What Made the American Revolution Successful?

OP was asking why America was stable after the revolution, not why they won the war. Two related but different concepts.

Because unlike most other revolutions or independence wars, America fought a more or less conventional conflict by building a conventional army and fighting the British one, nevermind what they teach you in first grade American history.

To create such an apparatus requires a degree of wealth, organization, discipline, and commitment to the nascent state that speak well of its ability to function. Generally, states that form by doing this work better than ones that form after a more classic insurgent war, or just by a palace/capital coup.

>united
Did you know that the US entered into a bloody civil war? Fun stuff, history.

T'was simply the will of the Lord.

Yeah, like 80 years later. That's pretty good considering other revolutions.

>implying giving Napoleon the reigns wasn't logical given that every monarchy wanted to reinstitute French monarchy
>implying African states are anarchies
>implying the 13 colonies were united to any significant degree relative to any other nation

white protestant anglo-saxon

>Logical maybe, but it defeated the purpose of the revolution.

>How about, weak dictatorial states with constant insurgencies?

>They were decently United after the Constitution, and I meant in regards to limited republican government.

washington could have been our napoleaon, his soldiers wanted to make him president for life but he was like "nahh"

It came pretty close to failing. There were several small revolts during the Articles of Confederation.

Most European powers felt that the U.S. would devolve into a petty dictatorship under Washington, and Washington became a huge hero worldwide, not just in the U.S. when he resigned and went back to farming.

The U.S. stagnated for years and Washington ended up being the one pushing for a stronger Constitution, and he used that influence for the greater good.

Because the American Revolution was led by organized, educated people. Look at the shit show Libya was after the population chimped out and won. They didn't have much of a strong central leadership and things fell apart.

The US revolution had an established congress, with educated and connected people at the forefront who read political theory. The Soviets for all their later sins, were also similar in this way. Organization and centralization of power is key. Otherwise, you usurp a tyrant and you leave a vacuum for other tyrants in his place.

>There were several small revolts during the Articles of Confederation.
Those revolts were never existential though were they? Can we say "Close" to failing?

>defeated the purpose of the revolution.
First off, that's not how greentext works. Anyway, it didn't defeat the purpose of the revolution. The revolution was about the poorly the poor masses were treated relative to the aristocracy. The rich weren't taxed so all the government's financial troubles made worse by the French-Indian War fell onto the backs of those least able to bear it.

I'm not going to disagree with the other points because they aren't as wrong as the OP.

Do you have any stats on this? Because it sounds like a lot of bullshit.

It was a revolution of the aristocracy, not the people.

If the by government handled them poorly they could have escalated, Amy revolt is worrisome for a new government.

>Stats
Are you retarded?

As was already pointed out it was not really a social revolution, it was a war of independence led by very British minded colonial aristocrats, who did not want to pay taxes, but who were in all other respects very happy to be British.

As to why it was stable, it is simple, social structures remained the same as before the independence, and were never questioned, but rather defended at all points. Also, the colonies were thinly populated, you could get slaves for cheap labor, and there was plenty of land and locals to plunder for material gain.

In most places where actual social revolutions have taken place, like Britain, France, Russia, China, there were, often centuries old, resentments deeply ingrained in the local societies on all levels because this was how they were run.

This was very much not the case in the colonies, which all consisted of emigrants mostly settled in locally in small homogeneous and largely self-sufficient communities.

Because it wasnt as much of revolution ad either France or China for the most the colonial elites stayed in power. Also to compare it to the Africa revolutions is pointless those countries didn't fail because of their revolutions
This is actually pretty important George Washington not trying to take power helped stabilize the republic.
The constitution was definitely pretty much the best they could hope for at the time
Yes two generations later and it was caused by an invention that wouldn't be around till 1804

Because it was an independence war and not a revolution

American Exceptionalism.

youtube.com/watch?v=nuv0K8H8ILM

>He declined the position of king
did he actually do this? this makes no sense since it implies centralization when the states were firmly against centralization, resulting in the Articles of Confederation. Centralization was only begrudgingly accepted under the Constitution with checks and balances within federal government and the 10th amendment

Reading most of the replies ITT really make me hate America
You're so arrgoant over nothing
Your founding fathers weren't fucking gods and neither were the people fighting for them the only reason you won is because of Frace,Spain and the Netherlands
Americans need to stay away from Europe and history for reason of this

>Americans need to stay away from Europe and history for reason of this
I wish we did.

