I donāt interpret the history like that, and really, itās not that long ago. I think itās a relatable situation to empathize with. The way youāve presented things assumes that everyone there was British and there was an outlying cast of ārebels and smugglersā.
My interpretation is that this was a group of people forming their own society on a new land away from Britain. Weāre talking from Jamestown in 1607, through the British separatist colonizing the rest of the American East Coast to 1732 (Georgia, last of the 13 British separatist colonies). Thatās over a 100 years of people forming a new society, on new land, literally fighting the environments day in and day out to survive.
During this time, we have The British Military setting up bases, trying to further their Nations expanse westward. In the mix we have one of the first Corporations, being used by the British Military - The East India Trading Company, to facilitate trade between the British Militants and what Iāll call Locals. The British Military gets priority on Imports, and the Locals either barter with the British Military installations or The East India Trading Company. Local Communities integrating trade as an alternative short The British Militia which results in the Townsend Acts of 1767. This allows British Militia involvement for what they see as āsmugglersā and results in confiscation of goods, to support British Militia.
The Boston Tea Party (1773, 166 years after the first long-term colony") sets in motion a societyās separation from British Occupants leading to The Revolutionary War of 1775 resulting in separation from The British Empire. I think it was an inevitable thing to happen as itās happened throughout history to The British Empire. As one would expect, this was literal Independence allowing the growing society to facilitate their own means, government, trade, and communities. Coincidentally, they inherited a similar civil governing structure as the base sauce was the same.
TL;DR: I donāt see this as greed but growth, separation, and annexation of The British Empire (Authoritarian) + East India Trading Company (Trade Monopoly Corporation).
What formed at the end of the day is Capitalism. For me, that leads me to believe that either International Trade or the Governing Body eventually leads to Capitalism. For me, I think itās the latter. This is the same Governing body inherited from The British Empire and adapted in itās own unique ways over a large geographical area. This Governing body mixed with the International Trade and humans susceptibility to greed has lead to U.S. Capitalism. Iām not necessarily sold on Capitalism being a bad concept, but the Governing Body has to be a check for the people and the Nation. What the U.S. has grown into is unchecked Capitalism, which could flip to full Authoritarianism if the inequality gap gets too big.
The way youāve presented things assumes that everyone there was British
Everyone was British, including the rebels and smugglers.
Thatās over a 100 years of people forming a new society, on new land, literally fighting the environments day in and day out to survive.
Thatās what the propaganda sells, but itās not true. Boston was as big a town as Liverpool in the 1700s. New York was roughly the same size as Manchester. Nobody was āliterally fighting the environment to surviveā. People had city-type jobs. Benjamin Franklin was printing newspapers. John Hancock was a smuggler. Sure, there were a lot of farmers working hard on their farms, but that was true everywhere.
I think it was an inevitable thing to happen as itās happened throughout history to The British Empire.
Leaving the British empire has happened a lot. Fighting a war to leave definitely hasnāt. Which other countries have fought wars to leave the British Empire?
Leaving the British empire has happened a lot. Fighting a war to leave definitely hasnāt. Which other countries have fought wars to leave the British Empire?
The Irish War of Independence (Ireland)
The Indiain Rebellion (India)
The North-West Rebellion (French/Canaidan)
Mau Mau rebellion (Kenya)
Baptist War (Jamaica)
This isnāt even a full list, and not all of these were successful, but they were all fights against British Occupation. Being in The British Empire wasnāt all rosesā¦
Thatās what the propaganda sells, but itās not true. Boston was as big a town as Liverpool in the 1700s. New York was roughly the same size as Manchester. Nobody was āliterally fighting the environment to surviveā. People had city-type jobs. Benjamin Franklin was printing newspapers. John Hancock was a smuggler. Sure, there were a lot of farmers working hard on their farms, but that was true everywhere.
How do you think all this happened? The cities just got shipped in from across the Atlantic? Thatās the whole point of Britians expansion with the Thirteen Colonies across the East Coast of Americas - multiple attempts at forming and sustaining a base of operations to further expansions. It starts in the early 1600s, continues into the 1700s as ships continue to drop off both British Separists - those wanting to seek life in a new land - and British Militia. All of which had to build these cities to handle the import of goods needed for the British Empires expansion. Itās not some Game of Thrones shit where a fleet of British ships just completely encompass the East Coast and supply it with everything it needs. Aināt no next day shipping in these days. Both Populace and Supplies would continue to come in through the century. These people had to explore, farm, forage, hunt, build shelter all in new land. Port cities would have been the first places to see the most improvement simply due to location and imports - again over 100 years, ~166 years from first landing a East Coast Colony to The Boston Tea Party.
