I obviously can't answer from a British perspective, but I would dispute the idea that the American Revolution was in any way shape pr form a 1st Civil War. From all that I have read I would have to agree that some 1/3 of the population could be counted as loyalist, that support did not manifest itself into very much support, as indicated by the amount of loyalist militia that was mustered compared to colonial militia.
The start of the revolution was masterfully manipulated by the Colonists, and badly botched by the Crown, and the net result was to insure that the war started with a significant majority of popular support, which waned slightly in the first year, and then swung up again after Saratoga and never again approached anything remotely like parity in terms of for and against.
As some others have mentioned about French intervention, I have viewed it as a death blow to British hopes of a victory. Without French intervention the British had slim hopes, with intervention they had none.
As for the assertion that the British Empire was better off in the long run, I guess from some weird perspective that could be true, at least for a century and a half maybe, but given the relative positions of the two nations in todays world I don't think it would stand up to scrutiny.
Paul
There is a pretty good documentary series in progress on the History Channel at the moment called the Revolution that provides a good overview the causes and the engagements of the American Revolution. The latest episode involved the Battle of Saratoga and the beginning of direct French involvement. It will be interesting to see thier take on the impact of the French on the war.
I would say that French involvement contributed greatly to the final outcome of the Revolution as it actually happened, but that it is unlikely that, if the French had not gotten involved (at least directly) that there was no way the England could have won in such a manner that the everything would go back to the way it was before 1775.
Regarding whether the war could be considered a Civil War or not, depends on what you mean, I guess. I do not think it could any way be considered the first American civil war. Except maybe in the South, there was just not that much fighting between Colonials and other Colonials. Sure there were plenty of loyalists that assisted the British and even eventually left the Colonies in the end, but loyalist factions in the northern cities at least were pretty passive. They didn't flock to the British banner, at least not in anything like the numbers that the Patriots did.
One thing you also have to remember is that I think there was a gradual transition of the majority of people towards the Patriot cause as the war when along. Crown loyalists were probably leaving in some numbers, and I think the fence sitters of 1774-5 tended to end up in the Patriot camp over time. Hell, when the Revolution began in 1775, even a lot of the Patriots were not really contemplating total independence from England. But I think as shots were fired and the casualties rose on both sides, independence became more of natural goal for the Patriots culminating in the Declaration in 1776.
Now on the other hand, the American Revolution could easily be considered an English Civil War, in the sense that you had English citizens on both sides of the conflict.
Yes, in a nutshell the one great opportunity that I believe the English had was on Long Island. If Washington's army had not been allowed to escape after Brooklyn heights the revolution would have probably foundered.
After that was when Washington figured out he didn't need to win (on the strategic level) he merely needed to survive, and win enough at the tactical level to keep morale and therefore enlistments, up.
The victory at Saratoga, and the resulting recognition by France accelerated the British defeat, but even without that, I think the only change is a lengthening of the war. The English lacked the manpower to secure all 13 colonies, so as long as colonial resolve holds out, they win.
Paul
Understood Geordie. Can't speak for others, but I'm pretty well acquainted with the OOB of the "English" during the Revolution, and in fact, there were as many, if not more, non-English troops engaged than English. Hell, even the "Crown" itself wasn't a bloody Englishman, :rolleyes:
Certainly right, Geordie. I think many Americans (myself included) are a little lazy about distinguishing the difference between the British and the English, and many incorrectly use them fairly interchangeably when discussing English, Welsh, and Scottish people.
Hell, too many Americans are lucky enough to pick out there own state on a map, let alone recognize that other countries might have separate sub-nationalities (if that is a word) within them.:rolleyes: