History Revisited #003: Americans did not decisvely win the American Revolution

Thank you for your response. I assure Pro there is no confusion or miscommunication. I understand their position that the Revolution ended in a draw rather than an American victory. As such I regret that Pro believes exploring the goals of each side is irrelevant, because we cannot evaluate if someone won a war unless we understand what they were trying to win. I appreciate Pro offering their definitions, yet I maintain mine are more accurate and useful. Defining Victory as simply defeating an opponent is too simplistic because we must then decide what qualifies as “defeating.” This is why I specified one side wins if they achieve their wartime goals while their opponent does not, thus mandating our exploration of wartime goals. Defining Decisive as “serving to put an end to all debate or questioning” is unhelpful in the context of war because we are discussing fighting, not questioning. This is why I defined Decisive according to military doctrine. I too offered the dictionary definition for Draw, so we are in agreement there. However, I am not attempting a semantics argument, so I will move on. I will issue my rebuttals to each of Pro’s points in order. 1. Americans didn't win majority of the major battles. Nor did the Americans win any battle that determined absolute victory. Percentage of battles won does not guarantee victory. For example, Hannibal won every major battle during his Italian Campaign against the Romans, only to find himself surrendering to them after his first defeat at the Battle of Zama [1]. Similarly, NATO forces militarily won almost every battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet still failed to achieve clear victory in either country. Pro also argues Yorktown was not decisive because the war continued until 1783. This is a poor measure of decisiveness. The battles of Vicksburg and Gettysburg are widely considered decisive in the American Civil War even though the war continued for two more years. Stalingrad is considered one of the decisive turning points of WWII, yet the war didn’t end until 1945. As a final proof, my opponent’s own source calls Yorktown “a decisive victory” for the Americans (http://www.theamericanrevolution.org...). 2. The American strategy was based on attrition and surprise not direct battle with the British army. Pro suggests a win only counts if you fight conventionally. This claim defines victory in terms of tactics rather than results, which is counterintuitive. Even so, the idea that the Americans waged a purely guerrilla war is a Hollywood myth. The Americans fought numerous direct, European style battles against the British such as Brandywine, Camden, Cowpens, and Guilford Courthouse, to name a few [2]. It is also wildly false that the Continental Army had no regulars. The Continental Congress established “The American Continental Army” on June 14th 1775 (the date is still celebrated today as the official birthday of the U.S. Army) [3]. These “Continentals” were full time soldiers who drew monthly wages (forty shillings a month for a 3-year enlistment in 1776) and wore uniforms [4]. Although they never approached the professionalism of the British regulars, they were regular troops nonetheless. 3. Guy Carleton in New York. The British could continued to wage war if they wanted to. This point basically proves nothing. Yes, the British could have continued fighting if they wanted to, but they did not want to. They decided to withdraw their forces and recognize American independence. They accepted defeat. 4. The British could reinforced their armies or invaded from the sea . . . The British decided to not reinforce their forces in North America. Once again, this proves nothing. Pro is exactly right by saying the British decided not to reinforce their efforts in North America. Rather, they withdrew their army and sought to negotiate. This is known as "Suing for Peace" which is typically considered a synonym for admitting defeat. 5. It was a draw not a win . . . the Treaty of Paris was a draw. This is completely incorrect. The Treaty of Paris explicitly states King George III recognized America as sovereign and independent, and that he would immediately “withdraw all his Armies, Garrisons & Fleets from the said United States [5].” How can such an agreement be considered a draw? If you grant your enemy’s demands, give them your territory, and withdraw your armies, you have admitted defeat. Finally, pro is presenting a false dilemma by saying unless a war ends in unconditional surrender, it was a draw. This is not only extreme but historically inaccurate. The Americans wanted independence, sovereignty, and the withdrawal of the British Army from the colonies. The British agreed to do all these things in the Treaty of Paris. The King even granted Americans fishing rights in British waters! [6] What other conditions would the Americans possibly have demanded? They got everything they wanted and more from the war. Once again, I contend that if your enemy gives into your demands, gives you their territory, and withdraws their army (as the British did), then that is not a draw, that is victory. I look forward to Pro’s response in the final round. [1] http://www.hnn.us... [2] Stephenson, Michael. Patriot Battles: How the War of Independence was Fought. (Harper Collins, 2007) [3] Ferling, John. Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence (Oxford, 2007) 39. [4] Stephenson, Michael. Patriot Battles: How the War of Independence was Fought. (Harper Collins, 2007) [5] http://www.ourdocuments.gov... [6] Ibid.