John Handcock was born on Americans soil (not a British Separatist Import) and arguably had more right to the land and representation there of than the British Militia. He wasnāt some off-shore Chinese smuggler trying to undercut The East India Trading Corporation. The propaganda is framing local trade is āsmugglingā when in reality, the locals who grew up in The Americas, building the city, not fighting The British Empires war, got fed up having to deal with trading through The British and the upcharges from The East India Trading Corporation - who were relatively loyal to The British Militia.
The annexation of the British Empire has happened in more places than just the Americas - history shows that it was inevitable. A century and a half (over 150 years) is a long time for a society to grow apart from The British Empire across The Atlantic Ocean.
How do you think it happened in Liverpool and Manchester? People moved there and built up a town.
These people had to explore, farm, forage, hunt, build shelter all in new land
Their grandparents did, sure. By the time they were born these were established colonies and it wasnāt too different from Europe.
John Handcock was born on Americans soil (not a British Separatist Import) and arguably had more right to the land and representation there of than the British Militia.
I donāt know who āHandcockā was, but Hancock was a Briton born in the colonies, sure. But, who do you think the British Militia consisted of? Militia members were locals. Even British army officers were locals in many cases. Before he became President, George Washington was a (terrible) Colonel in the British army.
The propaganda is framing local trade is āsmugglingā when in reality, the locals who grew up in The Americas, building the city, not fighting The British Empires war,
You do realize that the colonists were fighting in the wars, and many of the wars were fought on behalf of the colonists, to protect them from the hostile French and āIndianā forces to their west, right?
got fed up having to deal with trading through The British
Yeah, just like the idiotic sovereign citizens today who donāt want to acknowledge that theyāre part of a society and that they have to live by the rules of that society like everyone else. They didnāt like the governmentās rules so they smuggled.
and the upcharges from The East India Trading Corporation - who were relatively loyal to The British Militia.
WTF are you talking about?
The annexation of the British Empire
What do you mean by āthe annexation of the British Empireā? The British Empire was never annexed.
A century and a half (over 150 years) is a long time for a society to grow apart from The British Empire across The Atlantic Ocean.
And yet, it didnāt happen, probably because there was constant contact and trade back and forth between British ports in the Americas, British ports in Asia, British ports in Europe, etc.
How do you think it happened in Liverpool and Manchester? People moved there and built up a town.
Under the British Empire, The British Crown, as a port city, where The British primarily ruled. This is a bit different than when The British Empire was across an entire Atlantic Ocean.
Their grandparents did, sure. By the time they were born these were established colonies and it wasnāt too different from Europe.
Not everything was Boston and established, flushed out colonies with paved streets and whatnot. Just because āTheir grandparentsā hunted, farmed, and build lodging doesnāt make their childrenās lives much different during those times. It was still very much roughing it, especially the more lower class you get. They still had to hunt, farm, forage, build, and work.
Militia members were locals.
British Militia were stationed there like any other wartime, but they were still loyalists to the British Empire, whereas society at that time was clearly moving away from Britainās control over the communities.
You do realize that the colonists were fighting in the wars, and many of the wars were fought on behalf of the colonists, to protect them from the hostile French and āIndianā forces to their west, right?
You do realize that this wasnāt some nice thing Britain was doing for the people wanting to leave Britain and had more to do with the British Empire trying to expand their reach over The World as they did in Africa and India? This is what The British did at the time, expansion and conquering through colonization.
Yeah, just like the idiotic sovereign citizens today who donāt want to acknowledge that theyāre part of a society and that they have to live by the rules of that society like everyone else. They didnāt like the governmentās rules so they smuggled.
A small group of smugglers didnāt just start a Revolution across roughly ~1500 miles of the Americas East Coast on their own. This was a social change driven by that societyās desire to be rid of British Occupation and Governance. Otherwise, this ārevolutionā would have fizzled without ongoing support, much like the āsovereign citizenā movement has.
and the upcharges from The East India Trading Corporation - who were relatively loyal to The British Militia.
WTF are you talking about?
