war of independence

[kristopherb]

what was the point of the colonies seperating form the the british empire?
both wars.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Both wars? I thought there was only one war of independence.

 

[ShannonCT]

what was the point of the colonies seperating form the the british empire?
both wars.

Which colonies? Which wars? Please articulate your OPs...

If you're speaking of the American War of Independence, and the American-British War of 1812, well then it was obviously so that we Americans could make tons of cash shooting films where American heroes defeat villains with British accents.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

I assume you are talking about America here, if so, it is because us Americans dislike paying taxes to begin with. But having to pay taxes without even the slightest say in the matter and when all the money is going to a crazy German king, and a parliament composed of arrogant snobs, it annoys us even more. So now we send our money to a bunch of corrupt bastards who live in DC. Also technically, the war of 1812 wasn't a war of independence, though it did contribute greatly to the sense of American national identity.

 

[Hotpoint]

what was the point of the colonies seperating form the the british empire?
both wars.

One reason that usually gets swept under the carpet was the slavery issue.

Slavery became illegal in England, Ireland and Wales in 1772 (Scotland which has it's own legal system followed in 1778) and this caused a serious fear especially in the Southern Colonies that continued British rule might lead to the abolition of slavery in the Americas too. Certainly there were already legal cases being fought in colonial courts as early as 1773 arguing that the precedent was binding there.

The early 1770s were a period of slave unrest in Virginia, prompting the city of Williamsburg to establish a night watch in July 1772 to apprehend "disorderly People, Slaves as well as others." Slave restiveness increased when news of the Somersett case reached the colonies in September 1772. James Somersett, a slave taken to England by his master Charles Steuart, had run away. Recaptured and in chains in the hull of a ship bound for Jamaica, he sued for his freedom. In June 1772, Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, held that slavery "is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law." As "the law of England" neither "allowed" nor "approved" of slavery, Mansfield ruled that "the black must be discharged."

Mansfield's decision outlawed slavery only in England; it did not apply to British colonies. But that was immaterial to American slaves. In January 1773, the General Court in Boston received the first of three petitions in which slaves pleaded their freedom with the argument that Mansfield's decision should indeed apply to the colonies, where they were "held in a state of Slavery within a free and christian Country."

By September 1773, the first of Virginia's 250,000 slaves were also trying to get "out of the Colony, particularly to Britain" - so noted John Austin Finnie's advertisement for runaways Bacchus and Amy - "where they imagine they will be free." The king was on their side - or so slaves thought - and against their masters, who feared a British-instigated slave revolt. Following the discovery in November 1774 of slaves conspiring to desert "when the English troops should arrive," James Madison wrote to William Bradford of his conviction that "If america & Britain come to an hostile rupture I am afraid an Insurrection among the slaves may & will be promoted" in an attempt to preserve Virginia for the crown of King George III.

When tensions between Dunmore and Virginia's ruling elite increased in early 1775, the ground was well prepared for his lordship to "arm all my own Negroes and receive all others that will come to me who I shall declare free," as he wrote to Dartmouth on March 1. Dunmore could argue that since the colonists were clamoring for English law, they could get a taste of it, Somersett and all. The slaves, on the other hand, considered the government in London and its local representatives to be sympathetic to their cause, and they were only waiting for the sign to take up arms to "reduce the refractory people of this Colony to obedience."

Armed conflict was looming, and Dunmore ordered Royal Marines to seize the gunpowder stored in the Williamsburg Magazine during the night of April 20-21. When Virginia threatened to erupt in open violence, Dunmore backed down. Forced to pay restitution for the powder, Dunmore lost his temper in front of the town leaders. Williamsburg resident Dr. William Pasteur heard the governor say that he would "declare freedom to the slaves and reduce the City of Williamsburg to ashes." He boasted he would have "all the slaves on the side of the government". By mid-May, rumors of Dunmore's plans had spread all the way to Boston, from where General Thomas Gage, Governor of Massachusetts, informed Dartmouth: "We hear that a Declaration his Lordship has made, of proclaiming all the Negroes free, who should join him, has Startled the Insurgents."

Gage was jumping the gun but not by much. On June 8, Dunmore fled Williamsburg for the safety of the man-of-war Fowey at Yorktown. The Virginia Convention quickly assured the governor of his own personal safety but expressed its extreme displeasure of this "most diabolical" scheme "meditated, and generally recommended, by a Person of great Influence, to offer Freedom to our slaves, and turn them against their Masters." But Dunmore felt that he had no alternative. His ranks reduced to some 300 soldiers, sailors, and loyalists, he let it be known that he welcomed supporters of any skin color. As word spread along the coast, about 100 black runaways reached Dunmore's fleet during the fall of 1775. In early November his troops routed a corps of Virginia militia at Kemp's Landing. That was the signal for the publication of Dunmore's long-anticipated proclamation to American slaves.

