Moreover the Dominion of New England was *hated* by those under its jurisdiction. There's a reason it was dismantled as soon as James left England.
It was one point of no return.
The Boston Tea Party was gross vandalism, but no one was killed or even injured. Every attempt by the First and then Second Continental Congresses at striking a conciliatory and respective tone with London was cast aside by the North Government, whose policy can best be described as "Submission, nothing less".
Yes, but after the Boston Tea Party, I can't see the moderates being able to get into power in the UK unless the Americans hand over those responsible. Which won't happen. Lord North being enshrined in power was a recipe for disaster.
The war in America began on 28 May 1754 when the Virginia militia under Lieutenant Colonel George Washington ambushed 35 French soldiers in what is today Pennsylvania.
The war in Europe only began in Europe in August 1756 when Prussia invaded Saxony. The battle over Silesia was the during the War of Austrian Succession, perhaps you're getting the wars confused.
As for military funding, let us look at Virginia where 55% of the military budget was allocated to militias used mainly to provide internal security (mostly against slave uprisings) as the House of Burgesses was controlled by the wealthy planter families of the Tidewater and they cared little about the frontier.
In addition, the British government paid handsome subsidies throughout the war to the various colonies to alleviate their budget shortfalls. In 1755 these amounted to £165,000. By 1758, Pitt's budget included £200,000 for "Compensation to the Provinces of North America" for Expenses incurred by them in levying, clothing, and Pay of Troops raised there. The following the subsidy remained the same. By 1761 it was £133,333, and the same in 1762. Massachusetts' had a debt of £490,000 in 1762, and the British government liquidated this through subsidies.
Ae colonies did spend was meagre by comparison, and most of that was reimbursed. As historian William R. Nester in his book "The First Global War: Britain, France and the Fate of North America, 1756-1775" pointed out
Your whole argument boils down to "those bastard establishment Englishmen were all awful and would never give power away", even though there were plenty of establishment Englishmen that wanted to, and even though they did with Ireland.
For me, the Boston Tea Party is the point of no return. It was widely sympathised with in America but seen as rampant criminality and vandalism in Britain.
Oh no, it's possible to win battles that make gains and then trade them to other powers in exchange for other concessions! I believe that's called diplomacy; it's nothing to be condemned.
The British colonists in North America had many things that they could be praised for, but their view on foreign policy prior to their independence…? No. Just no.
Apologies for not replying.
No, I'm not. The majority of Britain's troops during the period fought on the continent, not in North America and the Caribbean. The colonies were a sideshow for Britain.
Not sure about the #s, but I'd dispute that they didn't care about the frontier. Washington was far from the only one with extensive investments in the frontier; this is why the Proclamation of 1763 was such an issue.
Can I get a cite for this? Crucible of War discusses the burden on Massachusetts's economy from the war, and gives a similar number for the colony's debt, but only claims that part of it was paid by subsidies.
It also notes that about a quarter of the colony's military-age male population served in the war. I wonder what the relative numbers are for Britain, during this period?
No offense to Messr. Nester, but this seems anecdotal. Massachusetts spent over 250,000 pounds on the war by 1758, at a time when its annual budget was about 100,000 pounds.
I am going to insert an objection here, because I think this is a very rose-tinted view of Ireland.I agree with you that Ireland was given some modicum of self-government in 1782 (although I think the Papist Acts were more important). But these came only after the loss of North America and as part of an effort to shore up Britain's military and political position.
Actually, the Gordon Riots are an interesting counterpoint. How come London wasn't shut down until it was forced to make indemnifications for all the damage the mob caused?
That's not my point, sorry if it was unclear. My point was contrary to the view of some of the British posters, who think the Americans sat back and sucked on the King's teat, the colonies did mobilize for the war, and sent a lot of men off to fight in it, as well as raising a lot of money.
Could they have done better? Sure. So could Britain. Yet everyone focuses on the fact that the colonies didn't spend as much as they could have, and not, say, the British decision to suspend subsidies to Prussia.
I don't know. Their analysis, which was "so, if we launch a war for independence, we'll probably win and get foreign aid" was more accurate than the British view...
As for William Nester's work being anecdotal, he is a professor at St. John's University in New York and has written several books on American history.
Crucible of War was written by a history professor who basically specializes in the Seven Years war (with a focus on New England), so that's not enough for me to trust the anecdote over specific numbers.
As someone who majored in and has a masters in history, I prefer to look at primary sources and then draw my conclusions from there, and I most definitely do not rely on secondary works of only one person.
Here's a question.
By 1781, Britain was at war with the Bourbons by itself, and its old ally, the Dutch Republic. Spain, despite its antipathy to independence movements in the Americas, had joined the French. Prussia, Russia, Denmark-Norway, and Sweden had joined a League of Armed Neutrality to oppose Britain.
So, which is more plausible. Britain had some truly awful leadership during this period, who pushed things both overseas and with the colonies to the point of disaster, or the colonies were led by selfish jerks?
So, which is more plausible. Britain had some truly awful leadership during this period, who pushed things both overseas and with the colonies to the point of disaster, or the colonies were led by selfish jerks?
For me the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Bad leadership was definitely an issue, no doubt about it. The Colonial agitators were hardly angels of reconciliation though.
Trying to say it's one or the other is a bit reductive when the actual answer appears to be that both were the case (when viewed objectively - hard as that might be to do.)
Here's a question.
By 1781, Britain was at war with the Bourbons by itself, and its old ally, the Dutch Republic. Spain, despite its antipathy to independence movements in the Americas, had joined the French. Prussia, Russia, Denmark-Norway, and Sweden had joined a League of Armed Neutrality to oppose Britain.
So, which is more plausible. Britain had some truly awful leadership during this period, who pushed things both overseas and with the colonies to the point of disaster, or the colonies were led by selfish jerks?
<snip>Frederick the Great and the Prusssians saw the Brits as allies who stabbed them in the back and left them to hang after they cut off subsidies. Does this mean that Britain was a terrible ally who didn't contribute enough to the continent? [1]
I would also be leery of generalizing across all of the colonies, as you are. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were different; so was Virginia. [2]
For me the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Bad leadership was definitely an issue, no doubt about it. The Colonial agitators were hardly angels of reconciliation though. [3]
Trying to say it's one or the other is a bit reductive when the actual answer appears to be that both were the case (when viewed objectively - hard as that might be to do.) [4]