During this period, with the British waging war and needing supplies (along with colonies needing supplies), this was primarily handled by The East India Trading Company to handle shipments and imports - this was more or less controlled by The British Empire. This meant that the local populace would need to trade and barter with the Trading Company, who favored The British Militia, which meant less fair trade/barter.
What do you mean by āthe annexation of the British Empireā? The British Empire was never annexed.
Annexation in that after the American Revolution and the British Surrender, this allowed the newly formed society to be separated entirely from the British Empire and British Militia. The colonies would no longer be under British Militia control and the society would be free to formulate itās own government and trade.
And yet, it didnāt happen, probably because there was constant contact and trade back and forth between British ports in the Americas, British ports in Asia, British ports in Europe, etc.
Now it just seems like youāre suggesting that Britain never released its control and influence over America, which I canāt agree with. America certainly grew up into a society different than Britain, certainly the revolt and removal of British Militia has apart in this.
Under the British Empire, The British Crown, as a port city, where The British primarily ruled.
That description fits Boston perfectly. It was in the British empire, under the British crown, in a port city where the British ruled.
Not everything was Boston and established, flushed out colonies with paved streets and whatnot
Yes, just like there were rural areas in England, there were also rural areas in the colonies. There wasnāt much difference except the settlements in the Americas were newer.
It was still very much roughing it
Yes, Benjamin Franklin was really āroughing itā when he worked in various cities running a printing press. Iām sure he was out hunting and foraging all the time. There were people who lived in very rural areas in the colonies, but thatās also true of Great Britain.
British Militia were stationed there
Militias arenāt stationed places. Militias are called up as needed. I suspect you donāt know what a Militia is.
You do realize that this wasnāt some nice thing Britain was doing for the people wanting to leave Britain and had more to do with the British Empire trying to expand their reach over The World as they did in Africa and India? This is what The British did at the time, expansion and conquering through colonization.
Yes, and? That doesnāt change that the primary beneficiaries of their plan to expand were the colonists who lived nearby. They werenāt doing it as a favour for the colonists, they were doing it as a strategic investment in the empire, of which the colonists were a part.
This was a social change driven by that societyās desire to be rid of British Occupation
No it wasnāt. Thatās the propaganda. The truth is that it was a revolution kicked off by the wealthy elite colonists who were greedy and didnāt want to have to share their wealth with the government. They wanted the benefits of the wars that Britain had fought to expand the empireās reach in North America, without having to pay the bill or agree to the terms of the treaty that ended the war.
According to John Adams, only about a third of the colonists were āPatriotsā, or revolutionaries. The other two thirds were Loyalists or undecided. Youād think that if anything heād be overestimating the number of āPatriotsā to make it seem like there was more support for the war on his side.
Otherwise, this ārevolutionā would have fizzled without ongoing support, much like the āsovereign citizenā movement has.
No, because the people backing the revolution were rich, and could afford to raise armies to fight for their side. Meanwhile, the British were still trying to pay off the debts from the previous war. The revolution succeeded because rich smugglers like John Hancock paid the bill, not because it had near universal support.
During this period, with the British waging war and needing supplies (along with colonies needing supplies), this was primarily handled by The East India Trading Company to handle shipments and imports
Noā¦ as you might be able to tell from the name, the British East India company operated inā¦ India. They were a trading company, not a company that supplied the needs of colonists in the Americas.
Annexation in that after the American Revolution and the British Surrender, this allowed the newly formed society to be separated entirely from the British Empire and British Militia.
You might want to look up the definition of āannexationā, youāre not using the word correctly.
Now it just seems like youāre suggesting that Britain never released its control and influence over America
Britain never āreleasedā control over the colonies in the Americas until the rebels won the war. Until then the colonies were an integrated part of the empire. Most colonists considered themselves as British. Some of them were Britons who had disagreements with how the government was run. But, thatās like Texans today who consider themselves American but think the government should be run differently.
removal of British Militia has apart in this.
Apart means separate. The words you mean to use are āa partā. Your grasp of history is as weak as your grasp of grammar.
That description fits Boston perfectly. It was in the British empire, under the British crown, in a port city where the British ruled.
If you canāt tell the difference between the long-term British Surrounded and Integrated Livington and the Colonies growing apart from Britian across an entire Atlantic Ocean then thereās nothing to talk about. Boston was only like Liverpool in a sense that it was under British rule. Many of the people living and working in Boston werenāt even born on Great Britian soil and were born on Americas soil.
