Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2017, 01:30 AM
 
33 posts, read 45,495 times
Reputation: 75

Advertisements

I get they were greedy and thought they could screw over the colonists and didn't want to have to do what the colonists wanted, but at the same time waging a war of any kind costs LOTS of money not to mention manpower, why didn't England just take the easy route and begrudgingly accept what the American colonists wanted? Wouldn't that have been better long term?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2017, 01:33 AM
 
Location: Rome, Georgia
2,745 posts, read 3,950,531 times
Reputation: 2056
Because of the precedent that would set in Britain's other colonies. If one could claim representation, then all could.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 04:51 AM
 
8,394 posts, read 7,357,234 times
Reputation: 8707
Bear with me, it's been a while. If you're angling for info for a high school or college paper, you'll need to double-check the following.

After winning the Seven Year's War, Great Britain had a large debt which needed to be paid off. The debt was £140,000,000, 50% of which was incurred by the war. Parliament looked for a way to raise taxation in order to pay this debt. Additionally, Parliament didn't shrink its army after the war, as that would releasing the sons of lords from their positions as officers in the army. For a good number of such officers, the military was their only occupation and their only source of income. Shrinking the army meant that the gentry would need to reabsorb their second and third sons, paying their expenses. And officers needed men to command, so the non-commissioned soldiers were also kept in service; after all, there was an empire to maintain.

Due to the situation of extensive debt to be paid down and large standing armies to be maintained, Britain needed to raise taxes. The opinion in the British Parliament people in Great Britain were already heavily taxed, but that the colonists in North America had never really been taxed. Because of an inadvertent benign negligence on the part of the British Crown, the various colonies were mostly left to fend for themselves and their colonial assemblies taxed themselves to provide for most governmental services and for raising and keeping militias to protect themselves from the Native Americans. There were occasional larger wars that had side theaters in North America, but in those cases, the colonial parliaments raised taxes on their own to help pay for the military expenses incurred in North America, after some prolonged prodding by the British Crown, of course.

The British Parliament began raising taxes on the colonials in North America. The French Canadians, newly acquired, had no issues with paying direct taxes to the Crown. Neither did the British colonies in the Caribbean, as they had always been more reliant on British military protection, being comprised of wealthy sugar plantations coveted by other European powers.

But the British colonies in North America had existed for at least a century, with their own governmental assemblies making the decisions regarding taxation. They felt that their assemblies had the exclusive power to approve or deny direct taxation upon their own people, derived from the Magna Carta. Only representatives elected by the people had the power to raise direct taxes upon those people.

The British Parliament, of course, believed that they, the Parliament in Great Britain, spoke for all of the people of the British Empire through a concept known as virtual representation, and thus had the power to enact taxes for all British subjects. Parliament didn't need to have members specifically from North America any more than they needed to have members specifically from Leeds, England. Parliament spoke for all British subjects, whether those subjects had a voice in the election of members of Parliament or not.

That's the reason - a difference in the opinion of where the power lay that allowed for the raising of direct taxes upon the populace. It snowballed from there to economic boycotts, destruction of property, suspension of colonial assemblies, military occupation, resistance by colonials, powder raids upon local citizens armories, and eventual armed conflict.

Last edited by djmilf; 11-16-2017 at 05:11 AM.. Reason: I no rite gud on furst tri.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 07:09 PM
 
2,956 posts, read 2,334,102 times
Reputation: 6475
Two excellent answers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2017, 10:47 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,157 posts, read 13,187,624 times
Reputation: 10126
Default Why did England go to war instead of just offering the representation the Americans wanted?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeana View Post
I get they were greedy and thought they could screw over the colonists and didn't want to have to do what the colonists wanted, but at the same time waging a war of any kind costs LOTS of money not to mention manpower, why didn't England just take the easy route and begrudgingly accept what the American colonists wanted? Wouldn't that have been better long term?
Because the English, or I should say Parliament was not ready to share its power. They also were not ready to establish a truly Federal nation, with equality to all "states", not only the 13 American colonies with England but Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the future Canada and eventually Australia, New Zealand and South Africa when they were ready. Not only were they not ready, in their defense they probably could not even imagine it yet in the 1700s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2017, 05:47 PM
 
482 posts, read 396,820 times
Reputation: 1217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeana View Post
I get they were greedy and thought they could screw over the colonists and didn't want to have to do what the colonists wanted, but at the same time waging a war of any kind costs LOTS of money not to mention manpower, why didn't England just take the easy route and begrudgingly accept what the American colonists wanted? Wouldn't that have been better long term?
Your question presupposes that England knew ahead of time accepting the colonists' demands would be the "easy route". As the world's greatest empire of the time, England doubtless would have been accustomed to experiencing, and putting down, rebellions. How were they to have realized the American colonies had a unique enough combination of leadership, geography and natural resources to be able to actually pull off the revolution?

