Is America a racist nation?

[Kismet]

You have really gone off the deep end now OS. Equating the Federal Government of 1861 or even today with the monarchy of King George III is, frankly, off the wall.

https://twitter.com/aroberts_andrew/sta ... 9186063374

Irrelevant to the point you were making. George III's government carried out his policies with regard to the colonies and refused to compromise on their requests for redress. That he wasn't as bad a guy as advertised previously does not change the way his government dealt with the colonists which resulted in a revolution. What a concept that a British historian would have to explain how the biggest eff up in British history occurred on his watch. Regardless of his personality, he still manged to lose a good portion of the Empire's colonies in North America. Not to mention, how he and his government set it all up fighting the French for all those years before the American Revolution. Recommend Crucible of War by Fred Anderson (an American author BTW)

As an so-called expert on 1776, please enumerate any of the grievances itemized in that document that the Southern States legitimately had in 1861.
I'll help you out - Zippo. Nada. Zero.

Southern states had representation in the Federal Government including a bunch of minority rights that they made sure they inserted into the Constitution including limitations on the Federal Government in favor of States' Rights. They used these rights to fight for the continuation of the practice to preserve their economic system based upon free slave labor. They wanted to expand slavery into the territories unfettered to perpetuate their economic system which included slavery and they didn't think the Feds were going to allow them to do that over time using the election of Republican Lincoln in 1861 as an excuse to secede. They were a minority and they knew it. The only way to make a majority was to secede.

As I have said here many times, there is much history available on the period and even more on the military piece of that history. We should be able to read all of it and understand the history in our own terms. Knowledge is indeed power. That said, there is no need to commemorate in the public square those figures who rebelled against their Federal Government and were traitors to same country. It is noble that we, as a country, paroled them after the war and not a single one of them received the penalty for treason or even served a day in jail except for Jefferson Davis.

I made a distinction earlier in this thread earlier in this thread using the recent removal of Jefferson stature from New York's City Council chamber at City Hall by reminding supporters of that action that without Jefferson and other of similar situation there might not be an independent City Council or City Hall in NYC in the first place. The same would go for all the others - Washington, Madison and Monroe who should be celebrated but also should have their other less redeeming features exposed for a total view of their lives and contributions to history. I just read recently that John Jay of New York (also the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) owned 17 slaves at one point or another (his family was heavily involved in the slave trade for generations before him) and even took a few to Paris when he was part of the delegation to negotiate and end of the American Revolution. He was later an ardent abolitionist. Does this detract from his accomplishments as part of a successful revolution and formation of an independent government? Certainly not. Is it relevant to our collective understanding of him, his family and his ties to slavery as well as the revolution? Also certainly. Should we take down all of his statues? I say no but that we should also understand his life in its totality. So far, not although an attempt was made to remove the new statue of him at the Kroll Auditorium celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the school named for him - John Jay College of Criminal Justice - talk about conundrums.

https://nyslavery.commons.gc.cuny.edu/s ... -john-jay/

So, any reading of history without an understanding the context of the times is sub-optimal IMHO. Applying modern context to historical events is a true "lost cause". Ditto for applying today's values retroactively 250 years.

Thanks for posting that. I always tell people, I can give a Mulligan for slavery. Harder to give a Mulligan post emancipation. If we had only done the right thing post emancipation, we would be much further ahead as a country….its been 100+ years of sub optimization in this country. Some folks want to keep their foot on the brake.

Everyone should also recognize that when these historical people lived that it wasn't history to them. It was just life as they came to know it. They weren't all that prescient and pretty much lived in their moments.

Mostly because survival was job#1?

Certainly a rather large consideration but not the only factor. They also do not have the luxury of knowledge of what came after as we all do.

True.

Consider how we freak over Covid... try facing what those folks did on a daily basis (no matter what color) pre-penicillin/pre-vaccines/living standards in general. Some had it worse than others, no doubt.

Basic human decency was probably learned centuries ago. Treating some with basic human decency and denying it to others can’t all be blamed on “didn’t know any better”…..kind of like a kid…. A 12 year old should know better than a 3 year old.

