Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Sarah Palin

2008-08-29T22:01:41Z

Colest: Accurate.

[[Image:Sarah Palin.jpg|right|thumb]] '''Sarah Louise Palin''' (born February 11, 1964) is the [[conservative]] first-term Republican [[governor]] of [[Alaska]]. She is the youngest person to hold this honor as well as the first woman to do so in the state's history. Palin is Senator [[John McCain]]'s Vice Presidential running mate in the [[2008 Presidential Election]]. If elected, Palin would be the first [[Affirmative Action President|Affirmative Action Vice-President]].

Palin's parents arrived in Alaska in 1964 to teach school in Skagway.

She earned her Journalism degree from the University of [[Idaho]] and worked in media and the utility industry before beginning her public service 14 years ago.
==Personal Background==

Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. She received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987. Palin, who graduated from Wasilla High School in 1982, has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla. She is married to Todd Palin, who is a lifelong Alaskan, a production operator on the North Slope and a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snowmobile race. They have five children: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig.

Palin has been highly regarded among conservatives for acting on her pro-life beliefs in the case of her youngest son, Trig, who was diagnosed with [[Down Syndrome]] in the fourth months of her pregnancy. After researching the condition, she and her husband agreed to continue to pregnancy:
: "[My husband Todd said,] we shouldn't be asking 'Why us?' We should be saying 'Well, why not us?' We've both been very vocal about being pro life. We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential. I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?" [http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2008/05/gov-sarah-palin.html]

==Political Career==
Palin was elected to two terms on the Wasilla City Council, and then two terms as the Mayor / Manager of Alaska's fastest growing community (Population: 5400 in 2000)<ref>[http://wasilla.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm Wasilla Population and Demographics]</ref>. Ms. Palin's leadership qualities were recognized when she was elected as President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors despite being a woman. In 2002, she ran for Lieutenant Governor, but came in second in a four-way race. Later that year, when [[Frank Murkowski]] resigned his [[Senate]] seat to become [[governor]], she interviewed for the opening. Instead, Murkowski appointed his daughter to the seat. From there, she went on to run for governor and won, becoming the first female governor of Alaska and its youngest.

In 2003, then-Governor Mukowski appointed Palin to serve as Panel Ethics Commisioner of Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's [[non-renewable energy|non-renewable]] resources: [[oil]] and [[gasoline|gas]]. She resigned in 2004 as a protest over the "lack of ethics" of fellow panelists who had ignored her complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest.

She ran for Governor in 2006 on a clean government platform, and defeated incumbent Governor Frank Murkowski in the Republican primary, and went on to defeat former Governor Tony Knowles in the general election.

She has also served on the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. She was named one of Alaska's "Top 40 Under 40", Alaska's Public Works "Person of the Year", and was recently inducted into the Sigma Beta Delta Honor Society at Alaska Pacific University.

Married to the three-time champion of the world's longest [[snowmobile]] race ([[the Iron Dog]]), her husband is also a lifelong Alaskan and is a production operator on the [[North Slope]].

Palin has served on numerous boards and commissions throughout the State, and stays active as a marathon runner, sports team mom, hockey manager and school volunteer. A lifetime member of the [[NRA]], she enjoys hunting, fishing, and Alaska history. <ref>http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.php Alaska Governor Sarah Palin</ref> On the issue of [[abortion]], she describes herself as "pro-life."<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Sarah_Palin_Abortion.htm</ref>

In 2007, Palin's 18-year old son, Track, enlisted in the [[Army]]. <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6920410,00.html</ref>

==Polar bears==

Fox News reported that:
* The state of Alaska will sue to challenge the recent listing of [[polar bears]] as a threatened species, Gov. Sarah Palin announced Wednesday [May 21, 2008].
* She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts.
* Palin argued that there is not enough evidence to support a listing. Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation, she said.
* Climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, during summers are unreliable, said Palin. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357065,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/naturalscience</ref>

==State Legislature Investigation==
In August of 2008, the [[Alaska]] state legislature began an investigation of Palin and her staff for potential abuse of power in regards to a firing of Commissioner of Public Safety Walter Monegan. Monegan was dismissed from his position in July of 2008. He alleged that Palin fired him because he refused to fire Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister. Palin denies the charges.

==Vice Presidential Candidate==
On August 29, 2008, Palin was announced to be the Vice Presidential nominee for Republican Senator John McCain<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126138.html</ref>. The selection was a surprise, as those in the media were expecting [[Minnesota]] Governor [[Tim Pawlenty]] or former [[Massachusetts]]'s Governor [[Mitt Romney]]. Palin adds youth and executive experience to the ticket. She is the second female Vice Presidential candidate of a major party in U.S. history and the first one on a Republican ticket. The last female Vice Presidential candidate was [[Geraldine Ferraro]] in 1984.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ State of Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin Official Website]
*[http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=864bb9006da3f010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD National Governor's Association - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin]
*[http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27200 Project Vote Smart - Governor Sarah H. Palin]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Palin, Sarah}}

[[Category:Alaska Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]

Nathanael Greene

2007-11-01T16:22:16Z

Colest:

'''Nathanael Greene, Jr.''' (1742-1786) was an American general during the [[American Revolutionary War]]. He was a native of the state of [[Rhode Island]].<ref>http://www.sec.state.ri.us/library/riinfo/riinfo/knowrhode</ref> Although having no prior military experience, Greene proved himself to be [[George Washington]]'s most capable general, serving as the Quartermaster General and leading a successful southern campaign where more seasoned generals, such as [[Horatio Gates]] and [[Benjamin Lincoln]], had failed. He was wise enough to realize that retreat did not always mean defeat, and although driven from the field several times by the British, Greene's army was able to inflict comparatively high casualties on his enemies.

Greene died, deeply in debt, from a heat stroke at his Georgia plantation, Mulberry Grove, at the age of 44.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

''1776'' by David McCullough.

''This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.''

[[category:American Revolutionary War]]
[[Category: American Revolutionary War Commanders]]

American Revolution

2007-10-23T15:29:36Z

Colest: /* The British Offensive in 1776 */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:AmRev Logo.PNG|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|American Revolutionary War
|-
|Begun
|19 April 1775
|-
|Ended
|13 September 1783
|-
|}
The '''American Revolutionary War''' (1775-1783) was a war between [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]] and their thirteen [[North America|American]] colonies. The leadership of the colonies decided to unite and attempt to gain their independence from Britain, largely due to high taxes levied by [[Parliament]] without adequate representation. The decision to reject [[British]] rule was not universal in the colonies. Those that favored independence were called [[Patriot]]s and those that remained loyal to the throne were called [[Loyalist]]s. There was also a significant contingent that tried, for the most part, to remain neutral.

== Origins of the Revolution ==
[[Image:american-revolution-map.gif|thumb|200px|The 13 British colonies in North America by 1770]]
The American Revolution came about fundamentally because by 1763 the English-speaking communities on the far side of the Atlantic had matured to the extent that their interests and goals were distinct from those of the ruling classes in the mother country. [[British]] statesmen failed to understand or adjust to the situation. Ironically enough, [[British]] victory in the [[Seven Years' War]] set the stage for the revolt, for it freed the colonists from the need for [[British]] protection against a French threat on their frontiers and gave free play to the forces working for separation.

In 1763 the [[British]] government, reasonably from its own point of view, moved to tighten the system of imperial control and to force the colonists to contribute to imperial defense. As part of an effort to make the costs of empire be borne by all [[British]] subjects, his majesty’s government sought to create an "American Establishment," a force of 10,000 [[British]] regular soldiers in North America. The cost of this military force would be paid for by taxes the British Parliament levied on Americans. This imperial defense plan touched off the long controversy about Parliament’s right to tax that started with the Stamp and Sugar Acts and led to a final provocative deed in December 1773: protesting "taxation without representation", a patriot mob dressed as Indians boarded several ships of the [[East India Company]] moored in Boston harbor and destroyed their cargo of tea in an event since called the "[[Boston Tea Party]]".

The ten-year controversy over taxation escalated to violence in large measure because several successive British ministries failed to understand the differences that had grown between the American colonies and the metropolitan power. Although possessing a professional army and navy, the British government nevertheless failed to act decisively enough to enforce British regulations or work toward the more viable form of imperial union that the colonial leaders, at least until 1776, insisted they sought.

In response to the [[Boston Tea Party]], the King and his ministers blindly pushed through Parliament a series of measures collectively known in America as the [[Intolerable Acts]]: closing the port of Boston, suspending civilian government in Massachusetts, and massing troops in Boston under the military rule of Maj. Gen. Sir Thomas Gage. Outraged by the heavy-handed response to one colony, the other American political leaders called for a continental congress, in effect an American parliament, to coordinate a political drive to defend what the colonists deemed to be their rights and interests as Englishmen.

Since 1763 the colonial leaders, in holding that only their own popular assemblies, not the British Parliament, had a right to levy taxes on Americans, had raised the specter of an arbitrary British government collecting taxes in America to support red-coated regulars who might be used not to protect the frontiers but to suppress American liberties. Placing Massachusetts under military rule gave that specter some substance and led directly to armed revolt.

==The outbreak==
[[Image:Paul Revere.jpg|200px|left|thumb|Paul Revere]]
The [[First Continental Congress]] meeting at [[Philadelphia]] on September 5, 1774, addressed respectful petitions to Parliament and King but also adopted nonimportation and nonexportation agreements in an effort to coerce the British government into repealing the offending measures. To enforce these agreements, committees were formed in almost every county, town, and city throughout the colonies. In each colony, these committees soon became the effective local authorities, the base of a pyramid of revolutionary organizations with revolutionary assemblies, congresses, or conventions, and with committees of safety at the top.

This loosely knit combination of de facto governments superseded the constituted authorities and established firm control over the whole country before the British were in any position to oppose them. The de facto governments took over control of the militia and other colonial military resources such as armories and powder stores. They also identified which local militia officers could be trusted and which were known to be loyal to Britain. Where possible the various colonies reorganized the standing militia and formed rapid response units, including the famous Minutemen intended to turn out fully armed "in a minute’s notice." In colonies where a British governor’s official control over the militia could not be challenged, volunteer companies began training under the guidance of veterans of the French and Indian War. As winter turned into spring in 1775, patriot leaders were busily shaping the military forces that, if the necessity arose, might oppose the British Army in the field.

Massachusetts, the seat of the crisis, led the way in making military preparations. The Provincial Congress, eyeing Gage’s unprecedented military force in Boston, directed town officials to formally enlist a third of their adult males as Minutemen. It began plans to combine local militia companies into regiments and started selecting generals to command the force. It also began to collect ammunition, artillery pieces, and other military stores at locations outside of Gage’s immediate reach. One of the most important of these depots lay at Concord, about twenty miles inland from Boston.

General Gage learned of the collection of military stores at [[Concord]] and determined to send a force of Redcoats to destroy them. His preparations were made with the utmost secrecy. Yet so alert and ubiquitous were the patriot eyes in Boston that when the picked British force of 700 men set out on the night of April 18, 1775, two messengers, [[Paul Revere]] and William Dawes, preceded them to spread the alarm throughout the countryside. At dawn on the next day, when the British arrived at [[Lexington]], the halfway point to Concord, they found a body of militia drawn up on the village green. Some nervous finger—whether of a British regular or an American militiaman is unknown to this day—pressed a trigger. The impatient British regulars, apparently without any clear orders from their commanding officer, fired a volley then charged with the bayonet. The militiamen dispersed, leaving eight dead and ten wounded on the ground. The British column went on to Concord, engaged in another unanticipated skirmish, and destroyed such of the military stores as the Americans had been unable to remove. Their return journey to Boston took a civil disturbance issue and transformed it into open warfare.

By this time, the alarm had spread far and wide, and both ordinary militia and Minutemen had assembled along the British route. From behind walls, rocks, and trees, and from houses, they poured their fire into the columns of Redcoats, while the frustrated regulars found few targets for their accustomed volleys or bayonet charges. Only the arrival of reinforcements from Gage enabled the British column to get back to the safety of Boston. At day’s end the British counted 273 casualties out of a total of 1,800 men engaged; American casualties numbered 95 men, including the toll at Lexington. What happened was hardly a tribute to the marksmanship of New England farmers — it has been estimated that 75,000 shots poured from their muskets that day — but it did testify to a stern determination of the people of Massachusetts to resist any attempt by the British to impose their will by armed force.

The spark lit in Massachusetts soon spread throughout the rest of the colonies. Whatever really may have happened in that misty dawn on Lexington Green, the news that speedy couriers riding horses to exhaustion carried through the colonies from New Hampshire to Georgia was of a savage, unprovoked British attack and of farmers rising in the night to protect their lives, their families, and their property. Lexington, like Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor, and September 11 in subsequent years, furnished an emotional impulse that led all true patriots to gird themselves for battle. From the other New England colonies, militia poured in to join the [[Massachusetts]] men; together they soon formed a ring around [[Boston]]. Other forces mobilized under Ethan Allen of Vermont and Benedict Arnold of Connecticut seized the British forts at Ticonderoga and Crown Point, strategic positions on the route between New York and Canada. These posts yielded valuable artillery and other military stores. The Second Continental Congress, which assembled in Philadelphia on May 10, 1775, found itself forced to turn from embargoes and petitions to the problems of organizing, directing, and supplying a military effort.

Before [[Congress]] could assume effective control, the New England forces assembled near Boston fought another battle on their own. After Lexington and Concord, the New England colonies implemented their military plans and, as they had in the earlier wars with the French and Indians, moved to replace the militia gathered before Boston with volunteer forces, constituting what may be loosely called a New England army. Each of the four New England states raised and administered its own force under its own commander. As might be expected with such a loose organization, discipline was lax and there was no unified chain of command. Though Artemas Ward, the Massachusetts commander, exercised overall control by informal agreement, it was only because the other commanders chose to cooperate with him; all decisions were made in council. The volunteers in the Connecticut service had enlisted until December 10, 1775, those from the other New England states until the end of the year. The men were dressed for the most part in homespun clothes and armed with muskets of varied types; powder and ball were short, and only the barest few had bayonets.

Late in May Gage received limited reinforcements from England, bringing his total force to 6,500 rank and file. With the reinforcements came three major generals of reputation—Sir William Howe, Sir Henry Clinton, and Sir John Burgoyne—men destined to play major roles in England’s loss of its American colonies. The newcomers all considered that Gage needed more elbow room and proposed to fortify Dorchester Heights, a dominant position south of Boston previously neglected by both sides. News of the intended move leaked to the Americans, who immediately countered by dispatching a force onto the Charlestown peninsula, where other heights, Bunker Hill and Breed’s Hill, overlooked Boston from the north. The original intent was to fortify Bunker Hill, the eminence nearest the narrow neck of land connecting the peninsula with the mainland, but the working party sent out on the night of June 16, 1775 decided instead to move closer in and construct works on Breed’s Hill—a tactical blunder, for these exposed works could much more easily be cut off by a British landing on the neck in their rear.

The British scorned such a tactic, making a conscious decision to try and stop the conflict short with a psychologically crushing demonstration of brute force. However, the British generals committed a critical error, having assumed that the assembled "rabble in arms" would disintegrate in the face of an attack by disciplined British regulars. On the seventeenth Gage ferried some 2,200 of his men under Howe over to the tip of the Charlestown peninsula under the cover of Royal Navy warships. Howe then sent his troops directly against the American positions, by this time manned by perhaps an equal force. Twice the British advanced on the front and flanks of the redoubt on Breed’s Hill; and twice the Americans, holding their fire until the compact British lines were at close range, decimated the ranks of the advancing regiments and forced them to fall back and re-form. With reinforcements Howe carried the hill on the third try, largely because the Americans had run short of ammunition and had no bayonets. The American retreat from Breed’s Hill was, for inexperienced volunteers and militia, an orderly one; and Howe’s depleted regiments were unable to prevent the escape. British casualties for the day totaled a staggering 1,054, almost half the force engaged, as opposed to American losses of about 440.
[[image:Bunker hill.jpg|300px|right|thumb|Battle of Bunker Hill]]
The [[Battle of Bunker Hill]] (Bunker gave its name to a battle actually fought on Breed’s Hill) has been aptly characterized as a "tale of great blunders heroically redeemed." The American command structure violated the principle of unity of command from the start; in moving onto Breed’s Hill, the patriots exposed an important part of their force in an indefensible position, violating the principles of concentration of force, mass, and maneuver. Gage and Howe, for their parts, sacrificed all the advantages the American blunders gave them, violating the principles of maneuver and surprise by undertaking a frontal attack on a fortified position. Their gamble to end the rebellion with a single stroke had failed.

Bunker Hill was a Pyrrhic victory, its strategic effect practically nil since the two armies remained in virtually the same position they had held previously. Its consequences, nevertheless, cannot be ignored. Although frequently depicted as a force of farmers and townsmen, fresh from their fields and shops, with hardly a semblance of orthodox military organization, the New Englanders used their militia training to field forces modeled on the British. Led by officers with, in some case, more direct combat experience than many of Gage’s, the Americans had met and fought on equal terms with a professional British Army. On some of the more senior British commanders this astonishing feat had a sobering effect, for it taught them that American resistance was not to be easily overcome; never again would British commanders lightly attempt such an assault on Americans in fortified positions. Many Americans, on the other hand, misread the battle. Bunker Hill, along with Lexington and Concord, went far to create an American myth that the citizen-soldier when aroused by patriotic emotion is more than a match for the trained professional, a tradition that was to be reflected in American military policy for generations afterward.

==Formation of the Continental Army==
The response of George III and his ministers to the events at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill was a determined effort to subdue the rebellious colonists by force. It took time to mount this effort, and after Bunker Hill the Americans enjoyed a respite lasting almost a year. During most of this period the Second Continental Congress reacted to the events in New England and New York by hesitantly assuming the mantle of leadership, but it continued to assert that these actions were defensive in nature. It charged that Americans had banded together to oppose the unconstitutional actions of Parliament but that they still hoped to find a formula for reconciliation by appealing directly to the King for justice. Military preparations were designed for a short struggle, to endure no longer than the end of the year 1776. Nevertheless, the Americans took advantage of the respite to create a national army, to consolidate their hold on the governmental machinery throughout the thirteen colonies, to invade Canada, and finally to force the British to evacuate Boston.

The creation of the [[Continental Army]] was in the long run perhaps their most significant achievement. Some time before Bunker Hill the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, aware of the necessity of enlisting the support of all the colonies in the struggle against the British, appealed to the Continental Congress to adopt the New England army. Because of the need to preserve secrecy, Congress made its decision as a committee of the whole. After determining the necessity of accepting national responsibility for the troops at Boston and in New York, Congress voted to create the Continental Army on June 14, 1775. On the same day it voted to raise ten companies of riflemen—the first soldiers to be enlisted directly in the Continental service—in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to march north to join the army before Boston. The message was clear: This was no regional outbreak of violence but was instead the united response of all of the mainland North American colonies.

===The appointment of Washington===
[[Image:GWashington at Princeton.jpg|200px|right|thumb|George Washington]]
The next day, June 15, Congress chose [[George Washington]], a Virginian, to be Commander in Chief. As was the case with the riflemen, Congress made the choice for geographical and political as much as for military reasons. The New Englanders felt a southerner should be chosen for the post to prove that this was not a New England–only conflict. Washington’s military experience was perhaps greater than that of any other American, and he came from the largest and most important of the southern colonies. His impressive appearance, quiet and confident manner, and good work in the military committees of Congress had impressed all.

The choice proved fortunate. Washington himself recognized, when he accepted the command, that he lacked the requisite experience and knowledge in handling large bodies of men. His whole military experience had been in frontier warfare during the French and Indian War. But he had commanded a brigade of troops from several colonies during the capture of Fort Duquesne in the French and Indian War—he was the only native-born American up to that time to command a force of that size. Experience gained as a political leader in his native Virginia and in directing the business affairs of his large plantation at Mount Vernon also stood him in good stead. He brought to the task traits of character and abilities as a leader that in the end more than compensated for his lack of European military experience. Among these qualities were a determination and a steadfastness of purpose rooted in an unshakable conviction of the righteousness of the American cause, a scrupulous sense of honor and duty, and a dignity that inspired respect and confidence in those around him. Conscious of his own defects, he was always willing to profit by experience. From the trials and tribulations of eight years of war he was to learn the essentials of strategy, tactics, and military organization.

Congress also appointed four major generals and eight brigadiers to serve under Washington, set up a series of staff offices closely resembling those in the British Army, prescribed a pay scale and standard ration, and adopted Articles of War to govern the military establishment. The same mixture of geographical, political, and military considerations governed the choice of Washington’s subordinates. Two - thirds of them came from New England, in recognition of the fact that the existing army was a New England army. Three others — Charles Lee, Horatio Gates, and Richard Montgomery — were chosen because of their experience in the British Army. Lee in particular, who had come from England to the colonies in 1773, was in 1775 deemed the foremost military expert in America, and he was for a time to be Washington’s first assistant.

The army of which Washington formally took command on July 3, 1775, he described as "a mixed multitude of people … under very little discipline, order or government." Out of this mixed multitude, Washington set out to create an army shaped in large part in the British image. Basing his observations on his experience with British regulars during the French and Indian War, he wrote: "Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak and esteem to all." Employing Gates, his experienced Adjutant General, to prepare regulations and orders, the Commander in Chief set out to inculcate discipline. He and his staff made a strenuous effort to halt the random comings and goings of officers and men and to institute regular roll calls and strength returns. Suspicious of the "leveling" tendencies of the New Englanders, Washington made the distinction between officers and enlisted men more rigid. He introduced various punishments (lash, pillory, wooden horse, and drumming out of camp), and on courts-martial sat almost constantly.

While establishing discipline in the existing army, Washington had at the same time to form a new one enlisted directly in the Continental service. Out of conferences with a congressional committee that visited camp in September 1775 emerged a plan for such an army, composed of 26 regiments of infantry of 728 men each, plus 1 regiment of riflemen and 1 of artillery, 20,372 men in all, to be uniformly paid, supplied, and administered by the Continental Congress and enlisted to the end of the year 1776. Except for the short term of enlistment, it was an excellent plan on paper; but Washington soon found he could not carry it out. Both officers and men resisted a reorganization that cut across the lines of the locally organized units in which they were accustomed to serve. The men saw as their first obligation their families and farms at home, and they were reluctant to reenlist for another year’s service. On December 10, despite pressures and patriotic appeals, many of the Connecticut men went home and militia from New Hampshire and Massachusetts had to be brought in to fill their places in the line. Others, who had jeered and hooted when the Connecticut men left, also went home when their enlistment expired only three weeks later. On January 1, 1776, when the army became "Continental in every respect," Washington found that he had only slightly more than 8,000 troops in the lines around Boston instead of the 20,000 planned. Returns in early March showed only a thousand or so more. "I have often thought how much happier I would have been," wrote a sorely tried commander, "if, instead of accepting a command under such circumstances, I had taken up musket on my shoulder and entered the ranks, or, if I could have justified the measure to posterity and my own conscience, had retired to the back country and lived in a Wigwam."

While waiting for the regiments to reach full strength, short-term militia continued to fill the gaps in the lines. A Continental Army had been formed, but it fell far short of the goals Washington and Congress had set for it. This army was enlisted for but a year, and the whole troublesome process would have to be repeated at the end of 1776. The short term of enlistment was, of course, a cardinal error; but in 1775 everyone, including Washington, had anticipated only a short campaign.

While organizing and disciplining his army, Washington had also to maintain the siege of Boston and overcome his deficiencies in supply. In these efforts he was more successful. Congress and the individual colonies sponsored voyages to the West Indies, where the French and Dutch had conveniently exported quantities of war materials. Washington put some of his troops on board ship and with an improvised navy succeeded in capturing numerous British supply ships. He sent Col. Henry Knox, later to be his Chief of Artillery, to Fort Ticonderoga; and Knox in the winter of 1775–1776 brought some fifty pieces of captured cannon to Cambridge over poor or nonexistent roads in icebound New York and New England. By March 1776, despite deficiencies in the number of continentals, Washington was ready to close in on Boston.

==The Invasion of Canada==
The major military operations of 1775 and early 1776 were not around [[Boston]] but in faraway Canada, which the Americans considered the fourteenth colony needing only a little shove to join the others in rebellion against Britain. Canada seemed a tempting and vulnerable target. To take it would eliminate a British base at the head of the familiar invasion route along the lake and river chain connecting the St. Lawrence with the Hudson. Congress, while appealing to the Canadians to join in the cause, in late June 1775 instructed Maj. Gen. Philip Schuyler of New York to take possession of Canada if "practicable" and "not disagreeable to the Canadians."

Schuyler managed to get together a force of about 2,000 men from [[New York]] and [[Connecticut]], thus forming the nucleus of what was to become known as the Northern Army. In September 1775 Brig. Gen. Richard Montgomery set out with this small army from Ticonderoga with the objective of taking Montreal. To form a second prong to the invasion, Washington detached a force of 1,100 under Col. Benedict Arnold, including a contingent of riflemen under Capt. Daniel Morgan of Virginia, to proceed up the Kennebec River, across the wilds of Maine, and down the Chaudière to join with Montgomery before Quebec. Montgomery, advancing along the route via Lake George, Lake Champlain, and the Richelieu River, was seriously delayed at the British fort at St. Johns but managed to capture Montreal on November 13. Arnold, meanwhile, had arrived opposite Quebec on November 8, after one of the most rugged marches in history. Part of his force had turned back, and others were lost by starvation, sickness, drowning, and desertion. Only 600 men crossed the St. Lawrence on November 13, and in imitation of Wolfe
scaled the cliffs and encamped on the Plains of Abraham. It was a magnificent feat, but the force was too small to prevail even against the scattered Canadian militia and British regulars who, unlike Montcalm, shut themselves up in the city and
refused battle in the open.

Arnold’s men were finally forced to withdraw to Point aux Trembles, where Montgomery joined them with all the men he could spare from the defense of Montreal, a total of 300. Although the Canadians did raise two regiments for the Continental Army, most did not rally to the American cause. With the enlistments of about half their men expiring by the new year, Arnold and Montgomery undertook a desperate assault on the city during the night of December 30 in the middle of a raging blizzard. The defenders outnumbered the Americans, and the attack was a failure. Montgomery was killed and Arnold wounded.

The wounded Arnold, undaunted, continued to keep up the appearance of a siege with the scattered remnants of his force while he waited for reinforcements. Continental regiments raised in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania came in driblets. There were never enough to build a force capable of again taking the offensive, though a total of 8,000 men were eventually committed to the Canadian campaign. Smallpox and other diseases took their toll; and the supply line never brought in adequate food, clothing, or ammunition. Meanwhile, the British received reinforcements and in June 1776 struck back against a disintegrating American army that retreated before them almost without a fight. By mid-July the Americans were back at Ticonderoga, where they had started less than a year earlier. The initiative on the northern front passed to the British.

While the effort to conquer Canada was moving toward its dismal end, Washington finally took the initiative at Boston. On March 4, 1776, he moved onto Dorchester Heights and emplaced his newly acquired artillery in position to menace the city; a few days later he fortified Nook’s Hill, standing still closer in. On March 17 the British moved out. It would be presumptuous to say that their exit was solely a consequence of American pressure. Sir William Howe, who succeeded Gage in command, had concluded long since that Boston was a poor strategic base and intended to stay only until the transports arrived to take his army to Halifax in Nova Scotia to regroup and await reinforcements. Nevertheless, Washington’s maneuvers hastened his departure, and the reoccupation of Boston was an important psychological victory for the Americans, balancing the disappointments of the Canadian campaign. The stores of cannon and ammunition the British were forced to leave behind were a welcome addition indeed to the meager American arsenal.

==The New Nation==
[[Image:76485685i79.jpg|right|thumb|300px|''The Signing of the Declaration of Independence'', by John Trumbull (1817–1819)]]
The [[Declaration of Independence]] on July 4, 1776, established a new nation and transformed a limited uprising to secure rights within the British Empire into a far-reaching revolution aimed at complete independence from British control. Since the King and his ministers had determined to restore British rule, the Americans now faced a long, hard struggle for independence that required a sustained national effort such as they had not expected in 1775.

The new nation was still a weak confederation of thirteen independent states. Such national feeling as existed was a new phenomenon growing out of common opposition to British measures. Colonial tradition, divided loyalties, the nature of the economy, and the spirit of a revolt born in opposition to the use of military force to suppress popular liberties all worked against the creation of any new strong central authority capable of mobilizing resources effectively for the long struggle that lay ahead.

The thirteen states proclaiming their independence in 1776 possessed a total population of about 2.5 million people, but not all the males of military age were part of the military potential. About 20 percent were African American slaves who except under special circumstances were not eligible for service, though African Americans did serve in the Revolution in integrated units (a feature that Americans did not repeat until after World War II). A significant minority within the colonies remained loyal to the King, either reluctantly out of sense of obligation or passionately as armed supporters. As in any society, there were also the apathetic and indifferent who swayed with the tide. The genuine patriots still provided a far larger potential of military manpower than the British could possibly transport and supply across the Atlantic, but most of the men of military age were farmers with families. Whatever their patriotic sentiments, few were ready to undertake long terms of military service, fearing that their farms and families at home would suffer. Accustomed to the tradition of short-term militia service under local commanders, they infinitely preferred it to longer terms in the Continental Army.

The economy of the thirteen new states was neither self-sufficient nor truly national. The states were essentially a collection of separate agricultural communities accustomed to exchanging their agricultural surplus for British-manufactured goods and West Indian products. Manufacturing was still in its infancy, and America produced few of the essentials of military supply. Despite diligent efforts to promote domestic production during the war years, the Continental Army had to rely primarily on captures and imports from Europe and the West Indies, run through a British blockade, for much of its military hardware and even for clothing. While the country produced foodstuffs in ample quantity, transport from one area to another was difficult. The normal avenues of commerce ran up and down the rivers, not overland; roads running north and south were few and inadequate. There were always shortages of wagons, boats, and other means of transportation. Under these circumstances, it was far easier to support local militia for a few days or weeks than any sizable and continuously operating national army in the field.

The governmental machinery created after the Declaration was characterized by decentralization and executive weakness. The thirteen new "free and independent states" transformed their existing de facto revolutionary governments into legal state governments by adapting institutions. Almost invariably the new constitutions vested most of the powers of government in the state legislatures, successors to the popular assemblies of the colonial period, and severely restricted the executive authority of the governors. At the national level the same general distrust of strong authority was apparent; and the existing Continental Congress, essentially a gathering of delegates chosen by the state legislatures and without either express powers of its own or an executive to carry out its enactments, was continued as the only central governing body. Articles of Confederation stipulating the terms of union and granting Congress specific but limited powers were drawn up shortly after the Declaration, but jealousies among the states prevented ratification until 1781. In the interim, Congress exercised most of the powers granted it under the Articles; but the Articles did not include either the right to levy taxes or the power to raise military forces directly under its auspices. Congress could only determine the Confederation’s need for troops and money to wage war and set quotas for the states to meet in proportion to their population and wealth. It had no means of ensuring that the states met their quotas; indeed, they seldom did.