In hindsight it's easy to say England blundered, but in fact the loss of the American colonies did not slow the expansion of the empire. It did not stop the empire from acquiring and/or strengthening its hold on most of its prized possession, including India and huge swaths of Africa. In fact the empire did not reach its peak in terms of territory until about 150 years after the American revolution. Additionally by the time the British empire did reach its peak, America (USA) had become such an impenetrable ally that the trade and cultural commonalities shared between the two nations were likely not much less than they would have been had the revolution never occurred.

So in layman's terms, even when England lost, they won.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2017, 08:27 PM
 
Location: A coal patch in Pennsyltucky
10,326 posts, read 10,584,256 times
Reputation: 12638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeana View Post
I get they were greedy and thought they could screw over the colonists and didn't want to have to do what the colonists wanted, but at the same time waging a war of any kind costs LOTS of money not to mention manpower, why didn't England just take the easy route and begrudgingly accept what the American colonists wanted? Wouldn't that have been better long term?
I think a better question is why did the American colonies go to war with the British who had the largest army and navy in the world? What if the British would've have taken the strategy of arresting and hanging all leaders of the revolution for treason. What if they would've have confiscated all property of anyone involved in the rebellion? Would the revolution have continued?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2017, 04:43 AM
 
Location: 912 feet above sea level
2,264 posts, read 1,475,573 times
Reputation: 12668
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1 View Post
I think a better question is why did the American colonies go to war with the British who had the largest army and navy in the world?
The British Army, when hostilities erupted, was less than 50,000 strong. In total. And it had a lot of commitments outside North America. Also, the leaders of the rebellion surely knew that wars are very rarely fought to the last, and that ultimately all they needed to do was be a sufficient hassle that the UK simply washed its hands of the mess. Which is what happened. It was probably not lost on them that they'd eventually have France in its side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1 View Post
What if the British would've have taken the strategy of arresting and hanging all leaders of the revolution for treason. What if they would've have confiscated all property of anyone involved in the rebellion? Would the revolution have continued?
The British needed the colonies to more or less run themselves. Had they cracked down too harshly, they'd have simply fortified the ranks of the rebels with those otherwise inclined to loyalty to the crown. The number of all those 'involved in the rebellion' far exceeded the maximum number of troops the British ever had in the colonies. The British could probably do basic math.

In the end, the colonists' gamble paid off - the British concluded that the benefits of preserving the colonies were not worth the various costs being expended to do so, and folded their hand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2017, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
2,838 posts, read 2,139,249 times
Reputation: 2997
What is often left out of the history textbooks is that the Patriots had no interest in gaining seats in the British Parliament. The "representation" that they wanted was that of their own colonial assemblies. If this is taken into account the whole "taxation without representation" is not really an issue that offers any room for compromise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2017, 08:17 AM
 
Location: crafton pa
977 posts, read 564,223 times
Reputation: 1224
Why did England go to war? Well, pretty much the same reason that the USSR later went to war with Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the mid 20th century. They were a superpower being confronted by a small, weak band of rebels. There was no reason to think that the mighty British Empire would have any difficulty crushing the rebels. Further, crushing the American rebellion was necessary to avoid similar future potential rebellions in other colonial possessions.


The real truth is that the British probably would have crushed the American rebellion but for one factor -- the rebels were able to gain recognition from and alliance with the main power opposing Britain at the time, namely France. While the direct military contribution of France to the Revolutionary war was questionable, it is almost certainly true that the rebellion would have failed without the French contributions in terms of finances and supply of war material. A final factor was that the involvement of France spread the war to other locations that were deemed more important to British interests than the American colonies. While the unfolding of history has shown that the reverse was true, the prevailing notions of the time were such that the Caribbean and Indian possessions were considered far more valuable than the American colonies. Essentially, once France got involved and started threatening Indian and the Caribbean, it was in England's best interest to focus the war effort on the defense of those colonies, to the obvious benefit of the American rebels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:44 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top