Your argument re "human decency" and rightly so, is with the ruling class and elites of the time. The common man was simply trying to survive.

Who said anything about the “common man” being at fault? Some of the common man benefited from the exploitation of those considered even less than common. Purposely so.

Maybe. So what do we do now? Erase that history or qualify it within the context of it's time?

Contrasting how far our society has come should be qualified. You probably disagree.

I don't think removing some Confederate statues that were erected many, many years after the events they allegedly commemorate qualify as "erasing history". I suspect that there is a very good reason why this timeline occurred and that such commemorations were not made until 40-50 years after the Civil War ended.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not for placing any qualifiers on monuments to the generation who successfully fought the American Revolution and who founded this country. I am in favor of making access to the public records of their lives to understand them in the context of their times to allow individuals to know more about it and draw their own conclusions about how they feel about them having gained some additional knowledge. Having said this, I do also suggest that those same individuals make use of the same resources to discover materials about Confederates, both political and military, but I am not in favor of commemorating, in any way, what I opine is their treason against their country.

I'd encourage citizens with interest in American History to visit a library or a bookstore and access a voluminous amount of well-researched scholarship on the history of the country from innumerable different viewpoints.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You have really gone off the deep end now OS. Equating the Federal Government of 1861 or even today with the monarchy of King George III is, frankly, off the wall.

https://twitter.com/aroberts_andrew/sta ... 9186063374

Irrelevant to the point you were making. George III's government carried out his policies with regard to the colonies and refused to compromise on their requests for redress. That he wasn't as bad a guy as advertised previously does not change the way his government dealt with the colonists which resulted in a revolution. What a concept that a British historian would have to explain how the biggest eff up in British history occurred on his watch. Regardless of his personality, he still manged to lose a good portion of the Empire's colonies in North America. Not to mention, how he and his government set it all up fighting the French for all those years before the American Revolution. Recommend Crucible of War by Fred Anderson (an American author BTW)

As an so-called expert on 1776, please enumerate any of the grievances itemized in that document that the Southern States legitimately had in 1861.
I'll help you out - Zippo. Nada. Zero.

Southern states had representation in the Federal Government including a bunch of minority rights that they made sure they inserted into the Constitution including limitations on the Federal Government in favor of States' Rights. They used these rights to fight for the continuation of the practice to preserve their economic system based upon free slave labor. They wanted to expand slavery into the territories unfettered to perpetuate their economic system which included slavery and they didn't think the Feds were going to allow them to do that over time using the election of Republican Lincoln in 1861 as an excuse to secede. They were a minority and they knew it. The only way to make a majority was to secede.

As I have said here many times, there is much history available on the period and even more on the military piece of that history. We should be able to read all of it and understand the history in our own terms. Knowledge is indeed power. That said, there is no need to commemorate in the public square those figures who rebelled against their Federal Government and were traitors to same country. It is noble that we, as a country, paroled them after the war and not a single one of them received the penalty for treason or even served a day in jail except for Jefferson Davis.

I made a distinction earlier in this thread earlier in this thread using the recent removal of Jefferson stature from New York's City Council chamber at City Hall by reminding supporters of that action that without Jefferson and other of similar situation there might not be an independent City Council or City Hall in NYC in the first place. The same would go for all the others - Washington, Madison and Monroe who should be celebrated but also should have their other less redeeming features exposed for a total view of their lives and contributions to history. I just read recently that John Jay of New York (also the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) owned 17 slaves at one point or another (his family was heavily involved in the slave trade for generations before him) and even took a few to Paris when he was part of the delegation to negotiate and end of the American Revolution. He was later an ardent abolitionist. Does this detract from his accomplishments as part of a successful revolution and formation of an independent government? Certainly not. Is it relevant to our collective understanding of him, his family and his ties to slavery as well as the revolution? Also certainly. Should we take down all of his statues? I say no but that we should also understand his life in its totality. So far, not although an attempt was made to remove the new statue of him at the Kroll Auditorium celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the school named for him - John Jay College of Criminal Justice - talk about conundrums.

https://nyslavery.commons.gc.cuny.edu/s ... -john-jay/

So, any reading of history without an understanding the context of the times is sub-optimal IMHO. Applying modern context to historical events is a true "lost cause". Ditto for applying today's values retroactively 250 years.

