Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
American Revolution and a French connnection
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Saturday, 22nd August 2009
Would the outcome of the American revolution have been different if there had been no French assistance?
Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 2
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Saturday, 22nd August 2009
I don't see how the revolutionaries could have won; if all the Americans had been united behind the revolution they might have made occupation so unprofitable that Britain would have come to a settlement - and it wasn't as if British opinion would have been against a fair settlement. But the Americans were not united, so I think Britain would have been impossible to dislodge.
In the long term, I suspect that Britain would never have been able to please the different shades of American opinion and maybe we would have ended with an America where the various states had different relationships with Britain. After all, we have the example of Canada.Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 3
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 22nd August 2009
There is a view that the 'American Revolution' (as known in the US), or the 'American War of Independence' (as known in the UK) should really be called the War of American Independence.
In other words it could be seen as just another war in the long line of the European wars of the Eighteenth Century such as the War of the Spanish Succession and the War of the Austrian Succession etc. Only in this case the casus belli was 'American Independence'.
In many respects the War of American Independence was pay-back time by France (and Spain!) for the Seven Years War the previous decade.Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 4
Posted by -frederik- (U13721647) on Saturday, 22nd August 2009
<>
The Spanish and Austrian wars of succession are dynastic wars and are not to be compared with the American war of independence. What you see in america is a revolution of malcontent locals, not a fight between two people both claiming a throne.
However it is useful to place things in bigger contexts. Placing the "War of Americain Independence" (I do think this name is indeed well chosen) in a bigger context, I would say it is the first of a series of (idealistic) Atlantic revolutions; of which the most famous example is of course the Frensh revolution.
My opinion about the role of the Frensh: I think the revolution without the Frensh would not have succeeded in military/political terms (meaning there would have been a restoration of english power), but the revolutionnary ideas would have remained amoung the Americains. Without the Frensh the final outcome would have been delayed. For how long... months, years, decades... I dont know.Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 5
Posted by beebfan2 (U14104526) on Sunday, 23rd August 2009
Thankyou for saying this. I am an American and I have been trying to explain to people here that we never had a revolution and that it was a war of independence. Its very scary when a whole nation calls something a revolution that isn't a revolution.
Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 23rd August 2009
i did not understand the difference in the notions of "revolution" as opposed to "war of independence". A war of independence is necessarily a revolution in the sence that the nation in concern seeks its independent from the state it belongs! Hence, either way it is a revolution. The revolution of course is a generalised rebellion on a large scale and that implies necessarily war. Hence yes there was a war too, a war for independence. But that does not change the fact that this was a revolution.
America back then was not even a nation, at least not in the traditional meaning of this word as there was absolutely nothing to distinguish citizens of British origins loyal to Britain from citizens of British origins favouring independence. Perhaps one could say that in the "pro-independence" lot there were far more citizens of non-British origins (Dutch, French and Germans) and mixed ones who naturally had less links with Britain but then that does not change much in the definitions. It certainly took one century more to forge a clearer notion of a nation.
For me the American revolution was clearly a political movement for independence and self governance which led finally to the creation of the US nation (still a not a 100% clear notion given the diversity of the country - it is rather a state that from birth was an Empire and not a nation).
The national revolutions - wars of independence that would claim 100% this title started in the 19th century and mainly in the Balkans (starting from the Greek revolution - prime example of any national revolution) which led of course to the revolutions of all the subsequent nations in ex-Ottoman lands (Serbians and Bulgarians) as well as the unification (not by revolutions of course) of fragmented nations in central Europe (mainly Germany and Italy). And these wars of independence bear absolutely no resemblance to the American revolution : there people rebelled for trading and financial reasons only, not for ethnic/national reasons. In Europe they rebelled for national reasons only. I understand that American people want to see their history in that light but then other people too study this part of history and for them it is very much clear that that "war of independence" was a revolution for primarily financial reasons.Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 7
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Monday, 24th August 2009
we never had a revolution and that it was a war of independenceΒ
Or you could call it a civil war. Loyalists (+British) v. Rebels (+French)Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 8
Posted by poppyanddaisy (U14107848) on Monday, 24th August 2009
I tend to agree with the comment that this was "payback" for the eventual British success in the 7 Years War - given that the whole of the known North America was under British control - and at the same time the French were removed from India.
It must also be understood that as well as the French - Spain, Sweden, Holland and I believe Prussia also supported the American cause. Britain's navy being overstretched. One must also note that there was considerable support for the Americans in the UK - Pitt himself stating that the Stamp Tax was disastrous - perhaps the US have to tribute their independence to Pitt's gout !! as it put him out of action to oppose the Tax in Parliament.
I also think that many of the rebels got more than they intended - like most revolutions the outcome was far removed from the instigators intentions. Many project that this conflict was the 2nd round of the English Civil War - though I beleive this is romantic - the colonists in many ways being far more represive and less enlightened that the regime they were rebelling against
But I also beleive that had the British crushed this revolt - there would have been others as the damage had been done and the popular movement had been established.
