Was the Revolutionary War right or wrong?

[Danigol of South America]

They did had the right to tax them. For they were getting protection, not only could the french of destroyed the colonies but also the native americans. Besides the original settles were British and where they came from the also paid taxes so why not here. I think as Chesh said that the conflict could of not been avoided.

[RuleBritannia]

It should also be noted the colonists made use of muskets and artillery, where as the Marathas had spears and whicker shields.

Spears and whicker shields? Sure, they were used, but the majority of the Marathas either used muskets or more powerful melee weapons.

The Marathas tended to use cannons as well, and even if they did use spears and whicker shields, they had 30,000 or more soldiers in battles. That's 30,000 charging infantry vs. 800 soldiers armed with slow-firing muskets.

The Anglo-Marathan Wars were not rebellions, but were Britain's process of taking over India. The three wars were fought over the mid-18th century up to around or after the American Revolution.


And I call them fools because I hate that they rebelled and I'm British.

[Chesh]

And I call them fools because I hate that they rebelled and I'm British.

I'm British, but it does not make them fools

[Seraph07]

.......You hate them ? You do realize that the revolution - not the rebellion, took place the better part of 250 years ago right ? We've been on pretty good terms with the British since....

Of course the war was justified. It proved that we were Americans, not British - with all due respect to our cousins.

The Anglo-Marathan Wars were not rebellions, but were Britain's process of taking over India. The three wars were fought over the mid-18th century up to around or after the American Revolution

.

British simply didn't care much about the rebellion, because if they did, they would've fought like they did in the Anglo-Marathan Wars of 1750

Maratha Wars (1777-1783, 1803-1805, 1817-1818) Wars between the MARATHA peoples of India and the British Empire


http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O48-MarathaWars.html


Please read what I write before you respond to it. I never said that they were rebellions. I used that point to illustrate how thinly spread British forces during the war.

[The Donz]

He said

I hate that they rebelled

not that he hate "them"


Anyway: Youre very close to the line with that RB. Don't cross it!

keep the discussion civilized, and be kind to each other please.

[RuleBritannia]

I looked it up (the Anglo-Maratha Wars), and I just realized they were fought through the late 18th and early 19th century, not the 1750s.


However, my point is that the colonists began to resent the British for taxing them, which resulted in the British cracking down on the rebellion, which caused the colonists to further resent them.

The colonists had no idea how much Britain helped them and how much they needed Britain, so I guess stupidity on the colonists' part isn't entirely true.

A better way to put is that they were ignorant. They didn't know what the British had done for them. They gave them a huge amount of land to settle, they gave them great amounts of protection against France and Indian tribes, and they became the crown colony of the Empire. They didn't realize this, and had they realized it, they wouldn't have rebelled in my opinion.

However, I will say they could've at least tried to understand the many things Great Britain had done for them. I mean, they fought alongside British troops in the Seven Years' War, and seeing how they fought fierce battles in protection of the colonies, they should've been more grateful for the British supporting them.

[Lord Claremorris]

Of course Parliament had the right to tax them. The colonists did have representation, but at their own assemblies (until they were suspended as punishment) and I think it's silly that they think they would be represented directly in Parliament, since they were not inhabitants of the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Dublin Parliament was subservient to the London Parliament and thus the Irish were not directly represented in Whitehall. The Americans were simply unhappy about paying taxes, which is absurd because the taxes were being spent on their own defense, which was being shouldered by mainly British Regulars. So they didn' have to fight personally, and they had to pay only a fraction of the costs of maintaining these garrisons, but they still blew it way out of proportion. King George III was completely justified in becoming infuriated, and it was his right to show the colonists that he and Parliament, not they, were the masters of the British Empire.

[Burnoutfigs]

I believe the revolution was right. well more to the point it was just going to happen.

Yes they where taxed high, but that shoulnt be enought to revolt, but they colonials were british and they where being taxed 3 times as much as people living in England. They had no voice in parlament. Even the East india trading company had a voice there. There is no telling what would have happened if there wasnt one.

Louisiana would have never been giving over to the British. There would have been serious fighting for that area. All kin of crazy things would have happened if there was no United States. Maybe good or bad noone will ever know, but I do beleive Britain would have still lost its power after WWI maybe not as bad as it did.

This is just my opinion though.

[Lord Claremorris]

I believe the revolution was right. well more to the point it was just going to happen.

Yes they where taxed high, but that shoulnt be enought to revolt, but they colonials were british and they where being taxed 3 times as much as people living in England. They had no voice in parlament. Even the East india trading company had a voice there. There is no telling what would have happened if there wasnt one.

Louisiana would have never been giving over to the British. There would have been serious fighting for that area. All kin of crazy things would have happened if there was no United States. Maybe good or bad noone will ever know, but I do beleive Britain would have still lost its power after WWI maybe not as bad as it did.

This is just my opinion though.

What? The colonists were not getting taxed three times as much as people in England. In fact, they were getting taxed much less than people in England. Most of the taxes, like on stamps and on tea, had long been implemented in Britain.

The East India Company had no representation in Parliament, beyond whatever monies it could spend to lobby for its interests, and the MP's generally believed that by helping the company they were helping the Empire. So yes they had a "voice" but had no direct representation.

As for Louisiana, the Revolution had nothing to do with that, France ceded it to Britain following the 7 Years War. After Britain's defeat in the American Revolutionary War, Britain ceded it to Spain at the Treaty of Paris. Napoleon bullied Spain into returning it to France after the Franco-British Treaty of Amiens, though after it looked likely there would be war between France and Britain once more, Napoleon assumed he could not hold onto it anyway, and sold it to the United States. So actually Britain controlled Louisiana, before the Revolution.

As for the last bit, it's pure conjecture, and as fun as it may be to try and guess what would have happened, it's just idle speculation with no real value. The British Empire could not last forever, so if it wasn't WWI that weakened it, something else would have.

[Burnoutfigs]

As for Louisiana, the Revolution had nothing to do with that, France ceded it to Britain following the 7 Years War. After Britain's defeat in the American Revolutionary War, Britain ceded it to Spain at the Treaty of Paris. Napoleon bullied Spain into returning it to France after the Franco-British Treaty of Amiens, though after it looked likely there would be war between France and Britain once more, Napoleon assumed he could not hold onto it anyway, and sold it to the United States. So actually Britain controlled Louisiana, before the Revolution.

I understand that Louisiana served no purpose for the revolution, that was a speculation of future events. Spain actually owned it before the revolution and during, but you know that im sure.

Im just saying that something mustve turned over 1 million people against its mother land. when i said taxed 3 times as much, i didnt mean money wise, i meant on the goods. Granted most of the people never felt those taxes.

the americas was the main source of food and supplies for the british army, the colonies had no choice to supply these goods. I just think if you have to supply all these things to support your nation, you should be able to be apart of the government. If you dont have that right then you are under a occupation, and your not a citizen.

but then again i may be totaly wrong. Im not the best at history in this time period.

[Burnoutfigs]

ohh and im not trying to argue with anyone, Im actually learning alot reading all of your post. Like i was lead to believe that East India Trade Company had a spot in Parliment. I was wrong so thanks Lord Claremorris for that info..

[Lord Claremorris]

I understand that Louisiana served no purpose for the revolution, that was a speculation of future events. Spain actually owned it before the revolution and during, but you know that im sure.

Im just saying that something mustve turned over 1 million people against its mother land. when i said taxed 3 times as much, i didnt mean money wise, i meant on the goods. Granted most of the people never felt those taxes.

the americas was the main source of food and supplies for the british army, the colonies had no choice to supply these goods. I just think if you have to supply all these things to support your nation, you should be able to be apart of the government. If you dont have that right then you are under a occupation, and your not a citizen.

but then again i may be totaly wrong. Im not the best at history in this time period.

That's a fair enough assesment by the standards of our time, but then, it is just absurd to claim they were under-represented. There were millions of people in Europe with no representation, writhing under the rule of monarchs. This included of course, France, were the Parlements had not been called since before the ministry of Richelieu, the petty German princes, the Emperor himself and the King of Prussia. Not to mention the absolute and corrupt government of the Sultan in the Balkans, and of Russia in the East. Poland was dominated by its nobility and Spain and Portugal were absolute monarchies. Britain itself could claim to be under-represented since the majority of Irishmen weren't allowed to vote due to religion, and only men of property could vote. This was exactly the same as what occurred in the US after it achieved independence, since it had slaves that had no rights to being represented, and only men of property could vote on any issue. So in all actuality, the American colonists had no case, everyone everywhere was under-represented. They actually had it much better than most Europeans, since they could practice whatever religion they wanted, and could speak their own tongues freely, and though they may have had no say in the big deliberations in the Commons, they had full control over their localities by means of their local assemblies. So I have absolutely no sympathy for their cause, and all the Americans at that time were little more than complaining traitors, and the Revolution wasn't about taxes and representation, it was about severing links with England, because the British were turning increasingly hostile towards slavery, and curtailing the colonists exploitation of the lands of the Native Americans. All the talk about "No taxation without representation" was an ingenious way of rallying support against England. If anybody took that cry up in Europe they would be laughed down, since everybody there was taxed without being represented.

