How do you British folks view the American Revolution?

[Agrippa]

No. No. The British were extremely reasonable. We just wanted the Colonists to ante-up something towards their own defense costs, and to keep the treaties which stopped settlement in the Indian lands west of the Appalachians. Of course George III and his supporters were by no means democrats, but that wasn't really the issue. They just wanted the Americans to accept the principle that they couldn't live free of tax, and that they had to accept the ultimate authority of the crown.

Americans didn't live free of tax. New England towns in particular taxed (and still do to this day) very heavily. On the eve of the Revolution, villages were taxing themselves up to 45 pounds to purchase weapons for those too poor to afford their own. What they objected to was being taxed by Parliament. The colonists offered a number of half-way measures that were rejected. One of those was a Dominion for the colonies; Great Britain offered that status late in the 1770s but by that point we had declared independence and dominion status was no longer enough. The colonists in America were far more supportive of the king than citizens in Great Britain. They accepted the king; they couldn't accept governance from Parliament thousands of miles away. It wasn't until early 1776 that the colonists came to the conclusion that they king was their enemy. In contrast, Parliament had been the enemy since 1763.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

The point I was trying to make was that although the British Empire was often rapacious and self-serving, it tried to operate under certain rules, which were enforced from the centre. While these rules did not prevent large amounts of native peoples land being stolen, and other misdeeds, there was an authority at the centre which could stop the worst excesses, and which made sure some sort of rule of law was applied to native peoples under treaty. In Independent America, the settlers ran the law, and the Indians had no appeal when they were removed from their treaty lands, or were subject to attack. So in much of America there are virtually no native people left. .

Thanks for the clarification. The Americans had a great love for their liberties that they had inherited from their British forefathers. Americans and British powers both treated Native peoples poorly. The Americans (18th, early 19th century) had experienced warfare with the natives up close and personal. The natives killed men, women and children without discretion, this lead to terrible vengeance by the Europeans/Americans.

Americans often dealt cruelly with the Natives, especially when they moved the "civilised nations"from the southeast to the Indian territories to the west. The decimation of the plains Indians was no less than attempted genocide. Grant (president), Sherman, Sheridan and Custer would have killed them all if they could have. But Sherman wanted to kill all the Southerners and colonies the South with Yankees (you gotta admit he was consistent). Sherman was an early proponent of total war.

I was just responding to the thread question. I would say most Britons would think that the USA treated the Native Americans far more harshly than Britain would have done. The British Empire tended to see itself as a liberal, beneficial institution bringing world peace and British civilisation. This wasn't true much of the time, but it meant it had something to live up to, and if local peoples could get their case to the courts, it would get a hearing.

Still y’all took Australia, New Zealand, etc... from native peoples. And it was often done by spilling blood (even if it was for their own good, as many people seemed to think).
The British attitude of benevolence in the 19th century is a kin to the American attitude today (which I dislike). God did not die and put the British Empire in charge then and he has not died and left things to the Americans today.

No. No. The British were extremely reasonable. We just wanted the Colonists to ante-up something towards their own defense costs, and to keep the treaties which stopped settlement in the Indian lands west of the Appalachians. Of course George III and his supporters were by no means democrats, but that wasn't really the issue. They just wanted the Americans to accept the principle that they couldn't live free of tax, and that they had to accept the ultimate authority of the crown.

The Americans did not think they could live free from taxes. The question for them was -- Who can lawfully tax us? Is it our own legislative bodies or the British Parliament where we have no representation?
(This is from my post my thread on the American Revolution)

In 1773 Parliament passed another of its many attempts to tax the colonies. This was the Tea Act which led to the Boston Tea Party. Legally imported tea came to the colonies from the East India Company. The legal tea would first go to a port in England where high duties were placed on it, then it was brought to an American port. The duties placed on the tea in England made it expensive, so the Dutch would smuggle tea to America. The Dutch tea was much cheaper.

The Tea Act eliminated the high duty on tea coming to America and replaced it with a small 3 cents per pound tax that was to be paid in the colonies. This act would make the English tea even cheaper than the tea smuggled in by the Dutch. The Americans, up and down the Atlantic seaboard viewed the Tea Act as a diabolical attempt by Parliament to take from them their right to self-government. By making tea so cheap it was believed the Americans would surely not object and a precedent would be set that Parliament could lay taxes in America.

