3
   

What compelled the colonists to rebel against the British?

 
 
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 07:42 pm
Can some British people tell me whether the colonists were being treated less fairly/didn't have the same rights (same rights within reasonable limits given they didn't live in England) as British subjects elsewhere that made them feel entitled to rebellion?

Were they being taxed more than British subjects on the island?


  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 3,258 • Replies: 38

 
View best answer, chosen by perennialloner
saw038
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 07:49 pm
@perennialloner,
The British exploited people all over the world. I think the difference in the colonies was that they had the tenacity to galvanize a movement and stand against the oppression.

They perceived the taxation as being unfair. Many other British colonies may have felt the same way; the difference being that I think the American colonies had some sort of intrinsic characteristics that allowed them to rebel against the enemy - no matter how large and fierce they may seem.
perennialloner
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 07:59 pm
@saw038,
How did their treatment compare to British subjects in England? Was it really worse?
saw038
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 09:24 pm
@perennialloner,
It was not necessarily worse treatment. All I'm saying is that there was something different within the culture and mindset of the colonist that led them to take arms and rebel, while the other British colonies did not.

That is all I'm stating is that something existed with inside the American that was absent within the other British colonies.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 09:30 pm
@saw038,
The British sent their criminals to Australia, even for minor crimes.
saw038
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 09:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Okay? I don't see your point. If anything, that adds to the rationale for while the colonists resisted.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 10:31 pm
@saw038,
I just picked up on your statement about the British, "It was not necessarily worse treatment."
I was just trying to show an example of the extremes the British went to penalize even the simplest of crimes.

From Wiki: "Many convicts were transported for petty crimes while a significant number were political prisoners. More serious crimes, such as rape and murder, were punishable by death, and therefore not transportable offences."

I visited some of those gaels in Australia.
saw038
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 10:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I see what you were saying. I was merely trying to state that the rationale of the colonists obviously differed from the rest; if not, they would have never been able to fight back against the British to form this nation, while others did not take the same course of action.
perennialloner
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 10:40 pm
@saw038,
i guess my question then is, what were their reasons for rebelling beyond the basic taxation without representation?
saw038
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 10:44 pm
@perennialloner,
Do you need more of a reason? If you are unjustly being represented and losing money because of it, how is that not enough of a motivation for action?
perennialloner
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 11:14 pm
@saw038,
Some would argue that they weren't being misrepresented and that they were being greedy and weren't losing money at all, just wanting of more. So I want to know more about that. Why exactly did the colonists think the taxes were unfair?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 11:19 pm
@perennialloner,
I thought everybody knew: Taxation without representation.
perennialloner
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 11:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I'm looking for a more nuanced answer, but whatever guys! I'll look to the google.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 11:21 pm
@perennialloner,
Do that and report back what you find.
0 Replies
 
saw038
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 11:51 pm
@perennialloner,
England was the one that was greedy and they were the ones that were exploiting the American colonies.

So, if the burden of fault rested upon on anyone, it would be the British government during this time.
perennialloner
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 11:21 am
@saw038,
That's one interpretation. What are you basing it on? Sources?
This isn't really a question of right or wrong anyway. I'm just curious as to the factors that compelled the colonists to rebel. I know we're taught about taxation without representation in school, but considering where they were, I don't think it could've been the only or even the most important factor. People in Britain paid higher taxes than the colonists.

Quote:
1. The Proclamation of 1763 cut off settlement of the new lands gained from France. This greatly angered colonists who hoped to get cheap/free land out west. Also, any rich land speculators would lobby for some type opening of this land.

2. Historians estimate 1/3 of the colonists in the 1700s to be Patriots desiring independence, 1/3 to be Loyalists who were OK with the taxation, and 1/3 were apathetic to the cause or simply uninformed. The Patriots were in a minority.

3. The Patriot cause in Boston (the centre of the movement for the most part) was driven by John Hancock, a smuggler who hated British taxes and searches of his property and by Samuel Adams, a former tax collector whose father's finances had been ruined by British officials.

4. Southern Plantation owners were in massive debt to England. They felt if independence occurred their debts would no longer be owed which would save them millions.


i found these points online if you're interested. they're a little biased i imagine but just some things to consider.

http://www.thehistoryforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=29051
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 12:28 pm
I think the simple answer is that it occurred to more than one colonist that they were sittting on a huge unclaimed land mass in European terms (Native Americans did not subscribe to land ownership like Europeans understood), I thought). So, projecting their thinking into the future, they sensed that opportunity was knocking for future generations. And, England was embroiled in European wars. Or, one could say that those that were willing to leave merry old England for a new land, with all its dangers, were of an adventurous ilk, genetically perhaps. (I say this since I recently read that the U.S. has a higher rate of bi-polar individuals than other countries - a result of attracting the adventuresome over the centuries?
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 03:24 pm
@perennialloner,
Why do we have to tell you? It's the foundation of your history, it's an appendix to ours. Why don't you ask Setanta, he's usually clued up on this sort of thing?
perennialloner
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2016 06:08 pm
@izzythepush,
You don't have to tell me. I was mostly curious because I talked to some British guy at work while I was packing his groceries who was a professor at Georgetown, and he wrote a book all about it. He mentioned some things I never knew from the British perspective about the revolution. I didn't ask sentanta because I don't really know him? Some of you guys can be kinda intimidating.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 12:03 am
@perennialloner,
Why don't you read his book then? It's not something covered much in schools over here, there's no real places to visit not like Roman Britain or the Tudors or any other period where there's evidence all around.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » What compelled the colonists to rebel against the British?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 07:31:26