One major weakness of this decentralized structure was that it provided no adequate means of financing the war. The state legislatures, possessing the power to tax that Congress lacked, hesitated to use it extensively in the face of popular opposition to taxation and was usually embarrassed to meet even its own expenses. Congress very early took unto itself the power to issue paper money and to negotiate domestic and foreign loans, but it shared these powers with the states, which also printed paper money in profusion and borrowed both at home and abroad to the extent they could. The paper money was a useful expedient in the early part of the war; indeed, the Revolution could not have been carried on without it. But successive issues by Congress and the states led to first gradual and then galloping inflation, leaving the phrase "not worth a Continental" as a permanent legacy in the American language. The process of depreciation and the exhaustion of credit gradually robbed both the states and Congress of the power to pay troops, buy supplies, and otherwise meet the multitudinous expenses of war.

==Evolution of the Continental Army==
It is not surprising that under these circumstances Washington never got the kind of army molded in the European image that he desired. The experience before Boston in 1775 was repeated many times, as local militia had to be called in frequently to give the American Army a numerical superiority in the field. The Continental Army nevertheless became the center of American resistance and its commander, Washington, the symbol of the patriot cause. The extent to which militia could be expected to rally to that cause was very largely determined by the Continental Army’s success or failure in the field.

Though the militia belonged to the states, the Continental Army was a creation of the [[Continental Congress]]. Congress prescribed its size and composition, chose its generals, commissioned its officers, and governed the system for its administration and supply. Suspicious on principle of a standing army and acutely aware of historic examples of seizure of political power by military leaders, its members kept a watchful eye on the Army’s commanders and insisted they defer to civilian authority. Washington countered these suspicions by constantly deferring to congressional wishes, and he was rewarded by the assiduity with which Congress usually adopted his recommendations.

Lacking an executive, Congress had to rely on committees and boards to carry out its policies—unwieldy devices at best and centers of conflicting interest and discord at worst. In June 1776 it set up a Board of War and Ordnance, consisting of five of its members, the lineal ancestor of the War Department. In 1777 Congress changed the composition of the board, directing that it henceforth be made up of persons outside Congress who could devote full time to their military duties. Neither of these devices really worked well, and Congress continually handled administrative matters by action of the entire membership or by appointment of special committees to go to camp. In 1781, with the implementation of the Articles of Confederation, the board was replaced by a single Secretary at War.

Under the Articles of Confederation, while the Continental Congress passed the authorizing legislation setting the terms, size, and configuration of the army, the states remained responsible for raising the troops. Therefore, recruiting and equipping efforts depended heavily on thirteen separate bodies, each acting in response to local conditions and concerns. State authorities called out militia sometimes at the request of Congress and sometimes on their own initiative. When they joined the Continental Army, the militia normally shared in its supplies and equipment. The states, however, maintained an interest in supplying and administering the troops of their own "lines" as well as their militia. As a result, the Continental agents continually went through delicate negotiations with state officials any time they tried to accomplish major tasks. Lines of authority crisscrossed at every turn.

It was an inefficient military system for an organized national effort. Washington could never depend on having enough trained men or supplies. He continually inveighed against sending militia to fight his battles and by early 1776 had concluded that he needed an army enlisted for the duration of the war. Congress did not, as has often been charged, ignore his wishes. In October it voted a new establishment, superseding the plan developed for the army before Boston in 1775 and haphazard arrangements made in the interim for raising Continental regiments in various states. This establishment was to contain eighty-eight infantry regiments, or about 60,000 men, enlisted to serve three years or "during the present war," with each state assigned a quota in proportion to its population. After the disastrous retreat across New Jersey in December 1776, Congress authorized additional regiments to be recruited by Washington’s officers directly into the Continental service, including regiments of artillery and light cavalry. These regiments remained the authorized strength of the Continental Army until 1781, when Congress cut it to fifty-nine.

The large army fell short from the start. Many states found it impossible to sustain their quotas, especially as the war dragged on. By the winter of 1777–1778, the effort to enlist men for the duration of the war collapsed; the following spring, with the sanction of Washington, Congress reverted to a system of shorter enlistments and recommended to the states that they institute a system of drafting men from the militia for one year’s service. This first American wartime draft was applied irregularly because it was not a national program. Each state followed its own policies and procedures, some effectively; but most states performed no better when trying to draft men than they had when trying to encourage volunteers. Bounties, instituted by both the states and the Congress very early in the war and progressively increased one step behind the pace of inflation, also produced only temporary and irregular results.

The coin did have another side. In reality the shortage of arms and ammunition and of facilities for producing them limited the number of men who could be kept continuously in the field as effectively as did the failure of enlistment drives. The militia system allowed many able-bodied males to perform part-time military service and still remain most of the time in the labor force that kept the economy going. It is doubtful whether the American economy could have sustained such an army as Washington and Congress had proposed in 1776, even had there been a central administration with adequate power. As it was, the small Continental Army that did remain in the field intermittently faced extreme hardship and even near starvation. On the other hand, the American ability to raise local armies in any threatened region helped to balance the strategic mobility that the British Fleet gave to the British Army. Although militia generally did not perform well in regular warfare, when highly motivated and ably led they could fight well on terrain suited to their capabilities. Washington and most of his generals recognized this and sought to use the mobilized militia for flank security or to perform envelopments of isolated British detachments and outposts. Given the conditions under which the Revolution was fought, the American military system was more effective than its critics have recognized, though it failed to provide adequately for a sustained military effort over a period of years.

Perhaps Washington’s greatest achievement was simply in maintaining the Continental Army continuously in the field. Despite its many vicissitudes and defeats, that army remained constituted as an ever-present threat to any British field force, while the American militia units solidified patriot control of all the areas not fully garrisoned by the British. The Army of the United States was thus shaped by the war into a distinctively American military organization, neither a replica of a professional European Army on which it was modeled nor yet the type of national army raised by conscription that was to appear in France after the Revolution of 1789.

The Continental Army operated in territorial divisions or departments, each containing one or more maneuver forces. Washington exercised direct command over the main area and defended the Middle States, operating most of the time in the area between New York City and Philadelphia. After the British retreat from Boston, the New England department operated mostly in the Rhode Island area. The Northern Department was located in northern New York, and the Southern Department controlled military operations in the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia. Two additional departments existed at times with limited independent roles: the Western Department centered on Pittsburgh, and the Canadian Department focused on Canada until the retreat from that region in the summer of 1776. A special territorial area, the Highlands Department, consisting of the mountains in the vicinity of West Point, was an area of such great strategic concern that it deserved its own department.

Although Washington was Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, the commanders of the other departmental armies still operated with a considerable measure of independence. Congress, rather than Washington, named their commanders and communicated directly with them. Of the two "separate armies," the Northern Army was by far the most important until 1777; the small Southern Army performed limited defensive missions in a relatively quiet sector of the country. By 1780 the situation was reversed as the British transferred their main effort to the southern states.

The Continental Army was composed mainly of infantry with limited cavalry and artillery. The basic unit of infantry organization was the regiment, composed of eight or more companies. Regiments were administrative formations; different terms were used when talking about tactical employment. A battalion served as the basic tactical unit. It contained eight platoons, the number needed in linear warfare to provide a constant wave of volley fire. Customarily in both the American and British armies of the Revolution, a regiment of eight companies would form a single battalion with each company serving as a single platoon. A brigade was usually formed of several regiments plus an attached direct support artillery company and was usually commanded by a brigadier general; a division consisted of several brigades commanded by a major general. In the northern areas, the artillery consisted of a brigade of four regiments and several separate companies under the Chief of Artillery, Henry Knox. Knox employed some of the separate companies in direct support of the infantry brigades but used others in garrison or general support assignments. The army’s mounted arm consisted of four regiments of light dragoons, normally employed in reconnaissance and counterreconnaissance duties, plus several smaller units, including two deep-strike partisan corps (a mix of light dragoons and light infantry). Other regular forces included a corps of engineers; three companies of sappers and miners; several military police elements; two regiments of artificers, who handled the servicing and repair of ordnance and vehicles; and a headquarters guard force.

Washington was provided with a staff generally corresponding to that of contemporary European armies. One of his critical staff officers was the Quartermaster General, responsible not only for transportation and delivery of supplies but also for arranging the camp, regulating marches, and employing the army’s watercraft. There were also an Adjutant General (responsible for issuing orders for the commander and administrative paperwork), a Judge Advocate General, a Paymaster General, a Commissary General of Musters, several Commissary Generals of Provisions (procurement and issue of rations), a Clothier General, a Chief Surgeon, and a Chief Engineer. Each of the separate armies usually had staff officers in these positions, designated as deputies to those of the main army. Early in 1778 the Continental Army introduced a new innovation—the Inspector General. This officer provided a focal point for developing standard battle drills and written tactical texts and during the second half of the war emerged as Washington’s de facto chief of staff.

All these staff officers had primarily administrative and supply functions. The modern concept of a general staff that acts as a sort of collective brain for the commander had no real counterpart in the eighteenth century. For advice on strategy and operations, Washington relied on a council of war made up of his principal subordinate commanders; and, conforming to his original instructions from Congress, he usually consulted the council before making major decisions.

Both organization and staff work suffered from the ills that afflicted the whole military system. Regiments were constantly under strength, were organized differently by the various states, and prior to Valley Forge used varying systems of drills and training. In the promotion of officers in the state lines, Continental commanders shared authority with the states; the confused system gave rise to all sorts of rivalries, jealousies, and resentment, leading to frequent resignations. Staff officers were generally inexperienced, and few had the patience and perseverance to overcome the obstacles posed by divided authority, inadequate means, and poor transportation and communication facilities. The supply and support services of the Continental Army never really functioned efficiently; and with the depreciation in the currency, they came close to collapse.

==The British Problem==
Whatever the American weaknesses, the British government faced no easy task when it undertook to subdue the revolt by military force. Even though England possessed the central administration, stable financial system, and well-organized army and navy that the Americans so sorely lacked, the whole establishment was ill prepared in 1775 for the struggle in America. A large burden of debt incurred in the wars of the preceding century had forced crippling economies on both Army and Navy. British administrative and supply systems, though far superior to anything the Americans could improvise, were also characterized by division and confusion of authority; and there was much corruption in high places.

To suppress the revolt, Britain had first to raise the necessary forces, then transport and sustain them over 3,000 miles of ocean, and finally use them effectively to regain control of a vast and sparsely populated territory. Recruiting men for an eighteenth century army was most difficult. The British government had no power to compel service except in the militia in defense of the homeland, and service in the British Army overseas was immensely unpopular. To meet Howe’s request for 50,000 men to conduct the campaign in 1776, the ministry resorted to an old practice of obtaining auxiliary troops, mercenaries, from many of the small German states, particularly Hesse-Cassell (hence Hessians). These German states were to contribute almost 30,000 men to the British service during the war—complete organizations with their own officers up to the rank of lieutenant general and schooled in the system of Frederick the Great. Howe did not get his 50,000 men; but by midsummer 1776 his force had grown to 30,000 British and Hessians, and additional reinforcements were sent to Canada during the year.

Maintaining a force of this size proved to be another problem. The attrition rate in America from battle losses, sickness, disease, and desertion was tremendously high. English jails and poorhouses were drained of able-bodied men; bounties were paid; patriotic appeals were launched throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland; and all the ancient methods of impressments were tried. But the British were never able to recruit enough men to meet the needs of their commanders in America and at the same time defend the home islands and provide garrisons in the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, Africa, and India.

Providing adequate support for this army over a long ocean supply line was equally difficult. Even for food and forage, the British Army had to rely primarily on sea lines of supply. Transports were in short supply, the hardships of the two-to-four-month voyage terrible, and the loss of men and supplies to natural causes heavy. Moreover, though the Americans could muster no navy capable of contesting British control of the seas, their privateers and the ships of their infant navy posed a constant threat to unprotected troop and supply transports. British commanders repeatedly had to delay their operations to await the arrival of men and supplies from England.

Once in America, British armies could find no strategic center or centers whose capture would bring victory. Flat, open country where warfare could be carried on in European style was not common. Woods, hills, and swamps suited to the operations of militia and irregulars were plentiful. A British Army that could win victories in the field over the continentals had great difficulty in making those victories meaningful. American armies seemed to possess miraculous powers of recuperation; a British force, once depleted or surrendered, took a tremendous effort to replace.

As long as the British controlled the seas, they could land and establish bases at nearly any point on the long American coastline. The many navigable rivers dotting the coast also provided water avenues of invasion well into the interior. But to crush the revolt, the British Army had to cut loose from coastal bases and rivers. When it did so, its logistical problems multiplied and its lines of communications became vulnerable to constant harassment. British armies almost inevitably came to grief every time they moved very far from the areas where they could be nurtured by supply ships from the homeland. These difficulties, a British colonel asserted in 1777, had "absolutely prevented us this whole war from going fifteen miles from a navigable river."

The British could not, in any case, ever hope to muster enough strength to occupy with their own troops the vast territory they sought to restore to British rule. Their only real hope of meaningful victory was to use Americans loyal to the British cause to control the country, as one British general put it, to help "the good Americans to subdue the bad." However, there were many obstacles to making effective use of the Tories. Patriot organization, weak at the center, was strong at the grass roots, in the local communities throughout America; the Tories were neither well organized nor energetically led. The patriots seized the machinery of local government in most communities at the outset, held it until the British Army appeared in their midst, and then normally regained it after the British departed. Strong local control enabled the patriots to root out the more ardent Tories at the very outset, and by making an example of them to sway the apathetic and indifferent. British commanders were usually disappointed in the number of Tories who flocked to their standards and even more upset by the alacrity with which many of them switched their allegiance when the British Army departed. They found the Tories a demanding, discordant, and puzzling lot; they made no earnest effort to enlist them in British forces until late in the war. By 1781 they had with their armies some 8,000 "provincial rank and file"; perhaps 50,000 in all served the British in some military capacity during the war.

On the frontiers, the British could also expect support from the Indian tribes who almost inevitably drifted into the orbit of whatever power controlled Canada. But support from the Indians was a two-edged sword, for nothing could raise frontier enthusiasm for battle like the threat of an Indian attack. Ruthless Indian raids would often polarize a frontier community that otherwise might have remained sympathetic or at least neutral to the British cause.

Finally, the British had to fight the war with one eye on their ancient enemies in Europe. France, thirsting for revenge for its defeat in the Seven Years’ War, stood ready to aid the American cause if for no other purpose than to weaken British power. By virtue of the Bourbon family connections, France could almost certainly carry Spain along in any war with England. France and Spain could at the very least provide badly needed money and supplies to sustain the American effort and force the British to divert their forces from the contest in America. At most, the combined Franco-Spanish fleet might well prove a match for the British Fleet and neutralize that essential control of the seas the British needed to carry on the American war. As the war dragged on, the British found themselves increasingly isolated from the international community.

==Strategy==
The story of the American Revolution can hardly be told in terms of long-term strategy and its success or failure. Neither side ever had any really consistent plan for the conduct of the war. The British, who retained the strategic initiative most of the time, failed to use it to great advantage. They were highly uncertain about their objective; they laid plans from year to year and seldom coordinated them even for a single year. Blame for this uncertain approach falls in almost equal part on the administration in England and the commanders in America. King George III; Lord North, his Principal Minister; and Lord George Germain, Secretary of State for the American Department, were the three British officials mainly responsible for the conduct of the war. If they never provided the timely guidance that might have been expected of them, their inability to do so came about in part because the commanders in the field never furnished accurate enough predictions of what to expect and differed so much among themselves as to the proper course to pursue. In assessing blame in this fashion, one must keep in mind the difficulties of logistics and communications under which the British labored, for these difficulties made it virtually impossible to coordinate plans over great distances or to assemble men and materials in time to pursue one logical and consistent plan.

The American strategy was primarily defensive and consequently had to be shaped largely in terms of countering British moves. Uncertainties as to the supply of both men and materials acted on the American side even more effectively to thwart the development of a consistent plan for winning the war. Yet Washington was never so baffled by the conditions of the war or uncertain of his objective as were the various British commanders. After some early blunders, he soon learned both his own and the enemy’s strengths and weaknesses and did his best to exploit them. Though unable to develop a consistent plan, he did try to develop a consistent line of action. He sought to maintain his principal striking force in a central position to block any British advance into the interior; to be neither too bold nor too timid in seeking battle for limited objectives; to avoid the destruction of his army at all costs; and to find some means of concentrating a sufficient force to strike a decisive offensive blow whenever the British overreached themselves. He showed a better appreciation than did the British commanders of the advantages in mobility their Navy gave them. After 1778, when the French entered the war, he clearly saw that the decisive blow he desired could be struck only by a combined effort of the Continental Army and the French Fleet.

==The British Offensive in 1776==
If the British ever had a single strategic objective in the war, it was the Hudson River–Lake Champlain line. The British believed that by taking and holding this line they would separate New England, considered to be the principal center of the rebellion, from colonies they considered more malleable in the south. Howe proposed to make this the main objective of his campaign in 1776 by landing at New York, securing a base of operations there, and then pushing north. He wanted to concentrate the entire British force in America in New York, but the British government diverted part of it to Canada in early 1776 to repel the American invasion, laying the groundwork for the divided command that was so to plague British operations thereafter.

After the evacuation of Boston, Howe stayed at Halifax from March until June, awaiting the arrival of supplies and reinforcements. While he tarried, the British government ordered another diversion in the south, aimed at encouraging the numerous loyalists who, according to the royal governors watching from their havens on board British warships, were waiting only for the appearance of a British force to rise and overthrow rebel rule. Unfortunately for the British, a naval squadron and army expedition sent from Ireland under Sir Peter Parker was delayed and did not arrive off the American coast until late in May. By this time all hopes of effective cooperation with the Tories had been dashed. Loyalist contingents had been completely defeated and dispersed in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Parker joined Lt. Gen. [[[Henry Clinton]], sent south by Howe, off the North Carolina coast. Undeterred by the local setbacks, they determined to attack Charleston, the largest city in the south. There, South Carolina militia and newly raised continentals from the Carolinas and Virginia had prepared and manned defenses under the guidance of Maj. Gen. Charles Lee, whom Washington had dispatched south to assist them. The South Carolinians, contrary to Lee’s advice, centered their defenses in Fort Moultrie, a palmetto log fort constructed on Sullivan’s Island, commanding the approach to the harbor. It was an unwise decision, somewhat comparable to that at Bunker Hill, but fortunately for the defenders the British had to mount an uncoordinated attack in haste. Clinton’s troops landed on nearby Long Island, but on the day the Navy attacked, June 28, the water proved too deep for them to wade across to Sullivan’s Island as expected. The British Army consequently sat idly by while the gunners in Fort Moultrie devastated the British warships. Sir Peter suffered the ultimate indignity when his pants were set afire.

The battered British Fleet hastily embarked the British soldiers and sailed north to join Howe at New York, for it was already behind schedule. For three years following the fiasco at Charleston the British were to leave the south unmolested. Overconfident Americans decided they did not need to send any large regular forces to the south, creating a weakness that would come back to haunt them. The latent loyalists in the south, whatever their potential strength in 1775, never recovered from the devastating blows they suffered while expecting British help. Loyalist refugees in London and New York, however, continued to insist that large numbers of loyal subjects of the King were still waiting for the British in the south, ready to rise again if only British troops returned.

Howe was meanwhile beset by other delays in the arrival of transports from England, and his attack did not get under way until late August, leaving insufficient time before the advent of winter to carry through the planned advance along the Hudson River–Lake Champlain line. He therefore started his invasion of New York with only the limited objective of gaining a foothold for the campaign the following year.

The British commander had, when his force was all assembled, an army of about 32,000 men, supported by a powerful fleet under the command of his brother, Admiral Richard Howe. To oppose him, Washington had brought most of his army down from Boston; Congress exerted its utmost efforts to reinforce him by raising Continental regiments in the surrounding states and issuing a general call for the militia. Few of Washington’s roughly 19,000 troops could match Howe’s forces in training, nor did his senior commanders have much in the way of experience in maneuvering large forces in the open.

Washington and Congress made the same decision the South Carolinians had made at Charleston and Maj. Gen. Sir Guy Carleton had made in Canada in 1775—to defend their territory in the most forward positions—and they paid the price for their mistake. The geography of the area gave the side possessing naval supremacy an almost insuperable advantage. The city of New York stood on Manhattan Island, surrounded by the Hudson, Harlem, and East Rivers. There was only one connecting link with the mainland, Kingsbridge across the Harlem River at the northern tip of Manhattan. Across the East River on Long Island, Brooklyn Heights stood in a position dominating the southern tip of Manhattan. With the naval forces at their disposal, the Howes could land troops on either Long Island or Manhattan proper and send warships a considerable distance up either the East or the Hudson River.

Washington decided he must defend Brooklyn Heights on Long Island if he was to defend Manhattan. He therefore divided his army between the two places—a violation of the principle of mass and the first step toward disaster. For all practical purposes, command on Long Island was also divided. Maj. Gen. [[Nathanael Greene]], to whom Washington first entrusted the command, came down with malaria and was replaced by Maj. Gen. [[John Sullivan]]. Not completely satisfied with this arrangement, at the last moment Washington placed Maj. Gen. [[Israel Putnam]] over Sullivan; but Putnam hardly had time to become acquainted with the situation before the British struck. The forces on Long Island, numbering about 10,000, were disposed in fortifications on Brooklyn Heights and in forward positions in back of a line of thickly wooded hills that ran across the southern end of the island. Sullivan was in command on the left of the American forward line, Brig. Gen. William Alexander on the right. Four roads ran through the hills toward the American positions. Unfortunately Sullivan, in violation of the principle of security, left the Jamaica-Bedford road virtually unguarded.

Howe consequently was able to teach the Americans lessons in maneuver and surprise. On August 22 he landed a force of 20,000 on the southwestern tip of Long Island and, in a surprise attack up the Jamaica-Bedford road against the American left flank, crumpled the entire American position. Alexander’s valiant fight on the right went for naught as some of the more inexperienced American units along the line fled in terror before the British and Hessian bayonets, falling back to the fortifications on Brooklyn Heights. Had Howe pushed his advantage immediately, he might have carried the heights and destroyed half of the American Army then and there. Instead, perhaps rendered cautious by his repulse the previous year at Bunker Hill, he halted at nightfall and began to dig trenches, signaling an intent to take the heights by "regular approaches" in traditional eighteenth century fashion. Washington managed to evacuate his forces across the East River on the night of August 29. According to one theory, wind and weather stopped the British warships from entering the river to prevent the escape; according to another, the Americans had placed impediments in the river that effectively barred their entry. In any case, it was a narrow escape, made possible in large measure by the skill, bravery, and perseverance of Col. John Glover’s Marblehead Regiment, infantrymen who had been recruited from Massachusetts fishing villages, who manned the boats.

Washington had two weeks to prepare his defenses on Manhattan before Howe struck again, landing a force at Kip’s Bay above the city of New York (now about 34th Street) on September 15 under the cover of a devastating naval bombardment. Raw Connecticut militia posted behind shallow trenches at this point broke and ran "as if the Devil was in them," defying even the efforts of a raging Washington to halt them. Howe once again had an opportunity to split the American Army in two and destroy half, but again he delayed midway across the island to wait until his entire force had landed. General Putnam was able to bring the troops stationed in the city up the west side of Manhattan to join their compatriots in new fortifications on Harlem Heights. There, the Americans held out for another month and even won a morale-enhancing skirmish; but this position was vulnerable to being outflanked.

In mid-October Howe landed again in Washington’s rear at Pell’s Point. The American commander then finally evacuated the Manhattan trap via Kingsbridge and took up a new position at White Plains. He left a garrison behind to hold Forts Washington and Lee, on opposite sides of the Hudson, in an attempt to block British ships from going up the river. Howe launched a probing attack on the American position at White Plains and was repulsed; but Washington, sensing his inability to meet the British in battle on equal terms, moved away to the north toward the Hudson highlands. Uncertain of Howe’s next move, Washington divided his forces into three elements. Lee with one contingent remained on the east side of the Hudson to counter any advance into Connecticut. Washington crossed over to the west bank with a comparable force to counter any attempt by Howe to invade New Jersey. Maj. Gen. William Heath occupied the forts in the Highlands themselves to provide the lines of communication between the two maneuver forces and to prevent a British advance up the river. On November 16 Howe turned against Fort Washington and with the support of British warships on the Hudson stormed it successfully, capturing 3,000 American troops and large quantities of valuable munitions. Greene then hastily evacuated Fort Lee; by the end of November Washington, with mere remnants of his army, was in full retreat across New Jersey with Lord Charles Cornwallis, detached by Howe, in hot pursuit.

While Washington was suffering these disastrous defeats, the army that had been gathered was slowly melting away. Militia left by whole companies when their periods of service expired. Casualties and disease took their toll among the continentals. By early December Washington had crossed the Delaware River into Pennsylvania, where his small force began to regroup and draw supplies from Philadelphia’s extensive network of depots. Other regiments, including forces released by the British retreat to Canada, slowly joined him while other regiments from Lee’s force swung through the Highlands and started south toward Washington (without their general, who was captured in a tavern by a British cavalry raid). Washington’s situation was precarious, but he determined to go on the offensive as soon as possible and began planning a lightning descent on West Jersey toward the end of December.

Neither the unreliability of the militia nor the short period of enlistment fully explained the debacle that had befallen the Continental Army. Washington’s generalship also came under criticism. In contrast to the defeat of British invasion forces at Charleston and Lake Champlain, where militia seemed to be more effective than Continental regulars, the main defenses of the important city of New York crumpled at the first blow. Many faulted the Commander in Chief’s decision to hold Fort Washington. General Lee, the ex–British colonel, ordered by Washington to bring his forces down from New York to join him behind the Delaware, delayed, believing that he might himself salvage the American cause by making incursions into New Jersey. He wrote Horatio Gates, "entre nous [between us], a certain great man is most damnably deficient."

There was only one bright spot in the picture in the autumn of 1776. While Howe was routing Washington around New York City, other British forces under Carleton were attempting to follow up the advantage they had gained in repulsing the attack on Canada earlier in the year. Carleton rather leisurely built a flotilla of boats to carry British forces down Lake Champlain and Lake George, intending at least to reduce the fort at Ticonderoga before winter. Benedict Arnold countered by throwing together a much weaker flotilla of American boats to contest the British passage. Arnold lost this naval action on the lakes, but he so delayed Carleton’s advance that the British commander reached Ticonderoga too late in the year to consider undertaking a siege. He returned his army to winter quarters in Canada, leaving the British with no advance base from which to launch the next year’s campaign. Once again Arnold had shown himself one of the most dynamic and courageous of the patriot commanders.

Although the consequences were to be far reaching, this limited victory did little to dispel the gloom that fell on the patriots after Washington’s defeats in New York. The British, aware that Continental enlistments expired at the end of the year, had high hopes that the American Army would simply fade away and the rebellion would collapse. Howe halted Cornwallis’ pursuit of Washington and sent Clinton with a detachment of troops under naval escort to seize Newport, Rhode Island. He then dispersed his troops into winter quarters, establishing a line of posts in New Jersey at Perth Amboy, New Brunswick, Princeton, Trenton, and Bordentown and retiring himself to New York. Howe had gained the object of the 1776 campaign, a strong foothold, and possibly, as he thought at the time, a great deal more.

===Trenton and Princeton===
[[Image:washington-deleware.jpg|300px|right|thumb|''Washington Crossing the Delaware'', by Emmanuel Leutze (1850)]]
While Howe rested comfortably in New York, he dispatched Clinton to capture Newport, Rhode Island, as a much-desired winter anchorage for the Royal Navy. Washington took advantage of this distraction. By the last week of December 1776, Washington had built up a small, but competent striking force of veteran regiments about 7,000 strong. If he was to use this force, he would have to do so before the enlistments expired on December 31. With great boldness, Washington formulated a plan to strike enemy garrisons along the Delaware River early on the twenty-sixth of December, when the troops might be expected to have relaxed their guard for holiday revelry. The plan was for American forces to cross the river simultaneously and conduct raids on the outposts at Trenton and Bordentown, each held by a reinforced brigade of Hessian soldiers. A Continental force of around 2,400 men under Washington’s personal command was to cross the Delaware at McConkey’s Ferry above Trenton and then proceed in two columns by different routes, converging on the opposite ends of the main street of Trenton in the early morning of December 26. A second force, mainly militia under Col. John Cadwalader, was to cross below near Bordentown to attack the Hessian garrison there. A third force, also militia, under Brig. Gen. James Ewing, was to cross directly opposite Trenton to block the Hessian route of escape across Assunpink Creek.

Christmas night was cold, windy, and snowy; and the Delaware River was filled with blocks of ice. These adverse conditions prevented Cadwalader and Ewing from fulfilling their parts of the plan. Driven on by Washington’s indomitable will, the main force did cross as planned; the two columns, commanded respectively by Greene and Sullivan, converged on Trenton at eight o’clock in the morning of December 26, taking the Hessians completely by surprise. A New England private noted in his diary for that day: "This morning at 4 a clock we set off with our Field pieces and Marched 8 miles to Trenton where we ware attacked by a Number of Hushing and we Toock 1000 of them besides killed some. Then we marched back and got to the River at Night and got over all the Hushing." This rather undramatic description of a very dramatic event was not far wrong, except in attributing the attack to the "Hushings." The Hessians surrendered after a fight lasting only an hour and a half. Forty were killed, and the prisoner count was 918. Only 400 escaped to Bordentown, only because Ewing was not in place to block their escape. The Americans lost only 2 dead and 2 wounded, among the wounded being future President James Monroe.

Encouraged by this success, Washington determined to make another foray. By an impassioned appeal to the patriotism of the men, supplemented by an offer of a $10 bounty in hard money, he persuaded at least part of his old army to remain for six more weeks. With a force of around 5,000 Washington again crossed the Delaware on the night of December 30–31. By this time Cornwallis had hastily gathered together the scattered British garrisons in New Jersey and took up a position confronting Washington at Trenton on January 2, 1777. Convinced that he had the Americans in a trap, he put off battle until the next day because of the exhausted state of his troops. In the night Washington slipped away, leaving campfires burning brightly to deceive the British. The next morning he struck another surprise blow at Princeton, inflicting heavy losses on three British regiments just leaving the town to join Cornwallis. Washington then went into winter quarters in the hills around Morristown, New Jersey. Cornwallis did not pursue. The British had had enough of winter warfare, and Howe drew in his outposts in New Jersey to New Brunswick and Perth Amboy.

