Question:
did america really "win" the war of independance?
RISE AGAIN
2008-07-02 02:28:34 UTC
George Washington fought 9 battles.But he only won 3 !
He was also a turn coat.He was a colonel in the BRITISH army.He only left because as a colonial,he could never make general.
The war was won.General Howe needed 20 thousand troops to finalize victory and mop up the last pockets of resistence.It took 6 weeks in those days for troops and supplies to arrive.He was sent 2 thousand.
In the end the yanks brought in FRANCE AND SPAIN to help.3 on 1.Britain had colonies all over the world and so could only devote so much time and effort.
In the war of 1812 ,Britain gave the yanks a bloody good hiding.Down to their stance during the napoleonic wars.We burned Washington and the white house to the ground and ransacked New Orleans....nice one!!!
Interesting how americans don't talk about that and how they re-write history like a film script.
America has never won a war by themselves.
Eleven answers:
anonymous
2008-07-02 11:57:35 UTC
The British Army (as you so rightly say) fought a total of 10 battles with the Continental Army and won seven of them.



The British were faced not merely by a bunch of citizens but also by the French.



When Cornwallis surrendered his sword to George Washington at Yorktown - there were still 10,000 British troops in the Loyal City of New York.



Lobster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ&feature=related



A lobster is the name given to British soldiers by the Americans because they word red coats.
no
2008-07-02 10:02:59 UTC
First, the British got out of the lower 13 colonies after an armed conflict....so the British didn't win, the colonies did.



Washington was NEVER an officer in the British Army, in fact he was refused a commission on several occasions. He was a Colonel in the Virginia Militia.



If Britain overextended herself in the attempt to enslave the world, that is no ones fault but Britain's.



The United States has freed more people, fed more people, supplies more disaster relief and rebuild more countries than any country in the history of the world.



The United States is also the ONLY country in history that had a chance to basically RULE the world and gave it up!



As an additional note on Washington, you Brits NEVER had a man who had the chance to rule the country as a dictator and gave it up! Your own King George, when he heard that Washington voluntarily gave up the presidency after two terms, and before that gave up his Army's offer to make him the "king" of the U.S. said that Washington must be the greatest man who ever lived.



A little knowledge is a dangerous thing... If I didn't know better, I would say that you had an American Public School Education and didn't do any studying on your own afterword.
tattiesoup
2008-07-02 12:20:07 UTC
I always celebrate independence day - it's when we got rid of all the Americans!!



Only joking, don't eat me!



Yes, the Americans won, because they are now a separate country, end of story.



You can't say that Washington was a Brit, because that doesn't actually mean anything. Practically all the Americans were descendants of Brits, what made them American was simply their decision to band into a group that adhere to a particular set of values. (Well, theoretically. Evidence of this was not forthcoming, as the question points out, they were desperately hypocritical over slavery!)



But the fact that Washington changed his mind, and chose to believe in America in his own lifetime, does not make him any the less American.



I don't understand how people can make these distinctions between countries, when the people are all the same - the "Americans" are descended from the "Brits" who are a mix of Picts, Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, and Normans anyway!



Perhaps in the old days it mattered a bit, when countries did tend to be forged on the strength of a single set of values, but with "multicultural" societies springing up all over the place, what on earth is the point?



Nationality clearly has nothing to do with location or origin - the Americans were the same after all the bloodshed as they were before, they lived in the same place, did the same job and had the same ancestry.



No, countries are like religions, they are just groups of people believing the same lie. Americans and Brits are like Catholics and Protestants - largely the same, but had a disagreement over a rule and split into two groups. Before that, the Danes living in Britain split from the Danes in Denmark - just like the Christian church split from the Jewish church.



But it is all false, because people are just people, and we are all one and all individual - identifying yourself as a British Pakistani Muslim versus an African American Baptist is just ridiculous.



Anyway, assuming you accept the notion of a country, none of your other points make sense either.



The fact that Spain and France were brought in is irrelevant - Britain wasn't able to bring them in! If the Americans won on the strength of their diplomacy, this is as much a victory as if they had won on the strength of their armies. (Alas, their diplomatic skills are no more!)



Whatever happened in 1812 is even less relevant - like saying "Well, the Scots won at Bannockburn, so did they really lose at Flodden Field?"



Edit: McPherson - what "rebuilding" is this that you're talking about? Have you seen "Charlie Wilson's War"? America has a long history of interfering where it isn't needed, the latest mess being the disastrous situation in Iraq, although I admit Britain has done no better.



And just for your information, Edward VIII voluntarily gave up the British throne, although granted, it was not out of any higher moral purpose.
fallenaway
2008-07-02 12:45:17 UTC
Something like that happened, no? The British Army surrendered, laid down their arms, and went home. The Crown did sign the peace treaty.

An Army that required a world-wide impress of ragtag troops to fill its ranks is in what respect British?

Yorktown was the beginning of the end for the English Imperial dream. The US was the greatest mistake the Crown ever made, an error Edmund Burke and other Whigs diligently tried to prevent.

