History is written by the Victors!

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#1

Is this true in your opinion? I for one believe that its 90% true and offer the following example:

  1. The 1 st US Civil War was initiated by 13 Colonies who sought to break away from Britian as they thought themselves to be economically stifled and did not receive the appropriate representation. After a number of years they won their cause and declared themselves free and independent.

History as written by them shows this as a war of independance from tyranny, when in reality it was an insurgent civil war.

  1. The 2nd US Civil War took place when 13 states (or parts therof) declared themselves independent as they thought they were being economically stifled and were not being represented, these were called Rebels by the remainder and forcibly returned to the Union.

History as written by the victors, portrayed this as a just act and brought rebels who sought to break away into line.

Without getting into the morals of slavery (which wasnt even an issue for US politicians in 1860) what was the diffrence in the 2 acts other than history is written by the victor?

Id be interested in some thoughts as I have a great enthusiasm for this period in world history.

#2

Only thought that really springs to mind is that in the case of the revolutionary war, the US colonies had no democratic representation in the place they were ultimately ruled from (London) while in the case of the US Civil War, they did (in Washington and then Richmond). Not sure if that makes one better or worse though.

#3

More than likely I think history is mostly written by the victors. I assume had my textbook been written by a Nazi or something of that sort it would explain how Hitler should have won and how bad the Allies were. I like to read material written by the losers as well though I like, if possible to hear from both sides of the fence.

#4

I have a couple of friends in Japan who are both teachers ( Ito and Atzuko) I spent some time with them in Tokyo back in the early 90’s and was supprised that though they could talk volumes on the bombing of Japan they had no knowledge of the treatment of allied prisoners or the occupation of China.
Japans expansionist policy is glossed over and their defeat is ascribed to the use of superior science ( atom bomb) rather than superior military force.
History may well be written by the victors but don’t underestimate the ability of the losers slip into denile

#5

Great Googa Mooga. :shock:

I will agree with you that History is written by the victors but however you sense of American History is a bit fked. The American War of Indepedence was fought due to the bungling of the British Government with respect to their subjects in the American Colonies. Ever read the Declaration of Independence???! Its an actually well written document and that has great meaning behind it. But you would make it seem that it were more likely to say "ah fk you bastards and your bad teeth we dont wanna pay your taxes anymore." And thanks to Britain’s continued bungling of things we did win our independence from them.

Thats the problem with the Brits you have really bad habit of sticking people in places and then wondering why it gets out of control. Most of the orginal settlers in America were people that didnt fit, werent wanted or had enough of being crapped upon. So bacially we were a bunch of people that were mostly not wanted in Great Britain. Georgia for instance used to be a penal colony. And then you wonder why we revolted. Especially when we were forced to pay taxes to pay for wars and we didnt even have 1 member in the house of commons. Another bright idea by the Brits was sticking all those protestants in northern Ireland. Good call there ol chap believe there is still a mess there today. :roll: Isreal is another but im not even going into that mess.

On to your next point about THE CIVIL WAR. K 1st there were a few more than 13 states. Secondly the only real relation between that war and the war of independence is a basic failure of communication. If you want the truth IMO about the American Civil war read what I wrote here
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=195&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
4th post of mine down. Long one.

If your getting at the point that if the allies had lost WW2 and history would be written by the Nazi’s and Japanese im sure your right. As im sure there would have been a nasty war crimes trial conducted by them as well.

Without getting into the morals of slavery (which wasnt even an issue for US politicians in 1860) what was the diffrence in the 2 acts other than history is written by the victor?

Uh yea slavery was an issue but not the sole issue. Anyhow you ask what is the difference. We had tried to reason with the British government in regards to our concerns and complaints. They went more or less went unheard. In later case the Southern states were to quick to pick up arms for what they thought was right. I dont blame them they did have a valid arguement however they did not need to act so quickly. Dont know about you but i dont start punching people out just because i think they are going to disagree with me. The bottom line, as in most wars, is the breakdown of communications. I think it was Robert McNamara’s Lesson #2 that was Empathize with your enemy. (The Fog of War) What he is saying it try to put yourself in the shoes of your enemy. The Brits did not do this nor did the Southerners. The people of the Northern states didnt much either however were not the agressors in this case.

#6

Well said General.

The War for Independance was not a US civil war because it was not faught amongst Americans. A civil war means people within a nation fighting on seperate sides. That was not the case with the War for Independance. It was a war between the Americans and the British, with Native Americans fighting on both sides in relatively small numbers…

#7

Well said General.

