There were plenty of British Loyalists available, and a few atrocities from both sides, mostly in the Carolinas. The British perpetrated ones are better known, possibly because they were actually worse, possibly not.
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" :-) >>> >>> >>> > > > > -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