Thanks for posting that. I always tell people, I can give a Mulligan for slavery. Harder to give a Mulligan post emancipation. If we had only done the right thing post emancipation, we would be much further ahead as a country….its been 100+ years of sub optimization in this country. Some folks want to keep their foot on the brake.

Everyone should also recognize that when these historical people lived that it wasn't history to them. It was just life as they came to know it. They weren't all that prescient and pretty much lived in their moments.

Mostly because survival was job#1?

Certainly a rather large consideration but not the only factor. They also do not have the luxury of knowledge of what came after as we all do.

True.

Consider how we freak over Covid... try facing what those folks did on a daily basis (no matter what color) pre-penicillin/pre-vaccines/living standards in general. Some had it worse than others, no doubt.

Basic human decency was probably learned centuries ago. Treating some with basic human decency and denying it to others can’t all be blamed on “didn’t know any better”…..kind of like a kid…. A 12 year old should know better than a 3 year old.

Your argument re "human decency" and rightly so, is with the ruling class and elites of the time. The common man was simply trying to survive.

Who said anything about the “common man” being at fault? Some of the common man benefited from the exploitation of those considered even less than common. Purposely so.

Maybe. So what do we do now? Erase that history or qualify it within the context of it's time?

Contrasting how far our society has come should be qualified. You probably disagree.

Maybe.

[old salt]

They were wrong then and that hasn't changed except we gave them a complete pass in 1876 as way out of a contested national election in a political horse trade of the ages. Sorry it conveniently doesn't comport with your wacky view of American History.

...did the Confederate states secede again in 1877 when Federal troops ended the occupation ? ...or was Tilden planning war crimes tribunals, more than a decade after Appomattox ?

Visit your local library and read up on it. You might look like less of a historical novice and save us the time and energy to explain it to you.
But, then again you also apparently think George III was a genius and that losers don't get to re-write their history either.

If you say so

Better start pulling down the statues of Grant too. Too many favorable books about him coming out.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/ ... tol-attack
Though betrayed by false friends, as president Grant exercised his office with firmness where necessary and with a passionate desire to inspire Americans towards greater unity. Political inexperience cost him dearly.

But what of the big issue? Did Grant really put an end to Reconstruction and consign Black Americans to nearly a century under Jim Crow?

Hayes had shown a willingness to end Reconstruction. Tilden would certainly have done so. Grant strongly supported Black suffrage and kept troops in the south to ensure the rights of people increasingly threatened by armed violence. He sent troops to an area of South Carolina especially marked by Klan violence and vigorously promoted and enforced an anti-Klan act. He sent troops to Louisiana to enforce voting rights and secured passage of the 1875 Civil Rights Act.

Nonetheless, the supreme court reduced Black rights, and as Baier writes, “the country no longer supported the use of federal troops”. Grant had his army but had lost his people.

He promoted a compromise in 1877 not from any desire to abandon the Black community but from the painful realization that America had tired of the journey. Whether Hayes or Tilden had been elected, Reconstruction was over and a more painful era in the south was about to begin.

The problem wasn’t Grant, but that America was not ready to live up to its promises.

[Kismet]

They were wrong then and that hasn't changed except we gave them a complete pass in 1876 as way out of a contested national election in a political horse trade of the ages. Sorry it conveniently doesn't comport with your wacky view of American History.

...did the Confederate states secede again in 1877 when Federal troops ended the occupation ? ...or was Tilden planning war crimes tribunals, more than a decade after Appomattox ?

Visit your local library and read up on it. You might look like less of a historical novice and save us the time and energy to explain it to you.
But, then again you also apparently think George III was a genius and that losers don't get to re-write their history either.