>Related concepts
I still agree with everything you said. The revolutions of the Arab Spring devolved into the "Arab Winter" because their civil movements and/or rebellions did not have effective leaders (as you said). It's so depressing to see the shit show that Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq are in. Egypt is also not doing that well. It doesn't have a full scale civil war going on but an insurgency in the Sinai and an autocratic president with too tight of a grip on his power.

Foreign interference in most of those civil wars have only exacerbated the violence. I feel that the international coalition is doing alright in Iraq, but there is still plenty of work left for them and Iraqi security forces to clear the country of ISIS. Muqtada al-Sadr has also been stirring up shit with his supporters in the Green Zone, occupying parliament. They are apparently leaving now, but they want a new cabinet. He's a Shia maniac, so hopefully they don't concede too much.

>, why did the US come out of its revolution basically intact while other countries devolve to chaos after they gain independence.
Ireland didn't
Finland didn't.
Norway didn't.

>number of the beast detected
Go away beast.

>Irish """"""""""independence""""""""""

trips confirm satan hates America

>We saved Europe guys without us the nazis would've won
Yes and it just carries on...

How do we keep retards off Veeky Forums?

The question wasn't about why we won the war.

If that had been the question, I would have answered mostly France.

>Ireland didn't

Are you fucking kidding me?

There were several times throughout the nation's early history that things could have easily devolved. Secession and splintering were very common ideas up until after the Civil War. New England threatened to secede during the War of 1812, and even actively aided the British by conducting trade with them. South Carolina threatened to secede in the 1830's during the nullification crisis. A bunch of crazy mormons tried to start their own country out west. There were times before the Civil War that states literally almost took up arms against one another. Hell, there was literally a rebellion during Washington's presidency, over taxation nonetheless.

There were several opportunities for the US to fall apart, with the biggest one most obviously being the Civil War. Union victory in the Civil War was what solidified the US from the threat of falling apart from within.

But I guess if you're speaking in more immediate terms, as in why immediately after the revolution the country didn't fall apart, I think it's because for your average person not much changed. The people leading the revolution were already prominent colonial leaders. The colonials already saw themselves as somewhat distanced from the Crown. Also, the goals of the revolutionaries really weren't that radical if you think about it. They basically wanted to continue doing things as they had always been done, but without the crown.

The american revolution was constructive. They didnt try to engineer a new society. On the other hand, the other revolutions tried to engineer a new society,using force and genocide as their driving force

...

He wouldn't have been offered the position of King, nor could have have taken it if he wanted.

But he could have tried to make himself a military dictator in one form or another, and either succeeded which would have torn the country apart, or failed, which would have done the same.

The U.S. stagnated for years after the war was over, in particular because the states were against centralization, and indeed it was Washington who used all of his moral and political influence to get the state delegates to agree to the Constitution.

And all the issues they had over a chief executive fell by the wayside when he, reluctantly, agreed to do the job, fairly reluctantly, for the first couple of terms.

Ireland has a higher standard of living than Britain now

Oh I get it now. You're a slav who thinks because Russia lost the most men, they were the real winners.

If it weren't for the United States the USSR would've been a helluva lot stronger and Germany would've been completely communist instead of half communist.

I'm unsure if the USSR would've been subjugated under communist rule but it's a possibility.

There was no conceivable way Churchill would've allowed us not to get involved in the European theatre though

Those nations did help us significantly, especially France. All of their troops and ships helped us in the later stages of the war, playing a huge part in Yorktown.
However, you are completely ignorant of the early American successes in the Revolution. Do you not realize how important winning the Battle of Saratoga was? That was the turning point that convinced France and Spain to formalize their alliance with the U.S. and send even more supplies.

t. Jealous Yuro who wishes his nation formed a republican government first

Dude calm down no one believes the founding fathers were gods but to deny that they were successful in laying the foundations for a stable republic is just being butthurt.

