[M]y diffidence about independence stems in part from the recognition that war and separation wasn't by any means the first option of most of the men who wound up leading the movement for independence. But their efforts at compromise weren't welcomed in London and the result was a costly war. If you think that mistakes were made exclusively on the English side, I think you're being a bit naive, as these sorts of things never happen without a mutual lack of trust and some errors on both sides. But I don't think that the founders were wrong, sitting in Philadelphia in 1776, to think that under the circumstances independence was their best option. I only think -- as they themselves did -- that it was unfortunate that the course of events had taken them to that position, rather than to some form of compromise.

I'm not sure what Matt's point is here. Is compromise, generally speaking, better than war? Sure, I guess so. But the British Empire wasn't big on compromise, was it? It's hard to imagine any circumstances where the British would have given the colonies a voice in Parliament and a measure of self-governance.

On top of that, the last 232 years have turned out pretty well for the American colonies, and I'm proud to be a citizen of a nation that doesn't swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth or any other member of her torpid, inbred family of professional buffoons and ne'er-do-wells.

I appreciate Matt's willingness to tip the occasional sacred cow, but I'm not buying his argument here. The decision to break from Britain and fight a war for independence must have been a difficult one for the founders of this country. It probably seemed like a lunatic idea to many at the time, but in retrospect it couldn't have turned out much better.