Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At the time, what would be in it for a Canadian colony to join the colonies in rebellion?
At the time, how could a Caribbean colony help to contribute to the colonies in a rebellion?
At the time, what would be in it for a Canadian colony to join the colonies in rebellion? At the time, how could a Caribbean colony help to contribute to the colonies in a rebellion?
The answer to both question....not much.
Yes ... and no.
Important foodstuffs, like sugar ... weren't a common world commodity in those years, but highly desired. The Caribbean islands were the biggest source in the world, and they were a big trading partner with the Colonies, especially the Southern ones, for horses and goods that they produced.
There was a lot of commerce between these two, facilitated by Dutch traders/trading ships and a host of independents who ran the blockades which at various times were Spanish, English, and French. The Dutch also had island holdings, so they were based in the area.
It was a stranglehold on the islands when they couldn't get regular shipments of goods from the Colonists. Sometimes, it was the only way that the islanders could get English goods when the French or Spanish were in control of various islands and fighting with the English ... or any combination of these conflicts that arose. Treaties were made, trade was established, wars broke out and the treaties were nullified ... meanwhile, folk in the islands had to be able to get supplies, goods ... and the ability to get their products to the markets.
In the case of Canada it's easy as it was a sparsely populated and recent conquest. The majority French in the area were content with the status quo.
In the case of the Caribbean islands, as has been pointed out, the "owners" of these islands had significant political sway giving them no impetous for revolution. Additionally if they had revolted it wouldn't have taken more than a small fleet and a regiment to retake the island. Also, while they produced large amounts of wealth in terms of sugar and rum, they were completely dependent on England for any other goods.
Also, the primary reason for the Revolutionary War was not necessarily the insignifcant taxes that Britain levied on the colonies. These were merely focal points when they happened. The real reason was the 1764 Currency Act that forbade the colonies from printing their own money and required all taxes to Britain to be paid in silver or gold. If the metals didn't exist, they could be borrowed from the banks with interest. This act wiped out half of all wealth in the colonies overnight and caused a massive depression. The first acts of "revolution" were that the colonies continued printing money and issuing letters of credit despite the Currency Act. In fact, it was the ability of the colonies to create their own credit and scrip that allowed them to finance the war with Britain.
Since the other colonies did not have their own paper money this issue had no impact on them and their wealth was retained.
It's interesting that the real primary cause of the Revolution was fighting for the ability of the colonies to create their own credit versus receiving credit from banks for usurious interest. Amazing how quickly we have abandoned that cause of revolution.
In the case of the Caribbean islands, as has been pointed out, the "owners" of these islands had significant political sway giving them no impetous for revolution. Additionally if they had revolted it wouldn't have taken more than a small fleet and a regiment to retake the island. Also, while they produced large amounts of wealth in terms of sugar and rum, they were completely dependent on England for any other goods.
(snip).
Not at all.
For example, the English sent out a big fleet (over 100 ships, IIRC) and 20,000 troops to retake several islands ... and didn't fight one battle in the area at all, didn't take any territory ... but lost a lot of men to the local diseases before returning home without having fought any battles because their generals couldn't figure out how to attack some of the well defended harbors.
The French and the Spanish repeatedly did the same thing in their respective attempts to control the area. Large fleets, many troops ... all without success. The Spanish crown regarded the area as vital to their efforts in central america, their gold/silver convoys ... and the Caribbean sea was considered by them to be their "sea".
Many of the island take-overs over the years were the result of treaties in Europe, or by small scale troop actions of opportunity by local military commanders on the scene.
In the case of Canada it's easy as it was a sparsely populated and recent conquest. The majority French in the area were content with the status quo......
Yes, after a rather lunkheaded start at administering a French Roman Catholic population, Gov. Guy Carleton was able see that the Quebec Act was passed. This act essentially restored to the French in Canada the use of many of their previous customs and laws and allowed that the practice of Catholicism would continue unhampered.
The colonists to the south were notorious for their anti-Catholicism. They shrieked bloody murder against the Quebec Act with cries of popery, etc., though it had nothing to do with their colonies, and they smeared it and Carleton in the press.
Whatever appeal separation from England might have had to the Canadian French, they were not so stupid and to believe the very same men who foamed at the mouth about popery really meant their fine words about freedom.
