I was speaking with a friend of mine, who was telling me they'd read someplace that at the end of the Revolutionary war, there were some in the Congress who proposed and actually considered having the United States, become a part of France?

Under the rule of at the time the French King?

Anyone else ever heard this? Or have some resource that states this?

I've heard there was talk about proclaiming Washington King, but  becoming part of France?

As an American history buff, who's particularly fascinated by our Revolutionary war era, I find this tale my friend read in an article a little hard to believe, and I highly suspect it's likely a liberal lie, designed to acclimate Americans to the idea of a monarch/dictator.

But just in case it's not a liberal myth, I figured I'd ask here and see if anyone else had ever heard this, or had some information about this.

I see no reason why, since the brand new Americans, quickly screwed over the French, in the Treaty with Britain. Because of their aid the French were expecting a long term ally against the English, they didn't get it. All the French got was even greater debt, and an angry people who had to pay it.

Quote from: mdgiles on June 28, 2013, 07:22:53 AM
I see no reason why, since the brand new Americans, quickly screwed over the French, in the Treaty with Britain. Because of their aid the French were expecting a long term ally against the English, they didn't get it. All the French got was even greater debt, and an angry people who had to pay it.

Which might explain Vietnam. Pay back is a bitch.

Quote from: Solar on June 28, 2013, 07:27:01 AM
Which might explain Vietnam. Pay back is a bitch.

If the French were mad about anything, it was for our lack of support during their war in Indochina. The US felt that by not helping the French we would appears as friends to the people fighting for their independence. Instead we ended up saddling them with people far worse than the French. Hmmm, that sounds familiar. 

Quote from: mdgiles on June 30, 2013, 06:08:10 PM
If the French were mad about anything, it was for our lack of support during their war in Indochina. The US felt that by not helping the French we would appears as friends to the people fighting for their independence. Instead we ended up saddling them with people far worse than the French. Hmmm, that sounds familiar. 

I often wonder if we weren't baited into it. Not knowing we might escalate to what it became, but an excuse to get out.
Funny, two Dims back to back gave us the worst war in our history, and Nixon took the heat.

Quote from: daidalos on June 27, 2013, 07:35:52 PM
I was speaking with a friend of mine, who was telling me they'd read someplace that at the end of the Revolutionary war, there were some in the Congress who proposed and actually considered having the United States, become a part of France?

Under the rule of at the time the French King?

Anyone else ever heard this? Or have some resource that states this?

Never heard that.

QuoteI've heard there was talk about proclaiming Washington King, but  becoming part of France?

There were some, most notably Hamilton that wanted the President elected for life, and wanted him to have the duty of appointing the Senators. Fortunately, that was struck down in Convention.

Quote from: Shooterman on June 30, 2013, 08:50:11 PM
There were some, most notably Hamilton that wanted the President elected for life, and wanted him to have the duty of appointing the Senators. Fortunately, that was struck down in Convention.

In other words, he wanted the exact thing they had just fought against. King, "Lords" and Commons.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 01, 2013, 03:37:53 PM
In other words, he wanted the exact thing they had just fought against. King, "Lords" and Commons.

Republican dictatorship does have its advantages over a democracy, particularly being able to plan further than 4 years ahead which would eliminate the incentive for wellfare in order to gain votes. I just would not trust the succession being fair and representative of the people.

Trading the governance of the country over to France sounds like complete bullshit though, I have read the federalist papers and I never came over anything discussing the advantages/disadvantages of being under France. Besides most americans disliked france after the french-indian war.

Sounds like someone is trying to rewrite history in order to project the illusion that the founding fathers were for giving judicial, legislative and executive power away to a foreign entity.

Quote from: Mountainshield on July 12, 2013, 08:44:46 AM
Sounds like someone is trying to rewrite history in order to project the illusion that the founding fathers were for giving judicial, legislative and executive power away to a foreign entity.

Yep.  -Gotta watch that stuff. 

