Was the Revolutionary War right or wrong?

[Pikemen]

It doesn't matter what the colonists thought they deserved, it's what we thought they deserved. They needed to remember, WE, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, were their ruler. We didn't have to take orders from a band of colonists if we didn't want to. The King had every right to ignore the colonists. The problem was the proud nature of the colonists. "Our ancestors are from England so we deserve better treatment than everyone else" is what the colonists thought. Well, that wasn't true. They were technically colonists and nothing but. It doesn't matter what nationality they were, they were colonists. We were giving them a right to live on British-owned land.

Also, it was difficult for Parliament to represent the colonists, as they were an entire ocean away. The English and Scottish had a great deal of representation as they were closest to Parliament. The colonists were too far away to receive the exact same type of representation.

Another factor (not a problem, but a factor) in this was that King George III was an absolute monarchist; he believed that, though the monarch possessed great power, didn't possess enough power in the affairs of the Empire, which was why he continually went against Parliament and did things "his way". I admit, had he treated the colonists better, they might not have lost the war to France, but it is a true fact that he had a right to do what he did. Whether or not it was a good decision is open for question.

The English Empire did give its subjects certian rights, including:

The right to trial by jury of peers
Security in one's home from unlawful entry
No taxation without representation
Regular discussion
No cruel and unusual punishments
The right to rebel

The Last one is the most important in this case.

Source:
http://www.answers.com/topic/rights-of-englishmen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Englishmen



And your argument about how it was hard for England to represent the colonies? They need to represent the colonies if they want to tax them, Thats a English law

Have you heard of the English bill of rights? You are English, are you not? it says:

Freedom from royal interference with the law.
Freedom from taxation by Royal Prerogative.
Freedom to petition the monarch.
Freedom from the standing army during a time of peace
Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defense
Freedom to elect members of parliament without interference from the sovereign.
Freedom of speech and debates

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689


RuleBritannia, please respond to my post, I would like to see what you have to say about this. I have not had a response from you yet.

Cheers,
Pikemen

[Amaz]

it's just so funny... RB and Seraph posting one response after another...

[RuleBritannia]

The English Empire did give its subjects certian rights, including:

The right to trial by jury of peers
Security in one's home from unlawful entry
No taxation without representation
Regular discussion
No cruel and unusual punishments
The right to rebel

The Last one is the most important in this case.

And your argument about how it was hard for England to represent the colonies? They need to represent the colonies if they want to tax them, Thats a English law

Have you heard of the English bill of rights? it says:

Freedom from royal interference with the law.
Freedom from taxation by Royal Prerogative.
Freedom to petition the monarch.
Freedom from the standing army during a time of peace
Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defense
Freedom to elect members of parliament without interference from the sovereign.
Freedom of speech and debates

Source:
http://www.answers.com/topic/rights-of-englishmen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Englishmen


RuleBritannia, please respond to my post, I would like to see what you have to say about this. I have not had a response from you yet.

Cheers,
Pikemen

Good points, but there's one fatal flaw. "The right to bear arms in self-defense" means in a time of war/if the mother country imposes violent laws and oppression onto said colony.

The British taxed them without representation, the colonists saw this as "unjust" for whatever reason and misused their rights, the Revolution began, America got their asses kicked 3/4 of the battles, France joined, Britain decided it was too much trouble and too dangerous leaving their borders at home unguarded due to infantry being in the colonies, end of the war.

Basically, that's how it went.

[Pikemen]

Good points, but there's one fatal flaw. "The right to bear arms in self-defense" means in a time of war/if the mother country imposes violent laws and oppression onto said colony.

The British taxed them without representation, the colonists saw this as "unjust" for whatever reason and misused their rights, the Revolution began, America got their asses kicked 3/4 of the battles, France joined, Britain decided it was too much trouble and too dangerous leaving their borders at home unguarded due to infantry being in the colonies, end of the war.

Basically, that's how it went.

1) where does it say "in time of war"?

2) How did they misuse their rights? they had been taken advantage of, taxed without representation (breaks law), forced to shelter a standing army in peace time (breaks law). So they rebelled (that was their right). People dont just rebel because they think it will be fun or because they are bored. ENGLAND misused its power and took advantage of the colonies, giving the Americans a perfect reason to rebel, According to English law.

