"Why Did The American Colonists Revolt?" Topic

"A complex mythology has been built up around the American Revolution: it is a national story of great significance to the way the United States views itself. But the mythology is just that – a mythology. Contrary to the picture presented in American primary schools, the Americans were not a separate, turkey-eating people, subjugated by the cruel, tyrannical and essentially foreign British. In fact, many colonists thought of themselves as British. Historians accept that the American Revolution had a wide variety of motives and causes: these included slightly differing political traditions, the economic interests of both parties, the trading interests of those directly or indirectly involved in transatlantic commerce, the large debt Britain had accumulated in the wake of the Seven Years War, and a fair amount of mutual misunderstanding as well.

The British colonies had been around for 150 years in the 1760s – Virginia was the first to be founded in 1606. By 1763 a sizable spread of land had been carved out for Britain, and the colonies were prospering. Most importantly, the Seven Years War had just finished, leading to a complete withdrawal from the American mainland on the part of France, and, for the Spanish, losses of all but a rump of formerly French holdings west of Florida. The two great territorial rivals of the British colonies had been removed as a threat. The future looked bright and secure for the Americans, with the prospect of unlimited westward expansion held back only by the British response to Indian raids, the Proclamation Line along the Appalachians which prevented further settlement of the continent's interior.

The 13 mainland colonies between South Carolina and Maine, in particular, had grown from British settlements established for trade and prestige, highly dependent on the motherland, into semi-autonomous states. The 10 other colonies were in a very different situation, with small white populations almost exclusively growing sugar for sale to Britain in the Caribbean colonies, a very limited population with underdeveloped civil government collected in small areas of Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia little more than a military outpost.[1] It is no accident that it was the aforementioned 13 colonies that rebelled…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

The 13 mainland colonies between South Carolina and Maine…

Good grief. Maine was part of Massachusetts and he left out Georgia. I don't have to read any more to brand it as rubbish. "Hmmmm. Starting at Maine and count down 13…. That's enough."

I'll give you a clue wighout reading it

No taxation without representation

I agree with Winston.

Why does no one ever ask why the "other" North American colonies: Newfoundland, Quebec, Nova Scotia and West Indies, stayed loyal?

Because England was bogus and if we didn't get cool rules we would be bogus too.

More drivel from the newly released jailbird.

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with that article? Having studied a bit about the conflict, it does seem to give a reasonable overview of the subject. It seems to be upsetting a few people and I can't see why, but then I'm not in the US.

"for the Spanish, losses of all but a rump of formerly French holdings west of Florida"

H'm. Would that be little ol' 'Luisiana'?

Of course, Texas doesn't count
Or Nueva Mexico.
California? Absolutely not.

Sorry for shattering a few myths but only about a third of the population supported the war. A third were ambivalent at best and a third were actively against it i.e. loyalists.

General Greene even noted that at the curtailment of hostilities the British effort was primarily composed of 'Americans'. He also noted that his own army was comprised of large numbers of British deserters.

The impetuous for the war was essentially the landed elite, and I am generalising here, who were not so much driven by any democratic ideals but rather economic advantage.

I am open for correction here, but I was informed by a University Professor who teaches US history that the US was still using a property based electoral system for many years after the war which was essentially the same as Britain. The major difference being that the US had more property owners as a result of the war ( largely at the expense of the native population ) and had not started on the rocky road to industrialisation which was well under way in Britain.

For pretty much the same reasons that are present again today.

Sorry for shattering a few myths but only about a third of the population supported the war. A third were ambivalent at best and a third were actively against it i.e. loyalists.

I'm afraid this is another myth – it comes from a mis-reading of a letter to (from?) John Adams describing American reaction to the French Revolution, not their own. The ratios of Rebel-Neutral-Loyalist in the AWI is much more complex, probably varying quite considerably from one Colony/State to another, and equally so over the entirety of the actual war. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution gives no citation, but estimates a 40/35/25 split in terms of political support. In terms of bearing arms, Washington wrote to Congress late on in the war complaining that Clinton had more Americans in his army than he had in his; possibly this was hyperbole designed to galvanise the politicos into improving recruitment, but not far from the truth on a few occasions.