If you say so

Better start pulling down the statues of Grant too. Too many favorable books about him coming out.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/ ... tol-attack
Though betrayed by false friends, as president Grant exercised his office with firmness where necessary and with a passionate desire to inspire Americans towards greater unity. Political inexperience cost him dearly.

But what of the big issue? Did Grant really put an end to Reconstruction and consign Black Americans to nearly a century under Jim Crow?

Hayes had shown a willingness to end Reconstruction. Tilden would certainly have done so. Grant strongly supported Black suffrage and kept troops in the south to ensure the rights of people increasingly threatened by armed violence. He sent troops to an area of South Carolina especially marked by Klan violence and vigorously promoted and enforced an anti-Klan act. He sent troops to Louisiana to enforce voting rights and secured passage of the 1875 Civil Rights Act.

Nonetheless, the supreme court reduced Black rights, and as Baier writes, “the country no longer supported the use of federal troops”. Grant had his army but had lost his people.

He promoted a compromise in 1877 not from any desire to abandon the Black community but from the painful realization that America had tired of the journey. Whether Hayes or Tilden had been elected, Reconstruction was over and a more painful era in the south was about to begin.

The problem wasn’t Grant, but that America was not ready to live up to its promises.

Another non-sequitor from the fan of Fractured Fairy Tales. Nobody mentioned Grant. The 1877 compromise involved many, many more folks than Grant who was on the way out anyway. He also paroled all those Confederates at Appomattox. Maybe you should look up Mister Peabody and take a trip back in time via the Wayback Machine with Sherman.

Actually, you are correct that recent scholarship of Grant as a military leader, tactician and strategist has shed new light on his previously unknown and underestimated military and leadership talents. I welcome that research.

[old salt]

They were wrong then and that hasn't changed except we gave them a complete pass in 1876 as way out of a contested national election in a political horse trade of the ages. Sorry it conveniently doesn't comport with your wacky view of American History.

...did the Confederate states secede again in 1877 when Federal troops ended the occupation ? ...or was Tilden planning war crimes tribunals, more than a decade after Appomattox ?

Visit your local library and read up on it. You might look like less of a historical novice and save us the time and energy to explain it to you.
But, then again you also apparently think George III was a genius and that losers don't get to re-write their history either.

If you say so

Better start pulling down the statues of Grant too. Too many favorable books about him coming out.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/ ... tol-attack

Another non-sequitor from the fan of Fractured Fairy Tales. Nobody mentioned Grant. The 1877 compromise involved many, many more folks than Grant who was on the way out anyway. He also paroled all those Confederates at Appomattox. Maybe you should look up Mister Peabody and take a trip back in time via the Wayback Machine with Sherman.

Actually, you are correct that recent scholarship of Grant as a military leader, tactician and strategist has shed new light on his previously unknown talents. I welcome that research.

You're becoming very wishy washy on this. If Grant wasn't your boogeyman in 1876, who was ?
The woke mob needs names. We need to know which statues & portraits to pull down.

A summary of some of that recent research on Grant.
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/life/ ... 851575001/

[Farfromgeneva]

Woke mob….

[Kismet]

They were wrong then and that hasn't changed except we gave them a complete pass in 1876 as way out of a contested national election in a political horse trade of the ages. Sorry it conveniently doesn't comport with your wacky view of American History.

...did the Confederate states secede again in 1877 when Federal troops ended the occupation ? ...or was Tilden planning war crimes tribunals, more than a decade after Appomattox ?

Visit your local library and read up on it. You might look like less of a historical novice and save us the time and energy to explain it to you.
But, then again you also apparently think George III was a genius and that losers don't get to re-write their history either.

If you say so

Better start pulling down the statues of Grant too. Too many favorable books about him coming out.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/ ... tol-attack

Another non-sequitor from the fan of Fractured Fairy Tales. Nobody mentioned Grant. The 1877 compromise involved many, many more folks than Grant who was on the way out anyway. He also paroled all those Confederates at Appomattox. Maybe you should look up Mister Peabody and take a trip back in time via the Wayback Machine with Sherman.

