Lehcar Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Their Americans' fight for their independance was a very long and bloody battle, lasting almost a decade. In the end, there were many dead on both sides. Despite the heavy cost, the Americans had gained their freedom. The British, on the other hand, had absolutely nothing to show for their immense troubles. My question is... why the heck didn't the British just let the Americans go free in the first place? They would have saved themselves a lot of money (over 250 million British pounds, which I assume would equate to considerably more nowadays), and more importantly, a lot of lives... The Americans didn't want them anymore. Most of them had been living there for many generations, they considered themselves American, not British, and they saw Britain as nothing more than another land across a wide ocean that they felt they had no connections to. Were the British really that desperate to continue leeching money off of them? Terrible. Just terrible, all of it. IMO the whole thing was mostly just a massive waste of life and should have never happened. The British should have let them go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sette1893 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Because U.K. needed america for his resources,and needed the control of the colonies for taxes.Easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lehcar Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Because U.K. needed america for his resources,and needed the control of the colonies for taxes.Easy. Were the resources and taxes really worth having so many people killed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sette1893 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) For me not,but for governments unfortunately yes. They don't care about humans lifes. Edited January 27, 2012 by Sette1893 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lehcar Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) For me not,but for governments unfortunately yes. They don't care about humans lifes. Well, that's very unfortunate. After all, money is an abstraction: it only has value because we say it does. Edited January 27, 2012 by Lehcar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sette1893 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Anyway,america's today has nothing to do with the principles of the America of that period. Edited January 27, 2012 by Sette1893 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shantih Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) I don't think that the people from the Thirteen Colonies considered themselves to be American (at least not before the Declaration of Independence). In fact the Boston Tea Party was motivated by the fact that they felt that they were slighted because they had to pay more taxes than their countrymen in Britain. Things were probably not that clear cut for the people in the colonies (loyalty to the crown and all that). The colonial power couldn't just let things go either. To the British this was a matter of sovereignty and maintaining the rule of law. Not to mention that the New World was a big piece of cake for European powers and that the British stood to lose much by losing their colonies, especially with France and Spain looking for opportunities to enlarge their foothold on the continent (for instance Louisiana changed hands several times before it was sold to the US in 1803). The only reason the French sided with the Americans was to annoy the Brits. Don't forget that back in 1783 France was still a monarchy. It was all a question of politics and feuds in Europe finding an outlet in the New World, hence Washington's declaration in his Farewell Address to "steer free of foreign entanglements" so the US shouldn't get drawn into conflicts between European powers. Edited January 27, 2012 by Shantih Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sette1893 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Revolution started because "americans" didn't want to pay taxes for a foreign land that wasn't using that money for colonies welfare. And because americans wanted to colonize west land,but U.K. government don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Britain saw the America's as an endless source of prime lumber for the Royal Navy that at that time was in severe disarray and decrepitude, Pepy's reforms had yet to take effect and the cost of importation from the Scandinavian countries was ruinous. As has been pointed out we we not Americans at that point but rebellious English subjects the logical extension of the Cromwellian Dissenters of which were the pilgrims et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tetradite Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 To my understanding it was (to the British) about wider politics than just the Americas... The "revolution" did not start as an independence movement it started about taxes and having a say in their rate and use (the fact that they were being levied without the colonies being able to influence the British government or it's tax rates etc - hence "no taxation without representation"). In a sense the independence movement can actually be seen as starting out with a demand to be MORE included in Britain (i.e those in the colonies to be on a more equal footing with people in England), not seperated from it. However, If the British had conceded the right of the colonies to have official representatives (or local control of tax/spending, or similar) then this would have established that principle for ALL British colonies, parts of empire etc which could potentially lead to the British government essentially becoming run from abroad. Having refused this, which fuels the demand for actual independence, if the British had agreed to that then it would have automatically questioned the British right (as they saw it) to have colonies anywhere else, or rule over anyone else, anywhere (an idea very much backed up by the American Revolution's eventual influence on Irish demands for freedom). An important point too: the thought that the British should have just let them go is partly based on you knowing that the British lost and wound up with nothing to show. You must bear in mind that no-one knew that at the time. The fact that they lost it doesn't retrospectively make it not worth fighting for. If the British had won then we wouldn't ask why the Americans bothered trying to be independent when it cost so many lives and they failed. (I say that as a Brit who would have let them go because all people have the right to self determination). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts