Comments on: The biggest mystery of the American Revolution

By: Graham

Graham — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:28:34 +0000

I apologize in advance for any offence, but as a Canadian I cannot resist translating those 3:

1. British govt refused to allow Massachusetts to seize New France and did it with regulars instead. British government granted the French in the newly conquered possession of Quebec their requested rights of language and religion, law and form of government similar to what they had known, and settled the western border of the new British province of Quebec in the northern areas of what had previously also been French colonial territory ruled from Quebec city albeit hardly settled, now British and still ruled from Quebec City. No new territories were extended to the French, and the British were merely administering territory from Quebec that always had been under the French rule.

2. The colonists in the 13 colonies wanted to expand into the territories of further Indian nations and the UK aimed to uphold treaties with the latter, in territory that had been New France, was now the British Province of Quebec, and had never been part of the 13 colonies.

3. Yep.

As it happens, I entirely understand and appreciate the westward imperial drive of the United States. This was a natural thing for a growing nation facing only slightly altered Neolithic cultures to aim to do, and preferable to northward expansion. But I still get my back up a little bit when contemplating those sections of the Declaration of Independence that amount to “we get to declare independence because of the intolerable grievances of Britain governing other peoples outside our territories the way those people would like but which is not how we think they should be governed and also Britain wants to honour treaties with people whose land we want to take.”

By: Bludnok

Bludnok — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 05:40:36 +0000

I was taught, many years ago, that there were 3 main reasons for the revolt.

Firstly the British government refused to allow the Puritans of New England to attack Quebec. The Quebec Act of 1774 improving the lot of Roman Catholics and extending their territory did not help.

Secondly the colonists wanted to spread West beyond the Alleghennies. This was contrary to treaties made with the ‘Indians’ and the British Government would not allow that.

Thirdly the colonists were asked to pay 10% of the very high cost of the wars with France to defend them. They had paid nothing until then. They refused.

These were fundamental differences which negated any idea of a political union.

It still sounds about right to me.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 08:56:36 +0000

I was taught the exact same thing in US Government class — in 1973. In that class we read the discussions in parliament among other things. This was basically common knowledge.

Amazing how people who don’t know the subject rediscover the obvious. Sebastian Galiani and Gustavo Torrens are morons.

By: Notknowing

Notknowing — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:49:30 +0000

Has been said that the American Revolution was in fact a civil war in which many colony-based pro-Brits were exiled to Canada for not supporting the winning side (a winning side much propped up by France and French interests) and the American Civil War was really a revolution because the south wanted to secede and cared not a fig for running Washington and the north.

But the ‘identities’ of the two are engraved as facts, so there we go.

By: Candide III

Candide III — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 14:08:45 +0000

Pfui. This was described in more detail in books a century old, what does a modern paper add? The British didn't want to give representation because that would make colonies part of the home country and, America being much bigger and potentially richer than Britain, Parliament itself would move to New England in foreseeable future under any conceivable scheme of non-Potemkin representation. American revolutionaries actually understood this when they demanded representation. There is no need to drag in class conflict. And if the British wanted to keep the colonies as colonies, they had to crush resistance. As it was, Whig factions in Britain (aided by Franklin and other American emissaries) were strong enough that the Parliament waffled for years before appointing leading Whigs to command the British forces in the Revolutionary war. Those commanders then seemed to engage in malicious compliance, doing just enough to evade a charge of treason.