-4 votes

What if another country had intervened in our own Revolution or Civil War?

What if France or Spain or another powerful nation had put down the the American rebellion?

What if another country had successfully intervened and stopped our revolution?

Here's what would have happened: The revolution would have been suppressed and the U.S. Constitution never would have been created.

The British (or perhaps another nation) would have regained control and today we would still be living under the rule of some tyranny.
--------------------
OR...Suppose Europe had intervened in our own civil war and backed the rebels (the South)?

Would slavery still exist today?

Would Jefferson Davis had become the new president?
--------------------
THAT is what happens when one nation intervenes in the internal affairs and civil wars of another - no different than we do today in the middle east.

Who knows that in Syria, if things are left to their natural outcome that in the end, a great new constitution or new form of government might evolve - much like what happened in America after our own revolution?

Our founders warned us about entangling alliances and meddling in the affairs of others.

But under president Woodrow Wilson, who pioneered the idea of the United States "changing and saving the world," we bagan to forget that important lesson.

Now it seems too late to ever re-learn it.

Especially when our government is owned and controlled by the central bankers of the world.

ALL WARS ARE BANKER'S WARS.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I've been wondering the same

I've been wondering the same thing myself!

"ALL WARS ARE BANKER'S WARS." - I say something along the lines of, all wars are really about religion, which really means they're about money.

www.standardexcellence.net - Bringing you Oklahoma, Texas and national news & opinion that matters for liberty.

Yeah - Even religious wars end up mostly being about money...

...or resources.

The Crusades were considered all about religion I suppose but how much about land were they as well?

I think all modern wars are banker's wars because while the middle east claims to fight us for idealological reasons, it boils down to that we're over there occupying their lands and imposing our western way of life on them.

Let the 7th Century fight with the 7th Century and stay out of it I say.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

I agree

I didn't read all of this stuff :) but I do agree that we should stay out of others affairs. And I do agree that our involvement in the ME is severely harming our country...and the world, in general.
I think maybe you should have been a little more clear and in depth with your original post. No big deal. I think most of us get it now :)

Here are some sites that I like to make people aware of. Please learn the facts and share on all social media. The more facts people have, the better they will be able to make a righteous decision.

http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/

http://ifamericansknew.org/

http://stoptheblankcheck.org/

http://endtheoccupation.org/ Please feel free to make printouts to post in your local libraries and universities--thank you!

"ALL WARS ARE BANKER'S WARS"

"ALL WARS ARE BANKER'S WARS."

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Ummm...the French did intervene in our revolution

Only they helped us, thanks to Benjamin Franklin.

Our Intervention in WWI was a big mistake

Both sides were running out of supplies, but no, Wilson had to get involved and that led to WWII

I agree - Wilson did the bidding of those who got him there.

The bankers wanted us in a world war and Wilson made sure it happened.

But he also had a philosophy of intervention in all the problems of the world.

His support of the League of Nations and U.N. type of organizations usurped American sovereignty and it continues today.

I feel Woodrow Wilson was the most damaging president to the United States way of life.

Imagine being one of those poor fools going off to die in a war in Europe which had nothing to do with defending the United States.

Wilson and the government really had those guys bamboozled and lots of them died needlessly over there.

My grandmother lost her brother in that war.

Under Wilson, other bad things happened like the federal income tax, Federal Reserve and the limit on the size of the U.S. House of Representatives to what it is today (435).

By limiting the size of the people's representatives, it meant the rest of the government could grow like a weed while the part designed to grow with the population was capped and limited.

George Washington would be livid about that.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

You mean in addition to...

France?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

...

In 1863, Tsar Alexander II sent the Russian ship Osliaba into Alexandria, VA. He ordered his Asiatic fleet to San Francisco. They were ordered to help the Union with the blockade of the South.

Griffin, G. E. (2002). The creature from Jekyll Island. Westlake Village, CA: American Media.

There's a picture of the crew of the Osliaba taken in Alexandria, VA dated 1863 on page 398.

bigmikedude's picture

I guess it would have been bad for this revolution

nowadays if it was a country that taxed pot instead of tea.

1st Revolutionary: "Yo man wait..." "Dudes, you all know we ain't throwin' this into the harbor..."

Revolution Crowd: "Hell Noes!" "A little extra taxation and oppression never hurt nobody!"

France did intervene

on the side of the rebels...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revoluti...

Maybe our gov. thinks we are France to Syria's America.../sarc

The Cherokee Nation Did Intervene

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_Watie

It is possible Jefferson Davis would have remained President of the Confederate States of America.

Lincoln might not have been assassinated in April 1865.

It would make for an interesting Sci-Fi alternate universe, from a Trekkie stand point.

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

There is no duration defined in the Oath

France did intervene on our behalf

to their own detriment

If the Colonies had remained British, slavery would have been abolished when it was abolished in the rest of their empire in the 1830s.

