The American Revolution

[Evil DIMwit]

In my (US) high school went so far as to consider that the Americans' demands for no-taxation-without-representation weren't motivated by lofty ideals so much as just wanting to pay less in taxes, and that in the context of the French & Indian War, the Revolution may have been somewhat ungrateful of them. They mentioned that initially separatist Americans were in the minority (there being about as many as there were ardent Loyalists; the rest of the country didn't care much for politics). We learned that the Americans could not have won without French help, but Benjamin Franklin was credited with convincing France to help.
We (unlike some of my friends' schools) also paid a good amount of attention to the actual military campaigns and battles, though naturally with more attention given to names and dates than the motivating strategy.

Now, in middle school, 3 years before... In middle school we watched Mel Gibson's The Patriot.

The greatest course I ever took in college was a small class where we discussed actual military strategy. One of our first topics was how the British could have won the American Revolution. My point was that the British should have burned some of these places to the ground (like Boston or Philadelphia)... wage a war of total annihilation. However, I was roundly criticized by people in the class (rightfully so) because the point of the American colonies was to generate wealth for England. Therefore, burning the colonies wouldn't do a whole lot of good.

Was this Waldron, by any chance?

[thegreekdog]

Was this Waldron, by any chance?

YES! That was the only class I had the opportunity to take with him.

[billy07]

to cut a long story short. we spread ourselves too thin. for a small nation like britain to fight on so many fronts was just too much. what happened afterwards was catastrphic - obesity, gay pride, law suits galore, mcdonalds, dallas etc etc.

the dumb fucks even think they helped britain out in two world wars. the only people america helped were themselves. they ignored multiple naval acts of war by germany on america, whilst cleverly sitting on the sidelines watching the two richest nations destroy each other (not britains choice).

during the suez crisis when britain was threatened with nuclear weapons by russia. america immediately wanted nothing to do with britain. we still did what we had to do and surprisingly the french stood alongside us.

[pimpdave]

Was this Waldron, by any chance?

YES! That was the only class I had the opportunity to take with him.

There's more Quakers here?

[thegreekdog]

Was this Waldron, by any chance?

YES! That was the only class I had the opportunity to take with him.

There's more Quakers here?

Two too many if you ask me.

[PLAYER57832]

In my (US) high school went so far as to consider that the Americans' demands for no-taxation-without-representation weren't motivated by lofty ideals so much as just wanting to pay less in taxes, and that in the context of the French & Indian War, the Revolution may have been somewhat ungrateful of them. They mentioned that initially separatist Americans were in the minority (there being about as many as there were ardent Loyalists; the rest of the country didn't care much for politics). We learned that the Americans could not have won without French help, but Benjamin Franklin was credited with convincing France to help.
We (unlike some of my friends' schools) also paid a good amount of attention to the actual military campaigns and battles, though naturally with more attention given to names and dates than the motivating strategy.

Now, in middle school, 3 years before... In middle school we watched Mel Gibson's The Patriot.

The greatest course I ever took in college was a small class where we discussed actual military strategy. One of our first topics was how the British could have won the American Revolution. My point was that the British should have burned some of these places to the ground (like Boston or Philadelphia)... wage a war of total annihilation. However, I was roundly criticized by people in the class (rightfully so) because the point of the American colonies was to generate wealth for England. Therefore, burning the colonies wouldn't do a whole lot of good.

Was this Waldron, by any chance?

Popped in, nice thread!

My schooling was fairly similar to most. (CA, a "few" years ago) One thing is that we covered it pretty well beginning in middle school, roughly 5th grade and on (in 3rd and fourth we learned more about CA history). The culmination, though came not so much in high school as in 8th grade, in conjunction with our state citizenship test (are they still required???).

We were taught the basics -- high taxes, though nuanced more than some mention by war issues, etc. It was pointed out that criminals in the US had to be tried in Britain, where they were tried by largely unsympathetic Brits who had little vested in the outcome, so that justice was less likely (not that the British were "anti" colonists, but it was about like a midwesterner being asked to judge someone from a big city ghetto -- the underlying prejudice was they were guilty or why would they have been brought to England at all?).

Similarly, the taxes were not so honerous in "absolute" terms, but it was far easier for the leaders of Britain to assess taxes on the coloneys than their own people. Add in the whole debate over what the colonies should represent. Some felt they were "given" things (lands, etc.) and "owed" the "motherland". Others saw them as convenient draws for the "dregs", dumping grounds for criminals and other "undesirables". These people, then could "certainly" not be trusted (in the eyes of many) to rule themselves!

