Was the US war for independence a revolution or a war of national liberation?

[there4eyeM]

We associate the term with more modern conflicts, but couldn't it be said that the fight was to free a people that identified themselves as different from the colonial power ruling over them, thus national liberation?
It certainly did not cause a revolution in the English world. They just went home. In the French revolution, everyone WAS home, so everything was different (not to mention the immediate invasions that occurred that the Americans did not have to face).
Perhaps it is just being fine on a point, but, really, was it a revolution?

 

[Ringel05]

Dictionaries are your friend........

 

[konradv]

We associate the term with more modern conflicts, but couldn't it be said that the fight was to free a people that identified themselves as different from the colonial power ruling over them, thus national liberation?
It certainly did not cause a revolution in the English world. They just went home. In the French revolution, everyone WAS home, so everything was different (not to mention the immediate invasions that occurred that the Americans did not have to face).
Perhaps it is just being fine on a point, but, really, was it a revolution?

Most Americans didn't see themselves as different. They saw themselves as English. If Britain had given them representation in Parliament, the revolution may never have happened. Wars of national liberation are usually associated with colonial powers fighting an indigenous people of different ethnicity.

 

[MHunterB]

And all that despite the fact that only 1/3 of 'continentals' spoke English as their native language. (another third spoke German) It's quite true that the English citizens were affronted by the fact that they had no representation in Parliament, not even a liason to address their concerns.

But, they were still forced to pay taxes on whatever the Crown ordered. (Remember the slogan "No taxation without representation!" - that's what it referred to.) AND they were restricted as to who they could sell what to - a colony was to export raw materials to England and buy finished goods from England. So skilled Continetal craftsmen - cabinetmakers, silversmiths and the like - were effectively barred from presenting their wares to the much larger and wealthier English market.

And yes, it would have been 'cost-effective' in terms of delivery time to ship to England rather than elsewhere in the Colonies: it took the same time to get to/from England as it did to get to/from Boston, starting from Williamsburg VA.

 

[there4eyeM]

My impression is that those who had been in the colonies for multiple generations, as well as more recent arrivals who had never been 'English', did not associate themselves with either the country nor the culture of England.
There are examples of colonial governments, system of trade and even their own money. Most community functions were handled locally. They paid few taxes directly to England and that in trade tariffs mostly.
British repression of industrial endeavors was a problem. The empire worked on cheap resources reprocessed in England by English industry and re-sold to the colonies transformed.
If England had granted voting rights to the colonies (and remember that the 'elections' in England at the time were far from very democratic) it would have entered onto a very slippery slope vis-a-vis all the rest of the empire. They certainly had no intention of allowing extra-territorials gain political power in England.
Plainly, a significant part of the population had no respect or regard for authority in government form. This ranged from intellectuals to simple farmers, hunters and adventurers.
There are historical precedents of common cultures conducting war between the colony and the establishing country.
The fight in America was to make the British 'go home', 'get out'. That isn't a revolution, it's an expulsion.

 

[whitehall]

The Colonies were subjects of King George and they took up arms against the monarchy. I'd say it qualifies as a Revolution.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Dictionaries are your friend........

Well I've now looked at 3 different dictionaries and wikipedia, and the determination I've come to......

I dunno. It really could go either way. Many sources say it is the overthrow of the government. Which means that government would be ended. In the American Revolution that government was not ended. King George of England, was still King George of England, he was most certainly NOT overthrown. Other sources don't make this claim.

I guess from the American side it could be seen as a revolution and from the English side as a rebellion?

 

[hjmick]

First and foremost, it was treason. Had they failed, they all most assuredly would have been hung.

Brave men indeed.

 

[there4eyeM]

First and foremost, it was treason. Had they failed, they all most assuredly would have been hung.

Brave men indeed.

As to their sexual abilities, no one can say for sure. If the English had captured them, they almost certainly would have been executed, and perhaps hanged.

 

[hjmick]

First and foremost, it was treason. Had they failed, they all most assuredly would have been hung.

Brave men indeed.

As to their sexual abilities, no one can say for sure. If the English had captured them, they almost certainly would have been executed, and perhaps hanged.

Damn. I don't often do that...

 

[amrchaos]

Well, it seems like if we lost, it was a rebellion that was put down

But since we won, it is a war for national liberation(although the USA was not a formal nation until after the war.)

In many cases, a war for national liberation is when a nation that is occupied fights for independence from their oppressors. The colonists had England as an oppressor, but was never a nation, so the term "national liberation" may not apply.

 

[amrchaos]

First and foremost, it was treason. Had they failed, they all most assuredly would have been hung.

Brave men indeed.

Or escaped to France.

Not all traitors are hunged--only those that get caught!

 

[WilliamCody]

I consider a revolution a political, economic, and social upheaval. Combined.

The American Revolution was a seminal moment in world history because of the implications of it policies (and maybe, perhaps for its economics).

But since the same people who had power in 1775 were the same that had power in 1800, I would say it doesn't fit the bill as a revolution as I define it.

Certainly, you can take a broader view of the definition, or of the revolutionary time period.

If you extend the era of revolution to say, Jacksonian America then yes, I would say it was a revolution.