• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    The whole reason for fighting is that the American colonies were rich. Initially they had been propped up by the British. But, once the French were essentially wiped out, the colonists no longer had need of the British military, and they were now richer than the British, so they no longer wanted to contribute to the motherland and wanted to be independent.

    • raef@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      The colonial governments had previously had influence over laws in that their elected officials would advise the governors. England shut that down. Patrick Henry made the “taxation without representation” argument ten years before the Declaration of Independence

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Many excuses were made, that’s the one that stuck. The real reason was that the colonies were rich, and now had effectively unlimited land to the west they could expand into, that the British army had taken care of the French.

        • raef@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I think you have that backwards. The grievances were the motivation. The situation was the opportunity.

          If they were content, they wouldn’t have revolted

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            They weren’t content because they were now rich and the motherland was now poor. It wasn’t some high-minded ideal, it was opportunism.

            • raef@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              How would having more money make them discontent? That makes no sense. If they’re doing so well in the empire, then stay. Enjoy the security. Don’t make an enemy of the most powerful force in the world.

              It was ideological. Have you read anything contemporary leaders were writing at the time?

              • merc@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                How would having more money make them discontent

                When they were less well off than Britain, they liked being British because they were protected by the British army and received British investment. Once they were richer than the rest of the empire, they wanted to be independent so that they didn’t have to support the rest of the empire.

                In addition, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 limited the right of British colonists to use the land to the west of the Appalachian mountains. To the British in Great Britain, this was no big deal, but to the colonists it limited their expansion westward. The Quebec Act in 1774 vastly expanded the size of the Quebec province and allowed the French-speaking, Catholic “Canadiens” to move south-west and settle in areas to the north-west of the 13 colonies.

                Yes, in public people talked about high-minded ideals, but the reality is that the defeat of the French meant that the American colonists no longer had as much of a need for the British army. In fact, the British army was standing in their way, stationed between the colonies and the new “Indian reserve”. And, although taxes on the American colonists were much lower than taxes within Britain, the colonists didn’t want to pay the taxes, even though it was paying down a debt that was mainly due to kicking the French out of the new world.

                It was an economic decision, not a moral one.

                • raef@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  You can speculate about their motivations. That’s your right, but we do have the treatises, publications, propaganda, and letters.

                  You may believe that there was some simple, secret reason, but certainly for the vast majority, it was ideological. The people actually fighting were in on the idea. Those who weren’t fled to Canada, where even Toronto was a couple of farms and cabins at the time

                  • merc@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    It was hardly a secret:

                    “The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was very unpopular with the colonists. For those living in the colonies, creating a boundary was not helpful because it did not address some of their biggest problems with the War. Colonial blood had been shed to fight the French and Indians, and many felt they had the right to go settle on the land that was won. In addition, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 did not account for American colonists who had already settled in the West.”

                    “Since the end of the War, colonial governments had started planning an expansion into the new western territory. In fact, this had become a big political issue among colonists”

                    https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/lessonplan/royalproc.html

                    "While the Proclamation Line generally failed to restrict the migration of individual settlers, it adversely impacted Virginia’s landed gentry through the mid-1760s. These men had been investing and speculating in land since the 1740s, preliminarily granting millions of acres of western territory to firms, such as the Ohio Company, for future sale. However, the French and Indian War and subsequent Indian treaties interrupted these land companies’ designs, during which time their preliminary grants lapsed. "

                    “These constraints particularly affected George Washington, who had dedicated much of his life to land speculation in an effort to achieve economic independence and distinction among Virginia’s privileged class.”

                    "Resentment for the British Empire and her interference in colonial affairs bonded Americans of varying socioeconomic backgrounds on a philosophical level. The ideological break with the mother country promulgated by the Proclamation Line of 1763, particularly for governmental leaders and Virginia’s landed gentry, served to push the colonies into rebellion in the following decade. "

                    https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/proclamation-line-of-1763/

                    "George Washington wrote to his agent in 1767 in support of illegally buying as much Native American land as possible. "

                    https://www.history.com/news/remembering-the-proclamation-of-1763