[geeks] Percentages & mail list

[Lionel Peterson]

>From: Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com>
>Date: 2008/05/30 Fri AM 12:11:00 EDT
>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: [geeks] Percentages & mail list

>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.

I'll take your word for it - I was very young at the time ;^)

Lionel