ochoin | 15 Oct 2014 11:55 p.m. PST |
A friend suggested to me that he sees a connection between the Boer Wars and the AWI. He thinks it significant that it is only after the British win the Zulu War do the Boers revolt, not unlike the Thirteen Colonies after the F&IW. His point being neither Boer nor American thought it opportune to seek independence until after Big Brother was no longer needed. As an analogy, how does it stand up? |
GreenLeader | 16 Oct 2014 2:55 a.m. PST |
Interesting parallel. One of the reasons behind the British annexation of the ZAR in 1877 was because it was about to be over-run by the Pedi and the Zulus… which is why the residents overwhelmingly welcomed the arrival of the British at the time. Bear in mind that the British 'invasion force' was just 25 mounted policemen and not a single shot was fired. Fast forward three years, and the British had broken the power of both these tribes, and the Boers decided to have a go at running their own affairs again. Of course, Kruger was 'slim' enough to wait until the Imperial forces brought in to fight the Zulu War had long gone. One could also argue that the Transvaal Boers also waited until the British had sorted out their basket-case finances before deciding to go it alone again. |
79thPA | 16 Oct 2014 4:42 a.m. PST |
There is no single cause of the American Revolution. While the Proclamation of 1763 is significant, it was not the cause of the revolution. Colonist wanted to be full and equal citizens of England -- they wanted to Englishmen before they wanted to be Americans. Second class citizenship, the writing of the Enlightenment, the various Acts of the 60s and 70s, such as the Quartering Act, the Stamp Act, the Intolerable Act, the Sugar Act, etc. all intertwined to create discontent. Efforts to avoid war were significant and long lasting. And, contrary to what our middle school teachers taught us, a significant amount of colonist remained loyal to the crown throughout the war. I don't know much of anything about the Boer War/s, but I believe your friend had greatly oversimplified the causes the the American Revolution. |
epturner | 16 Oct 2014 5:03 a.m. PST |
Not very well. That's an oversimplification, like 79thPA said. Eric |
GreenLeader | 16 Oct 2014 5:08 a.m. PST |
I could well be wrong, but I don't think that this fellow meant to suggest that this is the only reason for the two rebellions – merely he was pondering whether either would have taken place had that external threat still be present. I don't know enough about the AWI to comment, but I would suggest that the Transvaal Boers certainly took advantage of the work done by the British army. |
SqueakyPete | 16 Oct 2014 7:06 a.m. PST |
Fuller in 'Conduct of War' makes the same point as your friend- both rebelled after external threats were removed by the British. |
ochoin | 16 Oct 2014 7:19 a.m. PST |
Yes, he meant the analogy as an aspect & not the full picture. Undoubtedly he was being a little self-consciously volatile, too. I know very little about the AWI (& not all that much on the AZW) so I was interested in hearing some expert responses. So, thanks for the replies. |
Murvihill | 16 Oct 2014 8:44 a.m. PST |
The "French and Indian War" was a small part in a larger European war. Had the colonists rebelled during it they probably would have gotten support from the French and had an easier time of it while the British were distracted on the continent. The Zulu war was the war, the British didn't have anything else going on but colonial brushfires to put out. OTOH, people tend to unite when under foreign threat, so an American rebellion may have garnered less popular support if they went at it while the government was fighting elsewhere. Like the Indians waiting until after WW2 to agitate for seperation. Final word, I don't think the analogy holds up. |
goragrad | 16 Oct 2014 10:33 a.m. PST |
Indeed, one of the proximate causes of the AWI was the taxes levied to pay for the FIW and the troops required to protect the Colonies. As noted above the colonists felt themselves to be considered second class citizens and to then have to pay additional taxes on top of that was a double whammy. |
NY Irish | 16 Oct 2014 4:56 p.m. PST |
The American colonists had no reason to rebel BEFORE or during the SYW because British mercantile laws were hardly enforced before 1765. Attempts to enforce Mercantilism and limit the power of colonial assemblies fell apart in the Glorious Rev (Boston Revolt, Leislers Rebellion in NY and Coodes Rebellion in MD). In the wake of rising debt AFTER the SYW the British started enforcing Mercantile laws and imposing new taxes- followed quickly by suspending any legislature that protested. The idea that we were just waiting for the redcoats to get the French off our backs before rebelling is a rather weird idea. |
