Political/Social causes for the American War for Independence

[Don Corleone]

I was tickled by a thread Shadeswolf started about British education, history in particular, and this got me wondering about what the average Briton learns in school about that time period.

Naturally, in American history, it gets a LOT of treatment. But we are rather myopic, we only look at it from the point of view of those who eventually prevailed, the Libertarians (for lack of a better term). For many of them, they didn't view it as a political rebellion so much as a radical reaction to economic policies they viewed as inherently unfair (namely, taxation). But a full 2/3 of those living in the 13 American colonies at the time, did NOT support this action (roughly 1/3 fought in Loyalist regiments and 1/3 took a position of guarded neutrality). After things escalated and some blood was shed, it developed into a political struggle, but I don't think anyone ever intended for it to be that way. So something went wrong...

Now, this got me thinking... clearly 'Americans' of the time didn't consider themselves a separate people, but had they been left to wither on the vine? The first American colony, Jamestown, was settled in 1602, a full 170 years before the first hints of trouble. Why didn't the UK ever parcel the American colonies up into Duchies, and set about making the Americas an official part of the UK? Would a Duke of Boston have been better able to sell the Stamp Act then the Prime Minister? How about the Count of Alexandria... would he have been able to convince Virginians that the closing of Boston harbor was a just and fair punishment? Maybe having some MPs in Parliment would have tipped the scales the other way...

I'm just curious what was the thought process for keeping the loyal subjects out in the cold for so long? A frequent rallying cry in the colonies was "No Taxation Without Representation".... couldn't Lord North and company have turned the tables and said "Fine, now you're represented. Now pay up and shut up!".

[King Kurt]

To be honest - we don't learn a lot. We did American history at school in the year I was 15 - that was a long time ago - , but that was from the War of Inderpendance through to about 1930, so AWI took up about a couple of weeks. From memory it was quite traditional - no representation etc, Boston Tea party etc. We english like to gloss over where things went a bit wrong. I have heard the AWI described as the most important war in history - just imagine if the English win - or if it never happened - the British Empire would include the strongest economy in the world - that level of power would be undeniable - no World war 1 or 2, no communism as no WW1 - what would the world look like now???
My own studies suggest the war was very avoidable - British stubborness/ pig headiness meaning that a political solution was missed. Militaryily there was lots of opportunity to win - again poor leadership and political will leading to us winning most of the battles up to the last one - and how when we ruled the waves did the French get an army over? We did a right job with Canada so what went wrong with USA??
One tantalising thought would be what would have happened if the British had allied with the Confederacy - I am sure that a few cotton barons would have been in favour - would the British money, industry and navy tip the balance? Admittedly, it was not very likely - Wilberforce had freed the slaves 20 years before - but, as with all history, one can wonder????:2thumbsup:

[ShadesWolf]

Yes but look at from another point of view. Would we have had an empire as great as we did.

I strongly believe we learnt from the mistakes we made in the 13 colonies, this helped when we went on and rules Canada, West Indias, Australia and India.

Also we seem to also miss out whole chunks of our history. What would have happened if Britain had accepted Texas as a colony in 1836 and placed here under its protectorate.

Who about the America-Britain war of 1813 (ish) if the US had won then would she have controlled Canada. If Britain had won what could the outcome have been.

[Duke Malcolm]

I was tickled by a thread Shadeswolf started about British education, history in particular, and this got me wondering about what the average Briton learns in school about that time period.

We don't. No, I tell a lie. In Scotland, we learn about the mass emigration of Highlanders after the Jacobite Rebellion and the Highland Clearances. And we touch on how all the evil white British people kidnapped the poor defenceless Africans and made them work in the plantations. C'est tout.

Although, I have done my own reading into the Empire, and North did try and stop the rebellion before it took off by making the 13 colonies have the lowest taxes in the Empire, quite low, from what I read. The Government on the time would have refrained from representation as you put it -- MPs in Parliament -- because that would be difficult. It would take far too long for MPs to get to Britain from the Colonies. I believe Washington and his comrades wanted more powers to the Colonial Assemblies, yes? North wouldn't have done this because it took power from the Government in London, they would lose that bit of control over the Colonies.

Britain certainly did learn from this mistake, as is seen in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, the Bahamas, and countless other dominions, as well as the remaining 13 territories.

The Boston Tea Party happened when taxes on tea were dreadfully low, I think I read that the people who did it were tea smugglers, who were losing business because the legitimate tea was cheap cheap cheap...

The peers as you describe them, Don Corleone, didn't meddle so much in their namesake duchy's affairs at that time. Reformation of the medieval barons governing places was on the way, and came fully later with the Reform Act in the 19th Century. Peerages at that time wouldn't have given representation to the people.

[English assassin]

As His Grace says we don't really learn about this on this side of the pond.

