All three of the historical incidents you're talking about here were considerably more complex than you're painting them here. So I'm going to comment on those for a moment before addressing the hypothetical scenarios you've outlined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billwald
In 1776 a fight started between some rebels and guys in red coats. The rebels knew at whom to shoot - the guys in the red coats who were shooting at them.
|
In many ways the US War for Indepedence only barely qualifies as a Revolution, at least the sense the term is used to describe the later French and Russian revolutions you mention. What you really had going on was a war between already existing colonial governments and the British Crown and Parliament who had begun a process of deposing those governments and removing the rights of their citizens. This is a large reason we didn't fall into a period of internal bloodshed following the defeat of the British forces. In many senses the American War for Indepdence was aimed far more at maintaining the status quo that had existed prior to the British raising taxes and deposing elected colonial governments and appointing military governors than it was at installing any sort of radically new governments. (Now ultimately, the Republican government that emerged with the drafting and ratification of the Constitution in 1787 was a radical change in many ways, but it wasn't why the war was actually fought.)
Quote:
|
Several years later the working class in France rebelled against their leaders. Their leaders lived in mansions and had live in servants of the working class. They dressed differently than the working people. When the fight started, the workers knew whose head to chop.
|
The earliest period of the Revolution is extremely complicated and historians still argue about the cause and affect relationship of many of the events. While the Revolutionary period is generally dated to the storming of the Bastille in July of 1789, the principles behind that riot ultimately had very little to do with the reasons why the peasants armed themselves and in some cases took to attacking the manor houses. Due to the general shortage of grain during the period, thhere was a large problem of vagrants attacking and stealing grain supplies. The nobles in turn hired militia to guard the grain. Rumors then spread amoung the peasants that the nobility had actually hired the vagrants to steal the new harvest. A panic broke out and the peasantry stormed manor house and destroyed all documentation of their feudal obligations to the nobility. However, almost no nobles were actually killed.
You didn't actually see mass executions of the nobility until a much later period when the Jacobins and sans-cullottes seized control of the country for a time, but even during this period far more peasants were ultimately executed by that government for not being sufficiently supportive of the Revolution than nobles. (Of course by the time they were done the Jacobins themselves took to executing each other over disagreements regarding the Revolution which ultimately led to their fall from power.)
Quote:
|
In the same way, when the Russian serfs rebelled against the Tsar and his relatives, they knew exactly whom the Tsar was.
|
Actually, it wasn't the peasant farmers that rebelled at all. The February Revolution was primarily a combination of the urban poor and members of the military who mutinied. In response to this Czar Nicholas actually abdicated and for a brief period from March through October of 1917 the country was ruled by an elected Parliament. The death of the Imperial family would not occur until later after the October Revolution which control of the nation was seized by the Bolsheviks, which didn't actually enjoy popular support but were far better armed and organized than other factions.
Now, I go on about all of that to make a point. Revolutions are exceedingly complicated things, that rarely result in anything other than the death of the people who they are supposed to be about.
So that said, onto the questions.
Quote:
|
You right wing conservatives who think we need a 4th (5th?) revolution, when the revolution starts, exactly whom do you plan to shoot?
|
I'm curious, what "right wing conservative" has actually called for a Revolution?
Quote:
|
Or say Washington State declared its independence from the present King George. Our legislature send sends a Dec of Inde to Washington, DC. Then what happens? What if our Dec of Inde is ignored? At whom do we start shooting?
|
If this occurred at the present time? They would quickly be subdued by the United States millitary, and the state's government deposed. The statement would then be controlled by a millitary governor until such a time as the Federal govt was comfortable that a new state government be elected, with an oath of loyal to the United States Federal Government being required of any individual who wishes to have the right to vote.
Quote:
|
Or say California petitions Mexico to become a Mexican state. What does any of think the Mexican government would do?
|
Again if this occurred at the present time? Say "thanks, but no thanks", as they wouldn't wish to go to war with one of the world's largest military machine's at a time where they can barely hold their own nation together.
The problem with all of these scenarios is that you're not positing anything that could realistically make these sorts of actions occur.
Linear Mode
