Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by American Sport Fan (U7338204) on Monday, 20th April 2009
I am an american, who has absolutely no desire restart the debate over whether the American Revolution was necessary or not. I have no desire to re-ignite the age old debate over taxation or any of that. But i was checking the this day in history feature for Saturday and reported that this was the Day that the American Revolution Started with the battles of Lexington and Concorde. That much I can say is accurate.
What I feel I must take issue with the the reporting that both battles were British victories. That is not accurate, and far from what actually happen. Growing up, we were taught that the Battles of Lexington and Concorde was an American Victory. What follows what actually happened at the Battles.
The previous day American Patriots had recieved information that the British were planning to seize arms stored at Concorde. What they were not sure was how the British would travel to concorde. PAul Reverre and his compannions waited for a signal from the Old North Church which would alert them as to the route the British would take. If there was one lamp, it ment by land. Two Lamps ment by sea. One Lamp was hung and Riverre and his companions took to their horses alerting All Patriots that "The British Were Coming"
The Following day, the British Army, Lead by Sir Thomas Gage, marched from Boston Concord and encountered a group of Patriots on the Village Green. For a few minutes the two sides stood there while the Commanding Officer Order the Patriots to step asside. What happened is in dispute and no one is certain as to what happened. A shot rang out, but no body is sure which side fired, which is now called The Shot heard round the world. Shooting broke out and when the dust had cleared, four Patriots lay dead on the Village Green while the British Army continued its march to Concorde.
While the British Marched word of what happen Happened spread all through out the greater Boston Area and the Patriots gathered at Concorde and began firing on the British as soon as they arrived at the garrison. The British Army turned around and retreated all the way back to Boston. They NEVER achieved their objective of seizing arms. Infact, on the Way back to Boston, the British suffered 200 causulties while the Patriots suffered none. That is not a victory.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 2
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Monday, 20th April 2009
Well, strictly speaking it'd be fair to say that we won the battle and lost the walk home.
I wouldn't pay too much attention to the 'on this day' board. It's generally got at least one debatable 'fact' on it...Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 3
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 20th April 2009
ASF
I should resist getting embroiled in this tar baby, but I agree with m'learned colleague above that we won the battles but lost the walk.
Against our 200 odd casualties (73 dead, 174 wounded and 26 missing), your Rebels lost 49 dead and 39 wounded. But at both the set pieces, Lexington and Concord, the British did clear the field of their opponents (in the second instance, the unsporting use of artillery helped).
Most British casualties were caused by harrassing fire, and did not affect the outcome, except of course for the individuals killed or maimed themselves. The Rebel casualties, on the other hand, were largely inflicted by the British relief column, without which, I grant you, the original search-and-seize column would probably not have got home.
And while large numbers of muskets were not seized, the Brits did get their hands on the artillery pieces hidden in Concord, which prevented their use against Boston.
I am not surprised that patriotic US schools teach the day as a Patriot victory, but it was more a draw overall, with the strategic advantage to the Rebels, because they got the opening of hostilities they had been hoping for.
As an expression of patriotic endeavour, the day deserves to be celebrated as a triumph of the American spirit. But as a pure exercise in objective military history, the outcome is not so clear.
As we say over here; "You won, get over it."
(You'll be telling us next that the Battle of New Orleans (1815) was the most decisive battle of the C19th.)
Have a nice day.
LWLink to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 4
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Monday, 20th April 2009
Would it surprise you to learn, ASF, that at school here in the UK we are taught a quite different version of events?
Since when does the fact that you are taught something at school make it true? I was taught that we were safe because our classroom was made of Asbestos.
In our version, a minority of rebelleous colonists take up arms on the basis of an entirely false premise and in the course of their rebellion issue a symbolic but in all practical senses meaningless declaration of independence that is not made a de facto reality until the suurender at Yorktown and only becomes legitimate with Peace of Paris in 1783?Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 5
Posted by American Sport Fan (U7338204) on Monday, 20th April 2009
Longweekend
I would never dream of calling the Battle of New Orleans the most decisive military victory of the 19th Century. Having said that, it was the last significant battle to take place between US and British Forces.
And again, I'm not trying to stir the pot and debate Whether the War was Justified. Having said that, the British didn't complete obtain their objective in part because the rebels knew they were coming and were able to remove most of their supplies. In essence the operation was doomed in part because of Paul Reveveres Mid Night Ride. The Patriots had time to remove a lot of their supplies.