Actually, you are correct that recent scholarship of Grant as a military leader, tactician and strategist has shed new light on his previously unknown talents. I welcome that research.

You're becoming very wishy washy on this. If Grant wasn't your boogeyman in 1876, who was ?
The woke mob needs names. We need to know which statues & portraits to pull down.

A summary of some of that recent resaearch on Grant.
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/life/ ... 851575001/

Like I said, I never mentioned Grant, you brought him up. In fact, I mentioned no bogeyman only stated the obvious that there were many, many politicians and jurists at the time who were part of the arrangement. It's only natural that we now know what a sh*tty law they wrote along with making the deal on the 1876 election.

I also am not impressed by some redneck hack Op-Ed columnist for a Tallahassee newspaper commenting on years upon years of historical scholarship on Grant and b*tching about elitist Ivy League scholars. Americans don't distrust historians unless they believe amateurs like this one.
That said, Chernow's work on Grant is very well done. I also enjoyed his book on Washington.

For the record, I am not a member of the woke mob and had you bothered to read any of my posts here you would know that.....but so much for your depth of knowledge. I'm also not in favor of removing statues except those Confederates who fought against their country.

[Typical Lax Dad]

They were wrong then and that hasn't changed except we gave them a complete pass in 1876 as way out of a contested national election in a political horse trade of the ages. Sorry it conveniently doesn't comport with your wacky view of American History.

...did the Confederate states secede again in 1877 when Federal troops ended the occupation ? ...or was Tilden planning war crimes tribunals, more than a decade after Appomattox ?

Visit your local library and read up on it. You might look like less of a historical novice and save us the time and energy to explain it to you.
But, then again you also apparently think George III was a genius and that losers don't get to re-write their history either.

If you say so

Better start pulling down the statues of Grant too. Too many favorable books about him coming out.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/ ... tol-attack

Another non-sequitor from the fan of Fractured Fairy Tales. Nobody mentioned Grant. The 1877 compromise involved many, many more folks than Grant who was on the way out anyway. He also paroled all those Confederates at Appomattox. Maybe you should look up Mister Peabody and take a trip back in time via the Wayback Machine with Sherman.

Actually, you are correct that recent scholarship of Grant as a military leader, tactician and strategist has shed new light on his previously unknown talents. I welcome that research.

You're becoming very wishy washy on this. If Grant wasn't your boogeyman in 1876, who was ?
The woke mob needs names. We need to know which statues & portraits to pull down.

A summary of some of that recent resaearch on Grant.
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/life/ ... 851575001/

Like I said, I never mentioned Grant, you brought him up. In fact, I mentioned no bogeyman only stated the obvious that there were many, many politicians and jurists at the time who were part of the arrangement. It's only natural that we now know what a sh*tty law they wrote along with making the deal on the 1876 election.

I also am not impressed by some redneck hack Op-Ed columnist for a Tallahassee newspaper commenting on years upon years of historical scholarship on Grant and b*tching about elitist Ivy League scholars. Americans don't distrust historians unless they believe amateurs like this one.
That said, Chernow's work on Grant is very well done. I also enjoyed his book on Washington.

For the record, I am not a member of the woke mob and had you bothered to read any of my posts here you would know that.....but so much for your depth of knowledge. I'm also not in favor of removing statues except those of Confederates who fought against their country.

That’s a disparaging “woke” in his mind.

[old salt]

I'm also not in favor of removing statues except those of Confederates who fought against their country.

That’s a disparaging “woke” in his mind.

...as opposed to our courageous slave holding founding fathers who fought against their country.

[a fan]

The woke mob needs names. We need to know which statues & portraits to pull down.

The long and the short of it is that you and your team are upset that "anyone but us" gets a say in what goes in public spaces.

And for that sin, these horrible people with different views from yours must be mocked, right? Only YOU get to decide what goes there.

[Kismet]

I'm also not in favor of removing statues except those of Confederates who fought against their country.

That’s a disparaging “woke” in his mind.

