onetwothree

Hello,
Can anyone explain why the Revolutionary War was also a civil war within the colonies?
Thank you.

NewModelSoldier

Well, very very loosely, the more Southern states of the Thirteen Colonies tended towards being Loyalists, and around the New England area, with the agitation by groups like Sons of Liberty and radical libertarian speakers, the area became a hotbed of revolutionary sentiment and activity.

At the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, the South remained generally loyal, but after upsetting the populations with heavy handed suspicion etc., it leaned towards the Patriot cause.

There are quite a few reasons and theories as to why the New Englanders tended towards revolution and the Southern states towards loyalty, one of them based on the original founding colonies. The southern states began with Jamestown, a town that was founded by a Royal charter to find New World goods. Conversely, the founding population of the North were generally Puritans, people kicked out/fleeing England and so not particularly fond of the Crown. Such views can be fostered over generations.

But to be fair, these are generalizations, there were quite a few in New England who were Loyalists (who generally ended up being tarred and feathered) and I'm sure there were some in the South. Because of the radical dichotomy of the ideas of Loyalists and Patriots, it was inevitable that when war broke out, further violence would erupt between the two.

onetwothree

can you explain a little more????
It does'nt make much sense to me...
Thank you!!!

Patito de Hule

A civil war is defined as a war between factions in the same country.

See Federalist #10 for an understanding of the contemporary notion of "factions."

pikeshot1600

Almost all revolutions are also civil wars. NMS and Patito have stated the case for resident "patriots" and resident "loyalists" taking opposing sides and being involved in the war. The British enlisted regiments of Loyalists, and some were taken onto the establishment of the regular army.

In a broader sense, Colonials, in most cases, and up until 1775 anyway, thought of themselves as Englishmen. In that regard, the war was a civil conflict that saw British (England's) soldiers fighting against other Englishmen who lived in another location.

Toltec

Or failed revolutions are 'civil wars'.

Billy Shears

Pretty much with what everyone else said, the colonists in the Americas still felt like they were under the British crown, so they were fighting their cousins from the homeland.

Also, within the colonists we saw different opposing factions. Loyalists/Patriots were the only case of two fighting each other, but Radicals and Conservatives greatly differed in their view for how they wanted the new nation to be.

Edratman

The differentiation between the the terms Civil War and Revolution are not clear cut. The definition I think makes the most sense is that a revolution is a war between two different classes for rule and a civil war is a war between two different factions of the same class for power.

Both involve a change in the ruler for either some or all of the people.

Thus the American revolution was a revolution because one side was the hereditary British monarchy and the other side was North American residents espousing an elected commander in chief.

The Russian revolution was a revolution because it was between supporters of the Romanovs and those who supported throwing the Romanovs out with rulers that were not nobles.

The English Civil was conducted between supporters of two different noble claiments to the throne.

That represents the techical definitions.

In real life, no matter how oppressive the regime, no matter how onerous the taxes are and the burden on the populace, there are many supporters of the party in power. Some support the party in power because they directly benefit from that relationship. Others becuase they are afraid of change, others for a myriad of reasons.

So to pull numbers out of my a**, I would guess that 25% of the people would always support the reigning power, 25% would be willing to make sacrifices to effect change and the remaining 50% would swing daily, weekly, or monthy depending upon who won the last battle, who was winning the war at the moment, who got paid off lately and a thousand other factors.

Thus, in either a civil war or a revolution, neighbors, friends and or relatives may find themselves on opposite sides of the battle lines. But the bottom line was that the American Revolution was predicated on changing the nature of the ruling class and thus could not be considered a civil war.

Oolish

I think this question has been answered.

pikeshot1600

I disagree strenuously. The war was a civil war among Englishmen to validate what had been the political reality for 150 years - that American colonists ruled themselves; had the ability and right to do so, and, if not acknowledged the rights of Englishmen, had the right to establish those on their own account, free from Royal interference.

American society was no more revolutionary after the war than before it.