This is sprouting from the most important Revolutions thread.
So who thinks that the American Revolution was really a civil war, and who thinks it really was a fight for freedom and justice?
Printable View
This is sprouting from the most important Revolutions thread.
So who thinks that the American Revolution was really a civil war, and who thinks it really was a fight for freedom and justice?
I don't think it was a civil war in the sense that Britian and the colonies weren't on the same tier. As for being a war for freedom and independence I think so the colonies were getting taxed with no representation (granted they were much higher elsewere in the empire) and I think they wanted to forge there own identity...then agian i could be bias :bow:
The "Americans" were the sons and grandsons of the British colonists , so it was a civil war between British
The "Americans" considered themselves (at least those who did) as Americans fighting British for independents , so it was a war for independents ~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek:
In any case , it was not a revolution because the british government did not fell .
Wasn't it a revolution against the British rule of the colonies?
I think that it was a seperate breed because of the immigrants that came over, and the many former colonies of other nations (France, Netherlands, Spain)
I'd say that it was a fight for representation without taxation, religious freedom, and freedom of the press. Because there was such force applied against the colonies it was their thought that they should rise against the monarchy because such oppression was unjust, and not through the consent of the people of the thirteen colonies who the legislation affected.
It was also War for Independence, because Americans considered themselves Americans, like the Scottish consider themselves Scottish, despite being derived from the same Celt breed as much of the British/English population, and adjoined to the nation.
Same with the Irish, and Australians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Marshal , the Scots "are" Celts , the English "are" Anglo-Saxons , there is a big difference
The Scots were and are both celtic and anglo-saxon. But that's not the point. The Scottish Wars of Independence were for independence against a foreign invader trying to take advantage of a bad situation.
The American Revolution was a Rebellion against the mother country, not a civil war. Britain did not invade to cause the revolution, the settlers just did not appreciate having to pay taxes for defence, land, and such things, without having representatives.
but the aussies are also anglosaxon, how to explain that. but on the other hand they never revolted did they.
yeah it was a rebellion not a civil war nor a revolution. america as usual wants all the attention for themselves ~D
Aussies ? bunch of criminals descendants ~;) ~;) ~;) ~;) ~;) (just kidding here)Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1
no its true ~D
England may be by name derive from Anglo-Saxon, but by make up we're a mix of Celtic Britons, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans and everyone else who's arrived here over the centuries... We are a mongrel race.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
And if I as an Englishman can get away with quoting the Scottish band The Proclaimers (my taste in music crosses the border!),
"In Scotland's story, I read that they came
The Gael and the Pict, the Angle and Dane
But so did the Irishman, Jew and Ukraine
They're all Scotland's story and they're all worth the same."
The Romans did not leave any great impression ethnically or culturally on England. The Romans who came over became an aristocracy and many left when the Romans pulled out in 410. The Celts who lived in England were either forced out or fled into Wales, Cornwall and Strathclyde. Their ethnical impact on modern England was not very large, their cultural influence much smaller.The Anglo-Saxons left the greatest, most important impression on England. Most people in England are part or majoratily Anglo Saxon and they left a great mark on the culture, through the language and other things. The Vikings left a greater mark ethnically on the Danelaw section of England, certain parts of Wales, Scotland and Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Orkney, Hebrides and the Shetland Islands. Their cultural impact is much harder to see, since they came from a similar Germanic culture as the Anglo-Saxons. The Normans formed an aristocracy, so left little ethnic influence, but the mix of Old English and Norman French resulted in the birth of modern English.
Coming back to topic, I think it was a civil war as they were many colonists who fought for the Crown. 20-30% of the White population and a good deal more of the slave and Red Indian population supported the British. Around 100,000 loyalists- about four percent of the population left the US at the end of the war, leaving for Canada and Britian.
I believe it was a revolution because
A revolution is pretty much throwing off one government, and replacing it with another. Well, the colonies would have had a rebellion that turned into a revolution by throwing off the British monarchy, and replacing with Democracy.
It is also a rebellion, as it is a rising of the public against an oppresor of some form or nature.
In general I believe those points are correct. It was both a rebellion and a revolution. But I think "oppressor" is a bit strong. The main dispute came over a lack of representation for being taxed. The taxes Britain was trying to enforce were not unreasonable to expect of a colony (what is strange is that they had not been enforced earlier) but the colonists didn't want the taxes interfering with them. Americans had become independent in practice and didn't need to be treated as a colony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
It was a revolution in that american colonists wanted a new *type* of govt, as well as independent self rule. Revolution differs in that it also requires a change in doctrine to something novel (at least compared to what preceeded it.) Changing of Military Junta's or Kings is not really a revolution, it is more of the same. Going from monarchy to democracy or communism, or from democracy to communism or vice versa through conflict would be considered revolution I think.
