[geeks] Percentages & mail list

[Lionel Peterson]

On May 29, 2008, at 5:19 PM, Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com>  
wrote:

> 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...

Lionel