Former American President Adams in Poland.

isthatu2Threads: 13 Posts: 5,225 Joined: Apr 3, 08 ♂	Dec 28, 10, 18:21 #31
Nope,sell outs to the origional revolution the lot of them,only some did the selling out with heavier hearts and a little more pragmatism.

trener zolwiaThreads: 5 Posts: 2,786 Joined: Jun 8, 10 ♂	Dec 28, 10, 18:34 #32
Nah, that's just silly.

Wroclaw BoyThreads: 57 Posts: 5,478 Joined: Jul 3, 09 MEMBER ♂	Dec 28, 10, 18:56 #33
John Quincy Adams son of John Adams, what is it about brothers, sons and wives all becoming presidents or near in the US? talk about keeping it in the family..

♂

Edited by: isthatu2 Dec 28, 10, 19:02 #34

hhmmm,the great secret of the american revolution,one lot of landed rich elites was swiftly replaced by another its something that tends to be left out of 4th of july parades,that and the fact that even at the end of the war most americans were still"tories" or had stayed completly neutral knowing full well nothing much would change......

trener zolwia:

Nah, that's just silly.

I love your razor sharp insightfull counter points,keep them up son.

♀

Dec 28, 10, 19:13 #35

isthatu2:

hhmmm,the great secret of the american revolution,one lot of landed rich elites was swiftly replaced by another its something that tends to be left out of 4th of july parades,that and the fact that even at the end of the war most americans were still"tories" or had stayed completly neutral knowing full well nothing much would change......

Did you know that if King George would have been more sympathetic to the colonists there might have never been a revolution and we might still be subjects today. It was the fault of the English king for being so callous and inflexible. If you are thousands of miles of ocean away and a King is treating you like crap, why wouldn't you revolt against him?

♂

Edited by: isthatu2 Dec 28, 10, 19:23 #36

plastic Pole,I like many British people at the time of the revolution am a supporter of the right to ,well,no taxation without representation. You miss my point,the initial revolution was a noble cause ,fight for the right not to pay taxes (that were never paid anyway,with no consiquences) to a government across the sea.
What you have got to remember is that in britain most people were treated as badly,infact more so,than settlers in the colonies so there was strong support for the tea party etc as it was hoped things would be put right here as well as in the colonies,and in those colonies the vast majority of people didnt want to completly cut ties with britain,just get more than the people of britain did,full representation in parliement. Good on em for trying.
Oh,and BTW,John Paul Jones is a distant ancestor so....
and if i can be bothered i'll take a pic of my staffodshire(uk) made commemorative Boston Tea Party plate made in the late 1700s.

OOps,better add, John Adams was one of the guys who was a little less extremist,didnt support the terror tactics of some in the colonial command etc and was a natural diplomat and Im not surrprised with his inquisitive mind that he found much of interest in Prussia/Poland.

PlasticPoleThreads: 10 Posts: 5,431 Joined: May 28, 09 ♀	Dec 28, 10, 19:25 #37
It wasn't just the taxes. Britain was trying to monopolize markets.

♂

Dec 28, 10, 19:33 #38

Plastic,please read again,I may not be a colonial but Im guessing Ive read atleast as much on the subject as you have,I know fine well it wasnt all about the taxes,it involved,like all revolutions,many different,dripping tap effect symptoms,enough of those and the bath soon overspills.
read again the fact I support,or would have done had i been alive,the origional principles of the american revolution(apart from the right to expand into native lands,a reason not often admitted to is that britain recognised the indians right to their own lands and activly stopped westward expansion while the colonials were ,some of them,all for massacring the redskins and nicking their land). and then "attack" my veiws again....honest,Id have been with you guys,and one of my ancestors was :)
But,then again,thats all pretty off topic regarding john Adams, a fine gentleman.

Marek11111Threads: 49 Posts: 1,954 Joined: Aug 6, 09 ♂	Dec 28, 10, 19:39 #39
here you go guesswho: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/466910/Partitions-of-Poland

guesswhoThreads: 23 Posts: 3,326 Joined: Mar 17, 10 ♀	Dec 28, 10, 19:44 #40
Marek11111: here you go guesswho: did I deny the partitions? Partitions here, partitions there, Niederschlesien was still longer German than Polish (despite the partitions).

