- This topic has 8 voices and 7 replies.
-
Posts
-
Was the american revolution as much a civil war as it was a revolution? It is said that as much as a third of the poulation was agaisnt the revolt. I have heard the civil war refered to as the second revolution, what do you think?
It certainly sounds interesting. I think that revolution and civil war are two sides of the same coin. Perhaps a difference is that a civil war implied geographical fronts behind which the sides are located, whereas a revolution doesn't require such defined fronts. It's an interesting question about the American Revolution and the Civil War – one that I hadn't thought of before. One more thing - I thought I heard that only a third of the Colonists were in favor of revolting, rather than only a third were against it.
Phid, I would say the colonists were split rather evenly on revolting at least initially, but as the British became more forceful, they lost more and more Loyalist supporters. The war wore on from 1775-1783…that's a rather long time for resentments to grow.
The colony of Georgia was definitely split over the revolt. A large number of the population were loyalists and there was a great deal of bloodshed.
Phid, I would say the colonists were split rather evenly on revolting at least initially, but as the British became more forceful, they lost more and more Loyalist supporters. The war wore on from 1775-1783...that's a rather long time for resentments to grow.
You could be right. I had heard the 1/3 statistic a while back and I don't know the source of it offhand. I don't think that Zogby did "exit" polling or anything of the sort back then.
well like i said before it was a war against the rule from a forighn power…much like it was back i the revolutionyeah
I think it could be considered a civil war…. but could one be considered both a colonist and a Briton?
I have read that it was actually closer to a 50/50 split in sentiments. I would consider it a combination of civil war and revolution.
I have read that it was actually closer to a 50/50 split in sentiments. I would consider it a combination of civil war and revolution.
I agree; the colonists were British subjects and trying to be loyal. they had a different view of how they should be treated by the Crown (after many years of benign neglect) and when push came to shove with the Crown (revolution) the disagreement among the locals of said revolt was the civil war element.Not so much fish or fowl but fish and fowl....BTW, most sources make the %'s about 1/3 for, 1/3 against, and 1/3 wanted the trouble to "go away".