Trenton and Princeton not only offset the worst effects of the disastrous defeats in New York but also restored Washington’s prestige as a commander with friend and foe alike. In the execution of the two strokes east of the Delaware, Washington had applied the principles of offensive, surprise, and maneuver with great success and finally achieved stature as a military commander. If these victories did not assure him that he could recruit such an army as Congress had voted, they did at least guarantee that he would be able to field a force the following year. Sir William Howe found that, despite his smashing rout of the Americans in New York, he was left with little more than that city, a foothold in New Jersey, and the port of Newport in Rhode Island. The rebellion was far from being crushed.

==The Campaign of 1777==
With secure bases at New York and Newport, Sir William Howe had a chance to get the early start in 1777 that had been denied him the previous year. His first plan, advanced on November 30, 1776, was probably the most comprehensive put forward by any British commander during the war. He proposed to maintain a small force of about 8,000 to contain Washington in New Jersey and 7,000 to garrison New York, while sending one column of 10,000 from Newport into New England and another column of 10,000 from New York up the Hudson to form a junction with a British force moving down from Canada. On the assumption that these moves would be successful by autumn, he would next capture Philadelphia, the rebel capital, then make the southern provinces the "objects of the winter." For this plan, Howe requested 35,000 men, 15,000 more effective troops than he had remaining at the end of the 1776 campaign. Lord George Germain, the Secretary of State responsible for strategic planning for the American theater, could promise Howe only 8,000 replacements. Even before receiving this news, but evidently influenced by Trenton and Princeton, Howe refined his plan and proposed to devote his main effort in 1777 to taking Philadelphia. On March 3, 1777, Germain informed Howe that the Philadelphia plan was approved but that there might be only 5,500 reinforcements. At the same time Germain and the king urged a "warm diversion" against New England.

Meanwhile, Sir [[John Burgoyne]], who had succeeded in obtaining the separate military command in Canada, submitted his plan for an advance south to "a junction with Howe." Germain and the king also approved this plan on March 29, though they had earlier approved of Howe’s intention to go to Philadelphia. Because of the lag in communicating across the Atlantic, Germain and other senior planners in London viewed themselves merely as coordinators and providers of resources, not as operational commanders. Operational decisions, they felt, should be made by the commanders on the scene. They seem to have expected that Burgoyne and Howe would work together without direction from London. Specifically, they believed that Howe would be able to form his junction with Burgoyne by the warm diversion or that he would take Philadelphia quickly and then turn north to aid Burgoyne. In any case, they felt sure that Howe’s drive south would draw Washington and most American troops away from Burgoyne. Once Germain approved the two separate plans, difficulties in communicating in a timely manner left Howe and Burgoyne to go their separate ways.

Howe’s Philadelphia plan left only enough force in New York under General Sir Henry Clinton for what the latter would call "a damn’d starved offensive," but Clinton’s orders called upon him only to assist Burgoyne’s drive. His first priority remained the safety and security of New York City and its outposts. There is no question that Burgoyne knew before he left England for Canada that Howe was going to Philadelphia, but ambitious "Gentleman Johnny" was determined to make a reputation in the American war. Never one to doubt his own abilities and having enjoyed swift victory by driving the Americans from the Ticonderoga complex with minimal effort, Burgoyne quickly convinced himself that he could succeed alone. Even when he learned certainly on August 3, 1777, that he could not expect Howe’s cooperation, he persisted in his design. As Howe thought Pennsylvania was filled with loyalists, Burgoyne cherished the illusion that legions of Tories in upstate New York and western New England were simply awaiting the appearance of the king’s troops to rally to the colors.
[[Image:Marquis de Lafayette.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Marie Paul Yves Roch Gilbert de Motier, the
Marquis de Lafayette]]
[[Image:VonSteuben.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben]]
Again in 1777 the late arrival of Howe’s reinforcements and supply ships gave Washington time that he sorely needed. Men to form the new Continental Army came in slowly, and not until June did the Americans have a force of 8,000. On the northern line, the defenses were even more thinly manned. Supplies for troops in the field were also short, but the arrival of the first three ships bearing secret aid from France vastly improved the situation. They were evidence of the covert support of the French government; a mission Congress sent to France was meanwhile working diligently to enlist open aid and to embroil France in a war with England. The French Foreign Minister, Charles Gravier, the Comte de Vergennes, had already decided to take that risk when and if the American rebels demonstrated their serious purpose and ability to fulfill it by some signal victory in the field.With the first foreign material aid in 1777, the influx of foreign officers into the American Army began. These officers were a mixed blessing. Most were adventurers in search of fortune or of reputation with little aptitude for adjusting themselves to American conditions. Few were willing to accept any but the highest ranks. Nevertheless, many brought with them professional military knowledge and competence the Continental Army sorely lacked. When the misfits were culled out, the knowledge and competence were used to considerable advantage. Louis DuPortail, a Frenchman, and Thaddeus Kosciuszko, a Pole, did much to advance the art of engineering in the Continental Army. Casimir Pulaski, another Pole, organized its first genuine cavalry contingent. Johann de Kalb and [[Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben]], both Germans, and Maj. Gen. Gilbert du Montier, the [[Marquis de Lafayette]], an influential French nobleman who financed his own way, were all to make valuable contributions as trainers and leaders. But as the 1777 campaign began, these foreign volunteers had not yet had time to make much of an impact on the Continental Army.

In the spring of 1777 Washington’s army occupied high ground at Middlebrook, New Jersey, in a position either to bar Howe’s overland route to Philadelphia or to move rapidly up the Hudson to oppose any northward advance. Washington confidently expected Howe to move north to form a junction with Burgoyne but decided he himself must stay in front of the main British Army wherever it went. Following the principle of economy of force, he disposed a small part of his army under Maj. Gen. Israel Putnam in fortifications guarding the approaches up the Hudson, and at a critical moment detached a small force to aid Maj. Gen. Philip Schuyler against Burgoyne. The bulk of his army he kept in front of Howe in an effort to defend Philadelphia. Forts were built along the Delaware River, and other steps were taken to block the approach to the Continental capital by sea.

In the effort to defend Philadelphia, Washington again failed but hardly so ignominiously as he had the year before in New York. With American forts and a galley squadron blocking a direct advance up the Delaware River, in August Howe put most of his army on board ship and sailed down the coast and up the Chesapeake Bay to Head of Elk (now Elkton) in Maryland, putting himself even farther away from Burgoyne. Surprised by Howe’s movement, Washington did not oppose the landing but rapidly shifted his own force south and took up a position at Chad’s Ford on Brandywine Creek, blocking the approach to Philadelphia.

There, on September 11, 1777, Howe executed a flanking movement reminiscent of his tactics on Long Island the previous year. He sent Lt. Gen. Wilhelm van Knyphausen’s largely Hessian column directly against the American position at Chad’s Ford to fix the American attention on that part of the battlefield. During the predawn darkness Howe and Lord Charles Cornwallis took the larger part of the British army north by back roads and crossed the Brandywine at unguarded lesser fords miles upstream, hoping to take Washington from the flank and rear.

Confusing reports caused by inadequate reconnaissance befuddled Maj. Gen. John Sullivan, who commanded the American forces on that flank. Washington himself realized what was happening only at the eleventh hour. He immediately ordered Sullivan to lay a trap, set up a reverse slope ambush on high ground, and shifted reinforcements under Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene from positions facing Knyphausen to extend Sullivan’s line. Cornwallis and Howe moved slowly, preventing the British plan from working as intended; ironically, that very slowness worked to their advantage. Because the Americans lacked iron discipline, they kept creeping up to the crest of their ridge to look for the British. Alert scouts, mostly Hessian jaegers (woodsmen armed with rifles), noted the movement; and Howe avoided walking into the trap.

What followed was one of the most intense battles of the war. In a series of five separate attacks, the British drove Sullivan off the high ground in some confusion. General Greene with two brigades of Virginians allowed Sullivan’s men to fall back through their lines and then carried out a valiant rear-guard action lasting until dark. Once he could hear the sounds of the fighting, Knyphausen drove across the ford and struck Brig. Gen. Anthony Wayne’s defenses that had been weakened by the transfers, forcing the Americans to fall back. Darkness and the heavy, bloody fighting left Howe’s men too exhausted to pursue, and the Continental Army retired in good order to Chester. However, the way to Philadelphia was now left open to Howe.

Howe followed his victory at the Brandywine with a series of maneuvers comparable to those he had executed in New York and entered Philadelphia with a minimum of fighting on September 26. A combined attack of British Army and Navy forces shortly afterward reduced the forts on the Delaware and opened the river as a British supply line.

On entering Philadelphia, Howe dispersed his forces, stationing 9,000 men at Germantown, north of the city; 3,000 in New Jersey; and the rest in Philadelphia. As Howe had repeated his performance in New York, Washington sought to repeat Trenton by a surprise attack on Germantown. The plan was much like that he used at Trenton but involved far more complicated movements by much larger bodies of troops. Four columns (two assault forces of continentals under Sullivan and Greene and two flank security forces of militia), moving at night over different roads, were to converge simultaneously on Germantown at dawn on October 4. The plan violated the principle of simplicity, for such a maneuver would have been difficult even for well-trained professionals to execute. The two columns of continentals arrived at different times and fired on each other in an early morning fog. Despite losing the element of surprise, the Americans drove forward and smashed two elite battalions of British light infantry.

Initial success rapidly turned to disappointment. Part of a British regiment took cover in Cliveden, the Chew family mansion, and opened a galling fire on Americans attempting to move up or join the advance. Instead of isolating and bypassing this annoyance, the inexperienced American generals held up a large portion of the Maryland Division while they argued whether they could leave a "fortress" in their rear. The British, though surprised, had better discipline and cohesion and were able to re-form and send fresh troops into the fray. Once Washington realized that he had lost the chance for a decisive victory, he wisely chose to avoid risking his army and broke contact.The Americans retreated about 8:00 a.m., leaving Howe’s troops in command of the field.

After Germantown Howe once again concentrated his army and moved to confront Washington at Whitemarsh, hoping to lure the Virginian into a rash attack. The ploy failed, so he withdrew to winter quarters in Philadelphia without giving battle. Washington chose the site for his own winter quarters at a place called Valley Forge, twenty miles northwest of the city. Howe had gained his objective, but it proved of no lasting value to him. Congress fled west to York, Pennsylvania. No swarms of loyalists rallied to the British standards. And Howe had left Burgoyne to lose a whole British army in the north.

Burgoyne set out from Canada in June, his object to reach Albany by fall. His force was divided into two parts. The first and largest part (7,200 British and Hessian regulars and 650 Tories, Canadians, and Indians under his personal command) was to take the route down Lake Champlain to Ticonderoga and thence via Lake George to the Hudson. The second (700 regulars and 1,000 Tories and Indians under Col. Barry St. Leger) was to move via Lake Ontario to Oswego and thence down the Mohawk Valley to join Burgoyne before Albany. In his preparations, Burgoyne evidently forgot the lesson the British had learned in the French and Indian War: In the wilderness, troops had to be prepared to travel light and fight like Indians. He carried 138 pieces of artillery and a heavy load of officers’ personal baggage. Numerous ladies of high and low estate accompanied the expedition. When he started down the lakes, Burgoyne did not have enough horses and wagons to transport his artillery and baggage once he had to leave the water and move overland.

At first Burgoyne’s American opposition was very weak: only about 2,500 continentals at Ticonderoga and about 450 at old Fort Stanwix, the sole American bulwark in the Mohawk Valley. Dissension among the Americans was rife; the New Englanders refused to support Schuyler, the aristocratic New Yorker who commanded the Northern Army, and openly intrigued to replace him with their own favorite, Maj. Gen. Horatio Gates. Ticonderoga fell to Burgoyne on June 27 all too easily. The American forces dispersed, and Burgoyne pursued the remnants down to Skenesborough. Once that far along, he decided to continue overland to the Hudson instead of returning to Ticonderoga to float his force down Lake George, though much of his impedimenta still had to be carried by boat down the lake.

The overland line of advance was already a nightmare, running along wilderness trails, through marshes, and across wide ravines and creeks swollen by abnormally heavy rains. Schuyler, who had wrestled with supply problems during the French and Indian Wars on this very ground, adopted the tactic of making it even worse by destroying bridges, felling trees into Burgoyne’s path, and digging trenches to let the waters of swamps onto drier ground. The British were able to move at a rate of little more than a mile a day and took until July 29 to reach Fort Edward on the Hudson. By that time Burgoyne was desperately short of horses, wagons, and oxen. Yet Schuyler, with an unstable force of 4,500 men discouraged by continual retreats, was in no position to give battle.

Washington did what he could to strengthen the Northern Army at this juncture. He first dispatched Maj. Gen. [[Benedict Arnold]], his most aggressive field commander, and Maj. Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, a Massachusetts man noted for his influence with the New England militia. On August 16 he detached Col. Daniel Morgan with 500 riflemen from the main army in Pennsylvania and ordered them along with 750 men from Putnam’s force in the New York highlands to join Schuyler. The riflemen were calculated to furnish an antidote for Burgoyne’s Indians who despite his efforts to restrain them were terrorizing the countryside.

It was the rising militia, rather than Washington, that was to provide the Northern Army with the most numerous reinforcements. Nothing worked more to produce this result than Burgoyne’s employment of Indians. The murder and scalping of a white woman, Jane McCrea, dramatized the Indian threat as nothing else probably could have. New England militiamen now began to rally to the cause, though they still refused to cooperate with Schuyler. New Hampshire commissioned John Stark, a colonel in the Continental Army and a veteran of Bunker Hill and Trenton, as a brigadier general in the state service (a rank Congress had denied him), and Stark quickly assembled 2,000 men. Refusing Schuyler’s request that he join the main army, Stark took up a position at Bennington in southern Vermont to guard the New England frontier. On August 11 Burgoyne detached a force of 650 men under Hessian Col. Friedrich Baum to forage for cattle, horses, and transport in the very area Stark was occupying. At Bennington on August 16, Stark annihilated Baum’s force and nearly did the same to a second column of reinforcements Burgoyne sent to rescue Baum. Burgoyne not only failed to secure his much-needed supplies and transport but also lost about a tenth of his command.

Meanwhile, St. Leger with his Tories and Indians had appeared before Fort Stanwix on August 2. The garrison, fearing massacre by the Indians, was determined to hold out to the bitter end. On August 4, the Tryon County militia under Brig. Gen. Nicholas Herkimer set out to relieve the fort but was ambushed by the Indians in a wooded ravine near Oriskany. The militia, under the direction of a mortally wounded Herkimer, took cover in the woods and fought a bloody, ferocious, close-quarters battle all afternoon in a summer thunderstorm. Both sides suffered heavy losses; and though the militia was unable to relieve Stanwix, the losses discouraged St. Leger’s Indians, who were already restless in the static siege operation at Stanwix. More significantly, the Continental garrison of the fort sallied out during the Oriskany fight and destroyed most of St. Leger’s camp and siege supplies.

Despite Shuyler’s own weak position, when he learned of the plight of the Stanwix garrison he courageously detached Benedict Arnold with 950 continentals to march to its relief. Arnold devised a ruse that took full advantage of the dissatisfaction and natural superstition of the Indians. Employing a half-wit Dutchman, his clothes shot full of holes, and a friendly Oneida Indian as his messengers, Arnold spread the rumor that the continentals were approaching "as numerous as the leaves on the trees." The Indians, who had special respect for any madman, departed in haste; and St. Leger was forced to abandon the siege and retreat to Canada.

Bennington and Stanwix were serious blows to Burgoyne. By early September he knew he could expect help from neither Howe nor St. Leger. Disillusioned about the Tories, he wrote Germain: "The great bulk of the country is undoubtedly with Congress in principle and zeal; and their measures are executed with a secrecy and dispatch that are not to be equaled. Wherever the King’s forces point, militia in the amount of three or four thousand assemble in twenty-four hours; they bring with them their subsistence, etc., and the alarm over, they return to their farms." Nevertheless, gambler that he was, Burgoyne crossed the Hudson to the west side on September 13 and 14. A victim of his own preconceptions and already seeking to protect himself politically, Burgoyne now stated that his orders required him to get to Albany at all costs. While his supply problem daily became worse, his Indians, sensing approaching disaster, drifted off into the forests, leaving him with little means of gaining intelligence of the American dispositions.

The American forces were meanwhile gathering strength. Congress finally deferred to New England sentiment on August 19 and replaced Schuyler with Gates. Gates was more the beneficiary than the cause of the improved situation, but his appointment helped morale and encouraged the New England militia. (Washington’s emissary, General Lincoln, also did his part.) Gates did not change Schuyler’s tactics and continued to take full advantage of Burgoyne’s plight. He advanced his forces four miles north and took up a position, surveyed and prepared by the Polish engineer Kosciusko on Bemis Heights, a few miles below Saratoga. Against this position, Burgoyne launched his attack on September 19 and was repulsed with heavy losses. In the battle, usually known as the First Battle of Freeman’s Farm, Arnold persuaded Gates to let him go forward to counter the British attack. Colonel Morgan’s riflemen, in a wooded terrain well suited to the use of their specialized weapon, took a heavy toll of British officers and men.
===Saratoga===
[[Image:Surrender of General Burgoyne.jpg|300px|right|thumb|''Surrender of General Burgoyne'', by John Trumbull, c. 1819]]
After Freeman’s Farm, the lines remained stable for three weeks. Burgoyne had heard that Clinton, with the force Howe had left in New York, had started north to relieve him. Clinton in fact had finally received reinforcements from Europe and launched a lightning strike against Putnam’s weakened Highlands Department. The British stormed Forts Clinton and Montgomery on the Hudson on October 6 and forced a path through the mountains. Clinton could not do more because he received explicit orders from Howe to send the reinforcements on to Philadelphia. He took a chance and sent out a small diversion to Kingston but returned to New York when that probe indicated it could do nothing of value.

Burgoyne was left to his fate. Gates strengthened his entrenchments and calmly awaited the attack he was sure Burgoyne would have to make. Militia reinforcements increased his forces to around 10,000 by October 7. Meanwhile, Burgoyne’s position grew more desperate. Unable to hold his supply line open, Burgoyne faced a choice. He could cut his losses and fall back toward Canada and safety, or he could stay and fight. He chose to stay and fight in hopes of defeating the army in front of him and pushing on to Albany. Food was running out; the animals had grazed the meadows bare; and every day more men slipped into the forest, deserting the lost cause. With little intelligence of American strength or dispositions, on October 7 Burgoyne sent out a reconnaissance in force to feel out the American positions. On learning that the British were approaching, Gates sent out a contingent including Morgan’s riflemen to meet them; a second battle developed, usually known as Bemis Heights or the Second Battle of Freeman’s Farm. Although Gates intended to fight a cautious, defensive battle, he lost control of his own men. Arnold, an open supporter of Schuyler and critic of the cautious Gates, had been placed under house arrest for insubordination. When Arnold learned of Burgoyne’s probe, he impetuously broke arrest and rushed into the fray, distinguishing himself before he was wounded in leading an attack on Breymann’s Redoubt. The British suffered severe losses, five times those of the Americans, and were driven back to their fortified positions.

Two days after the battle, Burgoyne withdrew to a position in the vicinity of Saratoga. Militia soon worked around to his rear and hemmed him in from the north as well. His position hopeless, Burgoyne finally capitulated on October 17 at Saratoga. The total prisoner count was nearly 6,000, and great quantities of military stores fell into American hands. The victory at Saratoga brought the Americans out well ahead in the campaign of 1777 despite the loss of Philadelphia. What had been at stake soon became obvious. In February 1778 France negotiated a treaty of alliance with the American states, tantamount to a declaration of war against England.

===Valley Forge===
[[Image:Washington at Valley Forge.jpg|300px|right|thumb|''Washington at Valley Forge'', William B.T. Trego, 1883]]
The name of Valley Forge has come to stand, and rightly so, as a patriotic symbol of suffering, courage, and perseverance. The hard core of continentals who stayed with Washington during that bitter winter of 1777–1778 suffered much indeed. Supply problems caused some men to go without shoes, pants, and blankets. Weeks passed when there was no meat, and men were reduced to boiling and eating their shoes. It was no place for "summer soldiers and sunshine patriots."

The symbolism of Valley Forge should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the suffering was largely unnecessary. While the soldiers shivered and went hungry, food rotted and clothing lay unused in depots throughout the country. True, access to Valley Forge was difficult, but little determined effort was made to get supplies into the area. The supply and transport system had broken down. In mid-1777 both the Quartermaster and Commissary Generals resigned along with numerous subordinate officials in both departments, mostly merchants who found private trade more lucrative. Congress, in refuge at York, Pennsylvania, and split into factions, found it difficult to find replacements. If there was not, as most historians now believe, an organized cabal seeking to replace Washington with Gates, there were many, both in and out of the Army, who were dissatisfied with the Commander in Chief; and much intrigue went on. Gates was made President of the new Board of War set up that winter, and at least two of its members were Washington’s enemies. In the administrative chaos at the height of the Valley Forge crisis, there was no functioning Quartermaster General at all.

Washington weathered the storm, and the Continental Army would emerge from Valley Forge a more effective force than before. With his advice, Congress instituted reforms in the Quartermaster and Commissary Departments that temporarily restored the effectiveness of both agencies. Washington’s ablest subordinate, General Greene, reluctantly accepted the post of Quartermaster General. The Continental Army itself gained a new professional competence from the training given by Steuben.

Steuben appeared at Valley Forge in February 1778. He represented himself as a baron, a title of dubious validity, and as a former lieutenant general on the staff of [[Frederick the Great]]. (In reality he had been only a captain. The fraud was harmless, for Steuben had a broad knowledge of military affairs and had the ability to communicate with the American soldiers and teach them the basics of their new craft.) Appointed by Washington as Inspector General in charge of a training program, Steuben vigorously drilled the troops that remained under arms during the winter of 1777–1778 at Valley Forge. He taught the Continental Army a simplified but effective version of the drill formations and movements of European armies and the proper care of equipment and supplemented American marksmanship with instruction on the use of the bayonet, a weapon in which British superiority had previously been marked. All through the training, Steuben never lost sight of a major difference between the American citizen-soldier and the European professional. He early noted that American soldiers had to be told why they did things before they would do them well, and he applied this philosophy in his training program. His trenchant good humor and vigorous profanity delighted the Continental soldiers and made the rigorous drill more palatable. After Valley Forge, continentals would fight on equal terms with British regulars in the open field.

==First Fruits of the French Alliance==
While the Continental Army was undergoing its ordeal and transformation at Valley Forge, Howe dallied in Philadelphia, forfeiting whatever remaining chance he had to win a decisive victory before the effects of the French alliance were felt. He had had his fill of the American war; and the king accepted his resignation from command, appointing General Clinton as his successor. As Washington prepared to sally forth from Valley Forge, the British Army and the Philadelphia Tories said goodbye to Howe in a series of lavish parties. However, Clinton already had orders to evacuate the American capital. With the French in the war, the strategic situation had changed dramatically. England now had to ensure the safety of the long ocean supply line to America, as well as its valuable commercial possessions in other parts of the world, in particular the rich sugar plantations of the Caribbean. Clinton’s orders were to detach 5,000 men to the West Indies and 3,000 to Florida and to return the rest of his army to New York by sea. He was then to give thought to recovering the southern states, where once again ever-hopeful refugees insisted the majority of the population would rally to the royal standard.

As Clinton prepared to depart Philadelphia, Washington had high hopes that the war might be won in 1778 by a cooperative effort between his army and the French Fleet. Charles Hector, the Comte d’Estaing, with a French naval squadron of eleven ships of the line and transports carrying 4,000 troops left France in May to sail for the American coast. D’Estaing’s fleet was considerably more powerful than any Admiral Howe could immediately concentrate in American waters. For a brief period in 1778, the strategic initiative passed from British hands; Washington hoped to make full use of it.

Clinton had already decided, before he learned of the threat from d’Estaing, to move his army overland to New York prior to making any detachments, largely because he lacked sufficient transports to make the voyage by sea. On June 18, 1778, he set out with about 10,000 men. Washington, having gathered by that time about 12,000, immediately occupied Philadelphia and then took up the pursuit of Clinton. His council of war was divided, though none of his generals advised a "general action." The boldest, General Wayne, and the young General Lafayette urged a "partial attack" to strike at a portion of the British Army while it was strung out on the road. The most cautious, Maj. Gen. Charles Lee, who had been exchanged and had rejoined the army at Valley Forge, advised only guerrilla action to harass the British columns. On June 26 Washington decided to take a bold approach, though he issued no orders indicating an intention to bring on a general action. He sent forward an advance guard composed of almost half his army to strike at the British rear when Clinton moved out of Monmouth Court House on the morning of June 27. Lee, the cautious, claimed the command from Lafayette, the bold, when he learned the detachment would be so large.

In the early morning Lee advanced over rough ground that had not been reconnoitered and made contact with the British rear, but Clinton reacted quickly and maneuvered to envelop the American right flank. Lee, feeling that his force was in an untenable position and underestimating the training transformation of the American Army during the encampment at Valley Forge, fell back in confusion. Washington rode up and, exceedingly irate to find the advance guard in retreat, exchanged harsh words with Lee. He then assumed direction of what had to be a defense against a British counterattack. The battle that followed, involving the bulk of both armies, lasted until nightfall on a sultry day with both sides holding their own. For the first time the Americans fought well with the bayonet as well as with the musket and rifle, and their battlefield behavior generally reflected the Valley Forge training. Nevertheless, Washington failed to strike a telling blow at the British Army, for Clinton slipped away in the night and in a few days completed the retreat to New York. Lee demanded and got a court-martial at which he was judged, perhaps unjustly, guilty of disobedience of orders, poor conduct of the retreat, and disrespect for the Commander in Chief. As a consequence he retired from the Army, though the controversy over his actions at Monmouth was to go on for years.

Washington meanwhile sought his victory in cooperation with the French Fleet. D’Estaing arrived off the coast on July 8, and the two commanders at first agreed on a combined land and sea attack on New York; but d’Estaing feared he would be unable to get his deep-draft ships across the bar that extended from Staten Island to Sandy Hook to get at Howe’s inferior fleet. They decided to transfer the attack to the other and weaker British stronghold at Newport, Rhode Island, a city standing on an island with difficult approaches. They agreed that the French Fleet would force the passage on the west side of the island and an American force under General Sullivan would cross over and mount an assault from the east. The whole scheme soon went awry. The French Fleet arrived off Newport on July 29 and successfully forced the passage; Sullivan began crossing on the east on August 8, and d’Estaing began to disembark his troops. Unfortunately, at this juncture Admiral Howe appeared with a reinforced British Fleet, forcing d’Estaing to reembark his troops and put out to sea to meet him. As the two fleets maneuvered for advantage, a great gale scattered both on August 12. The British returned to New York to refit and the French Fleet to Boston; d’Estaing decided to move on to tasks he considered more pressing in the West Indies. Sullivan was left to extricate his forces from an untenable position as best he could, and the first experiment in Franco-American cooperation came to a disappointing end with recriminations on both sides.

The fiasco at Newport ended any hopes for an early victory over the British as a result of the French alliance. By the next year, as the French were forced to devote their major attention to the West Indies, the British regained the initiative on the mainland; the war entered a new phase.

==The New Conditions of the War==
After France entered the war in 1778, it rapidly took on the dimensions of a major European as well as an American conflict. In 1779 Spain declared war against England, and in the following year Holland followed suit. The necessity of fighting European enemies in the West Indies and other areas and of standing guard at home against invasion weakened the British effort against the American rebels. Yet the Americans were unable to take full advantage of Britain’s embarrassments, for their own effort suffered more and more from war weariness, lack of strong direction, and inadequate finance. Moreover, the interests of the European states fighting Britain did not necessarily coincide with American interests. Spain and Holland did not ally themselves with the American states at all, and even France found it expedient to devote its major effort to the West Indies. Finally, the entry of ancient enemies into the fray spurred the British to intensify their effort and evoked some, if not enough, of that characteristic tenacity that has produced victory for England in so many wars. Despite the many new commitments the British were able to maintain in America an army that was usually superior in numbers to the dwindling Continental Army, though it was never strong enough to undertake offensives again on the scale of those of 1776 and 1777.

Monmouth was the last major engagement in the north between Washington’s and Clinton’s armies. In 1779 the situation there became a stalemate and remained so until the end of the war. The defense system Washington set up around New York with its center at West Point was too strong for Clinton to attack. The British commander did, in late spring 1779, attempt to draw Washington into the open by descending in force on unfinished American outpost fortifications at Verplanck’s Point and Stony Point, but Washington refused to take the bait. When Clinton withdrew his main force to New York, the American commander retaliated on July 15, 1779, by sending General Wayne with an elite corps of light infantry on a stealthy night attack on Stony Point, a successful action more notable for demonstrating the proficiency with which the Americans now used the bayonet than for any important strategic gains. Thereafter the war around New York became largely an affair of raids, skirmishes, and constant vigilance on both sides. Twice in 1780 large British forces pushed into northern New Jersey in foraging operations intended to lure Washington into the open, but both times the flexible American defensive belt repulsed them easily.

Clinton’s inaction allowed Washington to attempt to deal with British-inspired Indian attacks. Although Burgoyne’s defeat ended the threat of invasion from Canada, the British continued to incite the Indians all along the frontier to bloody raids on American settlements. From Fort Niagara and Detroit, they sent out their bands, usually led by Tories, to pillage and burn in the Mohawk Valley of New York, the Wyoming Valley of Pennsylvania, and the new American settlements in Kentucky. Although local defense was primarily the responsibility of state governments and the militia, the pressure on the Mohawk frontier soon prompted a Continental response. In August 1779 Washington detached General Sullivan with a force to deal with the Iroquois in Pennsylvania and New York. Sullivan laid waste the Indians’ villages and defeated a force of Tories and Indians at Newtown on August 29. Although Sullivan’s mission did not end Indian frontier raids, it essentially broke the back of Iroquois power and ensured the flow of supplies to the army from these fertile areas.

In the winter of 1778–1779, the colony of Virginia had sponsored an expedition that struck a severe blow at the British and Indians in the northwest. Young Lt. Col. George Rogers Clark, with a force of only 175 men ostensibly recruited for the defense of Kentucky, overran all the British posts in what is today Illinois and Indiana. Neither he nor Sullivan, however, was able to strike at the sources of the trouble—Niagara and Detroit. Indian raids along the frontiers continued, though they were somewhat less frequent and less severe.

