dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (01/20/86)
[] >> However at the time of the American Revolution >> such techniques had not yet been invented. >> Gandhi's successful movement to free India and Martin Luther King's >> nonviolent leadership of the American Civil Rights Movement both >> developed such techniques and showed they could be successful. >> I would argue *more* successful than armed revolution by violence. >> tim sevener whuxn!orb > Wrong! The British did not have to worry about owerwhelming >populations. There were only 4 million people in the 13 colonies at the >time of the revolution. 33% of this is 1.33 million people who actually >opposed them and those people were spread out over about a thousands miles. >The British also utilized American Indian tribes to raid and destroy >colonial settlements. > J. M. McGhee Good point. Further, while the American rebels had a lot to do with it, I believe that the British were defeated in large measure because they were fighting others besides the rebels and not just at the Colonies. They were also having troubles in Europe with France and Spain. What was called the Franco-American Alliance was formed in 1778 (I think), and Spain became an ally of France. David Olson