Was the Revolutionary War right or wrong?

[thealmightyzorg]

this discussion has taken an interesting turn eh guys??

Indeed it has, but I'm enjoying it.

[RuleBritannia]

But Great Britain was not considered their home country anymore. They considered themselves British, but not subjects of His Majesty. Their opinion was that the king had no right to rule them from thousands of miles away; not without their own representation at least. Also, mistreatment of British guards was rampant and unpleasant, but to think that the five citizens "deserved it" is a gross thought. They were throwing snowballs while the Redcoats were throwing lead.

Snowballs? From what I read, the colonists, many of who were drunk at the time, threw rocks, sticks, snowballs, etc. while mocking the British guards. The colonists even began to attempt to assault the soldiers with clubs, bottles, etc..

[thealmightyzorg]

I have read that they were throwing snowballs and other small objects at the soldiers. As for mocking the soldiers, they chanted, "fire and be damned." The officer of the troops, a Captain Preston, yelled "Don't fire!" the soldiers probably did not hear him and opened fire on the mob. You said that they had a right to open fire. However, a jury in a Boston Courthouse thought otherwise. While six of the soldiers were aqcuited, two were found guilty of manslaughter and had their thumbs branded as a last minute defence against the death penalty.

[RuleBritannia]

Obviously a Bostonian court would find them guilty, as they were the ones who falsely went against the authority of their mother country and who supported the mob of rebels who attacked the British.

[thealmightyzorg]

The Boston Court was not a rebel or biased one. In fact, curiously enough, Captain Preston was defended by the independence radicals John Adams and Robert Auchmuty. All of the soldiers were defended by these two, and all but two were aqcuited on grounds of self-defence. The two who were found guilty were so because of the overpowering proof they fired into the crowd. Reaction to the aqcuital varied widely. Samuel Adams was highly angered about the trial, while his cousin John Adams, the defence attorney for the soldiers was deeply satisfied.

[Seraph07]

Honestly how can you debate whether the revoloutionary war was right or wrong? By saying it was wrong, your saying the existence of the United States is wrong. It's also like saying the Magna Carta was wrong, or the last English civil war (or which ever one basically stopped the kings authority to challenge parliament) was too.
Do you think India and all the other British colonies should be part of the Empire still? Don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with British Imperialism. We just wanted our own Empire too, which predicated not being the subjects of a foreign king in a foreign land - that most colonists had never even been too.
The U.S ( Ironically Britains closest ally

The revolutionary war would could have never happend. It became a pissing contest between the colonists and the crown over trade rights, and ended up as a war.

So what if the British 'protected the colonies' They werent doing it out of their benevolence, they were doing it to protect their financial investments. Do you think they would have been targeted in the first place if they weren't part of the British Crown?

The decision to not let the colonists expand westward was to control the colonies expansion and secure the western border. Not because the British gave two damns about the well being of the native population.

[Pikemen]

There where many reasons the American colonists where justified to rebel:

Geographic Considerations - The distance of the colonies from Great Britain created an independence that was hard to overcome. Those willing to colonize the new world generally had a strong independent streak desiring new opportunities and more freedom.

Colonial Legislatures – The existence of colonial legislatures meant that the colonies were in many ways independent of the crown. The legislatures were allowed to levy taxes, muster troops, and pass laws. Over time, these powers became rights in the eyes of many colonists. When they were curtailed by the British, conflict ensued. The future leaders of the United States were born in these legislatures.

The Enlightenment – Many of the revolutionary leaders had studied major writings of the Enlightenment including those of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the Baron de Montesquieu. From these writings, the founders gleaned the concepts of the social contract, limited government, the consent of the governed, and separation of powers.

1754-1763 - French and Indian War
This war between Britain and France ended with the victorious British deeply in debt and demanding more revenue from the colonies. With the defeat of the French, the colonies became less dependent on Britain for protection.

1763 - Proclamation of 1763
This prohibited settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains. While Britain did not intend to harm the colonists, many colonists took offense at this order.

1764 - Sugar Act
This act raised revenue by increasing duties on sugar imported from the West Indies.

1764 - Currency Act
Parliament argued that colonial currency had caused a devaluation harmful to British trade. They banned American assemblies from issuing paper bills or bills of credit.

1765 - Quartering Act
Britain ordered that colonists were to house and feed British soldiers if necessary.

