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 can’t 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 there’s 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 weren’t even born on Great Britian soil and were born on Americas soil.
At this point, I don’t think you’re arguing in Good Faith.
Yes, just like there were rural areas in England, there were also rural areas in the colonies. There wasn’t 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 “roughing it” when he worked in various cities running a printing press. I’m sure he was out hunting and foraging all the time. There were people who lived in very rural areas in the colonies, but that’s 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 “modern”. 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 aren’t stationed places. Militias are called up as needed. I suspect you don’t know what a Militia is.
I suspect you understand what I mean when I say “The British Militia”, or maybe you’re not familiar with The British Empire, but you’re 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 doesn’t change that the primary beneficiaries of their plan to expand were the colonists who lived nearby. They weren’t 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 wouldn’t 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 Empire…
No it wasn’t. That’s the propaganda. The truth is that it was a revolution kicked off by the wealthy elite colonists who were greedy and didn’t want to have to share their wealth with the government. They wanted the benefits of the wars that Britain had fought to expand the empire’s reach in North America, without having to pay the bill or agree to the terms of the treaty that ended the war.
No that’s the propaganda you’re 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 won’t 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 Empire’s thumb. Once again… Something that’s happened to The British throughout history…
According to John Adams, only about a third of the colonists were “Patriots”, or revolutionaries. The other two thirds were Loyalists or undecided. You’d think that if anything he’d be overestimating the number of “Patriots” to make it seem like there was more support for the war on his side.
Ya know I’ve read this and I think it tracks with how society goes. It certainly mirrors the U.S. political system pretty well since it’s a 2 party system (Patriots / Loyalists) and then there’s the undecided. I’d argue that’s the case in most 2 party systems. I don’t see this as the point you make it out to be, but a normal outcome to politics, and it’s especially surprising in a time with such slow communication (though when Adams says this, the Revolutionary War was already long past).
The “Loyalists” being those who wanted to stay within The Briths Empire.
The “Patriots” being those who wanted to be free of The British Empire.
The “Undecided” being those who just wanted to be left alone in the new land they’re exploring and homes they’re building for themselves.
The revolution succeeded because rich smugglers like John Hancock paid the bill, not because it had near universal support.
I don’t disagree with that. Most causes don’t have “universal support”, especially politically. That’s absurd.
No… as you might be able to tell from the name, the British East India company operated in… India.
The East India Trading Company came from the colonization of India and it’s base of operations was in fucking London during the period we’re 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 don’t see any reason to keep discussing this topic with you, as you’re as stuck in your propaganda as I am apparently in mine.
If you can’t 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 there’s 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 weren’t even born on Great Britian soil and were born on Americas soil.
At this point, I don’t think you’re 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 “modern”. 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 “The British Militia”, or maybe you’re not familiar with The British Empire, but you’re 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 wouldn’t 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 Empire…
No that’s the propaganda you’re 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 won’t 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 Empire’s thumb. Once again… Something that’s happened to The British throughout history…
Ya know I’ve read this and I think it tracks with how society goes. It certainly mirrors the U.S. political system pretty well since it’s a 2 party system (Patriots / Loyalists) and then there’s the undecided. I’d argue that’s the case in most 2 party systems. I don’t see this as the point you make it out to be, but a normal outcome to politics, and it’s especially surprising in a time with such slow communication (though when Adams says this, the Revolutionary War was already long past).
The “Loyalists” being those who wanted to stay within The Briths Empire.
The “Patriots” being those who wanted to be free of The British Empire.
The “Undecided” being those who just wanted to be left alone in the new land they’re exploring and homes they’re building for themselves.
I don’t disagree with that. Most causes don’t have “universal support”, especially politically. That’s absurd.
The East India Trading Company came from the colonization of India and it’s base of operations was in fucking London during the period we’re 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 don’t see any reason to keep discussing this topic with you, as you’re as stuck in your propaganda as I am apparently in mine.