Did the French screw over the US?

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#1 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (7182 posts) -

Hear me out. Nearly 400 years ago, the US was a British colony. At the time, Britain was the lone super power of the world. As we all know, the war of 1776 was fought for Independence from Britain. The US won, but did so by the skin of it's teeth and only because the French attacked the British, and the British wasn't able to fight on two fronts. So they decided to give up on the fight against the US rebels. Had the French not fought the British at the time, a full power Britain would likely have very quickly ended the US uprising. Many problems in the US today may not have existed if the US remained as a British colony for another 100 years and then granted independence just like Canada was.

The constitution likely would not have been written the same way and the very foundation of modern USA would also be different. Isn't that hindsight?

Can we say this was all the Frenchies fault?

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#2 Posted by mrbojangles25 (43791 posts) -

I don't know, should we blame the Allied forces for liberating France during WWII? Nazi Germany brought a lot of order to a France that was filled with debauchery and gluttony, and if the Allied Forces hadn't intervened, France could have been....

....yeah, no.

I would rather take the US, warts and all, as it is today than any number of ways it could have been in "alternate history" timelines.

So no, the French did not screw us over, they helped make the US into the awesome collective of states it is today, and we should thank them, not blame them.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#3 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (7182 posts) -

@mrbojangles25: but if you lived in that alternative time line, maybe you wouldnt say the same thing?

Avatar image for sonicare
#4 Posted by sonicare (56652 posts) -

I think the UK was going to lose that war regardless of the french. The french joined after the US had already won at Saratoga. The war would likely have dragged on longer but it was an unwinnable war for the British.

As for your theory about the problems and why they wouldnt be if the US was a colony for another 100 years, you present no evidence to suggest it would be different.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#5 Edited by joebones5000 (2117 posts) -

It was a perfectly Winnable war for the Brits. My fellow Americans are too proud to admit it, but they never would have won the war without the French, and still the only reason we "won" is because the Brits got tired of fighting The u.s. was a penal colony and the revolutionary war was very unpopular in Brittain.

Avatar image for sonicare
#6 Edited by sonicare (56652 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:

It was a perfectly Winnable war for the Brits. My fellow Americans are too proud to admit it, but they never would have won the war without the French, and still the only reason we "won" is because the Brits got tired of fighting The u.s. was a penal colony and the revolutionary war was very unpopular in Brittain.

It was not a winnable war for the british. Militarily the british were far superior, but this was the start of guerillia warfare. The vietnamese greatly admired the american revolution and learned its lesson. How did that work out for both the french and the US? Furthermore, if the hearts and minds of your country are not behind a war, it quickly becomes unwinnable.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#7 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166358 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:

It was a perfectly Winnable war for the Brits. My fellow Americans are too proud to admit it, but they never would have won the war without the French, and still the only reason we "won" is because the Brits got tired of fighting The u.s. was a penal colony and the revolutionary war was very unpopular in Brittain.

And yet they didn't win. Something seems to wrong with your thinking. PS. Britain.

Avatar image for Damedius
#8 Posted by Damedius (551 posts) -

I blame the Russians for maintaining neutrality and not sending troops to help the British.

Obviously a devious ploy by the Russians to grab control of the US through elections over 200 years later.

Avatar image for volsung
#9 Edited by Volsung (261 posts) -

I don't see how the US was disadvantaged by being independent and advancing it's own interests as opposed to the British Empire's.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#10 Edited by joebones5000 (2117 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: the Brits lost interest in fighting a penal colony filled with what they saw as the bottom of society.

Avatar image for sonicare
#11 Posted by sonicare (56652 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:

@LJS9502_basic: the Brits lost interest in fighting a penal colony filled with what they saw as the bottom of society.

Yet they lost to that. They lost to what they thought was the bottom of society. that's quite a statement. If i was going to lose, I would like to lose to the top, not some California type of person. but somebody with worth, character, and great attributes.

The UK lost because they didnt have the heart and minds of the people they wanted to subjugate. That's a common thread in many wars. You should read up on vietnam for example.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#12 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166358 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:

@LJS9502_basic: the Brits lost interest in fighting a penal colony filled with what they saw as the bottom of society.

Not true. That land was valuable. They considered it their's. The British didn't give up easily on their territories and certainly didn't hand them over. Also only Georgia was used as dumping ground for criminals.

Avatar image for comeonman
#13 Posted by ComeOnMan (167 posts) -

@Damedius said:

I blame the Russians for maintaining neutrality and not sending troops to help the British.

Obviously a devious ploy by the Russians to grab control of the US through elections over 200 years later.

Oh My God YES !!!

I totally see it now.

It's those god damned Russians again. I hate those guys.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#14 Posted by joebones5000 (2117 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@joebones5000 said:

@LJS9502_basic: the Brits lost interest in fighting a penal colony filled with what they saw as the bottom of society.

Not true. That land was valuable. They considered it their's. The British didn't give up easily on their territories and certainly didn't hand them over. Also only Georgia was used as dumping ground for criminals.

The war was deeply unpopular and the Brits just didn't think it worth it. Sorry, but you've learned biased history in school. I can't change facts.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myths-of-the-american-revolution-10941835/

Avatar image for joebones5000
#15 Posted by joebones5000 (2117 posts) -

@sonicare said:
@joebones5000 said:

@LJS9502_basic: the Brits lost interest in fighting a penal colony filled with what they saw as the bottom of society.

Yet they lost to that. They lost to what they thought was the bottom of society. that's quite a statement. If i was going to lose, I would like to lose to the top, not some California type of person. but somebody with worth, character, and great attributes.

The UK lost because they didnt have the heart and minds of the people they wanted to subjugate. That's a common thread in many wars. You should read up on vietnam for example.

You have also learned a biased record of history. I understand the pride behind it, but the British "lost" because they chose not to continue.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#16 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166358 posts) -

@joebones5000: You do, I hope, know there were several reasons why the war was lost? If not then I suggest you revisit the subject.

Avatar image for Planeforger
#17 Posted by Planeforger (17991 posts) -

@sonicare said:

I think the UK was going to lose that war regardless of the french. The french joined after the US had already won at Saratoga. The war would likely have dragged on longer but it was an unwinnable war for the British.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the French were helping long before Saratoga (according to Wikipedia, 90% of the US weapons used at Saratoga were given to them by the French).

I mean, French philosophies, weapons, officers and training helped fuel the American War of Independence. France's involvement also tied up Britain's greatest asset (its navy), which prevented the British from properly reinforcing or redeploying their troops, and added legitimacy to the post-war negotiations.

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that most of the revolutions of that era in North, Central and South America were successful because France was at war with another major European power. France was a big deal in the late 1700s/early 1800s.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#18 Posted by joebones5000 (2117 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@joebones5000: You do, I hope, know there were several reasons why the war was lost? If not then I suggest you revisit the subject.

The brits decided that trade with the west, not ownership in its land, was most important and lost their stomach for the war.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#19 Edited by blaznwiipspman1 (7182 posts) -

@Planeforger:

Pretty much what you wrote. Without the French the Revolutionary war would have been very short. The French supplied the US with weapons, soldiers, food and a lot more. In fact, this support and the following taxation by the French monarchy to recoup costs is what led to the French revolution and the downfall of the French monarchy. Funny how things work. If the French didn't interfere, the British would have wiped out the US, and the French monarchy would have stayed intact at least a few years longer.

Avatar image for sonicare
#20 Posted by sonicare (56652 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:
@sonicare said:
@joebones5000 said:

@LJS9502_basic: the Brits lost interest in fighting a penal colony filled with what they saw as the bottom of society.

Yet they lost to that. They lost to what they thought was the bottom of society. that's quite a statement. If i was going to lose, I would like to lose to the top, not some California type of person. but somebody with worth, character, and great attributes.

The UK lost because they didnt have the heart and minds of the people they wanted to subjugate. That's a common thread in many wars. You should read up on vietnam for example.

You have also learned a biased record of history. I understand the pride behind it, but the British "lost" because they chose not to continue.

Yes, just like the US and France and even China chose not to continue in Vietnam. How Spain chose not to continue in south america.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#21 Edited by joebones5000 (2117 posts) -

@sonicare said:
@joebones5000 said:
@sonicare said:
@joebones5000 said:

@LJS9502_basic: the Brits lost interest in fighting a penal colony filled with what they saw as the bottom of society.

Yet they lost to that. They lost to what they thought was the bottom of society. that's quite a statement. If i was going to lose, I would like to lose to the top, not some California type of person. but somebody with worth, character, and great attributes.

The UK lost because they didnt have the heart and minds of the people they wanted to subjugate. That's a common thread in many wars. You should read up on vietnam for example.

You have also learned a biased record of history. I understand the pride behind it, but the British "lost" because they chose not to continue.

Yes, just like the US and France and even China chose not to continue in Vietnam. How Spain chose not to continue in south america.

The U.S. lost it's vietnam war, yes, so exactly. The u.s. lost the stomach for war and gave up.

Avatar image for sonicare
#22 Posted by sonicare (56652 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:
@sonicare said:
@joebones5000 said:
@sonicare said:
@joebones5000 said:

@LJS9502_basic: the Brits lost interest in fighting a penal colony filled with what they saw as the bottom of society.

Yet they lost to that. They lost to what they thought was the bottom of society. that's quite a statement. If i was going to lose, I would like to lose to the top, not some California type of person. but somebody with worth, character, and great attributes.

The UK lost because they didnt have the heart and minds of the people they wanted to subjugate. That's a common thread in many wars. You should read up on vietnam for example.

You have also learned a biased record of history. I understand the pride behind it, but the British "lost" because they chose not to continue.

Yes, just like the US and France and even China chose not to continue in Vietnam. How Spain chose not to continue in south america.

The U.S. lost it's vietnam war, yes, so exactly. The u.s. lost the stomach for war and gave up.

The lost their stomach because the war was unwinnable. Like all guerilla wars, you can hold the cities, but you cant hold the countryside.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#23 Posted by joebones5000 (2117 posts) -

@sonicare said:
@joebones5000 said:
@sonicare said:
@joebones5000 said:
@sonicare said:

Yet they lost to that. They lost to what they thought was the bottom of society. that's quite a statement. If i was going to lose, I would like to lose to the top, not some California type of person. but somebody with worth, character, and great attributes.

The UK lost because they didnt have the heart and minds of the people they wanted to subjugate. That's a common thread in many wars. You should read up on vietnam for example.

You have also learned a biased record of history. I understand the pride behind it, but the British "lost" because they chose not to continue.

Yes, just like the US and France and even China chose not to continue in Vietnam. How Spain chose not to continue in south america.

The U.S. lost it's vietnam war, yes, so exactly. The u.s. lost the stomach for war and gave up.

The lost their stomach because the war was unwinnable. Like all guerilla wars, you can hold the cities, but you cant hold the countryside.

Unwinnable? Where did you get that idea? Not only was it winnable, the brits almost won a number of times, with nothing but dumb luck keeping the Americans from defeat.