Cheers,
Pikemen

[Lord Claremorris]

It seems there is some misunderstanding here. First off, I never said either the UK or the US was superior to the other morally or in any other regard. Second, the colonists were indeed suspended of some of their "rights" as Englishmen, but that was because they were proving unruly and uncooperative. It should also be noted that such concepts as "Rights of Man" were not yet propogated and even Englishmen believed suspension of liberty to be justified by requirements of state.

.

Dude, are you serious? 'Ungrateful rebels' This is the 21st century, not the 18th. Listen to yourself. Are you really that blinded by nationalism? If I meet you in person to debate this, would you still say that same phrase?

Precisely, this is the 21st Century, and you are super-imposing our standards over their time. Representation was limited at best, and across all parts of continental Europe it was largely non-existent. Just because we believe these things to be right, and many countries have adopted them, means absolutely nothing to Kings and Ministers in the 18th century, you would do well to understand that. They lived by their own standards, which were that the King was the legitimate sovereign of all his people, and when those people declared they were no longer to be his subjects, he and his government regarded them as treacherous rebels who had forfeit their rights as Englishmen, whatever justifications we have offered for their rebellion.

Soldiers were quarted in American homes, and garrisoned cities because the populace had become so brazen as to simply declare themselves exempt from any taxation. So it degenerated into a battle of wills, Parliament asserting its right to govern and legislate for the Empire, and the colonists asserting their right to flaunt the authority of Parliament because they imagined themselves under-represented. When colonists began openly defying Parliaments wishes, and committing crimes to show their defiance (Boston Tea Party anyone?) Parliament had every right to declare martial law and put the country under occupation. When people declare governments to be invalid, then those governments react, and to say this that or the other is irrelevant because that is what happens. Though they should perhaps have acted with considerably more tact, the English Government was perfectly within its rights to enforce its rule over its own subjects.

Finally there is this rubbish about Americans committing genocide and Britons being morally inferior to them and whatnot. This is all completely irrelevant and I regard such attacks against the moral standards of the British or American Governments as strawmen that deflect the course of the true argument, which is of course, were the American colonies justified in rebelling against their King and Parliament, I repeat once more, no, not by a long shot. The only reason anybody thinks they heroically threw off the yoke of the oppressor King George and his tyrant ministers is because the Americans happened to succeed in their little revolt, and they naturally found historians that wished to show their native land in a favorable light. More objective observers would however see precedents in England's action against both the Scots and the Irish, who were much more brutally treated at times. So I am of the opinion, as were the many very experienced ministers of Parliament and the King himself, that the Americans had no case. They had legitimate grievances but they pursued the solutions in the wrong manner. I regard it as entirely ironic that when the Irish delegation met Woodrow Wilson and petitioned him to recognise the Republic of Ireland, he simply informed them that they lived in a democracy and they could settle their grievances throught Parliament, when this same suggestion could have been taken up by Wilson's own nation 150 years before.

Good points, but there's one fatal flaw. "The right to bear arms in self-defense" means in a time of war/if the mother country imposes violent laws and oppression onto said colony.

The British taxed them without representation, the colonists saw this as "unjust" for whatever reason and misused their rights, the Revolution began, America got their asses kicked 3/4 of the battles, France joined, Britain decided it was too much trouble and too dangerous leaving their borders at home unguarded due to infantry being in the colonies, end of the war.

Basically, that's how it went.

