Why Did New York Suffer The Most During The Revolutionary War

What did North Carolina contribute to the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War?

In the Revolutionary War, the pair of battles at Cowpens in SC, and the battle of Guilford Courthouse in NC had the effect of proving to the the Southern Colonies that they could overcome a crack British force of Regulars under Cornwallis. Up until then the Americans had been losing consistently.They won at Cowpens impressively, while they lost to the Brits at Guilford in a close one, but the forces of Cornwallis were so depleted by then that making a run for Yorktown was his last best option. Once there, he was trapped in place by Naval action of the French fleet, and then defeated by French and American Continental forces that had arrived from New York. Ending the warHad both Carolina battles gone as badly for the Americans as in the past, Cornwallis was in position to take all of Virginia and thus divide the Americans, North from the South.Rather important sites, I would say.

American Revolution and Revolutionary War: Why did two years elapse between the British surrender at Yorktown and the withdrawal of British troops from New York?

In 1788, the US and France concluded a Treaty of Alliance in Paris. One of the terms of the treaty was that neither of the nations would make a separate peace with the UK.Although after the Battle of Yorktown, most (but by no means all) fighting by organized units ended within the bounds of the US, that was not the end of the war as a whole. On the American frontier and at sea, the war continued with great ferocity. Further, France and its ally Spain continued to push for territorial gains in the Americas and Asia.By 1783, both sides had realized that a stalemate had been reached. After a series of negotiations, the Treaty of Paris of 1783 (there have been many treaties signed in Paris, since it is such a pleasant and sophisticated place to negotiate, so they are distinguished by date) was signed, and the war officially came to an end.Fighting on the frontier still continued in an episodic way; the British maintained a fortified area around Detroit, and subsidized some tribes to attack American settlements for several years. The Americans subsidized other tribes to attack those allied with Britain. Neither side cared very much what actually happened to the Native American peoples they used as pawns in their proxy war.

What role did Native Americans serve during the Revolutionary War?

There were some tribes supporting each side. You would need to inquire by tribe or battle because some tribes were divided and/or switched sides during the war — much as the general American population did.A major error in American education is to view our Revolution as a war between the US and Britain. It was equally the first American Civil war. At its start, perhaps 1/4 were Patriots, about 1/3 were Tories, and the rest wanted nothing to do with either side or the issues. By the end, the vast majority of the population were Patriots. The Tories mainly moved to England or were banished to Canada's Eastern Provinces.

Why did New York City side with the British during the American Revolution?

New York, the commercial center of the British American colonies, had ties to London, the commercial center of England and the British Empire. Wealthy New York aristocrats had little sympathy for the petty grievances of a bunch of lawyers and tradesmen in Boston. Wealthy families are generally conservative. However, members of the influential Livingston and Schuyler families did support the rebellion. Colonial New York politics was…complicated.It is important to remember that the Loyalists believed themselves to be the true patriots. The men we call the Founding Fathers were a radicals who sought to overthrow an established, respected, legitimate government.

During the American Revolution did the British or revolutionaries do anything that would be considered terrorism today?

terrorism:the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.Tories, Americans who remained loyal to the King, famously received brutal treatment at the hands of the colonists. They were seized by a mob, stripped naked, and had hot tar poured on their bare skin. Their whole body would be covered with feathers, and they would be paraded around by the mob. Victims often suffered severe burns. This was meant to terrorize the Tories and dissuade them from being disloyal to the Revolution.John Meintz, a victim of tarring and feathering, 1918. This practice continued long after the American Revolution as a method of vigilante justice.In 1778–1779, various American campaigns against the British-allied Iroquois tribes were waged. Brutality and ruthlessness was the order of the day, with villages being burned, civilians being killed and raped, livestock being slaughtered, and crops being trampled. The devastation this caused to Indian communities resulted in thousands of Iroquois starving in the cold winters. Iroquois power and spirit was totally shattered.An Iroquois village being burned.In retaliation for many New England port towns lending heavy support to the Revolution, the British targeted Falmouth, Massachusetts (present-day Portsmouth) for destruction. They bombarded the town with incendiary cannonballs and then landed troops to set fire to surviving buildings. The entire city was in ruins by the following morning.This was meant purely to discourage other towns like Falmouth from supporting the Revolution, as the British retreated from the city the following morning without having achieved any military objective.Engraving of the burning of Falmouth, 1782.Terrorism is not a word particularly well suited for use in this time period. Certainly the people involved in these events would not conceptualize it the same way we think of modern terrorism. One can make the argument that the whole American Revolution was a terrorist movement, with the Patriots silencing the voices of the Loyalists under threat of torture and humiliation.As such, I only included events that I think fit very solidly into the definition of terrorism.

In the American Revolution, why were any Scots in America on the side of the British Crown?

First of all, it needs to be stated that Americans tend to have:A very simplistic view of the British people and their history andTend to read British history through the prism of their own history.So many Americans, when they read about the ‘British’ enemy during the American Revolutionary War, don’t think of the British in the way- well a British person would. We think of a single, unified nation of England, Scotland and Wales. Americans think ‘British’ means English.Many think the the Scots were perpetually oppressed by the ‘English’ and so they should have naturally supported the American patriot cause which was fighting for ‘freedom’ from the ‘English’.What they don’t realize is that, as Derek says ‘Scotland’ was not a single united entity at that time. The crown of Scotland and England had been united since 1603, when James VI Stuart of Scotland became King of England. In in early 18th century, the Act of Union formally united the two countries politically.The lowland, Protestant Scots had more in common with the English, in terms of language and religion, then they did with the largely Catholic Highlanders. For example, when Americans look at events like the Jacobite rebellion, they (wrongly) think of it in terms of Scottish vs English. It wasn’t: it was actually Protestant vs. Catholic.On the Protestant side, there were people from England, Wales, and lowland Scots, as well as some Dutch Allies. There were Scots in Parliament and in the British Army: today, people from across the four nations that make up the United Kingdom consider themselves ‘British’ and would naturally have fought for Britain in the Revolutionary War.

Why did the British lose the American Revolution?

Hendrik van Loon, a famous historian wrote of the constant, implacable assistants who made George Washington’s victory in the Revolutionary War possible: Captain Miles and Captain Kilometers.The UK was defeated by distance. By the time a report of something in America had happened, the British government considered it and decided what to do, gathered the necessary men and supplies, and sent them back across the Atlantic, 3 to 6 months would have passed. The British leaders never knew what was going on in America, only what had gone on several months ago. You cannot win a war when you are months behind your enemy.Ironically, the general who best understood this lesson and profited from it was this guy:Vo Nguyen Giap, the military leader of the Vietnamese People’s Republic, who reminded the American military of the lesson that Washington taught George III. The time gap was less; hours for knowledge, days for supplies and manpower, but it meant that the Americans, fighting from across an even larger ocean, were also always behind, and they also lost.