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.
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.
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
.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?