This is oversimplfying things. The Americans proved adept at surviving and wearing the British down. Naturally they could not hope to defeat the British in many pitched battles, since the Kingdom of Great Britain had far more resources at its disposal. Also since England had control of the seas, the British could move up and down the coast at will, and that virtually insured their occupation of the major port cities. The intervention of France (along with Spain and Holland, and increased hostility from Russia and Sweden) was decisive. France had a fleet that managed with not a bit of luck to give Samuel Hood the slip and defeat Sam Graves in the Chesapeake. Contrary to the beliefs of many people, the Royal Navy was not driven from the seas and England horribly exposed. In fact, the Royal Navy bested every one of its rivals, even France eventually, and secured its rule over the seas. For this Britain maintained everything accept the American Colonies and Louisiana. France had hoped to scoop up Carribbean Islands and lands in India, while Spain had hoped to take Gibraltar, both were frustrated by England's stoic and stubborn resistance. The British Government finally abandoned the conflict in North America because many people had by then concluded that enforcing their rule across so vast a land with such uniform hostility among the inhabitants was virtually impossible. England would have to introduce conscription, raise taxes more, burrow heavily, it was simply impractical. Many people were arguing that this was not the type of conflict England should be engaging in, and it was only assisting their rivals in Europe. So I regard your post as a huge underestimation of the challenge to British rule that the Colonists represented.

[RuleBritannia]

Well, not just from resources, but battles like Camden, where Americans attempted European warfare, show that the Americans could never hope (until World War 1) to fight well in Europe. Camden was one of the most crushing defeats in American history. and it does prove that the colonists didn't have more skill or power than the British did. The Americans had 3700, British 2100, Americans lose over 2000 troops, British lose less than 100. It's said the battle was so crushing because of two reasons:

1. Vastly superior tactics and training.

2. The Americans foolishly attempted an open-field battle with British redcoats, the best infantry in the world at the time.



However, it is true the Americans proved they could wear down the British, but this was because the colonists rarely fought full-scale battles that didn't end in defeat. Most of the time, they used guerilla attacks and sneak attacks. The British were mostly used to the "rules of honourable warfare" and were reluctant to use such tactics, considering them cowardly.

Another factor is the terrain. The British soldiers and basically every other Western European army had been trained under the idea that all battles take place on open/fair ground for both sides, that no cowardly tactics were used, and another factor even in this as that it was much easier to run across an open-field than it was through mountainous woodland as they did in the colonies.

The final factor was number and supply. British supplies and reinforcements were literally months away, while the colonists could recruit rebels on the spot (and most of the population was rebel, and the population and full Continental army dwarfed the British army in the colonies by number) and could obtain supplies (both peacefully and violently) from the colonists.

If you look at the War of 1812 however, which was a resounding tactical British victory (far fewer casualties, far more battles won), you can see that after the Americans adapted more of a European combat-style doctrine, the superior-trained British could defeat them normally with little effort.

Here's just one example of the many decisive British victories won by strategy, tactics, and the valour of the British army: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...enston_heights

Or a British strategic defeat, but decisive tactical victory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Meigs

[Amaz]

idk how this adds up really... there is so much to look into...

[RuleBritannia]

My post was meant to prove my point that despite what some people think, the Americans had far less skill than the British.

[Seraph07]

Another factor is the terrain. The British soldiers and basically every other Western European army had been trained under the idea that all battles take place on open/fair ground for both sides, that no cowardly tactics were used, and another factor even in this as that it was much easier to run across an open-field than it was through mountainous woodland as they did in the colonies.

Well they were wrong.

(Sigh) RB have you heard of the phrase " You may win the battle but I'll still win the war"
It doesn't matter if Britain won every battle of both of those war by any margin, as they lost both of them. No matter how great and glorious Britains military, their record stands at 0/2.
Either way, the military losses of Britain have nothing to do with the point of this over drawn, and soon to be closed debate.

After further research, I have come to the realization that British rule over the colonies could hardly be called tyrannical. I will even go as far as to say the King and Parliament were , for the most part, not guilty of the crimes they were accused of. What they were guilty of, was not recognizing the soverignty of an Emerging nation. However, using logic and British laws I will justify the Revolution.( Not Rebellion )


With each birth and passing decade, the people of America became less British and more American. By 1776, most colonists as well as their generations past were born in America. True America was ' just a colony' But with a population of three and half million, roughly half that of the Mother Country, the term colony could hardly be applied.True the land they lived on was provided and colonized by Britain. But it was the Americans who built the cities, tilled the firms, and through centuries of toil brought forth civilization in a foreign and hostile land. There in lies the gray area. So what were the colonies, a piece of the British Mercantilism machine, or their own country ?



1) Government wills at the consent of the people. On the other side of the coin, every nation has the government it deserves.