As for the day itself, It's really only celebrated as a holiday in One State, Massachuettes. How do they celebrate it? By either going to watch the Boston Marathon or pouring into Fenway Park to watch the RedSox play a ball game which starts at 11:05 AM.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 6
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 20th April 2009
ASF
I had the interesting experience of being in "Colonial" Williamsburg (Williamsburg on the Eve of Revolution, more like) on President's Day some years ago. The official programme was supposed to be Washington arriving in Williamsburg to plan the destruction of Cornwallis at Yorktown, but it had snowed heavily, so all the re-enactors were doing Valley Forge, whatever the organisers told them.
I even got to meet His Excellency himself.
The British Professor Richard Holmes did a very good documentary series on the Revolutionary War, treading the fine line between our interpretation and yours with considerable tact. Not sure which channel carried it over on your side.
Regards
LWLink to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 7
Posted by American Sport Fan (U7338204) on Monday, 20th April 2009
It was probably either the History Channel, which runs a lot of stuff from the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, or the Discovery Channel, which also runs run a lot ofstuff produced by the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ. I never had the chance to visit Williamsburg, but I have visted the Lexington and Concord sites. About 15 years ago I took a trip with my parents to Boston. To be completely honus their wasn't much there. Which is kind of ashame since in was literally a pivital moment in my countries history. Having said that, I also had a chance to visit Salem and the USS Constitution. Along with the HMS Victory it is probably one of the few 18th Century Vesels still in active service.
Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 8
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
re the U.S.S Constitution.
As far as i can remember its the only 18c warship still floating and still capable of being sailed.
Victory has been in a dry dock since the 1920's when a collision between it and a more modern war ship effectively sank her. and in the 1970's they cut holes in the bottom of the hull to allow a flow of air through the ship to cure the dry rot she had. in any event due to the amount of restoration she's had very little of her actually fought at Trafalgar.
There are a couple or three frigates still floating but they were completed at the end of the napoleonic wars and were put into Ordinary. masts removed and a roof built over the main deck to protect it. One of these HMS Trincomalee has been refitted with masts and is on display some were near hartlepool but as far as I am aware she never saw combat and while the masts are fitted and rigged I think shes dry docked as well.
As for the battle I tend to agree with the other posters that the actual fight was won, but the walk home was lost. Which pretty much covers the whole war really. battles were won but any advantage gained was thrown away or not exploited fully.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 9
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
The point about Lexington/Concord is that from a British point of view it wasn't meant to be a battle at all. The colonists were just supposed to run away at the sight of the redcoats and that would be the end of their silly talk of revolution.
Instead of which the Americans put up a fight & forced the Brits to go back where they came from in double quick time - and after that the Revolution was well & truly started.
i don't see how you can call that sequense of events a 'British victory'Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 10
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
AmericanSportFan,
L&C were much like Ia Drang in Vietnam. Both sides claimed their own victories, with some legitimacy. The imperial power claimed the early fight but the walk afterward went to the locals.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 11
Posted by American Sport Fan (U7338204) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
I see your point about Victory not being sea worthy. However, I can recall two occassion in the past forty years in which the Constitution participated in a parade of Tall Ships. One of those times in 1976 when a group of tall ships paraded in New York Harbor for the Bicentenial Celebrations. The other time was 10 years later Celebrating the 100 birthday of the Statue of Liberty. On both occassions, there were ships representing other nations including Great Britian if I am not mistaken.
As for the Revolution, I am not sure the British would have been able to hold on the the Colonies if you had wanted to. Given the actual amount of troops the British had and the amount of territory and the amount of troops trying to defend that amount of territory. I had a history Professor discuss this event in the context of world history and he said that the reality was that Great Britian held on to the Colonies as Long as We wanted them to hang on to the colonies. The simple reality was there were not enough troops to defend the amount of territory you had.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 12
Posted by American Sport Fan (U7338204) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
Camery,
I have often heard the American Revolution be compared to 'Nam. And it is an apt comparison. HO Chie Min was inspired in his fight against both the french and the Americans by the Writings of Thomas Jefferson.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 13
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
backtothedarkplace,
It may be of interest to you that Trincomalee is floating and fully rigged not 8 miles from where I am writing this, Hartlepool in the North of England to be exact.
She was launched in Bombay 1817 and started a very chequered life.
I remember her as one of the three Training ships demasted and with a roof covering the deck in Portsmouth Harbour she had been renamed Foudroyant after the original Nelsons flagship that sank off Blackpool, this after she had been sold for scrap in 1897, so she was rescued.
She then came back to Hartlepool where she had once been stationed to be torn apart and refurbished.
After years of dedicated work by North East Craftsmen she now sits proudly and open to visit quite a sight to see. The last Silver nail inserted to bring her luck certainly worked for her and Trincomalee still sits proudly on the water.
