Was the Revolutionary War right or wrong?

[Himster]

Be-ware of the risen people who shall take what you would not give, did you think to conquer the people? Or that law is stronger than life and man's desire to be free? It has been figured, you that have harried and held, you that have bullied and bribed: Tyrants, hipocrites, liars.

[Slinkyskating]

I am sorry for being unclear earlier. The horrible gramar was due to my inability to type on the IPAD.

You're right, I don't understand you. I'm sorry, but I can't work out this sentence. The Danish king saw the English throne as...what? There's needs to be an object there, or the sentence doesn't work.

In addition, the "revolt" against Danish rule was a lot more complicated than just throwing out the house of Cnut (This is the "incident" you're referring to, right?). First, Harald Harefoot (a half-dane, half-saxon) took the throne, died of sickness, and was replaced by his half-Dane half-Norman half-brother, who died of overindulgence soon after. These were the last heirs of Cnut, and so the English didn't so much revolt against Danish rule as the ruling house died out. (According to: The Vikings, by the Teaching Company)



That's the ideal (ideal as in the purest form of something) of Monarchy, yes. However, you must undderstand that the ideal is not easily put in practice. In wartime, the noble class is a lot more fluid.

In fact, that's one of the reasons African-Amaricans were kept out of the officer core for so long: An officer was automatically afforded the title of "gentleman," the lowest rank of the nobility. So, there is social advancement available to the best of the lower classes. (According to: War and World History, by the Teaching Company)



So, non-British citizens emmigrated to a British colony or were a part of the colony when it became British? That still qualified them as citizens of the Empire, and so they were under its laws. Anyway, that only justifies the Quakers and their descendents. What about everyone else who revolted, whose ancestors hadn't been exiled?

Note: I'm writing in a hurry, so if this post is atrociously constructed, I'll fix it when I get back.

Regarding England and the Danes as well as other invaders I spoke of earlier, I was directing that to RuleBritania who kept refering to American rebellion as foolish because the Brits considerd Americans subjects to the English throne. By his logic England should not have rebeled against all of its invaders that claimed to be the rightful rulers of the British Isle. I wanted to get a response out of RuleBritania who clearly had some contempt for the Americans because he called them foolish more then once. However, it was not important to my general argument, and it is my fault that this tangent was created. I apologize you were not able to understand my main idea in that post it was probobly because you were so concerned with my gramar.

You say that the noble class was more fluid during the war, but you do not deny that it wrong to have a class of people that are 'born' to rule. That means my point that Americans had the right to rule themselves under a democratic system stands.

Next you seem to concetrate on this idea that they were British subjects. However you fail to acnowldge the era of the American Revolution was the eara of enlightenment. Old rules were being questioned with new ideas emerging such as a goverment by the people for the people. The fact that the Revolutionaries were not born in England nor were their parents adds to the American claims of independece. These people were born in America and since we do not have a time machine we can not say weather they saw themselves as British subjects in the same sense as the people that lived in Britain. So those that rebeled had the full right to be independent from Britain. Loyalist were free to leave, which they did.

Finaly I have not heard anyone mention the fact this war was unpopular in England since the very begining. The parliment wanted to grant the Americans their independece, however, King George decided to wage a war eventhough the parliment was against this war. Therefore England was the one that was wrong in waging an illegal war. Although the road was hard and not with out blood, the foundations for our nation were laid during the declaration of independece. Today America stands in the defense of human rights and freedoms (I know sometime we faulter). That is the final reason why the Revolutionary war was justified.


P.S. I am not trying to be flag waving patriot I know that America has her faults, but that does not mean that it should not have existed. The US has a great potential and if you look at history America has always moved toward the side of equality and human compassion.

