foxweasel | 25 Aug 2017 3:10 p.m. PST |
I don't want to start another revolution, or a 9 page discussion like we have about statues. I would like to know people's opinions about why the State's celebrate independence on the 4th of July. Bear with me here, the war started in 1775, congress issued its declaration of independence in 1776, but the war for independence didn't end until 1783 when the British withdrew. Then the treaty of Paris was signed in 1784. In my mind the USA didn't exist as a legal country until Britain said it had let them go, until that point it was still British and undergoing an insurgency. |
LaserGrenadier | 25 Aug 2017 3:45 p.m. PST |
Independence was declared in 1776. The "insurgency" upheld the declaration. |
foxweasel | 25 Aug 2017 4:01 p.m. PST |
That's what I'm getting at LaserGrenadier, the mayor of Lincoln and assorted grandees could declare independence from England tomorrow, but until they actually achieve it would Lincolnshire be a legally recognized country? |
USAFpilot | 25 Aug 2017 4:17 p.m. PST |
There are two different dates being discussed. One date is when the Americans declared independence and the other is when the British recognized our independence. It is a matter of perspective. There is no "legally", because there is no world government, just a bunch of nations in competition that sometimes fight with each other and sometimes come together in mutual benefit. From the British perspective, the US was not independent until such and such a date. But to Americans we were independent at some other date. |
Dynaman8789 | 25 Aug 2017 4:23 p.m. PST |
To celebrate the latter date would be to celebrate something the English king decided rather than the earlier date which is something the colonies themselves decided – and the loser doesn't write history so they say. |
Dan Beattie | 25 Aug 2017 4:27 p.m. PST |
The treaty of Paris was in 1783 |
foxweasel | 25 Aug 2017 4:30 p.m. PST |
Sorry Dan, you are correct, fat English fingers, my apologies. |
foxweasel | 25 Aug 2017 4:36 p.m. PST |
USAFpilot. I agree with everything you say, I just find it really interesting how it is interpreted. By "legally" I mean recognised internationally. |
foxweasel | 25 Aug 2017 4:38 p.m. PST |
And not just by the French😋 |
USAFpilot | 25 Aug 2017 5:04 p.m. PST |
I think Dynaman8789 put in succinctly. |
Bill N | 25 Aug 2017 5:30 p.m. PST |
Success retroactively legitimizes the act. Since the U.S. won its independence from Great Britain and was treated as an independent state by other nations, its Declaration of Independence in 1776 established it as an independent nation, no matter what the British government said. The Confederate States, having failed to maintain their independence in the ACW, were not. And if Lincolnshire could maintain its independence against the U.K. and be treated as independent by other nations, it would be an independent nation even if Her Majesty's Government refused to recognize it as such. To argue otherwise is to say that by maintaining the pretense of sovereignty a nation could deny independence to a breakaway part even if the nation completely lacked the ability to enforce its authority over the breakaway part. |
Winston Smith | 25 Aug 2017 6:08 p.m. PST |
After blaming Good King George for everything from dandruff to scurvy, the Founding Fathers get to the point. : "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…" It was then all over but the shouting and shooting. WE knew we were independent. The treaty was just getting the Brits to agree. |
Dave Crowell | 25 Aug 2017 6:23 p.m. PST |
Because after the war we got to pick a dateto celebrate our nation's birthday and we chose the date proclaimed on the Declaration of Independence. Even though Congress voted for independence on July 2nd and the signing occured in August. |
Florida Tory | 25 Aug 2017 7:23 p.m. PST |
France signed the Treaty of Amnity and Commerce with an independent United States on February 8, 1778, having already recognized its indeendnece on December 17, 1777 with a statement by their Foreign Minister Charles Gravier, Count of Vergennes. The Dutch had previously recognized the United States with their first salute" on November 16, 1776. The British were slow. No reason to celebrate such tardiness. Rick |
Early morning writer | 25 Aug 2017 11:28 p.m. PST |
Only a Brit could start this discussion. The rest of the world, or a really large piece of it, is quite happy with the July 4, 1776 date. Well, until pretty recently. Afeared some national 'minds' have changed and perhaps permanently. Such are the vagaries of history. Great one day, also ran another day. The 1700's – France's century The 1800's – England's century The 1900's – The United States' century The 2000's – China's century? Just have to wait and see. |
basileus66 | 25 Aug 2017 11:53 p.m. PST |
When was independence from Britain inevitable? In 1776 it was far from being a sure thing,regardless Congress declaration of indepndence. while in 1783 it was almost impossible for Britain to do anything else but recognize a fait accompli. In my humble opinion a nice date would be October 19, 1781, when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. After that moment, any possibility of the American colonies to be recovered by Britain, either all of them or just the Southern colonies, was forfeited and independence was a fact, both legally -the instrument of the declaration of independence- and factually -the powerlessness of Britain to sustain the military effort to reconquest them-. Up to the moment when Cornwallis was besieged in Yorktown and any possibility of relief dissapeared, it existed a chance, remote but chance nonetheless, of Britain retaining some kind of suzerainty over the Colonies, at least over a good chunk of them. There is nothing in History that it is inevitable. |
advocate | 26 Aug 2017 1:56 a.m. PST |
Bill N has hit the nail on the head with this one. |
Major Bloodnok | 26 Aug 2017 2:40 a.m. PST |
One could say Independence was inevitable after the Seven Years War ended in 1763. With the threat of the French removed internal politics would receive greater attention. |
Royal Marine | 26 Aug 2017 9:40 a.m. PST |
I say Lincoln can have it's independence. What have they ever done for us? As for US Independence, well I saw a Yankee drinking HOT Tea post 1783 which makes the entire AWI null and void; it's in Annex J of WRG Rules 1776-1783 Version 13. |
rmaker | 26 Aug 2017 9:40 p.m. PST |
By "legally" I mean recognised internationally. And not just by the French😋 The French weren't the first to recognize the United States. That honor goes to Sweden. And Prussia beat the French to the punch as well, along with a number of other countries. On the other hand, Egypt didn't extend diplomatic recognition to the US until the mid-19th Century, and other governments were even more dilatory (admittedly, in some cases because THEY didn't exist earlier). |
Rawdon | 27 Aug 2017 1:29 p.m. PST |
There are numerous dates from which to choose (although the Dutch government quickly disavowed the salute of the U.S. flag by Fort Eustatius). One of them is later than any thus far discussed: June 21, 1788, the official date of the ratification of the current constitution. Having said that, I agree with Basileus66: the date of Cornwallis's surrender is the day, for me, that I can officially no longer call the Americans "rebels". |
22ndFoot | 28 Aug 2017 12:16 p.m. PST |
Treason can never prosper for by prospering it ceases to be treason. Which make is 4th July 1776. |