In the end, it definitely came down to a mized set of practicalities. The "high and mighty" ideals were real enough, but were also as much based upon the British educational influence as other causes. The Iriquois, some other tribes were given some credit for the ideas.

We were told we won, because of the French influence, but also largely because we faught "gorilla" style (learned from the Native Americans) and in a good deal because Britain plain got tired of the whole mess and expense. I have heard it argued that they partially gave us our independence because they did not really believe we could keep it .. that we would come crawling back eventually (not sure how popular that idea is among historians).

Anyway, that's the rough outline of what I remember.

[jsholty4690]

If I remember correctly the idea of total war didn't appear until the U.S. Civil War with Sherman's March to the sea and the burning of Atlanta. But, I agree with you on your point. If they waged total war they would have won the war. Hell, that is how they won the Boer Wars.

So then what was the Third Punic War all about? (To give just one example)

I was implying about its reemgerence as a strategy in the modern era. I should have been more specific. But, I think we can agree that from the 1600s up until the civil war, war was more or less a gentleman's (I hate to say it,but) game. The battlefield was a place of honor, however Sherman's march changed that for good.

[PLAYER57832]

If I remember correctly the idea of total war didn't appear until the U.S. Civil War with Sherman's March to the sea and the burning of Atlanta. But, I agree with you on your point. If they waged total war they would have won the war. Hell, that is how they won the Boer Wars.

So then what was the Third Punic War all about? (To give just one example)

I was implying about its reemgerence as a strategy in the modern era. I should have been more specific. But, I think we can agree that from the 1600s up until the civil war, war was more or less a gentleman's (I hate to say it,but) game. The battlefield was a place of honor, however Sherman's march changed that for good.

This would have to be the highly santized version. Sorry, but I don't consider collecting scalps (started by the Europeans, not the American Natives), burning people alive or any of the many other sordid acts of war to be "gentlemanly". The primary thing that changed is that in times past, damage to the populace, (aka "peons", peasants, etc.) simply did not "count".

The Civil war, by contrast, was far more a war between 2 populace. Granted, the leaders led and had plenty of manipulation. However, unlike in past times, the average person in the Civil war was far more likely to be literate, to be able to "write home" (literally) details AND, people were far more likely to know or be related to people on both sides. So, hiding the realities was far, far harder.

[thegreekdog]

PLAYER!!! Where in the heck have you been?

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER!!! Where in the heck have you been?

Taking a break. I was just spending WAY too much time and energy on the threads. I don't plan to come back as intensely as before, but I figured I would try a moderate re-involvement.

[Juan_Bottom]

I am from the great state of Texas.

Sounds legit. Minimize the bravery of the Yankees in creating our nation and downplay the treason of the South in attempting to save slavery? jk?

I just want to point some things out here.

The first battles of the war were fought in 1775, before the Deceleration of Independence. Until then, most of the Colonists still considered themselves Englishmen and wanted only to redress their grievances. Even after the war the American Congress did not seem to despise the English.

The US Marine Corps was founded on November 10th 1775. It's older than the US.
On March 3rd of 1776 they landed in the Bahamas.
But before the war ended they were disbanded. It's all pretty badass.

The French involvement in the war was key to the American victory. Thanks to a French win in Chesapeake the British Army in Yorktown surrendered. The French also heavily supplied the fledgling American forces with weapons and powder. Also, after the French entered the war in the first half of 1778 (official declaration of war July 10th 1778) The Dutch and Spanish joined the war as allies of France.

The communication delays that the English had were usually a little over 2 months.

The American colonies had not been unified before the war, because the English did not recognize American Representation. In a classic war in Europe the English would capture a capital of a foreign country. And the war would usually end. But there was no "point of importance" in America. Throughout the war we see the British capturing cities in an attempt to end the war. But the war was uninhibited. Instead they just tied up troops occupying these cities instead of fighting the rebels.

The American's had a reason to fight. Maybe not the morale as we see militias repeatedly retreating against orders, but they had motivation to fight.