At this point, I donāt think youāre arguing in Good Faith.
Yes, just like there were rural areas in England, there were also rural areas in the colonies. There wasnāt much difference except the settlements in the Americas were newer.
Again, this is different than being an entire Ocean away, constantly dealing with British Militia Occupation over a span of ~150+ years.
Yes, Benjamin Franklin was really āroughing itā when he worked in various cities running a printing press. Iām sure he was out hunting and foraging all the time. There were people who lived in very rural areas in the colonies, but thatās also true of Great Britain.
Benjamin Franklin was not the norm. He was born into a family that already had a demanding industry running which gave him access to money and resources to go to school and live relatively comfortably. Just because the city had a printing press does not make it āmodernā. This was not the norm for the time in the 1700s and especially for the majority of people living out on the East Coast for the last ~150 years.
Militias arenāt stationed places. Militias are called up as needed. I suspect you donāt know what a Militia is.
I suspect you understand what I mean when I say āThe British Militiaā, or maybe youāre not familiar with The British Empire, but youāre definitely being pedantic. You said yourself The British Empire was fighting a war to the West. They had to setup military bases to feed their war.
Yes, and? That doesnāt change that the primary beneficiaries of their plan to expand were the colonists who lived nearby. They werenāt doing it as a favour for the colonists, they were doing it as a strategic investment in the empire, of which the colonists were a part.
Clearly the colonists disagreed or there wouldnāt have been a revolution to begin with. Unless you think Antifa somehow got mixed into the ~1600 mile stretch of the East Coast and rallied the people against the Angels of the British Empire. The colonists no longer identified as British and wanted free of British rule and British Military Occupation. Again, something that has happened throughout history to the British Empireā¦
No it wasnāt. Thatās the propaganda. The truth is that it was a revolution kicked off by the wealthy elite colonists who were greedy and didnāt want to have to share their wealth with the government. They wanted the benefits of the wars that Britain had fought to expand the empireās reach in North America, without having to pay the bill or agree to the terms of the treaty that ended the war.
No thatās the propaganda youāre pushing because you think everything was just roses and jumpropes in the 1600s and 1700s. Your multiple comments give the impression that you believe everyone was living in cozy brick houses and got their food from the market. You seem to believe that this land was already cleared, explored, ready and waiting for the British to ship in their houses. Nobody believe that this was the case, but you wonāt concede that people had to hunt and forage in a new land in which colonization is happening on new land? Get real.
The people growing up on that land, having to build their houses, having to build these towns, having to work in the area, these are the people who grew up away from Britian. These are the people who eventually got fed up with British Occupation and being under the British Empireās thumb. Once againā¦ Something thatās happened to The British throughout historyā¦
According to John Adams, only about a third of the colonists were āPatriotsā, or revolutionaries. The other two thirds were Loyalists or undecided. Youād think that if anything heād be overestimating the number of āPatriotsā to make it seem like there was more support for the war on his side.
Ya know Iāve read this and I think it tracks with how society goes. It certainly mirrors the U.S. political system pretty well since itās a 2 party system (Patriots / Loyalists) and then thereās the undecided. Iād argue thatās the case in most 2 party systems. I donāt see this as the point you make it out to be, but a normal outcome to politics, and itās especially surprising in a time with such slow communication (though when Adams says this, the Revolutionary War was already long past).
The āLoyalistsā being those who wanted to stay within The Briths Empire.
The āPatriotsā being those who wanted to be free of The British Empire.
The āUndecidedā being those who just wanted to be left alone in the new land theyāre exploring and homes theyāre building for themselves.
The revolution succeeded because rich smugglers like John Hancock paid the bill, not because it had near universal support.
I donāt disagree with that. Most causes donāt have āuniversal supportā, especially politically. Thatās absurd.
Noā¦ as you might be able to tell from the name, the British East India company operated inā¦ India.
The East India Trading Company came from the colonization of India and itās base of operations was in fucking London during the period weāre discussing. This was an international shipping company used to facilitate trade between the British colonies, which included the American colonies, throughout the world. The British had a stranglehold, a Monopoly on trade at this time when dealing, especially when dealing with the American Colonies.