Frank.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 14
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
AmericanSportFan,
I have often heard the American Revolution be compared to 'Nam. And it is an apt comparison. HO Chie Min was inspired in his fight against both the french and the Americans by the Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Μύ
And, unfortunately, by the writings of Marx and Lenin.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 15
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
Victory has been in a dry dock since the 1920's when a collision between it and a more modern war ship effectively sank her. and in the 1970's they cut holes in the bottom of the hull to allow a flow of air through the ship to cure the dry rot she had. in any event due to the amount of restoration she's had, very little of her actually fought at Trafalgar.
Μύ
In addition to the collision, and the dry rot, and the restoration programme, there was also a Luftwaffe bomb for the Victory to contend with. I doubt any part of the ship you can see today was actually at Trafalgar.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 16
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
Hi ASF
The main problem with the the Rebellion to me wasnt the troops although as you say short of a sort of world war one mobilisation there wasnt a way that it could be held with violence.
But That IMO, America had been lost politically long before the shooting started. The issues that force this to a head were long brewing and it wasnt just an overnight thing. By the time of Lexington & Concorde huge chunks are effectively run by the rebels and the crown influence is prety much limited to the coast.
The its lack of fast effective communication between America and London that are the main problem. With communications as slow as they are theres no way for London to get anything other than a shallow impression of the real circumstances and situation. in America, It weakens the powers of the Governers becasue London Is trying to micro manage events when they are at the end of a six month delay in communications. The men on the end of the pipeline are basically stuck with a set of events that by the time they get guidance through from London have already moved on past any potential cure that London could provide and the cure is based on flawed impressions and understanding.
If London had acknowledged the delay and given the men on the ground the authority to deal with events as they arose in the 1740's The the odds are that are that Lexington and Concord would have never occured.
But London couldnt make the leap of imagination to do that. basically because parlimentary reform was an dirty word at the time and giving America seats in the houses of parlieament would result in them having to extend the same sort of rights to British cities that also had no real representation doing away with the rotten boroughs etc. It might have resulted in America staying in the Empire but they were genuinely worried it seems to me that any move down that road would result in unrest in the mainland UK.
So they played hard ball and lost the lot.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 17
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
Incidentally, Frigate Unicorn, the second (?) oldest ship still afloat in Britain after Trincomalee, is docked up here in Dundee sporting what must surely be the best preserved and least altered wooden hull in the world!
Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 18
Posted by Old Hermit (U2900766) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
And also, if you hadn't won the the American War of Independence Britain may not have moved its focus to India and Australia may never have been settled as a Transportation colony.
Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 19
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
Idamante
Actually no, the Rebels didn't.
The British search-and-seize party encountered Rebels at Lexington. After a brief stand-off, there was an exchange of fire, resulting in a handful of Rebel dead (four, or seven, depending on source). The Army then continued to Concord, where they carried out their search for some five hours - admittedly, they didn't find everything they were looking for, but they were not prevented from the search. On the way back, they were heavily sniped, until they came under the protection of the covering party in the vicinty of Lexington. The whole then withdrew back to Boston.
The British were not prevented from reaching Concord, nor were they driven back in rout from Concord(although they might have been if a covering force had not been part of the plan).
Basically, the tactical victory went to the Army on the day, even if they lost more men; they dispersed the Rebels on the two occasions that a set-piece exchange took place. But it was a hollow victory; as I and other posters have already pointed out, the strategic victory ultimately lay with the Rebels, because the skirmishes (hardly merits the expression battle) took place at all.
It is that juxtaposition of a tactical victory heralding an ultimate defeat that is the key point. On a much larger scale, the French suffered the same thing at Rezonville west of MEtz in the Franco-Prussian War. The French Army won the day, but the fact that the Prussians had brought them to battle there at all meant that the strategic advantage, and thus ultimately victory, passed to the Prussians.
LWLink to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 20
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 23rd April 2009
I didnt know about HMS Unicorn. Another one to add to my list of places to go.
When you consider the amount of ships the navy has had over the years its odd that a few more havent survived tucked away in the corners of the dockyards. A bit of a shame that there arent more of them afloat as well.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 21
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Thursday, 23rd April 2009
BTTDP,
Unicorn is a Leda class frigate,same as Triconmalee.Both were to late for the Napoleonic war.
Scott's ship,RRS Discovery, is nearby.
There's a link between Triconmalee and Constitution as the plans for Triconmalee were originally being sent out to India on HMS Java,which was sunk by Constitution before she got there.
Trike.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 22
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 24th April 2009
Didnt Discovery used to be on the embankment in London?
Any idea why the two teak built ones survived when the others didnt?Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 23
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Friday, 24th April 2009
Discovery came to be docked in Dundee in 1986. This history is of particular interest to me as I drive past her every morning on my way to work!Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 24
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 25th April 2009
I think it a challenge to call the operation a British victory or success of any sort. It requires a careful abstraction of facts. Yes they made it to Concord and destroyed a few cannon but accomplished precious little else. Most of the supplies had been moved and they did not capture the rebel leaders.
