[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

One person's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Fixed that for you.

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Many would disagree. Most historians say that was a stalemate.

But that's another conversation for another day, because you have to define what were the war objectives of each side.

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

The Articles of Confederation went into effect in 1777, years before the end of the war and GW's pre-emptive abdication. It's not like the country said, "Shoot, GW doesn't want to be king, so we'll have to come up with some other system." There was already a federal democracy in place at that point, as well as in each state's legislature. Yes, GW might have been able to drum up support for an American monarchy if he'd wanted to, but he would have had a real fight against practically every other national leader. For most of the war, American soldiers were fighting on behalf of what was already a democracy, against a monarch.

This is a sleeper. What is this historical discussion/debated rooted in?