolutionary War.
> Depends on which rebels of course.
> I'm not convinced that Washington's letters in particular were ever
> expected to be agreed with. It seems to me they were deliberately
> worded so the English would not accept the terms.
> Then again, they weren't really unreasonable.
> Took some guts too, with that huge fleet sitting offshore...
I may be wrong, but it said Declaration of Independence across the top
in bold letters, what else could they have meant? It wasn't the
declaration of annoyance...
More information about the geeks