1765 - Stamp Act
This required tax stamps on many items and documents including playing cards, newspapers, and marriage licenses. Prime Minister George Grenville stated that this direct tax was intended for the colonies to pay for defense. Previous taxes imposed by Britain had been indirect, or hidden.

1765 - Sons and Daughters of Liberty
Colonists tried to fight back by imposing non-importation agreements. The Sons of Liberty often took the law into their own hands enforcing these 'agreements' by methods such as tar and feathering.

1767 - Townshend Acts
These taxes were imposed to help make the colonial officials independent of the colonists and included duties on glass, paper, and tea. Smugglers increased their activities to avoid the tax leading to more troops in Boston.

1770 - Boston Massacre
The colonists and British soldiers openly clashed in Boston. This event was used as an example of British cruelty despite questions about how it actually occurred.

773 - Tea Act
To assist the failing British East India Company, the Company was given a monopoly to trade tea in America.

1773 - Boston Tea Party
A group of colonists disguised as Indians dumped tea overboard from three ships in Boston Harbor.

1774 - Intolerable Acts
These were passed in response to the Boston Tea Party and placed restrictions on the colonists including outlawing town meetings and the closing of Boston Harbor.


Ohh and can people please stop talking about how "France is the only reason we won"
They did help a lot, but they are not the only reason we won. They helped the US by fighting the british in other places around the world (spreading british forces around the globe, and preventing them from gathering in the NA colonies). The only battle they fought with the US was the battle of Yorktown, the last major battle of the rev.

The Americans could have beaten off the English withouth the french (but it would have cost more lives and time)

Cheers,
Pikemen

[thealmightyzorg]

Indeed. This argument really boiled down to Britain vs. US instead of whether or not they should have rebelled, with in itself is an unsolvable question. You'll always have people arguing for either side with equally valid points. Brits will think the war was unjust, while Americans with think otherwise.

[RuleBritannia]

There where many reasons the American colonists where justified to rebel:

Geographic Considerations - The distance of the colonies from Great Britain created an independence that was hard to overcome. Those willing to colonize the new world generally had a strong independent streak desiring new opportunities and more freedom.

Colonial Legislatures – The existence of colonial legislatures meant that the colonies were in many ways independent of the crown. The legislatures were allowed to levy taxes, muster troops, and pass laws. Over time, these powers became rights in the eyes of many colonists. When they were curtailed by the British, conflict ensued. The future leaders of the United States were born in these legislatures.

The Enlightenment – Many of the revolutionary leaders had studied major writings of the Enlightenment including those of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the Baron de Montesquieu. From these writings, the founders gleaned the concepts of the social contract, limited government, the consent of the governed, and separation of powers.

1754-1763 - French and Indian War
This war between Britain and France ended with the victorious British deeply in debt and demanding more revenue from the colonies. With the defeat of the French, the colonies became less dependent on Britain for protection.

1763 - Proclamation of 1763
This prohibited settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains. While Britain did not intend to harm the colonists, many colonists took offense at this order.

1764 - Sugar Act
This act raised revenue by increasing duties on sugar imported from the West Indies.

1764 - Currency Act
Parliament argued that colonial currency had caused a devaluation harmful to British trade. They banned American assemblies from issuing paper bills or bills of credit.

1765 - Quartering Act
Britain ordered that colonists were to house and feed British soldiers if necessary.

1765 - Stamp Act
This required tax stamps on many items and documents including playing cards, newspapers, and marriage licenses. Prime Minister George Grenville stated that this direct tax was intended for the colonies to pay for defense. Previous taxes imposed by Britain had been indirect, or hidden.

1765 - Sons and Daughters of Liberty
Colonists tried to fight back by imposing non-importation agreements. The Sons of Liberty often took the law into their own hands enforcing these 'agreements' by methods such as tar and feathering.

1767 - Townshend Acts
These taxes were imposed to help make the colonial officials independent of the colonists and included duties on glass, paper, and tea. Smugglers increased their activities to avoid the tax leading to more troops in Boston.

1770 - Boston Massacre
The colonists and British soldiers openly clashed in Boston. This event was used as an example of British cruelty despite questions about how it actually occurred.

773 - Tea Act
To assist the failing British East India Company, the Company was given a monopoly to trade tea in America.

1773 - Boston Tea Party
A group of colonists disguised as Indians dumped tea overboard from three ships in Boston Harbor.

