Did the French win the American Revolution?

Originally posted by Challenger2 Ah, the Koichi-Doctor Gonzaga tag team again.  I posted in order to demonstrate that so called "facts" are almost always distorted by nationalistic or personal bias. Before we resume this entertaining debate, can one, or both of you, give me some examples of how "a potentially valid and interesting topic is being poisoned by a misleading headline and nationalist sentiments already apparent on this thread." ?

Look at the title:

Did the French win the American Revolution?

As I wrote on my first post, this is misleading and offensive because, while the French contribution was important, it was still only one of many factors that resulted in the rebel victory.

Nationalist sentiments are usually more subtle but let's look at your post:

This is certainly one interpretation of events, probably the one favoured by American �nationalistic� school history books, for all I know, but the �facts� are not so clear cut.

Rather than respond with facts, you used an ad-hominem attack on my nationality.  Yes I agree bias is in all things, but as I've written, bias can only go so far before the facts make themselves apparent.  As I've told you, your "version" of the battle was the same as ours.

But I do like the part where you yourself don't know exactly what is being taught on this subject, you just assumed we were taught about this bravado-filled battle.  You also assumed I relied on public school level education rather than research on my own. 

Originally posted by HaloChanter Ah, the Koichi-Doctor Gonzaga tag team again   - Oh yes, our local "we hate historian history" tag-team. "Damn the facts, damn political history, damn the sources!"   Don't worry Challenger2 you're not alone

This groundless and juvenile attack doesn't merit a response.  I did find it interesting though that you call drgonzaga and I a "tag team" when you guys are clearly addressing each other while drgonzaga and I argued on other topics.

Classy, both of you.  I sincerely hope this quality of responses is not representative of the rest of this forum.

Originally posted by drgonzaga Well, challenger, you could always assign the loss to the treacherous behavior of the Whigs and their failure to fully support the crown in its policies for the centralization of government and the regularization of needed taxation!   Poor Lord North, he had enough of a time maintaining the Treasury and one could just as well blame that nitwit Lord George Germain for the series of disastrous decisions with regard to the Americans and the conduct of the military for the suppression of the revolt...then there was Charles Fox as well as the remnants of the Chathamites. Lord, it was a headache ruling over all of these digruntled gents. And then there was the rapproachment between North and Fox that actually led to the rise of Pitt the Younger--a dangerous imperialist that one but by the time he took over the government in 1784, the peace had already been negotiated.

Aah! 18th Century British politics. Don't you just love it! Plus �a change, plus le m�me chose!

Originally posted by drgonzaga Challenger, I would be the first to admit that while the "facts" of history remained fixed, historians are forever manipulating the same data in order to devise new soundings. There are myths aplenty in the national conscience and the history of England is replete with them

History of England, but not America?

There is a slight footnote, Challenger, that has escaped your notice. This footnote is found in the steady correspondence between Vergennes in Paris and his counterpart in Spain, Aranda. While independence was being planned in Philadelphia during the summer of 1776, the ministers of the Bourbon Compact were already busily setting up Hortalez y Cia in Bilbao, to which the Spanish and French governments both contributed the capital (one million pesos each, with the Spanish government advancing the French share). The various fronts set up by the playwright Beaumarchais and Diego de Gardoqui were highly important in maintaining the traditional New England trade with the West Indies. The firm of Gardoqui and Sons had a long history in American trade, and much before the formal Franco-American alliance, for between the summers of 1776-1777, Spanish ports were open to American privateers for the disposal of prizes and the securing of supplies. Earlier, I had mentioned the source of the of the cannons the Americans deployed at Ticonderoga (from the Spanish royal armory), but sustenance reaching the rebels even included Washington's store of Madeira--we will not mention the blankets that later gained fame at Valley Forge. In other words events over-ran formalities and while matters might have appeared tenuous on land in the period 1776-1777, maritime activity proliferated as New England traders engaged in both privateering and the West India trade [this latter was the principal route through which Spanish military materiel reached the rebels. We will not even get into why continental paper currency carried the inscription of "Spanish milled dollars" rather than any reference to French coinage!

Edited by drgonzaga - 19-Dec-2007 at 18:46

It�s possible we have all got off on the wrong foot here.

We did, no hard feelings though right?

While we're here, let me clarify my own position.  There is a distinction between fact and interpretation.  A fact is an undisputed truth, in the context of history, it's an event that took place.  It's pretty black and white, I mean, it either happened or it didn't.  Facts serve as empirical evidence for an interpretation.  An interpretation is an analysis followed by a conclusion.  Two reasonable people could have the same facts and come to a different interpretation.

Like I said, I'm clarifying my position, this isn't meant to be condescending.  What I am saying though is, in order to have an interpretation, you need facts.  Falling back on one without the other relegates an interpretation to a mere opinion.

That's all really, I have a relatively casual interest on the matter at hand.  Just a bit disturbed at the inflammatory topics on board (there's another one nearby about Germans being the laughingstock of history).

Originally posted by Koichi It�s possible we have all got off on the wrong foot here. We did, no hard feelings though right? While we're here, let me clarify my own position.  There is a distinction between fact and interpretation.  A fact is an undisputed truth, in the context of history, it's an event that took place.  It's pretty black and white, I mean, it either happened or it didn't.  Facts serve as empirical evidence for an interpretation.  An interpretation is an analysis followed by a conclusion.  Two reasonable people could have the same facts and come to a different interpretation. Like I said, I'm clarifying my position, this isn't meant to be condescending.  What I am saying though is, in order to have an interpretation, you need facts.  Falling back on one without the other relegates an interpretation to a mere opinion. That's all really, I have a relatively casual interest on the matter at hand.  Just a bit disturbed at the inflammatory topics on board (there's another one nearby about Germans being the laughingstock of history).

No hard feelings whatsoever.

I take your point about "facts" and "interpretations", however I'm never so sure about the "facts" themselves. For example, I've done some research into the battle of Minden [1759]. After 250 years you cannot get a clear undisputed picture of what units actually fought there.  There are French records, British records, records by individuals who were present, and second hand records compiled by the Prussian General Staff in the 19th century.  All these records are "factual" and all are contradictory in many areas.

BTW where's this Germans are a laughing stock topic?


Edited by Challenger2 - 27-Dec-2007 at 16:26

Originally posted by drgonzaga But how different is such from the standard cant that the English "defeated" the Spanish Armada?

Aah, but we DID defeat the Spanish Armada, even Mattingly says so.

One for another thread methinks.


Edited by Challenger2 - 27-Dec-2007 at 16:44

Nonetheless, they defeated the Spanish Armada - and I think you'll find that the English had the upper hand in the Battle for the Atlantic.

Originally posted by HaloChanter Nonetheless, they defeated the Spanish Armada - and I think you'll find that the English had the upper hand in the Battle for the Atlantic. Indeed, they threatened Philip II's power like no other country, penetrating to the heart of his realm time and again my plundering Spain's chief cities, pillaging the American empire and decisively aiding the Dutch.