well if were talking bout the revalutionary war what really won it was france and some of the other nations alling with us it pretty muched force britian to concede.
The essence of "terrorism" is the use of terror in order to terrorize a civilian population into pressuring its government to support or tolerate a cause or a people against which it has been fighting. Thus it is not entirely hyperbole to call the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism, since many historians say it did indeed demoralize the Japanese civilians and the dropoff in civilian support made it easier to get the military to surrender. But it would seem that attacks by American colonial forces on British civilian targets and sympathizers, as ugly as they may have been, were of a more tactical nature: get the Tories out of our country, destroy their support structure. And thus they were acts of insurrection, not terrorism. Everybody had slaves in those days. It was not everywhere quite such a starkly racial issue of course. In other countries sometimes white people had white slaves and black people had black slaves. But slavery as an institution was considered normal by both the Tories and colonials. It was a time-honored tradition to make slaves of people conquered in war, going back to the disparity in weaponry created by Bronze Age technology between the "civilized" folks and the "barbarians."
I'm sorry. That's like saying punching a guy in the face is the same as mass murder. Or George Bush is the same as Adolph Hitler. Bad things always happen in war. But terrorists take the worst side effects of war and turn it into their reson d'etat. The founding fathers did not do that. They were not terrorists.
Where did you learn your history? Sure, the French helped. But they never committed ground forces on any large scale, and the most influential Frenchman of them all, Lafayette, was there on his own accord. The US Continental Army, through years of maneuvering and staying in the field, forced a decisive moment at Yorktown that forced a British withdrawal of troops. Are you so virulently anti-American that you can't even credit the US for pulling of its own Revolutionary victory?
Personally, I'd give Yorktown to the French. It was General Clinton who ordered Cornwallis to give up the chase in the south and retreat to Yorktown. Washington, despite this, really wanted Admiral de Grasse to bring the French fleet to New York (where Clinton was headquartered), but de Grasse put his foot down saying that Yorktown was the stronger target, since Cornwallis could be boxed in. Washington conceded and moved south. Once there, Washington initially wanted to engage in a full on frontal assault (against fortified positions), and it was General Rochambeau who resisted, arguing that a coordinated sea and ground artillery assault and siege was the better option—not a form of combat with which Washington was familiar. To his credit, Washington recognized that Rochambeau's plan was superior. The French forces then surrounded Yorktown on three sides (including their navy), and the Americans on the south (and one unit reinforcing the French in the north, at Gloucester, the other town the British held across the river from Yorktown). (The other think the French did was that Admiral de Grasse brought hard currency with which to pay the Continental Army. The Army, camped in New Jersey for the winter, had openly mutinied against their commanders twice at the start of 1781, in large part over the fact that they hadn't been paid in months. The second occurrence prompted Washington to order the execution of several of the soldiers. The Continental Congress did not have taxing authority, so had no money to pay to anyone—and even when they did, it was worthless continental dollars.) There's a reason why the British initially tried to surrender to Rochambeau, rather than Washington. Rochambeau refused to accept the surrender and his aide de camp took the British representative to Washington. Outside of that one battle, though, the Americans provided most of the direct military power in the Americas. The French did provide unbelievable amounts of supplies and a few thousand troops (not that the whole Continental Army couldn't be described as "a few thousand troops," but well less than a majority), but the real military aid they provided was that they forced the British to treat the conflict as a world war, harassing them in far more valuable (to the British) places like the Caribbean, Gibraltar and India, which were far more lucrative colonies than all of the American colonies put together. Plus, it was the French entrance in the war that led the Dutch and the Spanish to enter it, which increased British dissatisfaction with their lack of progress, since it seemed like larger enemies were looming and troops being diverted to the insignificant colonies. So the French did make a significant contribution to the war.
And that's fair enough, but turns on a very close semantic question. I don't think the language is sufficiently clear as to when terrorism and insurrection differ when dealing with non-military targets, to draw too hard a distinction. Then again, it doesn't bother me if other people call revolutionary's terrorists. The events and context matter, not the label. Baron von Steuben is alleged to have taken "familiarities with young boys" (hence he fled to America). He thus might be labeled a pedophile. That would be a bad thing if true, but it doesn't invalidate the rest of his life. Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson were very clearly racists, but that doesn't mean you don't look at their other qualities.
I never argued they didn't, and I don't think our appreciations of the critical aspects of the conflict differ all that much. All I was saying to the fellow above is that the bulk of the military engagements in the Revolutionary War were fought by the US Continental Army and that Yorktown came about largely because Washington won the cat and mouse game with his British counterparts and lasted long enough to get the money, supplies and allies to force a decisive engagement. The French arrived on the scene, as I'm sure you know, given your obvious knowledge of history, several years into the conflict (I can't remember exactly when, but I know Adams was frustrated with Franklin's diplomacy because it took so long). The French also, as you mentioned, never seriously committed high numbers of troops to the conflict. I think more were on the way when Yorktown was won, but it was American commanders and American armies who pushed the British out of the South by winning major victories there. I don't think any serious student of history denies the role of the French, but to chalk the Revolution up to the French and "some other allies" is to ignore and belittle the actual achievement of the Americans, something the above poster seems all to eager to do...