You guys doesn't get it
I'm not saying America didn't play a huge role in the war what I'm saying you couldn't have won if Britain and the USSR surrenderd so you didn't win the war and the USSR done most of them damage yes they were worse fighters and they would have done a lot less if not for America but you didn't invade normandy plant an american flag scream merica then arrive in Berlin ten days later
also I'm not a slav

Pretty sure no one country could've defeated Nazi Germany all by itself

Yes I was just saying if you were to use something to add up who beat the nazis the most then the ussr would won

>Butthurt satanic britbong detected
>Strawman detected

Go home britbong, and take your tea before you both go into the harbor.

>If you disagree with me you must be British
Yeah you know about strawmans don't you

Everyone interested in history nows USSR bore the brunt of.fighting in world War 2. It was lost to the public because of the cold.war.

I concur, if it weren't for the US lend-lease program the USSR wouldn't have made nearly the same impact they did against the Nazis.

You can't fool me Satan.

While I agree with what you're saying generally, the US had its growing pains. Namely Shays rebellion, the whiskey rebellion, that whole bit where it took like forty votes to pick Jefferson, Burr trying to set up his own personal fief, the north east threatening to leave during 1812, South Carolina threatening to secede, things like bloody Kansas, and of course the civil war. We had less intense backlash than the instances you mentioned, but almost eighty years of low-boiling tension before we figured it out

Siege of Gibraltar

Boo fucking hoo. Europe to this day can't figure out how to make Federalism work, so poor you, you're stuck with literally the most benign empire you could hope for. The United States can't even get most of western Europe to spend 2% of GDP on defense.

The Colonies didn't face the issue of creating a new system of governance from scratch, they had hundreds of years of governing experience already with decentralized rule.
The only issue was how do we get rid of an unnecessary power.
England as a ruling body was unnecessary for them, thus when it was removed from the equation they didn't suffer the catastrophic failure that other revolutions faced.
spot on.

If you really want to understand this you should be reading books like Why Nations Fail and Political Order And Political Decay, not asking Veeky Forums, lol

GBU 97's and over the horizon radar

wasn't a revolution

So why did the native squatocracy and mercantile capitalists supplant the London based mercantile capitalists?

The American Revolution worked because it was not a rebellion against some old guard in society like the French Revolution or any number of revolutions that followed. The American political system had been representative from the beginning. When the war started the would-be union was already administered by elected representatives who were in charge of states who already respected self determination. It wasn't much of a change of management to have these bodies report to and work with a supreme legislative body.

The French Revolution on the other hand was one pillar or segment of society rebelling against the others and the ensuing chaos and tyranny was a necessary almost, dialectic response to resistance to this new order. A similar thing happened to the Bolshevic revolution, the Red Chinese rebellion and Simon Bolivar's attempts to create a United States of South America.

The American revolution did not attempt to create a new order it merely hijacked and conglomerated an already present, functioning system of governance.

Because they were preserving what they already had... combined with some new extensions of those values. They weren't completely upsetting the social order

The American Revolution will forever be better than the French Revolution because of this, and the end result of true Republicanism.

Now come at me.

Pretty sure america owes all of its success to thr intervention of france. To be honest i wish you never won and britain was still number 1 because we were able to run the world far better than you ever could or have.

>two of the major European powers.
France
Spain
Netherlands
>two
The fuck?

>>Assmad brit
This thread isn't about why the revolution succeeded militarily, it's about why the US survived the aftermath of the revolution.

Nah. The Soviets just got lots of their own men killed and enslaved eastern europe after the war. The US military was more then capable of destroying the rest of the wehrmach without the soviets help.

>Pretty sure america owes all of its success to thr intervention of france
No, the Spanish were also involved in the Siege of Gibraltar

>France
Centralization of Paris meant that whomsoever won in Paris would be victorious in France.
>China
Sun Yat Sen was willing to work with the commies, but died too soon and fucked over the balance between the two. Japs put on enough outside pressure on the Nationalists which allowed the Commies to sit back and chiang kai-shek mismanaged the whole thing
>Every African Nation
No matter how you feel about colonization, independence came too rapid and didn't involve a drastic change of regime for most countries (and those that did have said change were either assassinated, or were just as corrupt as the former). That, and still being economically dependend on the mother country doesn't help at all (looking at you France).

>tfw aiding the americans led to the fourth anglo-dutch war
>tfw americans still forget about the netherlands
feelsbad
t. dutch

The aftermath of the American Revolution wasn't successful, OP.

The Articles of Confederation were a disaster and they hit the reset button with the Constitution.