Dated November 7, it declared "all indented Servants, Negroes, or others (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining his MAJESTY'S Troops, as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper Sense of their Duty, to his MAJESTY'S Crown and Dignity". This was not a general emancipation of slaves and indentured servants. Dunmore invited only those slaves to his banner who were owned by rebels, and of those, only males could bear arms.

The response was overwhelming. By December 1, about 300 runaways were carrying muskets and wearing the garb of Lord Dunmore's Ethiopian Regiment, the words "Liberty to Slaves" emblazoned on their chests.

http://www.americanrevolution.org/blk.html


A few books worth reading if you want a somewhat different view on the American Revolution than you'll typically see in US Histories are:

Rebels and Redcoats Hugh Bicheno 2003

Rough Crossings: Britain, the Slaves and the American Revolution Simon Schama 2005

Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies and Sparked the American Revolution Alfred W. Blumrosen 2005



As for "both wars" the War of 1812 was only a War of Independence for the Canadians who were fighting to stay free of the United States which of course invaded them

 

[Hotpoint]

I assume you are talking about America here, if so, it is because us Americans dislike paying taxes to begin with. But having to pay taxes without even the slightest say in the matter and when all the money is going to a crazy German king, and a parliament composed of arrogant snobs, it annoys us even more.

Even with the new taxes the colonist were still paying only a tiny fraction of the taxes paid by Britons back home (I've seen the numbers as low as one twentieth as much!) and in any case the notion that "No Taxation without Representation" was an overwhelming moral issue tends to look a tad suspicious given that after independence the new member States of the US adopted a property qualification which meant that only those who had so much wealth could vote (the non-voters still had to pay taxes though).

I guess "No Taxation without Representation (unless you're poor)" doesn't have the same noble ring to it

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Even with the new taxes the colonist were still paying only a tiny fraction of the taxes paid by Britons back home (I've seen the numbers as low as one twentieth as much!) and in any case the notion that "No Taxation without Representation" was an overwhelming moral issue tends to look a tad suspicious given that after independence the new member States of the US adopted a property qualification which meant that only those who had so much wealth could vote (the non-voters still had to pay taxes though).

I guess "No Taxation without Representation (unless you're poor)" doesn't have the same noble ring to it

Hey, it's more representation than we got out of Britain. Besides, I suspect parliament was just getting warmed up levying taxes on us, it probably would not have been too long before we were paying about the same amount as the British.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I wasn't familiar of a second war, at least in America. However the google claims that the War of 1812 was also known in some parts as the second War of Independence.

What caused the American War of Independence? Here's my take.

The English colonies in North America were set up a bit more independent than most colonies, with colonies like Massachusets and Virginia more or less locally administered by local councils, unlike some colonies that only had a Royal governor and administration controlled by temporaries from England.

The colonies had been developing and growing along the Atlantic seaboard for quite awhile beforehand when, at the end of the French and Indian War (1754-1763), the British government decided to tax the Colonies to help pay for its past wars. Granted, the English perspective was that North America was one remote theater in a larger war with France, with more important fighting happening in Central Europe and even the Pacific, but locals still mostly see the local impact. The colonials did most of the local fighting themselves over those nine years. First your rulers have you fight the local part of the bigger war, then ask you to essentially pay for that war in addition to other expenses incurred in the meantime.

Sure the total tax burden wasn't that bad, compared to what we pay today, but I'm pretty sure the trend was the King trying to impose control over the colonies in a heavy handed way.

A series of incedents started making it look like the King was going to really restrict the "local control" part of American life and responses and counterresponses converged into a war.

Slavery was one issue but not the main one, especially since the northern colonies basically abolished it as soon as they got a chance to.

 

[Red Door]

The American colonies believed they were being taxed too highly by the British for the Seven Years War. In retrospect, this was not the case as they were taxed the same amount or less than the British. Another key issue was the "taxation without representation," which was unfair to the American colonies. The actual war took place when British troops tried to take our arms from us.

 

[thenooblet22]

One reason that usually gets swept under the carpet was the slavery issue.

Slavery became illegal in England, Ireland and Wales in 1772 (Scotland which has it's own legal system followed in 1778) and this caused a serious fear especially in the Southern Colonies that continued British rule might lead to the abolition of slavery in the Americas too.

Escuse me, but I believe the abolishment date was 1807. I'm not just quoting sources like Wikipedia, but it's right at the end of Chapter 21 in my AP World History book (World Civilizations: The Global Experience, Third Edition). So, I don't believe this was a major issue, even though it was clear that the British abolishment movement was gaining ground by then. The main contributor was the unjust heavy taxes set on the Americas the help pay the debts of the French and Indian war.

Even with the new taxes the colonist were still paying only a tiny fraction of the taxes paid by Britons back home (I've seen the numbers as low as one twentieth as much!) and in any case the notion that "No Taxation without Representation" was an overwhelming moral issue tends to look a tad suspicious given that after independence the new member States of the US adopted a property qualification which meant that only those who had so much wealth could vote (the non-voters still had to pay taxes though).

I guess "No Taxation without Representation (unless you're poor)" doesn't have the same noble ring to it

The point was that there was no representation for the British colonies interests in the Parliament. They had no say, thus the rally cry. And there is nothing ironic about it, since people who owned land (wealthy?) could vote. But, I wouldn't hold anything against their first Consitution, since it was weak and was later rewritten.

 

[Hotpoint]

Escuse me, but I believe the abolishment date was 1807. I'm not just quoting sources like Wikipedia, but it's right at the end of Chapter 21 in my AP World History book (World Civilizations: The Global Experience, Third Edition). So, I don't believe this was a major issue, even though it was clear that the British abolishment movement was gaining ground by then. The main contributor was the unjust heavy taxes set on the Americas the help pay the debts of the French and Indian war.

Great Britain abolished the Slave Trade throughout the Empire in 1807. Slavery itself had already been ended in the Home Islands years earlier as a result of the precedent arising from the Somerset Case

The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged."

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Somersett's_Case

As for "heavy taxes" they were a fraction of those already being paid by people back in Britain.

The point was that there was no representation for the British colonies interests in the Parliament. They had no say, thus the rally cry. And there is nothing ironic about it, since people who owned land (wealthy?) could vote. But, I wouldn't hold anything against their first Consitution, since it was weak and was later rewritten.

The property qualification for voting continued for years afterwards. In fact in some states it still existed in a form until the 1960's!

 

[ComradeDavo]

what was the point of the colonies seperating form the the british empire?
both wars.

You need to learn to see things from other peoples point of view.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Great Britain abolished the Slave Trade throughout the Empire in 1807. Slavery itself had already been ended in the Home Islands years earlier as a result of the precedent arising from the Somerset Case

But Britain didn't ban actual slavery in its colonies until decades later and the US banned the actual slave trade the same time as Britain did.

I don't buy the revisionist thoery that the American revolution was about slavery and never will. Mostly because slavery wasn't even in jeoprady in colonies in 1776 America.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I don't think anybody really buys the claim that the American Revolution was about slavery.

It is sad that there is a philosophy going around that history must be reshaped to fit their worldview, though. Some people are even trying to bring back crimes like piracy and the slave trade in many places in the world and make them acceptable again. Some people only see the world through the paradigm of how much power they can acquire and don't really care how much damage they cause, much like the cynical Communists of old "We're doing all this for the masses, but only if me and my cronies, I mean party faithful, get the dachas and government cars... the rest of you can walk. Exercise is for the good of the masses!"

 

[Hotpoint]

But Britain didn't ban actual slavery in its colonies until decades later and the US banned the actual slave trade the same time as Britain did.

The argument is not that the British were going to ban slavery but rather that it was perceived in the colonies that they were. Look at how many slaves left their masters to run to the British lines (including George Washingtons incidentally), many people both black and white thought the British had gone abolitionist, or at least had become less fond of slavery, and although this wasn't an issue in the North it was certainly a big deal for the Southern Colonies.

Doesn't the fact there were black troops with "Liberty for Slaves" on their uniforms fighting for the British Army indicate something?

I don't buy the revisionist thoery that the American revolution was about slavery and never will. Mostly because slavery wasn't even in jeoprady in colonies in 1776 America.

Well there were certainly people using the British Legal precedent in courts to argue the case that slavery was illegal and this caused quite a stir so people at the time weren't quite as convinced as you are. Remember that they didn't have the benefit of hindsight.

For the record I don't think for a second that slavery was the major cause but it does seem to be a more important one than many people have been led to believe.

