- This topic has 13 voices and 27 replies.
-
Posts
-
Does anyone know what the British think of the Revolutionary War and the independence that we fought for? Do they realize that their king was wrong at the time to impose what he did, or do they rationalize it to any degree?
Does anyone know what the British think of the Revolutionary War and the independence that we fought for? Do they realize that their king was wrong at the time to impose what he did, or do they rationalize it to any degree?
You're opening up a can of worms here. No historian in this field will agree with the summation that King George III was "wrong" in how he chose to administer his empire. The morality of the American Revolution is not so cut and dried. In fact, it can be argued that George was "right" in imposing excise duties and other taxes to help pay for the expenditures put out during the Seven Years War (French and Indian War in North America). Americans had long since gotten used to Salutory Neglect which allowed them to have commerce with England's rivals especially the Spanish in the Caribbean. American rum runners were notorious for not paying England her share of the profits which were her rightful due since the ships they used belonged to the King. The big hangup that eventually led to the Revolution was strictly a matter of interpretation of where the sovereign resided....whether with the King and his charters with the various colonies, or with Parliament who felt it presided over the colonies in all cases whatsoever. Quite frankly, Americans forgot that the sovereignty had passed hands to Parliament after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Parliament in effect, took over the colonial charters. So in actuality, Parliament's interpretation was the more correct one. The colonists squawked that they were not fairly represented in Parliament, thus they decried "No taxation without representation!" but Parliament cited that even within England itself, many burroughs were "virtually represented" by members of Parliament not elected in their districts. Again, Parliament was technically correct, and the colonies were simply extended burroughs virtually represented by Parliament itself. The crux of the matter remains that the colonists refused to submit to Parliament's interpretation and the Declaration of Independence was actually an appeal to the King to reinstate his authority over Parliament, but when it was realized that this wasn't going to happen, the colonists finally decided total independence was the only solution. 😀
Does anyone know what the British think of the Revolutionary War and the independence that we fought for? ....
You're opening up a can of worms here. ... Salutory Neglect which allowed them to have commerce with England's rivals... rum runners were notorious for not paying England her share ...where the sovereign resided... sovereignty had passed hands to Parliament after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. ...colonists squawked that they were not fairly represented in Parliament, thus they decried "No taxation without representation!" but ...were "virtually represented" by members of Parliament not elected in their districts. ... crux of the matter remains that the colonists refused to submit to Parliament's interpretation and the Declaration of Independence was actually an appeal to the King to reinstate his authority over Parliament, but when it was realized that this wasn't going to happen, the colonists finally decided total independence was the only solution. 😀
I a word yes; according to a friend from England the major points were (and are to many still):a) asking for treatment that was greater than for the rest of England (that is the direct representation) plus we had left because we didn't want to be treated like all the other Englishmen... so now we want to, sort of, on our terms;b) tax issue; we actually paid less per capita than folks in England and were complaining about the increase to pay for the French and Indian War. We thought it Englands duty to provide that service;c) we were costing them more than they could recoup in trade and taxes;Okay, let's review this from their (English) view... a group of malcontents moves to escape the rules of the land... they have a spat with the folks in theri new neighborhood and we bail them out and then aren't will to help pay (at a reduced rate) the freight on this saving of their bacon as we somehow had a duty to do this. Then they (colonies) ask to be treated as the rest of England but different because they have the same rights but more so because we (Eng) ignored them for awhile and they sort of changed the rules in their favor.Yup... from their point of view we were just not worth the effort to finish the job. Many there think they pulled out when they did thinking that we would never survive and they could drop by latter and pick up the pieces... to tell the truth it almost worked out that way. We did, however, find away to get united enough to hold it together.Question is can we do it again or are we coming apart over the issues of the day? Immigration, war on terror, disappearing civil rights and liberties, government by and for the people, education (or what masquerades as education, the NCLB testing frenzy)... the list goes on.What say you all?Wally
Let's not forget that the Townshend Duties and the Stamp Act were repealed years earlier, but Parliament had to make its point somewhere so it was made with the Quartering Act and the Tea Act. Few colonists were going to be affected by these last two acts, but the colonists were not going to let Parliament save face. To be honest here, we were in the wrong, but then again England mishandled its empire by letting the colonies get too accustomed to the freedoms of Salutory Neglect. In short, we were spoiled little children and wanted our way. ;D
Let's not forget that the Townshend Duties and the Stamp Act were repealed years earlier, but Parliament had to make its point somewhere so it was made with the Quartering Act and the Tea Act. Few colonists were going to be affected by these last two acts, but the colonists were not going to let Parliament save face. To be honest here, we were in the wrong, but then again England mishandled its empire by letting the colonies get too accustomed to the freedoms of Salutory Neglect. In short, we were spoiled little children and wanted our way. ;D
And by then the great propagandist, Sam Adams, had spread his message far and wide.