Meanwhile, the disaster that it was is that they are even called "Battles". The "fight" at Lexington was apparently quite accidental--no one knows who started the shooting except that all witnesses agreed that it wasn't the actual men drawn up facing each other. The Lexignton Training Militia had already started leaving the field when it started and apparently few shot back at any point. In a different time and place it would just be called a "massacre" by one side and a suppressed "riot" by the other.
At Concord, the militia stood by and watched the army search the town until a sort of dance developed between the militia and the Captain Laurie's forces guarding the North Bridge. There too shooting broke out without orders from either side and the small British force fled but no real battle developed in Concord but was harassed and repeatedly ambushed on their return.
By the time the force reached Lexington again, where they were ambushed by the Lexington Training Band--now knowing that they were in a battle, much of it was fleeing pell mell in a rout when they were saved by the reinforcements.
The bottom line, expedition nominally accomplished a small part of it's original mission, but in no substantive way accomplishing the key mission of disarming the militia, but rather now found themselves besieged by an army that existed only as a potential force before they, in this miscalculation made it an actual one.
We must always remember what the actual fight started over--gun confiscation. "Out of these cold dead hands . . ." Once the authorities moved to disarm the colonists, they were faced with "use it or lose it".Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 25
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 26th April 2009
Didnt Discovery used to be on the embankment in London?Μύ
Yes, as CD mentions Discovery arrived in Dundee in 1986, prior to that she was berthed in the Thames.
Any idea why the two teak built ones survived when the others didnt?Μύ
Pure luck.Unicorn has survived by doing nothing,more or less kept in a state of preservation from her beginning. Reading Trincomalee's site, she was on the way to the breakers yard when TS Foudroyant sank and Trincomalee was in the right place at the right time to take her place.
The important thing is that two examples have survived.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 26
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Monday, 4th May 2009
There wasn't a way that it could be held by violence.Μύ
Backtothedarkplace!
Surely the reason the Revolution succeeded was that the War was run from 3000 miles away in Britain.
Another reason could be that some British Generals had more in common with the Whigs and were perhaps less than loyal! I refer to Lord Howe's behaviour both in Boston and New York! Howe is especially suspect in that he gave the Whigs,[Not the Americans,] the game by refusing to follow up his moves. He refused to enlist American Volunteers in any number both at Boston and New York and when they were finally admitted to the army, they were used on menial duties. Not because they were Americans but because [ in my opinion,] Howe didn't want to win against the Whig led Army. After all , he was a Whig supporter in Britain. The British Government being Tory!
Another reason for the loss was Thomas Gage who initially commanded the Army in America! Interestingly, many American commentators consider that the movement of the Army to Concord was leaked by Gage's wife, who was a Whig. The Whigs had gained political control of the major colonies by a series of , "committees, ' which they used dictatorially, not failing to use violence and coercion against loyalists. In essence they, like the irish in 1919 set up their own dictatorship. They controlled the militia and Gage wouldn't challenge them. The loyalists asked him to muster the loyal militia so that they could challenge the rebels and Gage refused on the grounds that it would only exacerbate the situation. Eventually the American Loyalists did exert some pressure on the situation and presented themselves as shock troops in the struggle, They also produced their own leaders and very successful ones at that. I refer to Brig.Gen, John Harris Cruger who was the most successful American Soldier on the loyal side, there was also General Arnold, as well as scores of smaller fry, especially in the South. The trouble was these were not trusted because they were not establishment figures.
It isn't so much a case that we lost the Americas, it was a case that we gave them away! It is estimated that some 50,000 Americans served in the British Army many of them were used for nothing better than lines of communication troops and we have to remember that they put their families in jeopardy because the families were left at the mercy of the various whig committees.
It was,in my honest opinion, lack of nous that lost the war in America.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 27
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Monday, 4th May 2009
"they, like the irish in 1919 set up their own dictatorship."
Oh, come on!! Where do you get that from?
Regarding the point about the loyalists:
It was loyalist troops who behaved most badly, as for the example the shocking massacre in the Wyoming valley and also in the upland south that led to the uprising in the westerners, making the south unmanageable.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 28
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
Where did you get this from?Μύ
Kurt Bronson.
Msg 27.
Answwer me this, did the Whigs set up local committees?
Committee of Safety? Committees of Correspondence and other such organisations which took control of social life from the Government?
Did they take over , at ground level the Militia? How did they manage to amass the stores at Concorde, which included cannon and other war stores for a future conflict?