The English bent over backwards to not alienate the American Loyalists during the war. The goal of the English was to end the war quickly to get America back to generating income for England. After hiring the Hessians angered and scared many of the loyalists the English chose not to make any more risks of the ilk. They could have tried attempting to recruit more Native Americans and slaves, but they would have lost the support of the Tories. Compare the War of Independence to the way the English put down the Irish and Scottish before and after 1783.


The Revolutionary war could be called a Civil War fought over control of money. The Americans had it, and the English wanted it. From the start the rebellion brewing in the colonies seems to have confounded many of the English in Parliament and close to the King. After all, the English had saved the colonies from the French and Native Americans. They felt that the Americans owed them.
The Colonists however, considered themselves English citizens. Yet they were unable to represent themselves in English government. I can sympathize.
At any rate the stamp tax really pissed off a lot of colonists of because it was a blanket tax on everything important. If you wanted to buy tea, or paper, or any number of things, you had to have the proper stamps. It fell pretty hard on the colonists and could be called the final tax. But still the important lesson is that they (America) only resolved for war once they had given the English every attempt to redress these grievances.

We learned that the Americans could not have won without French help, but Benjamin Franklin was credited with convincing France to help.

It's kinda Ironic that he couldn't convince the English of anything though. The French only really entered once they realized that with some muscle the American's could win.

Now, in middle school, 3 years before... In middle school we watched Mel Gibson's The Patriot.

That movie is a pile of crap and you should feel bad. Why are they showing this in school? British massacres of American troops did happen, but that movie is fiction.

to cut a long story short. we spread ourselves too thin. for a small nation like britain to fight on so many fronts was just too much.

That is pretty true. In America the British were occupying Cities and sending troops out to the countryside. It was a lot for the English troops to do. Once the French entered the war the colonies had a boost of men, money, technology, and weapons. The war was also broadened on a global scale (though not much happened).... then the Netherlands and Spain signed on and it was too much for the British to really deal with.

the dumb fucks even think they helped britain out in two world wars.

We saved your asses in WWI and it's easy to say so. A large portion of America's population was German (especially here in the heartland), our government was friendly with the pro-reformation Kaiser, and we had nothing invested in your tangled web of alliances.
I don't think that it would have mattered who came out on top of that war for America's industry. I think Germany was ranked the number two industrial power at the time behind us, but that's no biggie. The Germans had begun to get the upper hand (somehow-thanks to the Commies) when the US arrived in Europe to bolster the allies war effort. I believe that the only hit that we would take was a loss of English Naval protection. Although I kinda look like an ass since Germany gave Austro-Hungary a blank check to start the war and drag everyone into it.

WWII is arguable too, but for different reasons. I think that the English-Russian alliance was doing alright for herself, but they weren't doing too much with the Japanese. Only if we hadn't drug ourselves into the war the whole world might be divided between two racist powers today. So yeah I think we saved your asses, but that's alright because we saved ours too. If the English-Soviets hadn't been resisting we would have been screwed in '41.
And while on that subject lets not ever forget our brave resistance fighters from around the globe who sacrificed so much to end that oppression.

The battlefield was a place of honor, however Sherman's march changed that for good.

I would argue that it ended after WWI with the "Knights of the sky." Pilots had an extremely short life expectancy (6 weeks if I remember right). Yet they had a unofficial code of chivalry among themselves (however there were opportunists). Of the 8.5 million soldiers (est) who died in WWI, 17,000 were pilots (which is statistically amazing looking at how long planes were even armed during the war).

The American's also targeted British officers with great frequency during the War of Independence which was considered a repulsive tactic among the British command. It wasn't until the War of 1812 however that American Sharpshooters became really successful at it. Which is badass.

This would have to be the highly santized version. Sorry, but I don't consider collecting scalps (started by the Europeans, not the American Natives), burning people alive or any of the many other sordid acts of war to be "gentlemanly". The primary thing that changed is that in times past, damage to the populace, (aka "peons", peasants, etc.) simply did not "count".

The Civil war, by contrast, was far more a war between 2 populace. Granted, the leaders led and had plenty of manipulation. However, unlike in past times, the average person in the Civil war was far more likely to be literate, to be able to "write home" (literally) details AND, people were far more likely to know or be related to people on both sides. So, hiding the realities was far, far harder.

Seconded.

Taking a break. I was just spending WAY too much time and energy on the threads. I don't plan to come back as intensely as before, but I figured I would try a moderate re-involvement.

Seconded again. But like, for me though. I was just wondering where you were too.