With imperial Frances rather hipocritical support for the war came their own revolution !Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 9
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 24th August 2009
VF,
Would the outcome of the American revolution have been different if there had been no French assistance?Β
Yes, considerably.Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 10
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
I agree with the statement quoted below....
A significant segment of the population was in favour of staying loyal to the British crown.
<quote>Or you could call it a civil war. Loyalists (+British) v. Rebels (+French)Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 11
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
It must also be understood that as well as the French - Spain, Sweden, Holland and I believe Prussia also supported the American cause.Β
Although France, Spain and the Netherlands did indeed go to war with the UK - Sweden and Prussia, however, remained neutral.
With regard to the Netherlands then (unlike with the case of France and Spain) it was actually the UK which declared war on the Republic. It was a pre-emptive strike by the British as the Netherlands were (understandably) beginning to complain about to interference with the Republic's shipping by the UK navy. And so the Netherlands was about to take formal action. The British-Netherlands War (1780-84), therefore, can be seens as being more contemporaneous to the War of American Independence rather then actually a part of it. The Republic, for example, did not enter into any formal alliance with the American Congress.
The case of Spain is also of interest. Spain did indeed declare war on Britain (in 1779) and subsequently inflicted defeat after defeat on UK forces in Louisiana and the Floridas culminating with the surrender of British forces at Pensacola in 1781. This episode of the War of Independence seems to have been played down by both UK and US historians. The reason would seem to be that UK historians find it embarrassing that Spain (a supposedly spent force at the time) could have mounted such a successful campaign resulting in such a humiliation of the British army. US historians on the other hand would seem to like to play down the aid the Patriots received from the European powers (France and Spain) as this would undermine the case that the war was a 'national revolution' rather than the Patriots just being so many pawns of the great powers in a wider European conflict.Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 12
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 25th August 2009
Vizzer aka U_numbers,
US historians on the other hand would seem to like to play down the aid the Patriots received from the European powers (France and Spain) as this would undermine the case that the war was a 'national revolution' rather than the Patriots just being so many pawns of the great powers in a wider European conflict.Β
Considering that
1) Spain and Great Britain traded the Floridas back and forth, whether by diplomacy or force, the same as they would any Caribbean island,
2) Few, if any, Americans campaigned with el Conde de Gálvez in his Gulf campaign against the British,
3) the Floridas wouldn't become US territory until 1819 - roughly a generation or so after the WAI,
it's only natural that Gálvez' Gulf campaign seldom receives historical coverage beyond local interest.Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 13
Posted by poppyanddaisy (U14107848) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
"A significant segment of the population was in favour of staying loyal to the British crown"
Indeed this was the case with many - who wanted an effective protest against the British treatment of the colonies - not a break - after all they considered themselves British.
Trouble was as the protests increased - particularly in Boston - and the Bristish response was arguably disproportionate - positions began to polarise and the moderates questioned whether the status quo was desireable.
British arrogance and the Govt's derogorative view of the Colonists underr North - played straight into the hands of Republicans. Remember the same Govt was increasingly repressive in Btitain as well and many in England applauded the Colonist defyance where they were powerless to resist.Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 14
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 26th August 2009
i did not understand the difference in the notions of "revolution" as opposed to "war of independence". A war of independence is necessarily a revolution in the sence that the nation in concern seeks its independent from the state it belongs! Hence, either way it is a revolution. The revolution of course is a generalised rebellion on a large scale and that implies necessarily war. Hence yes there was a war too, a war for independence. But that does not change the fact that this was a revolution.Β
There is actually a huge historiography on precisely the question of what exactly was the 'American Revolution'.
Some say (as suggested) that the phrases 'American Revolution' and 'War of Independence' should interchangeable while others, however, say that the American Revolution was only part of the War of Independence while others, again, say the reverse and that the War of Independence was only part of the Revolution. Others say that they are 2 distinctly seperate events in time while others, again, say that there was no 'Revolution' at all and only a War of independence.
An example of the 'interchangeable' view would be that put forward by John Richard Alden in his book 'The American Revolution 1775-83' (London, 1954). He sees the revolution as being the period between Lexington and the Peace of Paris - i.e the War of Independence. This is a classic text but is somewhat limited in its outlook and quite pat-a-cake in its narrative.
Those who would see the Revolution as only being part of the War of Independence would include James A. Henretta and Gregory Nobles with their book 'Evolution and Revolution: American Society, 1600-1820' (Lexington, Massachusetts, 1987). They see the Revolution as taking place between 6 July 1775 (when the Second Continental Congress issued its 'Declaration on the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms') and 2 July 1776 when the Resolution on Independence was made. They see the Revolution as taking place (during that 12 month period) in the hearts and minds of the Congressmen and the supporters who came to the realisation that their armed struggle (if it were to succeed) had to then become a War of Independence.
An example of those who see the War of Independence as being only a phase of the American Revolution would include Richard Brown in his book 'Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution 1760-91' (Lexington, Massachusetts, 1992). He takes a long view and sees the 'American Revolution' as the whole era of constitutional change from the Seven Years War to the Constitutional Amendments of 1791.
