Was it made up of mainly private, non-government financed militias?
There was the "Continental Army", which was formed by a Congressional resolution in 1775. There were a good number of militia groups, as well as other troops which were controlled by the individual colonies. I don't have exact numbers on the make up (X number of actual army, X number of militia etc) of the full fighting force, if that is what you are looking for. But it was most certainly a joint effort between private individuals, and the government at the time.
Also, while not completely relevant, I think it's an interesting fact, instead of keeping a large standing army, after the war, in about 1783, most of the Continental Army was disbanded.
Most of the militias were compulsory.
The Libertarian-Rothbardian version of the American Revolution is totally wrong. It was a pointless left-wing revolution that pretty much led to the French revolution and the later Progressive/Communist world takeover.
British Imperialism > American Independence.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Liberté: Most of the militias were compulsory. The Libertarian-Rothbardian version of the American Revolution is totally wrong. It was a pointless left-wing revolution that pretty much led to the French revolution and the later Progressive/Communist world takeover. British Imperialism > American Independence.
I don't understand...what should they have done then? Since they were so unhappy paying taxes to the British...
You mean, since the left-wing elites and scheming local merchants whipped the mob into a democratic fury, went around destroying company property (the Boston Tea Party) and making mountains out of grains of sand?
People should have known better, and should have realised that one 'tyrant' across and ocean was better than a million fools on your own front lawn.
The British Empire was not the best government imaginable in some fantasy Universe, but it was probably one of the best governments in human history. Unlike to fictional 'republic' to which so many libertarian-conservative types bow in obeisance it actually existed. Most of the 'complaints' which were foisted upon the masses and left at the doorstep of the King were either false or hugely exagerrated.
This is one point where I must differ with Edmund Burke, prospectively (and especially retrospectively) a democratic revolution was no solution whatsoever to minor higglings of tax rate and Britains understandable distaste for colonists openly supplying enemy nations.
If they absolutely could not bear British rule, they ought to have gotten their own king.
Liberté: You mean, since the left-wing elites and scheming local merchants whipped the mob into a democratic fury, went around destroying company property (the Boston Tea Party) and making mountains out of grains of sand? People should have known better, and should have realised that one 'tyrant' across and ocean was better than a million fools on your own front lawn. The British Empire was not the best government imaginable in some fantasy Universe, but it was probably one of the best governments in human history. Unlike to fictional 'republic' to which so many libertarian-conservative types bow in obeisance it actually existed. Most of the 'complaints' which were foisted upon the masses and left at the doorstep of the King were either false or hugely exagerrated. This is one point where I must differ with Edmund Burke, prospectively (and especially retrospectively) a democratic revolution was no solution whatsoever to minor higglings of tax rate and Britains understandable distaste for colonists openly supplying enemy nations. If they absolutely could not bear British rule, they ought to have gotten their own king.
was the idea of an elected limited government really worse than a king of england?
limitgov: Liberté: You mean, since the left-wing elites and scheming local merchants whipped the mob into a democratic fury, went around destroying company property (the Boston Tea Party) and making mountains out of grains of sand? People should have known better, and should have realised that one 'tyrant' across and ocean was better than a million fools on your own front lawn. The British Empire was not the best government imaginable in some fantasy Universe, but it was probably one of the best governments in human history. Unlike to fictional 'republic' to which so many libertarian-conservative types bow in obeisance it actually existed. Most of the 'complaints' which were foisted upon the masses and left at the doorstep of the King were either false or hugely exagerrated. This is one point where I must differ with Edmund Burke, prospectively (and especially retrospectively) a democratic revolution was no solution whatsoever to minor higglings of tax rate and Britains understandable distaste for colonists openly supplying enemy nations. If they absolutely could not bear British rule, they ought to have gotten their own king. was the idea of an elected limited government really worse than a king of england?
Worse on two fronts, one because it was impossible and two because it ingrained the lie of 'republicanism' into human history for two centuries. You can thank the American Revolution for Bolshevism.
EDIT: nm
.
sicsempertyrannis:Utter silliness.
Could you provide some facts to back that silly assertion of yours up with? I say "silly", meaning, it lacks anything objective to counter the argument so others can know why you wrote the words "utter silliness".
So could we then continue the chain of causality further back to before the american revolution? After all there were events in history that were precursors to the American Revolution that inspired the left wing elites and scheming local merchants to break away from the king in favor of local tyrants. Why should we stop and lay the blame for Bolshevism on the door step of the American Revolutionaries?
Southern: So could we then continue the chain of causality further back to before the american revolution? After all there were events in history that were precursors to the American Revolution that inspired the left wing elites and scheming local merchants to break away from the king in favor of local tyrants. Why should we stop and lay the blame for Bolshevism on the door step of the American Revolutionaries?
It's more ideologically coherent, but certainly it was not ex nihilo. The Renaissance and Reformation (not to mention the so-called 'Enlightenment) have major roles in it.
Fair enough.
I tend to see the American Revolution as an attempt by the the colonial governers to gain sovereign powers for themselves. Pressing private property into military service hardly warrants respect.
limitgov: Was it made up of mainly private, non-government financed militias?
There was no American Military just prior to the revolution and negligible militias of any sort. Most of the Military Force in the colonies were British Garrisons. There were a few state funded Indian patrols.
Of course, most of the population in that era would have been armed to some extent, but very unlikely that any were organized in voluntary militias.