The American Revolution

[HoldAndBuy]

I guess my point is that I don't consider a group of colonists who weren't indigenous to the area breaking off from the metropolitan country an ocean away to be a true revolution. The system in England didn't go away, just the vestiges of it here.  If a group of British or French colonists in some African country decided to break away I wouldn't consider that a revolution either.

[HoldAndBuy]

I think a big part of the problem is all these electronic devices like Blackberries and cellphones (I say this as I type on the internet  ). Those things are fine when used in moderation, but people have become too distracted by these gadgets, and they don't take action. It's the bread and circuses of our age.

And you are 100% RIGHT.......A whole bunch of WHINERS in this country but very few people who get off their @sses and DO.

Quit the CRYING and DO something about it!!

EMAIL sent at 12:31 to Congressman James Langevin asking for support on HR1207

[PositiveOutlook]

Well, the problem with that line of thinking is that we were already here about 300 years (longer than we've been a nation), and England did go solidly from a monarch to parliamentary system post 1776...

Also consider that the British navy was THE navy of the day, controlled the seas and controlled the American coasts/shipping, and were not really challenged on the seas by the colonists to any degree, but rather the French... their ships were much larger and their armaments more fortified... The british could not take the battle inland to any effect, and their supplies had to come from England, so we had the "home turf" advantage... and we took well advantage of it...

The American Revolution had alot of influence in the French Revolution, as well as Spains...

The system in England did change post American Revolution... it solidified the parliamentary system and eventually relegated the monarchy to it's current form...

The American Revolution brought about change all across the board... religion, economics, politics, free speech and social structure, all paid for with blood and treasure...

"...a group of colonists..."

There were about four (4) million people already here, spread over thirteen states, bigger than England (which is about 20% the size of Texas).... hardly a "group of colonists", otherwise we would not have made it...

"If a group of British or French colonists in some African country decided to break away I wouldn't consider that a revolution either."

If they broke away from the current political structure, form their own country within the existing borders controlled by Africa, changing Africa's name in the southern hemisphere to "Utopia", setting up their own monetary system, their own laws, etc.  - you wouldn't consider that a revolution?

Besides, most historians rightfully refer to it as revolution for some reason...

[HoldAndBuy]

You seem to be very knowledgeable about this subject, however, I would like to ask...
One has to ask how these events improved things in a revolutionary way for people living in the American land mass at that time who were not part of the colonial group, i.e. slaves and Indians.  You can say they improved over the long haul for slaves via amendments to the constitution, but then you have to ask whether they would have improved anyway, perhaps faster, since there was a movement against slavery in Europe as well, and slavery in the islands was ended prior to that in the US, I believe. The founding fathers were very timid about the slavery issue. And clearly things got much, much worse for American Indians over the next hundred years or so. The transfer of wealth that you talk about was based more on one's loyalty to England, not based on actual class. I would assume that most of all of those who held wealth before the revolution and sided with the founding fathers retained it afterwards--maybe I'm wrong. There was more opportunity but it was still largely for the same segment of the population. Having said all that I think the constitution, etc. are fantastic developments, my quibble is with the term "American Revolution". I think the historians should have created a different term for what happened. However that is the term that stuck...

As for the Africa question, if the majority indigenous population were still treated as second class citizens or exploited for their natural resources, no I do not consider that a real revolution.

Well, the problem with that line of thinking is that we were already here about 300 years (longer than we've been a nation), and England did go solidly from a monarch to parliamentary system post 1776...

Also consider that the British navy was THE navy of the day, controlled the seas and controlled the American coasts/shipping, and were not really challenged on the seas by the colonists to any degree, but rather the French... their ships were much larger and their armaments more fortified... The british could not take the battle inland to any effect, and their supplies had to come from England, so we had the "home turf" advantage... and we took well advantage of it...

The American Revolution had alot of influence in the French Revolution, as well as Spains...

The system in England did change post American Revolution... it solidified the parliamentary system and eventually relegated the monarchy to it's current form...

The American Revolution brought about change all across the board... religion, economics, politics, free speech and social structure, all paid for with blood and treasure...

"...a group of colonists..."

There were about four (4) million people already here, spread over thirteen states, bigger than England (which is about 20% the size of Texas).... hardly a "group of colonists", otherwise we would not have made it...

"If a group of British or French colonists in some African country decided to break away I wouldn't consider that a revolution either."

If they broke away from the current political structure, form their own country within the existing borders controlled by Africa, changing Africa's name in the southern hemisphere to "Utopia", setting up their own monetary system, their own laws, etc.  - you wouldn't consider that a revolution?

Besides, most historians rightfully refer to it as revolution for some reason...

[PositiveOutlook]

"One has to ask how these events improved things in a revolutionary way for people living in the American land mass at that time who were not part of the colonial group, i.e. slaves and Indians."

Being that the native indians fought on both sides in the American Revolution, and free slaves also fought on the American side, they were part in parcel a part of the event.  By the time of the American Revolution, native indians were working directly with the Americans, the French and the British.  One could argue they saw the writing on the wall, and were looking for the right group to align with amongst their many "nations".  Slaves still exist today in many regions of the world, India, Sudan, Africa, Pakistan, Burma. Thailand, etc. so it is the question might be better put, if both the native indians and slaves did not participate, would the native indians killed themselves off (as they were ALL warring against each other), and would the slaves still be slaves without the backdrop of the Declaration of Independance (which the original verson called for slavery's abolition) exhorted that ALL men are created equal.

"You can say they improved over the long haul for slaves via amendments to the constitution, but then you have to ask whether they would have improved anyway, perhaps faster, since there was a movement against slavery in Europe as well, and slavery in the islands was ended prior to that in the US, I believe."

I don't know how they would have improved WITHOUT the abolitionist movement and subsquant laws and ammendments.  Would the slave owners who were eventually forced to give up their slaves just done it by themselves?  It took another 100 years for Civil Rights...

"As for the Africa question, if the majority indigenous population were still treated as second class citizens or exploited for their natural resources, no I do not consider that a real revolution."

If that's your perpective, then France's revolution wouldn't qualify as a revolution either... that was one of the major reasons they did revolt...

[Hooch]

If you hear of some group that is serious about revolution, let me know and sign me up.