I think it would have been interesting to organize a global rebellion, but a bit hard to coordinate considering the means of communication they had back then.
That was my thought. Its not like they could have set up getridofkinggeorge.com. The average colonial probably had little or no knowledge of the island colonies existance.
For example, the English sent out a big fleet (over 100 ships, IIRC) and 20,000 troops to retake several islands ... and didn't fight one battle in the area at all, didn't take any territory ... but lost a lot of men to the local diseases before returning home without having fought any battles because their generals couldn't figure out how to attack some of the well defended harbors.
The French and the Spanish repeatedly did the same thing in their respective attempts to control the area. Large fleets, many troops ... all without success. The Spanish crown regarded the area as vital to their efforts in central america, their gold/silver convoys ... and the Caribbean sea was considered by them to be their "sea".
Many of the island take-overs over the years were the result of treaties in Europe, or by small scale troop actions of opportunity by local military commanders on the scene.
I'm assuming the 100 ships and 20,000 soldiers was a reference to the battle of Cartagena de Indias? That was a spectacular failure of a campaign, but was not a simple invasion by any means and was undertaken against one of the largest sets of fortifications at the time in the America's.
Overall there are plenty of islands that were conquered, re-conquered, etc. over time. Just for the British:
-Saint Kitts passed between Britain and France repeatedly since it's colonization.
-Providence Island was settled by the British and conquered by the Spanish.
-Montserrat was settled by Britain and occupied by France on two seperate occasions.
-Jamaica was actually conquered by the British from Spain.
-Dominica was captured from the French and then later occupied for 5 years by the French.
-Trinidad and Tobago were both conquered from Spain.
-St. Vincent and the Grenadines were settled by Britain, but conquered and occupied by France for 5 years.
Grenada was taken from France and then later occupied by the French.
-Saint Lucia was taken from the French, given back and then conquered again.
This is just for the British, there were numerous other changes between the French, Dutch and Spanish. Some were a result of conquest and others as a result of treaties.
Overall it was very easy to capture an island unless there was an opposing fleet nearby or the harbor was heavily fortified. Admiral deGrasse after helping the Americans at Yorktown was on his way to take Jamaica before being beaten by an English fleet. Operations in the islands were tricky do to the harsh fighting conditions and the reliance upon the navy.
Many times islands were captured at the beginning of a conflict only to be returned via treaty at the end. Many of the British islands that were conquered by France happened during the Revolutionary War and were only restored post conflict.
Campaigning in the Carribean was expensive do to the large amount of ships and men needed and the little benefit that could be derived. In the case of Spain their primary harbors were all mainland and heavily fortified where the treasure and trade fleets departed from before heading to Havana (another heavily fortified harbor) and then departing for Spain. Amphibious operations were very risky and the only other choice was to land and hack your way through the jungle where a good chunk of your men would die.
So, it would be relatively easy to retake or assert the "King's authority" over an island with a small force assuming there was no other power there to stop you. Yes, operations in the Carribean were difficult for many reasons, but I don't think the English would have had a problem stomping out insurrections on their islands if that is what it came down to.
Just as a note, my comment was specific to Carribean colonies rebelling against England and why it was a bad idea.
England is not a matriarchy. At the time of the American revolution it was King George III who ruled. He laid taxes and made laws, such as the sedition act, the stamp act, which made the colonies feel that they were being cheated their rights as English citizens.
they did but its a matter of timing. independence from england and france came gradually for those countries that were invaded.
what is sad is that here we eradicated the indians and replaced them with english and later european invaders.
as far as asking about a unified uprising internationally, they did not have our communication abilities and messages took months to get from other countries.
To answer this question you need to note that roughly 1/3 of the residents in the 13 Colonies were loyalists and worked to keep the 13 Colonies under Royal rule.
That doesn't sound right. There were very few loyalists in the largest colony of Virginia which would have meant there had to have been a number almost approaching a majority in the others. It wasn't anywhere near that.
I reaiize why you may have thought that. There were about 1/2 the number of loyalists as patriots, but the two together made up just 60% of the population. So loyalists as a percentage of the total population would have been about 20%.
Last edited by CAVA1990; 02-16-2013 at 10:06 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