I donāt think you have a full understanding of how The British Empire used their wealth and power to try and colonize and influence the rest of the world. I donāt think you have a full grasp of how different the time period of the 1600s and 1700s is compared to modern day and what those people had to deal with as they were forming a new society on this new land. I donāt see any reason to keep discussing this topic with you, as youāre as stuck in your propaganda as I am apparently in mine.
I donāt interpret the history like that, and really, itās not that long ago. I think itās a relatable situation to empathize with. The way youāve presented things assumes that everyone there was British and there was an outlying cast of ārebels and smugglersā.
My interpretation is that this was a group of people forming their own society on a new land away from Britain. Weāre talking from Jamestown in 1607, through the British separatist colonizing the rest of the American East Coast to 1732 (Georgia, last of the 13 British separatist colonies). Thatās over a 100 years of people forming a new society, on new land, literally fighting the environments day in and day out to survive.
During this time, we have The British Military setting up bases, trying to further their Nations expanse westward. In the mix we have one of the first Corporations, being used by the British Military - The East India Trading Company, to facilitate trade between the British Militants and what Iāll call Locals. The British Military gets priority on Imports, and the Locals either barter with the British Military installations or The East India Trading Company. Local Communities integrating trade as an alternative short The British Militia which results in the Townsend Acts of 1767. This allows British Militia involvement for what they see as āsmugglersā and results in confiscation of goods, to support British Militia.
The Boston Tea Party (1773, 166 years after the first long-term colony") sets in motion a societyās separation from British Occupants leading to The Revolutionary War of 1775 resulting in separation from The British Empire. I think it was an inevitable thing to happen as itās happened throughout history to The British Empire. As one would expect, this was literal Independence allowing the growing society to facilitate their own means, government, trade, and communities. Coincidentally, they inherited a similar civil governing structure as the base sauce was the same.
TL;DR: I donāt see this as greed but growth, separation, and annexation of The British Empire (Authoritarian) + East India Trading Company (Trade Monopoly Corporation).
What formed at the end of the day is Capitalism. For me, that leads me to believe that either International Trade or the Governing Body eventually leads to Capitalism. For me, I think itās the latter. This is the same Governing body inherited from The British Empire and adapted in itās own unique ways over a large geographical area. This Governing body mixed with the International Trade and humans susceptibility to greed has lead to U.S. Capitalism. Iām not necessarily sold on Capitalism being a bad concept, but the Governing Body has to be a check for the people and the Nation. What the U.S. has grown into is unchecked Capitalism, which could flip to full Authoritarianism if the inequality gap gets too big.
Everyone was British, including the rebels and smugglers.
Thatās what the propaganda sells, but itās not true. Boston was as big a town as Liverpool in the 1700s. New York was roughly the same size as Manchester. Nobody was āliterally fighting the environment to surviveā. People had city-type jobs. Benjamin Franklin was printing newspapers. John Hancock was a smuggler. Sure, there were a lot of farmers working hard on their farms, but that was true everywhere.
Leaving the British empire has happened a lot. Fighting a war to leave definitely hasnāt. Which other countries have fought wars to leave the British Empire?
This isnāt even a full list, and not all of these were successful, but they were all fights against British Occupation. Being in The British Empire wasnāt all rosesā¦
How do you think all this happened? The cities just got shipped in from across the Atlantic? Thatās the whole point of Britians expansion with the Thirteen Colonies across the East Coast of Americas - multiple attempts at forming and sustaining a base of operations to further expansions. It starts in the early 1600s, continues into the 1700s as ships continue to drop off both British Separists - those wanting to seek life in a new land - and British Militia. All of which had to build these cities to handle the import of goods needed for the British Empires expansion. Itās not some Game of Thrones shit where a fleet of British ships just completely encompass the East Coast and supply it with everything it needs. Aināt no next day shipping in these days. Both Populace and Supplies would continue to come in through the century. These people had to explore, farm, forage, hunt, build shelter all in new land. Port cities would have been the first places to see the most improvement simply due to location and imports - again over 100 years, ~166 years from first landing a East Coast Colony to The Boston Tea Party.
John Handcock was born on Americans soil (not a British Separatist Import) and arguably had more right to the land and representation there of than the British Militia. He wasnāt some off-shore Chinese smuggler trying to undercut The East India Trading Corporation. The propaganda is framing local trade is āsmugglingā when in reality, the locals who grew up in The Americas, building the city, not fighting The British Empires war, got fed up having to deal with trading through The British and the upcharges from The East India Trading Corporation - who were relatively loyal to The British Militia.
