Did American rebels hide among the civilian populace?

[Minstrel Boy]

Just wondering.

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

[xchrom]

1. yes indeedy.

[papau]

2. American rebels attacked Big Ben and ran back to New York and hid?

Just trying to make the comparison fit the facts.

Oh - and the reason was all Brits were evil and must die so Americans can take over the Island.

Ok - now I understand.

[Minstrel Boy]

4. American rebels attacked Canada then ran back to New York

Does that count?

[papau]

5. Yes it does count if you note all the differences -they didn't want Canada

no claim to Canada, no need to kill all Canadians, a population that dis not support killing all Canadians -

but by God they went back to the country they were trying to liberate,

A very close match to what Hez and Shia arabs of Lebanon want and are doing.

[Minstrel Boy]

6. hang on a sec. they certainly did want Canada.

As a Canadian, believe me, I know this. And the loyalists who fled the revolution north did, too.

[papau]

8. 54' 40" or fight was later - as was manifest destiny. In the revolution

it was the 13 colonies and none of the colonies claimed any northern territory.

Indeed when the US colonies did defeat the French north by taking the Fortress of Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island, at the time the most heavily fortified bastion in North America, in 1745 via the army of 4.000 New Englanders led by Sir William Pepperell, we returned the Fort and gave up any claim to the land, returning everything to France in the Treaty of Aix-la Chapelle signed in 1748/

All we wanted to do was end the practice of France allowing raiders to preyed on the merchant ships of the American Colonies and we got that in the Treaty.

Indeed it sounds like what Israel thought they got via the agreement with Lebanon when they withdrew from all of Lebanon.

Unfortunately for Israel, the Lebanese and their Syrian/Iranian masters were not as trust worthy as the French of 1748.

[Minstrel Boy]

10. Not quite the way we're taught it.

From The Canadian War Museum's "Revolution Rejected: Canada and the American Revolution":

As Americans contemplated armed rebellion, they too made a bid for Canadien support. In the fall of 1774, the first Continental Congress invited “the oppressed inhabitants of the province of Quebec” to send delegates to the Congress. The Americans translated this invitation into French and sent two thousand copies to Thomas Walker, a Montreal merchant and vocal opponent of the Quebec Act. In the spring of 1775, when the pamphlets arrived, Walker distributed them to Canadiens in the Montreal area. Widely read and discussed, the pamphlets may have produced some sympathy for the American cause, even as that cause became a war against Great Britain.

On 15 April 1775, British troops and American rebels clashed at Lexington Green in Massachusetts and the American Revolution began. Three weeks later, Americans led by Benedict Arnold and Ethan Allan seized Forts Ticonderoga and Crown Point on Lake Champlain, just south of Montreal. Their capture gave the Americans a foothold on the Lake Champlain-Richelieu River-St. Lawrence River network of waterways and cleared the way for an invasion of Canada.

George Washington, the American commander-in-chief, hoped that conquering Canada and capturing Quebec City would secure the rebels’ northern flank against British intervention. Encouraged by optimistic reports from Thomas Walker, he fully expected that the Canadien>s would join the rebels and turn the invasion into a war of liberation.

...

The American invasion of 1775-76 was one of the most important campaigns in Canadian history. Had the invaders succeeded, Canada would now in all likelihood be part of the United States. Instead, Canada remained British and eventually evolved into a self-governing Dominion and independent nation.

[papau]

12. That is a bit different - the Wash expected and the protect the northern

flank is taught, but the letter is not - and who the hell is Thomas Walker-

amazingly different teaching.

[WilliamPitt]

3. To a degree

They also met the British in foolish Napoleonic set-piece line-up battles...until they got wise and realized that trees and rocks can stop bullets.

Just saying that you're comparison went out the door a while ago.

[sistersofmercy]

7. Yep, they sure did.

Also I read that the Brits did their line formation fighting rotation where the frontline kneels and fires and the line behind fires standing and the revolutionist hid behind trees plucking them off from the side and rear. What the revolutionist did would have been considered uncivilized guerilla warfare at the time. Anyway I was told by a historian it made a big difference in the war.

[papau]

9. Perhaps "uncivilized guerrilla warfare " - but not terrorism as they waited

to kill all the British in the colonies and around the world.

It is hard to make murders/terrorist that have a goal of Nazi genocide purification of the human race, like Hezbollah, into "freedom fights", but it has been accomplished among the Sh'ia - and much of the west's political left is sure trying hard to believe Hezbollah are white hat "freedom fighters".

I guess it is a faith thing.

[sistersofmercy]

13. Geez in no way shape or form did I say anything about

terrorism or Hezbollah. A question was asked and answered. Draw whatever conclusion you like.

[theanarch]

14. actually, you're wrong...

...from the very beginning, the Patriot side used conventional methods of warfare, which even then included firing from cover (see "Paul Revere's Ride" by David Hackett Fischer; also recommended by the same author, "Washington's Crossing"). The major innovations introduced by Americans to this style of warfare were 1) an 'open' or two-rank formation for musketry (later adopted by British light infantry, while the regular, or 'heavy' regiments retained the three-rank formation); 2) reducing the load-fire-reload sequence from twelve or so steps to five or six, and introducing an order to aim, which increased the American rate of fire to three shots per minute, while the British could barely manage two per minute; and 3) the deliberate targeting of officers and NCO's (used to particularly good effect at Cowpens). The irony was that, at the beginning of the war, Britian arguably had the best army in the (western) world, while the colonials had the worst; by war's end, Britian's army was second rate (unmotivated conscripts led by incompetent officers), while ours was considered by foreign observers to be among the best.

[Redstone]

11. No.

Redstone