Southern Baptist Rick Scarborough, head of Vision America, Vision America Action and the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration (restoration=destruction), the same Rick Scarborough who said, “I’m not a Democrat, I’m not a Republican. I’m a Christocrat. My allegiance is to Jesus Christ,” says that any objective reading of American history shows that God won the American revolution for the colonists.
I will draw the logical conclusion from this: that Rick Scarborough has not actually read anything about the American Revolution.
I do know that even those who are not passionate about Christ are passionate their understanding that God gave us this country. Anyone who studies this history closely and fairly, without bias, has to come to this conclusion that the only way a country like the colonies of America can defeat the strongest military power on the face of the earth was by God’s intervention.
Never mind that nobody reported even once instance of angels appearing on the side of the Americans and tipping the battle in their favor. Cannonballs, bullets, blood and sheer ferocity did.
Let’s look at the American Revolution for a moment. Certainly the colonies were at a disadvantage militarily. Namely, they had no military. The British Empire was arguably the most powerful Empire on earth at the time the first shots were fired at Lexington and Concord. Certainly, most people expected the colonies to be quickly rolled over by a red tide of British regulars. But it’s not as simple as that.
As historian Michael Stephenson writes in Patriot Battles: How the War of Independence Was Fought (2007),
For the British army in America there was a massive logistical burden that constricted its strategic options. Unable to secure sufficient supplies locally (because of either scarcity or the relatively efficient denial of access by the patriots) it was dependent on the United Kingdom for almost all of its food, equipment, clothing, and reinforcements. Foraging, nonetheless, was a constant and pressing necessity. For example, each of the draft horses on which the army depended for transportation needed twenty pounds of hay and nine of oats each day, and the bulkiness of forage made it prohibitively expensive to ship transatlantically.
He cites R. Arthur Bowles’ study Logistics and the Failure of the British Army in America, 1775-1783 (1975):
The army “was a ship; where it moved in power it commanded, but around it was the hostile sea, parting in front but closing in behind, and always probing for signs of weakness. Whereas a defeated American army could melt back into the countryside from whence it came, a British force so circumscribed wasw likely to be totally lost. Its only hope was to fall back on a fortified port”
“A description,” writes Stephenson, “that could just as well have been applied to American troops in Vietnam and Iraq.”
Yes, the British army outnumbered the American but as Stephenson points out, “numbers alone could not solve the problem” and here he cites a contemporary observer, Charles Gravier, comte de Vergennes, the French Foreign Minister, who said, “It will be in vain for the English to multiply their forces there, no longer can they bring that vast continent back to dependence by force of arms.”
And Britain was a world power. It had commitments outside of America, especially once the French entered the war and made the Caribbean a theater of war, drawing away precious troops and forcing the evacuation of Philadelphia.
The loyalist press saw matters clearly, correctly pointing out that “a check is a defeat, and defeat is ruin. It is a war of absurdity and madness.”
And though the British had a bigger empire and a professional army and a huge fleet they didn’t have a technological edge over the colonists. The Americans and the British fought the war with the same weapons. The British defeat 1775-1783 can be laid to many perfectly mundane causes:
- British incompetence and timidity (Bunker Hill, the bungled New York campaign and pursuit across New Jersey that resulted in Trenton, the Saratoga campaign all come to mind);
- American competence (Trenton and Cowpens stand out);
- lack of a workable British command structure;
- lack of coordination between British naval and ground forces;
- disease and desertion;
- an inability to find a workable strategy against asymmetrical warfare in the American south;
- French intervention; and,
- lack of support for and by American loyalists, etc.
There is no need for and no evidence of divine intervention. Scarborough seems completely unaware of any facts at all relating to the American Revolution. In this he is like the Republican constitutional “experts” who have apparently never read the Constitution.
All the dead patriots, all the dead loyalists, British, Germans, Native Americans…all reduced to an act of God. Scarborough cheapens the suffering, the privation and the achievement of the Founding Fathers and of the men and women who endured the long war that brought American her independence.
But then, Scarborough admits his guilt: he is not a Patriot after all, he is a Christocrat.