...as opposed to our courageous slave holding founding fathers who fought against their country.

Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. The amount of invented material you disseminate around here might qualify you for inclusion on the fiction bestseller list.

I've already explained multiple times the difference which you are apparently too dense to understand. My bad for overestimating you.

For the record, the Founding Fathers rebelled against an ABSOLUTE MONARCH and not a freely elected republic that they were a part of. Again, I refer you to the text of the Declaration of Independence. Feel free to send it out for translation if you cannot understand the words themselves as written on the parchment.

Your goal appears to be jerking everyone else around thinking you're funny...which you aren't. Please go back to rehearsing "God Save The King" as a good loyalist.

[Farfromgeneva]

The woke mob needs names. We need to know which statues & portraits to pull down.

The long and the short of it is that you and your team are upset that "anyone but us" gets a say in what goes in public spaces.

And for that sin, these horrible people with different views from yours must be mocked, right? Only YOU get to decide what goes there.

Too woke

[Farfromgeneva]

I'm also not in favor of removing statues except those of Confederates who fought against their country.

That’s a disparaging “woke” in his mind.

...as opposed to our courageous slave holding founding fathers who fought against their country.

Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. The amount of invented material you disseminate around here might qualify you for inclusion on the fiction bestseller list.

I've already explained multiple times the difference which you are apparently too dense to understand. My bad for overestimating you.

For the record, the Founding Fathers rebelled against an ABSOLUTE MONARCH and not a freely elected republic that they were a part of. Again, I refer you to the text of the Declaration of Independence. Feel free to send it out for translation if you cannot understand the words themselves as written on the parchment.

Your goal appears to be jerking everyone else around thinking you're funny...which you aren't. Please go back to rehearsing "God Save The King" as a good loyalist.

Uhh it’s God Save the Queen!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMxqcgBhWQ

[seacoaster]

The woke mob needs names. We need to know which statues & portraits to pull down.

The long and the short of it is that you and your team are upset that "anyone but us" gets a say in what goes in public spaces.

And for that sin, these horrible people with different views from yours must be mocked, right? Only YOU get to decide what goes there.

Exactly; little snowflakes, unable to manage the course of history, want it stopped where they like things. Walk your dog. Time's up.

[old salt]

I'm also not in favor of removing statues except those of Confederates who fought against their country.

That’s a disparaging “woke” in his mind.

...as opposed to our courageous slave holding founding fathers who fought against their country.

Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. The amount of invented material you disseminate around here might qualify you for inclusion on the fiction bestseller list.

I've already explained multiple times the difference which you are apparently too dense to understand. My bad for overestimating you.

For the record, the Founding Fathers rebelled against an ABSOLUTE MONARCH and not a freely elected republic that they were a part of. Again, I refer you to the text of the Declaration of Independence. Feel free to send it out for translation if you cannot understand the words themselves as written on the parchment.

Your goal appears to be jerking everyone else around thinking you're funny...which you aren't. Please go back to rehearsing "God Save The King" as a good loyalist.

What words did I put in your mouth ? I was responding to TLD & his modification of your post.

George III was very deferential to Parliament. He never vetoed their bills. He was the most democratic monarch of his time & set the precedent for the UK to become a democratic, parliamentary monarchy.

https://www.thederrick.com/ap/entertain ... c4e50.html
Roberts examines the role of George III in the evolution of the Constitutional Monarchy in Great Britain between 1760 and 1820. Throughout his reign, the king used patronage — peerages, bishoprics, the annual pensions of former royal officers — as his trump card, to reward allies and "as a veritable blacklist of political opponents." But George III also reinforced a tradition in which the king never vetoed a parliamentary bill, even though he had a constitutional right to do so.

Equally important was the emergence during these years of collective Cabinet responsibility. Ushered in by the increasing size and complexity of government, party loyalty and George III's debilitating illnesses, this approach meant that Cabinet ministers reported directly to the prime minister rather than the king.

The first Hanoverian born on English soil, George III was, indeed, not a tyrant. And he played a role in making it virtually impossible for his successors to be tyrannical.

