Santa Claus, I would suggest you read Higgonbotham's The War of American Independence. It is easily the most comprehensive work on the military side of the war.
I'm looking for all those great battles that the French won during the Revolution that you referred to. The French don't even enter into an alliance with us until after Saratoga. It will be interesting to see you talk about Trenton, Princeton, Vincennes, King's Mountain, Cowpens, Eutaw Springs, and Oriskany.

As far as your straw man of "militia" as opposed to "continentals" you need to educate yourself again and realize that the entire American force was made up of all volunteer enlistment while the British used conscription.
I no context means nothing to you, but that was the context of the posts between Putin and myself when he tried to slight the American forces that sent the British back to fight someone they could handle in Europe, not once, but twice I might add.
I look forward to more of your humor Santa Claus.

Santa Claus,
History relies on specific statements.
I will educate you with specific statements of specific historical events since you are unable to do so on your own.
In the spring of 1830, the United States Congress debated the Washington National Road Bill that proposed to build 1,500 miles of road from Buffalo to New Orleans.
Congress then passed the Maysville Road Bill that Jackson vetoed.
These are two specific examples of how stifled the Federal Government was to take a role in infrastructure projects during the 19th century.
Read up on them since it's obvious you have no background in the area.

French assistance preceded Saratoga, although there wasn't a formal alliance. Many French volunteers fought for the colonists prior to Saratoga, including Lafayette. The whole reason the US issued a "Declaration of Independence" was at French insistence that they make some kind of declaration of intent. Clandestine support proceeded apace from 1776 onward. At any rate Saratoga was in 1777. The alliance was formalized in 1778 not because of Saratoga but because the French wanted to prevent US-British reconciliation. The British offered peace terms early on in 1778 and again in May of that same year.

In the meantime what had been preventing an earlier alliance was reports of British victories against the colonists, particularly Brooklyn, Brandywine, Ticonderoga, and Germantown.

The French fought the British at Pondicherry, Onessant, fought the largest battle of war at Gibaltrar for 4 years, defeated the British at Grenada, defeated the British at Minorca, fought at Cape Henry, defeated the British at Lynn Haven Bay, fought at Trincomalee, and defeated the British at Cuddalore.

Putin, If you want to understand the politics of various, specific bills dealing with infrastructure in the antebellum period just mention one. You don't have to post a question like a silly pimple-faced high school kid with an apple for your teacher.

Putin, I guess you are unaware that the Comte de Vergennes persuaded the crown to give the Continental Congress 1,000,000 livres in supplies in 1777 before the alliance was signed. It seems odd that you would post about French involvement before the formal alliance and leave out the single most important act of French aid in that period. Obviously because you were unaware of it.
By the way LaFayette was ordered by the King of France not to leave France for America. He had to sail from a Spanish port in disguise and avoid all West Indies ports in order to reach Charleston.
LaFayette didn't even meet Washington until August 10, 1777 and played no part in the Saratoga campaign at all.

Tettleton, can you answer a simple question or is that too much to ask? Do you lament the loss of the Confederacy or no?

Awesome. We've got a troll who has no apparent interest in starting an actual conversation, but rather wants to pronounce that his bogeyman, when limited by his definition of circumstance, is in fact a bogeyman. Please, declaim some more, Mr. Chew, with an argument that is repeated endlessly to any American who pays any attention to politics and has been dismissed by any American who pays attention to empirical results. We do, after all, need to burn up some more bandwidth on this topic, else there might be a fucking Eskimo adrift on a fucking ice floe in the Bering Strait who hasn't heard your brand of inanity.

Hey Bob, don't forget to cash your government check brought to you by an hard working American who can cut it.

I hath been cut to the quick. Your utterly novel and ingenious "Heh heh, you're poor," witticism calls to mind the rapier wit of certain of the pithier veterans of the Algonquin Round Table. Kudos and well played, sirrah!

Putin, do you always wet your pants when you are embarrassed? You always to into the same routine when you get embarrassed trying to respond to a post with content. Fulhamish did it to you in the thread about religion. I can play the game either way you want. If you want to try to be cute I'll bury you. If you want to debate facts I'll bury you. It really doesn't matter to me.

Bob, there is still some drool on the corner of your mouth. You didn't get it all when you wiped.

Bob, I do like your statement "American who pay attention to empirical results. So true. Americans simply look to the catastrophic effects of big government liberalism in the 1970's as empirical evidence that caused them to hand Obama a historic mid-term electoral defeat. You are absolutely correct, Americans pay attention to empirical results.
They know that welfare creates dependency while doing nothing to dimish poverty.
They know that public housing destroys communities while doing nothing improve society.
They know that big government liberal social policies lead to higher taxes, inflation, high unemployment, and ultimately stagflation.
The funny thing is Europe and Canada just elected fiscally responsible governments because they recognize the fiscal unsustainability of the socialist welfare state.
No wonder you, Putin, and the rest of the automatons who wait pray that your fellow Americans remain productive so the government will cut you a check are uptight.