jowady | 16 Oct 2014 7:44 p.m. PST |
I've often wondered what the impact would have been of the British allowing the colonies some representation in Parliament. A large part of the impetus for Revolution was that the Americans saw themselves as Englishmen while the government saw them as colonists. |
historygamer | 16 Oct 2014 8:14 p.m. PST |
All good points. There is some truth to his theory. The colonists could beat the Indians, but not the French (Louisbourg not withstanding). Once that threat was removed the colonist did not see the value added of overseers 3,000 miles away. I always find it interesting that England never really garrisoned the colonies in any way – guess there was too much are to man, as they found out later. |
historygamer | 17 Oct 2014 8:48 a.m. PST |
Oh, I will add I have no idea if the Zulus were somehow keeping the Boers in check. It certainly is not a new theory that the French threat kept the colonists more dependent on the Mother country. The colonists had fought the Indians for a long time, so they had experience with them. The taking of Louisbourg by the colonist was an astounding feat of arms, negated by Britain returning the fortress to the French at the end of that war. It is also fact that some colonists continued to trade with the French during the SYW which led to the introduction of the Royal Navy enforcing the trade policies around 1763 – which much more vigor than the colonists were used to. |
vtsaogames | 17 Oct 2014 11:53 a.m. PST |
Britain never really tried to rule the colonies on a serious level until after the French & Indian War was over. George III threw Pitt out and stopped the outflow of money. Mother country and colonies both had their economies contract sharply. The colonies were short of specie at the best of times. Now a cash strapped Britain wanted to collect taxes, and in hard currency. This was a recipe for trouble. Add in the way many British officers had treated colonists as second class citizens during the war and the fact that the colonies had been largely self-governing since they were founded. Colonial merchants smuggled to French Canada, the French Caribbean and Spanish America whenever they could. So did British merchants. The War of Jenkins' Ear was fought to protect the right of British (and colonial) merchants to trade (illegally or otherwise) with Spanish America. Also, previous colonial wars between Britain and France had started on the continent and worked their way across the Atlantic. Note the French and Indian War stared in the New World. It lasted seven years, 1754 – 1760, while the Seven Years War in Europe lasted from 1756 – 1762. |
Bill N | 17 Oct 2014 2:00 p.m. PST |
I think it is one of those curious similarities that it pays not to push too far. |
GreenLeader | 17 Oct 2014 8:47 p.m. PST |
The Zulus were certainly not keeping the Boers in check pre-1877, but the constant aggressive expansionism of the ZAR had brought it to the brink of disaster by that year. When an attack on the Pedi went badly wrong, the ZAR faced being wiped off the map, and the Zulus (who had had more than enough of the antics of the Boers too) were ready to join in. It was only British annexation which prevented this. How closely this mirrors the situation in the American Colonies is another issue, but it is undeniable that the Boers only rebelled against British rule after the power of both the Pedi and the Zulus had been broken by the British army (something the Boers had proved unable to do themselves). Indeed, Kruger had been pushing for the British to attack the Zulus throughout the short period of Imperial rule over the ZAR. |
freecloud | 25 Oct 2014 1:25 p.m. PST |
GreenLeader makes good points re the ZAR near collapse, its a fascinating "alternative history" scenario! The discovery of gold & diamonds are probably also a factor in the SA story. |
GreenLeader | 15 Nov 2014 9:27 a.m. PST |
freecloud The discovery of relatively small gold deposits in the Transvaal pre-dated the Boer rebellion in 1880/1, but the major Witwatersrand gold rush only happened after they regained their independence, so I cannot see this really being a factor. The major diamond fields of the region were (and still are) in the Kimberley area which was not part of the Transvaal, but rather in Griqualand West, which was part of Britain's Cape Colony. So again, this was not a factor in the rebellion. |