It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

April 19th 2017: Today I Saw an American Revolution

page: 3
87
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie




in total the number of French that severed in those three and half years never exceded 12,000.


No point in taking anything else you have said seriously when you can't even get the figures and time period correct.




From 1776 to 1783 France supplied the United States with millions of livres in cash and credit. France also committed 63 warships, 22,000 sailors and 12,000 soldiers to the war, and these forces suffered relatively heavy casualties as a result.






The first direct French military support to reach America, in July 1778, was an expeditionary force of 4,000 soldiers and 16 ships under the command of the Comte d’Estaing.


www.historyisfun.org...


No bias as that is from a U.S. site


edit on 21-4-2017 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: hounddoghowlie




in total the number of French that severed in those three and half years never exceded 12,000.


No point in taking anything else you have said seriously when you can't even get the figures and time period correct.




From 1776 to 1783 France supplied the United States with millions of livres in cash and credit. France also committed 63 warships, 22,000 sailors and 12,000 soldiers to the war, and these forces suffered relatively heavy casualties as a result.






The first direct French military support to reach America, in July 1778, was an expeditionary force of 4,000 soldiers and 16 ships under the command of the Comte d’Estaing.


www.historyisfun.org...


No bias as that is from a U.S. site



Expeditionary force eh? Well, other than the handful with Lafayette, I am having trouble finding any battles where they did give their lives? Please, reference those battles for us.

There were 36 warships offshore and a fleet was handy keeping the Brits from escaping. That was about it in the Revolutionary war that I can find in the historical documents. The French were in it for France as evidenced by their attitude after England had to leave NY and did little on land to secure victories other than have aristocrats volunteer. It was a done deal when King George's men tried to take our guns. From that point on, any free loving citizens of the Colonies had two choices, fight or live like serfs.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




Expeditionary force eh? Well, other than the handful with Lafayette, I am having trouble finding any battles where they did give their lives? Please, reference those battles for us.


I am not going to do the research for you, i can't be arsed. However i will give you a start.

Battle of Yorktown




American & French General George Washington Lieutenant General Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau 8,800 Americans, 7,800 French


www.thoughtco.com...





The French casualties were 60 killed and 194 wounded and the American casualties were 28 killed and 107 wounded: a grand total of 88 killed and 301 wounded


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 21-4-2017 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Justoneman




Expeditionary force eh? Well, other than the handful with Lafayette, I am having trouble finding any battles where they did give their lives? Please, reference those battles for us.


I am not going to do the research for you, i can't be arsed. However i will give you a start.

Battle of Yorktown




American & French General George Washington Lieutenant General Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau 8,800 Americans, 7,800 French


www.thoughtco.com...





The French casualties were 60 killed and 194 wounded and the American casualties were 28 killed and 107 wounded: a grand total of 88 killed and 301 wounded


en.wikipedia.org...

AND I can't prove something that DID NOT happen can I? It was our cannons captured and ships in the harbor WERE French, yes. They would't be there if they didn't think we were going to win!
edit on 21-4-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Touche' on the 7800 Frenchmen. I still say they are not there without our Resolve.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




They would't be there if they didn't think we were going to win!


Meanwhile the real reason France got involved.




The French objective in assisting the Americans was to weaken Britain and to seek revenge for the defeat in the Seven Years' War


www.revolvy.com...&item_type=topic




Au Revoir

edit on 21-4-2017 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5

The catalyst for the violence was the kings army attempting to disarm the colonists.


Nothing personal, but that is simply historically fully inaccurate.

I suggest reading..

Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, First Continental Congress, Stamp Act etc..

No ..."Gun Control" did not spark the revolution...

Sad to see folks looking to rewrite history as sacred as the American Revolution to feed their contemporary world-view.

History is history..



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock

I would tend to agree with you on that. But there were very few in the beginning back then also. It only takes a few to make a stand for the others to stand behind them.

It reminds me of one of my favorite lines from Kingdom Of Heaven, "do you think making a man knight will make him a better fighter?" The look on their faces answer that question.

As with any military engagement, the side with high moral and motivation typically becomes the victor and if not victorious they make such a stand it inspires others to fight harder.

