Not so. There were numerous British civilians in the colonies who were loyal to the crown. The revolt was not unanimous by any means. Paul On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:13 PM, John Forbes wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:51:52 +0100, graywolf > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> One side's patriot is the other side's traitor. One side's freedom >> fighter is the other side's terrorist*. However, old Ben was never a >> combatant. Much worse, he was a diplomat encouraging the King's more >> dangerous enemies, the French. >> >> *To the best of my knowledge the rebels (revolutionists, since we >> won) >> never committed atrocities against civilians. The Kings men didn't >> always draw that line however. But, that may depend upon whose >> history >> books you read. >> >> -graywolf > > Since the British civilians were 4,000 miles away, it would have > been hard > to have atrocified them. > > J > > >> >> >> Christian wrote: >>> Bob W wrote: >>>> It's Benjamin Franklin, >>>> terrorist, >>> >>> We prefer "freedom fighter" or "patriot" :-) >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