[Dargaron]

Regarding England and the Danes as well as other invaders I spoke of earlier, I was directing that to RuleBritania who kept refering to American rebellion as foolish because the Brits considerd Americans subjects to the English throne. By his logic England should not have rebeled against all of its invaders that claimed to be the rightful rulers of the British Isle. I wanted to get a response out of RuleBritania who clearly had some contempt for the Americans because he called them foolish more then once. However, it was not important to my general argument, and it is my fault that this tangent was created. I apologize you were not able to understand my main idea in that post it was probobly because you were so concerned with my gramar.

Ok, thank you for explaining what you were trying to do. I'm sorry too; the tangent was my fault as much as (or more than) yours. I'm semi-pedantic about historical generalizations, and have a habit of derailing stuff. And I apologize for the comment about the grammar, it went a bit (or more) too far.

You say that the noble class was more fluid during the war, but you do not deny that it wrong to have a class of people that are 'born' to rule. That means my point that Americans had the right to rule themselves under a democratic system stands.

I'm of the opinion that a weakly hereditary noble class is no better or worse than other systems. While it is a relatively arbitrary system, it's also objective; it's hard for bias to exclude someone from the noble class once they are a part of it. You have to wait untill the family dies out, or one of their members shames the family badly enough for a monarch or other greater power to strip away their privilages.

Imo, if there's enough upward mobility into the nobility, and there's a constant flow of new blood, the old families can't get too complacent, since there's plenty of competition from below. There are hiccups when the nobility gets too powerful or united, but then again, no system is without flaws.

But all this is my personal beliefs, so you're free to make judgements on your own as to whether the revolution was justified on that score, or if my explaination is complete baloney. I won't try to convince you otherwise, unless you try to convince me.

Next you seem to concetrate on this idea that they were British subjects. However you fail to acnowldge the era of the American Revolution was the eara of enlightenment. Old rules were being questioned with new ideas emerging such as a goverment by the people for the people. The fact that the Revolutionaries were not born in England nor were their parents adds to the American claims of independece. These people were born in America and since we do not have a time machine we can not say weather they saw themselves as British subjects in the same sense as the people that lived in Britain. So those that rebeled had the full right to be independent from Britain. Loyalist were free to leave, which they did.

But, why should the loyalists have to leave? They have as much right to live under their chosen form of government as the revolutionaries did. And their chosen form of government was as a British colony.
And if the loyalists have to leave for Britain, they have to abandon their land, which would have been a lot of their livelihood. So, the revolutionaries are back to the Right of Conquest. Admittedly, the colonies probably couldn't impliment a referendum while they were still British colonies, but then it's not clear whether the revolutionaries represent "the people" or just a large or powerful enough minority to win.

Finaly I have not heard anyone mention the fact this war was unpopular in England since the very begining. The parliment wanted to grant the Americans their independece, however, King George decided to wage a war eventhough the parliment was against this war. Therefore England was the one that was wrong in waging an illegal war. Although the road was hard and not with out blood, the foundations for our nation were laid during the declaration of independece. Today America stands in the defense of human rights and freedoms (I know sometime we faulter). That is the final reason why the Revolutionary war was justified.

Did the parliament or the king have the right to declare war? I know that the parliament controlled the purse strings, but I'm a bit fuzzy on 18th century British institutions. So, if the king could wage a war on the current budget, I'm not sure how the war could be called illegal. But I could be wrong.

Since we don't know what the world would have looked like without the revolution, I'm leery of accepting the argument, "things turned out better this way." But there isn't really much of a counter, since we don't have enough data or Star Trek-esque computer models to figure out what would have happened if the revolution had failed/not happened.

I'm not saying the argument is invalid, but it's tricky, and gets into subjective territory. We don't know how Britain would have evolved differently if they'd had to appease much larger american possessions, or if they had a lot more resources, or if these factors influenced any number of other things (my personal hope would be that the natives would have had more time to adapt to European influence, and formed a third centralized power in North America, but that's unlikely).

[kahnage]

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

We didnt lose the War of 1812.

And if the revolution was so justified, why did just under 50% of the colonists migrate up into Canada?

[kahnage]

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.