How did the leadership gain and keep their control of civil society but by terror, violence and punitive action in loaded courts and by cruel and inhuman imprisonment such as the Connecticut prison which was a mine deep underground!. Or by mob violence such as was inflicted on Thos, Brown in Georgia! When the planter had his house wrecked, the soles of his feet burned and was covered in tar and feathers so that he was incapable of walking.scolded and burnt about the head! This mind you not because he fought against them, but refused to join them!
You mention the ,'shocking massacre,' in Wyoming!
The Loyalists and Indians who fought there, against the Whigs. had been purposefully driven out of that country by terror tactics used later in Palestine and in Yugoslavia
as well as parts of Russia and described as ethnic cleansing.Their lives and livlyhood had been taken from them and their families left in destitution. An American Historian ,[Boatner, a Marine Colonel, I believe,] of some note claimed the the Frontier people ,were for the most part loyalists whilst the land hungry new comers supported the Whig rebels.
The South Rebelled because they wanted to live in a free society and were on the whole amazingly loyal considering the behavior of the British Administration in first ignoring them and only later admitting them to their own struggle.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 29
Posted by pc1973 (U13716600) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
I read (Can't remember where) that America's daughters were responsible for removing more Redcoats from the conflict through marriage and desertion than her sons killed on the battlefields. Anyone know if this is true?
Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 30
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
It was loyalist troops who behaved most badly, as for the example the shocking massacre in the Wyoming valley and also in the upland south that led to the uprising in the westerners, making the south unmanageable.Μύ
Interesting point Kurt.
I had never heard of the Wyoming Valley massacre. It could be down to the fact that the general public's understanding of the War of Indepedence is surprisingly limited. This is certainly true in Britain and even I think in America. Far more books, documentary programs, television dramas, feature films and movies have been produced on the American Civil War, for example, than on the War of Independence. And of those which have been produced few have been of quality.
As far as i am aware there has been, say, no War of Independence equivalent of Ken Burns' excellent 1990 epic series 'The Civil War'.
With regard to movies about the War of Independence then there was Roland Emmerich and Robert Rodat's 'The Patriot' from 2000 starring Mel Gibson which took the concept of dramatic licence to a new level. For example there's a scene in the film where British Redcoats and Loyalist militia herd the inhabitants of an American village into a church and then burn it down. This obviously never happened in real history but is a transposition of the 1944 atrocity at Oradour-sur-Glane in France.
What is somewhat annoying about this is that considering the few War of Independence-based productions there have been then this was a missed opportunity. A depiction of the Wyoming Valley massacre would have highlighted a little known episode in the conflict. I suppose, however, that it just didn't fit in with the agenda of the film-makers.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 31
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
Viz:
Most Americans have never heard of many of the critical events of the revolution. Hollywood of course is not in the business of educating people--it is out to make money by entertaining people. Inquisitive minds, as always will get themselves educated by investigating what arouses their interest. I have heard many comment that "The Patriot" did just that--arousing their interest enough to research the historical period in order to discover how just how much the movie did or did not reflect history.
In doing so they usually find that, yes, no one was herded into a church and burned by "Ban the Butcher", but that there were atrocities, that they occurred on both sides, and that they did, as depicted in the movie, affect events by bringing more people into the fight. They also find that the atrocities occurred on both sides, and that the worst offenders on the British side weren't the regulars for the most part, but were the American loyalist and their Indian allies. Second to that were the German mercenaries. The exception to generally honorable behavior by the British authorties was the deplorable treatment by the British of POW's aboard the prison hulks.
Of course they can only discover these things if they are open-minded and not possessed by some idiosyncratic extremist view such as the incredible notion that the committees of correspondence constituted some sort of terroristic dictatorship.
How one imagines that a committee existing through an 18th century frontier postal system have terrorized a countryside of stubborn Yankees and Indian fighters into marching enmass to besiege the British Army at Boston is beyond me! The 18,000 men who had bottled up the British Army there by the morning after Concord represented one of the most amazing spontaneous mobilizations in history.
Likewise with the "over-the-mountain men" who popped up without leadership (and therefore without much control unfortunately) at the Battle of King's mountain. Were these men, who daily risked the torture knife of Britain's native allies, terrorized by east coast Whigs into marching on Ferguson?Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 32
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
pc1973
I have never heard of much desertion by British regulars. A great many, some historians think most in fact, of the German mercenaries remained in the colonies after the war, deserted, or managed to make their way back after the war to settle alongside the people they fought against.
They Germans (with the encouragement of a minority of their British officers) behaved very badly in the occupation of New Jersy, treating the civilians there with the brutality that continental practice taught them traitors deserved. After they were surprised by Washington at Trenton and Princeton, and a large number captured, they expected the worse sort of retaliation for their recent behavior.