I'm curious. What was "historic" about the 2010 elections, in your opinion?

The Democrats losing 63 seats in the House. That is the most seats lost by the party of the sitting Presidents since 1922. Historic is an entirely accurate word to describe the 2010 midterm election.

Well, that's factually untrue, in both a nitpicky sense and in a real significance sense. In the nitpicky sense, I invite you to look at the results of the 1938 midterm elections, when the Democrats lost 72 seats in the House. In the real significance sense, check out '94, '74, '66, '58, '46...

I apologize Bob. Instead of 2010 being the largest number of seats lost in a mid-term election in 88 years it was the most lost in 72 years.
Mea culpa.
1994, 1974, 1966, 1958, and 1946 were all less than 2010 by the way.

Excuse me, I have to facepalm for a moment. Sorry for feeding the troll, my bad.

No problem Bob, when you get permission from the government to pull your head out of you ass for one post again let me know. You want to be a dumb ass or post a valid point it really doesn't matter to me.

"do you sympathize with the Confederacy and think their defeat was a bad thing, like the other libertarians here?"

Wait a minute, what? I'm a libertarian FROM LOUISIANA and I think the North winning was good for the country. ;>_>

Also, FDR won't stand for your abuse of socialism Tettleton

What am I supposed to be embarrassed about again? I honestly would like an answer. You can declare victory and engage in macho posturing all you want. I'm not impressed. What is your opinion of the Confederate secession?

"The funny thing is Europe and Canada just elected fiscally responsible governments because they recognize the fiscal unsustainability of the socialist welfare state. "

Yeah, people are unemployed because they are lazy, unemployment rises during recessions because there is an epidemic of laziness! Who cares that Greece has an unemployment rate of 16.2% after the austerity measures, yet a corporate tax of only 25%, and tax exemptions on shipping and sales of stocks on the Greek stock exchange.

I think the ultimate defense of socialism has to be the happy ending massages.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-21-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--1

Jeez Putin, why are you so obsessed with re-fighting a war that's been over for 145 years? We've already had umpteen bajillion Civil War threads. Why are you so keen on starting another?

"The funny thing is Europe and Canada just elected fiscally responsible governments because they recognize the fiscal unsustainability of the socialist welfare state. "

I can't speak for the Europeans but Harper is the exact opposite of fiscally responsible. He took a massive surplus and turned it into a record deficit, in addition to wasting billions of dollars on initiatives that are universally considered wastes of tax payer money. Multi-million dollar fake lake. Please!

Additionally the most recent election in Canada was the first every real breakthrough for our new democrats, essentially the left wing quasi-socialist party in Canada.

In short you couldn't be more wrong about Canada. We just elected a conservative government that despite branding itself as the fiscally responsible option has proven time and time again that they are more like the Mulroney government. Big spending conservatives. Additionally we had a huge break through for socialism as well which gives little to no credence to your theory that Canada is turning away from socialism. The collapse of the political center and the very minor increases for Harper and the huge increases for the NDP suggest that Canadian voter have either gotten bolder, or have shifted towards socialism.

Yes. Thank you damian. Also, I'm so tired of everyone saying "Oh look, Canada elected a conservative PM, therefore socialism is wrong forever!" what kind of an argument is that? Just because we elected a conservative government doesn't mean it's a good idea. Voters can be idiots. And in any electoral democracy you'll get swings one way or another. Over the past few years Canada has been moving rightish. Does that mean Canadian voters will never turn left ever again in the future? Not at all. We'll get sick of Harper and the conservatives eventually, throw them out and replace them with another party, which at the moment looks to be the rather left-wing NDP. But yeah. 1. stop using electoral records as a way to argue for or against systems of government. People vote one way or another, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. 2. Stop assuming that electing a conservative government signals a permanent and irreversible shift away from the left. Things can and will still change. Just because most of any given country voted one way this time, doesn't mean none of us will ever change our minds about politics ever again.

It was related to a discussion about federal funding for infrastructure improvements. I want to know if it's a requirement for libertarians to defend chattel slavery.

Big government quacks chiming and ignoring liberal policies with mandatory spending on entitlements created that deficit. Nothing like lies from the statists making excuses for their electoral defeats. The "voters are idiots" because they didn't agree with my socialism is so predictable it's nauseating.

Largeham doesn't understand basic economics. People don't have jobs in Greece because they fled higher taxes. Taxes are high in Greece because of the horrendous debt. The debt is cataclysmic because of the fiscal unsustainability of cradle-to-grave Greek socialism. Nothing like a little dose of reality to expose the statists.

They=businesses as in who fled the Greek socialist insanity.
Mea Culpa