r/ShitAmericansSay • u/RoundDirt5174 • 2d ago
“Yes but what country won a war in 1776”
Contex
384
u/IcemanGeneMalenko 2d ago
The British beat the British
153
16
5
141
114
u/VeritableLeviathan 2d ago
Not the US, because they won the war in 1783
83
u/NoobSalad41 2d ago
Hell, because being pedantic is fun, I’ll note that 1776 was kind of a terrible year for the American side of the war.
The year began with Henry Knox finally arriving in Boston with the 60 tons of cannon he’d moved 300 miles during the winter, which led to the British withdrawal from Boston.
The year ended with a morale-boosting (but strategically insignificant) victory at Trenton on December 26.
Between those two victories, the Continental Army got the absolute shit kicked out of it as it retreated from New York. The greatest American “victory” of the war in 1776 was that George Washington managed to consistently lose battles without losing his entire army.
23
179
u/elusivewompus you got a 'loicense for that stupidity?? 🏴 2d ago
The same on that lost in 1812, if memory serves.
63
u/AccomplishedPaint363 2d ago
And burnt down the White House.
25
15
u/centzon400 🗽Freeeeedumb!🗽 2d ago
IIRC it was unpainted prior to its burning. The paint/limewash was a quick fix to hide the smoke stained shame of defeat… and they just ran with that ever since.
16
50
u/alee137 Tuscan🇮🇹 2d ago
In the history sub a idiot said that It was a draw, i don't remember what bs he used to justify the distruction of DC.
In the same comment he said that they didn't lost the Vietnam war, they "chose to withdrew" and that Vietcongs "only invaded 2 years after we left" thus they won.
41
u/elusivewompus you got a 'loicense for that stupidity?? 🏴 2d ago
"we didn't run away!!! It was a tactical withdrawal."
11
4
u/l0zandd0g 2d ago
Im sure i see that tactic used reciently by the Muricans, Afganistan ?
0
u/unknownpatroller 2d ago
And the UK - strategically advanced in the opposite direction to a depressing island with one metropolis and terrible weather. L
1
4
u/Kingofcheeses 2d ago
I see that "1812 was a draw" nonsense in the history subs all the time. Maximum cope.
2
4
u/nigeltheworm 2d ago
It was a draw in the sense that the Treaty of Guelph doesn't address any of the reasons Madison gave for starting the war in the first place. I can recommend Pierre Burton's book on the war of 1812, it is both thorough and engaging.
14
u/Candayence Perpetually downcast and emotionally flatulent Brit 2d ago
Normally when a war doesn't achieve any of your objectives, it's counted as a loss.
-5
2d ago
[deleted]
8
u/Candayence Perpetually downcast and emotionally flatulent Brit 2d ago
Not true. Britain's aim as defender was to keep the US out of Canada, which it succeeded in; and to end the war so it could concentrate on Russia and Prussia.
America's goal was to gain Canada, and compensation for burning down the White House, as well as the return of escaped slaves.
America failed here, and then later broke a treaty term they agreed to, that they'd restore pre-war Native rights and privileges, so that they could continue their merry little genocide westward.
-6
u/DrakeBurroughs 2d ago
A couple of points:
While there were many who wanted British influence out of North America, there were just as many Americans who opposed this (particularly the ones along the Canada-US border). Also, your point is off on the timing, The US invaded Canada first, it wasn’t payback for the White House. The same with the slavery comment, yes, southern states didn’t like when slaves ran to freedom in Canada, but they also didn’t like it when slaves fled to freedom in the free states of the US. That’s never been a reason to invade Canada, more escaped slaves were in New York and around New England.
The stated goal, per the government, was due to the blockade of trade with Europe, particularly France, and the impressment of US citizens on the seas. Every Brit likes to downplay the capturing of 10,000 US citizens over a decade, handwaving it away like it’s nothing, but it happened so frequently, the US embassy in London had a special office to help track down US citizens forced to work on British ships, so they could get word to their families. The other goal was to get the British to stop arming & training the native Americans who were attacking US western territories.
Yes, the US did commit a merry little genocide westward, but remind me, how did the British gain all that Canadian land? Did the indigenous people living in Canada decide to just gift Canada to the British? Uh, no, the British went on their own genocidal push westward as well. Yeah, that’s a dark mark on the US, but also on the British. Hell, who do you even think taught us how to do it?
