Why the Patriots Really Fought

Reader Comments
Back to article

wats up people

cookie 123 of TX 11:46PM October 13, 2010

Hey guys its me Gimmy Bonner

Gimmy Bonner of MD 10:37PM October 07, 2010

are you gay yes or no

grace of MN 7:23PM March 30, 2010

are you gay yes or no

grace of MN 7:23PM March 30, 2010

I see once again that the contribution of the African American as well as Native American contribution to the war of independence is ignored. Your myth busting leaves a lot to be desire correcting the truth of who really fought this war. The brave Black and Red Americans dot so much rate an acknowledgment of their sacrifice. When will this mean spirited country give credit where credit is due. Shame on you myth busters for not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Aaron of CO 12:04PM July 04, 2009

What's often overlooked is that France sent troops to the North American continent to fight alongisde Washington against the British. This was part of an extended British-French rivalry, similar to an earlier British-Spanish and a later British-German rivalry. France was finally defeated in 1815, but by that time the United States had secured itself to the point that it wouldn't have appeared a wise idea for Britain to attempt to resume the war in North America. But at the time when Britain decided to withdraw and accept a colonist victory the contest over these colonies would more likely have appeared to just be a pawn on the chessboard in the main game between Britain and France. As much as anything else that larger framework contributed to the British acceptance of colonial independence. But it's perfectly plausible that, if the French revolution had been easily squashed before Napolean appeared, then Britain might then have decided to attempt to return and finish the job in the colonies.

Patrick S. McNally of FL 6:01PM July 25, 2008

If you read the accounts of the "Whiskey Rebellion", you will learn that G. Washington held a claim to about 30,000 acres of land in the present Township of Washington PA - that was illegal under British law. The British regarded the native Americans of the Iroquois Confederation, and the Leni Lenape (Delaware) tribes as allies against France - and accorded them status of soverign in their territory. Settlement was prohibited west of the eastern mountain chain (Appalachians). The "Revolution" was about how best to ethnically cleanse the indigenous people in order to seize their land.
The mischaracterized "taxation without representation" was to retire the British debt from the Seven Years War (French and Indian) of 146 Million British Pounds. At the time, all of the coinage in the North American colonies amounted to less than 8 Million Pounds. It is fair to say that with or without representation, the colonists would never own up to any responsibility to pay that debt when the package included a prohibition against the seizure of native American lands.
There was nothing to the Revolution except greed on the part of the Colonial upper class and a good supply of peasants to do the fighting for the mostly betrayed promise free land "later".

Ron Johnson of NY 4:35PM July 22, 2008

How come it's OK to uncover "myths" about the American Revolution, and not about "The Holocaust?" They are both historical events. The latter should be just as open to investigation and debunking as the former.

William Kuhn of FL 11:22AM July 22, 2008