I hate to say it this way but if similar circumstances ever arise again we will have to lose the first group of the brave to rouse the rest. Such as in the case of the Alamo, or the brave 300. But rest assured the vigor that will arise from that spilled blood will outshine the mass of any standing army.

1 person defending their home is stronger than 10 being paid to take it.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

really, did i not say that before they signed the treaty that the French sold the U.S. "goods"? which would include everything needed to fight. i'm sorry you don't understand innuendo in" signing treaties and sold some goods". and did i not say that their force was mainly sailors and never exceeded 12,000 soliders, well i guess i didn't say soldiers. but after reading your source you should have known what i was saying, by the way thanks for confirming what i said.

from your source that you linked,

France also committed 63 warships, 22,000 sailors and 12,000 soldiers to the war, and these forces suffered relatively heavy casualties as a result.


granted i was mistaken about the dates, but it's been over 35 years since my time in any school room regrading history and
just shooting off the hip, my recollection is pretty damn good looking as the source you supplied confirmed it.

i did say the first French and british battle that occurred was in july 27,1778 in the naval battle of Battle of Ushant on July 27,1778 i was mistaken. the naval blockade by d’Estaing of Howe at Sandy Hook, if memory serves was the first from 11th to july 22nd 1778 none of the French soldiers ever went ashore, the sandbar kept them from going into the harbor.

the first real engagement of any french troops was at the battle of new port rhode island in aug. then siege of savannah in oct, then next d’Estaing went to the west indies in dec. he returned to France in the beginning of 1780. the next french troops and fleet would not sail for the U.S. until 1781, under de Grasse.

the utter failure of d’Estaing to be effective had many of the Americans questioning the aid of France and their usefulness.
it wasn't until 1781 that France really saw any success in the war on U.S soil.

it's all there in the history books, stop being a arrogant brit and open your bias eyes and look it up.
maybe you'll link and post sources that confirms what i said even though it not word for word.
edit on 21-4-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I will take your points in hand and we will call a truce.

Agreed ?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Agreed.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: alldaylong

Agreed.


Top man.




posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

www.history.com...

you are full of crap



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5

www.history.com...

you are full of crap


So...the colonists were perfectly OK with British rule and taxation? It was the British troops looking to disarm a growing rebellion that provoked war? The Boston Massacre? the Boston Tea Party? The First Continental Congress?...Those things and a great many other provocations occurred BEFORE April 19th, 1775..

I recommend 1776 by David McCullough, and Patriots: The Men Who Started the American Revolution by A.J. Langguth..

I'd also recommend reviewing the list of grievances summarized by the First Continental Congress..

www.loc.gov...
edit on 21-4-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
For anyone who maybe interested, a view of The Revolution from a British perspective.

www.redcoat.me.uk...



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Hey Brits, any truth to the rumor that the American Revolutionary War was Britain's Vietnam?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Hey Brits, any truth to the rumor that the American Revolutionary War was Britain's Vietnam?


A short answer. No.

America wasn't the only former colony that revolted against either British rule or occupation. Here are the others.

Ireland
Egypt
Burma
Palestine
Malaya
Kenya
Cyprus



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: METACOMET Thank you for the reminder, beautiful pictures. I'm always amazed at the brilliance and bravery of our ancestors. The area seems so small when you are there. My great grandfather was a Lieutenant in the Md militia. (I'm not happy my younger brother has his sword)




posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Hey Brits, any truth to the rumor that the American Revolutionary War was Britain's Vietnam?


A short answer. No.

America wasn't the only former colony that revolted against either British rule or occupation. Here are the others.

Ireland
Egypt
Burma
Palestine
Malaya
Kenya
Cyprus




Yes, but those were occupied territories with NATIVE populations rebelling.

America had the distinction of being actual Brits rebelling against the British Monarchy.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5





Brits rebelling against the British Monarchy.


That's what i have been waiting for someone to say.

The American Revolution was in fact a Civil War. Inhabitants of the 13 Colonies fought on both sides.

Just like the English Civil Wars when the people rose against King Charles I.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join