-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Revolutionary War,Why?
- Thread starter RTG
- Start date
Plain Old Bill
New Member
You will hear all kinds of reasons. I think the real reason was we had just matured into our own nation we just had to cut the strings.
I heard that John Adams thought that July 4th would be a perfect day to have a picnic, and the only way to make sure he would get the day off would be to have a holiday!
Seriously though the colonials were in there "teenage" years and did not like to be told what to do. They felt they were "old" enough to make there own decisions.
I'm glad they did
Now, the War between the States* is another story. I would have fought for the South.
Sgt (Yankee) Salty
*Civil War is incorrect - that denotes a war in which the two parties are fighting for control. The South did not want control of Wahington, they wanted to be free of it.
Seriously though the colonials were in there "teenage" years and did not like to be told what to do. They felt they were "old" enough to make there own decisions.
I'm glad they did
Now, the War between the States* is another story. I would have fought for the South.
Sgt (Yankee) Salty
*Civil War is incorrect - that denotes a war in which the two parties are fighting for control. The South did not want control of Wahington, they wanted to be free of it.
We're getting close to that once more!
Plain Old Bill
New Member
Yes but that's a whole different thread.
The overall reason was that the colonists were getting no redress for their grievances; indeed they were receiving more restrictive control over their daily lives. Taxation without representation was one of the better-known of those grievances. Others were free-trade rights, expressing one's opinion in print, and the free bearing of arms.(short list.)
The "Boston Massacre" was a case of British soldiers acting to defend themselves from a real threat posed by a small mob. However, the shooting at Lexington was a real skirmish between colonists and British soldiers, and sparked a rebellion which soon became full-scale.
Was God's hand in this or what? For the colonies to have successfully revolted against England, the then-most-powerful nation on earth, was equivalent to Ohio's being able to successfully revolt against the other 49 states.
Now, did the British goof by sending a string of inept generals to command their forces on this continent? No. Gen Howe proved himself a good leader both before and after the revolution, as did Cornwallis. Howe's prob was that he didn't take the threat seriously enough, as he had won easy victories in every clash with the colonials. He didn't exert his forces powerfully enough to finish off the Continental Army.
There were two inept British generals, however. One was Thomas Gage, who had proven himself a poor commander while a colonel during the French and Indian War. It was he who was largely responsible for triggering the revolution by ordering the seizure of the munitions at Concord. It was also his ineptness that forced the British to hafta temporarily abandon Boston. He was replaced as C-in-C, North America by Howe.
General Sir Henry Clinton was in charge of the defense of the New York area. With the Royal Navy in control of the port area, and with no colonial force nearby, his hold was secure.
General Burgoyne was heading South from Canada with an army to seize control of the Hudson Valley, along with another force led by Colonel St. Leger. However, St. Leger was crushed by Benedict Arnold & had to return to Canada. Still, Burgoyne advanced, capturing Fort Ticonderoga, believing he would be joined by armies under Generals Howe and Clinton, to clamp a 3-way vice upon the colonials in NY-NJ, thus cutting off New England from the other colonies.
However, Washington kept Howe engaged at Brandywine and Germantown, thus preventing him from joining Burgoyne. But vistory was still within easy grasp of the British. All Clinton had to do was go north and meet Burgoyne. At Burgoyne's request, Clinton advanced northward, capturing a couple of minor forts on the Hudson; in the meantime a colonial army under Gen. Horatio Gates was preparing to attack Burgoyne. After capturing the forts on the Hudson River, Clinton sent Burgoyne a message that nothing lay between Clinton and Gates, thus leading Burgoyne to believe Clinton was going to join him so that together they could defeat Gates. HOWEVER, CLINTON ADVANCED NO FARTHER, and Burgoyne was thus hung out to dry.
Soon the British were surrounded, but they were still powerful, a cornered bear. The colonials' attack successfully bottled the British up, due largely in part to Benedict Arnold's fiery field leadership. The British, with no hope of relief, were forced to surrender.
However, Gates and Arnold had disagreed severely over the conduct of the battle, and this disagreement and subsequent discipline by Gates led to Arnold's embitterment and to his turning traitor.
It was Clinton's ineptitude which led to Burgoyne's defeat. This battle had a far-reaching effect. It was the first time a whole British army had been forced to surrender for many years, and the British began to look for a way out of this war, which was beginning to look to the average Brit worse than the Vietnam War looked to us. Also, France was thus encouraged to join the war on the colonials' side.