I suspect that giving the colonies representation was not as easy as it sounds. British governance was pretty murky at this time, and those who benefited from its essentially arbitrary nature may well have felt, consciously or otherwise, that it was better to risk losing the American colonies than it was to upset their own cosy arrangements back home.

After all, you may be top monkey now, but back then the idea of upsetting the UK constitution to please a bunch of (troublesome) American colonists may have seemed as odd as the US today altering its constitution to please the UK.

[ZombieFriedNuts]

Why didn't the UK ever parcel the American colonies up into Duchies

Think about it what if they did, and they still was an independence war, would they of had a king or a duke as leader instead of a president.

[Keba]

Generally, the greatest objection to taxation by the American colonies was the fact that the colonies were of the crown, not the parliament and thus, they refused to accept the authority of the parliament. Given that those were British colonies, they refused to accept being taxed, French colonies under British rule had no problem with that (as they were taxed from the start).

A great deal of the colonial confidence comes from the earlier Seven years' war, where the colonials, acting for the Empire, met some moderate success (of course, since this was a war fought across the world, those victories weren't particularly significant, nor only the result of the colonials' skill). This resulted in a rise of confidence and pride, and has also provided some amount of military skill.

Secondarily, the political climate in Europe helped the Americans ... most considered the British to have become too powerful, and for the most time, Europe sought to maintain a careful balance. Thus, both the French and Spanish openly lent aid (the French draining their treasury, which eventually led to the Revolution). Prussia, the Hapsburgs and Russia maintained a, shall we say, somewhat hostile neutrality, keeping out of the confilct, but attempting to sabotage the British war effort. Add to that that the King wasn't a particularly liked one ...

[Brenus]

“the French draining their treasury”. Yep, but not only that. I think that Louis the XVI saw it as a great opportunity to regain what Louis the XV lost. Because not only the French was providing money and troops (l'expedition particuliere) to the US rebels, but also regained all the part of India they’ve lost before. The French Fleet was attacking the British fleet and won two major tactical battles, allowing the re-conquest of some towns in India.

Because the Americans signed a separated peace (against previous agreement) the King had no choice to give back his gain to the English, and couldn’t take back Canada and all the lost territories. He was left just wit a HUGE debt, no possibility of trade and upset English.

[Red Peasant]

A great deal of the colonial confidence comes from the earlier Seven years' war, where the colonials, acting for the Empire, met some moderate success (of course, since this was a war fought across the world, those victories weren't particularly significant, nor only the result of the colonials' skill). This resulted in a rise of confidence and pride, and has also provided some amount of military skill.



British generals during the Seven Years' War generally seemed to have despised the colonial troops as compeletely unreliable, with some justification, but only because they didn't fight like regular troops and because they didn't know how to take advantage of their qualities as fast moving, light troops. If anything, I think they preferred Indian assistance.

The way US independence was related to me at secondary school level was that the colonies weren't really all that important. However, I studied US history at A level and was genuinely surprised to discover that the American colonies were an important and wealthy part of the empire. Consider that Philadelphia was then the second largest English-speaking city in the world after London, and New York and Boston were also major centres of the time, and you can get a scale of the loss to Britain and the disruption to the crude mercantilist trading system it operated at the time.

And as EA says, the British govt was also trying to keep a lid on stirrings back home in Britain. Radical sentiment was simmering in British society and there was a cross-pollination of these ideas across the Atlantic. The colonists ultimately benefited but there was a repressive reaction back in Britain.

Personally, as already said, I don't think that the handing out of titles would have made much difference. The centre of British political life was in London and that is virtually where all the 'great and good' gravitated. Witness the absentee Irish aristocrats. God forbid that America would have become anther 19th century Ireland.

[ShadesPanther]

Britain made some major mistakes that cost them.
In previous wars with France they enforced a close blockade on France. This was abandoned to stop them losing so many ships in the war of 1776. This ultimately led to France ebing able to raid Britains colonial possesions and overall strech the naval battles all over the world. This also meant the troops in the 13 colonies were isolated at times and the defeat off Yorkstown forced cornwallis to surrender.

There is also a problem that the 13 colonies couldn't really be supressed. Canade took 50,000 regular troops and a large number of native colonists. But the 13 colonies is much larger and as it is decentalised a capture of a city or large town meant almost nothing. They simply didn't have the manpower or supplies, including the long distances to put down the rebellion.

