Lets have a discussion about the American Revolution, there are a lot of myths about it and we should clear them up. I'm no expert but it seems most people think that it was a popular revolution when it wasn't. They also think that the revolution just happened one day to and it didn't, it took decades. It began around 1763, some believe it began earlier and the war didn't end until 1783. I'll get it started and hopefully others will keep it going.

The Stamp act that led to open hostility against the British was passed in 1765. Some of that hostility was

On August 26 1765, MacIntosh led an attack on Hutchinson's mansion. The mob evicted the family, destroyed the furniture, tore down the interior walls, emptied the wine cellar, scattered Hutchinson's collection of Massachusetts historical papers, and pulled down the building's cupola. Hutchinson, who had been in public office for three decades estimated his loss at £2,218 (in today's money, at nearly $250,000). Nash concludes that this attack was more than just a reaction to the Stamp Act:

The street demonstrations originated from the leadership of respectable public leaders such as James Otis who commanded the Boston Gazette and Samuel Adams of the "Loyal Nine" of the Boston Caucus, an organization of Boston merchants. They made efforts to control the people below them on the economic and social scale, but they were often unsuccessful in maintaining a delicate balance between mass demonstrations and riots. These men needed the support of the working class, but also had to establish the legitimacy of their actions to have their protests to England taken seriously. At the time of these protests the Loyal Nine was more of a social club with political interests, but by December 1765 it began issuing statements as the Sons of Liberty.

on August 27, a crowd built a gallows near the Town House where they carried effigies of three officials appointed as stamp distributors: Augustus Johnson, Dr. Thomas Moffat, and lawyer Martin Howard. The crowd was at first led by three merchants, William Ellery, Samuel Vernon, and Robert Crook, but they soon lost control. That night the crowd, led by a poor man, John Weber, attacked the houses of Moffat and Howard, where they destroyed walls, fences, art, furniture and wine. When Weber was arrested, the local Sons of Liberty, publicly opposed to violence, refused at first to support him. They were persuaded to come to his assistance when retaliation was threatened against their own homes. Weber was released and faded into obscurity.

October 24. Placards appeared throughout the city, warning that "the first man that either distributes or makes use of stamped paper let him take care of his house, person, and effects." New York merchants met on October 31 and agreed not to sell any English goods until the Act was repealed. Crowds, uncontrolled by the local leaders, took to the streets for four days of demonstrations, culminating in an attack by two thousand people on Governor Cadwallader Colden's home and the burning of two sleighs and a coach. Unrest in New York City continued through the end of the year, and the local Sons of Liberty had difficulty in controlling crowd actions.

And to the people who make fun of militias appointing themselves rank they never earned, Washington never gained a commission in the British army. From his observations, readings and conversations with professional officers, he learned the basics of battlefield tactics, as well as a good understanding of problems of organization and logistics. Don't discount people just because they never held an officers rank. Most militias if not all are led by idiots but that's not to say a person in the future couldn't lead without ever being in command before.

You're suggesting Fatty Mc Fatterson is at the level of G Washington?

Not at all, just saying don't discount people just because they were never this, that or the other thing. Can you imagine where we would be now if our forefathers discounted Washington because he was never commissioned into the British army?

Well, I guess that's a pretty safe position.

George Washington was a terrible general. Tactically speaking anyway. He was constantly out maneuvered by the English. He was captured during the French and Indian Wars. Was a senior aide in the Braddock disaster. Was constantly in retreat until he had strung out the English and pulled them away from their naval help. This wasnt some grand strategy, he was backing up trying to save his life. The crossing the Delaware thing was only because his conscripts were going to be going back to their farms in a few days and if he didnt use 'em he was going to lose 'em. Tried to quit but Adams wouldnt let him. To his credit, he was fighting the greatest military in the world at that time with a bunch of farmers and the like. Their side held all the cards.

Washington held a commission, a colonelcy, I believe, in the Virginia Militia.  He had military instruction and experience in the field during the Seven Years' War.   The militias were not privately organized like what you see in the "militia movement;" even the most poorly maintained were more than just armed rabble.  The militias were organized by the colonies and at times at the local level as well (local militias being an English tradition); they served government in some form.  They were not independent.  They did train, drill, etc. to varying degrees (depending on the militia; quality seemed to vary considerably, from decent to piss-poor; enough were bad enough that Washington after the war wanted a proper militia system based on the model used by the Swiss Canton of Bern, but Congress rejected his proposal).

There seem to be many myths surrounding our War of Independence (a more appropriate name than revolution, given how the word changed with the French Revolution).  Many people falsely believe it was a war against monarchy, which it was not (some Founders were even monarchists and many tried to the last minute to get the King to intervene on the behalf of the colonies); it was a war against the government in London, including Parliament (especially Parliament) and a specific king (King George III) in order to secure secession from the Britain (which was the only viable option; overthrowing the government and replacing it like in 1688 was in no way feasible; that would require sufficient support in metropolitan Britain for the cause, which was clearly absent).

Many people think that the war brought about revolutionary or egalitarian ideals and that these served as a basis for the cause, when in fact the traditional rights of Englishmen and their preservation were what the Founders desired, to include local rights and rule of law (respecting of colonial charters, which established colonial legislatures as the legitimate lawmaking bodies).  Many think that Enlightenment principles dominated, when they did not.  Only some of the more radical Founders embraced the Enlightenment (and those men initially supported the French Revolution while many of the rest rejected it).  It ought to be noted that the embodiment of Enlightenment principles in the Declaration of Independence was in large part meant to garner French support for the cause, given that such thought was highly popular there among those who mattered in government and such; such parts of the DoI contrast sharply with the argument made for the colonial cause in the years leading up to the beginning of hostilities.

Many people think that what was done, including the eventual adoption of the Constitution, was something that had never been done before.  In fact, the war and the constitution both had precedent in the West.  The Glorious Revolution and the Dutch rebellion and secession from Spain are examples of the former, and in the case of the latter, much was drawn from existing political theory and existing or past forms of government.  Much was drawn out of our English past including the retention of the Common Law.

And there are even more myths surrounding the war and our Founding commonly accepted by Americans.  Heck, some Americans even believe a democracy was established and that democratic principles prevailed, when the bulk of the Founders hated or abhorred democracy.