==British Successes in the South==
Late in 1778 the British began to turn their main effort to the south. The king’s ministers hoped to bring the southern states into the fold one by one. From bases there, they would strangle the recalcitrant north. A small British force operating from Florida cooperated with the first reinforcements sent by Clinton and quickly overran thinly populated Georgia in the winter of 1778–1779. Alarmed by this development, Congress sent General Lincoln south to Charleston in December 1778 to command the Southern Army and organize the southern effort. It hoped that he could repeat his performance during the Saratoga campaign as a leader who could mix Continental regulars and militiamen. Lincoln gathered 3,500 continentals and militiamen; but in May 1779, while he maneuvered along the Georgia border, the British commander, Maj. Gen. Augustine Prevost, slipped around him to raid Charleston. The city barely managed to hold out until Lincoln returned to relieve it.

In September 1779 Admiral d’Estaing arrived off the coast of Georgia with a strong French Fleet and 6,000 troops. Lincoln hurried south with 1,350 Americans to join him in a siege of the main British base at Savannah. Unfortunately, the Franco-American force had to hurry its attack because d’Estaing was unwilling to risk his fleet in a position dangerously exposed to autumn storms. The French and Americans mounted a direct assault on Savannah on October 9, abandoning their plan to make a systematic approach by regular parallels. The British in strongly entrenched positions repulsed the attack in what was essentially a Bunker Hill in reverse, with the French and Americans suffering staggering losses. D’Estaing then sailed away to the West Indies, Lincoln returned to Charleston, and the second attempt at Franco-American cooperation ended in much the same atmosphere of bitterness and disillusion as the first.

Meanwhile Clinton, urged on by the British government, determined to push the southern campaign in earnest. In October 1779 he withdrew the British garrison from Newport, pulled in his troops from outposts around New York, and prepared to move south against Charleston with a large part of his force. With d’Estaing’s withdrawal, the British regained control of the sea along the American coast, giving Clinton a mobility that Washington could not match. While Clinton drew from New York and Savannah to achieve a decisive concentration of force (14,000 men) at Charleston, Congress had sent only piecemeal reinforcements to Lincoln over difficult overland routes.

Applying the lessons of his experience in 1776, Clinton this time carefully planned a coordinated Army-Navy attack. First, he landed his force on John’s Island to the south, then moved up to the Ashley River, investing Charleston from the land side. Lincoln, under strong pressure from the South Carolina civilian authorities, concentrated his forces in a citadel defense on the neck of land between the Ashley and Cooper Rivers, leaving Fort Moultrie and other harbor defenses lightly manned. On April 8 British warships successfully forced the passage past Moultrie, investing Charleston from the sea. The siege then proceeded in traditional eighteenth century fashion, and on May 12, 1780, despite a masterful delaying defense that humiliated Clinton, Lincoln had to surrender his entire force of 5,466 men in the greatest disaster to befall the American cause during the war. Meanwhile, Col. Abraham Buford with 350 Virginians was moving south to reinforce the garrison. When he learned of the garrison’s fate, Buford tried to withdraw; but Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton with a force of British light cavalry and infantry took Buford by surprise at the Waxhaws, a district near the North Carolina border, and slaughtered most of Buford’s men after they attempted to surrender. This brutality shocked most Americans and, as had happened with the Jenny McCrea incident, motivated the militia forces to take to the field in ever-increasing numbers.

After the capture of Charleston, Clinton returned to New York with about a third of his force, leaving General Cornwallis with 8,000 men to follow up the victory. Cornwallis established his main seaboard bases at Savannah, Beaufort, Charleston, and Georgetown. In the interior, he extended his line of control along the Savannah River westward to Ninety-Six and northward to Camden and Rocky Mount. Cornwallis’ force, however, was too small to police so large an area, even with the aid of the Tories who took to the field. Though no organized Continental force remained in the Carolinas and Georgia, American guerrillas, led by Brig. Gens. Thomas Sumter and Andrew Pickens and Lt. Col. Francis Marion, began to harry British posts and lines of communications and to battle the bands of Tories. A bloody, ruthless, and confused civil war ensued, its character determined in no small degree by Tarleton’s action at the Waxhaws. In this way, as in the Saratoga campaign, the American grass roots strength began once again to assert itself and to deny the British the fruits of military victory.

On June 22, 1780, the Maryland Division (two understrength brigades) from Washington’s army arrived at Hillsborough, North Carolina, to form the nucleus of a new Southern Army around which militia could rally and which could serve as the nerve center of guerrilla resistance. In July Congress, without consulting Washington, provided a commander for this army in the person of General Gates, the hero of Saratoga. Gates soon lost his northern laurels. Gathering a force of about 4,000 men, over half of them militia, and ignoring the advice of his subordinates who were more familiar with the terrain, he set out to attack the British post at Camden, South Carolina. Instead of taking a more circuitous route that could be supported logistically, Gates marched through a district already denuded of food. Cornwallis hurried north from Charleston with reinforcements, and his army of 2,200 British regulars made contact with Gates outside Camden on the night of August 15.

In the battle that ensued the following morning, Gates deployed his militia on the left and the continentals under Maj. Gen. Johann de Kalb on the right. Morning fog, compounded by the smoke muskets, prevented each of the two parts of the American force from seeing what was happening to the other. The militia was still forming when Cornwallis struck, and they fled in panic before the British onslaught. On the other side of the field, de Kalb’s continentals drove back the British forces opposing them. At this point the British who had driven the militia from the field wheeled on the continentals and brought an end to the valiant but hopeless fight. Tarleton’s cavalry pursued the fleeing Americans for thirty miles, killing or making prisoner those who lagged. Gates himself fled too fast for Tarleton, reaching Hillsborough, 160 miles away, in three days and leaving his men to fend for themselves. To add to the disaster, Tarleton caught up with General Sumter, whom Gates had sent with a detachment to raid a British wagon train, and virtually destroyed his force in a surprise attack at Fishing Creek on August 18. Once more South Carolina seemed safely in British hands.

==Nadir of the American Cause==
In the summer of 1780 the American cause seemed to be at as low an ebb as it had been after the New York campaign in 1776 or after the defeats at Ticonderoga and Brandywine in 1777. Defeat in the south was not the only discouraging aspect of patriot affairs. In the north, a creeping paralysis had set in as the patriotic enthusiasm of the early war years waned. The Continental currency had depreciated virtually out of existence, and Congress was impotent to pay the soldiers or purchase supplies. At Morristown, New Jersey, in the winter of 1779–1780, the army suffered worse hardships than at Valley Forge. Congress could do little but attempt to shift its responsibilities onto the states, giving each the task of providing clothing for its own troops and furnishing certain quotas of "specific supplies" for the entire Army. The system of specific supplies worked not at all. Not only were the states laggard in furnishing supplies, but when they did it was seldom at the time or place they were needed. This breakdown in the supply system was more than even General Greene as Quartermaster General could withstand; in early 1780, under heavy criticism in Congress, he resigned his position.

Under such difficulties, Washington had to struggle to hold even a small Army together. Recruiting of continentals, difficult to begin with, became almost impossible when the troops could neither be paid nor supplied adequately and had to suffer such winters as those at Morristown. Enlistments and drafts from the militia in 1780 produced not quite half as many men for one year’s service as had enlisted in 1775 for three years or the duration. While recruiting lagged, morale among those men who had enlisted for the longer terms naturally fell. Mutinies in 1780 and 1781 were suppressed only by measures of great severity.

Germain could write confidently to Clinton: "so very contemptible is the rebel force now … that no resistance … is to be apprehended that can materially obstruct … the speedy suppression of the rebellion … the American levies in the King’s service are more in number than the whole of the enlisted troops in the service of the Congress." The French were unhappy. In the summer of 1780 they occupied the vacated British base at Newport and moved in a naval squadron and 4,000 troops under the command of Lt. Gen. Jean Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, the Comte de Rochambeau. Rochambeau immediately warned his government: "Send us troops, ships and money, but do not count on these people nor on their resources, they have neither money nor credit, their forces exist only momentarily, and when they are about to be attacked in their own homes they assemble … to defend themselves." Another French commander thought only one highly placed American traitor was needed to decide the campaign.

Clinton had in fact already found his highly placed traitor in Benedict Arnold, the hero of the march to Quebec, the naval battle on the lakes, Fort Stanwix, and Saratoga. "Money is this man’s God," one of his enemies had said of Arnold earlier; evidently, he was correct. Lucrative rewards promised by the British led to Arnold’s treason, though he evidently resented the slights Congress had dealt him; and he justified his act by claiming that the Americans were now fighting for the interests of Catholic France and not their own. Arnold wangled an appointment as commander at West Point and then entered into a plot to deliver this key post to the British. Washington discovered the plot on September 21, 1780, just in time to foil it, though Arnold himself escaped to become a British brigadier.

Arnold’s treason in September 1780 marked the nadir of the patriot cause. Yet in the closing months of 1780, the Americans somehow put together the ingredients for a final and decisive burst of energy in 1781. Congress persuaded Robert Morris, a wealthy Philadelphia merchant, to accept a post as Superintendent of Finance; Col. Timothy Pickering, an able administrator, would replace Greene as Quartermaster General. Greene, as Washington’s choice, was then named to succeed Gates in command of the Southern Army. General Lincoln, exchanged after Charleston, was appointed Secretary at War; and the old board was abolished. Morris took over many of the functions previously performed by unwieldy committees. Working closely with Pickering, he abandoned the old paper money entirely and introduced a new policy of supplying the army by private contracts, using his personal credit as eventual guarantee for payment in gold or silver. It was an expedient but, for a time at least, it worked.

==Greene’s Southern Campaign==
It was the frontier militia assembling "when they were about to be attacked in their own homes" who struck the blow that actually marked the turning point in the south. Late in 1780, with Clinton’s reluctant consent, Cornwallis set out on the invasion of North Carolina. He sent Maj. Patrick Ferguson, who had successfully organized the Tories in the upcountry of South Carolina, to move north simultaneously with his "American Volunteers," spread the Tory gospel in the North Carolina back country, and join the main army at Charlotte with a maximum number of recruits. Ferguson’s advance northward alarmed the independent- minded "over-mountain men" in western North Carolina, southwest Virginia, and what is now east Tennessee. A picked force of mounted militia riflemen gathered on the Catawba River in western North Carolina, set out to find Ferguson, and brought him to bay at King’s Mountain near the border of the two Carolinas on October 7. In a battle of patriot against Tory (Ferguson was one of only a handful of British soldiers present), the patriots’ triumph was complete. Ferguson himself was killed, and few of his command escaped death or capture. Some got the same "quarter" Tarleton had given Buford’s men at the Waxhaws.

King’s Mountain was as fatal to Cornwallis’ plans as Bennington had been to those of Burgoyne. The North Carolina Tories, cowed by the fate of their compatriots, gave him lame support. The British commander on October 14, 1780, began a wretched retreat in the rain back to Winnsboro, South Carolina, with militia harassing his progress. Meanwhile, Clinton, acting on guidance from London, launched an expedition of 2,500 men under Benedict Arnold to establish a base in Virginia to reinforce Cornwallis.

The frontier militia had turned the tide; but having done so, they returned to their homes. To keep the tide moving against the British was the task of the new commander, General Greene. When Greene arrived at Charlotte early in December 1780, he found 1,500 men fit for duty, only 949 of them continentals. The army lacked clothing and provisions and had little systematic means of procuring them. Greene decided not to engage Cornwallis’ army in battle until he had built up his strength, instead to pursue delaying tactics to wear down his stronger opponent. To accomplish this goal, he built on Gates’ earlier dispositions. Gates had created a mobile screening force from his best troops. Greene first took the unorthodox step of dividing his army in the face of a superior force, moving part under his personal command to Cheraw Hill and the augmented light screening forces under Brig. Gen. Daniel Morgan west across the Catawba over 100 miles away. It was an intentional violation of the principle of mass. Greene wrote:
:''"I am well satisfied with the movement.… It makes the most of my inferior force, for it compels my adversary to divide his, and holds him in doubt as to his own line of conduct. He cannot leave Morgan behind him to come at me, or his posts at Ninety-Six and Augusta would be exposed. And he cannot chase Morgan far, or prosecute his views upon Virginia, while I am here with the whole country open before me. I am as near to Charleston as he is, and as near Hillsborough as I was at Charlotte; so that I am in no danger of being cut off from my reinforcements."''
Left unsaid was the fact that divided forces could live off the land much easier than one large force and would constitute two rallying points for local militia instead of one. Greene was in effect sacrificing mass to enhance maneuver.

Cornwallis, at this point in his career an aggressive commander often prone to act before thinking, had determined to gamble everything on a renewed invasion of North Carolina. Ignoring Clinton’s warnings, he depleted his Charleston base by bringing almost all his supplies forward. In the face of Greene’s dispositions, Cornwallis divided his army into not two but three parts. He sent a holding force to Camden to contain Greene, directed Tarleton with a fast-moving contingent of 1,100 infantry and cavalry to find and crush Morgan, and moved cautiously with the remainder of his army up into North Carolina to cut off any of Morgan’s force that escaped Tarleton.

===Cowpens===
[[Image:Cornwallis.JPG|left|thumb|200px|Lord Charles Cornwallis]]
On January 17, 1781, Tarleton caught up with Morgan west of King’s Mountain at a place called the Cowpens, an area of open forest near the Broad River. Morgan chose this site to make his stand less by design than by necessity, for he had intended to get across the Broad. Nevertheless, on ground seemingly better suited to the action of regulars, he achieved a little tactical masterpiece, making the most effective use of his heterogeneous force, numerically equal to that of Tarleton but composed of three-fourths militia. Selecting a low hill as the center of his position, he placed his Continental infantry on it, deliberately leaving his flanks open. In front of the main line he posted militia infantry in two lines, instructing the first line to fire two volleys and then fall back on the second, the combined line to fire until the British pressed them, then to fall back to the rear of the continentals and re-form as a reserve. He placed Lt. Col. William Washington’s cavalry detachment behind the hill, ready to charge the attacking enemy at the critical moment. Every man in the ranks was informed of the plan of battle and the part he was expected to play in it.

On finding Morgan, Tarleton ordered an immediate attack. His men moved forward in regular formation and were momentarily checked by the militia rifles; but, taking the retreat of the first two lines to be the beginning of a rout, Tarleton’s men rushed headlong into the steady fire of the continentals on the hill. When the British were well advanced, the American cavalry struck them on the right flank, broke the British cavalry, and then wheeled on the infantry. The militia, having re-formed, charged out from behind the hill to hit the British left. Caught in a classic double envelopment, the British surrendered after suffering heavy losses. Tarleton managed to escape with only a small force of cavalry he had held in reserve. It was on a small scale and with certain significant differences a repetition of the classic double envelopment of the Romans by a Carthaginian army under Hannibal at Cannae in 216 b.c., an event of which Morgan, no reader of books, probably had not the foggiest notion. But it was a clever use of the terrain and troops by one of the American Army’s most intuitive and inspirational commanders.

Having struck this fatal blow against Tarleton, Morgan still had to move fast to escape Cornwallis. Covering 100 miles and crossing two rivers in five days, he rejoined Greene early in February. Cornwallis by now was too heavily committed to the campaign in North Carolina to withdraw. Hoping to match the swift movement of the Americans, he destroyed all his superfluous supplies, baggage, and wagons and set forth in pursuit of Greene’s army. The American general retreated through North Carolina into southern Virginia and crossed to safety behind the Dan River. Cornwallis’ exhausted forces began to retreat into North Carolina to reach their depot and replenish their supplies. As the British started south, Greene recrossed the Dan and followed, keeping just out of reach of his adversary to avoid any battle he did not wish. Finally, on March 15, 1781, at Guilford Court House in North Carolina, on ground he had chosen himself, Greene gave battle. By this time he had collected 1,500 continentals and 3,000 militia to oppose the 1,900 regulars the British could muster. The British nominally won this contest because they managed to hold the field after a hard-fought battle, but they suffered disproportionate casualties of about one-fourth of the force engaged. It was like Bunker Hill a Pyrrhic victory. His ranks depleted and his supplies exhausted, Cornwallis withdrew to Wilmington on the coast to once again rebuild his army. Then he decided to move north to join the British forces General Clinton had sent to Virginia.

Greene, his army in better condition than six months earlier, pushed quickly into South Carolina to reduce the British posts in the interior. He fought two battles—at Hobkirk’s Hill on April 25 and at Eutaw Springs on September 8—losing both but with approximately the same results as at Guilford Court House. One by one the British interior posts fell to Greene’s army or to militia and partisans. By October 1781 the majority of the British had been forced to withdraw to their two strongholds along the coast, Charleston and Savannah. Greene had lost battles but won a campaign. In so doing, he paved the way for the greater victory to follow at Yorktown.

==Yorktown==
As Howe and Burgoyne went their separate ways in 1777, each seemingly determined to satisfy only personal ambitions, so Clinton and Cornwallis in 1781 paved the road to Yorktown with their disagreements and lack of coordination. Clinton was Cornwallis’ superior in this case, but the latter enjoyed the confidence of Germain to an extent that Clinton did not. Clinton, believing that without substantial reinforcements the British could not operate far from coastal bases, had opposed Cornwallis’ ventures in the interior of the Carolinas. When Cornwallis came to Virginia, he did so without even informing his superior of his intention.

Since 1779 Clinton had sought to paralyze the state of Virginia by conducting raids up its great rivers, arousing the Tories, and establishing a base in the Chesapeake Bay region. He thought this base might eventually be used as a starting point for one arm of a pincers movement against Pennsylvania for which his own idle force in New York would provide the other. A raid conducted in the Hampton Roads area in 1779 was highly successful; but when Clinton sought to follow it up in 1780, the force sent for the purpose had to be diverted to Charleston to bail out Cornwallis after King’s Mountain. Finally, in 1781 he got an expedition into Virginia, a contingent of 1,600 under the American traitor, Benedict Arnold. In January Arnold conducted a destructive raid up the James River all the way to Richmond. His presence soon proved to be a magnet that drew forces of both sides to Virginia.

In an effort to trap Arnold, Washington dispatched Lafayette to Virginia with 1,200 of his scarce continentals and persuaded the French to send a naval squadron from Newport to block Arnold’s escape by sea. The plan went awry when a British fleet drove the French squadron back to Newport and Clinton sent another 600 men to Virginia along with a new commander, Maj. Gen. William Phillips. Phillips and Arnold continued their raids, which Lafayette was too weak to prevent. Then on May 20 Cornwallis arrived from Wilmington and relieved Phillips. With additional temporary reinforcements sent by Clinton, he was able to field a force of about 7,000 men, about a quarter of the British strength in America. Washington sent down an additional reinforcement of 800 continentals under General Wayne; but even with Virginia militia, Lafayette’s force remained greatly outnumbered.

Cornwallis and Clinton were soon working at cross-purposes. Cornwallis proposed to carry out major operations in the interior of Virginia, but Clinton saw as little practical value in this tactic as Cornwallis did in Clinton’s plan to establish a base in Virginia to launch amphibious raids along the Chesapeake Bay. Cornwallis had no respect for his superior’s military skills and saw no reason to give up his independent command. Instead, he did his level best to ignore Clinton’s orders. Cornwallis at first turned to the interior and engaged in a fruitless pursuit of Lafayette north of Richmond. Then, on receiving Clinton’s positive order to return to the coast and return part of his force to New York, Cornwallis moved back down the Virginia peninsula to take up station at Yorktown, a small tobacco port on the York River just off the Chesapeake Bay. In the face of Cornwallis’ insistence that he must keep all his troops with him, Clinton vacillated, reversing his own orders several times and in the end granting Cornwallis’ request. Lafayette and Wayne followed Cornwallis cautiously down the peninsula, lost a skirmish with him at Green Spring near Williamsburg on July 6, and finally took up a position at Williamsburg to keep an eye on Yorktown.

Meanwhile, Washington had been trying to persuade the French to cooperate in a combined land and naval assault on New York in the summer of 1781. Rochambeau brought his 4,000 troops down from Newport and placed them under Washington’s command. The prospects were still bleak, since the combined Franco-American regular force numbered but 10,000 and would still be outnumbered by Clinton’s 17,000 in well-fortified positions. Then on August 14 Washington learned that the French Fleet in the West Indies, commanded by Admiral Francois de Grasse, would not come to New York but would arrive in the Chesapeake later in the month and remain there until October 15. He saw immediately that if he could achieve a superior concentration of force on the land side while de Grasse still held the bay, he could destroy the British army at Yorktown before Clinton had a chance to relieve it.

The movements that followed illustrate most effectively a successful application of the principles of the offensive, surprise, objective, mass, and maneuver. Even without unified command of Army and Navy forces, Franco-American cooperation this time was excellent. Admiral Louis, the Comte de Barras, immediately put out to sea from Newport to join de Grasse. Washington sent orders to Lafayette to contain Cornwallis at Yorktown. Employing an elaborate deception to convince Clinton that the Americans were about to attack New York, on August 21 Washington started the major portion of the Franco-American army on a rapid secret movement to Virginia via the Chesapeake Bay, leaving only 2,000 Americans under General Heath behind to watch Clinton.

On August 30, while Washington was on the move south, de Grasse arrived in the Chesapeake with his entire fleet of twenty-four ships of the line and a few days later debarked 3,000 French troops to join Lafayette. Admiral Thomas Graves, the British naval commander in New York, meanwhile had put out to sea in late August with nineteen ships of the line, hoping either to intercept Barras’ squadron or to block de Grasse’s entry into the Chesapeake. He failed to find Barras; and when he arrived off Hampton Roads on September 5, he found de Grasse already in the bay. The French admiral sallied forth to meet Graves, and the two fleets fought an indecisive action off the Virginia capes. Yet for all practical purposes the victory lay with the French, for while the fleets maneuvered at sea for days following the battle, Barras’ squadron slipped into the Chesapeake and landed heavy artillery for the siege. Then de Grasse got back into the bay and joined Barras, confronting Graves with so superior a naval force that he decided to return to New York to refit.

===Surrender of Cornwallis===
[[Image:Yorktown Surrender.JPG|right|thumb|300px|''The Surrender at Yorktown'', by John Trumbull, 1820]]
When Washington’s army arrived at Williamsburg on September 26, the French Fleet was in firm control of the bay, blocking Cornwallis’ sea route of escape. A decisive concentration had been achieved. Counting 3,000 Virginia militiamen, Washington had a force of over 9,000 Americans and 6,000 French troops with which to conduct the siege. It proceeded in the best traditions of Marshal Sebastien Vauban under the direction of French engineers. Cornwallis obligingly abandoned his forward position on September 30, and on October 6 the first parallel was begun 600 yards from the main British position. Artillery placed along the trench began its destructive work on October 9. By October 11 the zigzag connecting trench had been dug 300 yards forward and work on the second parallel had begun. Two British redoubts needed to be reduced to extend the line to the York River. Washington brilliantly carried out that action by using a surprise attack at bayonet point just after
dark: Americans under Lafayette took Redoubt 10; and Frenchmen under Lafayette’s brother-in-law, the Viscount Louis-Marie Noailles, secured Redoubt 9. This accomplished, Cornwallis’ only recourse was a desperate attempt to escape across the river to Gloucester Point, where the allied line was thinly held. A storm on the night of October 16 frustrated his attempt to do so, leaving him with no hope except relief from New York. Clinton had been considering such relief for days, but he acted too late. On the very day, October 17, that Admiral Graves set sail from New York with a reinforced fleet and 7,000 troops for the relief of Yorktown, Cornwallis began negotiations on terms of surrender. On October 19 his entire army marched out to lay down its arms with the British band playing an old tune, "The World Turned Upside Down."

So far as active campaigning was concerned Yorktown ended the war, though neither side realized it at the time. Both Greene and Washington maintained their armies in positions near New York and Charleston for nearly two years more, but with only some minor skirmishing in the south. Cornwallis’ defeat led to the resignation of the British Cabinet and the formation of a new government that decided the war in America was lost. With some success, Britain devoted its energies to trying to salvage what it could in the West Indies and in India. The independence for which Americans had fought thus virtually became a reality when Cornwallis’ command marched out of its breached defenses at Yorktown.

==Summary==
The American victory in the War of the Revolution was a product of many factors, no one of which can be positively assigned first importance. Washington, looking back on the vicissitudes of eight years, could only explain it as the intervention of "Divine Providence." American historians in the nineteenth century saw that divine providence as having been manifested primarily in the character and genius of the modest Commander in Chief himself. Washington’s leadership was clearly one of the principal factors in American success; it seems fair to say that the Revolution could hardly have succeeded without him. Yet in many of the events that led to victory—Bennington, Saratoga, King’s Mountain, and Cowpens, to name but a few—his personal influence was remote.

Today many scholars stress not the astonishment that Washington felt at the victory of a weak and divided confederation of American states over the greatest power of the age but the practical difficulties the British faced in suppressing the revolt. These were indeed great, but they do not appear to have been insuperable if one considers military victory alone and not its political consequences. The British forfeited several chances for military victory in 1776–1777, and again in 1780 they might have won had they been able to throw 10,000 fresh troops into the American war. American military leaders were more resourceful and imaginative than their British counterparts, and they proved quite capable of profiting from British blunders. In addition to George Washington, Nathanael Greene, Henry Knox, Daniel Morgan, and Benedict Arnold showed remarkable military abilities; of the foreign volunteers, Steuben and the young Lafayette were outstanding. The resourcefulness of this extraordinary group of leaders was matched by the dedication to the cause of the Continental rank and file. Only men so dedicated could have endured the hardships of the march to Quebec, the crossing of the Delaware, Valley Forge, Morristown, and Greene’s forced marches in the southern campaign. British and Hessian professionals never showed the same spirit; their virtues were exhibited principally in situations where discipline and training counted most.

The militia, the men who fought battles and then went home, also exhibited this spirit on many occasions. The militiamen have been generally maligned as useless by one school of thought and glorified by another as the true victors in the war. Any balanced view must recognize that their contributions were great, though they would have counted for little without the Continental Army to give the American cause that continued sustenance that only a permanent force in being could give it. It was the ubiquity of the militia that made British victories over the continentals in the field so meaningless. And the success with which the militia did operate derived from the firm political control the patriots had established over the countryside long before the British were in any position to challenge it—the situation that made the British task so difficult in the first place.

For all these American virtues and British difficulties and mistakes, the Americans still required French aid—money, supplies, and in the last phase military force—to win a decisive and clear-cut military victory. Most of the muskets, bayonets, and cannon used by the Continental Army came from France. The French contested the control of the seas that was so vital to the British and compelled them to divert forces from the American mainland to other areas. The final stroke at Yorktown, though a product of Washington’s strategic conception, was possible only because of the temporary predominance of French naval power off the American coast and the presence of a French army. The French entered the war for reasons of their own national interest, but they were no less instrumental in the winning of American independence.

French aid was doubly necessary because the American war effort lacked strong national direction. The Revolution showed conclusively the need for a central government with power to harness the nation’s resources for war. It is not surprising that in 1787 nearly all those who had struggled so long and hard as leaders in the Continental Army or in administrative positions under the Congress were to be found in the ranks of the supporters of a new constitution that created such a central government with a strong executive and the power to "raise armies and navies," call out the militia, and directly levy taxes to support itself.

The strictly military lessons of the Revolution were more equivocal. Tactical innovations were not radical; but they did represent a culmination of the trend, which started during the French and Indian War, toward employment of light troops as skirmishers in conjunction with traditional linear formations. By the end of the war both armies were fighting in this fashion. The Americans strove to develop the same proficiency as the British in regular line-of-battle tactics, while the British adapted to the American terrain and tactics by employing skirmishers and fighting when possible from behind cover. Washington was himself a military conservative, and Steuben’s training program was designed to equip American troops to fight in European fashion with modifications to provide for the increased use of light infantry. The guerrilla tactics that characterized many actions, principally those of the militia, were no product of the design of Washington or his leading subordinates but of circumstances over which they had little control. The American rifle, most useful in guerrilla actions or in the hands of skirmishers, played no decisive role in the Revolution. It was of great value in wooded areas, as at Saratoga and King’s Mountain; but for open-field fighting, its slow rate of fire and lack of a bayonet made it inferior to the musket.

Since both militiamen and continentals played roles in winning the war, the Revolutionary experience provided ammunition for two diametrically opposed schools of thought on American military policy: the one advocating a large Regular Army, the other reliance on the militia as the bulwark of national defense. The real issue, as Washington fully recognized, was less militia versus regulars—for he never believed the infant republic needed a large standing army—than the extent to which militia could be trained and organized to form a reliable national reserve. The lesson Washington drew from the Revolution was that the militia should be "well regulated," that is, trained and organized under a uniform national system in all the states and subject to call into national service in war or emergency.

The lesson had far greater implications for the future than any of the tactical changes wrought by the American Revolution. It balanced the rights of freedom and equality proclaimed in the [[Declaration of Independence]] with a corresponding obligation of all citizens for military service to the nation. This concept, which was to find explicit expression in the "nation in arms" during the French Revolution, was also implicit in the American; and it portended the end of eighteenth century limited war fought by professional armies officered by an aristocratic class. As Steuben so well recognized, American continentals were not professional soldiers in the European sense and militia even less so. They were instead a people’s army fighting for a cause. In this sense then, the American Revolution began the "democratization of war," a process that eventually lead to the new concept of a nation in arms.

==References==
*Billias, George A., ed. ''George Washington’s Generals'', Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticutt (1967).
*Higginbotham, Don, ed. ''Reconsiderations on the Revolutionary War: Selected Essays'', Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticutt (1978).
*Hoffman, Ronald, and Peter J. Albert, eds. ''Arms and Independence: The Military Character of the American Revolution'', University of Virginia Press (1984).
*Middlekauf, Robert. ''The Glorious Cause'' Oxford University Press, New York (1986).
*Morgan, John S., and Daniel J. Boorstein. ''The Birth of the Republic, 1763–1789'', University of Chicago Press (1993).
*Shy, John. ''A People Numerous and Armed: Reflections on the Military Struggle for American Independence'', University of Michigan Press (1990).
*Wright, Robert K., Jr. ''The Continental Army'', U.S. Army Center of Military History, Washington D.C. (1983).