Those who see the Revolution and the War of Independence as 2 separate events in time would include Peter D G Thomas in his trilogy on the American Revolution which he dates as being between 1763-1776. He sees the American Revolution as the process of political wrangling between the UK and the 13 colonies over taxation beginnning with the Seven Years War and culminating with the Resolution on Independence. The third book in the trilogy is entitled 'Tea Party to Independence: The Third Phase of the American Revolution, 1773-1776' (Oxford, 1991). Everything subsequent to the Resolution on Independence is, in Thomas' view, no longer the American Revolution but the War of Independence.
And then there are those historians who only see a War of Independence but no 'revolution'. These would include Piers Mackesy with his book 'The War for America 1775-1783' (London, 1964) in which he doesn't use the word 'revolution' once but rather depicts the conflict as a civil war within the British Empire.
Perhaps one could say that in the "pro-independence" lot there were far more citizens of non-British origins (Dutch, French and Germans) and mixed ones who naturally had less links with Britain but then that does not change much in the definitions.Β
This view, however, wouldn't be reflected by events which is why, for example, French-speaking Quebec remained loyal to Britain.Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 15
Posted by SARGONID (U14121283) on Thursday, 3rd September 2009
Almost cvertainly the revolutionaries would have failed. Washington won few battles, and without French military expertise, arms, troops and ships they would have had no chance.
Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 16
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Sunday, 6th September 2009
The above illustrates well that the war had many facets. It was partly a revolution and partly not. Even in the respect that it was revolutionary to establish a republican government by a written constitution, it was yet a conservative "revolution" in that it founded itself on established British institutions and law. There were really no new ideas. It was the implementation of political philosophies long developing in Britain to an extent and with an enduring success not previously seen in Britain. We think of revolutions as a complete reordering of society--it was certainly not a revolution in that sense. Since the French revolution, we think of revolutions as establishing new structures in society based on untried ideals. Even what seemed revolutionary, the constitutional republic replacing monarchy, was carefully constructed with attention to past successes and failures of such experiments.
I suppose it seemed like a revolution at the time, but if the term is used to lump it with the cluster of revolutions that we have seen in the last 200 years then it is a serious mischaracterization. More accurate to consider it a rebellion of British subjects who saw their rights as British subjects being violated, set out to defend themselves, found that defense escalating to a full-blown war which made full independence the only visible option, who then made a virtue of necessity by implementing the best ideas then extant in British political philosophy to create a new central authority to fill the gap.
It was in many respects not peculiarly American either. It more or less just happened to be that it was the British subjects in America rebelling because it was the British subjects in America who were being cut off from the British electoral process, therefore felling violated, and who had a sufficient critical mass to effect a rebellion. They also had the habit of self-government for most of the preceding 150 years with little attention from London. Had the same circumstances existed in Britain at that time, there would have been some shooting.
I don't know where the notion comes in that ethnicity had much to do with it. The Scots in America were quick to take to the rifle against the British, but they didn't start it. The core of the rebellion were among the English. The only other major free minorities were the Dutch in New York and Germans in Pennsylvania, who if they leaned more one way or the other tended more to remain loyal to the Crown. It was a British civil war, fought in America.Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 17
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Sunday, 6th September 2009
Without French help, they would not have won in the way that they did, and perhaps not at all, but I am not so sure that they wouldn't. Just because they could not have won at the time, place, and manner that they did, gives no assurance as to the outcome. Had they held the rebellion together and kept forces in the field, it would have been very difficult for Britain to establish peace, even if she need not fear defeat. It would still have likely become at some point, simply not worth it. The sort of final defeat imposed on the Confederacy for example would not have been affordable--that took a federal army consisting of nearly 1 soldier for every adult male in the South, and even then was only achievable after a turning a substantial proportion of them into cripples and Sherman's scorched earth warfare.
Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 18
Posted by poppyanddaisy (U14107848) on Wednesday, 9th September 2009
Almost cvertainly the revolutionaries would have failed. Washington won few battles, and without French military expertise, arms, troops and ships they would have had no chance.
Think this underestimates the abilities of the Americans - yes it is true that in pitched battles they lacked the formal training compared to British or French armies - but that was not the nature of the war - gentlemanly battles were not suited to the terrain (or any terrain for that matter - all a bit silly)and the Colonists possessed effective attributes that in the end made the position of British forces untennable.
Perhaps a weakness in the strategy of the Americans was their obsession with teying to be able to stand against the British forces on the open field. Their ambush and hit and run being far more effectiveLink to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
-
Message 19
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 9th September 2009
As has been pointed out above, without French intervention American independence as recorded in the history books wouldn't have happened. But nor would a lasting peace based upon a status quo ante bellum have been possible. Something akin to modern day Canada would have probably developed, assuming the British re-assumption of authority hadn't been too severe.
As for social revolution, KurtBronson above makes a good point. There was no upending of the "old order" - reaffirmation of it, really - but, given the economic opportunities in North America, changes were coming in any case - a revolution in expectations, to re-coin an old phrase. British attempts to frustrate those economic opportunities (why?) was one of the causes of the WAI.Link to this forum: American Revolution and a French connnection
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 Β to 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
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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.