And usually get more war than you can handle. Such, of course, was the case of Dishonest Abe Lincoln, one of the last casualties, but by no means the last of the war he started. Such was also the case of the Sioux at Wounded Knee who, acting on the theory that Winchesters beat Springfields, forgot that Hotchkisses beat Winchesters and starting a fight when you're surrounded is not the best of strategems.
By now, you've heard about how the massed Armies of the Night have tried to turn Gotham into Paris, complete with No-Go zones. Back when La Madeleine had leaders with some cran, young Bonaparte put down a royalist uprising with his famous "whiff of grape". Laissez les bon temps roulez.
Similarly, in 1863, when the Micks decided that, while the WASPs' motto of "No Irish need apply" reflected their disdain for the average Hibernian, the fact they were still good enough to die in the cause of freeing slaves who might just take it into their heads to seek employment on the Great White Way. Thus, the New York draft riots began (there were others in NY and PA, including the City of Brotherly Love*) and took 5 days to put down with at least 1200 dead.
Our current disturbance is aimed at driving ICE out of the city and would appear extremely well-organized. A point of interest is that New York's Finest began arresting the hooligans on the spot and may reflect the true outcome of Madman's and Trump's meeting 10 days ago. Since the usual Commiecrat municipal establishment would shrink from such ferocity, so we must conclude the God Emperor of the Cherry Blossom Throne has made his point with the help of the Schumer Shutdown.
PS Fun fact: for those panicking, or just fear mongering, at the fact Moslems played a key part in Madmani's election, keep in mind Germans and Irish made up half the population of NYC in 1863.
* See Bruce Catton's Glory Road.
6 comments:
Historically nobody starts a war they think they are going to lose.
Historically plenty of wars seem to have just been "backed into" instead of declared.
Historically regular people get stomped and only the wealthy "winning" troublemakers seem to do well afterwards.
Revolutions started by wealthy people to get regular people to fight for them.
Nice Lefty boilerplate, but lots of people have started wars knowing their chances were dim. The Confederacy, f'rinstance.
And I'd like to see which wars were backed into. WWI, maybe, but not too many others.
Revolutions are started by the wealthy? Really? The American and French revolutions were started by the middle class, as most have been, and, if the American Revolution is any guide, the rich took it on the chin. Maybe you mean Uncle Ho's war? I guess you could say the leaders made out like little bandits. Same with Russia and China and Cuba.
Funny how that works out.
Ed normally you're a fine commenter but I'm no "lefty".
The French Revolution was started by LAWYERS aka Wealthy Folks even then. There really wasn't much of a middle class at that time, assorted merchants working their way into greater family wealth. About 10 minutes of research on the French Revolution would tell you about the many Lawyers like Maximilien Robespierre was a key leader of the French Revolution, known for his radical democratic ideals and his role in the Reign of Terror.
Maximilien Robespierre was born on May 6, 1758, in Arras, France. He was educated at the prestigious Louis-le-Grand College in Paris.
Robespierre's political career began in 1789 when he was elected to represent the Third Estate in the Estates-General.
I could go on but you get the drift, not middle class leadership here.
BTW I think Napoleon Bonapart WON the French Revolution, not exactly a Middle Class Victory, eh?
The American Revolution was about some RICH LANDOWNERS (and some Tax Evading Smugglers) Named George Washington, and so on aka the Founding Fathers.
Before the American Revolution, Hancock was one of the wealthiest men in the Thirteen Colonies, having inherited a profitable mercantile business from his uncle. He began his political career in Boston as a protégé of Samuel Adams, an influential local politician, though the two men later became estranged. Hancock used his wealth to support the colonial cause as tensions increased between colonists and Great Britain in the 1760s. He became very popular in Massachusetts, especially after British officials seized his sloop Liberty in 1768 and charged him with smuggling.
These well-off British Subjects sent envoys to the ROYALTY of France and Wealthy peers to get FUNDING and MILITARTY SUPPORT from France. Do you remember General Layfette a NOBLEMAN of France perchance? Mr. DuPont the wealthy French powder maker that came to America to provide us with the tools and skills to make fine grade powder. Maybe Ed, if you are a reloader you might know of Dupont Powders?
Most of our founding fathers did pretty damn well after the War was done. Again a few minutes of research would show how wealthy they still were and running the government at the time.
Again, NOT a middle class WIN.
Folks were never taught that the American Revolution was a Proxy War between Franch and England to weaken England (much like the current Ukraine Proxy war). French support in Gold (to pay troops and supplies), supplies of arms, ammo and powder (we didn't even have a decent ability to make lead ball for our firearms Imported mostly). AND French Naval Units that disrupted British supplies and in the final battle of Yorktown.
The Battle of Yorktown, also known as the Siege of Yorktown, marked the final major military engagement of the American Revolutionary War. It was fought between the British Army, commanded by General Charles Cornwallis, and the combined forces of the French and Continental Armies, led by General George Washington and French General Comte de Rochambeau. The battle took place in Yorktown, Virginia, and was characterized by a coordinated land and naval campaign that effectively trapped Cornwallis's forces.
This was before the French Revolution so authorized by the KING of France.
Not exactly something a bunch of middle class folks could arrange, eh?
Your history is very faulty. Robespierre got his education on scholarship and his grandfather was a brewer. George Washington was a surveyor and it was Martha that had all the money which she married. A planter wasn't necessarily rich. Some had day jobs just to make ends meet.
And many of the founding fathers, having pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, lost of the first 2. About a third lost their property. Several were wounded in combat. The war was about their rights as Englishmen, not the tax itself.
And, yeah, you talk like a Lefty.
A few more points. Most 18th century lawyers were not wealthy and came from laymen with no real training. Your average plantation was about 3 times the size of a family farm and only had about 5 slaves.
Not exactly the creme de la creme. As I said, middle class.
A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest (The Boxer song by Simon and Garfunkel).
I could find you well over a dozen links to point out that George Washington and many other of our founding fathers we WEALTHY MEN.
Not the myth of "middle class" you subscribe to and deem me "lefty" for knowing history.
Wikipedia actually does a decent job here. MATCHES all serious history research about Washington with little lefty bent (since YOU mentioned he had slaves buddy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_George_Washington
THAT and you might want to expand how your "middle class" folks got the KING of France to support their little rebellion.
Post a Comment