IronsideThreads: 59 Posts: 6,786 Joined: Feb 26, 09 ♂	Edited by: Ironside Dec 28, 10, 20:56 #41
guesswho: As far as Niederschlessien, it was German way longer than it was Polish. German means ......? way longer eh? I wouldn't say it ! isthatu2: the origional principles of the american revolution Well, except their terror tactic !

♂

Edited by: Bratwurst Boy Dec 28, 10, 21:23 #42

Ironside:

German means ......?
way longer eh? I wouldn't say it !

Inform yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Silesia

...Magna Germania [b](second century) records that between the Celtic and the Slavic period, Lower Silesia was inhabited by a number of Germanic tribes.[/b] Among them, are the Vandals, the Lugii, and the Silingi, who might have given the Silesia region its name, though it is unclear and thus disputed.

...
By the beginning of the 20th century Lower Silesia had an almost entirely German-speaking and ethnic German population, with the exception of a small Polish-speaking area in the northeastern part of the district of Namslau, Syców and Milicz and a 9%

1800 years of german history in these lands Iron, think about it if you again start to whine about your hole Lwow you had for a few years!

Marek11111Threads: 49 Posts: 1,954 Joined: Aug 6, 09 ♂	Dec 28, 10, 21:49 #43
BB we can put this to bed, Germany did end up with Poland land after ww1, as the map that you have link to shows borders of Poland after ww1 and traces of Poland border before partitions and yes my statement was correct. Marek11111 yes BB noting like germanization of Polish lands and resettlement of Poles during partitions so now you can claim that that was Germany

♂

Edited by: Bratwurst Boy Dec 28, 10, 22:08 #44

Marek11111:

yes BB noting like germanization of Polish lands and resettlement of Poles during partitions so now you can claim that that was Germany

We lived here before you came so its more like polonization than anything else...

Marek11111:

BB we can put this to bed,

I "put it to bed" long ago...doesn't mean I keep you denying thousand years of german history in this land.
It would be better you "put it to bed" too and accept the facts. Then we can move on...it's not as if Germany claims it militarily now or in the future.

♂

Dec 29, 10, 00:18 #45

Bratwurst Boy:

1800 years of german history in these lands Iron, think about it if you again start to whine about your hole Lwow you had for a few years!

That is BS BB! Do you come with this blood ties crap?I wonder why the Germans and the Germanic people always feel need to stress those bond of blood !?
Do they feel themselves so insecure being bastards and mongrels in all ?

Silesia belonged o Prussia since 1746 if I remember correctly and Prussia become Germany in 1871!
So your claims are simply laughable BB!
I'm laughing at you now :D

♂

Edited by: Bratwurst Boy Dec 29, 10, 00:25 #46

Ironside:

Do you come with this blood ties crap?I wonder why the Germans and the Germanic people always feel need to stress those bond of blood !?
Do they feel themselves so insecure being bastards and mongrels in all ?

Because blood, language and culture have been the binding factor of our people for most of our history.
As you well know is the nation state of Germany very young and never encompassed all Germans.
Borders have never meant much to the germanic tribes! Europe is our playground!;)

And of course we took in lots of other Europeans during the millennia, as our neighbours took in huge doses of german blood!
We are all european "mongrels", Iron! ;)

Still historical facts need to stay facts!

Ironside:

Silesia belonged o Prussia since 1746 if I remember correctly and Prussia become Germany in 1871!
So your claims are simply laughable BB!

As laughable as the disappearance of a polish people during the partitions?
Do you really think the changing govs and kings and ownerships and borders mattered that much to the Germans and Slavs living there?
1800 years of continous german history in these lands!

