Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Would the American rebels against the British empire have succeeded without the help of the French Monarchy at the time?? They wouldn't have stood a friggin' chance!"
I've heard this version of history before, that it was only French intervention that saved the American revolution, but it's only recently that I realized that the source of this (incorrect) fact was in the politics of our early republic.
The roots of the modern Democratic party are in Jefferson, and I will refer, somewhat incorrectly, to Jefferson's political party as the "Democrats". At the time that he was first elected, the argument over foreign policy for the country was between the supporters of Jefferson and the "Federalists", mostly remembered for Alexander Hamilton. The supporters of Jefferson tended to be admirers of the French, while the supporters of Hamilton tended to be admirers of the English, and I believe that it is as a result of this political difference of opinion on foreign policy that created the rumor that the French won the American revolution.
Now both the French and the English at the time were monarchies, and neither side was in favor of converting the US to a monarchy. This did not prevent the Democrats from accusing the Federalists of wishing for the US to rejoin Britain, (or to make Washington a king). The Federalists argued that US foreign policy should be even handed with respect to Britain and France. For example, it was Washington who gave the speech wishing that the country would avoid entangling alliances. (A view I hold in the present as well.) It was a Federalist president, Adams, who fought the French in the undeclared war from 1797 to 1800.
The Democrats supported France, and, at least at first, thought that the French Revolution was a great thing. This was the time, and it was with respect to the use of the guillotine that Jefferson wrote that the tree of liberty should be periodically watered with the blood of patriots. 200 years have passed and the modern Democratic party still sees no problem with complaining about wars started by Republican leaders while casting a blind eye to the wars started by Democratic leaders.
I believe that the strength (and business) of America is business, and it was this that Hamilton and the Federalists sought to strengthen. The Democrats were supposedly in support of the common man at the time, even as they are today. Similarly, the Democrats were then in favor of a weak US military while the Federalists were in favor of building up a powerful Navy and a permanent Army.
Jefferson and the Democrats took power in 1800 and promptly eliminated the national bank that Hamilton had started, and they gutted the navy that Washington and Adams had begun. Fortunately for posterity, the USS Constitution was preserved. Then the War of 1812 came around and the national bank, and the US Navy, had to be built up from scratch again.
My opinion on all this is that the Democrats were wrong in 1800 and they're still largely wrong and wrong for the same reasons. For the particular case of the war in Iraq, however, I look to Washington and his warning of foreign alliances. We have no business in the Middle East.
Britain gave up on corralling the Revolution because it became very clear that the war could continue indefinitely. The whole purpose behind possessing colonies at the time was to provide a source of raw materials and a dumping ground for manufactured goods. Britain did not keep colonies for show, they were there to make money. After most of 10 years of fighting, it became clear to Britain that far more money was being spent in the war than could be obtained in a peace that might never arise. So a peace was signed.
When civil wars arise between two parts of a nation that are far separated, as the US was from England in 1776, the result is almost inevitable that the two parts separate. Other examples of similar results are the Italian colonies of Greek states in ancient history, the civil war between Pakistan and East Pakistan, and the civil war that Taiwan apart from China. Deep water makes good borderline.
So no, the US does not owe its freedom from Britain to the French. Never did. Jefferson and the Democrats talked up the French contribution because they supported a foreign policy that favored the French. The actual numbers on the ground show the preponderance of American contribution to the Revolutionary war.
There were 250,000 American soldiers, but not more than about 90,000 at any one time. The British had about 60,000 soldiers in the area, although some of these were in Canada or Florida. (Note that if Britain had continued the war, there was a chance that she would lose Canada as well.) The total number of troops that surrounded Cornwallis at Yorktown was only 17,000. Of these, the number that were French was 5500, and that was the entire French army in the New World. Certainly French casualties were an infinitesimal percentage of the total. The French weren't even involved in the majority of the war.
In other words, there were something like 18 US soldiers for every 1 French soldier in the colonies. France did contribute naval assistance, but it was US privateers that decimated British shipping. The French naval contribution at Yorktown was not to defeat the British at sea, but instead was to prevent them from RETREATING.
-- Carl
P.S. I really would like to see Hawkmoon comment on his belief that the Revolution could not have succeeded without the French. My view on this is that Hawkmoon, despite being a supposed expert in military affairs, was wrong on his understanding of the American revolution as he is wrong now on his understanding of our situation in the Middle East.
In war, the most important thing that one must understand is numbers. This includes more than just numbers of soldiers, it includes things like lengths of borders, ratios of soldiers to civilians, casualty figures, economics, etc.
Our situation in Iraq has far more similarities to Britain's situation in the colonies during the Revolution than France's experience in the same. During the Revolution, 90% of the American population was rural, but England was only able to hold cities, and did not have sufficient troops to hold even very many of these. When they marched through the countryside, the revolution retreated before them and closed in behind them. Britain made no progress in pacifying the colonies because she didn't have nearly enough soldiers to garrison a country that was many many times as large as Britain.
In Iraq, our troops can capture any piece of territory the generals order, but there are not enough troops to garrison the whole territory. What's worse, Iraq is surrounded by hostile countries that are giving aid and comfort to our enemies. That means that even if we brought back the draft and garrisoned the whole country our problems would not be over.
If the Iraqi army were effective, we would only have to capture rebel territory once. Then the Iraqi army would come in and take over. We would then never have to see that chunk of territory again. Instead, we keep seeing the same cities again and again in the fatality reports. Like the British in the colonies, our only territory is what is directly under our boots.
And like the British we will leave, not because we can't afford it (though the coming inflation will increase interest rates to double digits and US budget deficits will hurt), but because the deaths and treasure are not buying the country anything. Instead, the populations of the Arab states become more angry with us and more supportive of terrorists (see Hamas in Palestine, for example). Our invasion has not cowed our enemies, but has emboldened them (see Iran, for example). Our allies are abandoning us (see Spain) or strategically retreating in their own conflicts (see Israel). |
