Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 207 posts

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#191

Post by Balgair »

moogleii wrote: post #19

Recently learned that one of Ben Franklin's sons was a loyalist. He fled to England after the war.

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

Not only was William a loyalist, he was the last colonial governor of New Jersey and was one of the chief leaders of the loyalists. His early years and heritage are just crazy stuff, even for our times.

There is a good reason you've not heard about ol William before, because his story and relationships are totally nuts. My lord, the conflicts of interest are at actual war.

Imagine if Putin's bastard son was one of Zelensky's most important generals.

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#192

Post by alex43578 »

sethammons wrote: post #112
alex43578 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ICE has probable cause to believe you are an alien and don’t have the necessary documents, you could be detained or arrested. If ICE doesn’t have probable cause to believe you’re an alien, you’re free to go. Things could be different based on state-level stop and identify statutes when interacting with state LEO.

innocent til proven guilty. This is a core tenant. To not believe such is firmly unamerican.

It is a core tenant for criminal trials, not the civil proceedings of immigration. Instead, lower standards, including probable cause for detainment, or a "preponderance of the evidence" standard for the immigration proceedings is sufficient. That is and has been the American standard.

Legal immigrants to America for over a century accepted and complied with these legal processes, many of which were even more burdensome or discriminatory (quotas, Chinese Exclusion Act, Immigration Act of 1924, etc).

It's unamerican to undermine a core tenant of the US's national sovereignty: the "sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy", by arguing that unregulated, irregular migration is the norm and that any action to enforce immigration law is unthinkable.

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#193

Post by komali2 »

alex43578 wrote: post #192
sethammons wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

innocent til proven guilty. This is a core tenant. To not believe such is firmly unamerican.

It is a core tenant for criminal trials, not the civil proceedings of immigration. Instead, lower standards, including probable cause for detainment, or a "preponderance of the evidence" standard for the immigration proceedings is sufficient. That is and has been the American standard. Legal immigrants to America for over a century accepted and complied with these legal processes, many of which were even more burdens…

Your understanding of American immigration law is incorrect, I'd like to correct you to perhaps help align your understanding of American history with the somewhat wrong-headed idea you have of American values. America didn't become "the melting pot" by having communist-style border checkpoints.

For basically the entire first 80% of our history, the most the federal government would do in regards to immigration was write down someone's name and nationality, then send them on their way. You're right that in the early 1900s, there were finally some restrictions passed, but by that point the national fabric of America was already sewn, and even those restrictions only applied to specific countries. Right up to the modern era, millions and millions of people have been moving to the USA, and only very, very recently has there been an extremely formalized process, or efforts to go out of the way to deport people that aren't committing actual crimes (overstaying visas is a modern thing, and isn't the kind of crime I'm talking about) (and before you get on me about breaking the law making someone a criminal, lemme know how many times you've driven over the speed limit, and whether you verify your turn signals, headlights, and brakelights work every time you operate a motor vehicle).

I grant you that the government is often at odds at our values, such as with the Chinese exclusion act or when they put Japanese in internment camps, but the American culture has been pro-immigration and pro-refugee for our whole history. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses..." No way in hell bureaucracy is more important to us than that value.

American conservative media are really good at repainting history, so they seem to have convinced some people such as yourself that American sovereignty is predicated upon a tightly controlled and monitored border, but that's basically the opposite of the truth of our history. My guess is that the conservatives need scapegoats to distract from the collapse of the living conditions of the working class from the true reasons (higher concentration of wealth) and so they've picked immigrants this time, a typical target. What genuinely surprises me is that people on hacker news, who I consider typically more media-savvy than the average person, are falling for this as well.

Anyway maybe take a quick scan of the wikipedia article to get a better understanding of our history in relation to immigration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_...

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#194

Post by komali2 »

alex43578 wrote: post #190
komali2 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question: Are you a communist, or perhaps a member of a former communist state? What you're discussing is how Americans perceive the Soviets or the Maoists, it doesn't really align with American values as I grew up understanding them. "Show me your papers" is not something I think most Americans think is acceptable to be asked of them.

Excepting “sovereign citizens”, most Americans comply when asked to show ID on a traffic stop, their passport at customs, a drivers license when renting a car, or even ID when swiping a credit card at Walmart. Do you think all Americans are just running around bartering for corn with bullets? Showing ID when engaging in modern society has become common - except when voting, of course, oddly enough :P

> most Americans comply when asked to show ID on a traffic stop

It's not just sovereign citizens asserting their rights to not identify themselves out of turn to a cop. You're right that cops in America are becoming increasingly authoritarian and trying to intimidate people into giving up their rights, but check out any youtube channel that's essentially just a reuploader for full cop chest cam videos, and almost every encounter with a cop has people pushing back on unlawful search and seizure.