 

[EdwardTking]

But having to pay taxes without even the slightest say in the matter and when all the money is going to a crazy German king, and a parliament composed of arrogant snobs, it annoys us even more.

Taxes were to pay back debt run up in the war which included the conquest of Canada from the French which was advocated by and benefited the colonists.

 

[EdwardTking]

But Britain didn't ban actual slavery in its colonies until decades later

Well after the 13 colonies revolted, Britain was reluctant to simply ban slavery and have its other colonies very likely revolt. There was a belief that if Britain tried to ban slavery in Jamaica, the Jamaican slave owners might simply desert to the French or USA. And when slavery was finally abolished in 1833, the UK taxpayer had to pay the Jamaican slave owners compensation to avoid just that. The Boers in S Africa pretended that they were not slavers and therefore were not compensated, which resulted in their Voortrek into the interior to abolish slavery.

and the US banned the actual slave trade the same time as Britain did.

US slave ships continured for some time.

 

[thenooblet22]

Great Britain abolished the Slave Trade throughout the Empire in 1807. Slavery itself had already been ended in the Home Islands years earlier as a result of the precedent arising from the Somerset Case

Fair enough, but I still hold that participating in the Slave Trade is still as guilty as owning slaves themselves. So in my eyes, it was still only officially abolished in 1807.

As for "heavy taxes" they were a fraction of those already being paid by people back in Britain

You're comparing apples and oranges. The British Isles had a much larger population than the States. So statistically it may not seem much, but morally, it struck them hard.

The property qualification for voting continued for years afterwards. In fact in some states it still existed in a form until the 1960's!

I don't quite understand where you are getting at here. Yes, the qualification for voting required the ownership of land. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but back then, with the open frontiers, land was quite cheap to settle, despite the risks.

I don't think anybody really buys the claim that the American Revolution was about slavery

Me neither. Some people tend to confuse the fact that the states were divided on the rights of slavery. The abolishment of slavery was delayed to keep the States united after its independence, of course, later to explode into a civil war.

 

[Warman17]

Heres my take:

The colonies had been ruled by a system of Salutory Neglect by the british for the majority of their histroy. Salutory Neglect mean this: as long as the colonies kept being benefitial partners in the Mercantalist system, they can have rule over themselves for the most part.

After the Seven Years (French and Indian) War, Britain was in debt and needed money, so they turned to their colonies. Yes its true that the British taxed themslves more heavily, but to the Americans this didnt matter because of two things:

1) It was Taxation Without Representation

and much more importantly 2) It was a direct internal tax. A direct tax meaning direct taxation on the goods (as opposed to indirect where you pay due to shipping etc, not on the product itself). An interal tax meaning to raise money, compared to an external tax which is a tax on imports and exports.

The colonies up until this point had not experianced neither direct or internal taxes laid upon them. According to the mercantalist system external taxes kept the colonies from developing industries and promoted their shipment of natural resources to the Mother Nation (Britain)

Internal taxes had been left up for the local governments to raise funds for their own local funding. Since Britain now was placing internal taxes of their own, it was felt that they were stripping power from the local governments, that the colonies were no longer free but slaves to their imperial masters.

Combine this with His Currency Act of 1764 (stripping the colonies of their ability to produce their own currency) and the Quartering Act of 1765 (colonists forced to give shelter and food to British soldiers) further supported this colonial paranoia that they were soon to become direct pawns of the British crown rather than loyal subjects.

As tensions grew, Briain removed the Stamp Act(direct internal tax) to replace it with the Townshend Acts (indirect internal taxes) which didnt help the situation much. This only was made worse when in 1768 Britain sent troops to the colonies, leading to the Boston "massacre" in 1770. This event then further brought outrage of the colonists against the British and after the Boston Tea Party the british enacted the Intolerable Acts of 1773 which the Colonists fealt were greatly well, intolerable.

Theres also a religious twist when the Quebec Act was passed which gave all rights to Catholic subjects in Quebec, the vehemently protestant colonies felt that the British were betraying their faith in doing so, and the paranoid colonists though the British were going to use the Quebecious against the colonists.



Summery: Colonists felt that their self-rule was being stripped away (and that this was their right to have) and as such wanted to gain independence.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I don't buy the revisionist thoery that the American revolution was about slavery and never will. Mostly because slavery wasn't even in jeoprady in colonies in 1776 America.

Perhaps because the Revolution started in the North and the South had a higher concentration of Loyalists?

US slave ships continured for some time.

Not legally.