The original demands of the colonists was that they should be represented in Parliament as other British subjects had the right. They were taxed because the defence of the colonies brought quite a high expense. The colonists also wished to expand past the Appalachian mountains into lands which were guaranteed Indian by various treaties with the Crown.
Treaty of 1764 or sometime around there.
The colonies should have been taxed, no doubt. However, the amount of taxes was really the beginning. Imagine having to tax every single piece of paper, every cup of tea, every scrap of cloth. It would really get to you wouldn't it?
I beleiev Micheal Wood said that 1/3 of the Colonists sisded with the British.
I also hate the way some Americans say that they were fighting against King George, or that they overthrew the monarchy. It makes it sound like England was a still under the rule of a King.
Aussies that immigrated had a very high percentage of Welsh, Scots and Irish. They were never solely anglosaxons. Plus a lot of non-British immigrants from other Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1
After all I live in New South Wales.
Most colonies gain independance when they no longer rely on the founding country for protection. Once a rich upper class has enough wealth, feels secure enough and wants to expand its own political clout it seems logical that independance gained by one method or another will happen. The reasons given for independance are to give the cause legitmacy. Very few countries was gaining independance through war actually stick to the reasons they went for it in the first place... USA for instance is not a tax haven is it?
Yet we have the freedom of religion,
freedom of the press,
soldiers may not be quartered in households,
you as a American citizen are entitled to a jury of your peers,
no excessive bail of fines,
no searches or seizures unless you have obtained search warrant.
Alll of these, made into LAW, were some of the founding opinions of the Founding Fathers, and have guided us for nearly THREE HUNDRED YEARS.
Talk about a political clout!
The press was relatively free in Britian at that time, though you weren't allowed to publish things such as 'Down witht the King'. You could however make implicit criticisms. Religion was also relatively free, if you didn't make a huge spectacle of it you would be unharmed. The Catholic Emanciapation Bill some years later allowed Catholics to stand for parliament and hold other postings. Soldiers were not generally quartered in houses, that's what we had Hyde Park for ~;) . As for the rest, ever heard of Habeas Corpus? It was brought in with the Bill of Rights almost a hundred years before, in 1688.
Ah but Americans must be able to say Down with the President.
To control Boston, and other parts of the colony, they must quarter troops in homes.
Also, most religious people who lived in London, or England were forced to America, because they were preaching their own religions. (Quakers)
That was one of the reasons for the split correct? For the government was Anglican.
And the search warrant was needed after British could get a "Writ of Assistance" to search any warehouse or store, or home for smuggled or illegal items.
It was a rebellion. Traitorous yankee dogs!
Do the right thing-come back to the crown and your sins will be forgiven..
Plus- allying with the French !! Tisk tisk...
Stuck up British Pigs! (good fun,nothing serious) hehehehe
From the People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn:
"Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a concensus of popular support for the rule of a new, priviledged leadership.
When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command."
Since England was apparently not still a monarchy at the time, I would like to ask how frequently the elections for King were held? While a constitutional monarchy, it did oppose movements that deposed royalty and tried to restore royalty (France.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
I thought that the king was still hereditary, but most power was in the Parliament.
The King was a figure head and could potentially lose it quite easily after Cromwell...Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
I still get the impression in reading various accounts that the King had far more than just ceremonial power and influence at the time. While unable to be a despot, the Kings still appears to have had more power than a figurehead. Today, the Royals are truly figureheads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I've not studied that period of British history closely enough (looked a bit at Scotland, U.S. and France in the time period though.) I realize the general effect Cromwell had, but it wasn't complete yet. I still laugh about the revenge taken in exhuming Cromwell and others to draw and quarter their bodies.
If you read the wiki on George III, it is clear that he had some influence in political affairs, even though it was secondary to his PM's cabinet, to which he would defer even when he held a different viewpoint. Also, the monarch's role in appointing a PM was, at the time, not entirely a consequence of voting by the electorate the monarch could exert some degree of choice. All in all, at least prior to his madness surfacing in the late 1780s, it would seem that George III must be noted as an influencer of government decisions albeit not the deciding voice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest