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.
1) American revolutionaries used unethical means to achieve their goals too (tarring/feathering tax collectors, pushing false info and sensationalist propaganda as news).
2) Americans which wanted independence from Britain were a vocal and militant minority; the majority were loyal to Britain.
3) Americans were hypocritical in that they wanted Britain's military aid to fight wars and clear out the Indians, but then when it's time to pay the tax bill, they didn't want to the pay the taxes for it.
4) Britain ended slavery decades earlier than the Americans did. American independence may have slowed down emancipation.
1) By that 'logic' - <ahem> - there were no good guys in World War II, as all combatants engaged in war crimes far and away worse than tarring and feathering and propagandizing. Which, of course, is nonsense.
2) Historians - American and otherwise - estimate that loyalists constituted at most about 20% of the colonists, with about twice that number supporting those in rebellion; the remainder just kept their heads down. I am unaware of any historian holding that more than 1/3rd of those were loyal to the crown (and that estimation has long fallen out of favor), much less the majority you claim.
3) It was the crown's responsibility to provide for defense, that of course being a basic function of government. And the French and Indian Wars were ones primarily of conquest - Britain taking New France - and not of defense.
4) Colliery slavery continued legally in Scotland until 1799. And it persisted on a de facto basis until around 1800 in Britain itself. 1807 saw the slave trade officially abolished, but slavery continued in the Empire until 1833 (and in parts of it beyond). So you're claiming that it was hypocritical for, say, a Pennsylvanian - living where slavery would be abolished in 1780 - to rebel against the crown because slavery would eventually be stamped out in the Empire while it still existed in, say, South Carolina? That makes absolutely zero sense.
Now, personally I don't look at the American War of Independence as good guys versus bad guys but rather as competing interests. That said, the colonists weren't wrong in their general goal of self-determination. True, the United States had a long way to go at the time in terms of democratic principles. But then, so did Britain.
I think people tend to forget who the British sent to America. Sure, there were some aristocrats sent to be Govenor's and other officials, but the working-class people who were sent here, were people that the British didn't want. My family came to America in the early 1700's from Scotland. They lived in the Scottish Marches and were literally rounded up and put on ships to the New World because they weren't friendly to the Crown. I'm sure that my ancestors wouldn't have had a problem picking up a rifle and fighting the British. I wish they would have kept first-hand accounts, but most of my family from that time was illiterate and spent their lives working in agriculture/manual labor.
There was also a large criminal element that fled Britain to the New World to escape prosecution. These individuals would've been very vocal in their disdain of the British. Even the British themselves, prior to the revolution, looked down on those born in America and didn't really consider them "true" British Subjects.
But these weren't the people leading the Revolution. The Revolution was mainly led by the elite. Look at the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Almost all were wealthy landowners.
The people you describe are the ones who were convinced to go along with the Revolution and serve in the Continental Army or the state militias.
1) American revolutionaries used unethical means to achieve their goals too (tarring/feathering tax collectors, pushing false info and sensationalist propaganda as news).
2) Americans which wanted independence from Britain were a vocal and militant minority; the majority were loyal to Britain.
3) Americans were hypocritical in that they wanted Britain's military aid to fight wars and clear out the Indians, but then when it's time to pay the tax bill, they didn't want to the pay the taxes for it.
4) Britain ended slavery decades earlier than the Americans did. American independence may have slowed down emancipation.
The British treasury was broke after the French Indian war ended. So was the French treasury and that plus other factors led to the fall of King Louie the Sixteenth
The only time I "hear" (actually, where I read) that the Americans wanted representation in the British parliament is from...the British. And I read about it during the Carlisle Peace Commission offer in 1778 and on this forum from various posters whom I am led to believe are British.
I have yet to read any account wherein British colonists in North America asked for such representation in a far-away legislative body.
Prior to the American Revolution, the British colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America had their own legislative assemblies. Said assemblies, working with Royal governors, provided local rule and local control of direct taxation.
The British Parliament, exercising an assumed power to levy direct taxes upon distant colonies, upset the status quo that had been in place for over a century, which resulted in escalating actions on both sides, and led to resistance, rebellion, revolution, and independence.
That is a good point. There seems to be alot of talk but not much action on both sides of the Atlantic.
However, there were some proposals to keep the Empire together, at least as far back as French and Indian War. Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania for instance had a proposal (I believe fellow Pennsylvania Benjamin Franklin had as well).
"Galloway suggested the creation of an American colonial parliament to act together with the Parliament of Great Britain. The Grand Council would have to give formal consent to the latter's decisions, particularly on trade and taxation, thus giving it a veto.[1]
The Colonial Parliament would consist of a President-General appointed by the Crown and delegates appointed by the colonial assemblies for three-year terms.[2] The plan would have kept the British Empire together and allowed the colonies to have some say over their own affairs, including the inflammatory issue of taxation."[3]
I've read quite a few books on the American Revolution including authors such as Joseph Ellis and Gordon Wood. I still have questions about why the Revolution occurred. I think if the British government would've given the colonies representation in Parliament, the revolution would not have occurred.
Gordon S Wood is part of the Neo-Whigism school of history concerning the American Revolution. I've been presenting their theory that British colonials prior to the American Revolution believed that they had their own governments separate from the British Parliament, but their loyalties remained with the sovereignty of the British Crown and the position of the British government as the mother of parliaments in the Empire. This all changed when the British Parliament, led by prime minister Lord North, sought to pay down the Empire's war debt by raising direct taxes on the colonies. This caused a chain reaction wherein the colonists went from objections to resistance, from resistance to rebellion, and from rebellion to revolution.
Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution and Gordon Wood's later-published The Radicalism of the American Revolution establish and expand upon the concept.
Quote:
I have seen estimates of what percent of the colonists supported the war. It varied over time and by location. but it seems that approximately a third of the colonists supported the Revolution and a third were loyal to Britain. The other third's loyalty depended on which army was in the area. Remember that while Washington's army was hungry at Valley Forge, local farmers sold their products to the British in Philadelphia.
It's definitely true that support for the Patriot cause varied by location. New England was definitely majority Patriot, especially after the British were ejected from Boston and their army was destroyed at Saratoga. Those loyal to the British Crown tended to be some land-owners in the Southern tide-water regions, especially when British troops were near. New York was a special case, as it was originally a Dutch colony; while the Dutch lost control of New York in the 1660's, New York City remained very much on the side lines, supporting whoever was able to keep troops there. As for the back-woods areas of all the colonies - definitely Patriot country. I believe that the current historians' consensus is that roughly 50% of American colonists supported independence, while the Loyalists were somewhere around 10% to 15%, with the remainder neutral.
One of the great problems encountered by the Continental Congress was that it had no tax authority and relied upon the state governments to raise funds and forward them to Congress - something that state governments were very lax about. The American Revolution was funded by loans, not by taxes.
Many patriots in the movement held a personal dislike for those who claimed to support the Revolution, but who took the opportunity to enrich themselves by selling supplies to the British forces in exchange for pounds sterling instead of selling to the Continental Army for paper script. Not only were some getting rich, they were also disinclined to send any of their wealth along to Congress.
As for the one-third Patriot, one-third Loyalist, one-third Neutral claims, I believe that the ratios track back not to the American Revolution, but to a letter by John Adams wherein he is expressing his opinion that one third of Americans support the French revolution, one third oppose it, and the remaining third have no opinion. Part of the Federalist / Jeffersonian Republican dissonance was over the French Revolution, with Federalists tending to be against it (and having Republicans accuse Federalists of being closet monarchists as a result), while Republicans tended to be for it (and having Federalists accuse Republicans of being "mob-rule" democrats). There were actual fears during the 1790's that either the Federalists were going to strike an alliance with the British Empire and directly oppose the French Republic, or that the French were going to invade the United States, overthrow the existing governments (with the help of the Jeffersonian Republicans), and install more democratic/despotic governments).
Quote:
I agree with most of the points that the OP made. I believe the Revolution was led by a radical minority who coerced others to join their cause. This country might have been better off if the Revolution was not fought. Without a Revolution, there would not have been a War of 1812 and likely not a Civil War. We would likely have gained our independence in a similar fashion to Canada, which gained its independence in 1867.
That's a curious take, and counter to what I've read.
IMO, it's more likely that if the 13 Colonies had simply yielded to the British Parliament, it would have remained 13 Colonies on the Eastern seaboard, shackled to the Empire for the enrichment of the mother country. The War of 1812 wouldn't have happened, but later colonial revolts might have occurred, possibly in the southern colonies over emancipation.
As for Canada, Australia, and New Zealand gaining a form of home rule - I'm thinking no. Canada only got a measure of home rule after the American Civil War. The British Empire had flirted with recognizing the Confederacy, to the glowering disapproval of the United States. After the war, it's my opinion that the British realized that the United States had the largest, most modern, and most experienced army in the world and if the US government chose, it could simply walk into Canada and annex it; Canada gained its home rule when the British realized that it could no longer protect it militarily from the United States.
Quote:
I mentioned books by Gordon Wood and Joseph Ellis. If anyone has other suggestions on this topic, I'd be very interested in reading another source.
I've already mentioned the Neo-Whig school. I note that Joseph Ellis was at Yale University where Edmund Morgan directed Ellis's dissertation on English writer Samuel Johnson. Morgan is sometimes associated with the Neo-Whigs; his Stamp Act Crisis is a must read for understanding the resistance of American colonies preceding the Revolution. I'd also offer up Pauline Maier, she's also part of the Neo-Whig school, and authored From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765–1776.
