[geeks] Percentages & mail list

[Shannon Hendrix]

On May 29, 2008, at 22:08 , Lionel Peterson wrote:

> 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...

That's not the only communication sent out around that time.

Washington in particular sent quite a few letters to English brass  
over a period of months/weeks.

-- 
Shannon Hendrix
shannon at widomaker.com