Yeah, but did Britain ever go full out colonialism on them? I don't think they ever did.
After the Industrial Revolution it was less for colonies to send folks and more for an empire to provide raw materials and markets for the finished products.Throw in a big helping of the White Man's Burden too.
PNW got a huge influx of yacht people (and others) when Hong Kong went bach to the P R of China… folks that held Commonwealth passports and weren't too thrilled about being part of Communist China.
I agree that the SHO should rethink and waffle a bit on this one; makes for too much flapdoddle ala the Hancock quote; just say that it is “supposed” or is “believed”. It seemed however that you had stonewalled ski's thoughts on the matter. My apology if that wasn't the case.This all doesn't really matter one way or the other though; Washington didn't do a lot of things that have been attributed to him and likely did lots that have been forgotten. NBD to most of the world and life goes on.I'll not comment on the Leprechaun issue... as I'm currently reading the 4th Harry Potter. 😉
... your assertion that Adams was there and far closer than Irving is both true and entirely irrelevant. Why you inserted that irrelevancy is still an unanswered question
Indeed?
I have made some sweeping statements about the evidence which, if not true, could be proven to be incorrect simply by showing evidence otherwise. Did any contemporary of GW claim that GW, or for that matter any other president, appended shmG to their oath of office? Did any 18th or early 19th century newspaper, letter, manuscript, government document, etc. claim that GW, or for that matter any other 18th or early 19th century president, appended shmG to their oath of office? I say no, none did. Of course, I could be wrong....
While this may be true, my irrelevant take on the matter is this: just as skiguy said it might be simply that no one at the time saw it as noteworthy. You correctly state that lack of evidence against isn't proof of nor is lack of evidence for disproof. History is often the best guess based on what we have... changes when (if) new info. sufaces. Hope this answers your question.
Having just finished McCullough's bio of John Adams, I found that he too indicates SHMG was part of the Oath (taken by GW). Two points here... Adams was far closer and more dependable than the six year old Irving and I doubt McCullough puts anything in any of his works because it is conventional wisdom (w/o checking).Wally
You are being irresponsible here, Wally, by insinuating falsely that Adams claimed that GW appended that phrase. John Adams did not claim that GW said those words, it is McCullough and only McCullough who is atttributing those words to GW. No contemporary of GW, none, attributes shmG to GW, and McCullough never says otherwise, so I don't understand on what basis you attribute this claim to Adams.....
I guess that in your zeal to make history 100% correct you assumed I was making an insinuation about what Adams said; not so. While Adams was there and far closer than Irving I meant that [it was] the author that indicated shmG was said. I think this is becoming, rather than a discussion, a hissing match and if you have exception to the work of McCullough then take it somewhere that you can make a difference. This is a very small forum and not likely to get enough play to make the splash you seem to want.Thank you for your attention, one and all.