[[Category:American Revolutionary War]]

Rhode Island

2007-10-23T15:27:58Z

Colest: /* Notable Rhode Islanders */

[[Image:Rhodeislandstatecap.JPG|thumb|370px|Rhode Island Capitol building.]]
'''Rhode Island''' is the smallest U.S. state in land area (48 miles long by 37 miles wide<ref>http://www.visitrhodeisland.com/regions/index.aspx</ref>) and one of the original thirteen colonies. Its area is 1,214 square miles, less than one-seventh the size of [[New Jersey]].

Its official name is actually "The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."<ref>http://www.sec.state.ri.us/library/riinfo/riinfo/knowrhode</ref> So, even though it is the smallest state in the [[United States]], it has the longest name.

'''[[Providence]]''', the capital of Rhode Island was founded by [[Roger Williams]]. It was the first government in the world to be founded on the principles of religious liberty, and separation of church and state. This was very different from the situation in Boston, which was ruled by the [[Puritan]] [[theocracy]]. [[Quaker]]s, for example, were welcome in Rhode Island but not permitted in [[Boston]] (for example, a Quaker named Mary Dyer was put to death in [[Boston]] for preaching Quakerism).

== Interesting facts about Rhode Island ==
[[Image:Rhode_Island_State_Flag.gif|thumb|170px|The state flag of Rhode Island.]]
* Rhode Island is the only state that still celebrates Victory Day (victory over Japan)<ref>http://www.sec.state.ri.us/library/riinfo/riinfo/knowrhode</ref>.

* Rhode Island was the first of the original thirteen colonies to declare its independence from [[Great Britain]]

* Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery.

* The first [[Baptist]] Church in [[America]] was founded in 1671 [[Providence]], Rhode Island.

* The two state capitals in the United States that are the closest to each other are [[Providence]], Rhode Island and [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]] (42 miles; 50 miles by highway).

* According to a report by the Communications Workers of America, Rhode Island has the fastest average broadband speed of any state<ref>http://www.projo.com/business/content/bz_rhode_island_internet_speeds_07-06-07_NF6765T.2677fa3.html</ref>.

==Notable Rhode Islanders==

*[[Nathanael Greene]]
*[[Esek Hopkins]]
*[[Oliver Hazard Perry]]
*[[Samuel Slater]]
*[[Gilbert Stuart]]
*[[Roger Williams]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{USstates}}
[[Category:US state]]

Religious Society of Friends

2007-10-23T15:27:32Z

Colest: /* Famous Quakers */

The '''Religious Society of Friends,''' colloquially '''Quakers,''' is a religious denomination founded by [[George Fox]] in the 1650s. There are approximately 300,000 Quakers today worldwide.

George Fox described himself as [[Christian]] and so do many, but not necessarily all Quakers.

Quakers believe in direct ''revelation'', often referred to as the ''inner light'' or, in Fox's words, "that of God in everyone." Traditional Quaker meetings take place mostly in silence, with individual members standing up to speak when they believe they are moved to do so by God. [[Margaret Fell]] wrote that Fox had said
:the Scriptures were the Prophet's words, and [[Christ]]'s and the Apostle's words, and what, as they spoke, they enjoyed and possessed, and had it from the Lord and said, then what had any to do with the Scriptures, but as they came to the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]], which gave them forth. You will say, Christ says this, and the Apostles say this but what can thou say? Are thou a child of Light, and have walked in the Light, and that thou speaks, is it inwardly from God?

Quakers are traditionally [[pacifist]]s, the Society of Friends being, along with the [[Mennonites]] and the [[Plymouth Brethren]] one of the historic peace churches.

Historically, Quakers were a [[nonconformist]] body. In the early twentieth century, many Quakers began to drop traditional Quaker folkways such as plain Quaker dress ("Quaker grey") and "plain speech" (particularly the use of "thee" and "thou") and replace them with modern interpretations such as not "dressing up" to attend meeting for worship.

A series of divisions has resulted in Quakers being organized into four branches. The Friends General Conference is theologically liberal, sometimes seeking truths from non-Christian sources. They practice “unprogrammed” worship: meetings are conducted in silence, without clergy. Friends United Meeting is more avowedly Christian. They generally practice “programmed” worship: meetings are guided by clergy, with or without a silent component. Evangelical Friends International also practice programmed worship. They are similar to other evangelical Christians in their beliefs, although they generally do not observe the sacraments of communion or baptism. Conservative Friends are theologically conservative and Christ-centered, acknowledging the authority of Scripture. They practice unprogrammed worship, and many also practice traditional plain dress and speech.

==Testimonies==

Quakers around the world hold a wide range of theological views, but value what are called Testimonies. These are often taught using the acronym SPICE, standing for Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community, and Equality. Some friends also include other testimonies such as Compassion and Stewardship.

* The testimony of '''Simplicity''' concerns the adoption of an unostentatious life style and a restraint on conspicuous consumption. Quakers have been traditionally inclined to thrift and temperance, and unlikely to engage in gambling and financial speculation, though there have been very many successful businesses run by Quakers. Recently there has been a renewed emphasis on the dangers of smoking and the misuse of drugs.

* The '''Peace''' testimony is probably the best known. Friends usually refuse to support war as a means of settling disputes. Most oppose the arms trade, conscription, and the threat of nuclear war as a deterrent. They promote reconciliation, mediation and conflict resolution rather than revenge and retribution or the use of violence to achieve desired objectives.

* The testimony of '''Integrity''' requires strict honesty and truthfulness, mutual trust and fidelity in our relations with other people. Friends are greatly concerned about truth and integrity in public affairs. As part of this testimony, most Friends refuse to swear an oath, believing that their word should be equally truthful whether they are on oath or not. Friends normally affirm if required to give evidence in court. The testimony of Integrity also includes a testimony of Stewardship, which focuses on conservation of the environment as a concern for 'the integrity of creation'.

* The testimony of '''Community''', along with the testament of Equality means that Quakers have generally been at the forefront of penal reform and opposition to capital punishment, emphasising the need for rehabilitation rather than retribution. Community also includes Compassion, which includes the traditional Quaker concern for the relief of suffering due to famine, natural disasters and war. More recently concern for situations nearer at home have emerged, especially for homeless, disadvantaged or elderly people and those who are particularly vulnerable, such as political prisoners, those with AIDS and those who are addicted to drugs. Compassion for animals has led to opposition to factory farming and other forms of cruelty.

* The testimony of '''Equality''' emphasises social equality and the need to accept every person individually, and not to regard anyone only as a member of a class or category. Friends oppose discrimination or exploitation on the grounds of creed, race, sex, sexual orientation, mental or physical ability, age or social status. This testimony also seeks a fairer distribution of wealth, and equal opportunities for employment and education, and in housing and health services.

These testimonies stretch back to the roots of Quaker history, but the way they are adopted by Quakers is as individual as Quakers themselves, as can be seen in a footnote to the Letter from the Elders Gathered at Balby, 1656 which says:
''
"Dearly beloved Friends, these things we do not lay upon you as a rule or form to walk by, but that all, with the measure of the light which is pure and holy, maybe guided: and so in the light walking and abiding, these may be fulfilled in the Spirit, not from the letter, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."''

=="Let us then try what Love will do"==

[[William Penn]], founder of [[Pennsylvania]], was a well-known Quaker, who demonstrated Quaker principles in his dealings with the Indians. In 1693, in his "Fruits of Solitude" he wrote:

:"A good End cannot sanctifie evil Means; nor must we ever do Evil, that Good may come of it. ... It is as great Presumption to send our Passions upon God's Errands, as it is to palliate them with God's Name. ... We are too ready to retaliate, rather than forgive, or gain by Love and Information. And yet we could hurt no Man that we believe loves us. Let us then try what Love will do: For if Men did once see we Love them, we should soon find they would not harm us. Force may subdue, but Love gains: And he that forgives first, wins the Laurel."

==Peace Work==

The Religious Society of Friends has historically been respected by all sides as mediators, because of their commitment to peace. In 1947, the [[American Friends Service Committee]] was awarded the [[Nobel Peace Prize]]. Recently, the AFSC made a trip to [[Iran]], which followed a meeting in September 2006 in [[New York City]] with other faith leaders and [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]], President of Iran. At that meeting, President Ahmadinejad issued an invitation for the dialogue to continue in Tehran.

Accordingly a delegation from AFSC, together with the [[Mennonite]] Central Committee, became the first official U.S. delegation to meet with an Iranian president in [[Tehran]] in almost thirty years.

Mary Ellen McNish, General Secretary of the AFSC, commented of this visit:

<blockquote>'''At that meeting, I realized just how important it was for us to establish lines of communication, of dialogue, of respect. If we cannot talk with those who oppose us, how can we ever find opportunities for improved relations and pave the road to peace?'''</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Coming to the table does not mean that we agree on all or even fundamental issues. Dialogue is not a reward or validation of someone's position. It is a means to begin the process of reconciliation.'''</blockquote>

==Famous Quakers==

*[[William Penn]]

*[[Nathanael Greene]]

*[[Lucretia Mott]]

*[[Whittaker Chambers]]

*[[Richard Nixon]]

*[[John Brown]]

==External links==
*[http://www.pym.org/exhibit/p045.html Who are the Quakers?]

[[category:peace]]
[[category:religion]]

Nathanael Greene

2007-10-23T15:07:07Z

Colest:

Talk:Nathanael Greene

2007-10-23T15:02:41Z

Colest:

It's Nathanael, not Nathaniel. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:22, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
: One month later, still spelled wrong. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:02, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Nathanael Greene

2007-09-24T20:22:02Z

Colest: New page: It's Nathanael, not Nathaniel. --~~~~

It's Nathanael, not Nathaniel. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:22, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2007-07-20T21:18:28Z

Colest: /* Forrest Gump */

I'm just curious how $139m [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145487/business] can be considered "low-budget". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 15:41, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: $139M in production costs is pocket change these days, Hoji!

: I think Spider-Man is in the top 5, and maybe the top 2, in profitability. It's #7 in domestic revenue, having a much lower production cost than other top movies. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm... out of curiosity, I went and looked at the budgets of some recently-made major motion pictures. ''Transformers'' had a budget of $147m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/business]. ''Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix'' (which is a great movie, by the way) had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373889/business]. ''Ocean's Twelve'' had a budget of $110m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349903/business]. The latest Bond movie (''Casino Royale'') had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/business]. A movie I would consider "Low-budget" is something like ''Sicko'' (not to be partisan or anything), which had a budget of just $9m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/business], or ''Crash'' (which is easily the ''best'' movie I have ever seen), which had a budget of only $6.5m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375679/business]. I just find it a bit odd to call a budget of over $100m a "low-budget" movie. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:03, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==FarenHYPE==

This is about the "greatest" conservative movies, not a list of all conservative movies. I've never heard about that movie before seeing it on this list, and I would hate to think that Michael Moore can cause the production of anything great. As such, I'm removing the movie from this list. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:47, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

If you've never seen it, how can you make a judgment about how good it is? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with LiteratiChamp. The film is a response to Michael Moore's Farenhiet 911. One of the measures of a good (in my opinion) is staying power. Moore's film was a political piece that may have spoke to some people in the 2004 election year. Twenty years from now, even ten, it will be little more than a curiousity, and so will Farenhype. At best, they may be remembered as the pioneers of a new film genre, the political screed, but I hope not.--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Forrest Gump ==

National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring [[liberal]] Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:But it's a ''great'' movie. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:04, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:I won't pretend for a second that it's conservative, but it's one of my favorite movies of all time. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: I'm glad you liked it, Hoji, and I admit that I couldn't bear watching it to the end. It was a huge popular hit. But what I did see ''was'' very [[liberal]], almost like a liberal fantasy tale. So much sermonizing about civil rights by ... a white man???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:09, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::What do you think about Saving Private Ryan? I was going to add it to the list with the caption "The actions our military will take to save an imperiled comrade". Maybe without the word "comrade", since it's inherently un-conservative sounding.
::And as for Forrest... he's a retard! (proud of my un-PC statement!) --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: I didn't see Saving Private Ryan, but I suspect that is liberal also. The quotes and clips I saw from it had the trappings of liberalism: faithless with a kind of dumbed-down "that's all there is to life" approach. Woe is me and my brothers will be my salvation. "At death there's nothing more" is the message, expect (if you're lucky) some spirit of brotherhood.

::: Tom Hanks is a liberal, big time. Seeing the world through the atheistic eyes of a "retard", with sermonizing about civil rights, was a liberal distortion and fantasy. I'm sure we all know people of low IQs, and they don't think and act like Forrest Gump. For starters, often they have strong religious faith. As I recall from the first half, Gump's perspective was without any genuine expression of faith.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:34, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't like Tom Hanks. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::: You're right, Andy - most of the dense folk I know (mostly from school) would fit in perfectly with the norm here at CP. I would strongly suggest that you see SPR, though - if you can see past whatever trappings of liberalism there may be (though I may have just not have noticed them), it's a wonderfully epic war novel, brilliantly done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Save me the trouble, Hoji, by telling me how much [[faith]] is highlighted in the movie. Less than zero?

:::: Just as [[liberals]] don't understand mentally disabled people, [[liberals]] don't understand soldiers either. At least [[Kurt Vonnegut]] did, and he observed that there are no atheists in foxholes. I doubt Tom Hanks (who is about as far from a real soldier as you can find) understands that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: The KV bit is a misrepresentation and an example of quote mining. See the talk page of his article for why -- in short you're taking a quote from a ''character'' in a work of fiction, Slaughterhouse Five, out of context. His last novel "Time Quake," does contain some "Christian friendly" passages where Vonnegut indicates that he does not question the faith of individuals because it would be "impolite." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 11:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: Like ''any'' movie producer, liberal or conservative, can understand soldiers? That sounds like a fairy tale. And I would hate my movie viewing to be so... politicized, as yours is, Andy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Hoji, I'm not the one who politicized Hollywood. Movies convey messages, and those messages often have a political spin. It's fair to ask how much [[faith]] is highlighted in a movie about war. Given the [[liberals]] who did Saving Private Ryan, I would guess the answer is zero. Am I right? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I can't recall the characters name, but Barry Pepper plays an American sniper who frequently prays before and during combat. There are also chaplain's on the beach in the beginning of the movie praying with the wounded and dying. There might be other aspects, this is just what I recall off the top of my head. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 09:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::There are instances of faith in SPR, as noted by Colest above. I would also point out that family is also highlighted. First in the deaths of Pvt. Ryan's brothers and the emphasis on getting him out of harm's way. Hank's character talks about family and trying to remember home, and the GI's want to win the war so they can go home. I find it strange that one would say Hanks (or any other actor) is "as far from a real soldier as you can find." Of course they are. It is after all, called "acting." I really think only people with a military background understand soldiers or Marines. As for Hanks being liberal, so what? He is an actor, he goes by the script he is given. By the way, it seems the army was pleased with Hanks' portrayal of a Ranger [http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-29-hanks-ranger_x.htm], and the DOD honored Spielberg [http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/spielberg_update_811.html]. I should also point out that both Hanks and Spielberg contributed to the D-Day museum [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/154854.stm]. Not bad for a pair of liberals, eh? Of course, this thread has been very instructive. I learned that persons with "low IQs" tend to be religious. Why am I not surprised?--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Eddiec, let me guess, you're a liberal too. Gee, how could I tell? Maybe your mockery of the mentally disabled was the clincher. Liberals like to act smarter than others, with little justification for it.

:::::::::: Based on the discussion above, it appears that the Saving Private Ryan hero (Hanks) never conveys the --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)faith of the person he portrays. So my expectation was correct. [[Faith]] is relegated to a little window-dressing, something to give the movie an appearance of depth, but not fit for the hero himself.

:::::::::: Did Hanks and Spielberg, two liberals probably lacking in any experience with the military or genuine interest in it, convey the soldiers' true feelings and attitudes? Not in the clip I saw from the movie. Instead, they conveyed a mostly purposeless, atheistic view of war, with overemphasis on the casualties. It's a liberal message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I never said you politicized Hollywood, Andy. I said I would hate to have ''my'' viewing so politically inspired. I've seen most of the movies on that list, and loved them. Perhaps it's because I didn't actively search for political allegory, but tried to enjoy the message. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 11:02, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Hoji, I'm glad you liked the movies. But there's nothing wrong with examining their message. I love Haagen-Daz ice cream. But I didn't object when someone told me that it is twice as fatty as Breyer's ice cream. We welcome information about the content of the food we eat. Why the resistance to analyzing the content of the films we view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Purely by coincidence, I just noticed an [[FCC]] decision discussing how "Saving Private Ryan is filled with expletives and material arguably unsuitable for some audiences." 20 FCC Rcd 4507. That isn't why I objected to it, but I'm not surprised given the [[liberals]] who made the movie. It's a bit like learning that alcohol consumption is harmful to more than just one's liver. This is hardly a surprise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm quoting someone else here, adding my emphasis, but the words convey my thoughts better and more concisely than if I attempted to write it myself:
;"What is a conservative film?

Let’s start with what it isn’t. It’s not about men with bulging biceps and even bigger guns. It’s not cartoonish action heroes. It isn’t revenge tales masquerading as heroism.

Conservative cinema does more than entertain; movies that do no more are visual candy. It '''instructs and inspires.'''

Conservative films celebrate virtue. They tell timeless tales of individuals overcoming all manner of adversity to achieve true greatness. They’re about honesty, loyalty, courage and patriotism. They’re concerned with conservatism’s cardinal values – '''faith, family and freedom.'''" [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20714]

While its easy enough to decide what a conservative movie ''should'' be, it is far more difficult to find a movie that meets these requirements, particularly in the last 20 years: big budgets = dumbing down to mass market appeal. I would probably add to the list "Cinderella Man", [http://www.filmsite.org/schi.html "Schindler's List"], [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979892,00.html "Shadowlands"], "A Bridge Too Far", "12 Angry Men", "The Robe" and "Henry V" (Olivier ''or'' Branagh) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 05:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting, Fox. Thanks. But I would question your selection at the end. "12 Angry Men", for example, is one of my all-time favorite movies, but I would not call it conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::For me, "12 Angry Men" met the criteria of being "instructive" - in the nature of men and their motivations, and it was also "inspirational" in that it showed that through reasoned debate and persistence, the right outcome could be achieved. For the other qualities in the definition I posted, it does portray "honesty" - even when that is only the acceptance of one's own faults and failings: although we never learn of Fonda's faults, the eleven others all have to face, and admit, their failings. "Loyalty" is demonstrated when, having changed their decisions, the majority attempt to dissuade them, quite aggressively, even attempting to turn them against each other, but they rally to Fonda's central flag and support each other. "Courage", particularly for the first couple of dissenters, in the face of the hostility from the rest of the jury, to stand by their convictions. "Patriotism" because of the sense of "duty" and the promotion of the idea that acting as public servants in that way should be considered an honorable and serious business. Just my 2 cents :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:47, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen both versions of "[[12 Angry men]]". What I liked about them both (especially the [[Henry Fonda]] version was the relentless pursuit of principle by the holdout juror. He exalts the legal principle of "[[innocent until proven guilty]]" and provides a concrete example of what "[[reasonable doubt]]" means.

:::If you are ever accused falsely of a crime, you'll wish for a jury composed of men like the Henry Fonda character. But the real question is whether protection of "rights" is essentially a conservative value. in the case of suspected terrorists, I would say not. Liberals are far more concerned with a few cases of [[coercive interrogation]] by the CIA or "frat pranks" by poorly trained National Guardswomen. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I've only seen the 1957 Lumet/Fonda movie, although I'd like to see the '97 Jack Lemmon version, purely for comparison. It looks to have some very good character-actors; although I think that many of the earlier versions of modern remakes are superior simply by virtue of the technological limitations of the day forcing better directing, acting and cinematography. Incidentally, I just noticed that the 1942 book "The Robe" is now on [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks04/0400561h.html Project Gutenberg]; I haven't read it, so I shall be doing that this weekend while most everyone else reads the new Harry Potter :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Sen. Tom Coburn objected to Schindler's List for content, incidentally, which is on our list. He was attacked vociferously for doing so, and ended up retracting his statement. It is a fairly graphic R rated movie. My question is, how much are we considering that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Not suprising, since it was directed by the same liberal monster who directed Saving Private Ryan. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:42, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your silly sarcasm aside, [[liberals]] do have a love for airing profanity, and in objecting even to its removal from general broadcast. Spielberg seemed to enjoy inserting dirty words into unexpected places in children's movies, such as E.T. Saving Private Ryan was filled with one four-letter-word after another. Maybe you can explain that obsession better than I can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: In the case of SPR, I think he was using realistic language that soldiers use. The same goes for the violence of the movie, he wasn't trying to pull any punches and shield the audience from the grotesque realities of a war zone. I don't think that constitutes an obsession. I was actually shocked by the decision (I can't recall the network) to air it uncensored, and would hope that responsible parents would not allow their children to have watched it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:18, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2007-07-20T20:42:27Z

Colest: /* Forrest Gump */

Rachael Ray

2007-07-20T14:27:22Z

Colest:

'''Rachael Domenica Ray''' (born August 25, 1968 in Cape Cod, [[Massachusetts]]) is a TV [[chef]] and [[author]] who currently hosts the syndicated series ''Rachael Ray''. She started her career hosting ''$40 a Day'', ''Inside Dish'', and ''30 Minute Meals'' on the [[Food Network]].

==Further Readings==
*[http://www.rachaelray.com Rachael Ray's personal site]
*[http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/rachael_ray/0,1974,FOOD_9928,00.html Rachael Ray's Food Network biography]
*[http://community.livejournal.com/rachael_ray_sux/ Rachael Ray sucks community]
[[category:authors]]
[[category:broadcasters]]

Talk:Stephen Colbert

2007-07-20T14:16:32Z

Colest: Deceit?

Stephen Colbert's name has a French pronunciation -- that's not very American. I say this article should be removed.--[[User:Jesus_H_Christ|Jesus_H_Christ]] 23:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jesus H. Christ, Les Francais sont tres bon![[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Any reason why the part about the Correspondents' Dinner was removed? Also the statement about Colbert's intention with the Wikipedia vandalizing is speculative at best and should probably be removed.--[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's a link to the Correspondents' Dinner speech on Google Video: [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879&q=colbert+white+house Colbert Roasts President Bush - 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner]

The Sunday school teacher remark needs a cite--I know it's true, but it really should be cited. Here's a good website, I'd edit if I could. (http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/13/ask-tv-squad-stephen-colbert-teaches-sundayschool/) Also, the Correspondent's dinner should be added. As much as I hate what he did, it is our duty to tell the truth on this site. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Why would you hate what he did? He's the greatest American ever! Stephen Colbert is a champion of truth and justice. Come on, he got Captain America's shield!!--[[User:Dialecticftw|Dialecticftw]] 06:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Truthiness ==

Instead of "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," shouldn't Conservapedia's slogan be "The Encyclopedia of Trustiness"? It just feels right.

:hmm, Or maybe, ''Conservapedia: your daily recommended allowance of '''truthiness'''''?[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

::'''''Conservapedia: The Truthy Encyclopedia''''' Notice that to make this, we remove the letters STWOR - an acronym for WORST [[User:Human|Human]] 02:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== "right wing" removed? ==

Without explanation, his act was reduced to "extreme commentator". He plays an extreme ''right wing'' commentator, specifically. That's the whole point of the show. Can anyone explain, please? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:He plays what in his view and others is a "right-wing" commentator; but that does not mean the so-called right-wing fits those stereotypes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::OK, I'll buy that. Can the article say that? It would sort of be a double-parody - explaining that he does not, in the view of those he think she is parodying, accurately portray their positions? How about "[he plays] an extreme left wing stereotype of an extreme right wing commentator"? Pretty fair and balanced, and accurate in that it mentions that his "extreme" parody or attempt at it is politically charged. It's up to you, I have no axe to grind here. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Give it a try. Sounds like it couild be humourous. Nothing wrong with that to make the point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like a fair compromise, given that Colbert specifically refuses to share his personal political beliefs. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:Personally, Colbert is a democrat; he's said it several times, at speeches at colleges and what not. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:57, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't care what he is, it just has to be disclaimed properly. We can't have any bigotry here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey RobS, I just realized I can't "give it a try" - the page is locked. Can we try this sentence:

"He plays the role of an extreme left wing stereotype of an extreme right wing commentator." I forget if you're a sysop, but obviously Hoji is. By the way Hoji, nice addition with the ursaphobia. I do think that articles on lighter subjects can have a lighter tone, even using the tone of their subjects, carefully (cf some [[Monty Python]] pages).

By the way, yes, he's a Democrat, Catholic, and Sunday School teacher. I don't know if you guys have ever seen him rip scripture (you gotta call it that if you've seen it) on people, but it's amazing. He's got that "Catholic School" recitation at full speed with full articulation thing deep in him.

And, to his minor credit (on this site), if a liberal screws up in an interview, he <s>rips them a new one</s> tears them apart like a hungry eagle, and leaves them gasping for air. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:13, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I added that sentence above, and that he is a Catholic. If it stays unlocked I'll be on the eye for vandalism, but I don't check in until after noon most days. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==

Maybe I have a bit of a dirty mind, but I really don't think this is the best picture. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:23, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

::There probably are better pictures. I know he has a lot of good ones with his arms folded across his chest giving a serious look. Perhaps one of those.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:26, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

*Hey! I liked it! Back off! :p (most were copyrighted) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== Misspelling ==

In the last sentence ("Wikipedia responded by reverting and locking down the pages to pervent further editing"), the word ''prevent'' is spelled ''pervent'' and I cannot correct it.

Who wrote this?!

[[User:Fairn|Fairn]]
:See the page's history to see who wrote it, but I've fixed the spelling error, thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deceit? ==

So how exactly is Wikipedia locking articles to prevent vandalism an example of their deceit? Isn't that what you do here, including this article? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2007-07-20T13:39:34Z

Colest: /* Forrest Gump */

All Things Considered

2007-07-19T13:17:13Z

Colest:

'''All Things Considered''', is one of the Nation's most popular radio talk shows; it airs every weekday for two hours on [[National Public Radio]]. All Things Considered comes true to its name and covers every thing from [[Science]] to [[Politics]]. The show is hosted by Michele Norris, Robert Siegal, and Melissa Block.

[[Category: Media]]

User talk:DanH

2007-07-17T15:03:20Z

Colest: Chess

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

== unicode ==

Do you know how to use unicode to avoid the spam filter? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:30, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*I am sure you read all that on that other wiki. Check with them. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal? ==
So I'm a "vandal" am I? Clean out your ears, knucklehead, because I'm about to tell you something about real vandals. The real Vandals were a race of pagan barbarian murderers and thieves who swept across Europe killing anyone who got in the way of their "fun." Know who does that sound like? Not me, certainly. Maybe it sounds like those stupid teenagers you cater to on this site, who just want to "get high" and play their little murder simulators, no matter what it's doing to their family, their culture, or their country.

When I found this place, I thought it was finally the venue(look it up if you don't know what it means) for truth about dangerous parts of popular culture like Dungeons and Dragons and violent video games. You try to insert some truth into the articles over on Wacopedia, and you get shot down by mindless liberals chanting their little mantras "It's just a game," "You're a close minded fanatic," and "Get a life." I've got a life, junior, and it's a lot better than yours because I go OUTSIDE once and a while. But this was supposed to be where people can showcase a conservative(read: realistic) viewpoint on this filth. And when I come back, what do I find? Some scrawny little coward had deleted all my work and called me a "vandal."

YOU are the real vandals, peddling this smut to young children who come here to escape from the cesspit that is Wacopedia. Their loving parents see all the conservative trappings here and say, "Oh, this must be safe," but most probably never take the time to actualy read the idiotic and subversive lies you present as truth. Let's take a look, shall we?

The article on video games has pages full of nice, harmless sounding fluff, but how much information does it have on the scientificly proven pyschological effects they have on people who become violent and obsessed from playing them? A SINGLE line at the very bottom of the page about Grand Theft Auto, which everyone has already heard about and a comment from some pixelante about how we shouldn't "judge" video games based on what "a couple crazy kids did." That's the same tired rhetoric used by hippies who want their pot legalized. "Hey, man, a couple of people kill each other over drugs. But, like, the ends(brainwashed teenagers having "fun") justify the means(the death of the innocent" Here's an idea. Get out of your parent's basement and try actually living life, instead of rehearse taking the lives of those who are actually doing something worthwhile.

Your article on Dungeons and Dragons is also very telling. It's got three sections on how to play the game, and I counted at least six different places where criticism is deflected, and that's without reading the section on the "Magic System" (I don't worship the devil, and I'm not planning on casting any magic spells anytime soon, so why on earth would I read a section about how to do so?). I wander how parents would feel if they found out your website had occult knowledge right out in the open? But, hey, I suppose "If it feels good, do it." And if anybody trys to stop us, we can just plug our fingers in our ears and concentrate on something that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like how your article on Hitler calls him evil. Well, duh!. A bunch of book burners is what you are, heeping all the truth about anything wrong that isn't one of your pet causes onto the bonfire with your morals and common decency.

My page on "anime," as these perverted freak call it, was mangled. Your little slant eyed toadie, Ed Poor Morals, only had the courage to put a little note at the end about how well this sick "art" blends into porn.(Of course, some little brain fried deliquent has already subtely changed even that, so it sounds much less disgusting than it really is.) I can only thank God that you left enough of my message in that parents will be able to see the link to porn, and stop their kids from becoming ignorant sociopaths, kinda like most of the people on this site.

And finally let's look at your little advertisement for online games(your page on Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games, in case you don't know). I clicked on a few, then went back and got rid of the links to protect children from smut. I even put a note saying that they weren't family friendly. And what did one of you little cowards do? Put them back and said "I hope he's not right about them not being family friendly." Here's a novel ideal, why don't you actually CHECK? Then you could see all the violence, New Age idealogy, and practical nudity in these "family friendly" websites. But you won't do that. I'm on to you. You've probably got a little side deal with the game companies. You give them free advertising with a spin that makes it seem like their product is harmless, and you get some money for the advertising.

That just makes me sick. These children come to you for the facts without the bias and lies most media shoves down their throats. And what do you do? Line them up and march them right into the hands of the gaming companies that don't care if people get hurt or if society is degraded, as long as they can make a buck. Most gaming companies are Japanese, did you know that? Or where you too distracted by counting your shiny silver coins to actually research what you were doing? Sure, but who cares right. Aren't the Japanese Buddhist? So they believe in love and peace, right? Islam is the FASTEST GROWING religion in the world. You're kidding yourself if you think none of the Japs have converted so they could get their 72 virgins. Even a search on the internet will show you thousands of site about people who have stolen, killed themselves or others, and wasted their lives on twisted "entertainment." How many repeats of Columbine will it take before you wake up and do your part to stop this insanity?

But, I suppose this will fall on deaf ears. After all, George Washington said "Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." But you don't really understand what you're selling. Will you still mock me when it one of YOUR friends or loved ones who gets gunned down by some pale, greasy gamer who's driving down the street thinking the people he's shooting aren't real, or kidnapped so some lunatic in a black robe can sacrifice them to his Dungeons and Dragons gods(who are really demons) so he can get a better result for his latest spell? Will you still think that it's all just "harmless fun" and that you don't need to warn people about a very real danger to themselves and their families then? You can do the right thing. You can stop censoring people who come here to expose the truth. You could save a life by stopping some innocent little boy from growing up to be a deranged killer.

I'm probably wasting my time though. You've probably already thrown away your mind, drooling over the latest murder simulator with all the biggest looking swords and "coolest" spells. People who try to spread the truth are always harrassed and mocked, but good always wins in the end. Hopefully, enough people will read this and do a little research on these subjects. Then they'll try to clear up the lies and misconceptions you have all over this place. They'll get censored and thrown out of course. But soon, enough people will see through these blatant advertisments for this smut and try to correct it you'll be doing nothing but trying to stem the tide of light into the tangle of biased nonsense you're using to shield your spineless business partners, who have to use tactics like this because they're to cowardly to come out in the open and defend their dangerous product. And do you know why? Because they can't. I know it, they know it, and, deep down, you know it too.

I'll be praying that somehow you find it in your heart(or at least the part that hasn't been destroyed by the dehumanizing messages these things send) to help spread the truth.

(P.S. Oh, and I'm not Jack Chick. Contrary to what you might believe, there is more than one person in this country with that name.)

: This post wins the internet. Anyways, if I were to guess, it's this guy. [http://www.jackthompson.org/] --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 22:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::This might be the funniest thing I have ever read [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

*He seemed "normal" to me on other issues. But then I have no idea what sparked his post, or anything else.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:33, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just to nitpick, at the time the Vandals attacked the Roman empire and took over North Africa, they were Arian Christian, not pagan.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 12:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== reminder ==

does the word [[Hannibal]] mean anything to you? heh heh heh[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I'll have to get that tomorrow morning; I'm going out of town for three days. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Uh-oh... ==

looks like we have a Jack Thompson impersonator trying to take you out, Dan. Or worse yet, Jack himself... I shudder at the mere thought. Be vigiliant, don't bend, we will defend you, Dan. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:02, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::There's only one way to tell... [[Jack Thompson|*Creates Article*]].--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:07, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::*ROFL!! Yeah, like he's something to fear, Thompson! You guys kill me sometimes, giving him the reaction he wants, lol. Good idea, Elamdri! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Dunno about you, Terry, but an opportunity to take on Thompson ''mano y mano'' is something I would relish. I hope the article I'm about to write about him attracts his wrath.--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::NOOO, you blocked him! How am I gonna have any fun now?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Let's play with this guy - he deserves it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::I somewhat doubt he's Jack Thompson, he even denied it. But still, wouldn't it be something if we got the real Jack Thompson to come sniffing around?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:18, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::As of today, that's my new goal. We know he'll find us sooner or later (he gave Wikipedia quite a headache), so let's school him quickly and get it over with. Let's move this discussion to the sysop page, agreed? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:21, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, AIM! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Congratulations Div. Chess Champ! ==

Go Dan! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:50, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

==Ranger Bill==
Sorry, I didn't do that!! My little sister (didn't ask me or anything) just put it up using my user name. Sorry that it happened.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 15:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dan, evolution article ==

Dear Dan,

My sister stated to me that the [[theory of evolution]] article was a very good article but she said, "What about the man-ape fossils?". So I added the [[paleoanthropology]] section which a leading creationist organization is going to publish at their website. I also noticed that [[Wikipedia]] did the social effects of the theory of evolution in their [[evolution]] article so I added that very briefly. I also noticed that a HUGE issue was left out and that was biological information, biological code, and genetic programs so I added a brief section.

As far as today, Andy added some material that I thought needed better footnoting and wording so that is what I was doing today.

I do think the end result was worth it. Out of 112 million articles on Google for the Theory of evolution ours is ranked #34.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

== Chess ==

Congratulations on winning. Not bad for a Jayhawk. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Which is better: science or religion?

2007-07-16T21:03:28Z

Colest:

{{debate}}

Science is better, because it gave us the Internet, etc.

Religion is better, because it gave us values (and [[Salvation]]), etc.

:I would go so far as to say that neither one of these two is "better" than the other. While these two things certainly collide on a number of issues, they are largely unrelated concepts.
:Religion exists (this is my perspective, not cited fact!!) to impart value, morality, meaning, guidance, direction, etc. to the lives of its followers. '''Edit:''' for many people, Religion is the only thing standing between themselves and debilitating feelings of dispair, uncertainty, uselessness, or the one thing that offers them the mental fortitute to resist vice, addiction, or crime. As such, its importance must certainly not be understated.
:Science, in it's most common definition, is not associated with such things. Rather, science's purpose is to help us as humans to learn more about the world in which we live, and benefit from that improved understanding by using it to improve the quality of our lives. (whether or not science and progress actually make our lives happier is another debate topic altogether) - [[User:Simple|Simple]] 13:27 (GMT -5) 3 July 2007

:: I agree with you, I don't think you can declare one better than the other. In my mind, I think both should compliment each other. I think the pursuit of some scientists to somehow disprove religion is foolish, and I feel the same about people of faith stating science must be wrong because it's not written in the Bible. It seems to me that both should seek to find common ground. I think science is a tool for better understanding the world we live in (ie the mechanisms of God). I see too often the debate of Creation vs. Evolution, and I always think to myself, doesn't this miss the point? How the earth came into being seems a lot less important to me than the overall messages of love and salvation. And on the same note, shouldn't science be more concerned with answering questions than attempting to disprove other peoples value systems? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:40, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:::The positive aspects of religion you have identified (if they are real - I have doubts about this) I would attribute to spirituality rather than religion. Religion is basically telling other people what to think, often for personal gain. Science, on the other hand, is the name given to our collective efforts to understand the world around us, and is clearly far more important. I say this because it actually develops and allows things to be achieved, while religion has changed little for many years. However, there is definitely no need to choose between the two, so I'm not sure what the point of the question is. Colest, I really can't think of an example of science trying to 'disprove' other people's value systems - maybe in rare cases this is a side effect of answering questions?[[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:34, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

::::I suppose I should have phrased that differently. I do not fault science in trying to disprove religion, I do not believe that is what it’s intent is. I am commenting on the fact that people will take a scientific theory (evolution) and attempt to extrapolate from that that 1) God does not exist, and 2) therefore it negates your entire belief system. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:03, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DanH

2007-07-13T02:52:21Z

Colest: /* Vandal? */

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

==Vandalism==

Dan,

Thanks for all your help dealing with this latest vandal. Rather than deleting all the pages he creates, I have been replacing them with content or redirecting them, and then protecting them. Eventually, we can hope he will run out of inventive names for Satan! ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 16:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[deletedpage]] ==

when pages need to be deleted and protected, just protect it and replace the content with <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[deletedpage]]</nowiki>. that way it doesn't show up on searches. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 12:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Please take a look at this edit ==

You might want to have a look at this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&diff=160970&oldid=160909 edit], and the associated photo that was uploaded to make the edit possible. I've already left a message with the user responsible for the photo and edit, but am not sure if it is revertable. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Allegation of Racism==

I fail to see how my comments on Sikhs are racist. Islam and Sikhism do not describe races they describe religion. Both are wrong in my opinion are to be condemed

== Thank you indeed ==

It has been an honor. Thank you indeed.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Deceit Entry ==

Dan, please accept my apologies on the Ward Churchill edit to the [[deceit]] entry. I was confused about who he is. Feel free to reinsert something, with support like this: [http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3841949,00.html]
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
No need to apologize. I just figured that this instance was not quite conducive to the direct you had intended for this article. I'll re-add it a little later this evening. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hovind ==

May I ask why you removed "controversial". Given that many other YECs also have issues with him, calling him controversial seems fair. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 12:59, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I've come under attack for my edits on this article (there was even a call for me to be blocked from the site, though it's not on any CP talk pages) and I was trying to "balance" the article somehow. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:02, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== notice ==

please read this: [[New Sysops Training Page]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hello! ==

First of all, thanks for the greeting. This project is very interessting. I'm trying to build up a counter-Wikipedia in german language. The situation of the german Wikipedia is really dire. If you are dissapoited by the english language Wikipeda, take a closer look at the german one. There are not liberals (left) dominating, there are partly well known left-wing extremists (communists, socialists) serving as administrators. It's bad. --[[User:Deutscher|Deutscher]] 16:43, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Trashbat ==
Dan - I've no idea if Trashbat is blocked or otherwise in disgrace but the crude sexual reference you removed from [[Leeds]] was not posted by him but by Tony Drago. FYI. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:44, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
: I stand corrected. Well spotted. Tony Drago must have been a sock. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:49, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

*I don't see Dan online, however I did see: ''10:13, 20 May 2007 DanH blocked "Trashbat" with an expiry time of infinite ("dogging" reference to Leeds)'' So the two users being blocked are different instances. The other user's block isn't infinte. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:TK The "dogging" reference was put in twice but I only noticed the second edit which was done by Tony Drago. I thought that Trashbat was being unfairly blocked instead of Tony Drago but Dan pointed out that Trashbat had made the orginal edit a lot earlier, so it was fair after all. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:20, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Siege mentality ==

Thanks for moving that. I was trying to do it myself with a name change and redirect but being a sysop has its advantages I guess. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Contaception]] ==

Dan, can you move this to its proper title with an '''R''' in it. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Orthohombic]] ==

OK here's another one with a missing '''R''' - it should be orthorhombic. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:38, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== think i made a mistake ==

Got your message. I unblocked him I think before i got your message. Please make sure I did the unblocking right as i am not too techie here. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==
I notice that some sysops protect images. Do you want me to do that to?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 15:16, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Article Creations==
Your welcome Dan. I enjoy contributing to this site. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 22:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== ! ==
I wanted to undo the Joshua article! Your to fast.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for your kind welcome. I am glad to be here. I hope I can make a positive contribution. --[[User:ErnstR|ErnstR]] 00:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for protecting Joshua. Recently I have become more aware of the responsibility that we have to avoid efforts at sensationalism or inappropriate edits. I found one of our articles in an internet search engine, the first one I have seen. It was listed under atheism. There, proudly, is the link to conservapedia. What is the first line of text in the search engine for all to see what conservapedia says? George Bush states that he doesn't believe atheists should be U.S. citizens... This is what is presented as conservapedia? When we allow through junk, we sully the reputation of the site... Thanks again... [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:25, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks! (sorry not to have anything different from the above 2) ==

It's good to be back! Oh, and check out my shiny new hellenised sig!--[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''ύικι ντερπρετηρ''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Tiny typo==

Hi, hope you don't mind but I am really really picky about punctuation. I'm not proud of the fact, I just can't help it! In the Bible article, in the King James section, second paragraph, second sentence, it says "it's vocabulary", which should be "its vocabulary". "It's" is only ever a contraction of "It is". I wouldn't say anything but I just know there are people like me out there who will see that mistake, roll their eyes, and jump to conclusions (unfairly) about the quality of the article. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 19:09, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

* And then I went and wrote "tint typo" as the description. That's justice. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 19:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
==Chrono Trigger==
This was a well known video game in the mid 90s. It is definetly noteworthy. Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia both have articles on it.

== Answers in Creation ==

So do I get brownie points for creating this one Dan? ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

You definitely do from me, but probably not from the majority of the sysops. LOL just kidding [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi Dan, I'm trying for sysop now to join you 'elect' guys. I know you've put a 'good job' on my page before so I thought I'd ask what you think of my overall contribution to conservapedia. If you're pleased with my work, I hope you'll drop by and add some comments. Thanks ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:25, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Weimar republic ==

Why did you remove the stub? It is more than appropriate for this article. [[User:Order]]

== Protection ==

Hi Dan,

We may be at the point where it would be wise to protect Satan (again) and Hell. I know Satan was opened again to merge in Luficer, but that's been taken care of. Thanks! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lions Den ==

Dan with a name like yours was it wise to enter the Lion's Den? :-) [[User:DollarsAndSense|DollarsAndSense]] 16:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cumbernauld ==

DanH I see you reverted my reversion of this entry. Channel 4, is an incredibly controversial channel in the UK often broadcating sensationalist programs. It's main output is a program called Big Brother where members of the public are locked in a house together in order to be voted out by the public. Even this is fixed as the most sensational members are reinstated to boost viewing figures. It has featured coed type nude jacuzzi scenes and even live sexual acts. It also gave a prime-time slot to Richard Dawkins to attack religious belief. I would not take seriously any reference to programming from this source. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 17:58, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:Follow the link - [http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/D/demolition/worst2.html] Or would you prefer a BBC link? Try [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4362410.stm] I have no idea why you have suddenly appeared to defend reversion of my corrections of previous deliberately inserted inaccuracies and falsehoods, but I stand by my edits and the links above refute your opinion. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:02, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::Your BBC link actually refers to a protest by the local council against this slur. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 18:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::: A ''slur'' that has seen the town 3 times voted a "carbuncle" etc. Regardless of the news source, the national opinions remain the same. Attacking the edit by claiming it is a liberalist, pornographers' conspiracy is just peurile. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:09, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::If your are going to engage in ''ad hominem'' attacks and name calling then I will not continue this discussion. It is not appropriate language for Conservapedia. [[User:Dafydd|Dafydd]] 18:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::The word "peurile" is directed at the action, not the person. And did you forget which sock you were supposed to be using? I thought you were [[User:Alban]]...? Sock-puppetry is also a peurile action. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you for your support Dafydd but as a native Scot I think I know what I'm talking about. Cumbernauld is not a monstrous carbuncle and deserves better than being derided by a sensationalist sassenach TV station. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 18:18, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oops! Got the correct puppet on now XD [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Oh yes, very funny. Accuse me of socking. Just because someone else objects to your abusive language. If you want to continue this discussion further then I suggest you move it to one of our talk pages rather than cluttering up a sysops page. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 18:32, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Please refer back to [[User talk:Dafydd|your other talk page]] to see confirmation that you were busted via IP address. Nice try. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:37, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thanks Dan. I appreciate your support. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 23:29, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==Why was my edit reverted?==

What's wrong? I'm trying to improve the baraminology article by explaining what the types of people under the Human Holobaramin are. It's what's in the Bible. [[User:BillJones|BillJones]] 02:02, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

The Mongoloid entry was totally racist. For one. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:26, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

==Your granny==

I mean, your grammar: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Skylab&curid=28032&diff=186334&oldid=186289] Nice fix! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:30, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. My Grandmother would expect nothing less. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:31, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== South Africa ==

Dan, there's a lot on this site I disagree with. So be it. But I am glad to see that people here find all those racist bits on South Africa as loathsome as I do. Thanks for nuking all those entries by a guy who seems to be longing for the days of Pik Botha. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 23:15, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Hey, how about an unblock of the SA article? There's more to write. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:42, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

==Capitals==

Thanks for the info. I did search under several titles for US Capitals, etc. but no pages came up. Should I ask a sysop to delete my page, or is that unnecessary? [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 15:20, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

I think your page looks good, and better than the other one. Maybe if all the links got fixed that would be best. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:23, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

== blocking ==

Hey how can you find the IP for the user, I dont think I have the checkuser button. lol Sorry I might sound dumb.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 16:19, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I sent the instructions to you through Conservapedia email. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:21, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::I heard about the email and no one told me how to acess it!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 16:44, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

How to access your email? It should just be sent to whatever email you signed up to the site with. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:45, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::O thanks. Um Tk told me you also get a email through conservapedia. So I got that confused.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 16:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

That may be what he meant. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, it was. Will, if your email is enabled here, users can email you, CP will forward it to your regular email account. If you reply to them via your email client, they will also have your email. If you respond to them via the CP "email this user" deal, they will not. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:05, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Should I block Brainslug? Brainslug created Zimbardo Cookie Experiment and has had a 2 hour block in his past. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth~]]

Yes. If he wants back, he can email you and plead his case. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

How was your paper on [[Putin]]? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:17, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:well done. He is not a good guy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:57, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Andorra ==
On the matter of [[Andorra]], look at who the edits before me were made by; [[So Alone]] who was blocked for being a sock of this one guy. Do you think his edits are trustworthy? [[User:UnderCurrent|UnderCurrent]] 16:35, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for pointing that out! Definitely not trustworthy. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:38, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

:P.S. Where would one find a compendium on user boxes around here? [[User:UnderCurrent|UnderCurrent]] 16:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Userboxes [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:56, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

Hello, I was looking at the user creation log and I noticed this:

15:08, 12 June 2007 HolographicMedia (Talk | contribs | block) created account for User:OpticalEthernet (Talk | contribs | block)

What happened, and is this allowed? Can users create accounts for others like this?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:56, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure how that works, but I think that without an explanation given, it generally isn't allowed. I know that HolographicMedia was blocked earlier today. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:58, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

== you missed ==
I think you missed [[User:MartyFillmore]]. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:43, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

Hello, Dan. I see you protected an [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Balkans.png image] I uploaded. Did you, by any chance, look at the talk page? The image is a modified version of a Wikipedia image, and I wasn't sure if it was acceptable. Thanks! [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 00:31, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== War Elephants ==

Hell ya it is!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:25, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I bet its true [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:48, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Request for assistence in writing Article. ==

I have noted that two rather influential Supreme Court Justices have not managed to receive articles about them, namely, Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas. However previous attempts at writing articles have ended in deletion as the result of perhaps a bit too overt a bias, I have the [[William Orville Douglas| beginnings of an article]] but am not remotely certain as to how I should proceed from here without repeating past mistakes. If at all possible could you review the beginnings of the page and lend me some of your wisdom?
Thanks-N. i. V.[[User:Nullius in Verba|Nullius in Verba]] 08:40, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

*Don't bother, Dan. I rather think old Nullius will have a problem with soiled robes, and won't be able to participate. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==[[Freedom]]==
Dan, have you seen the Freedom entry? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Freedom&action=history] This article probably needs some serious treatment. Any idea who we can recruit to work on it? Thanks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:32, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'll ask Karajou. Thanks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:37, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::It's on my list, boys. This should have been emailed, to keep from crossing up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

==script?==
do we italicize book titles? Thanks!--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple HI!]''' 15:01, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

I have before, at least. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:02, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Where was my signature dishonestly used? I'd like to see. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 17:50, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I looked through the history and couldn't really find anything that looked like vandalism (except for that crap by Humorless). Could you perhaps direct me to the diff? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 15:22, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==FF Vandal==
Is there something we can do? TK was helping me but he signed off AIM.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:03, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

We can lock the database for a few seconds if it doesn't let up. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think thats going to deter him. TK has done it three times now.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:07, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Who goes to bed at 11?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:18, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Kids. [[User:Niandra|Niandra]] [[User talk:Niandra|talk]] 00:19, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

When I was a kid, I wasn't allowed online past 11. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:18, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::When I was a kid we didn't have internet...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:20, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Liar! That was me! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:59, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Ok, lemme rephrase, when I was a kid we couldn't AFFORD the internet.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:01, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Hi There! ==

I hear that you're against Wikipedia. Me too. They accused me for '''Disruption, Single purpose account created for AFD purposes'''. I like you and your site.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 15:38, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Back ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHojimachong&diff=205937&oldid=205934 thanks]! My final marks for the year were five "A"s and one "B". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:41, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thank you for the welcome ==

As a disgruntled former Wikipedian, I appreciate it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:34, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Keepp fighting ==

Ya will do but I am going away until next monday which would be july 2.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:11, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

==WoW article==

We had a guy copy and paste a bunch of junk to the article from wikipedia, but I accidentally edited it before I caught it. Is it possible to rollback to BethanyS's edit, or does it have to be done manually?

I got it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:06, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

==Samoza regime==
What a joke. It never takes long for bleedingheartliberal's to respond after upsetting their plans. Thanks. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Somoza_regime&action=history]

==Philistines==
LoL - I would have picked it up when I rewrite it later, honest :P - need to watch "Heroes" first though, back in a blink [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:44, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== Your question ==

Because I think many people may search that word.

== Dissidents ==

Not much of an article unless it gives some examples, no? [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 18:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
At least my version didn't editorialise, but provided a list I was hoping to expand [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 18:07, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== VANDAL ==

Someone is being a busy boy - shut him down [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 18:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Wiki Research==
Thanks for your help. [[User:Sutton4019|Sutton4019]] 10:02, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== Hello Dan ==

Hi Dan, as someone who is not a conservative, I'm seeking your view for recent changes made at John the Baptist. I am concerned with the direction taken and the actions taken to force a change to stand that I believe is inappropriate. Could you please add your input? Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:54, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==
I appreciate the unblocking. It just came to my attention. Do you have any idea how it came to happen? I had never done any edits here when I was blocked.--[[User:Neiljohnson|Neiljohnson]] 15:09, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Funny Coincidence==
Ha,ha! I was in the process of blocking ihatefags when you did it! --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:45, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::What happened earlier? It looked frightening. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 01:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

It's a really long story. Email me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:12, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 01:13, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== I left some funny messages...... ==

For our dear friends on their talk pages. I know you will enjoy! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:52, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==Mountain Dew==

To the most stimulating (and highly caffeinated) sysop I know, welcome back! Yo da man! Woo woo! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== narniaexpert ==

Ok sorry about all the troll before. I was trying to see if I could hack it unlike wikipedia. Good job anyway. Well WHY DO YOU KEEP BLOCKING ME!!! I gave up trying to see if I could hack you guys. I was making up for it by contributing to the site I hand wrote an article about Linkin Park and was working on beefing up the Walt Disney page and what do you do DELETE ME! If your going to delete me then atleast leave up my hard work on the Linkin Park page. I'm really sorry about the troll just please let me get back and add some more articles to increse the site's slim number of music/tech articles.

BTW if you look up troll in the dictionary it is defined as repedidly posting offensive content repedtively onto websites. I don't consider Disneyland very offensive lol ;-P anyway sorry for the troll but could you please let me finish putting up some Apple related pages.

*Cobblenet, if your contribs are legit, you are welcome here. Just spare us any vanalism, and keep to the editors rules...and I'll let you live tonight, and Dan can decide tomorrow, okay? That fair? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:02, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

*Ok but what are the editors rules exactly. I was actualy talking about my real account Narniaexpert [[User_talk:narniaexpert|/Narniaexpert]] not my sock puppet

== Can you help ==

I am trying to add a universal infobox template to US presidents but cannot access the following
#Richard Nixon
#Ronald Wilson Reagan
#George H. W. Bush
#George W. Bush
Could you either unlock them for me for a short period to make the additions, or add the info on my behalf. Thanks [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:52, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

==Team contest==

I would like to have you on my team in our new [[Conservapedia:Team contest|team contest]]. Please let me know if you are able to compete. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 16:30, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== John54 ==

The name, the time without doing nothing, are the same profile of vandals. We can see if he is not, waiting for a mail asking unblocking. This procedure has become necessary as we are under fire. The instructions are "it is better to make a mistake than to allow vandals". But you may unblock him if you consider it proper. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:30, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==Hello!==

How are you, Dan? --[[User:Samian|Samian]]

I'm good and yourself? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:07, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

== Arguments for God ==

Um, not trying to be difficult, but what was the reason for your revert? [[User:MikeK|Mike K]] 21:29, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==Dan is mean==

Hey dan, whats up with you blocking people for no reason. Shouldn't people be able to be here peacefully without breaking any of the rules? what's your deal?

What was your other name? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:06, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

*Pssst, don't tell him! Like you said, he's "mean". Tell me. :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:12, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==
Thanks a lot for the help yesterday! --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 08:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

== question ==

How do you take something out of our spam filter and how do you put something back in? I am having problems editing the homosexuality article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== unicode ==

Do you know how to use unicode to avoid the spam filter? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:30, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal? ==
So I'm a "vandal" am I? Clean out your ears, knucklehead, because I'm about to tell you something about real vandals. The real Vandals were a race of pagan barbarian murderers and thieves who swept across Europe killing anyone who got in the way of their "fun." Know who does that sound like? Not me, certainly. Maybe it sounds like those stupid teenagers you cater to on this site, who just want to "get high" and play their little murder simulators, no matter what it's doing to their family, their culture, or their country.

When I found this place, I thought it was finally the venue(look it up if you don't know what it means) for truth about dangerous parts of popular culture like Dungeons and Dragons and violent video games. You try to insert some truth into the articles over on Wacopedia, and you get shot down by mindless liberals chanting their little mantras "It's just a game," "You're a close minded fanatic," and "Get a life." I've got a life, junior, and it's a lot better than yours because I go OUTSIDE once and a while. But this was supposed to be where people can showcase a conservative(read: realistic) viewpoint on this filth. And when I come back, what do I find? Some scrawny little coward had deleted all my work and called me a "vandal."

YOU are the real vandals, peddling this smut to young children who come here to escape from the cesspit that is Wacopedia. Their loving parents see all the conservative trappings here and say, "Oh, this must be safe," but most probably never take the time to actualy read the idiotic and subversive lies you present as truth. Let's take a look, shall we?

The article on video games has pages full of nice, harmless sounding fluff, but how much information does it have on the scientificly proven pyschological effects they have on people who become violent and obsessed from playing them? A SINGLE line at the very bottom of the page about Grand Theft Auto, which everyone has already heard about and a comment from some pixelante about how we shouldn't "judge" video games based on what "a couple crazy kids did." That's the same tired rhetoric used by hippies who want their pot legalized. "Hey, man, a couple of people kill each other over drugs. But, like, the ends(brainwashed teenagers having "fun") justify the means(the death of the innocent" Here's an idea. Get out of your parent's basement and try actually living life, instead of rehearse taking the lives of those who are actually doing something worthwhile.

Your article on Dungeons and Dragons is also very telling. It's got three sections on how to play the game, and I counted at least six different places where criticism is deflected, and that's without reading the section on the "Magic System" (I don't worship the devil, and I'm not planning on casting any magic spells anytime soon, so why on earth would I read a section about how to do so?). I wander how parents would feel if they found out your website had occult knowledge right out in the open? But, hey, I suppose "If it feels good, do it." And if anybody trys to stop us, we can just plug our fingers in our ears and concentrate on something that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like how your article on Hitler calls him evil. Well, duh!. A bunch of book burners is what you are, heeping all the truth about anything wrong that isn't one of your pet causes onto the bonfire with your morals and common decency.

My page on "anime," as these perverted freak call it, was mangled. Your little slant eyed toadie, Ed Poor Morals, only had the courage to put a little note at the end about how well this sick "art" blends into porn.(Of course, some little brain fried deliquent has already subtely changed even that, so it sounds much less disgusting than it really is.) I can only thank God that you left enough of my message in that parents will be able to see the link to porn, and stop their kids from becoming ignorant sociopaths, kinda like most of the people on this site.

And finally let's look at your little advertisement for online games(your page on Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games, in case you don't know). I clicked on a few, then went back and got rid of the links to protect children from smut. I even put a note saying that they weren't family friendly. And what did one of you little cowards do? Put them back and said "I hope he's not right about them not being family friendly." Here's a novel ideal, why don't you actually CHECK? Then you could see all the violence, New Age idealogy, and practical nudity in these "family friendly" websites. But you won't do that. I'm on to you. You've probably got a little side deal with the game companies. You give them free advertising with a spin that makes it seem like their product is harmless, and you get some money for the advertising.

That just makes me sick. These children come to you for the facts without the bias and lies most media shoves down their throats. And what do you do? Line them up and march them right into the hands of the gaming companies that don't care if people get hurt or if society is degraded, as long as they can make a buck. Most gaming companies are Japanese, did you know that? Or where you too distracted by counting your shiny silver coins to actually research what you were doing? Sure, but who cares right. Aren't the Japanese Buddhist? So they believe in love and peace, right? Islam is the FASTEST GROWING religion in the world. You're kidding yourself if you think none of the Japs have converted so they could get their 72 virgins. Even a search on the internet will show you thousands of site about people who have stolen, killed themselves or others, and wasted their lives on twisted "entertainment." How many repeats of Columbine will it take before you wake up and do your part to stop this insanity?

But, I suppose this will fall on deaf ears. After all, George Washington said "Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." But you don't really understand what you're selling. Will you still mock me when it one of YOUR friends or loved ones who gets gunned down by some pale, greasy gamer who's driving down the street thinking the people he's shooting aren't real, or kidnapped so some lunatic in a black robe can sacrifice them to his Dungeons and Dragons gods(who are really demons) so he can get a better result for his latest spell? Will you still think that it's all just "harmless fun" and that you don't need to warn people about a very real danger to themselves and their families then? You can do the right thing. You can stop censoring people who come here to expose the truth. You could save a life by stopping some innocent little boy from growing up to be a deranged killer.

I'm probably wasting my time though. You've probably already thrown away your mind, drooling over the latest murder simulator with all the biggest looking swords and "coolest" spells. People who try to spread the truth are always harrassed and mocked, but good always wins in the end. Hopefully, enough people will read this and do a little research on these subjects. Then they'll try to clear up the lies and misconceptions you have all over this place. They'll get censored and thrown out of course. But soon, enough people will see through these blatant advertisments for this smut and try to correct it you'll be doing nothing but trying to stem the tide of light into the tangle of biased nonsense you're using to shield your spineless business partners, who have to use tactics like this because they're to cowardly to come out in the open and defend their dangerous product. And do you know why? Because they can't. I know it, they know it, and, deep down, you know it too.

I'll be praying that somehow you find it in your heart(or at least the part that hasn't been destroyed by the dehumanizing messages these things send) to help spread the truth.

(P.S. Oh, and I'm not Jack Chick. Contrary to what you might believe, there is more than one person in this country with that name.)

