The American Revolution seen through British eyes

Message Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic

   Over recent years, I've had an interest in the American War for Independence. Up until a few years ago, the little information I knew about it came from schoolbooks and Hollywood. i.e. Films like The Patriot, which I think is a wonderful film, but both of these sources have vilified the British, but after doing some studying of my own beyond those sources, I can understand King George III's point of view more clearly. I can admit, I don't know everything about the American Revolutionary War, so I welcome others feedback. With this thread, I only wish to be educated, and perhaps educate as well. 

At the time of the American Revolution, the Kingdom of Great Britain had been in one war or another for fifty years and was drowning in debt. Over in London, Parliament felt that Americans should help out by paying their fair share, and King George III agreed. After all, Great Britain had spent plenty of money fighting in American Colonies for the good of the people, and the crown was still supporting a British Army to help stop Indian attacks on the American frontier. Great Britain felt it was their right to collect payment. 

17th Century interest in the U.S. appears to be more financial than a matter of pride. My impression is that the 17th century British were not looking for power and control over the American Colonies, but financial support to recoup the cost of defending the American colonies from the French during the Seven Years' War and from Native American tribes. 

In regards of Native Americans: Since boyhood, one of the most popular grips of white guilt I have ever heard and read has been the fact that "White men invaded this land, and stole it from Native Americans". Well, I learned something very interesting through my studies of the American Revolution: 

Many American Colonists had plan to invade Indian country, but the Kingdom of Great Britain made it illegal with the Proclamation of 1763. London thought it was fair and safe to reserve those lands for the Natives who had always lived and hunted there. Now when I first read this, I thought perhaps the British Empire was showing compassion towards Native American tribes, and perhaps that was one of their many reasons for doing so, but it also seemed like the Proclamation of 1763 was a cost-cutting measure given all the money problems they were having. 

By prohibiting colonists from moving across the Appalachians (which is the basic line), the British hoped to keep the Indian/Colonist clashes to a minimum, thereby lessening their obligation to protect the frontier, which was a huge complaint of the colonists after the French and Indian War. 

George Washington agreed with plenty of other American colonial settlers, who thought that the Proclamation of 1763 was a law that unfairly limited their rights. Too many men saw those new lands and the idea of settling west, out of the reach of the crown, as being too attractive to pass by no matter who was in the way. They invaded Indian country anyhow, and that was one of the many, many reasons the American Colonists went to war with the Kingdom of Great Britain. 

One of the reasons why so many Native American tribes sided with the British Empire during the war, and fought along side with them was because they knew the Kingdom of Great Britain was going to respect their land and rights. So if King George III's army won, perhaps Natives would have their own Independent states in the United States of America today, and lots of suffering and war could have been avoided. 

Many black slaves also joined the British Army because they were promised freedom after the war. Infact, it appeared that Great Britain actually planned to end slavery, and they finally did in 1833, but the rich, slave-owning American Colonists however did not have any desire to end it. Again, if Great Britain won, slavery would have ended much sooner, which leads me to believe that there would have been no American Civil War since slavery would have been made illegal, and with a defeat over the American Colonists, the point would have been made that only suffering and anarchy comes from Revolution, and black people could have been given equal rights much sooner, and not suffered for as long as they did. 

When Great Britain did abolish slavery in 1833, they outlawed the practice throughout most of the British Empire, by Act of Parliment, not by any civil war. That may have prompted a short lived rebellion in the southern colonies, with no sympathy from northern or western colonys. 

But with the African slave trade ending in the 1830's, we might be without some promient African-Americans today, because their ancesters would have never left Africa. On the other hand, what would American society be like today if the massive casualties of the American Civil War had desendents. With about over 600,000 Americans killed during the American Civil War, we might be looking at 30 to 40 million Americans influencing American society over the last 155 years, who were simply never born. 

In closing, the Kingdom of Great Britain desired a living, breathing Constitution that changed with the times. The American Colonists however did not desire such a thing. They did plan to have a Constitution, but a unchangeable one. So who knows for sure how things would have ended up for the United States of America if King George III's army won - Better? Worst? The same? 

I hope to have a nice chat about all this and hopefully learn more from the people that know more about this topic then I do. Thank you for reading.

Edited by Zeeboe - 25-May-2012 at 19:54