2) The 13 colonies were a collection of territories Belonging to the British Empire, and which were settled by mostly British immigrants.

3) American colonists were still Citizens of Great Britain, and thus subject to it's laws, as well as entitled to it's rights, as laid down by the English Bill of Rights (1689)

4) The Doctrine of Reception took this a step further applying English law to all colonies and territories the Crown.

So therefore we can draw the conclusion that American Colonists were British subjects, and for all intensive purposes, no different than that of any other Englishman, save their geographic location.

With that being said, here are a few clear violations of these laws, by the Parliament and king.

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

With no representation, any standing army was a violation of this right

By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

Again these two clauses have clearly been violated, as the Three Million Citizens of the colonies were not allowed to have one seat on parliament.

I can find clause after clause that British law at that time dictated to these two facts: Taxation required representation, British citizens were entitled to elect representatives to speak for them in their national assembley, parliament.

This list of grievances, of which I admit is really not that bad when held in the same light of the rest of the world at the time, was more than enough to justify the use of this particular clause of the Rights of Englishmen: The right to Rebel.

With that being said, America decided that indeed:

1) Government wills at the consent of the people. On the other side of the coin, every nation has the government it deserves.

And there it is, though marginal, the legal justification for the Revolutionary War.

If that's not good enough for you, there here's another, more simple explanation:

The 13 colonies didn't want to be ruled by Britain. They declared independence, and this started a war.
The United States won that war, and became it's own country.

[Seraph07]

My post was meant to prove my point that despite what some people think, the Americans had far less skill than the British.

I couldn't resist...

That could very well be true, but they were more skillful at one particular thing: Going to war with Britain and winning. Twice. I don't care how good Britain was, they still lost.
L

[RuleBritannia]

Britain didn't lose the War of 1812.


British historians and I say the British won.

American historians say the Americans won.

Generally historians say neither side won.

[Seraph07]

Well, they still lost the war of American Independence.

[Pikemen]

If England was so great, How did America win the war of Indipendence? Don't say that England didnt want the territory because they fought wars over it, and colonized it. America won through a combonation of very cleaver Diplomacy and resilient fighting. England lost, as History shows, and America proved superior. Many of the American generals back then came from the English army that fought in the French and Indian War, so command of the Army was very simulare to the English way of fighting (and thats why they lost so many battles, the American army wasn't as well trained as the English army, but the commanders where very simulare). When the Americans understood that they couldnt fight the british in open feild battles (that would have been suicide), they turned to gurilla warfare (smart choice) and they won the war. American Generals won the war, rather than using pure force (like the British using thier super trained block fighters) they used tactics that they knew they could win with. Also, England underestimated the resourcefulness of the American generals. The american generals out-witted and out maneuvered the English and eventually cornered general cornwallace in yorktown and made him surrender. from that point on, America was a free nation.

Cheers,
Pikemen

[TWoxy]

Maybe an odd question to ask, but, regarding the accent and speech of the colonists, would it have been closer to a current British or American accent? In films depicting the War of Independence, the colonists are always shown to possess an almost "vanilla" American accent, yet would this have been the case?

Also, this seems to be a good place to ask where I can read up on the guerilla tactics of the colonists; anyone have any particularly informative sources I could check out?

[Lord Claremorris]

My post was meant to prove my point that despite what some people think, the Americans had far less skill than the British.

Far less skill? They had far less experience, much less training, and were rudely equipped compared to the Recoats for sure, but less skilled? The Americans proved adept at demoralising and disheartening their British opponents. The British wasted thousands of men garrisoning hostile towns, alienated previous sympathisers by the rapacious conduct in certain areas and they enraged their European rivals with their haughty arrogance. The British may have been quite good from a tactical viewpoint, but strategically they were bloody thick as can be. The maxim is "Divide and Conquer" not "Piss everybody off so they all unite against you." And the Redcoats were not the greatest soldiers in the World at the time, the Prussians of Frederick the Great would have made mince-meat of them, the Prussians were know to their enemies as "The Demons" because of their inhuman discipline and rate of fire. Also interesting to note, the very sharp and perceptive Prussian King had long forseen the outright rebellion of the American Colonies, predicting British stupidity and arrogance would get them in some nasty trouble there.

