Questions about the USA Revolution

[khronosschoty]

I recently was thinking how in the USA Civl War the North used the propaganda of freeing slaves. I was thinking about this when I learned how England offered the Slaves freedom as well, during the USA Revolutionary War. I also think about how Slavery was abolished in England well before it was in the USA. I Also think the Canada is better in many way then the USA. I think the Native Americans would have been treated better had England won the war, and, I take notice of the fact that most Natives sided with England, because, they had the same ver thought. I Think that history also bares this out by the historically better treatment Canada gave them.

So in short, for propaganda purposes or otherwise I see it this way:

The Revolutionary War was the colonists

vs

The Loyalists and the Slaves, and the Native Americans.

Furthermore I think most of the colonists were only tricked, and, so, in all actual fact, it only benefited a few rich people.

So my Question is: was it a good thing or a bad thing? My thoughts are it was bad. I would have favoured staying with the British in the same way Canada and India did. I think things would have been better if in todays age we were a part of the British Common wealth with home rule.

[Hurlin]

kept them away from cricket that could only be a good thing

[Natsu]

At the time the Revolutionary War was a good thing because the reason the Colonists (Patriots) were fighting is because of the unlawful taxation without representation that England was doing. However, In today's society all governments are the same regardless of what they want you to believe. None of them care about their civilian or military sector. It's only about the rich and powerful. If you aren't in the top 1% of each country money wise then you don't count in the government's eyes or corporation's eyes. This is the sad truth about everything.

[khronosschoty]

At the time the Revolutionary War was a good thing because the reason the Colonists (Patriots) were fighting is because of the unlawful taxation without representation that England was doing. However, In today's society all governments are the same regardless of what they want you to believe. None of them care about their civilian or military sector. It's only about the rich and powerful. If you aren't in the top 1% of each country money wise then you don't count in the government's eyes or corporation's eyes. This is the sad truth about everything.

My point is that taxation without representation may have been wrong, but, going to revolution over it was bad in my eyes. The colonies should have fought a war for home rule, and, taxation with representation, so that today they would be called a equal member of the British common wealth.

I think that complete separation from England caused the latter US Civil WAR, caused black people to be slaves a longer time, and caused Native Americans much more extreme hardships. I think it was Englands meddling in these types of things that concerned the rich people the most.

[Natsu]

My point is that taxation without representation may have been wrong, but, going to revolution over it was bad in my eyes. The colonies should have fought a war for home rule, and, taxation with representation, so that today they would be called a equal member of the British common wealth.

I think that complete separation from England caused the latter US Civil WAR, caused black people to be slaves for hundreds of more years, and caused Native Americans much more extreme hardships. I think it was Englands meddling in these types of things that concerned the rich people the most.

You can't say that if the USA stayed under England's rule that things would have been better or worse. We can speculate but we'll never know since things happened the way they did. My point was atleast for short term it was a good thing because the Colonists got a local government which England could have never established. The best case would have been a branch off of the main government which at that time would take months to get information back and forth between the continents. This is why I say the Revolutionary War and the Colonists breaking away from England was a good thing. However, Regarding the long term aspect we will never know whether it was a good or bad move.

[CREinstein]

Ok so let me cover some bases.

Prior to the Civil War and the Revolutionary War there was the French-Indian and American War. The French had a good start when they trounced a major column headed to one of their forts. George Washington was the sole surviving officer of any rank and he managed to save a significant enough force by his lonesome.

However even prior to this native tribes had either aligned with the new colonies or attacked them. The attackers usually managed to slaughter a small town before a militia would set out (or Red Coats) to crush them.

This history repeated a lot, as well as a number of mistrusting whites who would do things to natives as well.

The last major strike happened in Oregon and the natives tried to flee to Canada but were caught by American Cavalry and surrendered.

The history line does not often talk of the raids by natives due to revisionism, but it certainly covers American actions in great detail. To better understand the era of the Revolutionary War you must understand some salient points:

1) The colonies were rebelling against the strongest power of the time. They feared if any States stood out they all would fall. Ergo when the South demanded slavery or else... sadly the North acceded with a so called compromise where only certain States would have slavery.

2) The Natives would have struck anyways regardless of who was in charge. Britian probably would have accelerated land grabbing however due to their nature. They found less advanced cultures and dominated them and took possession of the region for 'Crown and Country'.

3) Many tribes were fully aligned with the United States and got absorbed into the melting pot that is America. That Mormon relatives of mine identified three tribes in our family tree stands evidence of this melting pot.

4) There were boundaries, then there was open space. This was true in Russia, in Europe, in Africa, and in the America's. While there was some well drawn boundaries some areas were vaguely bordered much less actually controllrd. Towns and even cities could spring up at surprising speeds in areas claimed by one or more factions and yet be populated by yet another population. It was far different back then than it is now.



Things were far vastly different back then. A Commonwealth status would never have crossed their minds because they felt England would just make them pay more and more.

[flutterby]

Okay.... I love Oregon probably more than any other part of the country but to compare the rest of the US to it... There is no comparison. Especially when you're talking about the Civil War or Revolutionary war.
It wasn't even part of the country. If you want to talk about how there are many reservations there, I can give you that. If you want to talk about how many people decided to move west, fine. If you want
to discuss how Portland was a historic ground for Piracy and Kidnapping. Fine.

The American Revolution? Was created by traitors. Might want to do a little research on Samuel Adams. But you're a part of the "Tea Party", so you should already know about it. ;)

[CREinstein]

Oregon was brought up only in context of the last Native American attack, not as part of the Civil War or Revolutionary War.

Portland was not even a blip on the Radar in the Revolution and while Oregon sided with the Union during the Civil War that was mostly symbolic as we really did not get anything done to help.

Portland is interesting historically but Oregon City is much more so with the papers that allowed the City of San Fransisco to become a city (just woke up so head not fully here) and the first transmission of electrical power. Several other major historical events tied with the city include the elevator and the vote for USA or Canada.

[flutterby]

Suggestion, go do some reading on the political era and land acquisitions during the time of Andrew Jackson.

[CREinstein]

Oh don't get me wrong, some of the American's did bad things indeed. But I am saying it was not one sided.

Btw would you acknowledge I was not pulling Oregon in but instead commenting about the last indian strike. Kinda awkward not being acknowledged...

[TheImmortal]

I'm a fan of the Revolution. Yay for independence. That said, Adams' Sons of Liberty were crazy out-of-control and Andrew Jackson was arguably one of the biggest dirtbags to ever hold the office of President, so I agree with whoever said that.

[TheImmortal]

or maybe nobody said that. If so, then I'm saying it right now. I'M TIRED

[octobrev]

You know who won the US revolution? The french navy.

[khronosschoty]

You know who won the US revolution? The french navy.

I believe it.

[flutterby]

I'm a fan of the Revolution. Yay for independence. That said, Adams' Sons of Liberty were crazy out-of-control and Andrew Jackson was arguably one of the biggest dirtbags to ever hold the office of President, so I agree with whoever said that.

No, you're right. At least that's the thought I had when reading about it.