Dream on, perfidious Albion.
hobbsko
2008-07-02 15:00:43 UTC
it appears as if you have some underlying resentment for us yanks. and i think that you've already gotten an earful from other answerers here.

regarding the comments on your edits about how americans tore through the west, displacing numerous native tribes, and how we relied on slavery for decades longer than the brits--these certainly aren't proud moments in our history. and unfortunately there are americans who would rather pretend that these things never happened as opposed to acknolwedging that our predecessors behaved engaged in very disgusting actions. last i checked, there were no time machines, so we can't quite go back and undo things that embarrass us. and even if we could, would we? enduring rather shameful periods in history has allowed us to grow and mature as a nation. and while we aren't close to being perfect (unlike the brits.......ooh, that was a cheap shot), we still strive to live up to the very ideals set forth in our founding documents. it's never easy, but it helps us to persevere.



now, if i do recall correctly, the first real "slaves" were the indentured servants who were sailed over under the condition that they would "buy" their freedom after so many years of servitude. in many cases, their period of servitude eventually turned into a lifetime of servitude. and then, it was the british who sailed to africa to bring men and women to work in their sugar plantations in the west indies (and later in the colonies). this not only started the dispicable chain of slavery in the US but it also unleashed terrible consequences for the native tribes in africa, as they began turning in on themselves and trading their own tribesmen for british goods. it appears that we may have had similar experiences--us and the native americans, you and the africans. neither was "better" nor "worse" than the other, but both were abhorrent.

i commend the brits for abolishing slavery as soon as they did. but how dare you condemn us for not being so enlightened as you.



"let he who is without sin, throw the first stone."
Sexy Paul
2008-07-02 09:44:29 UTC
Why do hate america so much? Im not american im british but all that stuff is history.If it wasnt for the help of the americans in world war 2 we would be german with blue eyes and blonde hair now.Also if the u.k ever got attacked the americans are out allies we would have them on our side instantly.However i dont like how some americans are so uneducated about history that they didnt even know that the first white americans came from the u.k and the war of independance was a civil war.Some of them are so dumb that they think america has always been there before europe lol



Edit:Cant reason with a idiot,goodbye
anonymous
2008-07-02 10:02:04 UTC
Do you see any Brit flags over the White House ? And what would have become of Great Britain in WWII without U.S. aid - (arms & supplies) even BEFORE the U.S. entered the War. As for the Independence, the U.S. had the Brits beat BEFORE the opportunistic French & Spanish stepped up "in the end" to get a piece of the action. As for George Washington being a "traitor" ? Depends on your perspective (which side you're on) He "betrayed" the tyranny of a foreign king to"WIN THE WAR OF INDEPENDANCE - really !!
anonymourati
2008-07-02 13:41:39 UTC
My dear British friend. That wasn't really a question was it now? It was more of a dressing down as you Brits would say--some well deserved, some quite off the mark.



THe outcome of a war, like a fistfight, is not necessarily detrmined by who wins the most rounds, but rather who is laying on the canvas at the end of the contest and who is still standing. In light of General Cornwallis' decisive defeat and surrender at Yorktown, King George and Parliament simply decided it was not worth the farthing to sink further manpower and resources into a colonial war, which is why the only British flags flying in these of your former colonies are flying over your embassies these days.



You are quite right about us not winning that one by ourselves of course. An largely agarian collection of rebellious colonies with a population of three or four million could not possibly have defeated a nation of over forty million at the time possessing of the largest and best navy in the world. French supplies for our war effort played a great role, and the French naval interdiction of relief and evacuation for Cornwallis was critical to that knock-out blow at Yorktown.



Even with that victory, Britain certainly could have fought on, and possibly won, but the question was, at what cost? Here was a sparsely populated group of colonies, not really producing an enormous about of export trade or tax revenue that was requiring enormous resources to occupy in light of its rebellious state. Britain had other more pressing interests, including the French and the Spanish, and a vast empire aside from us with which to concern itself. We never really had to "win." All we had to do was become a sufficient thorn to make you want to be rid of us--and that we accomplished--with some help as you point out.



As to the War of 1812, you did beat us about the head and shoulders for a good bit of it yes. Bigger army, bigger navy, not surprising. But my friend, your recollection of the Battle of New Orleans is quite faulty. It was, in fact, one of Britain's most embarrassing and costly defeats in a land battle of the era.



Now as to not winning a war by ourselves, that's neither entirely accurate, nor very charitably expressed. I think it is fair to say we won the Spanish-American War by ourselves. The major conflicts in the 20th century, the two World Wars, were not really our affair at the outset. Those were largely your doing, stemming from your conflicts with Germany, and my reading of the history is that in both instances you were begging for our help, and help we did.



No, we didn't win either of those ourselves, but there is little question that you would have lost each of them without us. We provided the supplies, the manufacturing base and the manpower that you simply did not have in sufficient quantity to win.



Also, in the Second World War, we largely did defeat Japan on our own. You Brits provided a little help, as did Australia, but mostly your navy in the Pacific had been destroyed early in the war and your garrisons in your colonial holdings at Singapore, Hong Kong and the like, were sitting in Japanese prison camps as we were fighting our way back across the Pacific. All the while we were fighting with you in Europe and North Africa, we were also prosecuting a war with Japan wth very little assistance from anyone. Some leand bases in Australia and New Zealand, and some troop assistance in the fight for New Guinea, but let's be fair here--we carried the bulk of the fight, the cast majority of the losses, and as I said earlier, your remarks were just not very charitable.



At the end of the day, however, I should much rather describe us as the closest of allies, not antagonists or critics of one another. However costly and possibly ill-conceived our war in Iraq has been, you have backed our play, and we are grateful in the extreme. When Argentina sought to take your Falkland Islands from you, we also provided critical support to your efforts, refueling bombers en route and and providing critical satellite reconnaisance to keep your fleet safe--very much in violation of our defensive agreements with Argentina.



We know who our friends are when the chips are down, and we are in your debt for being there when we have needed you. I only hope that you may feel the same about us.
halefarmboy
2008-07-02 10:50:42 UTC
You sound very bitter toward us. Did we do something to you personally, to hate us so.



I apoligize.



NOT.



We did what we had to do to get out from under British rule. Period. End of discussion.
Abbyyyyyyyy
2008-07-03 01:50:45 UTC
God. Chill. No hard feelings... it's effing 200 years ago!

oh, and, HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

xxxxx
angle
2008-07-02 09:43:49 UTC
its the same in scottish schools.they even think braveheart is historically correct


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...