[Chesh]

Off topid Lord Claremorris - what's the translation of your sig?

[Stildawn]

This is getting interesting... keep it up.. Im learning lol.

[Downey]

Well we won, and havnt done that badly ever since. GG.

[Amaz]

I'm learning... but I'm not seeing any answers...

[RuleBritannia]

Of course Parliament had the right to tax them. The colonists did have representation, but at their own assemblies (until they were suspended as punishment) and I think it's silly that they think they would be represented directly in Parliament, since they were not inhabitants of the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Dublin Parliament was subservient to the London Parliament and thus the Irish were not directly represented in Whitehall. The Americans were simply unhappy about paying taxes, which is absurd because the taxes were being spent on their own defense, which was being shouldered by mainly British Regulars. So they didn' have to fight personally, and they had to pay only a fraction of the costs of maintaining these garrisons, but they still blew it way out of proportion. King George III was completely justified in becoming infuriated, and it was his right to show the colonists that he and Parliament, not they, were the masters of the British Empire.

Exactly.

The colonists were individually citizens of the British Empire, but the colonists and their colonies as a whole were a possession of the British Empire. The British controlled them ultimately, and they were rather generous giving the colonies a great deal of control.

They were a possession, and had no right to rebel against the British authority. They requested lower taxes, but they were ridiculously impatient with the King; they expected to get an immediate response, but even if it took over a year for the King to respond, they should've waited.

The flaw of the colonists was pride. They believed to be the most important colony simply because they were of mainly British decent, and this false attitude has even carried on today to the United States, who wrongly believe they're better than every other country in every aspect. This pride caused them to want special treatment, and pride corrupted them into their rebellion.

Had the United States simply stayed as a colony, the British would've had more funds and less debt, and they could've more easily continued their empire to control the world, bringing about the economic and moral success of their nation, the industrial success of the British Empire, and various other benefits.

With Britain controlling the world under a fair government, there would be religious tolerance universally (before anyone says anything, I've studied history, and the British Empire was indeed very tolerant of religions), there would be fewer poverty-stricken nations, several wars would've never happened, and the world would be a better place in my opinion.

[Stildawn]

the world would be a better place in my opinion.

Thats the way Im leaning.... The British Government was a generally good government... And no doubt the modern ideas would have changed them for the better as time progressed... I see a world dominated by one fair government much better than what we have today...

[Lord Claremorris]

Off topid Lord Claremorris - what's the translation of your sig?

For the picute it is simply "Dominion of Ireland" or "Irish Dominion." Which I prefer to the name Saorstat na hEireann, or Irish Free State, and of course the flag is supposed to be representative of an Irish Dominion within the British Empire. As for the sentence above, it translates as "You have called down the thunder, now reap the whirlwind."

Thats the way Im leaning.... The British Government was a generally good government... And no doubt the modern ideas would have changed them for the better as time progressed... I see a world dominated by one fair government much better than what we have today...

Not so fast. Though I generally agree that the British Government was fairly decent, it was still administered by humans. Humans who were arrogant and entertained irrational prejudices. Among these included the morbid hostility of the English against my people, the Irish, whom they long oppressed. Also the notion of non-European peoples governing themselves was seen as ludicrous, the British were very reluctant to allow them any sort of autonomy in the areas directly ruled by the crown. The British were very snobbish and their rule was far from some utopia. However, comparatively their rule was very stable, and generally tolerant, at least those under their dominion didn't have to endure the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, or the Reign of Terror initiated by Robespierre, and they were spared the violent counter-revolutionary zeal expressed by European monarchs after the fall of Napoleon, to say nothing of dodging the crushing poverty of the Russian peasant.....

So in short, the British Empire had several problems that needed addressing, but those problems were miniscule in comparison to the problems of say, the Austrian or Ottoman Empires, and no people claiming to be oppressed by England can long complain when they learn of oppression of the Poles by Russia, or of the Slavs by the Hungarians and Austrians.

[Stildawn]

Yeah thats what I was saying.... Generally Good Government lol....

And the modern ideas would have changed the harsher factors to some extent as time progressed....