[jimboston]

Okay, well just to clear this up now, the issue WAS NOT EXCESSIVE TAXATION.

It was taxation WITHOUT representation. That's something these modern day Tea Party morons keep willfully ignoring. They are represented. Most of them are even the beneficiaries of tax CUTS.

Anyone who blindly classifies all people who disagree with his/her point of view as "MORONS" is himself/herself a moron. You can't honestly belief that all people who have participated in a Tea Party event and/or support the Tea Party movement are morons... can you? You can say that some are morons, some are misguided, and some are misinformed... but to think that they are all just idiots????

BTW... taxation in pre-revolutionary times was BOTH excessive AND without representation.

Also, most of the "morons" whom you seem to think are the beneficiaries of tax cuts will more likely than not see tax increases in the next 2-4 years.

NOW... I advocate a new/modern call to arms... "No Representation without Taxation". Chew on that for a bit my friend.

[jimboston]

Hey Juan_Bottom... great post!

I read this book called "The Long Fuse" subtitled "How England Lost the American Colonies, 1760-1785"... the author is Don Cook.

I thought it was a good read. It puports to tell the story from the English side. Specifically from the Royal Court and Parliament's point-of-views. I can't tell you if it does the job correctly... but it seems to.

The English could have easily won.

The main problems...
1) The English leaders just could not get their heads around the thoughts/views of the colonists. Why they could not varied from person to person... stubborness, arrogance, or stupidity all came into play.
2) The English people didn't support the war... which did impact the the ability of the Government to wage war.
3) English business leaders lost/were losing money because of the war... another challenge for English leaders.

Americans are generally lead to believe that King George was an all-powerful leader. That just wasn't the case. Parliament held the purse.... and had more power than most Americans realized. Also... more power than King George even realized.

Had English leaders had more foresight (some did... but not enough)... then perhaps the US now would be part of a different "Commonwealth of (English-Speaking) States. Colonists at the time would have been happy to pledge allegiance to King George if they could have had either;
1) Representative votes in Parliament.
-or-
2) The ability to levy their own taxes... not taxed by fiat by the King or Parliament.


As much as I believe the US has contributed to the world... I wonder if perhaps the world would have been better with a move tightly unified and stronger "Commonwealth".

[BigBallinStalin]

during the suez crisis when britain was threatened with nuclear weapons by russia. america immediately wanted nothing to do with britain. we still did what we had to do and surprisingly the french stood alongside us.

That's something more to do with the Israeli's outright invasion of Egypt, and the US not wanting to be involved in a situation that would become extremely dangerous with the Soviet Union only to satisfy the Brits and France's desires of beating down Egypt.

As much as I believe the US has contributed to the world... I wonder if perhaps the world would have been better with a move tightly unified and stronger "Commonwealth".

You'd think that the Americans would have eventually split anyway to do what they themselves want to do--especially as they became more and more powerful, and more difficult for the Brits to control.

[Doc_Brown]

Here's what I remember about the build up to the American War for Independence:

As with most wars, economics plays a central role. Britain was heavily invested in the South Sea trading company and lost a huge amount of money in the South Sea Bubble in the first half of the 18th century. Sometime after that, Britain ended up spending a lot more money on the 7 years' war (of which the French and Indian War was a small part, and which was arguably an extension of the War of Austrian Succession). Basically Britain was in serious need of money. The American colonies believed themselves to be colonies of the King of England, and, by charter, not directly subject to the British parliament. Parliament began to levy direct taxes on the colonies, ostensibly to cover the cost of defending the colonies against the French, but also to recoup some of the expenses incurred over the previous half century of global issues. Parliament also forbade colonization to the west of the Appalachian Mountains in an effort to minimize the cost of defending and maintaining the colonies.

The Colonialists rejected these impositions and protested that they had given money, support, and even their own lives in defense of the British Empire already. They complained to the king that their own legislatures were being ignored, and even disbanded. Thus, they had no say in what was being mandated by Parliament. The more they protested and rebelled, the harsher were the impositions. Interestingly, I've heard that the tax on tea was on the order of 0.25% (that's one quarter of one percent!), which is practically negligible in comparison to the taxes we pay today. But for the colonists, the issue was whether or not Parliament, without giving the colonies any say in the matter, could levy whatever taxes or laws they wanted on those colonies. Once the conflict got underway, France saw an excellent opportunity to put a serious dent in Britain's power. Spain and others also jumped on board (though they weren't necessarily happy to see the colonies in North America gain independence, they did want to diminish Britain's power).