The annexation of the British Empire has happened in more places than just the Americas - history shows that it was inevitable. A century and a half (over 150 years) is a long time for a society to grow apart from The British Empire across The Atlantic Ocean.
How do you think it happened in Liverpool and Manchester? People moved there and built up a town.
Their grandparents did, sure. By the time they were born these were established colonies and it wasnāt too different from Europe.
I donāt know who āHandcockā was, but Hancock was a Briton born in the colonies, sure. But, who do you think the British Militia consisted of? Militia members were locals. Even British army officers were locals in many cases. Before he became President, George Washington was a (terrible) Colonel in the British army.
You do realize that the colonists were fighting in the wars, and many of the wars were fought on behalf of the colonists, to protect them from the hostile French and āIndianā forces to their west, right?
Yeah, just like the idiotic sovereign citizens today who donāt want to acknowledge that theyāre part of a society and that they have to live by the rules of that society like everyone else. They didnāt like the governmentās rules so they smuggled.
WTF are you talking about?
What do you mean by āthe annexation of the British Empireā? The British Empire was never annexed.
And yet, it didnāt happen, probably because there was constant contact and trade back and forth between British ports in the Americas, British ports in Asia, British ports in Europe, etc.
Under the British Empire, The British Crown, as a port city, where The British primarily ruled. This is a bit different than when The British Empire was across an entire Atlantic Ocean.
Not everything was Boston and established, flushed out colonies with paved streets and whatnot. Just because āTheir grandparentsā hunted, farmed, and build lodging doesnāt make their childrenās lives much different during those times. It was still very much roughing it, especially the more lower class you get. They still had to hunt, farm, forage, build, and work.
British Militia were stationed there like any other wartime, but they were still loyalists to the British Empire, whereas society at that time was clearly moving away from Britainās control over the communities.
You do realize that this wasnāt some nice thing Britain was doing for the people wanting to leave Britain and had more to do with the British Empire trying to expand their reach over The World as they did in Africa and India? This is what The British did at the time, expansion and conquering through colonization.
A small group of smugglers didnāt just start a Revolution across roughly ~1500 miles of the Americas East Coast on their own. This was a social change driven by that societyās desire to be rid of British Occupation and Governance. Otherwise, this ārevolutionā would have fizzled without ongoing support, much like the āsovereign citizenā movement has.
During this period, with the British waging war and needing supplies (along with colonies needing supplies), this was primarily handled by The East India Trading Company to handle shipments and imports - this was more or less controlled by The British Empire. This meant that the local populace would need to trade and barter with the Trading Company, who favored The British Militia, which meant less fair trade/barter.
Annexation in that after the American Revolution and the British Surrender, this allowed the newly formed society to be separated entirely from the British Empire and British Militia. The colonies would no longer be under British Militia control and the society would be free to formulate itās own government and trade.
Now it just seems like youāre suggesting that Britain never released its control and influence over America, which I canāt agree with. America certainly grew up into a society different than Britain, certainly the revolt and removal of British Militia has apart in this.
That description fits Boston perfectly. It was in the British empire, under the British crown, in a port city where the British ruled.
Yes, just like there were rural areas in England, there were also rural areas in the colonies. There wasnāt much difference except the settlements in the Americas were newer.
Yes, Benjamin Franklin was really āroughing itā when he worked in various cities running a printing press. Iām sure he was out hunting and foraging all the time. There were people who lived in very rural areas in the colonies, but thatās also true of Great Britain.
Militias arenāt stationed places. Militias are called up as needed. I suspect you donāt know what a Militia is.
Yes, and? That doesnāt change that the primary beneficiaries of their plan to expand were the colonists who lived nearby. They werenāt doing it as a favour for the colonists, they were doing it as a strategic investment in the empire, of which the colonists were a part.
No it wasnāt. Thatās the propaganda. The truth is that it was a revolution kicked off by the wealthy elite colonists who were greedy and didnāt want to have to share their wealth with the government. They wanted the benefits of the wars that Britain had fought to expand the empireās reach in North America, without having to pay the bill or agree to the terms of the treaty that ended the war.
According to John Adams, only about a third of the colonists were āPatriotsā, or revolutionaries. The other two thirds were Loyalists or undecided. Youād think that if anything heād be overestimating the number of āPatriotsā to make it seem like there was more support for the war on his side.