I think it had something to do with 9/10 of Britains best officers and generals refusing to lead British armies in the war, not just British arrogance.

British troops were no pushovers when it came to discipline and rate of fire. Britain copied, for the most part, the prussians and it was quite common for British troops to match Prussians in discipline and training. The standard British line troop could fire 3-4 round per minute. That stayed quite constant up until the Napoleonic wars, in which it was very common for elite, veteran and specialist troops (the Rifles, Guards, Grenadiers, Veteran Line Infantry, skirmishers) to fire up to and over 6 rounds per minute.

It all culminated in WW2 with elite and veteran troops being able to fire up to and over 30 rounds per minute with the Lee Enfield No1 Rifle.

For example, when German troops came into contact with a battalion of Royal Marine Commandoes after D-Day in 1944, the rate of fire put down by the RM Commandoes (estimated at about 32-34 rounds per minute on average) was enough to make a german unit nearly three times the RM Commandoes size (including some light armour support) SURRENDER. The Germans later said when questioned that they thought they were being fired at by a new British automatic rifle, and were terrified when they learned that the weapon the RM Commandoes were using was a standard (unmodified) Lee Enfield No 1 Bolt Action rifle.

[kahnage]

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.

Thats a slightly inaccurate analysis of the Boer war. Its off topic, but i'll say that the same problems effected the British as effected them in the American war of independence.

That being: The British are great when facing european powers (having proved themselves against most european powers) and britain could defeat most native troops, but when it came to gureilla (sorry for spelling, i suck at it) warfare, or more specifically countering guerilla warfare, the British failed. As can be seen in the Anglo-afghan wars, the Boer war and the American war of independence.

The British army had just as much of a responsibility and were better than the French in WW1. It is highly unlikely that the British army miraculously became competant (as you seem to be hinting at in your post) in 1917. British troops were equal, and in many cases superior to, the french troops. Very rarely were the british defeated by the germans in WW1.

Although, i agree that the British learned from their Prussian allies an, by 1800, had the best troops in the world, supplemented even more by Prussian, hannovarian and Hessian cavalry and infantry.

In regards to the Crimean, yes it tought the British lessons, but it wasnt Discipline, or training, it was to do with the treatment and logistical aspects of the land army. THAT was the main reason Britain suffered so many losses.
Many lessons were learned, but they werent that the British needed better training, equipment, discipline or training, infact British troops were probably the best trained and best equipped in the Entire crimean, it was the sheer fact that, unlike the Navy (whose sailors and ships were kept in the best possible condition and ahd the best treatment), the land troops logistics, medical care and supply lines were badly organised and severely lacking, which nearly lead to a british defeat. As you say, the only thing that stopped it was French support in the form of shared logistics and the way the French troops shouldered the burden when British troops didnt have a bullet to scratch their arses with or where bleeding all over the floor and dying of infection when there was a 'suprising' lack of doctors, nurses and medical equipment.

EDIT: Sorry for triple post

[kahnage]

Then why couldn't they have crushed the Americans BEFORE France joined in? If Amerians where so stupid, ill-disaplined, and under bad command, Why couldnt have the British delt with the Americans before France, Spain, and the Netherlands joined in to help? You even said before that the Americans cold have won, it would have just caused more deaths without help from the French, Spain, and the NL. France Spain and the Netherlands entered the war after February 6, 1778 (Frances join date), nearly 3 years into the war (started 18 April 1775)



Don't be a hypocrite. And I can't belive you are still arguing your point. Almost everyone on this thread disagrees with you, and you have no good and valid points to argue with.

Cheers,
Pikemen

Main reason:
Many of the officers commanding the veteran british troops were inexperienced. Most of Britains best commanders refused to fight, as they prefered the peaceful solution.

Although funnily enough, they were very eager to analyse german/prussian fighting styles and that gave rise to the world-dominating armies Britain used in the 1780's onwards.

EDIT: Ah, this will make it 4 in a row....sorry.

[l33tl4m3r]

No worries! We like the input!