It was also Clinton's failure to act that led to Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown. Thus, the USA has had TWO inept Clintons in the driver's seat!
The "Boston Massacre" was a case of British soldiers acting to defend themselves from a real threat posed by a small mob. However, the shooting at Lexington was a real skirmish between colonists and British soldiers, and sparked a rebellion which soon became full-scale.
Was God's hand in this or what? For the colonies to have successfully revolted against England, the then-most-powerful nation on earth, was equivalent to Ohio's being able to successfully revolt against the other 49 states.
Now, did the British goof by sending a string of inept generals to command their forces on this continent? No. Gen Howe proved himself a good leader both before and after the revolution, as did Cornwallis. Howe's prob was that he didn't take the threat seriously enough, as he had won easy victories in every clash with the colonials. He didn't exert his forces powerfully enough to finish off the Continental Army.
There were two inept British generals, however. One was Thomas Gage, who had proven himself a poor commander while a colonel during the French and Indian War. It was he who was largely responsible for triggering the revolution by ordering the seizure of the munitions at Concord. It was also his ineptness that forced the British to hafta temporarily abandon Boston. He was replaced as C-in-C, North America by Howe.
General Sir Henry Clinton was in charge of the defense of the New York area. With the Royal Navy in control of the port area, and with no colonial force nearby, his hold was secure.
General Burgoyne was heading South from Canada with an army to seize control of the Hudson Valley, along with another force led by Colonel St. Leger. However, St. Leger was crushed by Benedict Arnold & had to return to Canada. Still, Burgoyne advanced, capturing Fort Ticonderoga, believing he would be joined by armies under Generals Howe and Clinton, to clamp a 3-way vice upon the colonials in NY-NJ, thus cutting off New England from the other colonies.
However, Washington kept Howe engaged at Brandywine and Germantown, thus preventing him from joining Burgoyne. But vistory was still within easy grasp of the British. All Clinton had to do was go north and meet Burgoyne. At Burgoyne's request, Clinton advanced northward, capturing a couple of minor forts on the Hudson; in the meantime a colonial army under Gen. Horatio Gates was preparing to attack Burgoyne. After capturing the forts on the Hudson River, Clinton sent Burgoyne a message that nothing lay between Clinton and Gates, thus leading Burgoyne to believe Clinton was going to join him so that together they could defeat Gates. HOWEVER, CLINTON ADVANCED NO FARTHER, and Burgoyne was thus hung out to dry.
Soon the British were surrounded, but they were still powerful, a cornered bear. The colonials' attack successfully bottled the British up, due largely in part to Benedict Arnold's fiery field leadership. The British, with no hope of relief, were forced to surrender.
However, Gates and Arnold had disagreed severely over the conduct of the battle, and this disagreement and subsequent discipline by Gates led to Arnold's embitterment and to his turning traitor.
It was Clinton's ineptitude which led to Burgoyne's defeat. This battle had a far-reaching effect. It was the first time a whole British army had been forced to surrender for many years, and the British began to look for a way out of this war, which was beginning to look to the average Brit worse than the Vietnam War looked to us. Also, France was thus encouraged to join the war on the colonials' side.
It was also Clinton's failure to act that led to Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown. Thus, the USA has had TWO inept Clintons in the driver's seat!
Bro. James Reed
New Member
slavery
The Declaration of Independence written at the time gives a lot of reasons.
The people left a clear record of their reasons for us to read and ponder any time we start to have doubts about why the war was fought and won.
"He" was the King of England and the government acting under his authority.
The people left a clear record of their reasons for us to read and ponder any time we start to have doubts about why the war was fought and won.
Too many taxes on "we, the people".
The king must punish those who do not pay his royalties.
The French and others gave a lot of support to the colonials.
We were at it again with the Brits in 1812.
Some of them still seem to carry a grudge--even after WWII. That is probably normal--we still have people fighting the U.S. Civil War--140 yrs. later. Some say they forgive--but not forget. It is contrary to human nature to forgive or forget.
It is about money--and the love thereof. Most people are in love with money and what it can do.
Selah,
Bro. James
The king must punish those who do not pay his royalties.
The French and others gave a lot of support to the colonials.
We were at it again with the Brits in 1812.
Some of them still seem to carry a grudge--even after WWII. That is probably normal--we still have people fighting the U.S. Civil War--140 yrs. later. Some say they forgive--but not forget. It is contrary to human nature to forgive or forget.
It is about money--and the love thereof. Most people are in love with money and what it can do.
Selah,
Bro. James
hillclimber
New Member
I believe that fully.