Jimmy Carter and the Revolution

(this is in response to a comment left below).

I do not dispute the wisdom of the Menagerie. First, she's smarter than I am, and Second, she's something of an expert on the period in question. What I dispute is Jimmy Carter's read on history. While it is conceivable that we could have gained independence through non-violent means, if Parliament had been willing to treat the colonists as equals, the fact remains that it just didn't happpen that way. Maybe the war could have been avoided. It wasn't, and to sit here, over two hundred years removed from the events of the time and say that it was "an unnecessary war" is folly.

Taking the next step, Canada and India gained their independence after the U.S. did. In Canada's case, the American Colonists had just demonstrated to the British the fact that gaining independence by force was more than a mere possibility (UPDATE: Okay, so Canada didn't form as a country until Confederation, in 1867, and gained independence organically in a process that lasted up through at least the first third of the 20th Century. It was arguably subject to British law until the Canada act, passed in the 1980s. Also, there were periods of violent rebellion in Canada - h/t Encarta.) In India's case, it was 1947, and the British had just fought World War II (VE day was May 8th, 1945). They were tired, they were sick of fighting, and the timing was right for a non-violent press for peace. I think it's arguable that neither Canada, nor India would have been able to gain non-violent independence were it not for the admittedly bloody, the admittedly avoidable, the patently necessary American Revolution.

As for drawing parallels between the Iraq war and the American Revolution, that'll wait for another time.

Hey, I'm in Law School - I've got stuff I need to read. ;)