Again, I would refer you to William Pit and Edmond Burke. They saw the Colonies to be in the right. This was an attempt by the British Parliament to usurp the Colonists long held right to internal self government within the Empire.

The U.K. was spending a lot of money protecting America, but they were wrong in the way they tried to get money from the Americans. Again I ask that you read the Declaration of Independence.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[but'n'ben]

This probably won't go down well with the Americans but since you asked...yeah i think they had the right to shake off the British. Just the same way as the Native American's deserved the right to shake off the Amercian settlers. If you really want to know how a lot of brits feel about the Americans it's "why do you love the country so much...it doesn't belong to you, and the only true american is the native." i know that'll ruffle a few feathers, but you did ask.

 

[CJ.23]

The point I was trying to make was that although the British Empire was often rapacious and self-serving, it tried to operate under certain rules, which were enforced from the centre. While these rules did not prevent large amounts of native peoples land being stolen, and other misdeeds, there was an authority at the centre which could stop the worst excesses, and which made sure some sort of rule of law was applied to native peoples under treaty. In Independent America, the settlers ran the law, and the Indians had no appeal when they were removed from their treaty lands, or were subject to attack. So in much of America there are virtually no native people left.

I was just responding to the thread question. I would say most Britons would think that the USA treated the Native Americans far more harshly than Britain would have done. The British Empire tended to see itself as a liberal, beneficial institution bringing world peace and British civilisation. This wasn't true much of the time, but it meant it had something to live up to, and if local peoples could get their case to the courts, it would get a hearing.
.

Axion, you are far too hard on the British Empire. While my stance of refusing to accept the existence of the USA, and believing the ringleader in the so called Congress should all be hanged for treason is perhaps a little extreme, most modern historians argue the central factor behind the Bostonian scoundrels rebelling was in fact the preservation of Native American land rights by London. If the British had remained in control, the colonies would have never expanded much beyond the Appalachians.

I will actually find some (American) historians and cite them, as I can guess this will be a contentious point. I have read neutral (ie. neither British nor US historians) on this issue, and it seems clear that the current US school version is little short of national mythology, of the type usually propagated by countries.

(BTW for those with a serious sense of humour failure, I don't really dispute the existence of the uSA etc! )

cj x

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

This probably won't go down well with the Americans but since you asked...yeah i think they had the right to shake off the British. Just the same way as the Native American's deserved the right to shake off the Amercian settlers. If you really want to know how a lot of brits feel about the Americans it's "why do you love the country so much...it doesn't belong to you, and the only true american is the native." i know that'll ruffle a few feathers, but you did ask.

Ok. Lets get all those of European ancestry in the Americas (including Canada and The U.S.), Australia, New Zealand South Africa, etc... and we can all return to Europe. Oh yes the Anglo-Saxons would have to leave Britain and return to the continent.

Last time I checked the Anglo-Saxons took, what we now know as England, from the Celts. I guess you can stay in Scotland, but then again I think you Scots migrated there from Ireland. There was no reason for the Picts to live up there without Scots budding in on them.

Should the Protestants in N. Ireland all return to Scotland and leave Ireland to the Roman Catholics?

Actually, I think you post was silly, but it was worth having a little fun with.

Kenith

 

[but'n'ben]

I think you'll find I come from a very long line of anceint Gaelic families and therefore I belong in Scotland. Why would protestants in N Ireland return to Scotland? Scotland was a Catholic country untill William of Orange took over. The same as Ireland. Don't blame us for the troubles in Ireland. It's nothing to do with Scotland...I was brought over here when thousands of irish families immigrated to find jobs.

Where did I say that i thought everyone should return to their own native country. I never. That's the problem with some on this forum..they read what they want and not what they see. I said what the majority of brits think when they see the Americans and the in your face patriotism.

Your post, my friend, was silly. I suggest reading the post you are replying to PROPERLY and also doing some research on the subject you are going on about. DOn't lecture me about protestants, catholics and the links between scotland and ireland. Thats what my uni degree is in, and I live in a society which revolves around pathetic bigotry.