The American Revolution: Who was right?

[Joe McCarthy]

This is one of history's 'settled issues' so to say. Very few Brits will even argue for the mother country, but there were arguments made for the Tory side back in the day, and there linger a few Loyalist sympathizers, mostly descended from fleeing Loyalists who moved to Ontario, who still think the revolution was a great wrong. I've noticed that similar views are held by a few on this forum, and there are also a few reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries, etc., who might possibly agree with European nobles who feared America's anti-aristocratic, liberalizing effects.

Hence I've opened this thread for discussion.

[Kataphraktoi]

The British were right; they tried to keep the peace by conceding several issues to the colonists (which were legitimately and fairly passed by Parliament) such as the Sugar Act, Currency Act, Stamp Act, and Townshend Acts---they were all repealed or amended after rebel protesting. The colonists ignored the Navigation Acts which the British didn't even enforce strictly so they could continue illegal smuggling, they ignored the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which reserved lands for the Native Americans even though they already had more land than they even needed for their own population. The British passed the Quebec Act which allowed the French Canadians to practice their own religion and keep their own laws and legal system. The British government was incredible tolerant and liberal, it is easy to imagine other governments being far more harsh and acting with force far sooner, all they asked was that the colonists respect Native American land rights and pay taxes to help fund their own militias---taxes that were much higher in Britain than they were in America.

[Joe McCarthy]

I appreciate the response. It's good to know there are still a few Tories over there.

You've concentrated mostly though on the least deplorable acts of Parliament. What really brought things to a head were the Coercive Acts, which followed the Boston Tea Party, which itself was a response to a move to undercut local tea by removing taxes on tea imported by the East India Company. In addition, the Quebec Act was at best ill timed, and transferred lands that were in dispute to an unelected government. The Coercive Acts though, also known as the Intolerable Acts, punished all of Boston for the actions of the Tea Partiers by blockading Boston Harbor. Other measures included arbitrary removal of colonial governments, restrictions on freedom of assembly, and provisions to try British officials in Britain for crimes committed in the colonies, which in practice made it difficult for colonists to be able to afford the travel necessary to testify against them.

The worst thing though, at least for the future development of this country, was Britain's blocking of the colonists' move westward, which you've both acknowledged and defended. It may have safeguarded Indian lands, but it blunted the march of civilization, and had the added effect of preventing the colonies from getting too strong - always a concern of parent countries.

[sioned]

Back in those days, the Americans were still a breed of western-European blood, mostly British, with some French Hugenot, Swedish, German and Dutch. They were not yet infested by mass-migration of alien blood which happend in the 19th and 20th century. I believe the original Americans who lived in the 13 colonies, can easily compared with the Boers of South-Africa, which were a breed of Dutch/German/French, and not with mass-alien blood. A unique breed.

[Davystayn]

One of the major problems is that it took 3-4 weeks for a ship to cross the Atlantic, so any news, messages, orders etc might have taken 2 months on a turnaround.

This made the King's side unable to act that quickly, nor have any idea of nuance on the ground, hence bad decision making on occasion through lack of knowledge and delay.

[Davystayn]

I'd argue it might not make any difference either way. US now would probably be like Canada and maybe better relations with the Amerindians but that is about it.

The Seven Years/French & Indian War was arguably more important in a way

[Creoda]

Back in those days, the Americans were still a breed of western-European blood, mostly British, with some French Hugenot, Swedish, German and Dutch. They were not yet infested by mass-migration of alien blood which happend in the 19th and 20th century. I believe the original Americans who lived in the 13 colonies, can easily compared with the Boers of South-Africa, which were a breed of Dutch/German/French, and not with mass-alien blood. A unique breed.

The mostly British founding stock of the US are not as unique as the Boers (or Amish/Pennsylvania Dutch/Cajuns), there was always a steady stream of people coming from Britain/Europe so they never had a bottleneck or small pool, they still spoke regular English + were largely culturally similar to British at home, didn't have non-Euro mixture and hadn't intermixed much.

They were basically just Brits abroad (+ residual Dutch/Germans/French etc) who developed a high opinion of themselves.