Interestingly, the debt incurred by France in the various wars throughout the 18th century ultimately resulted in the French Revolution, which eventually led to the Napoleonic wars (again largely between France and England with intermediaries). I think one of the biggest takeaways that I've gained from rereading European history is how connected events really are. It's virtually impossible to take any single war or major political event and separate it from a much larger context. That is still the case today. Consider: Even the conflict in Iraq has its roots in the aftermath of World War 1, when the victors (primarily France and UK, with USA to a lesser extent early on) redrew the territorial boundaries throughout the Middle East and then became quasi-colonial powers there. After that, the entire region became valuable for its natural resources, and the imperial powers continually meddled in the politics of the various nation-states for the next century to ensure cheap oil. This included overthrowing the democratically elected head of Iran and installing a dictator, supplying chemical weapons to Iraq, and establishing an occupying presence near Muslim holy sites. The most recent Iraq War is arguably the elimination of a rebellious colonial government and the installation of one that will be able to continue providing the west with cheap natural resources, which I suppose might constitute "ensuring national security for the US" at some level.

Anyway, sorry to take this into a different direction. I wasn't intending to turn this into a liberal/conservative debate over Bush's policies, especially since I'd probably end up stuck in the middle and turn both sides against me! I do find history fascinating and think that far too little time is given to its study.

[jonesthecurl]

Okay, well just to clear this up now, the issue WAS NOT EXCESSIVE TAXATION.

It was taxation WITHOUT representation. That's something these modern day Tea Party morons keep willfully ignoring. They are represented. Most of them are even the beneficiaries of tax CUTS.

I pay taxes. But I don't get to vote.
There's a phrase for that...

[jonesthecurl]

...I think it's "serves you right you limey jerk!"...

[pimpdave]

In that case, I guess it's time for a new revolution.

I have a bunch of Nerf weapons we can use.

[AlgyTaylor]

Wasn't taught anything about the American revolution at school (in Britain), just a brief bit of 19th century American history. To be honest it's not really a big thing for me, just another colony my country used to control and now doesn't. Was all about Americans not getting representation for their taxes from what I understand, which seems a reasonable request to me.

Well, until you remember they (you) thought that Bush, Reagan etc were good people to run a country. It makes a bit more sense as to why we didn't want to let you have a say in matters

[thegreekdog]

Well, until you remember they (you) thought that Bush, Reagan etc were good people to run a country. It makes a bit more sense as to why we didn't want to let you have a say in matters

Alternatively, Neville Chamberlin did a bang-up job.

[AlgyTaylor]

Well, until you remember they (you) thought that Bush, Reagan etc were good people to run a country. It makes a bit more sense as to why we didn't want to let you have a say in matters

Alternatively, Neville Chamberlin did a bang-up job.

touché

[Phatscotty]

The american revolution was barely mentioned in my high school history classes, only as a side refrence as to why we had the Loyalist surge of immigration.History is sadly neglected in Canadian high schools. I never really looked into it so I know very little about the details, only that it was the result excessive taxation and an unresponsive home country.

how did you get so smart?

[Phatscotty]

hah so no brits or former subjects of the Crown care to mention anything here?

It was a long time since I was at school and I didn't take history after the 3rd Year and I don't recall what I learnt at school about the American Revolution.

So I've not entered into the discussion because I don't remember anything from school. My personal knowledge of the history regarding the Revolution post school days is sketchy so I won't make myself look silly by talking about things I'm not hot on.

such a shame. From the moment the American revolution ended, 5,000 years of darkness had been lifted

[Baron Von PWN]

The american revolution was barely mentioned in my high school history classes, only as a side refrence as to why we had the Loyalist surge of immigration.History is sadly neglected in Canadian high schools. I never really looked into it so I know very little about the details, only that it was the result excessive taxation and an unresponsive home country.

how did you get so smart?

Good genes and post secondary education.

[Phatscotty]

The american revolution was barely mentioned in my high school history classes, only as a side refrence as to why we had the Loyalist surge of immigration.History is sadly neglected in Canadian high schools. I never really looked into it so I know very little about the details, only that it was the result excessive taxation and an unresponsive home country.

how did you get so smart?

Good genes and post secondary education.

If I may also ask. what kind of uniform is that? and why were you wearing it?