Instead, Washington made sure that they were fed and well treated. Their own reaction to that was such that they gave their captors no trouble, and were entirely cooperative under the command of a single American officer left to march them west to their point of detention, and then marched the rest of their way on their own without a single desertion after that officer left them. So many of the German's remained in the country after the wars end, that their settlement had a substantial impact on the development of the culture in that region. As conscripts in British employee they were virtual slaves and most had no prospects of ever becoming landowners in their own country.
Because I haven't heard of it doesn't mean it didn't happen. The nature of the country and the frontier culture would have made it easy to desert, adopt whatever name one chooses, find cheap or free land and settle down.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 33
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
I dont have figures on desertion but from what I've read at least in the early days efforts were made by the colonists to encourage soldiers to desert. i think they got special treatment if they agreed to join the rebels and deserted with their weapons and some did change sides completely. But I think that the option to just slope of and settle somewere or wait for the war to end and get repatriated was offered as well.
What I cant remember is what sort of percentage took them up on it and the sort of numbers involved and more importantly what sort of time in the revolt it took place. I think it started prior to Lexington.
I would also agree that the length of communication between the US and UK that lead to the war. Its difficult to micromanage at the end of a six month back log. But it didnt stop us from trying.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 34
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
Kurt Bronson
Yes there were atrocities.Μύ
True enough, but we rarely hear of those perpetuated on the Loyalists or the Regulars!
For instance the hanging of the Loyalist Militia Officers after the Battle of Kings Mountain,or the murder of other Government officers such as Col., grierson after the fall of Augusta where several men were hung simply for being loyal to the legitimate government.What about those Tories who were dragged behind Lee's Horses all the way to 96, to be paraded before the walls of the fort to frighten the defenders? You talk about the Wyoming Massacre! Read Boetner on ithe subject. The loyalist troops vented their spleen on their opponents in a pursuit after a battle. The anger was because of the Whig vendettas that had driven the loyalists and their families from their homes to Canada!
How one imagines that a committee existing through an 18th, Cent, postal system.Μύ
What I said was that a network of such committees had been set up, of various kinds, and these by taking over local power had terrorised the quiescent majority and later seized authority from the government.
Any reasonable history of the American War, tells the story, if you deny the fact you are descending in to mendacity! Look at any history of the struggle.
The behaviour of the authorities towards Prisoners of War was indeed shameful. But, british behaviour is no excuse for the Whig treatment of their captives. I have mentioned several instances of their treatment of loyalists, but their treatment of regulars is no better. Read The journal of Roger Lamb, a sergeant in the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. having surrendered on terms to Congress, the 'Convention Army instead of being allowed home, never to serve in the Americas again, found themselves sent to Virginia as little better than slaves. They were put to developing the state by work! No medicines and very little food.
Even after the end of the war, the behaviour of the Whigs towards the loyalists was uncivilised and barbaric. Refusing to return stolen property and refusal to pay debts to men wand families who had behaved honourably and were in poverty!Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 35
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
Missed this out!
Regarding desertions from the British Army!
It has been estimated that some 15% deserted the colours!
Personally I can well understand why. The figures given ffor naval desertions is astronomical.
Laudian.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 36
Posted by pc1973 (U13716600) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
15% desertion is quite high, anyone know what the overall British casualty rate was?
I mean as another poster has pointed out these guys had nothing back home, so I would imagine an offer of a wife and some land would be quite tempting for the majority of them.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 37
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
The Whigs took control of the colonial governments by winning elections and thereby gaining majority control of the colonial assemblies. The street thuggery that occurred against loyalists came about afterward when the political push and shove between the elected governments and the British overlords led to the development of the notion that the magistrates and other representatives of the crown authority were the enemies of colonial self-government. The leading American Whigs organized political resistance those opposed to their interests, with no intention of rebelling despite the passion of a few radicals.
The radicals did not terrorize the population into war, nor did they take over more conservative minded Whigs who had fairly won electoral control of the colonial governments. But rather more and more the common people threw in with the radicals in response to harding attitudes in London, to the point that the colonial authorities found themselves with a war on their hands already well underway well before they were psychologically ready to take the drastic step of open treason. Note that the event under discussion, the march on Concord and the mass uprising that followed, occurred more than a year before the Declaration of Independence.