The Boston Massacre proabably did more to galvanize colonial resistance than anything, but still more remained Loyalists than Patriots in the early years of the war.
The Boston Massacre proabably did more to galvanize colonial resistance than anything, but still more remained Loyalists than Patriots in the early years of the war.
I agree totally. Most really believed that the Crown would eventually see that they (the colonists) really wanted to remain loyal Englishmen (albeit remote and with several problems not present in the Isles... Indians to name one) and fix things they wanted fixed.The Boston Massacre was total spin and very well done.Wally
I a word yes; according to a friend from England the major points were (and are to many still):a) asking for treatment that was greater than for the rest of England (that is the direct representation) plus we had left because we didn't want to be treated like all the other Englishmen... so now we want to, sort of, on our terms;
Actually, the English did have direct representation. So did the Welsh, the Scots, and the Northern Irish. It was the Americans who were unrepresented, as they had no parliamentary delegation.It was a fundamental right of all Englishmen to be taxed only with their consent, expressed through their legal representatives in Parliament. Americans paid taxes willingly enough to their colonial governments -- but they were well represented in those governments. Their main objection to taxation by Parliament wasn't the taxes per se, but the fact that these taxes were levied by a body in which they had no voice or representation.In the 18th century, the only people who were taxed without representative consent were women, children, and slaves. To Americans, this seemed to be a case of Parliament telling them, "You are neither Englishmen, nor even men." In other words, they were mere colonial chattel.Americans were particularly incensed by the Townsend Act because in the 1600's England had passed a very similar tax law in Ireland. This reduced Ireland to total dependency on England for trade and subjugated Irish prosperity to English commercial interests. Many Americans saw Ireland as a foreshadowing of their own fate if they submitted to arbitrary taxation by Parliament.They were not in the wrong, and this was not the attitude of spoiled children wanting their way. It was the foresight of a people who had watched England subjugate other countries and did not want to be forced down that same path.
Nicely put! All good points and well taken… they are much better than my over-simplifications.Cheers,Wally
I can't really say what I would have been. Although I'm beginning to see this country going down the same path that England took (although in a different manifestation). I think I would have been one to have wanted to remain loyal to England (the mother country), but I would have been pushing hard for King George to compromise in some positive way to avoid bloodshed. Of course in the end, one had to pick a side, and I suppose I would have leaned toward independence since it was inevitable anyway.
I agree that this is likely where most of the Patriots started… we were after all English, at least when we got here.Picking a side then was probably about like trying to choose who to vote for (or against) in Nov. A train wreck!
I recall several conversations I had with a British Librarian on this very topic, am trying to locate them.
I think America Revolution were a bitter story for Britain and British rulers were inconsolable during the next century or so .They accepted unwillingly the Independence by signing the treaty of Versailles but did their bests to sabotage the rise of the new country. They attempted to undermine the westward expansion of the Yankees. They tried to annihilate the economic growth of this nation by controlling the high sea. Those events led to the 1812-1814 WAR with U.S .They instigated conflicts among Americans by secretly supporting the secessionists but failed. In my view since the end of the U.S civil war British understood that their chance were doomed and cease to interfere in the U.S affairs.Two hundreds and thirty six years after the Independence this story is an old history for British and they have turned the page .I have this quote from Queen Elisabeth to share with you : ?Two hundred years before that visit, one of my ancestors had played a seemingly disastrous role in your affairs. [Laughter] Yet, had King George III been able to foresee the long-term consequences of his actions, he might not have felt so grieved about the loss of his colonies.Out of the War of Independence grew a great nation, the United States of America. And later there was forged a lasting friendship between the new nation and the country to whom she owed so much of her origins???.. Our close relationship is not just based on history, kinship, and language, strong and binding though these are. It is based on the same values and the same beliefs, evolved over many years in these islands since Magna Carta and vividly stated by the Founding Fathers of the United States.?Quote from toast of Queen Elizabeth II at a Dinner Honoring the President Reagan at Windsor Castle in England .June 8, 1982