1774 - Intolerable Acts
These were passed in response to the Boston Tea Party and placed restrictions on the colonists including outlawing town meetings and the closing of Boston Harbor.


Ohh and can people please stop talking about how "France is the only reason we won"
They did help a lot, but they are not the only reason we won. They helped the US by fighting the british in other places around the world (spreading british forces around the globe, and preventing them from gathering in the NA colonies). The only battle they fought with the US was the battle of Yorktown, the last major battle of the rev.

The Americans could have beaten off the English withouth the french (but it would have cost more lives and time)

Cheers,
Pikemen

You're forgetting one very important fact of justification: The colonies were British possessions.

Basically, the British could do whatever the hell they wanted. Their license was the fact that the colonists agreed to live under British rules and to follow them. The colonists were possessions, not their own nation.

And yes, the Americans could have beaten off the English, but not by force. British soldiers were physically stronger, far better-trained, better-equipped, and overall vastly superior infantry to the Americans. The problem was Britain had more important things to worry about than some rebellion in the Americas. Their wealthiest colony was India, not the 13 colonies. Had the British sent more troops, they could've easily won, as at this point, the few British soldiers sent to the colonies were overall vastly outnumbered (50,000-100,000 rebel militia and regulars vs. 20,000-25,000 Loyalist militia, British regulars, and Hessian infantry).

So the Americans could have beaten them, but if they did, it would not be by force.

The British needed better generals also. American officers were definately not superior to the British officers, but they needed more leaders like Banastre Tarleton, who conducted such heroic victories as the Battle of Waxhaws, the Battle of Fishing Creek, and others, rather than other leaders who focused on European warfare rather than what needed to be done. Honestly, I think Banastre Tarleton was the best officer (can't call him a general, as he was only a Lieutenant-Colonel) in the war.

[Seraph07]

The colonies may have been British possessions, but the Colonists who lived their were not.
Do you know the main reason the Rebellion turned into a revolution, and why Britain would Britain would never again control them after the firsts shots at Trenton were fire? The Loyalists. Those colonists still loyal to the crown, the British needed them to restore order after the rebellion was over. They however would not tolerate seeing their neighbors raped and slaughtered - the only kind of brutal tactics that would put down the rebellion - the same kinds used against the Irish and jacobites.

You fail to understand that the Americans were a different civilization than the British, the same as we are different from the Persians, the Chinese, the Rus, etc;etc. In our view, we were not going to be ruled by some silly king in a far off land that wanted to tax our tea.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

In my opinion wars usually do not come down to "right and wrong" as much as the lesser of evils.

[Seraph07]

From what i've read in books and seen with my own eyes, there is no real right or wrong, good or evil. There are just shades of gray.

[Amaz]

because black isn't a color... it's... the opposite of white? lol

[Pikemen]

You're forgetting one very important fact of justification: The colonies were British possessions.

Basically, the British could do whatever the hell they wanted. Their license was the fact that the colonists agreed to live under British rules and to follow them. The colonists were possessions, not their own nation.

And yes, the Americans could have beaten off the English, but not by force. British soldiers were physically stronger, far better-trained, better-equipped, and overall vastly superior infantry to the Americans. The problem was Britain had more important things to worry about than some rebellion in the Americas. Their wealthiest colony was India, not the 13 colonies. Had the British sent more troops, they could've easily won, as at this point, the few British soldiers sent to the colonies were overall vastly outnumbered (50,000-100,000 rebel militia and regulars vs. 20,000-25,000 Loyalist militia, British regulars, and Hessian infantry).

So the Americans could have beaten them, but if they did, it would not be by force.

The British needed better generals also. American officers were definately not superior to the British officers, but they needed more leaders like Banastre Tarleton, who conducted such heroic victories as the Battle of Waxhaws, the Battle of Fishing Creek, and others, rather than other leaders who focused on European warfare rather than what needed to be done. Honestly, I think Banastre Tarleton was the best officer (can't call him a general, as he was only a Lieutenant-Colonel) in the war.

Okay, these are the two main points I hear you making:

1) the 13 colonies where British possesion

2) The US couldnt have wone by pure force


My Counter Argument:

1) The 13 colonies was started as a english colony. The people who where living there where english citizens. but for some reason, England did not give the colonies the same rights as the rest of its citizens. According to the English bill of rights Citizens had the rights to:

Freedom from taxation by Royal Prerogative
Freedom to petition the monarch
Freedom from the standing army during a time of peace
Freedom to elect members of parliament without interference from the sovereign
Freedom of speech and debates

This document gave all English people certain rights that could not be taken away by the
government. The American colonists, as English citizens, felt they were protected under
these rights. Therefore, when Parliament begins to infringe on those rights by the late
1760’s, the Americans believe it is their right to break away from England and create
their own country.

