Quote from Percy

Do you have a source for that Percy? I find it a bit dubious considering the U.S. and U.K. were at odds until at least 1812.

Being at odds is a fairly 'normal' state in international affairs. Nevertheless Britain always retained a great deal of affection for the Colonies and America.

As for the Treason and Revolt, Americans did have legitimate grievances with the British crown (e.g. it wasn't just the 2% tax it was taxation without representation).

The Parliament of the time 'represented' in a far different way than today. There were many MPs who spoke loudly and frequently for the colonists interests - which were often and largely their own interests too - and to say 'No taxation without representation' is to mouth a handy slogan which was quite some distance from the truth of the matter. The American Colonists had better representation than the common Englishman did.

The 'taxation' issues could have been peaceably settled without revolt or war. The taxes rerurned to Britain were on trade. There was no general taxation of the colonists by Britain which was not spent in their infrastructure and controlled by them. The 'Business' leaders were the problem as it was their Trading efforts that were taxed and quite reasonably taxed too, to pay for the defence of the shipping lanes. As it turned out that cost continued and was paid thereafter by the colonists from general taxes levied by the new American government.

I note that you did not query the mention I made of Freemasons. The declaration of Independance was signed by a large contingent of Freemansons. It was by far and away the largest coherent grouping amongst all the signers. Had a 'Catholic' group of that size, or any other similar sized group of people with strange and secret rituals taken such a commanding role in the proceedings I am sure you would have looked askance at their influence. But hardly anyone says a thing. So many of the Presidents of America have been Freemasons that one cannot help wondering about their continuing influence.

Besides, do you know of any government today that didn't come about by overthrowing another at some time in its past?

Yes, quite a few. And I understand what you are saying. Often there is a revolt and a treason in a country's evolution. Britain itself had a civil war and executed a King. And it was invaded quite a few times too. But one lot of violent revolution does not justify another lot, let alone 'normalise' it.

What would Britain be like today without numerous uprisings against various kings? Would Australia have gained independence peacefully had London not had some fear of an Australian uprising?

There was no hint of any Australian uprising and the transition to Independance was supported by all involved. It was as sought by the British as by the several colonies in Oz. It is the view of most historians that the American Colonies would have achieved Independance in a peaceful and easy transition just as Canada, New Zealand, and Australia did. It was to Britains advantage that these countries gained independance as they had all prviously eaten up a lot of Britains wealth - as any child does when his father is paying the bills.

It s also noted by pretty well every historian of note that the Boston Tea Party was a direct response to the settlement just two years earlier of the Quebec problem which saw Britain reach a compromise solution with France - after soundly whacking them - from which the French colonists gained some benefit. The New England colonists were quite put out by Britain allowing the French to continue as settlers just across the border and competing for trade. Britain was a 'compromise-seeking' nation and at war with France for a considerable period before and after that event.

I don't want to get into an endless debate about this so I'll let you have the last word but first a few quick points:
1. I doubt men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have given up their relatively soft, aristocratic lifestyles to risk their own lives in battle if the British were as amenable to compromise as you suggest.

2. Every place in the world, except maybe a few isolated areas where primitive tribes live, has a government different from what it did when human settlers first arrived. Through most of history governments have been displaced and replaced by violence. I hope we can move beyond that but it is the normal state of affairs. And it can be justified when government oppression goes too far, since government itself ultimately rules through force and at least the threat of violence. Without force a law is just a suggestion. (I know I heard or read that last sentence somewhere but I can't find the source).

3. I don't know much about the Freemasons but from what I've read there is not much evidence behind the conspiracy theories about them. They have been more likely to be the victims of tyrannical governments than the power behind them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemas...tarian_regimes I was raised Catholic, and while I now do not believe in any particular religion, most of my relatives are still Catholic, so I would not automatically be suspicious of a document just because the majority of signers happened to be Catholic.