Anyway, your examples are all not exactly good faith, since we were discussing random "show me your papers" stops, which is what ICE has started doing. Needing to prove you have a legal right to drive is relatively uncontroversial. As for showing your passport at a random DHS stop, I've refused every time (over 20 times, I'm a Texan), and everyone I know does as well, and we're certainly not sovereign citizens. "I'm an American citizen, thank you." On my way. They're completely used to it so I know we aren't outliers.

> even ID when swiping a credit card at Walmart.

I've never had to do this lol, not sure what this is about, but again irrelevant when discussing government overreach.

> Do you think all Americans are just running around bartering for corn with bullets?

Ok, this might be a rural American thing, but, yes, many people are basically doing this. Maybe this is just a Texan thing but there's whole ass grey market economies around this.

IDK man maybe we just roll in different circles, maybe it's a redneck thing, but my perception of American values is hot rodding cars so as to escape the cops, not welcoming federal agents into your city to deport your neighbor that watches your kid when you gotta run to the post office real quick, just cause of some frivolous bullshit paperwork.

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#195

Post by like_any_other »

SantalBlush wrote: post #179
like_any_other wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't answer my question, which was about Americans. > grasping at straws So stay at home orders and gathering bans [1] aren't authoritarian? Note, I am not asking if they were justified , or necessary (or perceived as such, given the information known at the time), but if they were authoritarian . If someone argues a point poorly, that doesn't make the point itself invalid. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…

Oh, I'm not here to indulge you in some petty argument. I was just pointing out that the comment about Australia wasn't the slam dunk you made it out to be. By all means, believe whatever you want. I doesn't bother me one bit.

> I'm not here to indulge you in some petty argument.

You're the one focusing on the specific arguments made, instead of the substance of the point being argued itself, and running away when faced with an argument you can't weasel out of.

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#196

Post by ericmay »

komali2 wrote: post #182
ericmay wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not true" according to who? They sure seemed serious to me. I think you are having difficulty separating your personal opinion of those folks with assessing what they believed and how they acted. You can make the same argument about the rioters in Los Angelas today [1]. "Those who value XYZ wouldn't take ABC action" https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5340553-los-angeles...

The point was specifically about people who it's being argued are pro- or anti-authoritarian. In this case, people opposed to mask wearing are being argued as "anti-authoritarian" perhaps in an attempt to accuse those of us that support the LA resistance against ICE as hypocritical. It was argued that those opposed to mask wearing aren't anti-authoritarian because they went out of their way to attack people wearing m…

The OP I was responding to was trying to invoke the spirit of the Founding Fathers to bless the anti-authority, freedom-loving protests going on in Los Angeles.

That attempt at moral blessing of the activities of some "anti-authority" behavior can be just as loosely applied to those who are protesting against other perceived anti-authority behavior regardless of whether you personally agree with their cause or not.

Getting lost in the muck of who exactly was violent when and whether that specific act of violence is ok because you happen to agree or disagree with the cause is a waste of time.

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#197

Post by itsanaccount »

giardini wrote: post #188
MentatOnMelange wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience this is dead on. People have short attention spans but this has been happning the whole 21st century. In 2008 Obama won the primary despite the best efforts of leadership to nominate clinton. They even scrambled the "super delegates" (delegates who vote for the candidate chosen by senior leadership) hoping that even if Obama won more delegates, they could override the voters choice. Of course, they f…

>" Obama became the only 21st century president to win the poplar vote twice " Amazing! And who won the pine, elm, and oak vote? [it's "popular" not "poplar"; A poplar is a effing tree !)

An oak tree's vote adds more to our democracy than your comment does to this conversation.

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#198

Post by anonfordays »

komali2 wrote: post #183
anonfordays wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>ICE's actions are wildly illegal. No they're not. Deporting illegal aliens is not "wildly" illegal.

This is a bad faith argument. ICE is not "deporting illegal aliens," they're throwing tear gas canisters into busy restaurants and locking people in without cause while they check their papers. The America I grew up in would call that "commie shit," I'm not sure if you grew up in the same America as me or what but I'm pretty sure that I have a better representative understanding of American values to know that office…

This is a bad faith argument. ICE is not "throwing tear gas canisters into busy restaurants and locking people in without cause while they check their papers," they're deporting illegal aliens.

>The America I grew up in would call that "commie shit,"

No they wouldn't have. The America I grew up in didn't have a political party that fetishized trafficking in the third-world into the US. That is "commie shit."

>I'm pretty sure that I have a better representative understanding of American values to know that officers throwing a tear gas canister into the restaurant I'm eating at and then asking me to "show my papers" is exactly the kind of Soviet-ass behavior that it's my American duty to protest.

Repeating false propaganda likely from Russian assets posting on reddit is Soviet-ass "commie shit."

>I don't care about any justification, if what it requires to keep undocumented migrants out of restaurant kitchens is that cops get to kick down doors and ask people randomly for papers, I'll take the America with the 4th and 5th amendments and the undocumented migrants in the kitchen before I take the communist alternative you're offering.

I don't care about any justification, if what it requires to keep illegal immigrant slaves out of restaurant kitchens is that cops get to kick down doors and ask people randomly for papers, I'll take the America with the 4th and 5th amendments and tear gassing rioters in before I take the communist alternative of importing slave labor you're offering.

Both of us can play this game. Flooding the West with illegal aliens is literal Soviet-era propaganda. Deporting them is democracy, as this is a country for the of the people, by the people, for the people

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#199

Post by isr »

Spivak wrote: post #128
isr wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you're saying, but it strikes me (& this is particularly poignant on THIS site), that this discussion is somewhat equivalent to the "blub" paradox (aka, how do you explain the power of lisp macro's to someone who grew up only with c & Java). Americans are THAT brainwashed into thinking they really have a real choice at the ballot box, when in reality all choices that matter were weeded out long long…

Counterpoint: folks not from America create a 2d projection of our government where on the whole Americans are very aligned and where (usually Europeans) are not and conclude that US parties are the same while their parties are very different. Meanwhile I can't tell the difference between any of the (just picking one) UK parties. From an outsider perspective their government seems exactly the same no matter who is el…

Rebuttal to your counterpoint: I've lived in the US for 25 years, so I'm not unaware of the "supposed differences".

What were saying is that these "supposed differences" are mostly over inconsequential things, designed to mobilise the masses into 1 camp or another, all while LEAVING THE MAJOR ISSUES untouched.

It doesn't matter if team red or team blue is in charge, immigrants get scapegoated and caged (happened under Obama & Biden).Just that team red takes greater visceral delight.

It doesn't matter if team red/blue is in power, the HOLOCAUST is armed, funded & covered for.

It doesn't matter if it's team red or blue, the military budget keeps going up, and the almost pyschopathic need to keep dumping military bases into other peoples backyards, the need to freeze conflicts into eternal points of instability (to then be exploited in the future), the need to keep poking at other people's pressure points to instigate war, the need to continuously "regime change" any sovereign country you like (all the while bemoaning "foreign interference" in your own elections... irony wants its ball back)

And failing all of that, the need to create/arm/fund terrorist groups of any stripe or persuasion to get what you want done. Be they right-wing death squads in Central America, to neo Nazis in Europe, to Daeesh in Syria/Iraq (and we can all drop the pretence now that CNN & the state dept all rushed in to validate the Daesh head honcho in Syria)

Etc, etc, boringly etc.

All of these things did happen, are happening, and will continue to happen - irrespective of team red or blue.

And irrespective of whether the bulk of the American population actually wants these things or not.

But yes, I'll grant you, voting team red or blue will impact the eternal question of who gets to urinate in which public bathroom.

Yay democracy

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#200

Post by alex43578 »

komali2 wrote: post #193
alex43578 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a core tenant for criminal trials, not the civil proceedings of immigration. Instead, lower standards, including probable cause for detainment, or a "preponderance of the evidence" standard for the immigration proceedings is sufficient. That is and has been the American standard. Legal immigrants to America for over a century accepted and complied with these legal processes, many of which were even more burdens…

Your understanding of American immigration law is incorrect, I'd like to correct you to perhaps help align your understanding of American history with the somewhat wrong-headed idea you have of American values. America didn't become "the melting pot" by having communist-style border checkpoints. For basically the entire first 80% of our history, the most the federal government would do in regards to immigration was w…

If your argument against immigration regulation and enforcement boils down to “we’ve only been doing it for 120 years”, that’s got some pretty rough consequences for welfare, civil rights on the basis of race, and even the income tax, right?

If you want to go back to a pre-1900s American system and return to that national fabric, sure! Repeal the NFA and free our 2nd amendment. Repeal the income tax and welfare state, and go back to funding the government via tariffs and excise taxes (the liberal media sure convinced some people tariffs were an anathema to America, right?).

Your idealized “America the melting pot” thrived on the basis of people actually working for what they had, both immigrant and 3rd generation American; rather than sitting around drawing Social Security, disability, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, WIC,TANF, EITC, and housing assistance. I think you’re on to something!

Post reply on HN