My question is are they ready to do it again?

The impetuous for the war was essentially the landed elite

Most of whom were Loyalists. And the word you want is "impetus".

"The impetuous for the war was essentially the landed elite"
Most of whom were Loyalists

Well, if Murawski is thinking, for example, of George Washington and his partners in the land speculation projecting the colonial territory of Virginia westward into Indian lands beyond the Appalachians, they, obviously, did not side with Loyalists. Perhaps 'vested interests' might be a better generalisation. Clearly, both, the landed and mercantile elite, who overlapped to some extent, had most at stake when it came to taxation by the Crown.

As to ideals, Washington's committment to the Independence struggle seems to have been product of more than mere material self-interest. it might be pushing it to described his ideals as 'democratic,' although we would have to define our terms.

As a twenty paragraph summary on the causes of the war, it could have been worse. The author did get some of the details wrong, but I'd say the most glaring mistake is failing to recognize the importance of western land claims.

I have to say that Washington's ideals were democratic since he did lay down his sword at the end of the revolution…

Many lesser men would probably have tried to do something more…militant.

haha! Because they were cheapskates. And also wanted to steal more Indian land than the Crown would permit.

I have to say that Washington's ideals were democratic since he did lay down his sword at the end of the revolution…

Many lesser men would probably have tried to do something more…militant.

There might be some distance between "depends what you mean by 'democratic'" and "military dictator"

The American federal government put into place by the US Constitution in 1787-1789 was not a democracy. It was a republic, which was partly what Benjamin Franklin said when the Constitution was written.

He was asked by another member of the Constitutional Convention what had they 'wrought.' Franklin replied, 'A republic, if they can keep it.' It was an experiment in government and fortunately it worked.

The object of the Revolution was not democracy, but independence and from 1783-1787 the country was falling apart as the national government, which consisted of a legislative branch with little power and no executive, could not govern effectively.

Article II of the US Constitution, which delineates the powers of the president, was modeled on Washington himself, and it was decided that he would be the first president at the Convention. Without that and him, the country, Constitution or not, would have been stillborn.

Sometimes, one or two people are indispensable for success to be guaranteed. For the War of the Revolution, there were two-Washington and Franklin. For the new Constitutional government to succeed, there was one-Washington. And without Washington, there would have been no Lincoln.

The American Revolution, as opposed to just the War of the Revolution, began in 1763 with the Proclamation of 1763 by the British government.

The British government's ham-handed handling of the issues in her North American colonies brought on the Revolution and led to Britain losing her colonies on the mainland of North America.

Britain had incurred a huge national debt during the Seven Years' War/French and Indian War and had sent to North America a substantial army and naval support for that army. The British government was right in maintaining that the colonies should help pay off the debt after the war because of that support, which was the first time that substantial military support had been sent to North America during the series of wars with France in the 16th and 17th centuries. By and large before the French and Indian War, the colonies had been left to their own defenses.

The manner in which the British government demanded payment in taxes without explanation and treating the American colonists as colonists and not as British subjects began the mess that ended in violent revolution and war against the mother country. A more competent British government could have handled the situation better and at least delayed for quite some time the separation of the colonies from the mother country, as she did with Canada.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you view it, revolution did come and the United States was the outcome-as a republic with an enduring Constitution.

"More drivel from the newly released jailbird."

*NJH: Incarceration affects everyone differently. Beside that, I see lots of drivel on TMP and the people drooling it out are mostly those that haven't done their due diligence when researching the subject. Every now and then I fall into that category, as a result I have become a better researcher. Others still haven't learned and they keep the flame wars roaring and very unfriendly. Give the poor man a break, he needs time to adjust.

Northern Monkey- Agreed. Winston really needs to ready whole articles before going off the deep end.
In the meantime, what's all this about "jailbird"?