England did not give the citizens of America rights that they where suppose to have, under English law, there fore they had the right to break off from english control.

2) Who ever said you need to win a war by pure strength?

[Fight!]

There are quite a few good debaters posying in this thread, makes me ashamed of what little I will post.

Anyways, from what I understand RB, you're saying that since the British owned the colonies, that the revolution is unjust. Therefore you are also saying that all revolutions throughout history have been unjust. I find this quite the intiguing view.

I also find it interesting that one could doubt British cruelty towards the colonists. They rebelled did they not? Rebellions do not sprout from benevolence, nor do fires start in seas.

[Seraph07]

Also, answer this for me: If you feel that the revolution was unjust, then by definition you feel that people and territories the United States should belong to Britain. So should the United states dissolve it's government and should parliament make way for a few hundred more seats? Or what other methods could be implemented to rectify the United States unjust war against Britain?

[RuleBritannia]

Also, answer this for me: If you feel that the revolution was unjust, then by definition you feel that people and territories the United States should belong to Britain. So should the United states dissolve it's government and should parliament make way for a few hundred more seats? Or what other methods could be implemented to rectify the United States unjust war against Britain?

Actually, yes. The US has caused far, far more problems than what positive things it's caused. The US should dissolve it's government, join the Commonwealth, and become, in a sense, a British possession.

Also, you made a comment about the British "raping and slaughtering" the colonists. Where do you get such claims? Sure, the Hessians committed such atrocities, but the British were of higher standards. I mean, insulting the King had you put to death, so obviously they had very strict policies.

Anyways, from what I understand RB, you're saying that since the British owned the colonies, that the revolution is unjust. Therefore you are also saying that all revolutions throughout history have been unjust. I find this quite the intiguing view.

I also find it interesting that one could doubt British cruelty towards the colonists. They rebelled did they not? Rebellions do not sprout from benevolence, nor do fires start in seas.

Well, not all revolts/rebellions are unjust. When a nation commits outright atrocities against a group of people, such as genocide, then by all means, they should rebel, or if the rebelling group wasn't a possession of the group they're rebelling against, such as in the Civil War. The South was a group of independent states, not possessions, and when the Union made decisions that took the South's rights away, they rebelled.

But such rebellion against a nation that has done so much for you as the colonists conducted is unjustfied. The British did not commit atrocities against them, they didn't imprison them, they didn't treat them poorly, they treated them like a colony.

[Fight!]

Actually, yes. The US has caused far, far more problems than what positive things it's caused. The US should dissolve it's government, join the Commonwealth, and become, in a sense, a British possession.

Wow, just wow.

Well, not all revolts/rebellions are unjust. When a nation commits outright atrocities against a group of people, such as genocide, then by all means, they should rebel, or if the rebelling group wasn't a possession of the group they're rebelling against, such as in the Civil War. The South was a group of independent states, not possessions, and when the Union made decisions that took the South's rights away, they rebelled.

Firstly, I must say that it was wrond to abolish slabery so suddenly. Whule I do believe slavery was wrong, the North went about abolishing it wronf. Restrictions on slavers should have been gradually applied over time.

However, the Southern States were indeed part of the United States. What you're saying is the equivalent of that while the colonies didn't have the right to rebel, it would be fine if Essex split from Britain.

But such rebellion against a nation that has done so much for you as the colonists conducted is unjustfied. The British did not commit atrocities against them, they didn't imprison them, they didn't treat them poorly, they treated them like a colony.

Oh my bad, I was under the impression that rebellions occurred when the people wre discontent with the ruling government. I should've known they only occurred when they were being ruled well.

[Seraph07]

Actually, yes. The US has caused far, far more problems than what positive things it's caused. The US should dissolve it's government, join the Commonwealth, and become, in a sense, a British possession.

So your saying the United States has had a negative impact on history? Compared to who, say the Austrians? Or Mongolians? Your basically claiming the U.S has been a plague on mankind. There are many different aspects in which this could be interpreted. Are you comparing our nation to Nazi Germany, or to the Black Death? Id like for you to be specific how the world is worse off for our existence as an independent nation than a British possesion, before I respond.
Id also suggest you read up on your own history first. We are after all, the Children of Britain.