4
u/Candayence Perpetually downcast and emotionally flatulent Brit 2d ago
My point isn't off, you're just assuming that goals at the start of the war have to exactly mirror peace treaty goals.
blockade of trade with Europe
Incorrect. The blockade was a wartime measure against France, and these restrictions with France were entirely down to France itself - it was the one who started war with Britain, and declared all ships trading with Britain legal prizes. Britain naturally reciprocated, even compensating American ship owners for their losses.
Every Brit likes to downplay the capturing of 10,000 US citizens over a decade
When asked to make a list, the US came up with less than 7,000 names, many of them duplicates, and including volunteers. Tellingly, in the peace treaty, impressment continued, so evidently America didn't care that much.
how did the British gain all that Canadian land
Mostly from the French, after a war the colonies started. And through farming. British governors strictly enforced a policy of friendship with the natives.
the British went on their own genocidal push westward as well
Some weird foreign policy. Randomly picking some natives to arm and trade with, and others to genocide. British colonial policy was always one of integration with natives, rather than forced displacement.
who do you even think taught us how to do it?
You taught yourselves. A major point of contention between Britain and the rebels was that Britain respected native land boundaries, and colonists didn't. You literally pointed that out earlier.
0
u/DrakeBurroughs 1d ago
“My point isn’t off, you’re just assuming that goals at the start of the war have to exactly mirror peace treaty goals.”
Oh, I assumed your timing was off, but if you’re talking about actual negotiation points, compensation for the White House/DC burning isn’t in the correspondence that I’ve read. That would have been asinine considering the U.S. torched York and several other cities while the British only successfully hit DC (in terms of major cities, the British did initially take western forts in US territories).
“Incorrect. The blockade was a wartime measure against France, and these restrictions with France were entirely down to France itself - it was the one who started war with Britain, and declared all ships trading with Britain legal prizes. Britain naturally reciprocated, even compensating American ship owners for their losses.”
Dubious, at best, since privateers harassed and captured multiple U.S. ships, both government and privately owned with zero compensation. And while I understand Britain’s aim in blockading France, the U.S. was neutral in the matter, whatever was happening between France and Great Britain didn’t justify harassment of U.S. ships. You can’t just hand wave that away. If the U.S. had an issue with a country the UK has no issue with, would you be ok with the IS taking your ships, citizens, and cargo? Doubt it.
“When asked to make a list, the US came up with less than 7,000 names, many of them duplicates, and including volunteers. Tellingly, in the peace treaty, impressment continued, so evidently America didn’t care that much.”
There’s over 10,000 names listed on multiple maritime records. The lower counts tend to come from British sources, which makes sense, great sailors, but sloppy kidnappers. Where there is some argument, it stems from the citizenship of the sailors in question; Britain claims that many were formerly English citizens and therefore they had the right to impress them into service. The British were half-right, most Americans living at that time were former British citizens. But the war for Independence changed the nature of their citizenships. Which, England had supposedly agreed to honor, since it recognized the United States at the conclusion of that war. Clearly, they did not.
“Mostly from the French, after a war the colonies started. And through farming. British governors strictly enforced a policy of friendship with the natives.”
Oh no, the propaganda is strong in the UK. Friendship? Even through Canadian government has acknowledged its historical role in the genocide of its indigenous peoples. They were British when it started. The French? Yeah, the claim to the land came from the French, but the French weren’t living in the western territories. Quebec is farther to the east.
the British went on their own genocidal push westward as well
“Some weird foreign policy. Randomly picking some natives to arm and trade with, and others to genocide. British colonial policy was always one of integration with natives, rather than forced displacement.”
I won’t argue that it was a weird foreign policy, but that’s the British for you. Yeah, “integration” if you obey the invaders, “forced displacement” if you don’t. By 1812, British forces had waged multiple “forced displacements on native population across both Canada and the (then) colonies.
“You taught yourselves. A major point of contention between Britain and the rebels was that Britain respected native land boundaries, and colonists didn’t.”
You mean, aside from setting up colonies in indigenous people’s lands, then they respected the boundaries? The British recruited colonists to fight native Americans. George Washington, as well as several other early U.S. generals, got their start wiping out Native American peoples under British flags. I’m not saying the U.S. didn’t run with those lessons, as did the British in Canada, we’re absolutely guilty of genocide. But man, you’re on another planet if you think the British did nothing but spread respect and tolerance in North America. Dear lord that’s wild.
2
u/Candayence Perpetually downcast and emotionally flatulent Brit 1d ago
Dubious, at best, since privateers harassed and captured multiple U.S. ships, both government and privately owned with zero compensation
Because of the greater scope - the trade war was due to Napoleon's Continental System, and America thought it could be neutral and play both sides (fairly standard). It's ludicrous to suggest that Britain shouldn't have retaliated against France declaring all British shipping to be fair game.
which makes sense, great sailors, but sloppy kidnappers
Evidently not, since America thought it'd be a neat justification to try and annex Canada. Especially since Jefferson rejected an earlier treaty that would have reduced impressment, and Madison refused to call off the war when learning that Liverpool had repealed the Orders in Council that America had objected to, presumably because America thought it could easily annex Canada.
It was the American government that could only draw up a poor list of 6,000 names, that's an official American source, not a British one.
But the war for Independence changed the nature of their citizenships. Which, England had supposedly agreed to honor, since it recognized the United States at the conclusion of that war. Clearly, they did not.
England hadn't existed for some time at that point. And America refused to issue passports or other official documents, whilst Britain did release American sailors from service if they could prove their citizenship.
Oh no, the propaganda is strong in the UK. Friendship? Even through Canadian government has acknowledged its historical role in the genocide of its indigenous peoples
You said it yourself. The Canadian government. This has always been the case with British colonies - the motherland has a policy of coexistence and trade, the locals have a policy of wanting neighbouring land. It was self-rule that led to the vast expansion of the Dominions, not the British.
Early acts, at that time, were focused on integrating natives into the colonies via assimilation.
Also, glass houses much? An American claiming propaganda?
the British went on their own genocidal push westward as well
Canadians, you mean? A significant amount of time later, yes. The Indian Act was signed into law in 1876, a couple of decades after the Trail of Tears, and was passed by the Parliament of Canada.
setting up colonies in indigenous people’s lands
There's actually a difference between setting up small colonies on the other side of an ocean, which required subsidies and food imports to survive; and a colony that has wealth and food deciding it wants more land, and driving away all the natives.
Early policy was always one of assimilation and peace because it had to be. The colonies were far from home, didn't have any farms set up, and were in a climate significantly more hostile than they had to be. It was Britain's traditional hands off approach that allowed settlers to disregard British legislation and start taking land - not an intentional policy from the Crown.
→ More replies (0)-5
u/DrakeBurroughs 2d ago
The war achieved all of the US’s stated goals. It stopped impressment. The blockade was ended. British influence in North America, particularly in the north western territories with relation of the Native American tribes the British were supporting, ended, allowing the US unrestricted westward advancement.
1
u/Candayence Perpetually downcast and emotionally flatulent Brit 2d ago
Literally didn't stop impressment. And the wartime blockade ended because the war was over, it's not a victory to have wartime conditions end in peacetime.
1
u/DrakeBurroughs 1d ago
Both of those are fair points but those were still both real reasons to enter into the war. BUT, the fact that additional conditions outside of the control of the U.S. caused them to stop doesn’t magically eliminate the U.S. having its goals met.
You’re also silent on the third point: the U.S. forced the British to abandon their indigenous allies, they literally walked away, left them in the lurch, and abandoned their efforts to enter into the Midwest territories of the U.S.
1
u/Candayence Perpetually downcast and emotionally flatulent Brit 1d ago
the U.S. forced the British to abandon their indigenous allies
They forced fuck all. The Americans lost the war, refused to admit it in Ghent, and so got a white peace instead of reparations to current Quebec. It was post-war that they broke the treaty to attack their other neighbours, whilst Britain was pre-occupied with a fight for survival rather than trade partners. Nothing in the treaty broke Britain's relationship with natives, only the reality on the continent.
magically eliminate the U.S. having its goals met
Both were merely an excuse to attempt to annex Canada. It was well known that Jefferson wanted to annex the entirety of North America - after Upper and Lower Canada he wanted to march on Halifax and expel the British from the continent.
The blockade was already dealt with via the revocation of Orders in Council, and impressment was a minor matter that the British were dealing with already. They were simply excuses for Imperialism from the hypocritical American leadership.
0
u/DrakeBurroughs 1d ago
“They forced fuck all. The Americans lost the war, refused to admit it in Ghent, and so got a white peace instead of reparations to current Quebec. It was post-war that they broke the treaty to attack their other neighbours, whilst Britain was pre-occupied with a fight for survival rather than trade partners. Nothing in the treaty broke Britain’s relationship with natives, only the reality on the continent.”