Not disagreeing with you, just some points to consider.

=======
RON PAUL 2012

You have no proof that if we had lost the revolution...

...that slavery would have been abolished in England.

I contend that without our Constitution having been created, that the world would have remained mostly tyrannical.

I believe our founding documents not only established that man's rights come from his creator, but that also they changed the world in leading by example.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Uhhh

So they inspired England to abolish slavery in 1830 because we led by example... by still having slaves until 1865?

How the heck does that follow?

Eric Hoffer

Yes that's right. Don't forget that there were abolishinists...

...here in America from the day of our founding.

Several of our big-name founders were against slavery.

But it proved hard enough just getting rid of the English at the time so it took several more decades to abolish slavery.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

...

... hard enough that they couldn't do it in their own lifetime? I can't think of a single founder that had a hand in the Emancipation Proclamation. Heck, I still think the South should've been allowed to secede and we didn't need to have a Civil War, but that doesn't mean our founders inspired the world to start dropping slavery... while we still had slaves.

The rest of the world has a history and reasons for doing things all on their own. Read up on it. England abolished slavery all on their own for their own reasons. Canada dropped slavery before 1800.

It might help if you read more history instead of imagining it. While there were some influential writers here in America in those times, not many of them were banging the drum too hard to free the slaves. They might have held the position that slavery is immoral, but many other countries were ahead of us there.

Eric Hoffer

The Hessians were Hired Muskets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_(soldiers)

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

There is no duration defined in the Oath

Beat

Beat me to this. Other countries did intervene, some on our behalf, and I believe some on Britain's behalf. The Germans maybe?

Not to mention the Native American tribes.

I'm not saying we should involve ourselves in the affairs of other countries, I'm just saying the argument in this case is incorrect.

Eric Hoffer

No - my argument is not incorrect. It's exactly the same thing.

I'm talking about the full force of the most powreful nations of the day.

If France and Spain had sent all their forces to suppress our revolution, it would have ended.

During the time of our revolution, the idea of individual liberty was non-existent in the world because OUR founding documents were the first in history to allow for it.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

But no country back then

But no country back then would have sent all their forces or even a large portion of them; the French did send some help, but it was by no means a huge percentage of their army/navy. Back then, the situation wasnt the most stable in Europe and Britain along with the other powers there had always been in at least some sort of limited conflict. If one country had seen fit to send most of its troops many months away, you can bet someone would have taken advantage of the situation.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

No

Still incorrect. We're sending even less of a part of our force into current nations. We aren't even close to mobilizing full war. Even Iraq and Afghanistan were nowhere near close to full war for us.

So the argument still doesn't apply.

The ideas for individual liberty were all over the place. Our founders didn't invent those ideas, they were just the first in our history to attempt implementing them on a large scale, and even so they weren't really that successful. However they definitely gave it the best try they possibly could given the circumstances.

I'm failing to see how your argument applies, especially when those nations DID intervene, some on our behalf and some against us.

Eric Hoffer

You still don't get it.

We didn't NEED to send our full force into Iraq to take out Saddam.

So you supported attacking Iraq because we only needed a fraction of our forces to intervene?

My POINT is to stay out of the affairs of other nations and you seem to disagree with that.

So how could you ever have been a Ron Paul supporter?

Or maybe you never were?

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Ok, whoa there

Alright there Mr. Touchy.

I was pretty clear in my points. I do not support interfering in the affairs of other nations. However, we can't change history just to make it fit what we want it to look like.

We didn't NEED to send our full force into Iraq to take out Saddam.

True.

So you supported attacking Iraq because we only needed a fraction of our forces to intervene?

Did you not read my post above that establishes my position as firmly non-interventionist? I'm sorry that history isn't what you want it to be, maybe you can see a therapist about that as opposed to blindly lashing out at me and attempting to fit me into the box you want me to go into?

History disagrees with your claims and your points are factually void. Deal with it.

My POINT is to stay out of the affairs of other nations and you seem to disagree with that.

No it isn't, you're trying to establish a history that never existed. I think we all agree here, it's a bad idea to interfere in the affairs of other nations. It's when you say, "Because what if someone else had interfered during the revolutionary war?!?!! It'd be totally different!!!!11" that you start to look like an imbecile.

Knowledge of history first. Assertions about what happened second.

So how could you ever have been a Ron Paul supporter?

Allow me to rephrase, "I'm wrong and don't know American history, and you don't agree with me so you're not a true Ron Paul supporter!!!"

Or maybe you never were?

Seriously. See a therapist, maybe talk to a family member.

Sorry for being a jerk, but you started this thread and then decided to attack me for pointing out your factual inaccuracies.

Eric Hoffer

You say I'm the touchy one?

Dr. Paul doesn't like hypocrites.

You disagree with the spirit of my original post, so you look for inaccuricies to debunk the idea.

that's fine - I don't care.

