Again, when you can prove that the cause of the war was between groups of Americans and not between Americans living in North America with a seperate, conciously chosen identity from Britain, and Britain, post it here.
But almost half the colonists didnt have a seperate identity, and wasnt the 2nd Civil War brought about by Southerners with a separate concious identity witshing to leave the US and set up their own country - they were called Rebels werent they?
You are just proving my point with your observation - history has been written by the victors?
I would not characterise the American Revolution primarily as a civil war by any means, but would stand by the excerpt from the post I made earlier, that
in important respects it was also a civil war
(my highlighting)
To return to the original topic of the thread, there is no doubt that history is written by the victors.
Had the American Revolution been lost, it would have gone down in the history books as “The American Rebellion of 1776”, just like the Indian Mutiny, an interesting and important, but ultimately irrelevent piece of history in the movement towards Colonial self-determination.
As for history being written by the victors, theres an old piece of doggerel that runs;
“Treason never prospers,
for one quite simple reason,
and that is, if it prospers,
no one dare call it treason.”
I would agree with the above and it would be foolish though to say that every American Loyalist thought of themselves as a Brit!
One article by the well respected Richard Holmes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/empire/rebels_redcoats_01.shtml
He sums it up better than I can.
I guess if you really wanted to … from a British Perspective you could call the American War of Independence a British Civil War. I dont believe anyone really calls it that. Also note that I call it the War of Independence and not the American Revolution. It was more or less a change or government. Not a extreme make over such as we seen in France a couple of decades later. There is a difference between the US War of Indepedence because they had formed a New Nation called the USA. Then they were attacked by Britain. The objective of the British were to sqaush what they felt was a rebellion. The US would defend their country from now foreign invaders. Regardless of who fought for whom the all 13 colonies did dissolve their connections with the British Crown.
On the otherhand, as I have somewhat stated, The US civil war…the North was trying to negoiate peace with the south even after they had succeded from the Union. (Which was their right.) The Southerners decided that they would just give up on that idea and start with agressive measures. The real first shots of the US Civil war started at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. The USA was attacked by the CSA. Thats when the real objectives came clear. The US would rejoin the southern states. The CSA would quickly capture Washington and force the US to concede them independence.
I will say that the South was more in their rights but made the bad decision to attack the US. If you truly study the war you will see that the US was not prepared for war in the early years. Why? Because it still felt that a peaceful conclusion could still be reached. Ive said this before in another thread … that if the Civil war were today that I would fight for the South. (NOW THAT THEIR IS NO SLAVERY ISSUE) Because the real and valid complaint of the Southern states were States rights. Which have been slowly taken away from citizens of the US ever since the war.
Anyhow these our my thoughts
But does this not then feed back into the original topic - e.g. Victors writing history.
You say “from a British perspective”, but since it has a basis in fact (e.g. that “loyalists” existed at all), it is merely the victor’s interpretation that it is not a civil war from the American perspective too. Maybe it is expedient to the victor to forget (or at least gloss over) when writing history, the fact that a large number of people in the colonies did not want to be independent from Britain. Entirely understandably of course! Far better for the future stability of the nation to say “We won!” rather than “Well, half of us did, whereas you other half got beat and things didn’t turn out how you wanted!” (note - I say “half” as a figure of speech, not as the breakdown of Patriots and Tories!)
Does anyone know whether American school kids are taught that the population was divided and faught on both sides, or is it presented as Americans versus British for simplicity? (since on an “academic” level I’m sure it’s gone into in far more detail than anyone has here, but most people will learn about such things in school and no more).
On a not entirely unrelated not of national disunity, I wonder how WWII is played out in France, given that half of France fell under German occupation while the other half of France fell into line to form “Vichy” France… Is Vichy France something of prominence in the French telling of that period in history, or the dirty little family secret which is played down or glossed over as much as possible?
The above is a good post and has got me thinking about what we are taught. For years here in Scotland Scottish history was basically glossed over in favour of British history. Its only fairly recently that the Scots history has come more to the fore.
I only chose the US civil war and war of Independance as an example that sprung to mind, it was not meant as any slight on the US. However, the Canadian colonies stuck with the crown, I wonder why they didnt join in the war of independance, does anyone know if any canadians chose to fight against the Brits?
I wouldn’t take issue with any of the above…from an American perspective. 
To say, though, that the Founding Fathers had “formed a new nation” is a slight exaggeration.
They had declared a new nation, which is not quite the same thing.