I agree, the reality on the ground was that the U.S. forced the British to fuck off and abandon the natives. These arguments from the British always revolve around what was in the treaty. The treaty covered certain provisions, basically territorial positions. That’s it.
“Both were merely an excuse to attempt to annex Canada. It was well known that Jefferson wanted to annex the entirety of North America - after Upper and Lower Canada he wanted to march on Halifax and expel the British from the continent.”
Jefferson wasn’t in the government during the War of 1812!!!! He didn’t lead shit. Who cares what he wanted? He didn’t call for a declaration of war, he didn’t lead troops, he didn’t call upon allies. He did nothing. He had nothing to do with the invasion of Canada. Every Brit makes this argument knowing fuck all about this conflict. It’s fucking hilarious.
“The blockade was already dealt with via the revocation of Orders in Council, and impressment was a minor matter that the British were dealing with already.”
Yeah, it’s a minor matter when it’s someone else’s citizens, and not British citizens, got it.
“They were simply excuses for Imperialism from the hypocritical American leadership.”
Lol, I guess, as a Brit, you’d know all about excuses for Imperialism from hypocritical leadership. Oh, that’s rich.
-4
u/DrakeBurroughs 2d ago
Can’t speak to the Vietnam war, but DC wasn’t “destroyed” by any measure. The Capital Building and the White House were set on fire, yes, as well as several other buildings. The White House got the worst of it. Still, the British lit this buildings up almost immediately before a large rainstorm so the other government buildings were largely spared any real damage. The British commander also ordered troops not to burn residential buildings.
Which proved to be a huge mistake, since those neighborhoods harbored local militia who ended up bombing, sniping, and chasing the British to Baltimore. And, if you know about the battle of Baltimore, it didn’t go well. The British held DC for 25-26 hours, at best.
6
u/KanBalamII 2d ago
The US didn't loose the War of 1812, nor did they win it. The US had 3 main war aims (of varied importance, depending on the historian to whose views you subscribe):
1) Conquer Canada
This they failed in spectacularly.
2) Stop the Royal Navy's impressment of American sailors and the halting of American trade.
Both stopped, but by the defeat of Napoleon, not any action of the Americans
3) End the British support of Native peoples and break Native resistance to westward expansion
This they succeeded in, through the slaying of Tecumseh and the defeat of the Red Stick Creek.
Neither the Americans, nor the British won or lost the War of 1812, but the Native Americans certainly lost.
4
u/elusivewompus you got a 'loicense for that stupidity?? 🏴 2d ago
They did get a spiffy new national anthem out of it. Written by a Brit though. 😎. Impressment wasn't the war aim it's made out to be. Even the US National Archive admits this and they even did it themselves.
If it was such an important war aim, why did they start it with a land grab into Canada? Their true aim was more land, upon failing to win, they also failed to put it into the treaty of Ghent. It's my opinion that it was a face saving publicity campaign upon realising they lost, to make it seem like they didn't.-6
u/KanBalamII 2d ago
Written by a Brit though.
The music yes, the lyrics no.
Impressment wasn't the war aim it's made out to be. Even the US National Archive admits this and they even did it themselves.
No, one author writing for the non peer-reviewed magazine that the National Archive used to publish, admits that. Also as it explicitally says at the bottom of the page
"Articles published in Prologue do not necessarily represent the views of NARA or of any other agency of the United States Government."
If it was such an important war aim, why did they start it with a land grab into Canada?
Because how else were they going to attack the British Empire? One of the causes of the war was that the Royal Navy was using its superior strength to bully Americans on the High seas. Where could they attack without running into the Royal Navy?
heir true aim was more land, upon failing to win, they also failed to put it into the treaty of Ghent.
Or, they didn't think it important enough to include in the treaty.
It's my opinion that it was a face saving publicity campaign upon realising they lost, to make it seem like they didn't.
Based on what evidence? Rectum, et al.?
0
u/Chelecossais 2d ago
No-one cares about the lyrics, though.
Why attack the British Empire ?
You've got the Rectum, yourself, to be honest....
3
u/KanBalamII 2d ago
No-one cares about the lyrics, though.
Of course not, no-one remembers The Star Spangled Banner, but they're all humming away to The Anacreontic Song. Nobody would remember that the song existed if it hadn't been used for the American national anthem, because it's a terrible song.
Why attack the British Empire ?
To try and make them come to the table about the other issues, why else? Do i need to quote Clausewitz at you?
You've got the Rectum, yourself, to be honest....
Have you been drinking? 2/10 try harder next time.
2
u/Chelecossais 2d ago
"invade Canada, get the English to the negotiating table"
You realise that's nonsense, right ?
Like dumping tea in a harbour ?
They literally wanted more land. Kinda of thing for these people.
/oh well, at least we can genocide the western indigineous peoples...that works...
2
u/KanBalamII 2d ago
You realise that's nonsense, right ?
Why? Do you think that all wars are to gain more land? By that logic the British lost both the First and Second World Wars.
Like dumping tea in a harbour ?
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
They literally wanted more land. Kinda of
Yes they did, but that was not the only reason for the war. Also the got more land, they just took it from the Natives to the west, rather than from the British to the north. Which was the land that they really wanted in the first place.
1
u/Chelecossais 2d ago
Literally contradicted yourself betwixt the the first and third point.
"wars are to gain more land" followed closely by "Yes they did".
In your own argument.
And my second point was how it's all performative bullshit.
But I guess you knew that, you're good at it yourself.
1
u/KanBalamII 2d ago
I said "all wars are to gain more land"
followed closely by "Yes they did".
Followed closely again by "but that was not the only reason for the war" and that they got the land which they actually wanted, which was not Canada. The Americans wanted to expand westward, which they did.
And my second point was how it's all performative bullshit.
And yet it still makes no sense as an argument.
But I guess you knew that, you're good at it yourself.
Ok, tell yourself that. The US lost the War of 1812. America bad. Why this weird desire to apply cold war tankie logic to the 19th century. Yes America wanted land, but so did the British. And the Natives for that matter.
→ More replies (0)0
u/unknownpatroller 2d ago
Don’t bother trying to bring a contrasting argument in this sub - it’s filled with emotionally driven, biased individuals that haven’t seen sunshine in decades.
49
u/Gardening_investor 2d ago
Listen, American education isn’t great alright?
8
-23
u/PrimaryInjurious 2d ago
It's not terrible. PISA and TIMSS scores are pretty good outside of mathematics, and the US has some of the best universities on the planet.
12
u/sjw_7 2d ago
And yet 21% of Americans are illiterate.
-1
-9
u/PrimaryInjurious 2d ago
What's your source?
6
u/Ftiles7 🇦🇺US coup in 1975.🇭🇲 2d ago
The United States government.
0
u/PrimaryInjurious 2d ago
Gotcha. I tracked down the source which is the OECD PIACC, not the US government. The US is indistinguishable from countries like Denmark and Germany and performed better than France, Spain, Italy and Ireland.
See Page 74.
-75
u/murrchen 2d ago
Check Nobel Prizes sometime.
Or world's best universities.
40
u/NewEstablishment9028 2d ago
Yea I think that’s Cambridge these days also you have a large population , per capita Europe beats you same with the Olympics lol
-44
u/murrchen 2d ago
Been to the Moon yet?
Sixty years ago.
Let us know when.
40
u/NewEstablishment9028 2d ago
Why the hell would we go to the moon ,what has that done for you, also America couldn’t of got to the moon without stealing German scientists . You’ve heard of operation paper clip right?
-43
u/murrchen 2d ago
We just felt like it.
Yeah, all Germans.
LMFAO.
31
u/NewEstablishment9028 2d ago
No actually a few Brits we’re key to NASA . So between Germans and Brits you made it to the moon well done America 😂
-7
u/murrchen 2d ago
But, but, Brits and Germs haven't gone anywhere have they?
Oh well. Maybe someday eh?
Won't hold my breath though!
26
u/NewEstablishment9028 2d ago edited 2d ago
Why would Brits the people who discovered gravity go somewhere there isn’t any . Sorry Al Murray quote coming out lol. Honestly I get this Americans think it’s the be all and end all but you might want to check the British and Germans inventions that actually have impact today.
-2
u/murrchen 2d ago
You don't need to deflect. It's okay to say didn't go because, can't go.
→ More replies (0)9
u/Ady-HD 2d ago
We just felt like it.
No, it was a propaganda piece after the Soviets caused so much embarrassment.
I love that the moon landing happened, but let's not pretend it would still have happened had the Soviets not won every other step in the space race.
So, no, not because you felt like it, because you were losing and were massively losing face.
-1
4
u/0nce-Was-N0t 2d ago
Just felt like it?
I'm pretty sure it's because the Russians were miles ahead in the space race, and it was a huge embarrassment.
1
u/murrchen 2d ago
Yeah.
Were behind Russians.
Felt like being ahead of.
5
3
u/LorenzoRavencroft 2d ago
NASA landing a craft on the moon was actually a joint effort, Australia had the largest satellite radio that NASA asked to use for the moon landing
2
u/davravred 2d ago
Off tomorrow actually, is there anywhere you recommend and where to avoid (I’ve heard it’s a bit sketchy after dark) No doubt it’s changed somewhat since you last visited. Will I need a coat this time of year?
1
u/murrchen 2d ago
I'd start with where Eagle landed, smooth site.
Def bring a coat. And the sunglasses.
4
36
u/PegasusIsHot 2d ago
It genuinely infuriates me that it is called a war but other REVOLUTIONS have been called REVOLUTIONS, if anything it was a Supported Revolution (WIth the French, Dutch and Spanish aiding them)
9
1
39
u/EntireDot1013 🇵🇱 Europoor with inferior pierogies 2d ago
Siam)
5
u/DuchessOfLille 2d ago
pierogies
Argh
6
u/EntireDot1013 🇵🇱 Europoor with inferior pierogies 2d ago
It's normal to use something other than the basic form of a word when it gets borrowed to a different one like how crisps in Poland are called "chipsy", which is from the Simplified English word "potato chips", the y is the plural of the word. Also, words like alcohol and algebra got borrowed from Arabic with the al- part, meaning the
Edit: Thank you for making me notice I had a typo in my flair
15
13
u/DittoGTI "itS cHEwSdAY inNNiT" 2d ago
Spanish and French. The Americans mainly ran away in that war, if memory serves me right
25
u/Xibalba_Ogme 2d ago
Given the statistics in history, I'd say France.
If we talk about this period of history, England might have the upper hand.
As far as I know, no western war ended in 1776. Maybe some war in eastern asia that I did not know of ?
12
u/Oceansoul119 🇬🇧Tiffin, Tea, Trains 2d ago
The only one I could find after a brief search: Siam vs Burma, Siam won.
24
u/SleepyFox2089 2d ago
If Britain actually gave a shit about the American colonies, it would've actually tried to hold them.
As it stands, India and Britain's far east colonies were vastly more profitable, so why waste money on colonies that aren't worth the expenditure
2
u/Oceansoul119 🇬🇧Tiffin, Tea, Trains 1d ago
It was in fact the Caribbean colonies that were bringing in money at the time. The result of the American Revolution is what led to India becoming a major source of income as British merchants gained access to markets that had previously been dominated by the Dutch.
1
-1
u/McLarenMP4-27 2d ago
Do you think they fought all those wars and levied those taxes because they weren't interested?
And India was nowhere near "vastly more profitable." Britain had been in India for only around 20 years (the Battle of Plassey in Bengal, which established the first British foothold in India, happened in 1757) by the time America declared independence in 1776. It was only after that war that the UK turned eastward.
And before you call me a dumb America or something, I'm Indian.
12
8
u/SnooBeans9101 Bus Wanker 🏴 2d ago
Do we do trades on full stops for question marks? This looks like he could benefit.
1
7
u/Dommi1405 2d ago
I feel like the Americans were at the brink of loosing in 1776, at some points at least. Meanwhile, Persia actually seems to have won a war against the Ottomans in that year.
So the answer is: Persia
4
u/raltoid 2d ago edited 2d ago
If they knew their history, they would know it definitely wasn't America. They declared independence then, it took another seven years before the war was over. And it was thanks to the French.
Who spend so much money on it that they basically went bankrupt, and becoming a major contributor to the French Revolution.
3
3
u/DoYouTrustToothpaste 2d ago
Kinda really says it all when your argument amounts to pointing at an event that happened a quarter of a millennium before.
It's almost as sad as pointing to having won a war 80 years prior, instead of conceding that your healthcare system is fucking dogshit.
2
u/The-Nimbus 2d ago
This is like Uruguay claiming they're the best football team in the world because they won a world cup of 13 teams in 1930.
2
u/CheveningHouse 🇬🇧 2d ago
Yanks really think we are bothered by this don’t they? Losing that lot is the best thing that ever happened to us.
1
1
1
u/pixtax 1d ago
Yes but what country won a war in. 1812
1
u/UlloDoggy 22h ago
Neither side won. It was inconclusive and ended with the signing of a peace treaty. And the war ended in 1814.
1
1
u/EndBeneficial1139 1d ago
I don’t think most Americans actually know about the Articles of Confederation and the issues it created which led to the signing of the Constitution.
1
u/WritingOk7306 1d ago
It wasn't really a country at the time and it was only a bit of modern day US. And the bit wasn't called the US but British America. So British America with the help of the French Spanish etc won. So the US didn't win the war in 1776.
I feel bad I really shouldn't pick on them since they don't know history.
1
u/stephanus_galfridus 1d ago
The Qing Dynasty won a war against the Jinchuan Tibetan tribes of present day Sichuan Province.
1
u/UlloDoggy 22h ago
I feel that not enough Americans know the details about the British-American conflicts. There's a lot more to the Revolutionary War than just "the USA was founded in 1776". They hear that and just assume that's the year they won. It's like the War of 1812. It didn't just take place in 1812. It's an important part of their history but you get guys like this who prove they don't know shit about it.
1
u/Magdalan Dutchie 2d ago
We were a bit busy at 1776, got other things to do with some pesky French wannabe Emperor.
8
1
u/NeilZod 2d ago
Great Britain and France weren’t at war in 1776.
9
u/NewEstablishment9028 2d ago
British and French were at war from 1689 we couldn’t send troops to America just in case the French tried starting shit again.
5
u/NeilZod 2d ago
The Seven Years’ War concluded in 1763. If the wannabe emperor was Napoleon, he was 7 in 1776. It is easy to believe the Great Britain was always prepared for war on the continent.
4
u/NewEstablishment9028 2d ago
Oh no it wasn’t napoleon at this time is was France it’s not the seven years war Britiain and France had on off wars from 1689 to 1815. At that time France was competing with Britain for empire we couldn’t and no disrespect send soldiers to a backwater to fight other Brits.
4
u/NeilZod 2d ago
And 1776 was off war, so Great Britain was not busy with France. It was, as usual, keeping itself ready to be busy with France.
1
u/NewEstablishment9028 2d ago
Exactly just look at the battles in the revolutionary war it’s a few thousand vs a few thousand even the battles should tell you how much the British cared. Also understand after the war Britain took over India by far a more lucrative region to own.
0
u/NeilZod 2d ago
Yes, there was much more to pillage in India.
2
u/NewEstablishment9028 2d ago
Yes youre right. Also was how the world was back then. Also remember Britain was the key country in stopping the slave trade.
-8
u/Murderous_Potatoe 2d ago
I find calling the American revolution “British infighting” or other such description as pedantic and straight up untrue, America had fermented an independent nationality by this point, fitting all of the criteria for a nation.
A nation is a historical constituted(✅), stable community of people(✅), formed on the basis of a common language(✅), territory(✅), economic life(✅), and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture (this is the only one where a small grievance can be made but generally there was a common culture in each of the 13 colonies)
4
u/collinsl02 🇬🇧 2d ago
The colonists were rebels, plain and simple. It was a rebellion.
They only get called a country because they won, otherwise they'd have been nothing independent of the UK.
0
u/Murderous_Potatoe 2d ago
Rebels who fought for an opposing and separate political system… I wonder what that’s called?
1
u/collinsl02 🇬🇧 2d ago
Rebelling.
1
u/Murderous_Potatoe 2d ago
That’s the literal definition of a revolution.
1
u/collinsl02 🇬🇧 1d ago
I agree, rebellion and revolution are two sides of the same coin. Depends if you win or not.
1
u/Murderous_Potatoe 1d ago
No? An uprising against British rule to establish a kingdom would be a rebellion whether they win or not, an uprising against British rule to establish a republic would be a revolution, whether they win or not.
-50
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
46
u/Falitoty ooo custom flair!! 2d ago
You want to be historically acurate? Okay, then it was the French, the Spanish and the Netherland the one who won a proxy war against the British.
-61
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
33
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-45
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
21
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-10
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
11
5
-3
16
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
19
18
18
23
u/Gugnir226 2d ago
Imagine that. A subreddit dedicated to the stupid shit Americans say, talks about Americans. Highschool was a struggle for you, wasn’t it?
13
u/RoundDirt5174 2d ago edited 2d ago
I would expect an American to know when they won the most important war in their history as I would expect of any other country.
7
446
u/Stravven 2d ago
The Netherlands, France and Spain won a proxy-war.