Brain Dead Nikki Haley - Doesn't know history for shit but wants to be Prez
(media.patriots.win)
Comments (9)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Joepedo has proven there is nothing you need to know to be (acting) president.
You don't even have to be alive! said Joe
No one cares what this lady has to say or anyone on twotter for that matter. Stop giving her any attention.
Way i heard it was that after a season of guerilla fighting Washington pushed Cornwallis against the sea at the time the French Navy arrived. Not to diminish in any way Washington's contribution but all great movements require the consensus of many people
Sortof -- yes there was what we would call guerilla fighting during the several years of fighting during the American Revolution. But for every King's Mountain and Francis Marion scrap, there was a set-piece battle between uniformed combatants using rules and tactics of the day (Monmouth, Saratoga, the Cowpens, etc etc).
Cornwallis had set up shop in Yorktown. Washington gathered his forces and marched them hard to block Cornwallis in on the peninsula, as you said. But Cornwallis was not initially worried -- he had sent to New York and massive reinforcements were on the way. They were already at sea. Washington would be crushed; Cornwallis settled in to his commandeered digs in Yorktown to await Washington's inevitable defeat.
But as you note, the French admiral Comte de Grasse intercepted the reinforcement fleet and forced it turn back at the Battle of the Virginia Capes. At which point it was all over for Cornwallis and for the British themselves. This was in 1781.
To your point about consensus, some people claim that de Grasse would not have been able to send so many warships, had not the Spanish agreed to protect their bases and trade routes from the British. French soldiers were also instrumental throughout the Revolution but especially so at Yorktown.
But to offer a counter to your point, without the contributions of a few strong-willed individuals, the American Revolution would not have been successful. Chief among these would have to be Washington himself, who largely by sheer force of will kept the Continental Army from collapse after the disastrous retreat from New York and devised the attack on the Hessians at Trenton, which galvanized support for the Revolution. This was in 1776.
Remember, the French had been fighting the British for years. In America and around the world. But it was Washington who orchestrated the final defeat of the British during the Revolution.
Could Washington have won without the French? Unlikely. Possible, but unlikely.
Could the French have won without Washington? No.
Could any other American revolutionary leader won without Washington? No.
Washington's contribution, truly, cannot be overstated. Without him, it just wasn't happening.
If you are interested, reading about the impact a few key individuals had on Washington himself is very helpful. Especially Lafayette.
Well said.
Thanks! Now that I think about it, while it is true that certain things would not have happened without the spark of a key leader, you are also correct in that the leaders by themselves might not ever be successful.
Had Washington been born in Germany, for example, what would have become of him or his country? How would his life have been different, growing up in German society of the time, instead of colonial America?
Had Trump been born fifty years earlier, how would he have turned out?
Where would the world be, if Churchill had been born in the US?
Just musing here -- your point of consensus, and my point of a strong leader, are certainly both valid, but does there need to be some other sort of X Factor? Being in the right place at the right time?
Anyways, sorry to ramble. You definitely got me to think, though, so thank you for that! :-)
Uh, no. You left out a whole bunch of most worthy people who did all that stuff.
Yea go fuck yourself and the RINO you rode in on Nikki, nobody gives a shit.