(04-20-2015, 03:02 PM)Aya Wrote:(04-20-2015, 02:55 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: You didn't read your own link. They were commissioned by the british army by american volunteers in british territory.They were raised as volunteers, yes they were commissioned by the British army to become a British army unit - how does this differ from Continental Militia? I really don't understand the distinction you're trying to make.
They were then sent to fight in Florida against the spanish. Yes there were loyalists, yes they joined the british cause, I'm not disputing that.
However as soon as America declared independence, England was a foreign power. They were troops volunteering with a foreign power. The declaration of independence, and the fact that all the colonies sighed it /Was/ the revolution. The war afterwards was great Britain invading this new country called America.
Yes Canada was loyalists fleeing, because they /fled/ they did not stage organize resistance against the revolution, and after England invaded they did join up in some numbers, but again, it's a foreign power.
The neat and tidy little distinction you're trying to make is the stuff of the-winner-writes-the-history. I'd be curious to know what your opinion were on the American Civil War, given how you've set this one up.Â
Regardless, the point is that large numbers of Americans supported the British cause, and fought alongside them (however it is you're trying to categorize them). There was significant civil strife (because it was, in reality, a civil war - the final episode of the English Civil War, really). Communities and families were torn apart by competing loyalties, and atrocities were committed by both sides. Thousands died in open warfare, and as the war ended thousands more were uprooted from their homes to flee for safer climes forever reshaping the nature of North America.Â
It wasn't as bloody as the French Revolution (nothing in Western history to that point had been), but it was hardly peaceful!
I would continue to argue that it was. If you consider a revolution the transfer of power, authority and control of a political entity (Nation, city state, empire, etc) from one group to another. The American revolution was basically completely bloodless. There were no troops storming a palace, no heads were put up on spikes, there was no cloak and daggers.
They elected representatives, they got together, they voted, they wrote a paper, and they signed it.
I would argue similarly for the American Civil war.
Now obviously the aftermath is different. Civil wars often follow revolutions, and are usually much bloodier than the revolutions that caused them.
As a good example of what I mean, the russian revolution (which was relatively low key) is quite different from the russian civil war.
As in the US, once a new group seizes power, then there may be lots of other groups who don't want them to have that power.
Ul'dah has had a revolution of sorts, but obviously the Flames are none too pleased about it, so there could be a civil war afterwards.
Maybe a better question than the one this thread is asking is "Must a Civil war always follow a revolution?"
![[Image: 21282370099_a814a08664_o.png]](https://farm1.staticflickr.com/590/21282370099_a814a08664_o.png)
![[Image: yEROfKO.png]](http://i.imgur.com/yEROfKO.png)
~