Of course, if you wish more recent historical theories on the American Revolution, there's always Howard Zinn. I have read through Zinn's A People's History of the United States and he does have a different view on things, although I've also read that his book was intended more to shake up the complacency of American history and point out that it was about more than the actions of important white males.
the american revolutionaries weren't the "good guys"
Oh, so what?
Fighting while obeying the Boy Scout Oath, Law and Moto would not have won the war. PLUS!.... much later, we were able to save Britain from Germany.
(Man, what a stupid thread) Boy Scout Law
The British restriction on expansion of settlement beyond Ohio territory was a major gripe amongst the colonists
Yes, that was an issue.
I used to believe that the Proclamation of 1763 occurred so much earlier than the various attempts by the British to impose direct taxes upon the colonies that it couldn't be one of the main reasons for the American Revolution. It was my understanding that the Proclamation was a move by the British Crown to temporarily block British immigration to territories held by the Native Peoples, thereby putting off a potential military conflict that the Empire wasn't willing to suffer at the time.
However, it's been since pointed out to me on this forum that the Intolerable Acts of 1774 were accompanied by the Quebec Act of 1774, which expanded Quebec (aka Canada) into the trans-Appalachian areas north of the Ohio River - permanently.
That is a good point. There seems to be alot of talk but not much action on both sides of the Atlantic.
However, there were some proposals to keep the Empire together, at least as far back as French and Indian War. Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania for instance had a proposal (I believe fellow Pennsylvania Benjamin Franklin had as well).
"Galloway suggested the creation of an American colonial parliament to act together with the Parliament of Great Britain. The Grand Council would have to give formal consent to the latter's decisions, particularly on trade and taxation, thus giving it a veto.[1]
The Colonial Parliament would consist of a President-General appointed by the Crown and delegates appointed by the colonial assemblies for three-year terms.[2] The plan would have kept the British Empire together and allowed the colonies to have some say over their own affairs, including the inflammatory issue of taxation."[3]
I must admit, this is the first time I've heard about the Galloway Plan. From the linked Wikipedia article, it sounds like it was about as effective during the American/British crisis of the 1770's as the proposed Corwin Amendment to the US Constitution was in 1861.
I do note that it called for a separate and subordinate North American parliament, not for colonial representation in the British Parliament.
All of this is what I call "alternate" or "what if" history. The problem with it is it's unprovable and unfalsifable. Nevertheless I'll tackle each assertion in turn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lair8
1) American revolutionaries used unethical means to achieve their goals too (tarring/feathering tax collectors, pushing false info and sensationalist propaganda as news).
There has only been a brief period, int he 20th Century, where news even purported to be "objective." Many newspapers still have names like The _____ Democrat or The _____Republican. In this days "news" was spread by anonymous writers, such as John Adams writing under names such as "Publius." That was not an actual example but an illustration. As far as tarring and feathering tax collectors, the way some colonists saw it is they were governing themselves just fine until the British wanted more money and power. The fact is that the colonies were on balance more prosperous than the "mother country" by the 1630's. At the same time, Britain was busier beheading their own king, fighting as to whether to continue as a monarchy or become a republic, or revert to monarch. Once the monarchy re-stabilized with William and Mary and the Glorious Revolution, they began milking the colonies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lair8
2) Americans which wanted independence from Britain were a vocal and militant minority; the majority were loyal to Britain.
It was about 1/3 that didn't care, 1/3 wanted independence and 1/3 were loyal to Britain. Polling was not an exact since and CityData wasn't up and running.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lair8
3) Americans were hypocritical in that they wanted Britain's military aid to fight wars and clear out the Indians, but then when it's time to pay the tax bill, they didn't want to the pay the taxes for it.
The Americans were dragged unwillingly into the constant European warfare, of which the Seven Years War/French and Indian War was but a small part. That included maneuvering the Indians to fight the French and vice-versa. Basically what wound up happening was that the French and Britain (and Spain) traded territories, including Caribbean islands. It looked at first as if France got the better deal with the sugar plantations of Martinique and Guadeloupe in exchange for French Canada. Later that would choose to be an unwise swap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lair8
4) Britain ended slavery decades earlier than the Americans did. American independence may have slowed down emancipation.
Britain only kept minor territories in the Caribbean, including Jamaica and Barbados and, off and on, Florida. Slave labor does not lend itself to manufacturing. It wasn't purely British benevolence at all, even though, admittedly, there was an abolition movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1
But these weren't the people leading the Revolution. The Revolution was mainly led by the elite. Look at the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Almost all were wealthy landowners.
The people you describe are the ones who were convinced to go along with the Revolution and serve in the Continental Army or the state militias.
John Adams and Benjamin Rush, among others, would beg to differ.
Last edited by jbgusa; 03-25-2023 at 12:48 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.