[Kismet]

I'm also not in favor of removing statues except those of Confederates who fought against their country.

That’s a disparaging “woke” in his mind.

...as opposed to our courageous slave holding founding fathers who fought against their country.

Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. The amount of invented material you disseminate around here might qualify you for inclusion on the fiction bestseller list.

I've already explained multiple times the difference which you are apparently too dense to understand. My bad for overestimating you.

For the record, the Founding Fathers rebelled against an ABSOLUTE MONARCH and not a freely elected republic that they were a part of. Again, I refer you to the text of the Declaration of Independence. Feel free to send it out for translation if you cannot understand the words themselves as written on the parchment.

Your goal appears to be jerking everyone else around thinking you're funny...which you aren't. Please go back to rehearsing "God Save The King" as a good loyalist.

What words did I put in your mouth ? I was responding to TLD & his modification of your post.

George III was very deferential to Parliament. He never vetoed their bills. He was the most democratic monarch of his time & set the precedent for the UK to become a democratic, parliamentary monarchy.

https://www.thederrick.com/ap/entertain ... c4e50.html
Roberts examines the role of George III in the evolution of the Constitutional Monarchy in Great Britain between 1760 and 1820. Throughout his reign, the king used patronage — peerages, bishoprics, the annual pensions of former royal officers — as his trump card, to reward allies and "as a veritable blacklist of political opponents." But George III also reinforced a tradition in which the king never vetoed a parliamentary bill, even though he had a constitutional right to do so.

Equally important was the emergence during these years of collective Cabinet responsibility. Ushered in by the increasing size and complexity of government, party loyalty and George III's debilitating illnesses, this approach meant that Cabinet ministers reported directly to the prime minister rather than the king.

The first Hanoverian born on English soil, George III was, indeed, not a tyrant. And he played a role in making it virtually impossible for his successors to be tyrannical.

Sure. There's still a spot open for you on HMS Victory........on the POOP Deck.
Regardless of who was really in charge, Parliament or King George the plain effect on the North Americans was IDENTICAL and resulted in REVOLUTION. Unless, of course, you are now going to assert that the American Revolution was unnecessary as the King and Parliament were such fine, upstanding Englishmen?

You do really make it easy to caricature your lame attempts to be funny which always fail miserably.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm also not in favor of removing statues except those of Confederates who fought against their country.

That’s a disparaging “woke” in his mind.

...as opposed to our courageous slave holding founding fathers who fought against their country.

I have absolutely no problem with Thomas Jefferson, for instance. None at all.

[SCLaxAttack]

I'm also not in favor of removing statues except those of Confederates who fought against their country.

That’s a disparaging “woke” in his mind.

...as opposed to our courageous slave holding founding fathers who fought against their country.

I’d bet my last nickel, along with my house deed and car titles, that the UK would never allow the placement of statues of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hancock, et al, if they had won that war and we were still colonies.

[old salt]

Sure. There's still a spot open for you on HMS Victory........on the POOP Deck.
Regardless of who was really in charge, Parliament or King George the plain effect on the North Americans was IDENTICAL and resulted in REVOLUTION. Unless, of course, you are now going to assert that the American Revolution was unnecessary as the King and Parliament were such fine, upstanding Englishmen?

You do really make it easy to caricature your lame attempts to be funny which always fail miserably.

Was the REVOLUTION necessary ? Canada didn't need a REVOLUTION & they turned our pretty well. Of course they were not revolting about paying taxes on wealth earned from the forced labor of chattel slavery & they were not being lead by a wealthy slave owning elite. In fact, George III vastly increased Canada's size, while his British military guaranteed their survival. That may be why they remain loyal to the Crown to this day.

[old salt]

I'm also not in favor of removing statues except those of Confederates who fought against their country.

That’s a disparaging “woke” in his mind.

...as opposed to our courageous slave holding founding fathers who fought against their country.

I have absolutely no problem with Thomas Jefferson, for instance. None at all.

Sally Hemmings was a babe.