2007-03-04 07:05:07 · 7 answers · asked by miss d 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Actually both.
We were revolting and fighting for our independence.
2007-03-04 07:12:14 · answer #1 · answered by Barry 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was really a war for independence, IMHO, but it had some revolutionary elements. For example, the fact that the newly formed country was set up to have a (somewhat) representative government with no monarchy was revolutionary for the 18th century.
The U.S. government was state-of-the-art, back in the 1700s. Democracy 1.0.
2007-03-04 15:11:55 · answer #2 · answered by catrionn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both. We were revolting against the high taxes, taxation without representation, then we officially declared the war for independence which won only after it was granted to us by the King of England.
2007-03-04 15:22:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both if you are looking at it from a Brits point. We started as British colonies. We revolted against the King for our independence.
2007-03-04 15:18:52 · answer #4 · answered by Mother 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I consider it both. no?
I wonder what would have happened if we hadn't fought the war. We probably wouldn't have gone sea to shining sea, but we probably have gained independence eventually like Canada and Australia did. (hopefully not like India did)
2007-03-04 15:11:28 · answer #5 · answered by J G 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Either one or both. We Americans use those term interchangeably.
2007-03-04 15:09:16 · answer #6 · answered by Sarah 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Um, same thing. Patatoe Patato
2007-03-04 15:08:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