Nonsense. I realise I was being provocative, but at least my statement has some basis in law. The American Revolution was an armed revolt against the lawful government - it was an insurgency.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It's not provocative, it's false. They fought as an organized army. They wore uniforms. They governed territory according to long established laws and norms. It was a rebellion but there was nothing insurgent about it. Calling every rebel an insurgent is as silly as calling every warrior who attacks by water a pirate.
Calling them insurgents wasn't just an attempt to make people think, it was an argument. It was an excuse not to treat them like soldiers. Murdering them as insurgents would be as unjust as murdering redcoats as bandits.
Calling them insurgents wasn't just an attempt to make people think, it was an argument. It was an excuse not to treat them like soldiers. Murdering them as insurgents would be as unjust as murdering redcoats as bandits.
Uniforms don't matter. Just because they won and then formed a government doesn't alter the fact that during the revolution they were armed insurgents.
I'm not talking about murdering anyone - you're escalating the argument into the absurd. We are talking about POWs, nothing else.
Definition of insurgent in English:
noun
A person fighting against a government or invading force; a rebel or revolutionary:an attack by armed insurgents
You asserted they were insurgents in order to place them outside the rule of law. Now you are trying to argue semantics. But by your new definition of insurgent they aren't outside the rule of law. They are soldiers who should be treated as such. It's the fallacy of definition. First you define insurgent to mean one sort of person, someone who doesn't get treated as a soldier. Then you define insurgent to include soldiers. It's two different things you are giving the same name.
I couldn't care less whether they are insurgents by whatever definition you are using now. Warcrimes against american "insurgents" fighting in an army are no more justified then warcrimes against British pirates fighting in an organized army would have been.
I couldn't care less whether they are insurgents by whatever definition you are using now. Warcrimes against american "insurgents" fighting in an army are no more justified then warcrimes against British pirates fighting in an organized army would have been.
Ok - enough now. It's not a 'new definition', it's the definition. The American insurgents were always accorded the status of POWs, rather than 'enemy combatants', or 'terrorists', or any other status that a less scrupulous regime might have used to justify their deliberate mistreatment. I never at any point suggested that they be regarded as 'outside the law', just that they were in armed revolt against their lawfully constituted government - insurgents by definition. I'll say it again, because you appear to have missed the point - the fact that the insurgency was ultimately successful does not alter its essential nature.
This does not in any way imply that I disapprove of the actions of the Continental Army - in principle, I approve of revolutionary activities - probably far more than you do (I imagine you're a one revolution sort of guy) - and there was probably a narrow majority of colonists in favour of the insurrection - so there's even a popular element to the revolt. Honestly, I'm fine with it - I just think y'all made a terrible mistake.
I don't know what you mean by 'warcrimes'. This is certainly a meaningless expression in the context of an 18th century war - although there were doubtless 'rules of war' which were broken by both sides. If you don't realise how ridiculous it is to call the British 'pirates' in this context, then we really have nothing more to talk about. You are being ridiculously and unreasonably partisan, whereas I was only playing the patriot for the sake of argument. Context is everything - and I don't think I can be any clearer about the terms you're arguing about.
Last edited:
Indeed. They should have shot them out of hand. Dirty rebels.
On a serious note. You seem to expect the British to omnipotent enough to build modern prison facilities in the middle of a rebellious territory. You also seem quite happy to gloss over and trivialise any American wrongdoing.
I don't think the British could have been accused of war crimes over the prison hulks. Yes, they were death traps but what was the realistic alternative? There doesn't seem to be much evidence of deliberate systematic mistreatment just poor facilities.
Yeah, sure ya didn't.
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.
I'm going to go with "dont piss on my boot and then tell me it's raining" as my exit from this conversation.
According to the commonly-accepted laws of war in force in 1776, the British would have been quite justified in hanging, drawing and quartering every Continental Army soldier they captured. They were traitors bearing arms against their legitimate sovereign, after all.
The fact that they didn't shows remarkable restraint, all things considered.
The fact that they didn't shows remarkable restraint, all things considered.
Treason never prospers.
What's the reason?
If it prospers
None dare call it treason.
What's the reason?
If it prospers
None dare call it treason.
- 1
It looks like we're not going to get an answer to "What was the alternative?" other than childish obfuscations.
I think had the British had more land/supplies then they may of looked after the POWs better, however they really only had a few places as solid bases and this was the best they could do. Was it right, no. But then unless the Brits were willing to build a proper camp which would have suffered the same problems anyway, thats what they could do. If it was the age of rail they could have moved them to canada.
Also Australia is more know for convicts as it happened for longer and there was less European movement to Australia. So unlike America which have runs of various immigration, Australia was mostly convicts and those looking after them and a few settlers until the Gold Rush of the 1840's.
Also Australia is more know for convicts as it happened for longer and there was less European movement to Australia. So unlike America which have runs of various immigration, Australia was mostly convicts and those looking after them and a few settlers until the Gold Rush of the 1840's.
The British controlled significant parts of the US up until the Peace of Paris. There was nothing stopping them from establishing prison camps in e.g. Long Island. Probably improve the place, to be honest.
a prison, on an island they control. like... the one the prison hulks were moored on?
just a thought. maybe after they'd thrown the 10,000 corpse overboard, it might have been considered as an alternative.