No, because the people backing the revolution were rich, and could afford to raise armies to fight for their side. Meanwhile, the British were still trying to pay off the debts from the previous war. The revolution succeeded because rich smugglers like John Hancock paid the bill, not because it had near universal support.
Noā¦ as you might be able to tell from the name, the British East India company operated inā¦ India. They were a trading company, not a company that supplied the needs of colonists in the Americas.
You might want to look up the definition of āannexationā, youāre not using the word correctly.
Britain never āreleasedā control over the colonies in the Americas until the rebels won the war. Until then the colonies were an integrated part of the empire. Most colonists considered themselves as British. Some of them were Britons who had disagreements with how the government was run. But, thatās like Texans today who consider themselves American but think the government should be run differently.
Apart means separate. The words you mean to use are āa partā. Your grasp of history is as weak as your grasp of grammar.
If you canāt tell the difference between the long-term British Surrounded and Integrated Livington and the Colonies growing apart from Britian across an entire Atlantic Ocean then thereās nothing to talk about. Boston was only like Liverpool in a sense that it was under British rule. Many of the people living and working in Boston werenāt even born on Great Britian soil and were born on Americas soil.
At this point, I donāt think youāre arguing in Good Faith.
Again, this is different than being an entire Ocean away, constantly dealing with British Militia Occupation over a span of ~150+ years.
Benjamin Franklin was not the norm. He was born into a family that already had a demanding industry running which gave him access to money and resources to go to school and live relatively comfortably. Just because the city had a printing press does not make it āmodernā. This was not the norm for the time in the 1700s and especially for the majority of people living out on the East Coast for the last ~150 years.
I suspect you understand what I mean when I say āThe British Militiaā, or maybe youāre not familiar with The British Empire, but youāre definitely being pedantic. You said yourself The British Empire was fighting a war to the West. They had to setup military bases to feed their war.
Clearly the colonists disagreed or there wouldnāt have been a revolution to begin with. Unless you think Antifa somehow got mixed into the ~1600 mile stretch of the East Coast and rallied the people against the Angels of the British Empire. The colonists no longer identified as British and wanted free of British rule and British Military Occupation. Again, something that has happened throughout history to the British Empireā¦
No thatās the propaganda youāre pushing because you think everything was just roses and jumpropes in the 1600s and 1700s. Your multiple comments give the impression that you believe everyone was living in cozy brick houses and got their food from the market. You seem to believe that this land was already cleared, explored, ready and waiting for the British to ship in their houses. Nobody believe that this was the case, but you wonāt concede that people had to hunt and forage in a new land in which colonization is happening on new land? Get real.
The people growing up on that land, having to build their houses, having to build these towns, having to work in the area, these are the people who grew up away from Britian. These are the people who eventually got fed up with British Occupation and being under the British Empireās thumb. Once againā¦ Something thatās happened to The British throughout historyā¦
Ya know Iāve read this and I think it tracks with how society goes. It certainly mirrors the U.S. political system pretty well since itās a 2 party system (Patriots / Loyalists) and then thereās the undecided. Iād argue thatās the case in most 2 party systems. I donāt see this as the point you make it out to be, but a normal outcome to politics, and itās especially surprising in a time with such slow communication (though when Adams says this, the Revolutionary War was already long past).
The āLoyalistsā being those who wanted to stay within The Briths Empire.
The āPatriotsā being those who wanted to be free of The British Empire.
The āUndecidedā being those who just wanted to be left alone in the new land theyāre exploring and homes theyāre building for themselves.
I donāt disagree with that. Most causes donāt have āuniversal supportā, especially politically. Thatās absurd.
The East India Trading Company came from the colonization of India and itās base of operations was in fucking London during the period weāre discussing. This was an international shipping company used to facilitate trade between the British colonies, which included the American colonies, throughout the world. The British had a stranglehold, a Monopoly on trade at this time when dealing, especially when dealing with the American Colonies.
I donāt think you have a full understanding of how The British Empire used their wealth and power to try and colonize and influence the rest of the world. I donāt think you have a full grasp of how different the time period of the 1600s and 1700s is compared to modern day and what those people had to deal with as they were forming a new society on this new land. I donāt see any reason to keep discussing this topic with you, as youāre as stuck in your propaganda as I am apparently in mine.