But I am still correct that if another nation (as powerful as the U.S. is today), had interfered with our revolutinary process, things would be a lot different today - and not in a good way.

My statement was meant to show the wrong-headed idea of interventionism but you want to nit-pick things.

I know other nations tried in small ways to involve themselves in our affairs but they didn't have the power we have today or they didn't choose to use all of it.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Sigh

Ok, so now everyone on this thread has completely disagreed with you. Your basic premise is just completely factually incorrect.

But I am still correct that if another nation (as powerful as the U.S. is today), had interfered with our revolutinary process, things would be a lot different today - and not in a good way.

Who do you think the world powers were back then, if not England, Germany, France, or Spain?

My statement was meant to show the wrong-headed idea of interventionism but you want to nit-pick things.

YOUR ENTIRE PREMISE IS INCORRECT. Allow me to quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdwJC9HvKLU

This is what just happened to you. Grizzly Adams DID have a beard.

You're resting your entire premise on the fact that countries didn't intervene in the Revolutionary War, when they certainly did. This undermines your point and make it look inaccurate.

Non-Interventionism is the correct policy to have for a whole host of logical, moral, and political reasons. However, "because no one interfered in the revolutionary war" is not one of those reasons.

I know other nations tried in small ways to involve themselves in our affairs but they didn't have the power we have today or they didn't choose to use all of it.

So when we didn't use all of our power in Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iraq, that doesn't count?

Here's the first line from Wikipedia:

"In the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), France fought alongside the United States, against Britain, from 1778. French money, munitions, soldiers and naval forces proved essential to America's victory over the Crown, but France gained little except large debts."

France was ESSENTIAL to our victory. Translated: "Without the French, we would've lost the revolutionary war."

Let's quote more.

"In 1778 France recognized the United States of America as a sovereign nation, signed a military alliance, went to war with Britain, built coalitions with the Netherlands and Spain that kept Britain without a significant ally of its own, provided the Americans with grants, arms and loans, sent a combat army to serve under George Washington, and sent a navy that prevented the second British army from escaping from Yorktown in 1781. In all, the French spent about 1.3 billion livres (in modern currency, approximately thirteen billion U.S. dollars) to support the Americans directly, not including the money it spent fighting Britain on land and sea outside the U.S.[1]"

Do you see how entirely and completely wrong you are on this point?

Yes interventionism is bad, but it's bad for EXACTLY the reasons shown here. Because France intervened, they really just got screwed.

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revoluti...

Like I'm sorry for being a jerk here, but as soon as I disagreed you decided to question my support for Dr. Paul, and that's a pretty jerk move yourself. ESPECIALLY when you're the one who obviously doesn't understand the history at play.

Eric Hoffer

France or no France we would

France or no France we would have won the revolutionary war...it might have been longer...but it was a guerilla war. No aggresing country has EVER won a guerilla war...no matter how much bigger or more technologically advanced. The best they can do is occupy...but occupation breeds resentment. France did help and speed our victory, but we certainly dont owe our independence to them.

Sigh

This simply isn't true. The revolutionary war was mainly fought in pitched battles, not through guerrilla tactics.

No aggresing country has EVER won a guerilla war...no matter how much bigger or more technologically advanced.

Britain was maintaining their own rightful territory at the time and they would've done just fine had they stamped out resistance properly. They may have eventually given up the territory as too hard to manage remotely, but your point is completely and totally incorrect. Plenty of wars against rebels and guerrillas inside country borders have been put down. The world isn't Star Wars. You are attempting to claim that no guerrilla action has every failed long term, and you're just pulling the claim directly from your rear.

The best they can do is occupy...but occupation breeds resentment.

This depends entirely on the societies at hand. Most of the colonists at the time were of British stock and didn't see the issues at hand as that bad until our Founders started rabble rousing and forcing the British to react with force.

France did help and speed our victory, but we certainly dont owe our independence to them.

Sure, they just won decisive battles and completely saved our bacon, but we don't owe them anything. Just like they would've thrown off Hitler's Nazis eventually right? They don't owe us for that, we just speeded up their victory!

Please people, quit trying to make up history. The world is not a Mel Gibson movie.

Eric Hoffer

You should check out Lyndsey Graham's latests statements...

Sounds like you would agree with him.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Soooo

If he's looking accurately at what happened in history... well then yeah I might. If he says fire is hot or that water is wet, I'll also agree with him.

Sorry guys, while I agree with the conclusion, "getting involved in the affairs of other countries is a bad idea" I disagree with the shoddy way you're trying to support it. Non-interventionism has PLENTY of logical and ethical reasons to support it. It doesn't need you to blatantly attempt to falsify history in order to be reached as a conclusion.

Whether or not America as a nation would've been founded without the intervention of France, the intervention still screwed France in the long run even though it helped us. The moral is to NOT BE FRANCE.

Eric Hoffer