I don't expect to convince you, their are some who think these boards are a source of definitive information rather than a source of ideas for inquiry, who might fail to recognize how distant your "dictatorship" theory is from any factual reality.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 38
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
the general public's understanding of the War of Indepedence is surprisingly limited. This is certainly true in Britain and even I think in America. Μύ
I guess the British aren't interested because we lost. As for the Americans, is it because most of them live in states that didn't even exist at the time??Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 39
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
I guess the British aren't interested because we lost. As for the Americans, is it because most of them live in states that didn't even exist at the time??Μύ
Britain won the wars of Spanish Succession and the Seven Years War, yet there seems little interest in those either. We seem to have a national blindspot between Cromwell and Nelson, populated by the sole figures of a) fairy tale hero/italian fop Charles Stuart and b) evil genocidist/grim but realistic Cumberland (delete according to prejudice).Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 40
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Friday, 8th May 2009
The Whigs took control of the Colonial Government by winning elections!Μύ
I have no quarrel with that statement, the question is just how did they win their ,'majority,'. If it was at the local hustings after a reasonable campaign, well and good!
But all the sources I have, books written over the last 100yrs by American authors, do not encourage me to believe that was the case.
When Daniel Leonard opposed the Mob, encouraged by the Whigs he had shots fired through his window, not once but several times! There are clear cases of tar and feathering, of riding the pole, or as some called it the mare around the town. That is having to balance on a triangular piece of wood and be carried about on it, we can guess which end was uppermost. The business men and traders who opposed the Whigs were beaten and bulllied, their businesses were boycotted whilst they couldn't pursue their enemies through the whig courts or collect their debts. There are many reports of,' Tory,'or,'loyalist children being sent home from school, refused schooling by whig communities! That's why people voted whig!
I understand political resistance and the Whigs were certainly entitled to do this, but to prevent other opinions having a say, reflects badly on the Whigs of that time.
The Colonial Authorities found themselves with a war on their handsΜύ
True again! But it was Gage's tolerant attitude that lost the peace, because even when the Loyalists tried to organise a fight back Gage wouldn't let them pointing out that they had to live with the Whigs eventually.
All the whilst the Whigs were amassing Cannon and war stores in Concord and even though Gage new about it, only when loyalist pressure drove him did he act!(There was pressure from Britain as well.) It is mentioned in ,'Paul Revere's Ride,'[Fischer,] also that though the march of the ,'Regulars,' was just that, there were loyalists out there in the open supporting them.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 41
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 9th May 2009
We could play "topper" in which I could detail to you anecdotes of suffering by those opposed to the crown at the hands of the King's agents and magistrates to counter each of your incidents. But to what purpose. Once the matter moved from democratic debate to force--which it had in actuality long before open Lexington with the dissolution of duly elected colonial assemblies by London--then patriots with any onions were obviously going to carry on in other ways.
It sounds from what you are saying that most with loyalists sentiments were wusses who rolled right and over and voted Whig when faced with the slighted inconvenience. Sort makes sense that the more effete would be those who gladly to dependency on an authoritarian power rather than self government until frightened by a more immediate power, and then roll over and submit to it.
You still don't make a decent case for a "dictatorship" as even a plausibility much less a likelihood. It is hardly plausible because the social conditions did not lend themselves to centralized control. It is hardly necessary as a hypothesis because it is natural for people who have been occupied and deprived of what they consider their constitutional right to representative government to spontaneously vent their anger on the handy representative of that occupier. Usually when you are talking about loyalists who were harassed prior to the outbreak of the war, you are speaking of the actual crowns agents who were carrying out the unconstitutional (I speak here of the British Constitution) edicts and taxes.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 42
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Monday, 11th May 2009
you still don't make a case ,'decent case,' for a dictatorship,Μύ
I do not have to, we have only to read the histories such as the one I enclose,
On March 6, 1775, the Wilmington Committee of Safety had accepted the Continental Association, the system adopted by the Continental Congress for imposing a trade boycott with Britain. The members of the Committee of Safety went in a group to each house in the town to demand that people sign the Association or explain why they refused, so that βsuch enemies of their country may be set forth to public view and treated with the contempt they merit.β Nine merchants and planters and two tailors refused to sign and were placed under the boycott. A group of four to five hundred militia, led by John Ashe, marched to Wilmington and threatened these eleven men with military execution. There is no way to know how many people signed the Association out of fear and how many genuinely supported the boycott.Μύ
Van Tyne in his Loyalists in the Am. Rev. tells us of 36 councillors appointed by the authorities ,'became at once the object of persecution.'
Timothy Ruggles had his house wrecked in the night and he was told to clear out! His horse and been cropped and damage done to it as well as the poor crearure being painted!
Isaac Williams an old infirm man was taken from his home ,also at night, put in a smoke house and ,'smoked for several hours'.He was not let out by the Mob, until he has signed a paper promising not to take part in politics again! Thomas Oliver, at the same time, was surrounded by a mob of some 3000 people, a substantial number armed. (Sabine). One Mr Halliwell was pursued by a mob and left his home for the safety of Boston! All this was about 1774!
From 1764, there is increasing volume of force being used against tories all over the North especially!