How do inaccuracies become 'lies' ?, etc.   Because progressives, libs, socialists stop at nothing when it comes to weakening alternative ideals.  Textbook-corruption is always on their list.  Hijacking the past.  Conjuring an illusion that a possible inaccuracy is a 'lie', allows one to 'solve' the lie while 'exposing' the mindset that 'perpetuated' it... for our eternal benefit, blah blah blah.  Phooey.

Quote from: kit saginaw on July 28, 2013, 04:09:31 PM
How do inaccuracies become 'lies' ?, etc.   Because progressives, libs, socialists stop at nothing when it comes to weakening alternative ideals. 

To paraphrase an old saying:  Conservatives think alike; but liberals seldom differ.

Liberalism is basically millions of crazy and stupid people who feel powerful because they all believe the SAME crazy and stupid things.

For years I'd been hearing liberals spouting gibberish about how America's founding fathers were atheists.  Sure, there are people in the world goofy enough to believe even something this patently nonsensical.  But what are the odds?  You'd think for every one person who believes this, there'd be one who believes the Founding Fathers all wore Styrofoam hats, or communicated solely through interpretive dance, etc., etc....

Finally I heard on Glen Beck how some "credentialed" historian - whatever the heck that means - wrote a book eighty years ago, which quoted Benjamin Franklin referring to himself as a "Diest."  And through some bizarre alchemical semantics, the "historian" decided that what Franklin really meant to say was that he and the rest of the Founding Fathers were secretly "Atheists," but they all simply made a series of improbably topographical errors in every historical record.  (Or I suppose it would've been quillographical errors back then?)   At any rate, that obscure and asinine reference somehow latched onto the liberal group mind and is now indelibly etched into their brains.

QuoteI was speaking with a friend of mine, who was telling me they'd read someplace...

This is where it begins, and also where it ends.  Even the best of us sometimes think (or at least suspect) things that are crazy and stupid.

The difference is that, unlike with liberals, when a rational person hears something apocryphal, he doesn't just blindly believe whatever someone in a position of trust says.  He tests the new theory through some form of peer review; perfectly happy to see if it works or gets shot down.

The emotional (i.e., liberal) "thought" process works the opposite way around.  The goal is not to BE right, but to FEEL right - something completely different.  The liberal waits for a perceived consensus to develop among his assumed superiors (whether that be in the media or academia) and then latches onto that with a death grip.

The utterly insane and idiotic economic and social "theories" that make up the suite of policies in vogue this year are not really the liberal's primary motivation.  Communism, racism, class warfare... all of that crap is a really means to facilitate propaganda, not the opposite way around.  Collectivism begins and ends with collective THOUGHT; the search for communion, but one utterly devoid of spirituality.  Everything else - even up to and including torture and genocide - is simply a tool used to eliminate disagreement with the perceived consensus, literally at all cost.

That's what a lot of people don't understand about liberalism:  every liberal desperately wants to eliminate all independent thought -- including his own.

Well thanks for the replies everyone. I knew about Hamilton etc....but never had heard this bit about France before.

However that said, regarding the assertion that we "screwed the French over" I wouldn't necessarily say that.

We did after all help and assist France in it's own revolution against King Louise.

And then if you consider WWII and the fact that we along with the allies were willing to sacrifice the lives of 2,905,420–3,043,860 men women and yes children, to go  in and kick Hitler's Germany back out of France.

After France, had pretty much done what it did in Vietnam all over again.

Rolled over and capitulated to Hitler without a shot having been fired.

At the time of Vietnam one could reasonably make the argument I think, that France wasn't "screwed over".

Quite to the contrary France, was in debt to the United States, owing us for France's very existence and the privilege of speaking French today, instead of German.

