Was it made up of mainly private, non-government financed militias?
Except for Pennsylvania all Colonies has militias before the Seven Years War (1756-1763). Technically speaking all able bodies adult men were expected to serve but this was rarely the case: there were many exceptions (including conscientious objections) and there was always the problem of feeding a large force when serving away from populated areas, so except when a large crisis was looming militias were never fully mobilized. Usually only small forces of volunteers took the field.
During the Seven Years War Provincial Forces were formed by each Colony: these were made up by each town militia providing a set number of men for a season's campaign. While technically speaking the men serving were to be drafted they were actually volunteers: men serving in the Provincial Forces were paid and fed by the Colony and since pay levels were usually good there was never a shortage of volunteers. This was as close as the Colonies ever got to having a professional army.
These forces were quite similar to the later Boer Commando: each man took the field with a musket as well with the ballot. The men were individuals and expected to be treated as such. Leaders had to rely more on their own ability and personality than on military discipline to be obeyed. The big difference was that while the Boers produced a number of charismatic and naturally skilled leaders (Joubert, Smuts, Ferreira, Botha etc) the Colonies always struggled to find proper leaders for their units. George Washington is the only talented and charismatic leader I can remember.
It may also be added that the peculiar conditions of the South African veld proved much more suited to highly mobile and fast hitting irregular forces than the Colonies and that the Boers took full advantage of light weapons development while Colonial militias were mostly armed with smoothbores designed for short distance volley firing, a tactic requiring well drilled and tightly controlled troops to be most effective.
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?
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?
Ah, but the Boston Tea Party was staged against a Coercive Monopoly, the East India Company, which had been given "official" control of the English tea/spice trade. The colonists, rightly or wrongly, viewed the Empire's restrictions on trade and enforcement of aging mercantilist policies as yet another threat to their "Liberté". The colonies had a long history of ignoring Parliament's edicts for quite some time, often never even sending funds back to England when it requested. Still, it may seem somewhat hypocritical to both claim English rights and protection, while also refusing to pay the duties. I do agree that it is very likely that history may have gone a different route with many of the colonies maintaining their position in the English Commonwealth of Nations.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
Southern:So could we then continue the chain of causality further back to before the american revolution?
The New England Yankees never quite came to terms with the failure of the Puritan Revolution in 1660 and had an adversarial relationship with the British crown ever after.
Liberté: 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.
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.
If they would have stayed under English crown rule....would we not have ended up in the advanced police state the UK is in anyway?
limitgov: Liberté: 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. If they would have stayed under English crown rule....would we not have ended up in the advanced police state the UK is in anyway?
Why do you assume we would be a police state instead of a continent sized Hong Kong?
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Solid_Choke: Why do you assume we would be a police state instead of a continent sized Hong Kong?
I don't know...I'm asking....so you think we could have turned out like hong Kong?
More freedoms?
Is there any articles on this debate on mises or lewrockwell.com? I've never considered that the revolution was a scam...but this seems interesting...
Another point to consider is even if separation from England was desirable, why was a bloody civil war necessary? Canada and Australia seem to have done alright.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Liberté: Another point to consider is even if separation from England was desirable, why was a bloody civil war necessary? Canada and Australia seem to have done alright.
Interesting...is there a book that ties these subjects together?
limitgov:If they would have stayed under English crown rule....would we not have ended up in the advanced police state the UK is in anyway?
I've been to several places in the U.S. and UK recently. I got stopped by police in Portland for walking the wrong way. There was a helicopter flying around Kansas City with a spotlight every day. Didn't see anything like that in UK.
Kakugo:It may also be added that the peculiar conditions of the South African veld proved much more suited to highly mobile and fast hitting irregular forces than the Colonies and that the Boers took full advantage of light weapons development while Colonial militias were mostly armed with smoothbores designed for short distance volley firing, a tactic requiring well drilled and tightly controlled troops to be most effective.
I have to disagree with two points.
1. In the colonies, the commonly owned firearm was the long rifle. There were several variants, the most popular being the Kentucky, the Penssylvania, and the Tennessee variants. Smooth bore muskets were liked by organized militaries for the ease of loading. Where a long rifle could take a minute or more to load (and it does, I've done myself), a well trained, smooth bore rifle wielding soldier could squeeze off three rounds in that same time. As you said, the smooth-bore rifle was for massive troop formations and volley fire.
2. Long rifle wielding colonial militia were actually chastised for the highly mobile, hit-and-run tactics. These were learned as a result of serving on the frontier fighting a guerilla war against the French and Native Americans. The British government actually sued for the colonial militia to stop shooting at officer and non-commissioned officers--who were easily visible by their uniforms; officers were especially easy to target since they tended to ride a horse as opposed to march in the ranks.
Now back to your regularly scheduled debate...
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." -James Madison
"If government were efficient, it would cease to exist."
I have always maintained the Kentucky Rifle (here in Europe all long barreled American muzzle loaders are called this way) was in limited use. Also the range of these early rifles was not very different from the best smoothbores of the day (the British Brown Bess and the French 1777 model, later modified to become the IX Year Musket carried by Napoleon's troops). The big difference was precision in the hands of skilled marksmen. I am well aware of the casualties Minutemen operating from cover inflicted on British and Hessian officers but they were nothing compared to what Boers inflicted upon the Zulus and the British. But again conditions were radically different.
Thanks for the correction.
limitgov: Liberté: Another point to consider is even if separation from England was desirable, why was a bloody civil war necessary? Canada and Australia seem to have done alright. Interesting...is there a book that ties these subjects together?
I'm not sure. I've mostly pieced this stuff together based on my own reading of history, I don't know who (if anyone) has written in the 'the American Revolution was a fraud' vein. It's not surprising, since America conquered the world.
I agree with Liberté, time ago I found in a blog parts of the biography of an important british in Boston, I'm trying to find it right now...
Anyway, very interesting thread, if anyone has links, essays on the matter, please share!
Not the one I was looking for but this post could serve as a starting point
http://militantlibertarian.org/2010/02/10/did-king-george-iii-deserve-to-be-overthrown/
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.
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.
Yes, this pretty much is Kinsella's position. We ain't fans of revolutions.