: This post wins the internet. Anyways, if I were to guess, it's this guy. [http://www.jackthompson.org/] --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 22:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Team contest

2007-07-12T20:41:05Z

Colest: /* ACE (baseball) and the contest */

=Scoring System=
I suggest including edits to [[Template:Newsline]], [[Template:AboutC]], and [[Template:Tfa]], since they help this site as well. Crocoite 09:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Excellent suggestion. Contributions to the front page are always very helpful. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 09:57, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for adding that Sharon. I also suggest adding points for Welcoming new users. Crocoite 10:33, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I have added welcoming new users to the scoring list for one point. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 07:24, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks Sharon. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 08:05, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Now we have a link from the Main Page to older news. We have only started retrieving the [[Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News|Previous Breaking News]] articles. I suggest adding a point to the scoring system to encourage other sysops to add to this valuable archive. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:26, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

At a quick glance, it seems like giving points for blocking is going to put teams with members that don't have blocking rights at a disadvantage. Plus, you also have a bit of dumb luck there too, depending on the quantity of vandals online when a particular sysop is online. Also consider, you are saying 5 blocks = 1 Quality New Article in point value. The time taken to write a quality article is much greater than the time it takes to block 5 people. Just my two cents. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:07, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: It is expected that all team members will have blocking rights. If they don't already have them when chosen to be on the team, then they will likely be given blocking rights for the contest. Note that a good block is valuable and draws upon skills, even if it doesn't take much time. Time is not the only consideration for rewarding points. So I don't see a reason to change that point scoring basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you for clarifying. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:54, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

''Does uploading a file have any points?'' (?) --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:59, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Quality ==

How will quality be measured? [[User:BritCon|BritCon]] 11:02, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: Judges will be picked after the teams are determined. Would you like to volunteer for possible selection as a judge?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::According to the [[Conservapedia:Team_contest|Rules]] ''A panel of judges shall be chosen from among the Sysops...''. As far as I am aware I am not a sysop. Are you making the rules up as you go along? How will the judges measure quality?
::[[User:BritCon|BritCon]] 11:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Oh, I see. You're right. No, I'm not making up the rules as we go along (note that the contest has not yet begun, by the way). Obviously the captains (I'm not one) will have to agree on the rules, rule changes, and any judges chosen. You might still volunteer to be a judge, but it seems less likely you'd be chosen unless you become a Sysop (a process open to all, by the way).

::: The judges will evaluate quality, not me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:26, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Scoring system ==

I suggest that the points awarded to a new entry be decreased from 6 to 5, and the points awarded to a quality edit of an existing entry be increased from 4 to 5. It seems to me they should be rewarded equally, as they are equally valuable.

Also, a quality contribution to the front page is worth more than 2 points (and takes longer also). How about 3 or 4 points for that? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:Your suggestions are excellent. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 22:37, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::I would like to see at least a vague definition of "quality new article", so we can know what we are aiming for. Also, if the description merits it, more points should be awarded to quality new articles, and less for blocking/categorizing. Also, perhaps giving points for blocks is a bad idea - it would give an incentive to block users who may be new or inexperienced, and don't mean any harm. This works directly against our goal of attracting new editors. My $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:46, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, you'd make an excellent judge.

::: Better you, would like to organize a public school team to take on the winner of this contest??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:43, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I would revel in such a... marvelous opportunity, if I can find out who on CP is educated by the public school system. Also, I do not think I would like to judge, as I am still waiting for a response from Conservative, re his spot on Team 1 (he expressed disinterest). Thanks, --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:45, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::::On second thought, I would be glad to be a judge, provided it does not interfere with the plans being made. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:50, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I heartily endorse Hoji as a judge!!! You'd be fantastic. As soon as Joaquin and Sharon become aware of this and approve, I'll add you Hoji to the judges' confidential namespace. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:59, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Excellent! Hoji has my full support as a judge. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 13:00, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Hoji is fine for us. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:14, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Judges' pages ==

Andy, should't the judges have their own confidential page?

Also: the judges will need access at least to a roster of each team in order to tally points or to evaluate each team's point claims.

Last of all: I propose that the team gets its two points for a block, ''so long as the judges determine that any reasonable and prudent non-competitor would have acted similarly.'' Anyone can have a block reversed, but still have good and sufficient cause to apply the block at the time. But I wouldn't want to encourage even the appearance of someone blocking without cause merely to earn points.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:44, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

: Great points, TerryH. The judges (and I hope you've agreed to be one) will have discretion to add or subtract points as prudent, just as a referee has some discretion in sporting events.

: I'll set up a namespace for the judges now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Record pages ==

I've given two contestants a notification that their record pages should be located at "User:JohnDoe/Contest" (with "JohnDoe" being the user's name), for the sake of simplicity. The only other logical thing I could think of is "Conservapedia:Team contest/JohnDoe". Input? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:19, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

: It think a common page makes more sense for each team, so that players can easily see the contributions of teammates. That's what I'm going to set up for team2 at [[Team2:Record]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::[[Team2:Record]] cannot be seen by the judges, correct? And several users have already set up user:.../contest pages to record their submissions. Wouldn't it be best to stick with user:.../contest, but to transclude (i.e. like a template) those individual pages into [[Team2:Record]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Variable scoring? ==

I realise that I'm a bit late to bring this suggestion, but instead of having the following:
* Quality new entry: 10 points
* Any new entry: 6 points
We should have:
* New entry: 6 to 10 points.
(And similar for editing existing entries)

The point being that some "new entries" might be very minimal, while others might be much better, but still not enough to qualify for "Quality new entry". I believe that the judges should have the discretion to allot points anywhere between 6 and 10 depending on the quality.

If we don't do this, it raises another (minor) problem. If a competitor creates a new entry that is more than just a very minimal one, do they list it as a "new entry" or a "quality new entry". If they list it as the latter, and the judges deem it to not be so, what happens then? I guess they can reallocate it to "new entry", but if they are going to be deciding which it is, then there's little point in us competitors trying to decide which it is (quality or otherwise).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:I'm just afraid by the time the judges get down to determine if an edit is a quality edit or just a generic edit, it might get awfully tedious looking at 14 different users everyday; they may not have much time for anything else. That's why I suggested an honor system, where the contestant nominates certain of his/her edits for higher credit. It might save some time. Also, a judge could upgrade a generic edit or entry to quality if he was impressed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Apology ==

Just wanted to apologize for my absence from CP for the past week or so... I was out of state for the week without internet access. And I'm really mad I missed the joining of the teams. Is there any way I can still join one and help? Thanks! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 13:47, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

: You're on team1 now, DeborahB.! See [[Team1:Players]] for your own team info. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==Moving goalposts==
Why are the scoring rules being redefined/defined ''now'', '''after''' the contest has already started?? Sorry, but I just don't follow anymore. This is creating more grief than its worth I think, especially with having to break down our own edit histories, decide what qualifies as what, create new articles, all while fending off the constant flow of vandals and trolls and watching RCs to revert their contribs too. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 15:08, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
:We're not ''redefining'' any rules, but we are ''clarifying'' them as various considerations become apparent that weren't apparent before. And remember, your blocking actions do your team credit, too. -- Judge [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::Clarifying? They were fairly straight forward before, now the "clarification" has effectively redefined them. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 15:17, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Hmm. If Fox is on team2, then I think he has a point. However, if he is on team1, then he should be ejected from the contest and all of his points should be given to team2! (specifically to me) [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:19, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::::*Don't get angry Fox, this was just a joke [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:29, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::: You just wish you had him on your team ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:33, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== [[ACE (baseball)]] and the contest ==

Is [[ACE (baseball)|this]] a result of this contest? It's essentially useless. It has one sentence of inane content, a completely unrelated picture, some unrelated external links, and then an obviously cut-and-pasted list of external links to glossaries, four of which don't mention this term. The title is malformed (nobody types "ace" in all-caps), even the single-sentence is highly debatable, I've heard the term used to apply to any good starting pitcher, not just a team's best (which may not actually be very good).

I just see a lot of mass creation of what I can only charitably describe as entires of questionable quality and it seems to be part of this contest.

By the way, I made a point of not looking at the article history. I don't know who made it, and I don't want to know. I'm just afraid that the admirable goal of helping the encyclopedia has sort of been lost in the rush to [http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=117723 rack up raw numbers]. (E2's experiences in this regard may be enlightening, although it has a very, very different mission.) [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 10:20, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::Fix it if you don't Like it :P And as for the quality of entries, you obviously don't remember wikipedia when it first started. It was a mess of cruddy one liners (and it still has a whole shed load of crappy one liners, except they justify them by tagging "stub"...); over the years, some were deleted, some were expanded, some were merged into more cohesive units. What is it with all the critics here who expect every entry to be a graduate-level thesis on the subject? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:28, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Heh, {{tl|sofixit}}, then, huh? ;D

Well, the problem is that I can't fix it. It's misnamed, and the article is useless. There's also almost nothing to say on the subject that doesn't belong in, say, [[pitching]]. Its origin comes from the use in common English of "ace" to mean "the best." Its use in baseball is exactly congruous to its use in English.

Wikipedia dealt with this problem with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT What Wikipedia is not], which attempted to narrow things to encyclopedia articles. (A full history on this obviously requires more space than this really needs.) Everything2, which admittedly has very different goals from this project, dealt with this problem by automatically adding public domain content outside the individual-user reward scheme.

I don't have a problem with short articles other people can fix. (These are a Good Thing.) Indiscriminate, contentless articles nobody can really fix aren't so hot. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 10:43, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:Currently, not only is the article useless, but even if I could think of something worth adding, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ace_%28baseball%29&diff=228496&oldid=228495 the page is protected]. I can't quite figure out what from. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 12:57, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

::I looked at the history to see who created it, and I'd like to say that it wasn't done by one of the contestants, but instead I'll point out that you don't (yet) know how the contest judges will score it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:38, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Right, I don't. I was hoping bringing it to the judges' attention would help make sure this sort of thing doesn't get scored. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 10:43, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Uh, actually, it '''was''' created (and protected) by a contestant (unless your "I'd like to say that it wasn't done by one of the contestants" meant to imply "...but that would be incorrect"). Unless Team One suddenly fired its own Captain... ;) Also, the article has as many references as it has words (not counting the "Ace:" part). Plus four external links. I think this is a case of trying to insert more links and refs to boost the score. I honestly can't think of another reasonable explanation why a one-sentence(-fragment) stub article has nine outgoing links, five of which are supposed to be references. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:29, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

[[Forfeited Game|That's not the only one]]. Does Conservapedia have an AFD? Or {{tl|db-empty}}? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 12:19, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:[[Home Plate|Not]] the [[Foul Ball|only one]] by a [[Ground Rule Double|long]] shot, [[Ground Ball|wouldn't]] you [[Foul Territory|say?]] ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:33, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:: But think of the points being racked up! Let alone the, um, value added to the encyclopedia. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:41, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Martin Luther

2007-07-12T18:26:54Z

Colest:

{{Christianity}}
'''Martin Luther''' (November 10, 1483 - February 18,1546) was the leader of the German [[Reformation]].

In 1505, Martin Luther was a law student caught outside in the middle of a thunderstorm. A bolt of [[lightning]] struck the ground near him. Terrified, he cried out to St. Anne for protection and promised to become a [[monk]] if he survived the storm. He did survive, and then left law school to join an Augustinian monastery.

At the monastery, Martin Luther felt plagued by the [[devil]] and realized how corrupt the [[Catholic church]] was. He began to form his own opinions.

Martin Luther founded Protestantism in Europe on October 31, 1517, when he nailed [[the 95 Theses]] or issues to the door of his Wittenberg Church in what is now Germany. The source of Luther's complaint was a project to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, for which church officials were offering [[indulgences]] in exchange for donations. Martin Luther objected and list 95 complaints to spark public debate.

Here were two of Luther's most important Theses:

Thesis 82: ''Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.''

Thesis 86: ''Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?''

Pope Leo X spent his time on the beauty flourishing during the Renaissance, and was a patron of the great artist Raphael. Pope Leo X probably never recognized the significance of Martin Luther and his followers. Some historians feel that if the pope had responded more seriously, then the subsequent schism in Germany would not have occurred.

But German nobles did not like the flow of money to Rome, and they backed Martin Luther in order to cut off the donations by Germans to support Rome.

In 1520, Pope Leo X announced the papal bull Exsurge Domine, which required Luther to withdraw 41 of his 95 Theses or be excommunicated. Luther refused and was then excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

It was then up to [[German]] authorities to take any legal action against Luther. The 21-year-old Holy Roman Emperor Charles V ordered him to stand trial before an assembly (a "[[Diet]]") of estates of the Holy Roman Empire that met in Worms, a small town in what is now Germany. This famous assembly is therefore known as the "Diet of Worms." The verdict (the "Edict of Worms") was "guilty". Luther was declared an outlaw who should be arrested.

But Luther had already left the trial before the verdict was rendered. He hid at Wartburg Castle at Eisenach, where Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony, protected him. Luther took the pseudonym Junker Jorg (Nobleman George), grew a wide beard and dressed like a knight. While in hiding he translated the New Testament from Greek into German in 1522. (By 1534, Luther had translated all of the Old Testament from Hebrew to German also.)

Luther translated Romans 3:28 by adding an extra German word for "alone" (alleine or alleyn) after the phrase: "justified by faith": "So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, alleyn durch den Glauben." Luther believed that man is justified by faith alone, and that salvation comes only from faith. The Catholic Church (and [[Eastern Orthodox Church]]) taught that man is justified by faith, good works and confession to the Church authorities.

A remarkable invention awaited Luther's German translation of the [[Bible]]: in 1447 the German [[Johannes Gutenberg]] had already invented the movable-type printing press. This enabled Luther's translation to be printed for the public in September 1522. The Christian world would never be the same again. (The Gutenberg Bible, which put the Latin Vulgate in book format, had been printed in 1455 and it is the oldest existing book in the West.)

Charles V tried to stop the spread of Lutheranism. In 1544, Charles V sent armies against the German princes, but the Peace of Augsburg in 1555 gave each German ruler the right to choose the religion for his state. The princes in southern Germany selected Roman Catholicism, but the princes in northern Germany chose Lutheranism. After World War II, when Germany split into West and East Germany, the West German part contained the predominantly Roman Catholic regions and the East German part consisted of the mostly Lutheran regions.

Martin Luther continued to write, and taught at a German university for his financial support. He wrote extremely harsh things about the pope and about Jewish people, even urging the destruction of their homes and the burning of synagogues and schools. Historians debate today whether Luther's anti-Semitic writings were responsible, directly or indirectly, for the Holocaust by the Germans in World War II. Luther harshly criticized many peoples in addition to Jews; a pamphlet of his in 1545 was entitled "Against the Roman Papacy an Institution of the Devil," and he urged burning witches to death. Some of Luther’s writings seem quite vulgar by today's standards.

Lutheranism has only 70 million adherents today, which is only about 7% of the Catholic population. But nearly all Christians, even Catholics, have sung a famous hymn written by Luther: "A Mighty Fortress is Our God." Moreover, hundreds of millions of Christians worldwide agree with Luther that justification is by faith alone.

Luther passed away in February, 1546, having lived his latter years in poor health.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Luther, Martin}}
[[Category:Religious people]]

Protestant Reformation

2007-07-12T18:26:06Z

Colest:

{{Christianity}}

The '''Protestant Reformation''' was the 16th century movement which led to the [[Protestant]] churches separating from the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. It is usually said to have started when [[Martin Luther]] nailed his ''[[95 Theses]]'' to the door of a church in Wittenburg, [[Germany]].

===[[Reformation Terms]]===
*[[indulgences]]
*[[John Calvin]]
*[[Martin Luther]]
*[[Protestant]]
*[[Huguenots]]
*[[Church of England]]

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[category:European History]]

The 95 Theses

2007-07-12T18:23:48Z

Colest: cat

The ''Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences'' are a set of theses by [[Martin Luther]] that were posted on the door of the church in Wittenberg, [[Germany]] in 1517. They questioned the authority of the [[pope]] and the teachings of the [[Catholic Church]]. This event signified the beginning of the [[Protestant Reformation]].

An English translation of the theses follows:
----

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1.Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.

20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.

25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;

34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43.Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44.. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;

61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!

72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."

83. Again: -- "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

84. Again: -- "What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?"

85. Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?"

86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

87. Again: -- "What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"

88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"

89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?"

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

== External Link ==
*[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html/ Project Wittenberg]
[[Category:Christianity]]

The 95 Theses

2007-07-12T18:21:10Z

Colest:

Talk:World of Warcraft

2007-07-12T15:48:22Z

Colest: /* Recent Changes */

I think we are too dignified to have such lengthy articles about video games. I propose that we do not have any articles on video games at all. What say you? ---[[User:Be not dismayed|Be not dismayed]] XXI June 2007

:It's a pretty significant cultural phenomenon. I am about to apply my personal test. I am about to see whether it's been mentioned in ''The New York Times.'' If so, I think it's important. And if it's "fit to print," it's probably fit for an encyclopedia. Here goes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:46, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:A search on the exact phrase "World of Warcraft" ''plus'' "Blizzard" in ''The New York Times'' since 2000 turns up 26 hits. On a quick eyeballing, virtually all appear to be relevant and many of which are clear ''news'' articles ''about'' the game. Here are a few:

:*December 9, 2004: "Thousands of Opponents Await In a New Virtual Fantasy World"
:*February 10, 2005: "The Game Is a Hit, But the Work Isn't Done"
:*August 6, 2005: "Social Significance in Playing Online? You Betcha!" "Yet outside my romantic and family life, nothing this year has given me more satisfaction than helping my guild in World of Warcraft defeat Ragnaros for the first time early Tuesday morning. World of Warcraft has been the video game world's breakout phenomenon since its introduction last November, signing up more than 3.5 million paying subscribers worldwide...."
:*December 9, 2005:" Ogre to Slay? Outsource It To Chinese," about the "gold farming" phenomenon
:*May 11, 2006: "A Major Online Game Galaxy Gets a New Race of Characters"
:*September 5, 2006: "An Online Game, Made in America, Seizes the Globe"
:*January 17, 2007 "World of Warcraft Expands"

:Speaking as someone who has never played World of Warcraft or any other MMORPG, nor Dungeons & Dragons before it, the evidence would seem to suggest that "World of Warcraft" is a significant cultural phenomenon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:56, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:P. S. The Britannica does not have an article about World of Warcraft in the encyclopedia proper, but it does have an article in the 2007 Book of the Year on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9435326/The-Virtual-World-of-Online-Gaming The Virtual World of Online Gaming], and it opens "Virtual worlds generated billions of real dollars in 2006 as millions of players around the world fought, bought, crafted, and sold in a variety of online environments. The most populous, Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft, drew seven million subscribers (with more than five million in China alone)." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a mom, I think it is useful to have such articles, so that parents may get a Conservapedia view on things in which their kids may express interest. In addition, video games are a real business, creating real jobs - you can even major in game development in college. The article can be positive or negative, as the facts dictate - either way, it is useful information. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

If you want junior high and highschool kids to use Conservapedia, you better make it fun for them for where they are at in their lives. This is HUGE at their ages. What I don't understand is, why does the editing keep changing so much with adding information then deleting it? Is it being copied from wiki or something? No explanation is given. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: It looks like the last major revert before it was locked was probably because the article read like an advertisement. The problem with this article is that it has no direction. For example, I don't think we need to explain the factions, races, classes, etc. If people want to read about that they can just got to Blizzard's website or a fan site. I think if we're trying to be encyclopedic here, we need to just stick to what it is, and it's cultural impact. I've played the game since it was released, and I'd be glad to work on it if it were unlocked. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 23:30, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::Article overboard! '''Way''' overboard. This game is worth mentioning, just for its cultural importance, but... this is more of a condensed stratagy guide. Needs a good trim-down. - BornAgainBrit
:::It may be a bit overboard, but it has a huge following, especially among age groups that Andy is most gearing the use of Conservapedia for. It makes sense to give them the type of information that they want that will get them interested if it gets them to spend time looking at Conservapedia and using it as a resource. In other words in this one we may want to go beyond a dry encyclopedia article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:54, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: Right now it looks like we've removed most of the random terminology that one could easily gain off of the official website. It gives a concise description of what the basic premise of the game is, notes it's popularity, and brings up some criticisms of the game. What type of information beyond this do you think would be relevant? I'm happy to make whatever changes might be needed, but like I said before, we just need a good direction as to what type of information we're trying to relate here. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: I agree we need a general understanding, but looking at the edit history, the recent direction is not one that has been agreed upon and was not the reason the article was unlocked. It appears this game is being cut some slack in giving more information than is usually desired, but then it is in a unique position of having an immense following of dedicated players and curious onlookers and may be a way to attract more attention to Conservapedia from groups that otherwise wouldn't be drawn to using our website. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:29, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Article locked ==

I'd also be glad to share my WoW knoledge with the kind folk of Conservapedia... if this weren't locked. --[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:48, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:It was locked by [[user:Elamdri|Elamdri]], so you could ask him about unlocking it if you like. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've unlocked it for now. If it stays relatively good, I see no reason to leave it locked.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:25, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Recent Changes ==

I think it may be wise to engage in concensus discussion before making major changes. While I'm sure all changes are being made in good faith, it's going against the reasons the Sysop stated he unprotected the article. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Well, first off, he hasn't stated any reasons that I can see why he unprotected it, only because it was requested. "If it stays relatively good, I see no reason it should be protected" doesn't really offer any insight as to 1) what was wrong in the first place and 2) what he'd like to see out of the article. Furthermore, I would argue that while this is a popular video game, CP is not a website that is going to attract your curious video game enthusiast. They are more than likely going to seek out official video game websites, or perhaps a wiki specifically focused on the game (ie www.wowwiki.com). I believe providing a more concise explination of the game and cultural issues surrounding it is more appropriate for this encyclopedia. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:48, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:World of Warcraft

2007-07-12T15:02:13Z

Colest:

I think we are too dignified to have such lengthy articles about video games. I propose that we do not have any articles on video games at all. What say you? ---[[User:Be not dismayed|Be not dismayed]] XXI June 2007

:It's a pretty significant cultural phenomenon. I am about to apply my personal test. I am about to see whether it's been mentioned in ''The New York Times.'' If so, I think it's important. And if it's "fit to print," it's probably fit for an encyclopedia. Here goes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:46, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:A search on the exact phrase "World of Warcraft" ''plus'' "Blizzard" in ''The New York Times'' since 2000 turns up 26 hits. On a quick eyeballing, virtually all appear to be relevant and many of which are clear ''news'' articles ''about'' the game. Here are a few:

:*December 9, 2004: "Thousands of Opponents Await In a New Virtual Fantasy World"
:*February 10, 2005: "The Game Is a Hit, But the Work Isn't Done"
:*August 6, 2005: "Social Significance in Playing Online? You Betcha!" "Yet outside my romantic and family life, nothing this year has given me more satisfaction than helping my guild in World of Warcraft defeat Ragnaros for the first time early Tuesday morning. World of Warcraft has been the video game world's breakout phenomenon since its introduction last November, signing up more than 3.5 million paying subscribers worldwide...."
:*December 9, 2005:" Ogre to Slay? Outsource It To Chinese," about the "gold farming" phenomenon
:*May 11, 2006: "A Major Online Game Galaxy Gets a New Race of Characters"
:*September 5, 2006: "An Online Game, Made in America, Seizes the Globe"
:*January 17, 2007 "World of Warcraft Expands"

:Speaking as someone who has never played World of Warcraft or any other MMORPG, nor Dungeons & Dragons before it, the evidence would seem to suggest that "World of Warcraft" is a significant cultural phenomenon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:56, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:P. S. The Britannica does not have an article about World of Warcraft in the encyclopedia proper, but it does have an article in the 2007 Book of the Year on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9435326/The-Virtual-World-of-Online-Gaming The Virtual World of Online Gaming], and it opens "Virtual worlds generated billions of real dollars in 2006 as millions of players around the world fought, bought, crafted, and sold in a variety of online environments. The most populous, Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft, drew seven million subscribers (with more than five million in China alone)." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a mom, I think it is useful to have such articles, so that parents may get a Conservapedia view on things in which their kids may express interest. In addition, video games are a real business, creating real jobs - you can even major in game development in college. The article can be positive or negative, as the facts dictate - either way, it is useful information. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

If you want junior high and highschool kids to use Conservapedia, you better make it fun for them for where they are at in their lives. This is HUGE at their ages. What I don't understand is, why does the editing keep changing so much with adding information then deleting it? Is it being copied from wiki or something? No explanation is given. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: It looks like the last major revert before it was locked was probably because the article read like an advertisement. The problem with this article is that it has no direction. For example, I don't think we need to explain the factions, races, classes, etc. If people want to read about that they can just got to Blizzard's website or a fan site. I think if we're trying to be encyclopedic here, we need to just stick to what it is, and it's cultural impact. I've played the game since it was released, and I'd be glad to work on it if it were unlocked. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 23:30, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::Article overboard! '''Way''' overboard. This game is worth mentioning, just for its cultural importance, but... this is more of a condensed stratagy guide. Needs a good trim-down. - BornAgainBrit
:::It may be a bit overboard, but it has a huge following, especially among age groups that Andy is most gearing the use of Conservapedia for. It makes sense to give them the type of information that they want that will get them interested if it gets them to spend time looking at Conservapedia and using it as a resource. In other words in this one we may want to go beyond a dry encyclopedia article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:54, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: Right now it looks like we've removed most of the random terminology that one could easily gain off of the official website. It gives a concise description of what the basic premise of the game is, notes it's popularity, and brings up some criticisms of the game. What type of information beyond this do you think would be relevant? I'm happy to make whatever changes might be needed, but like I said before, we just need a good direction as to what type of information we're trying to relate here. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Article locked ==

I'd also be glad to share my WoW knoledge with the kind folk of Conservapedia... if this weren't locked. --[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:48, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:It was locked by [[user:Elamdri|Elamdri]], so you could ask him about unlocking it if you like. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've unlocked it for now. If it stays relatively good, I see no reason to leave it locked.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:25, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:List of American Wars

2007-07-11T15:52:46Z

Colest: New page: I'm confused as to the scope of this article. Is it meant to be a list of just wars? all american military conflicts/interventions? I can't figure out why things like Grenada(which was ...

I'm confused as to the scope of this article. Is it meant to be a list of just wars? all american military conflicts/interventions? I can't figure out why things like Grenada(which was a brief military intervention) are on here if we're dealing with wars. And on top of that I don't think the Cold War or the War on Terror really fit in, either, as they are more ideological conflicts than military conflicts. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:52, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Accelerate

2007-07-10T15:37:11Z

Colest: /* Historical statements without research */

== Historical statements without research ==

Many of the statements in this article are not obvious and are lacking historical research and statements. Is this something that could be handed in as an assignment? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 11:16, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

: Actually, it's a complete cut and paste job from the military website linked at the bottom. But, that is apparently what is being encouraged to do around here, especially with this "contest". --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:25, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, somewhere ''someone'' had to do the research. The military website may be the distilled information for many things, but it lacks the actual building and commission records that would be useful references. Well - thats the use of the fact tag - a reminder that people need to go back and hunt down the references some day. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 11:31, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, the taxpayers did the research! Anyways, this site just wants filler material and doesn't appear to be overly concerned by this. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

It is free material which is allowed to be copied. And Mtur, if you want links, '''''add them'''''. I need to be making other articles.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:27, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know where to begin looking for the commission records. I am adding links to what I find, though it is most disappointing to see the role models for Conservapedia adding material with no links in it - it sets a poor example for other users about how an article should be created and what should be in it. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 11:31, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

There is a reference at the bottom of the page. And watch it I can block you for offense. --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:33, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

: You might as well, you could score a whole point with that! --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Accelerate

2007-07-10T15:25:15Z

Colest: /* Historical statements without research */

User talk:Learn together

2007-07-03T18:02:56Z

Colest: French and Indian Wars

Hey there, Learn together. I noticed that you added a <nowiki>{{speedy</nowiki> template to [[Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia]]. I removed it, and as a courtesy, would like to let you know that nominating ''any'' article for deletion requires an explanation as to why you think it should be deleted (see Category:Speedy deletion candidates or [[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion]]), and an AFD template certainly would have been more appropriate. Tagging established articles in the "Essay:" namespace without justification is frowned upon. And by the way, thanks for your contributions to [[Roman Empire]]! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Note that [[Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia]] has the prefix "Essay:", noting that it is not an encyclopedia article, but rather an unofficial essay. And it was authorized as a response to [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] (yes, liberals are just as prolific as creationists here, and make most of the useful edits :P). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]}}

== Clinton Revert.... ==

I jumped in since Dan was headed to bed, and tried to answer some of your questions, here: [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DanH#Reverts]] --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes it does seem as if they are instantly checked! It had me puzzled for a bit as well. What happens is, many regular users have a window opened here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&hidemyself=1&limit=600]] to "Recent Changes" and refresh it periodically. Also, from your "Preferences" you can enable "Watch this Page" and set a limit even on how many. Then whatever page you edit, or manually choose to "watch" will show up in your Watch List. Since Dan had previously edited the Clinton page, it was on his, undoubtedly. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Good Job==

Thank you for your excellent edits. Keep up the good work! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus ==

Fantastic work on the Jesus Christ article! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Saint Andrew ==

Fine. It is done now.

I agree to do that. If I did redirect it was because "Ian St John 11:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)"
complain about [[Andrew]] and [[Philip]] along. I have the intention to make the six articles that are left to complete the 12 Apostles. Next time the name will be for example: "Bartholomew the Apostle".

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Highlighting Links ==

Hi

Thanks for your comment. I knew that and it's logic. For sure I agree with it.
Could be a mistake if there is one or two made by me.

Have you fixed them or do you want me to search?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Done. I hope to see you soon as a Sysop!!! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Atheism ==

Just wanted to be clear that I was agreeing with you. Not sure if you were responding to me or [[User_talk:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] when you wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism&diff=163608&oldid=163593 this]. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 14:59, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== My pleasure ==

It has been an honor. Thank you indeed.

== Edit summaries ==

I appreciate this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=170855&oldid=166181 edit], and concur. While I also neglect make edit summaries, I want to encourage you to make use of the edit summary box. This probably sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, but I assure you that I do endeavor to follow this advice, and I encourage you to do the same. It makes reviewing edit histories of articles easier. Thanks for contributing. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 01:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Compliment ==
Excellent work on the Rather article.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 12:58, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Global Warming, et.al. ==

You might want to consider this [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette]] when making larger changes to articles. Not that I am disagreeing with your additions to the "Warming" article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==
Could you improve my pathetic excuse-of-an-article on [[Justinian]]? It seems he is someone you would know much about.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 18:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sorry! ==

You got caught up in the removal of some other stuff! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:27, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with you==
The atheism article is better as you have it. The agnostic stat is not going to be included, and the citation is not needed.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
::Your quality contributions to this site and especially the history articles have earned you a place in the highly coveted and extremely prestigious "Bohdan's notable Users" category. Keep up the good work.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:07, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Atheism ==

What's the problem with my edit to the [[atheism]] page? --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 22:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*I beleive the edit notes tell you rather directly, what?