We really should stop bad mouthing the French over the Battle of France in 1940. The French Armies had been bled white in the First World War, and their population had never recovered. In the Second they tried for a strategy that would keep their losses down. Unfortunately they ran into an entirely new type of warfare. How would Britain have done, if the English channel wasn't between them and the Germans. It all turned around when the Russians, and then the Americans, had all the planes and tanks. It's funny, after coming up with the concept of Blitzkreig, many of the Nazi general staff didn't fully understand it. Look at the preparations on both sides leading up to D-Day. Runstedt didn't understand the ramifications of total Allied control of the air, over the invasion beaches, due to the withdrawal of Luftwaffe units to protect the Fatherland; therefore he wanted to hold reserves back from the coast, to move up for a counterattack. Rommel who had suffered from Allied control of the air in North Africa, wanted those reserves right on the coast, or they would never reach it to counter attack. They would be destroyed on the way there. Rommel was right.

Quote from: Solar on June 30, 2013, 06:24:08 PM
I often wonder if we weren't baited into it. Not knowing we might escalate to what it became, but an excuse to get out.
Funny, two Dims back to back gave us the worst war in our history, and Nixon took the heat.

Ike put the troops in there.  Kennedy would have gotten them out, most likely.  There were, I believe, about 16 thousand americans serving in Viet Nam when he was assassinated, and all the evidence points to him pulling out.  But Johnson didn't want to go on record as losing America's first war.  It was about egos.  And those big egos weren't all dems.  In fact, dems were taking heat for WANTING out. 

Nixon was prez when I served.  I don't recall him taking much heat for Viet Nam.  Is this some historical rewrite?

And worst war in history?  You can't possibly believe that.

Quote from: mdgiles on September 01, 2013, 12:21:56 PM
We really should stop bad mouthing the French over the Battle of France in 1940. The French Armies had been bled white in the First World War, and their population had never recovered. In the Second they tried for a strategy that would keep their losses down. Unfortunately they ran into an entirely new type of warfare. How would Britain have done, if the English channel wasn't between them and the Germans. It all turned around when the Russians, and then the Americans, had all the planes and tanks. It's funny, after coming up with the concept of Blitzkreig, many of the Nazi general staff didn't fully understand it. Look at the preparations on both sides leading up to D-Day. Runstedt didn't understand the ramifications of total Allied control of the air, over the invasion beaches, due to the withdrawal of Luftwaffe units to protect the Fatherland; therefore he wanted to hold reserves back from the coast, to move up for a counterattack. Rommel who had suffered from Allied control of the air in North Africa, wanted those reserves right on the coast, or they would never reach it to counter attack. They would be destroyed on the way there. Rommel was right.

But bad mouthing the French is the cheap shot. Just like bad mouthing the post office.  it resonates everywhere groupthink prevails. 

Quote from: mdgiles on September 01, 2013, 12:21:56 PM
We really should stop bad mouthing the French over the Battle of France in 1940. The French Armies had been bled white in the First World War, and their population had never recovered. In the Second they tried for a strategy that would keep their losses down. Unfortunately they ran into an entirely new type of warfare. How would Britain have done, if the English channel wasn't between them and the Germans. It all turned around when the Russians, and then the Americans, had all the planes and tanks. It's funny, after coming up with the concept of Blitzkreig, many of the Nazi general staff didn't fully understand it. Look at the preparations on both sides leading up to D-Day. Runstedt didn't understand the ramifications of total Allied control of the air, over the invasion beaches, due to the withdrawal of Luftwaffe units to protect the Fatherland; therefore he wanted to hold reserves back from the coast, to move up for a counterattack. Rommel who had suffered from Allied control of the air in North Africa, wanted those reserves right on the coast, or they would never reach it to counter attack. They would be destroyed on the way there. Rommel was right.

Giles, I would point out that Hitler's first significant defeat was the Battle of Britain. England didn't have "all the planes." They were actually heavily outnumbered.  What they had was skill, excellent hardware (especially radar), and above all, superior tactics. It also helped a lot that they were fighting over their home territory, so that a downed flier could find himself back in the air later in the day, instead of a prisoner of war.

Were there a nice, wide bridge from France to England, yes, things could have been different. But there wasn't.

As far as the "Battle of France in 1940," I didn't know there was one. I thought it simply took six weeks for all those Germans to walk to the Atlantic beaches.