The Right of Revolution

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Rythm

Are you asserting there are such things as 'innate rights'? If so,could you explain them to me? By that I mean, what is the source of these rights? How are they decided and enforced?

The American Revolution of 1776 was 'right' only' because the colonists won. Had the Brits won (and at times it was close) Jefferson Davis,John Adams,Washington, Franklin, and many, many others would have been sent to London tried,and hanged.

You and I enjoy and cherish many rights as citizens in relatively free countries. Those rights have been established by custom and law,including our constitutions.They are maintained by custom and the rule of law. They are neither innate nor guaranteed. Both your and my country have abrogated parts of our constitutions when expedient and neither has the slightest difficulty ignoring international law or conventions when it suits..

Power grows from the barrel of a gun ( Mao Tze Dung)

[Cinjin]

@Rythm

Are you asserting there are such things as 'innate rights'? If so,could you explain them to me? By that I mean, what is the source of these rights? How are they decided and enforced?

The American Revolution of 1776 was 'right' only' because the colonists won. Had the Brits won (and at times it was close) Jefferson Davis,John Adams,Washington, Franklin, and many, many others would have been sent to London tried,and hanged.

All very true. Being named a patriot vs. a traitor is a reward found only in victory. Who would know this truth better than Benedict Arnold? "Ooops, picked the wrong team."

[The Grand Nudger]

To me, it's not an innate right, so much as a right that I would wish for myself, and would grant to others. If someone says to me, you have no such right. I'd agree to disagree.

[Minimalist]

You're right, as I understand Baron was an honorary title given to Von Steuben and he is definitely credited with turning the patriots into a true colonial army and a big contributor in turning the tide of the war. The amount of ambush attacks by americans has always been debatable by revolutionists historians, but one things for sure, something that my professor of American History pointed out to me years ago, you don't beat an army that outnumbers you ten to one by being completely incompetent and counting on a foreign country to beat them for you. (... and you certainly don't beat them with pitchforks).

It might also be worthy to note: As I recall, Von Steuben was discharged from the Prussian army and found his way to Ben Franklin through French connections. He was actually considered a successful military leader while with the Prussian army and it leads one to wonder why he was discharged. I theorize that it was very possible that he was objecting to those old antiquated battle techniques and developing better tactics, thus the powers that be disapproved of his "untested theories" (or even perhaps pure envy got him fired). Regardless, it gives credence to the fact that he taught the colonial army those military tactics I aforementioned ... some of which are still employed today.

Let me see if I can find a link for better info.

I'm only pointing out that taking all credit from the colonial army is at the very least, inaccurate. They had weapons, they had a teacher, even if it's true that they sucked giant ass, which is only true in the start of the war - Rhythm still does have a valid point.

As to why Von Steuben was discharged:

http://bobarnebeck.com/baron.html

Alone of all the men mentioned in these pages, Steuben was accused of engaging in homosexual acts. In 1777 a friend of Steuben's wrote to his former employer, the Prince of Hechingen:

It has come to me from different sources that M. de Steuben is accused of having taken familiarities with young boys which the laws forbid and punish severely. I have even been informed that that is the reason why M. de Steuben was obliged to leave Hechingen and that the clergy of your country intend to prosecute him by law as soon as he may establish himself anywhere.

But as far as his "tactics" went, the Americans learned to load, fire by rank, and proper bayonet drill which had been the big disparity between them and the British. The American militia thought the bayonet was to scratch their balls with. The Brits knew how to use it and at Long Island they used it to rout Washington's entire force. The Prussians were still using linear formations in 1806 and Napoleon kicked their asses. The Austrians only adapted after the French kicked their asses a few times. The British were still using linear tactics in 1815 and they were the only ones to make it work....although again, they would have lost Waterloo if the Prussians did not save them.

If you look at the most significant American victory of the war before Von Stueben's efforts, Saratoga, you see a situation in which a British army advanced into the wilderness of upstate New York, got itself involved in an attack against a fortified position and only then learned that expected reinforcements had either never left New York City or had been stopped at Oriskany. Further, Burgoyne foolishly divided his force and saw 1,000 of them lost at the pointless Battle of Bennington.

The Brits were using the same tactics to storm a fortified line in 1815 at New Orleans that they had used at Bunker Hill. Andy Jackson did not run out of ammo. It was apparently not one of their strengths.

[Cinjin]

As usual - I find nothing wrong with your historical accuracy. The alleged homosexual acts of Von Steuben is new to me though. I had never read that before. Interesting.

[Minimalist]

I had never read that before

Doesn't mean that it is true, of course. May well have simply been slander by a political or personal enemy. In any case, given the influence that religious fuckwits still maintained it would have been a good idea for Von Stueben to hit the road.

In either case, he ended up in Valley Forge and gave the fledgling American army a well needed shot of professionalism.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Doesn't mean that it is true, of course. May well have simply been slander by a political or personal enemy.

Indeed,political invective at that time would make tea partier green with envy.


One of my favourites (I forget the antagonists)

First person: "Wilks, you will either be hanged or die of the pox"

Wilks "Only if I embrace his Lordship's principles ,or his mistress"

[downbeatplumb]

From the perspective of the American Revolution, however, the high point of French support is the landing of five battalions of French infantry and artillery in Rhode Island in 1780. In 1781, these French troops under the command of Count Rochambeau marched south to Virginia where they joined Continental forces under Washington and Lafayette. Cornwallis, encamped on the Yorktown peninsula, hoped to be rescued by the British navy. A French fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse intercepted and, after a fierce battle lasting several days, defeated the British fleet and forced it to withdraw. This left the French navy to land heavy siege cannon and other supplies and trapped Cornwallis on the Yorktown peninsula.

At that point, the defeat of Cornwallis was essentially a matter of time. On September 14, 1781, the French and Continental armies completed their 700 mile march and soon thereafter laid siege to the British positions. After a number of weeks and several brief but intense engagements, Cornwallis, besieged on the peninsula by the large and well-equipped French-American army, and stricken by dysentery, determined to surrender his army. On October 19, 1781, the British forces marched out between the silent ranks of the Americans and French, arrayed in parallel lines a mile long, and cast down their arms.

Bottom line. Without french intervention we would've won.

[Minimalist]

If Comte de Grasse had not won the Battle of the Chesapeake then Admiral Graves would have evacuated Cornwallis' army from Yorktown. While still a significant reverse for the British it would not have been the outright disaster which caused Lord North to realize the war was lost.

The British made so many mistakes by trying to whip up the Indians in the north and servile insurrection in the south they pissed off a large portion of the 'silent majority' and drove them into the rebel camp.