(cur) (last) 02:55, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (→Atheist Population - '''Stop confusing "uncertain" with "agnostic'''") 
(cur) (last) 02:53, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (move up "origins" section) >br>
(cur) (last) 02:52, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) ('''The term "atheism" also includes uncertainty about whether God exists or not, that is, people who never believe in God or actively deny His existence''') 

--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:01, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Most of those weren't my edits. --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see it as a tangent. "Atheist morality" is included in the page and morality is part of philosophy. In fact, I don't think you can talk about morality without being philosophical. As far as not including enough philosophers goes, I think the group I gave was pretty complete- at least as far as an Ethics101 class would go. You'll be hard pressed to find many Philosophers who base morality on religious doctrines in the last few hundred years- in fact, the entire spirit of the Enlightenment was against such thinking. Now we call those people "theologians." I'm sure there are some, but they have not had much impact. You mentioned C.S Lewis, but he is not considered a very good philosopher by anyone's standards (though "Studies in Words" was nice) and he did not put forward a rigerous study of ethics, besides "God in the Dock," which is fairly obscure. As such, I'd like to put it back. Of course, I'm new to this wiki and don't want to move in too aggressively to your space, so I thought I'd say something here. --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Don't be afraid to edit, but please realize the scope of conservapedia is to go beyond the 'ethics 101' class into meaningful and important people and viewpoints that are not represented. There were many more than a handful of philosophers in the last couple hundred years and simply removing those who invoked religion by reclassifying them as 'theologians' (as if one can't be both) is the type of slight of hand that conservapedia tries to avoid. And, I think you'll find that there are many people who take a different view on C.S. Lewis' philosophy than the one you presented. ;-) Reverts or alterations of edits are not personal attacks and please don't take personal offense. Enjoy your stay. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I read that and found it very discouraging and narrow minded. Does this wiki make an attempt at objectivity, or is it simply a conservative partisan answer to its liberal partisan counterparts? --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 03:03, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

:Again, theologians can be philosophers. I am sorry if that understanding is too 'narrow minded' for you. To answer your second questions, yes. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:25, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Answer ==
Your contibutions have been high quality. I would support you.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 13:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*I have answered you on my page, but I am afraid you are not on any list I can see.....:-( --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Solomon ==
Hi, I checked out your [[House of David]] article and followed the first link to [[Solomon]]. In your article it gives his lifespan as 970-931 BC, whereas in the Solomon article it says 965-925 BC. I am not sure which one is correct, but figured you'd be a good person to ask to look into it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Article for your attention please==
[[Four Emperors Era]] needs work and it seems like you would know about it. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 20:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:nice work LT [[User:Bohdan|bd]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:03, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::Glad you like it ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:04, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

correction made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:50, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

:Glad I could help [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:58, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

==Sorry!==

LOL!! I'm very sorry. I just happened to be browsing the Conservapedia wanted pages and decided to make that page. I had no idea you were already making it. That is the funniest coincidence. ''':P''' --[[User:BethanyS|BethanyS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 12:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Intuitive page naming==
Please try to be more intuitive when naming an article, particularly regarding people of Ancient Rome - just one of many examples is your choice of article name for '''Antonia''' ... your article is actually about [[Antonia Minor]], who also had a sister named Antonia, [[Antonia Major]]. Simply creating a page called Antonia, particularly with regard to Rome, is like creating an article called '''Bob''' or '''Smith''' and expecting ''your'' choice of subject to be the only one of any importance or significance historically or culturally. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:I believe you will find that there is much literature in antiquity for Antonia Minor and little for Antonia Major. I have sought to make the Roman history section friendly and easy for those wanting quick flowing information. In that regard I've created the articles that allow quick movement back and forth in a simple form to get a feel for the interconnectedness. If it would come to a point where more obscure persons in Roman history start having their own articles, and thus there is more than one Antonia, then the format can certainly be changed, but since you are talking literally thousands of entries with many thousand more events that would also have to be entered to start including auxillary Roman figures, it would appear to be a structure that has no body.

:I also find you method of change and do not discuss to be rather rude and inappropriate for a cooperative effort. I have discussed and been involved in renaming both for articles written by others and for articles I've written. It's usually not that difficult to discuss a new direction to go and both be on the same page working together. Again, I ask you to please consider that for the future. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:51, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

::You are missing the point! If you just created each article with the correct name at the outset, then it would not matter what happened afterwards, whether further articles were created or not. It doesn't make the section more easily navigated by having only half of a name and it increases the workload later of having to fix all the links to point to the correct name. Please consider ''that'' for the future. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 12:04, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I am afraid you are missing the point. This is a cooperative effort. I find you to believe that your view = the right view and all others must bend to your decisions. You are my peer, not my boss, and your views are views like any other person that should be discussed. I don't even treat my workers with the heavy handed methods that you use, and I am their boss.

:::If people come to look up things on Conservapedia you have to keep their attention quickly. Many are not going to be computer savvy and are not going to want to go through different screens picking who they want from lists imported from wikipedia of multiple entries that don't even exist on our system. We have one Antonia entry right now. It doesn't hurt to have that pop up. At least that was my view when I created it and I'm the one who spent the time to put it into Conservapedia and tie together a fluid interlocking of the people of ancient Rome at that time that allows easy look up. The key is to get ourselves up to the point where other edits will ultimately be necessary. That is my opinion. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:38, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

<strike>::::"I find you to believe that your view = the right view and all others must bend to your decisions." Hello Pot, meet Kettle. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 13:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)</strike>Okay, LT, I'll try to be more considerate when editing; yell me on my talk page if you spot me getting over-enthusiastic in any particular areas. Shalom :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you, and God's blessing to you as well. I'm sure this small distraction will not keep either of us from using our talents to continue to improve conservapedia ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:20, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

*Why are two of my favorite editors arguing? Can't we get along? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:02, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, B :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

*You guys thank Bohdan profusely! I saw this earlier, and decided I was going to check back, and if it was still going, decide the arugment my way! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:31, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

==Uribe Human Rights Abuses==
Ok, I will obtain several sources from mainstream media, I think the source I listed is fine but I will obtain more. Just because Uribe is conservative doesn't mean we should let him committ gross violations of human rights. Authoritarianism is wrong whether left or right. Terror doesn't have an ideology --[[User:FreedomandLiberty|FreedomandLiberty]] 11:05, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:It's not my call as to what is an acceptable source, but a sysop has already determined that your current source is inadequate, so putting it back after removal is not going to work. Please be considerate of the forum you are editing and its standards. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok we now have CNN, Amnesty International, and the NY Times. Or is that not mainstream enough. I'll see if Fox News puts out a story on Uribe. Maybe thats the only news network "mainstream" enough.

== Contact.... ==

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

Return to Main Page.

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Emailuser" --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:41, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

== Ralph Reed, et. al. ==

*You are making me concerned. Please don't make me concerned. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::I didn't understand what you were talking about until I read the edit. My edit, as I understood it, was only for links. I did not mean to put back ridiculous information. It appears I accidentally added the links to the previous version and not the most recent. Thank you for pointing it out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:52, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== courtesy notice ==

I liked your [[Praetorian guard]] article and I have found that your articles are well written at Conservapedia. Conservapedia is experimenting with uncited templates in order to help increase the useability of our articles as a reference resource. I put a uncited template on your [[Praetorian guard]] guard and as a courtesy I wanted to let you know. Thanks for all the fine work you have done at Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:07, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for the courtesy notice Conservative. I am pleased you liked the article and I'm pleased for your kind words towards the work I have been able to contribute. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:49, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thank you for being so gracious to my request and I have another request ==

Dear Learning together,

Thank you for your kind response to my previous request. I found another article that you had significantly contributed to and I was hoping you could squeeze in some time to cite this article: [[Marcus Aurelius]]. Again, thank you for all your contributions to Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you again for the kind words. Unfortunately, while I have sources, I also have accumulated knowledge over time which is a bit harder to put as a reference. I've put the main sources I'm using to augment that knowledge. I'm not sure what the bibliography format should be for books as I've checked other articles and found multiple forms. Please let me know if there is an agreed upon standard that I should emulate. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry to come in uninvited, but that had been a problem for me too. I think I just copied the format from a different article, and kept using it. Perhaps this is a question for Mr. Schlafly. If there isn't a standard for this, I think there should be. Congratulations on your over 1000 contributions. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::It is always good to hear from you my friend. You are a great benefit to Conservapedia and I am glad to see your work is well received by so many. Everywhere I look, you are keeping on top of things. Blessings always ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks for the compliment LT. Your work is greatly appreciated. Have a look here. This article seems like one for you to make: [[Amoz]]. perhaps you would want it? I could always try it if your too busy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I've expanded Amoz, although there wasn't much to put. The Bible doesn't say anything about him except as a title for Isaiah "son of Amoz". [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== John the Baptist ==

You reverted Jinka's edits on the John the Baptist article. I have undone your reversion and protected the article. Before the article is unprotected, we need to have a discussion on the article's talk page, and I believe it should start with your reply to Jinkas. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 11:03, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:The usual protocol when a revert is done is to keep the old version until a discussion in talk can create concensus. Your decision to revert and protect is questionable. The information stated as fact is Mormon doctrine and believed only by the Mormon Church. To state it as fact was and is inappropriate. I do not question your religious beliefs, but if articles are going to be changed to present your church's views as fact when they are not supported by a single other Christian denomination, then we will have problems. I have not noted you doing this in the past, and I hope this is merely a misunderstanding and will not be part of a new trend. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:27, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::"Historically, only until recently have Mormons wanted to be called Christians, preferring not to be included with Christian denominations which Joseph Smith said were, "all wrong...all there creeds were an abomination in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19)
:::In the past Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) have preferred to be called "saints." However, in the recent years the LDS church has spend millions in an intense public relations campaign aimed at moving their church into the mainstream of Christianity. The political and economic benefits of Mormons being included in the mainstream of Christianity are obvious. Further, for Mormons to be accepted as traditional Christians would greatly aid in their proselyting the members of Christian denominations into the LDS church. This is why the LDS church is trying so hard to present themselves as Christians and trying to overcome the stigma of being a cult." [http://www.bible-truth.org/arelds.htm]

:::"The god of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible. To the Mormons, Jesus, is the first born son of an exalted "man" who became the god of this world. According to LDS church teaching, their god was first a man who became a god. The man-god of Mormonism was then made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the Universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth. The Mormon god of this world was a man, like all men on earth. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they too shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression."

:::Note the following quote is from the Mormon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

:::"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is.""[http://www.bible-truth.org/arelds.htm]

:::I'm sorry, but Mormonism ''isn't'' Christianity, and editing Christian articles to present the Mormon doctrine is just plain wrong. Sorry, but thast's the way it is. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:35, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not going to question Crocoites deeply held religious beliefs or how he would define himself. But when a choice is made to push those beliefs to overlay mainstream Christian thought and act like it is a natural part of the Christian understanding, then I have a problem. I am pleased to have you as an ally in this Fox. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

*Can I express how truly disappointed I am in your actions? Here you need partners, colleagues, not an ally. To be in a leadership position here, or anywhere, one needs to rise above their personal beliefs, and build consensus. Shutting others out of that process builds distrust. Now you see where this has all gotten you, eh? The question now is, what will you be willing to do to repair the damage done to your reputations... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:29, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::I am sorry Terry, but I stand by my actions. The choice to lock the article by a sysop when there was no edit war in place and after himself reverting back to the questionable edit set this off. One common theme that came across from the talk section was that no one who commented believed the locked version was appropriate as written. If left to the natural editing process, myself and the original contributor would have come to an article that pretty much matches what is there now, and without the hassle. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:16, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

*So there was no need for your posting to Rob, et.al. was completely unnecessary, wasn't it? I wouldn't continue to stand by your inappropriate actions for too long. You know I have been supportive, as I have with Fox, but you both have severely tried me in your poor judgements in handling this. Way too divisive. Way too strident and alarmist. You always have the option with me, you know, to email or IM, otherwise my posts are public, but just as candid. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:40, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::That is correct; there was no need to post to anyone and it would not have occurred, until the article was improperly reverted and locked with an inappropriate edit in place. I tried talking to Crocoites; I got nowhere. I said I'd take it up to Andy; he said go ahead. Instead of going for the top, I decided to go to the sysop level, and my solicitations for extra input were done in good taste, not 'the sky is falling'. Let's not forget either that during the entire time Crocoites has never tried to defend his actions, only stated he is going to leave because he's personally hurt.

::As you know Terry, I am in a leadership position in the "real" world. We expect people to defend actions that they take, or else don't take them. In the case of a mistake, admit it, and move on. I've seen the "I'm hurt" argument in place of constructive explanation. It doesn't fly. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:29, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

*Since Crocoite is a Sysop, the next level would have been Andy. You can keep talking all you want about what you think is "right" according to how you think, how you believe, but my point here is what was right for CP. Now, I expect you to be repairing this. Perhaps a writing plan? I will wait to hear from you. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:03, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::If I didn't think it was right for CP Terry, I wouldn't have done it. Junior High kids coming to CP would have thought that was a natural part of John the Baptist. There was no indication that it had any difference in weight or belief from the earlier Biblical sections. I've found there is a higher tier of sysops based on their time, experience, and editing privileges. Even now my friend, you tell Bodhan, who is a sysop, that you have dibs on me for a project even after he asked me first. And you know what, none of us will question that because you are deferred to for your greater experience and time on CP. I don't know what you mean below about showing I can contribute for the greater good. I have over 1200 edits over a large spectrum of topics. Day by day even I'm not sure which directions I'll be taken. I'm not sure what part of the body of my work would not show the greater good in your sight. I'm a volunteer here contributing because I can help out, and I do. If there is some other way you feel I can be beneficial, then I'm happy to hear it, but this is your baby. You can always email me if you have specific things you wish to discuss. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==

I'm not sure how much information is available on these characters, but could you go through this list of Roman emperors here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Roman_Empire] and add what you can? I would try, but I'm not very good at my Roman history. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:20, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:I will be happy to help my friend. I'm afraid I've gotten behind on the things I've wanted to do. Finishing up the Emperors is on my list. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:36, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, perhaps, Bohdan, you could ask someone else, as I have prior dibs on Learn Together for a writing plan, etc. He will need to demonstate to me his ability to work for the greater good, rather than specific issues, before he can participate in what you want, my friend. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Contest ==

Could you be interested in being in the contest?

Could you join Team 1? [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Team_contest/Team_one Here]
Thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:31, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:I would be honored my friend. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, in my next turn you will be in. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:53, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Whoops, sorry, I didn't understand what was occurring and simply placed myself on your team. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
==Scotland==
I agree with your reasoning and have unlocked Scotland. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 17:21, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you, I appreciate it. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== turkey ==

That may not be an "official" reason, but it is most certainly a reason for protest. Can we put it back in? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:17, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:Look at it now and tell me if its better. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, I think that's much better ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== French and Indian Wars ==

Hey, I've done a basic cleanup on the two articles. I'm about to head out of town for the rest of the week, so I don't have time at the moment to do much more, so if you have the time and the inclination you might want to give them some attention. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 14:02, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

French and Indian Wars

2007-07-03T18:01:12Z

Colest: A start.

The '''French and Indian Wars''' refer to a series of four wars fought between [[Britain]] and [[France]] between 1689–1763 over the [[North America]]n colonies.

These wars were [[King William's War]], [[Queen Anne's War]], [[King George's War]], and the [[French and Indian War]] (known as the Seven Years' War in [[Europe]]).

==References==
http://www.bartleby.com/65/fr/FrenchNI.html

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:France]]
[[Category:England]]
[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:United States History]]

French and Indian War

2007-07-03T17:57:03Z

Colest:

The '''French and Indian War''', also known as the [[Seven Years War]], was a war fought between the [[British]] and the [[French]], from 1754 to 1763 in [[North America]]. [[Native Americans]] fought for both sides, although mainly on the side of the French. The British were victorious, removing French influence from the continent and acquiring the land east of the [[Mississippi River]]. [[Spain]] was granted [[Louisiana]] as compensation for the loss of [[Florida]]. The war was officially ended with the signing of the [[Treaty of Paris]] in 1763.

When the French and British fought, the French usually won because the British had Bright red coats and stayed in traditional formation, so they were easily seen and shot down. Later the British turned their coats inside out and covered them in clay.{{fact-history}}

==See also==

*[[French and Indian Wars]]

[[category:Wars]]
[[category:United States History]]

Debate:Which is better: science or religion?

2007-07-03T17:40:48Z

Colest:

John Smith (wrestler)

2007-07-03T15:34:48Z

Colest: added sources

'''John Smith''' (born Aug. 9, 1965) is an [[American]] wrestler, whose numerous accolades include six straight world championships, including [[Olympics|Olympic]] Gold Medals in 1988 and 1992. He was also a highly successful collegiate athlete, recording 2 [[NCAA]] Championships at [[Oklahoma State University]].

Smith retired from competition after the 1992 Olympic Games and is currently the wrestling coach at his [[alma mater]].

==References==
[http://www.fila-wrestling.com/halloffame/smith.html International Wrestling Hall of Fame Bio]

[http://www.okstate.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=1552&SPID=149&DB_OEM_ID=200&ATCLID=7253&Q_SEASON=2007 Oklahoma State University Bio]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, John}}
[[Category:Athletes]]

John Smith

2007-07-03T15:19:37Z

Colest:

''For information on the world champion wrestler John Smith, click [[John Smith (wrestler)|here]].''

Captain '''John Smith''' (1580-1631) was the leader of the first permanent [[England|English]] settlement in [[North America]] - [[Jamestown]]. He was known for his discipline and heroism. He famously achieved order and productivity by declaring, that those who did not work would not eat.

When a terrible drought hit the region and ruined the crops, John Smith went looking for food. He was captured by [[Native American]]s who inquired as to where he came from. Instead of telling the truth to the chief, Smith told him that they were fighting the Spanish and their ship had been wrecked on the their coast. When the chief asked why they had come so far into his land John Smith said it was because they were going to attack the very tribe the chief's tribe was now fighting. So peace was made between the tribe and the settlers. The peace was enhanced when a subsequent leader of the Jamestown settlement, John Rolfe, married the chief's daughter, [[Pocahontas]].

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[category:United States History]]

John Smith (wrestler)

2007-07-03T15:16:19Z

Colest: New page: '''John Smith''' (born Aug. 9, 1965) is an American wrestler, whose numerous accolades include six straight world championships, including Olympic Gold Medals in 1988 and ...

Oklahoma State University

2007-07-03T15:01:05Z

Colest:

Oklahoma State University is a public university located in Stillwater, [[Oklahoma]]. The school was founded on December 25, 1890, as Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College. The name was changed to its current format in 1957. There are also 3 other campuses located in [[Oklahoma City]], [[Tulsa]], and [[Okmulgee]]. Enrollment totals for these four campuses is around 26,000 students.

== Athletics ==
The Oklahoma State University athletic team name is the Cowboys and their mascot is Pistol Pete. The university has a rich athletic tradition and has been awarded 48 NCAA National Championships, which ranks fourth all-time behind Stanford, USC, and UCLA.

Prominent figures:

* [[Henry Iba]]- Basketball Coach, led Cowboys to first back to back NCAA Basketball Championship in 1945-46
* [[Eddie Sutton]] - Basketball Coach
* [[Barry Sanders]] - Football Player, 1988 Heisman Trophy Winner, #3 on All Time NFL Rushing List
* [[Thurman Thomas]] - Football Player, #11 on All Time NFL Rushing List
* [[John Smith (wrestler)|John Smith]] - Wrestler/Coach, 2 time Olympic Gold Medalist

== Sources ==
[http://osu.okstate.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=280&Itemid=96 Oklahoma State University Homepage]

[http://www.okstate.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=200&KEY=&SPID=162&SPSID=2371 Oklahoma State University Athletics]

[[Category:Universities]]

Talk:French and Indian Wars

2007-07-03T14:42:42Z

Colest:

Hey should this be its title now, or The French and Indian War. I think thats what it is really called.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:47, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
: I've always heard of it referred to as the [[French and Indian War]], which is why I made that stub. I didn't even know this article existed. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:03, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

::Two points, in priority order:
::#There should be one article, rather than two. Either the singular form redirects to the plural form, or the other way around.
::#We could dig into the matter a bit and find out which form is used more often by historians.
::I think the first point is much more important than the second. Would one of you please do the merge? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:31, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Merging ==

I know you asked to have them merged into one Ed, but after looking at it further I don't believe we should head in that direction.

The term French and Indian Wars refers to 4 separate wars fought in the New World - King William's War, Queen Anne's War, King George's War, and the French and Indian War (Seven Year's War).[http://www.bartleby.com/65/fr/FrenchNI.html] The most common one referred to in American History is the last war, as it solidified British dominance in America.

I would suggest as a solution letting [[French and Indian War]] stand on it's own, while modifying this article deal briefly with the overall theme of the French and Indian Wars with links to all four conflicts. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:35, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:French and Indian Wars

2007-07-03T14:35:08Z

Colest: Merging

Hey should this be its title now, or The French and Indian War. I think thats what it is really called.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:47, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
: I've always heard of it referred to as the [[French and Indian War]], which is why I made that stub. I didn't even know this article existed. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:03, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

::Two points, in priority order:
::#There should be one article, rather than two. Either the singular form redirects to the plural form, or the other way around.
::#We could dig into the matter a bit and find out which form is used more often by historians.
::I think the first point is much more important than the second. Would one of you please do the merge? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:31, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Merging ==

I know you asked to have them merged into one Ed, but after looking at it further I don't believe we should head in that direction.

The term French and Indian Wars refers to 4 separate wars fought in the New World - King William's War, Queen Anne's War, King George's War, and the French and Indian War (Seven Year's War).[http://www.bartleby.com/65/fr/FrenchNI.html] The most common one referred to in American History is the last war, as it solidified British dominance in America.

I would suggest as a solution, however, letting [[French and Indian War]] stand on it's own, while modifying this article deal briefly with the overall theme of the French and Indian Wars with links to all four conflicts. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:35, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Burning Man

2007-07-03T14:21:49Z

Colest: edit conflict with Dan. not just an art festival, I don't think.

Not really sure about this article. Could someone verify the value of this article? [[User:Niandra|Niandra]] [[User talk:Niandra|talk]] 10:05, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be an art festival. However, if an article doesn't say what it is, then it should be deleted, and can be re-created if somebody wants to actually make it encyclopedic. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 10:19, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

: Burning Man is a real festival type thing. I've heard about it several times without really ever understanding exactly what it was. From what I gather from their website, a bunch of people head out to the desert for a week and create some kind of themed self-sufficient commune. http://www.burningman.com/whatisburningman/about_burningman/faq_what_is.html --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:21, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:World of Warcraft

2007-07-03T03:30:47Z

Colest:

Benjamin Herrison

2007-07-02T15:20:58Z

Colest: Redirecting to Benjamin Harrison

#REDIRECT [[Benjamin Harrison]]

Benjamin Harrison

2007-07-02T15:20:39Z

Colest: merged, cleaned a little

{| class="infobox bordered" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 0.5em 0.5em; text-align: left; font-size: 85%; margin-left:5px" border=1 align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250"
|-
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:000000ed.jpg|180px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; font-size: 120%; height: 30px; background: purple no-repeat scroll top left;"|Benjamin Harrison 
23rd President of the United States
|-
|'''Born'''
|August 20, 1833
|-
|'''Died'''
|March 13, 1901
|-
|'''Term'''
|1889-1893
|-
|'''Political party'''
|Republican
|-
|'''Vice President'''
|[[Levi P. Morton]]
|-
|'''Preceded by'''
|[[Grover Cleveland]]
|-
|'''Succeeded by'''
|[[Grover Cleveland]]
|-
|}

'''Benjamin Harrison''' was the 23rd President of the United States, serving from 1889-1893. He was born August 20, 1833 in North Bend, Ohio. He was the grandson of [[William Harrison]], who was ninth President. He served in between the terms of [[Grover Cleveland]]. Harrison's term was characterized by being full of federal spending and legislation including tariffs and other taxes.He died on March 31, 1901. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents, Benjamin Harrison]] by Susan Clinton, Children's Press, 1989. </ref>

==Early Political Career==
Harrison's political career was foreshadowed by him being a grandson of late president [[William Henry Harrison]]

Harrison fought in the [[Union]] during the [[American Civil War]]. In 1879 he was elected to [[United States Senate]] as a [[Republican]].

==Significant Events During Benjamin Harrison's Presidency Term==
In 1890, the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]], [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], and [[McKinley Tariff]] were passed into law.

The [[Wounded Knee Massacre]] also occurred in 1890.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Presidents of the United States|Harrison, Benjamin]]

Injunction

2007-07-02T15:11:17Z

Colest: New page: An '''injunction''' is an order from a court of law requiring a specific action to stop and not be resumed in the future.<ref>http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/legal_remedies/...

An '''injunction''' is an order from a [[court of law]] requiring a specific action to stop and not be resumed in the future.<ref>http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/legal_remedies/injunction_order.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:law]]

Pentagon Papers

2007-07-02T15:07:21Z

Colest: accidentally removed cat

The '''Pentagon Papers''' (officialy named ''History of the U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy'') is the popularized name for a top-secret study conducted by the [[United States]] [[Department of Defense]] dealing with American involvement in [[Southeast Asia]] from [[World War II]] until 1967. [[Daniel Ellsberg]], in 1971, was responsible for leaking this study to the [[New York Times]], who subsequently began publishing sections of it on June 13, 1971. On June 29, [[Senator]] [[Mike Gravel]] entered the report into the public record of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds.<ref>http://www.beacon.org/client/client_pages/images/pentagon_35.pdf</ref>

The government obtained a federal court [[injunction]] to stop publishing the classified Pentagon Papers, which led to the [[Supreme Court]] case of ''[[New York Times Co. v. United States]]'', against the New York Times and the [[Washington Post]]. The Court, with a 6-3 decision, ruled that the injunctions were unconstitutional because the government did not meet the "heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such a [[prior restraint]]."<ref>http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZS.html</ref>

The government also charged Ellsberg with theft, espionage, and conspiracy. The charges were dropped due to members of President [[Richard Nixon]]'s staff breaking into Ellberg's psychiatrist's office to obtain medical records.<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/12719/New-York-Times-Company-v-United-States.html</ref>

The leak of this report fueled the fire of the growing anti-[[Vietnam War]] movement.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:United States History]]

United States Department of Defense

2007-07-02T15:03:20Z

Colest: New page: The United States '''Department of Defense''' is the government department in charge of managing matters involving military operations and national security. The current [[Secretary of...

The [[United States]] '''Department of Defense''' is the government department in charge of managing matters involving military operations and national security. The current [[Secretary of Defense]] is [[Robert Gates]].

Conservapedia talk:Team contest

2007-07-02T14:54:58Z

Colest: /* Scoring System */

Daniel Ellsberg

2007-07-02T14:52:41Z

Colest: New page: '''Daniel Ellsberg''' (born 1931) is a former strategic analyst for the United States Department of Defense and the State Department, as well as member of the [[United States M...

'''Daniel Ellsberg''' (born 1931) is a former strategic analyst for the [[United States]] [[Department of Defense]] and the [[State Department]], as well as member of the [[United States Marine Corps]]. He is responsible for releasing the ''[[Pentagon Papers]]'', secret government documents about the United States involvement in [[Southeast Asia]], to the [[New York Times]] in 1971. He faced criminal charges which were eventually dropped, due to members of President [[Richard Nixon]]'s staff breaking into his [[psychiatrist]]'s office.

==References==
http://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/pgs/portraits/Daniel_Ellsberg.html

[[Category:Political people]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Ellsberg, Daniel}}

Mike Gravel

2007-07-02T14:41:13Z

Colest:

[[Image:Mgravel.jpg|right|thumb|Senator Gravel]]

'''Maurice Robert "Mike" Gravel''' is a former U.S. Senator from [[Alaska]], serving from 1969 to 1981. He is currently running for [[Democratic Party]] nomination for presidency in 2008. However, he is a long-shot candidate because he has largely retired from politics for over two decades. In the Senate, he was once the colleague of the current Alaska senator [[Ted Stevens]].

==United States Senate==
Gravel was elected to the United States Senate in 1968. He served on the Environment and Public Works Committee throughout his Senate career. He also served on the Finance and Interior Committees and he chaired the Energy, Water Resources, and Environmental Pollution subcommittees. He was responsible for reading the ''[[Pentagon Papers]]'' into the public record during one of his subcommittee meetings. Gravel worked to end the draft following the Vietnam War. He embarked on a one-man filibuster against legislation renewing the military draft. In 1980 Gravel was challenged for the Democratic Party's nomination by State Representative Clark Gruening, the grandson of the man Gravel had defeated in a primary 12 years earlier. Gruening won the nomination and went on to lose in the general election to [[Republican]] Frank Murkowski.

==Political positions==
Gravel supports socialist health care and creating a national sales tax. He is strongly against the [[War in Iraq]] and supports indemnity withdrawing all troops from Iraq. After Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] said that the Iraq War was "lost", he responded by saying, "this war was lost the day that George Bush invaded Iraq on a fraudulent basis." Senator Gravel advocates for the legalization of all drugs, and believes that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem only. On his Presidential campaign website, he states that he 'fully supports the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution'.

==Barnes Review controversy==
In June 2003 Gravel gave a speech on direct democracy at a conference hosted by the American Free Press. The event was cosponsored by the Barnes Review, a journal that endorses Holocaust denial. He later said "You better believe I know that six million Jews were killed. I've been to the Holocaust Museum."

==Presidential campaign==
On April 16, 2006, Gravel announced his presidential campaign at the National Press Club. He has become known, chiefly among Democrats and independent voters, for his statements of radical commitment to issues ranging from nuclear disarmament, citizen-initiated lawmaking, gay marriage recognition, and the lifting of discrimination against [[gay]]s in the military - to the reorganization of the tax and social security systems in the United States and the immediate cessation of US military involvement in Iraq. In a February 25, 2007 Washington Post/ABC News nationwide poll of voters who lean Democratic, 0% supported Gravel for the Democratic presidential nomination.

==External links==
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000388 Official biography]
*[http://www.gravel2008.us/ 2008 campaign website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gravel, Mike}}
[[Category:US Senators]]

Southeast Asia

2007-07-02T14:33:43Z

Colest: New page: '''Southeast Asia''' is a geographic region of Asia, located south of China and east of the India. It includes the countries of Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam...

'''Southeast Asia''' is a geographic region of [[Asia]], located south of [[China]] and east of the [[India]]. It includes the [[country|countries]] of [[Cambodia]], [[Laos]], [[Vietnam]], [[Myanmar]], [[Indonesia]], [[Thailand]], [[Brunei]], [[Malaysia]], and the [[Philippines]].

[[category:Geography]]

Pentagon Papers

2007-07-02T14:27:05Z

Colest:

Conservapedia talk:Team contest

2007-07-02T14:07:19Z

Colest: