I mean come on, /his/, they had the lowest taxes than any other British colony. And the American Revolution was primarily based on the fact that the North American colonists didn't have representation in Parliament for their taxation.
I was even told Britain was going to give them representation in due time if it wasn't for them rebelling.
Tbh senpai, imho, I think USA shouldn't have seceded from her mother country Britain. What do you all think?
Go ahead and try, eat it. Eat the bait. Eat it you history buff, damn you!
The Thirteen Colonies' list of grievances was actually pretty fucking tame and lame compared to other historical revolts. But they were still unjustifiably being treated like second-class citizens of the British Empire despite many of them being descended from British immigrants or were recent immigrants themselves.
Basically, fuck the Brits.
The seccesion from Britian was not based on taxation without representation.
The truth is; Britain was about to outlaw slavery, and slave owners started a revolution to protect their property. Shanley v Harvey, and later R v Stapylton and James Somersett's case in English common law, set the precedence of outlawing slavery in a territory. At this, the slave holders could not possibly tolerate, so they began a revolution based on a limited government based on Locke principles of limited government, so that no government would be powerful enough to take slaves away from them.
There is a reason why so many Black slaves fought with the British. For further reading on this I would suggest Rough Crossings: The Slaves, the British, and the American Revolution.
Washington freed every slave he legally could upon his death. The colonies which were most in favor of revolution were the ones without widespread slavery.
nice try tho
This is true, but coupled with the ban on Westward expansion, Slave owners got paranoid that it would be them next. And the UK did outlaw slavery a few years later, so they were justified.
From the British point of view, the rebellions in the Caribbean which had to constantly be put down, were just not worth keeping American politicians on side. That and the morals of slavery were increasingly diverging between Britain and the colonies. Although Slavery wasn't the soul reason, the American revolution would never have succeed if it wasn't for the slave holders support.
UK was around India in the form of the East India company from around 1600, but the monopoly began later around 1750. So the dates match up, and the big money started rolling in around the start of the American revolution
Absolutely not, the global terrorist syndicate known as the "United States" must be stopped.
No, our basically unchecked access to the best parts of an entire continent coupled with 3,000 miles of ocean between us and our nearest serious competitor is what let us become a superpower.
Seriously, Europe left thirteen colonies with unlimited access to some of the best farmland on the planet on a continent that had only just barely been tapped, and did practically nothing to prevent emigration to the USA. What did Europeaners THINK was going to happen?
Slavery wasn't outlawed in the British Empire (including the United Kingdom itself) until 1833, forty-seven years after the start of the Revolution. The 1807 Slave Trade Act outlawed the TRADING of slaves but not the ownership. And even the 1833 act didn't outlaw slavery in areas controlled by the British East India Company, nor Ceylon, nor Saint Helena (those had to wait for 1843)
There was no major movement to abolish slavery in Britain until the 1780s, well into the American Revolution.
The Colonies were profitable, but after eight years of war and the French threatening their Caribbean assets (the island of Jamaica, due to sugar, was worth more than all of New England combined, for example), the British just wanted to end the war and get the trade going again.
It's not about right and wrong. It's about financiers from abroad to influence discontent and power vacuums. The rich enemies of the British, like the French, helped finance the American Revolution.
Throughout history, the wealthy internationalists send their money to foreign lands for greater influence on world affairs.
It happens to this day with armed conflicts.
ISLAND OF SHOPKEEPERS DETECTED. COALITION AND COALITION LICKSPITTLES NOT WELCOME IN /HIS/.
I wouldnt say give up so easily but they did send twice as many troops to their carribean holdings in fear of rebelion passing down there. That is to say their carribean colonies made much more money that new england so in the end, losing new england was the least of worst possible outcomes.
Yes, although it could have been avoided relatively easily by both sides.
Ultimately it was probably for the better. The UK became global hegemon for a long period of time even after losing the US, and honestly the world today would probably be a lot worse if the 13 were still part of the empire.
Yes and no, They really didnt have any serious grievances with Britain, and many colonists considered themselves loyal subjects.
Once the hotheaded drunks in boston lit the spark it was impossible to put out the fire. I say this was affection as a masshole