Also, you made a comment about the British "raping and slaughtering" the colonists. Where do you get such claims? Sure, the Hessians committed such atrocities, but the British were of higher standards. I mean, insulting the King had you put to death, so obviously they had very strict policies.

I didn't claim that they did (atleast not as a tactic of war, or on any large scale)

Google British Prisoner of War Hulks. Compare them to the main American POW camp at Ivy Creek. You'll notice their was no theatre on the hulks, nor were the officers paroled to live in nearby cities.


No, they weren't. Scottish and Irish rebellions were put down brutally -even barbarically by todays standards. The British didn't use the same methods becauses hundred of thousands of colonists were still openly loyal to the crown.

Lastly, pick up a copy of Encyclopedia Britanica . Then talk to me about British high standards- Or any other nations for that matter.

Well, not all revolts/rebellions are unjust. When a nation commits outright atrocities against a group of people, such as genocide, then by all means, they should rebel, or if the rebelling group wasn't a possession of the group they're rebelling against, such as in the Civil War. The South was a group of independent states, not possessions, and when the Union made decisions that took the South's rights away, they rebelled.

Google Andersonville Prison. I've been there, yet I still can't fathom how 1/4 never lived to tell the tale.
Not a very 'civil' war. Here's an interesting statistic. More Americans died in the (4?) years of the civil war than all other wars America fought combined, including both world wars, vietnam, and the current wars in Iraq and Afghan.
Speaking as a southerner, it pains me to say this. The Union was right, the south war wrong. But barely. Heres a breakdown
Historically, the south was the wealthier and more influential faction. Don't believe me? Almost every U.S president untill that time was a southerner. Washington D.C, is located in the south.
You are wrong, the south was not a independent group of states- Atleast untill the confederacy was confirmed.
The events leading up to the war were a powe grab by the Elite of the North,
The common man of the south didn't give a damn about slavery, only the wealthy owned slaves anyway.

or if the rebelling group wasn't a possession of the group they're rebelling against

Your not understanding the point. We were contesting the point of being a possesion
Or are you of the opinion the colonists were the possession of the crown, as slaves were the possession of their masters /.

But such rebellion against a nation that has done so much for you as the colonists conducted is unjustfied. The British did not commit atrocities against them, they didn't imprison them, they didn't treat them poorly, they treated them like a colony.

Actually they did, with most of them being summed up by this : Colonists expected the same legal rights of those in England. When Britains rule became tyranical, they rebelled, living to the mantra " I know not what course other men may take, but as for me, give me Liberty or give me Death!"

It was the same any free Englishman would have expected- and they knew it. Research the opinion of the British masses towards the war - the citizens of England themselved thought military action was unjust and no the right course of action

The American revolution was not a victory of American greatness - rather it was a blunder born from British arrougance. Had parliament applied some tact, the U.S indeed would still be a subject of the commonwealth.

[Pikemen]

1)Actually, yes. The US has caused far, far more problems than what positive things it's caused. The US should dissolve it's government, join the Commonwealth, and become, in a sense, a British possession.

2)Also, you made a comment about the British "raping and slaughtering" the colonists. Where do you get such claims? Sure, the Hessians committed such atrocities, but the British were of higher standards. I mean, insulting the King had you put to death, so obviously they had very strict policies.

Let me geuss, your english?

For your first part:

What problems have the US caused? If you look at American History, We have help many nations and people from many sorts of different problems, WE (the US) saved England in WWII England couldn't even hold off air strikes in their capitol of london., WE where the spearheads that broke through Europe and LIBERATED THE JEWISH PEOPLE, THE US was the biggest superpower for the last 50-60 years and still is, WE have the best Healthcare for the average person (51% of the people in England that get prostate cancer die, In the US 91% live). For you to say the USA should "dissolve its goverment" and "become part of the Commonwealth" makes you look like a fool.

2) Remember THE BOSTON MASSACRE???

And you actually say England have been good in keeping people in good condition? look at the Irish Patato famine. millions died and the English refused to give out adequate grain to feed them, The English brutally put down Scottish rebelions, and caused a 100 year war with France? And your calling America bad? Ha!

I personally don't like you, you demonize a goverment on false facts, and you deem it unworthy of existance, I just dont know what to say...

Cheers,
Pikemen