EDIT:
As to what I was taught in school on thwe subject, not much. Just about the distances involved, the gurillia warfare and about the shortage of men.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I think the colonists were spoiled. The people who lived in England paid far more taxes then the colonists. They were brats...:embarassed:

[Brenus]

“In previous wars with France they enforced a close blockade on France. This was abandoned to stop them losing so many ships in the war of 1776. This ultimately led to France ebing able to raid Britains colonial possesions and overall strech the naval battles all over the world.”
Hum, again an example of different views on history. According the French, the previous victory of the Royal Navy was because during the Regence and the 1st part of Louis XV reign, in order to avoid confrontation with England and the cost, the French stopped to produce ships with as result the lost of the 7 years war, known by the English as "the French and Indians War". The new minister Choiseul relaunched the building of a decent fleet and training of Naval Officers.
Then, under the reign of Louis the XVI and his ministers Sartines and Castries who carried on the reform started by Choiseul, a fleet was rebuilt and under the command of officers like De Grasse, D’Estaing, Guichan, La Motte Piquet and Suffren (considered but some as a tactician genius), inflicted if not definitive defeat to the Royal Navy, some strategic victories like Chesapeake Bay in America or Porto Praya and Trincomale in India.
The blockade of France wasn’t anymore possible as shown by the battle between d’Orvilliers and Keppel in front of Ouessant. Even worst for the Royal Navy, the French started to attack its convoys like La Motte Piquet in 1781, attacking a convoy under the command of Rodney and taking 26 ships.

Fortunately for the Royal Navy, the French Revolution literally decapitated the French Navy, killing or pushing to exile the Naval Officers, most of them being nobles. So the Republic then the Empire will go for the Guerre de Course, the privateers with people illustrated by Robert Surcouf who was made Baron d’Empire by Napoleon

[Aenlic]

I'm not all too confident in an assertion that there was no lordship involved in the colonies either. Charles II granted ownership of Carolina to a group of peers called the Lords Proprietors. While not exactly a specific title, such as Earl of Charleston or whatever, it certainly presents a certain degree of lordly ownership, at least the time of Charles II.

[ShadesPanther]

Guess I didn't learn the full story. Oh well. :oops:

Although it could also be said that this war was different from the previous Great Power wars in that there was no continental campaign for France to focus on.

[Red Peasant]

Ah yes, Brenus, according to you Britain and the Royal Navy was always very lucky in their battles and wars with the French. I think you do protest too much my friend, your colours are showing. ~;)

[Brenus]

“your colours are showing” Never hind them, and “merde pour le Roi d’Angleterre, qui nous a declare la guerre” he he he…:2thumbsup:

Now, I really discovered a lot of things trying to answer some questions from the org.
And this was quiet astonishing for me, because we don’t study that really in History, and after, I specialised in another period. However, yes, the Royal Navy had some luck. Imagine an Admiral like Suffren and a Navy of Louis XVI quality under the reign of Napoleon…:oops:

[Red Peasant]

Well mate, I think you let your commendably patriotic imagination run away with you. Maybe one day France will rise again, defeat all the Anglos and rule the world. Muahahhahah! Dream on Brother.

:laugh4:

[Brenus]

“Dream on Brother.”
No need to dream, it is happening… :book:
Look at the plan. Because the French, English lost America (biggest continental lost EVER). Then 13 colonies become U.S.A. Are you following the plan? Then USA become super Power and now, UK become part of USA (more or less). But, the trick is USA become more and more Latin, thank to Mexico… Yek yek, yek, revenge is yet on the horizon…. :laugh4:
It is more evil because it is indirect, and NOBODY can actually blame the French for that. The Evil Web is working…:2thumbsup:

[Aenlic]

Are you saying that one day Tony Blair will be the lap dog for a former colony while that former colony slowly realizes that while it has been arrogantly calling itself "America" the other 2/3 of the Americas who have just as much claim to the name have been infiltrating? Oh, wait. Already happened. Nevermind. :laugh4:

[Strike For The South]

Re: Political/Social causes for the American War for Independence

Well the First Americans had future Texans in there ranks and we all know where Texans are on the food chain

[Aenlic]

The Dineh and others did indeed have future Texans in their ranks; but I expect that you didn't mean them when referring to "First Americans". ~;)

[Strike For The South]

Keep Austin werid eh?:laugh4:

[Red Peasant]

Are you saying that one day Tony Blair will be the lap dog for a former colony while that former colony slowly realizes that while it has been arrogantly calling itself "America" the other 2/3 of the Americas who have just as much claim to the name have been infiltrating? Oh, wait. Already happened. Nevermind. :laugh4:

Now then friend, let's not descend into a 'Surrender Monkeys' vs 'Lapdogs' type of argument again :laugh4:

[Aenlic]

Now then friend, let's not descend into a 'Surrender Monkeys' vs 'Lapdogs' type of argument again :laugh4:

Oh, it's not the Brits, just Tony Blair and his cronies. In any case, we're both better off than the poor French. :wink:

And yes, SftS, keep Austin wierd! Where else would you find a cross-dressing homeless street person with a beard who likes to wear pink mini-skirts running for mayor and garnering 8% of the vote? I love this town, odd kinks and all. Best damn place to hear live music in the world, with more live music venues offering live bands nightly than New York and London combined.

[Brenus]

Already happened". Yeap, planned and perfectly implemented. W 007 is one the moles and he did a perfect job.:laugh4: