[scrabblehack]

So Lexington, Concord, etc. (April 1775) weren’t the real beginning?

[gattaca]

“Common Sense” influences more people to support breaking away from England.

[ctdonath2]

Lexington/concord sparked the beginning of outright war (gun controllers take note).
KG3’s speech just upped the rhetoric.

[Vermont Lt]

I guess it depends on what side you are on.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

Pinning down when most wars begin and end can be ambiguous. The issues that led to the American revolution date back to the Sugar Act in 1764. From that point forward the Sons of Liberty and others formed what today would have been called a national front and there was a continuous escalation toward armed conflict. The first bloodshed came in 1770 at t he Boston massacre. April 19 1775 marks the beginning of armed rebellion.

Likewise, the surrender of Cornwallis in October 1781 didn't mark the end of the war. There were still British troops in the colonies and the last of them didn't leave until the evacuation of New York November 1783.

By 1778 the "American Revolution" had been subsumed in the general conflict between Britain and France which didn't end until after the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, over 40 years later. The British evacuation of New York didn't mark the end of the global war between Britain and France anymore that the US evacuation of Saigon in 1975 marked marked the end of the cold war.

[teeman8r]

Concord and Lexington showed it was not going to be easy.

[hanamizu]

In my view, Lexington/Concord was the point of no return (in spite of the Olive Branch Petition). His Majesty’s troops’ blood had been shed at the hands of his Majesty’s subjects in his Majesty’s colony—a colony already under punishment for the Boston Tea Party. From the King’s point of view, this was intolerable and there had to be a strong response.