I still argue wholeheartedly that Britain had every right to take those measures, and the Americans illegally declared their independence, but Britain's conduct was far less than spectacular. One thing I'd like to ask you mate, what were individual army's objectives in that war? Because it seems to me that they were simply "Take whatever we can hold, and march around endlessly hoping that the rebels will get tired and give up." Clausewitz would be horrified by such a vague and desperate strategy.

[RuleBritannia]

You know what's very odd?

At the time of the Revolution when the British were having a difficult time, they were annihilating Maratha Empire armies in India, winning battles outnumbered even 50 - 1. I mean, if the British did have the second-best army in the world, why did they have such a difficult time in Americas when compared to other regions? I mean, they fought very well in Europe, fought exceptionally in India, but it was difficult in the Americas. I'm not arguing that their army wasn't good, but it's rather puzzling when you look at how well they fought elsewhere.


Pikemen, Britain superior-trained and better-equipped infantry than the rebels did. When France, along with Spain and the Netherlands joined in, it was Britain and Prussian mercenaries vs. a rebel band and 3 of the most powerful nations in the world at the time. It could never have been won. Had France, etc. not helped the rebels, they wouldn't have lasted very long, as the rebels got some supplies, including weaponry, from France.

[Lord Claremorris]

It's rather debatable if they fought very well in Europe actually. Their performance in the 7 Years War was not spectacular on the continent, and Frederick was really contemptuous of their efforts against France. Their performance in the Austrian Succession War was even worse, as the French under Maurice de Saxe destroyed them and gradually reduced the Austrian Netherlands to French control, despite Britain's best efforts, and Dupleix took Madras from them in India....They fared much better against Indian armies because they were not organised, commanded, or trained to near European levels, and the whole country was not uniformly hostile to them, as was the case in America. Furthermore France and Spain found themselves able to effectively assist the American rebels, while their attempts to assist the Indians were frustrated by the British. I would not say the British performed excellently in India and in Europe, they performed reasonably well, but their efforts were dwarfed by Austria, Prussia and France, and until mid-century (18th that is), even by the Dutch.

[RuleBritannia]

Actually, you're right.

Until the mid-18th century, Britain's power was her navy. However, going into the Golden Age of the British Empire, they began using better doctrines and better training, and nearing the mid-19th century, they had the best army in the world if I'm not mistaken.

[Lord Claremorris]

Yes, Britain's power lay in her navy. While her efforts in land warfare were sometimes successful, sometimes not, in naval warfare she was unbeatable. The Royal Navy smashed the proud French Fleets, ruined Spain's Empire relegated the once great Dutch Fleet to non-importance and ruled the waves incontestably. By the 19th century the British Army was very powerful, having bested the French in Spain, and having defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, while also fighting against the Americans. However overconfidence led to erosion of the army, and it was badly handled by the Russians in the Crimean War. England was very fortunate to have France as an ally, as the French Army managed to defeat the Russians where it is likely the English alone would have failed. Then came the humiliating Boer War, and the German onslaught in WWI where the British were helplessly swept up in the maelstrom, their entire army not even equaling one French corps in 1914. Though by 1917 the British took up the main burden of fighting against Germany as Russia collapsed into anarchy and the French Army torn by mutiny.

[RuleBritannia]

You forgot to mention the Zulu War in the late 1800s, which was one of the best British military accomplishments.

I agree, and going on into World War II, the British were somewhat better prepared, and they did far better than in WWI. However, the Germans by far had the best army in the world; their troops more or less wiped the floor with Allied (both British and American) troops on several occasions, and their Panzers and King Tiger tanks were in all honesty unstoppable. However, due to Hitler's poor military knowledge, lack of abundent supplies, and anarchy in Germany, the Axis lost, but if you look at the statistics, the Axis killed more, if not far more Allied troops in all than what they lost. However, Britain did have to hold out against the Germans and Italians for several years by herself as France had fallen. Had Britain given up or been defeated by the Axis, America would definately be next, but unfortunately, most Americans don't realize that Britain and the several other minor nations were the only things keeping the vastly superior Axis armies from attacking them.