The nation was formed and forged first in the fires of the war itself, and then in the aftermath.
Bear in mind that the new nation didn’t have its first President until 1789.
As for it being a rebellion, that is exactly what it was…until you won.
Until then, as I said above, it was treason against the Crown.
Had you lost, that’s exactly how it would have been written, as a treasonous rebellion that failed.
Similarly, the “rebels”, new Americans, call them what you will, saw the “loyal” Tories as traitors to the new country they, the rebels, were trying to create, just as the Tories saw the rebels as traitors against the Crown.
With regard to negotiations, the First Continental Congress had sent a Petition for Redress of Grievance to the Crown.
It had remained unanswered when the Second Continental Congress met in 1775.
As a result, the Congress formed a “Continental Army” and declared a new currency.
Britain reacted to these acts as a declaration of rebellion, which, when seen in an historical perspective, and not by applying the now taken-for-granted (by the West) right of self-determination, it was.
Britain, by todays standards, reacted badly.
By the standards and mores of the time, the Crown could hardly have reacted in any other way.
Like most wars, the causes of the American Revolution/American War of Independence are not simple, much as we might like to make them so.
That we today most easily refer to the conflict as the War of American Independence proves the point of the thread.
History is written by the victors.
I offer a quote from the National Archives website, which opens its history of the Declaration of American Independence.
Nations come into being in many ways. Military rebellion, civil strife, acts of heroism, acts of treachery, a thousand greater and lesser clashes between defenders of the old order and supporters of the new–all these occurrences and more have marked the emergences of new nations, large and small. The birth of our own nation included them all.
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_history.html
It seems to have been quite the reverse.
From Wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)
Following the end of the American Revolutionary War and the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, Loyalist soldiers and civilians were evacuated from New York and resettled in other colonies of the British Empire, most notably in the future Canada: the two colonies of Nova Scotia (including modern-day New Brunswick, receiving in total some 25,000 Loyalist refugees) and Canada (including the Eastern Townships and modern-day Ontario, receiving altogether some 10,000 refugees). This group of people are most often referred to as United Empire Loyalists. In effect, the new British North American provinces of Upper Canada (the forerunner of Ontario) and New Brunswick were founded as places of refuge for the United Empire Loyalists
What name do the British use for that war in their schoolbooks? Do they call it the “American War for Independance”. The “American Revolution”? Do they call it the “First American Civil War”?
The Encyclopedia Britanica refers to it as the “American Rvolution”. The only civil war involing Americans in their books is the American Civil War (19th century)
When I was at school (65-76) it was the War of Independance. Funnily enough my history teacher was an Austrailian, Jesuit priest, ex Austrailian SAS Vietnam veteran. He claimed that the trigger for the colonistst was due to disputed taxation to pay for a standing army to defend the American colonies from the French. I have to admit that he was very anti-American but on the whole a top bloke and a memorable teacher.
Primarily as the “American War for Independance”, occasionally as the “American Revolution”.
Well so do we all pretty much agree then that history is written by the victors? Coz I really cant think of to many situations where the victor didnt get somekind of glory for the outcome. Anyone?
Perhaps history is being re-written by apologists ?
Sometimes they produce a more accurate representation of what really went on, but I’ve noticed a number of people refuting certain victories purely, (it seems to me,) to get publicity.
There are people who consider there to be no such thing as bad publicity.
Sinking of the French fleet in 1940? That was not very well thought of by the Brits.
Rainbow warrior?
Soviet crushing of popular revolutions? (although I’m sure they were portrayed as glorious victories in the Ostblok)
France’s greatest naval victory…
Sinking of the French fleet in 1940? That was not very well thought of by the Brits.
Rainbow warrior?
Soviet crushing of popular revolutions? (although I’m sure they were portrayed as glorious victories in the Ostblok)[/quote]
Are you talking about the French sinking their ships because they were afraid that they would end up in German hands. The fleet in Toulon? I think that happened in 1942 when the German occupied the rest of France or Vichy France. Anyhow I think that would be regarded a successful resistance movement. Dont know how they explain WW2 in France but im sure they dont touch on it alot. Of couse from what I know about the French you probably arent going to see many on the site to tell us. Especially Parisian’s. Sorry I love France but I hate Paris. Nice city but loaded with assholes. :mrgreen:
No, I think he is talking about the sinking of the French fleet in Oran, Algeria, by the RAF after it refused to join the allieds.
Jan