The War for Independance was not a US civil war because it was not faught amongst Americans. A civil war means people within a nation fighting on seperate sides. That was not the case with the War for Independance. It was a war between the Americans and the British, with Native Americans fighting on both sides in relatively small numbers…[/quote]

Not entirely true.
According to most authorities, about 15-20% of European Americans supported the Crown during the War (Tories).
Many left for canada and elsewhere at the beginning of the war, but many also fought for the Crown.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch3_p14.htm

Americans today think of the War for Independence as a revolution, but in important respects it was also a civil war. American Loyalists, or “Tories” as their opponents called them, opposed the Revolution, and many took up arms against the rebels. Estimates of the number of Loyalists range as high as 500,000, or 20 percent of the white population of the colonies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#European-American_colonists

European-Americans living in British North America were divided over which side to support in the war. About 40-45% of the population supported the struggle for indepedence, and were known as Patriots (or Whigs). About 15-20% supported the British Crown during the war, and were known as Loyalists (or Tories). About 50,000 Loyalist troops served during the war years in support of the British Empire

(edited to add second link)

#8

But what you are doing is playing semantics. The War for Independance was not a was between sides in America. It was a war between Americans ans Britain. The fact that some Americans fought on the side of the British does not change the fact that the war was between Britain and Americans. Had Britain not fought to keep the colonies, there would have been no war.

It was not a war between American factions that Britain in which Britain joined on one side to fight, but instead it was a war between Britain and Americans in which some Americans joined one side to fight. :wink:

What you are saying makes as much sence as saying that the Vietnam War was a war between the US and North Vietnam, when it was a war between factions in Vietnam in which the Americans joined one side to fight. :wink:

Now, yes, I know the Vietnam War was never declared a war, but instead a “police action”, so don’t start on that please.

Furthermore, it’s foundations were not differences between Americans, but between Americans and Britain.

Semantics do not change facts. The War for Independance was not a civil war.

#9

[quote="IRONMAN A civil war means people within a nation fighting on seperate sides. quote]

Your definition.

#10

Your definition.[/quote]

Again, the war was between Britain and Americans. Semantics do not change that fact. Now, if you are going to say that it was a war between Americans and Britain only joined one side, then we have something to argue about.

#11

Surely it was a war between some Americans and the British on one side and the other Americans, French, Dutch and Spanish on the other?

Makes it a kind of civil war (families were split, brother fought brother etc) with a war between the superpowers of the day thrown in, in my view.

#12

So you are saying the war came about because some Americans started a war with other Americans? :lol:

“also called United States War of Independence or American Revolutionary War (1775–83), insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence and went on to form the United States of America.”

Encyclopædia Britannica (2005)

Notice that the most authoritative encyclopedia in the world does not say that the war was one between Americans and other Americans, but instead between the Americans colonies and the British.

Oooops!

#13

No, I’m saying

Surely it was a war between some Americans and the British on one side and the other Americans, French, Dutch and Spanish on the other?

Makes it a kind of civil war (families were split, brother fought brother etc) with a war between the superpowers of the day thrown in, in my view

#14

Then you are incorrect. You really love being on the fringe don’t you. :roll:

#15

When you can prove that cause of American War for Independance was differences between factions of Americans, PLEASE, post it here. The world is waiting for your correction of history.

#16

I like this debate, I am beginning to see my point proved.

The US did not exist before the end of the War of Independance and ever since an attempt has been made to re-write history by diminishing the part that Loyalist contributed to it. Therefore how could it be a fight between Americans and British? Surely it was a fight between British-Americal colonials who wanted to break away, supported massively by France and to a lesser extent by Spain and the Netherlands, and British-American Colonials who wanted to remain a part of Britian.

Its not semantics at all. Isnt that what a Civil War is? After all, all of these guys were British and the vast majority originated there, so its not like Vietnam at all.

Good debate though.

#17

Because?

American fought American (60th Loyal American Rifle Regiment being the most famous American unit on the British side). Both sides made use of the indigenous “Indian” population. I’m sure that many of the Americans fighting for the British would have seen it as a kind of civil war. The rebels may well have to.

It was also, clearly, a war between the superpowers of the day - France, Holland and Spaion saw a chance to get at Britain by supporting the American rebels. Without that support, there’s every chance that Britiain would have won, or at least been able to fight for much longer.

I don’t know all that much about the War of Independance, but that’s the way I see it - if you can prove otherwise then please feel free to educate me.

editted to add - just seen your edit (again you’ve failed to say that you’ve editted your post) “you love to be on the fringe don’t you?” What the hell is that supposed to mean?

#18

I dont think you really understand. However, its not about factions of americans, but factions of British. As Ive said before, the revolutionaries were not United States Citizens, they were British citizens untill the war ended. So the war was fought between British factions. These people were culturaly the same, it wasnt americans and brits at all.

#19

It was not a civil war because the Ameicans had chosen a seperate identity from Britain. Since they had decided that they were not subjects of Britain (prior to the Declaration of Independance even), they were not fighting any kind of civil war. They no longer considered themselves subjects of Britain.

If it were a civil war, that is what historians everywhere except in Britain :roll: would call it. But they don’t because it was not.

#20

If Texans (for example) decided they didn’t want to be part of the US anymore, and then fought a war with the US Army about it, would it be a civil war?