It's amusing how much the "hate America" crowd tries to belittle the successes of the Revolutionary War. A common parallel used by historians is the Vietnam War. Both of them were extended conflicts in which the greater military presence was forced to contend with a protracted military conflict while supporting a vast global realm. In both cases, the vast majority of the monies and supplies that were used to supply the "smaller nation" in the conflict came from nations outside the conflict (in the Revolution: France, Spain and the Dutch; In Vietnam: China and the USSR). The one difference, for arguement's sake, is that the same "hate America crowd" who belittles the success of the Revolutionary War as an American success, never hesitate to talk about how a smaller nation, Vietname, trounced the USA in that conflict. The fact is, if it wasn't for the steadfast determination of the Founding Fathers, as well as the (at times faltering) support of the American public, all the aid in the world from the French and their navy wouldn't have done a thing to win American independence. ~String
Just an aside on the War of 1812: A reference early in this thread mentions 'Canadians'. I'm French Canadian and we did not fight the Americans in the War of 1812. The British fought the Americans. Most of what we call Canada today was not British in nationality at the time....including Quebec and much of Atlantic Canada...in fact the majority population in Nova Scotia along shores facing the USA were Americans recently arrived to seek their fortune. The war of 1812 was between Brits and the Americans partially fought in Canada. 99% of the residents of what were the British possessions called 'Canada' today had nothing to do with it and most didn't even know it was happening. Re American aggression. It's coming up to 200 years since the last American invasion of Canada (all couple dozen men). If ever there is an example in history of a large military power NOT being militarily aggresive towards a smaller one it is the Americans towards Canada. A finger wagged now and then but not even a stone thrown in 200 years. Thank goodness it's the USA on our border.
Good post. Most of the battles in the War of 1812 were Naval engagements anyways, so the whole invasion of Canada thing is somewhat inaccurate.
of course you can't bush and hitler are not the same hitler was a decorated war veterern for starters. and i think both of your analogies aren't very good. a terrorist is anyone who commits acts of terrorism. a terrorist act is an act that creates fear to control or influence a group of people to act in a way the commiters want for political, social, and or religous reasons. considering that the founding father met the criteria for the latter they are the former
the reason yorktown forced the issue is it pushed the main body of british troops out of america and with that as well as the threat of a second front being started in europe by our european allies did it. and although we provided the land force it was the french navy that provided the naval support that was crucial to the victory there.
Yorktown was one battle out of a war that last several years. Do the math. Nobody is denying there were outside influences that led the British to think it was a good idea to give up the fight in America. In fact, I think Pandaemoni does a good job discussing those influences, but your focussing entirely on the war's endgame, and in the process, ignoring — either intentionally or otherwise — the previous several years of America success. Given the foolishnesses of your above comments about Hitler, I'm inclined to say you viewpoint has been intentionally narrowed to enable your rather obvious political sentiments.
i'm not dening that the americans did alot but without help from europe they would have failed. and they reason i mentioned yorktown was someone used it as evidence against me so i attempted to refute their claims. saratoga was mostly an american victory. bunker hill was an american victory. and the battle where we captured the british cannons which was a huge deal.
Then it's my mistake. From earlier posts, it seemed you were somewhat belligerent toward and dismissive of the American effort...
yea i just want to know why we nether realy leanr about this war in detail, like in my school we went from the industrial revalution to world war one to world war2 why did we not stop and look at the wars inbetween
It's because the American History curriculum in public schools was developed right after WWII, but since then we've had 62 years new years of history. Something had to go. In my high school we skipped the colonial period and American Revolution and went directly to to 1787, and then we only made it as far as WWII as it was (and what we learned about WWI was pretty much: "WE WON!!! Oh yeah, and we won Korea and Vietnam too!")
Sorry for the delayed response. I missed your post. I am not comparing the Militias to terrorists. I am stating they were terrorists. Sorry again. Just working my way through the thread. You later state: Come along. Tell us what you really think. You are doubtless aware of the phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." The appellation terrorist focuses on methodology. As such it is an unhelpful term, since it distracts from discussion of the objectives of opposing groups. In that respect I agree with you that the term terrorist itself, through its current connotations, is in essence misdirected hyperbole. Nevertheless, it is hyperbole that is common currency. As such it is appropriate to appropriate it to apply to the illegal revolutionaries who attacked the individuals representing the legal authorities. If that did not inspire terror in those loyal to the crown I don't know what would. The comparison may be debatable, but it is not juvenile. Suggesting that it is, is a rather cheap way of conducting a debate when you have run out of substantive arguments.
The war of 1812 was a war waged between Brittan and the USA, beginning in the winter of 1812 and lasting well into 1813. The principal dispute seemed to be the norther boarder between when is now Canada and the USA. It would appear the American War of Independence did not settle that particular detail. America lost the land war but did have a highly suscessful naval campaign.