Ironside:

I'm laughing at you now :D

Well, we are all laughing at your Lwow-fantasies...we are a funny board! ;)

Marek11111Threads: 49 Posts: 1,954 Joined: Aug 6, 09 ♂	Dec 29, 10, 00:30 #47
You are miss inform BB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples

WroclawThreads: 77 Posts: 7,404 Joined: Apr 1, 06 ♂ [Moderator]	Dec 29, 10, 00:31 #48
can we get back to being amazed at the fact a former american president visited what is now Poland. thanx.

Pinching PeteThreads: 1 Posts: 1,111 Joined: Feb 23, 08 ♂	Dec 29, 10, 00:39 #49
Wroclaw Boy: pretty good TV series too, heres a memorable scene: A limey would post this bu.llsit scene. Vile submission it was. I wish I had been there, I would have whipped down my pantaloons and pissed on Georgie's jewel encrusted shoes.

♂

Edited by: hague1cmaeron Jan 2, 11, 06:40 #50

PlasticPole:

It wasn't just the taxes. Britain was trying to monopolize markets.

If I remember the taxes were paid by the Americans to pay for their own army to protect them from the French and the Indians, sounds perfectly sensible to me. Instead asking the British taxpayer to help with the upkeep of the British army in America.

And lets not forget about the yanks trying to steal Indian land, as somebody brought to our attention earlier.

PlasticPoleThreads: 10 Posts: 5,431 Joined: May 28, 09 ♀	Jan 2, 11, 06:43 #51
It was because Britain was taxing tea that entered Boston Harbor. It was still cheaper in the colonies than it was in Europe, but the colonists did not want to pay the tea tax. Britain was trying to monopolize the tea market.

♂

Edited by: hague1cmaeron Jan 2, 11, 06:52 #52

PlasticPole:

It was because Britain was taxing tea that entered Boston Harbor. It was still cheaper in the colonies than it was in Europe, but the colonists did not want to pay the tea tax. Britain was trying to monopolize the tea market.

They had to tax something, an income tax would have been very unpopular.

Bratwurst Boy:

as our neighbours took in huge doses of german blood!

That is good, i hear that they are an industrious bunch, although I think i prefer the northern ones to the ones from the south(:

Provided that they come from the north from around Munster and the Danish border, that will be a great addition.

PlasticPoleThreads: 10 Posts: 5,431 Joined: May 28, 09 ♀	Jan 2, 11, 07:00 #53
hague1cmaeron: They had to tax something, an income tax would have been very unpopular. The tea tax had nothing to do with paying for a colonist's army. As for Native Americans, they haven't faired worse than Australian aborigines yet there was never any Australian revolution. Apparently Britain didn't care about the plight of the indigenous any more than the American colonists did...

♂

Jan 2, 11, 12:37 #54

[quote=PlasticPole]The tea tax had nothing to do with paying for a colonist's army. As for Native Americans, they haven't faired worse than Australian aborigines yet there was never any Australian revolution. Apparently Britain didn't care about the plight of the indigenous any more than the American colonists did...
[/quo

I am afraid that you are wrong, try this for instance:

'Britain did not expect the colonies to contribute to the interest or the retirement of debt incurred during its wars, but they did expect a portion of the expenses for colonial defense to be paid by the Americans.Estimating the expenses of defending the continental colonies and the British West Indies to be approximately £200,000 annually, the British goal after the end of this war was that the colonies would be taxed for £78,000 of this amount. The colonists objected chiefly on the grounds not that the taxes were high (they were low)[20] but that they had no representation in the Parliament. Parliament insisted it had the right to levy any tax without colonial approval, to demonstrate that it had authority over the colonies.'

Seems to me they wanted to have their cake and eat it as well.

What has this got to do with Australian Aboriginals? Besides I live in Australia and the differences between the two are stark.

POLAND . The Unofficial Guide	Unanswered \| Archives
POLAND . The Unofficial Guide	Poland News and Events	Witamy, Guest \| PF Members \| Gold Members

Home \| Unanswered \| Archives \| Random \| Statistics	Time in Poland: 18:06 / May 26
About Us \| Contact Us \| Rules, Privacy \| Poland Advertising	© 2005-12 PolishForums.com