(04-20-2015, 02:06 PM)Coatleque Wrote:(04-20-2015, 02:04 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Yes because there was a war. If England had just shook hands and let them leave, it would have been relatively bloodless.
I'm talking about internal strife, not external.
It was a revolution. There was no "internal" until after the war was finished, and at that time the change had already become reality.
Compared to most revolutions of the time the American Revolution was positively tidy. There were no mass executions, people were willing to overlook what side you might have been afterwards, and soon after it ended most people accepted the new government.
Yes they fought a war, but it was against an external power. It was an external power as soon as they declared independence. All 13 colonies agreed, there was no purging or killing of those who disagreed, and also no organized resistance from colonists. While some were loyalists to the crown, they went and fought with the british.
America declared independence, which was essentially bloodless, and then was promptly invaded by a foreign power.
(To clarify, there were large numbers of loyalists, but they're better treated as volunteers signing on with the british cause and british army. Loyalist regiments did not organize, and act of their own accord.)