Yet, when in the days after Lexington Boston was under siege from the ,Rebels, " Howe raised some 3 Battalions of men from the Loyalists and wouldn't use them.
most with loyalist sentiments were ,'wusses,'Μύ
So then, people who are less than bellicose in their attitudes to your ideas and politics are open to bullying and oppression?
What a nice man?
By the way as far as I can see the loyalists whipped the pants of the Whigs in most of their fights! What does this make the Whigs?Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 43
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Wednesday, 13th May 2009
What does this make the Whigs?
Better men than their opponents if they could start out without overwhelming numerical superiority (an oft repeated debatable truism is that their were as many loyalists as patriots), lose most fights, and win anyway!
It seems that you think the loyalists at least as numerous as the patriots and as effective fighters. Yet you say they were beaten because they were driven out and harassed? That doesn't make any sense. Either they were too few to win no matter how well they fought, or didn't fight as hard or as well. Pick one argument or the other and you may just get it right.
Timothy Ruggles was the leader of the Loyalist militia in Massachusetts. Being head of a miltia organization whose intent was to subvert the will of the people by force seems to me to make him a legitimate target of force.
Thomas Oliver was Lt Governor by appointment of the King in the administration that was also scheming to prevent self-goverment, destroy the power of the elected assembly, and which invited the foreign troops into the the colony to oppress the people. The sort of thing that arouses mobs--not just for the unpopularity of his opinion but for being the agent carrying out unconstitutional oppression. He was persecuted not for his opinions but for his actions.
I don't know anything about the others, but the above were not citizens persecuted for their views but officials actively carrying out tyrannical policies destroying democratic governments and using force in doing so--why shouldn't their opponents do the same?
When the result of ballots are overturned by unrepresentative officials, the only voice left to men who would be free is the growl of the mob.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 44
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Friday, 15th May 2009
What does this make the Whigs?Μύ
Everyone can make their own minds up! There's enough literature about and I recommend that written by American or Canadian scholars or Sir John Fortescue a well known British Historian. Interestingly, Le Begue Duportail wrote to the Comte de St Germain,
"There is a hundred times more enthusiasm for the revolution in any Paris cafe than in the whole of the United States put together".
It was French intervention as much as any other thing that caused the success of the Whigs. Yorktown was a French victory and French participation an enormous effort especially when it went along with the efforts of other European Countries.
Regarding Ruggles, the fact that he held rank in the Government Militia, does that make it respectable that he should be threatened some time before hostilities began?
What about the Wilmington bullies, 300 armed men against eleven merchants and tailors? What kind of politics is that.
For all the valiant effort of the Tories, against the English Whigs and the American variety as well as the Europeans, what chance did they have? They were simply good men, on the whole who had principles and stuck to them!Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 45
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 15th May 2009
laudian,
Fine. There were American bullies. A classic complaint.
What peace did the British offer that would have taken the wind out of the Tories' sails?Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 46
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Friday, 15th May 2009
American Bullies!!!?
You are missing the point, it was not an American versus British event. When Paul Revere rode through Boston he didn't shout," the British are coming, the British are coming," His words were, The Regulars are coming!" It was a ,'Patriot or Whig, versus Loyalist or Tory struggle.
The People concerned were American- British either by birth or by choice. It only became a Yank vs Brit after the end which came after eight years of struggle and the Whigs became citizens of the United States.That upset the Tories and not unreasonably so!
At one time a sort of Dominion Status was offered, but refused.
The Loyalist ,for the most part, considered themselves British American, just as I put on my passport British/English. Or at least so I imagine.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 47
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 15th May 2009
just as I put on my passport British/English. Or at least so I imagine.Μύ
It's in your imagination. The UK Passport Agency doesn't permit the word 'English' to be put on a UK passport.Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 48
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Friday, 15th May 2009
Vizzer!
You are right of course, I've just got a new passport I'm not sure what it says. But there are many occasions when we have to sign in and when I do I put Brit/English!Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 49
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 18th May 2009
laudian.
At one time a sort of Dominion Status was offered, but refused.Μύ
Who offered and who refused? And when? And what were the terms of "Dominion Status"?Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
-
Message 50
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Monday, 18th May 2009
Dominion Status!Μύ
White Camry!
A "Discourse on the Peace Conference on Staten Island."
Edward Shillebeck. Lon1888.
The Book is rubbish and it simply claims that the Howe brothers had Instructions from the british Government that they could if nothing else was possible to offer what amounted to Dominion Status.
After reading again what is a truly awful book, it seems that this is simply wishful thinking on the author's side. It would appear that Howe had very limited powers and would have to refer everything back to London. I didn't read it aright all those years ago when I first purchased it. Sorry!Link to this forum: Why does ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ History Consider Lexington and Concord a Brithsh Victory?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.