A lot of people ask if the Revolutionary War was avoidable, and, as Mrs. Weber mentioned during lecture, of course it was avoidable. But if it was avoided the colonists would have continued to have the British breathing down their necks, bullying them and forcing more taxes on them.
During the reading and lecture today, I realized that it seemed almost as if the British were instigating the colonists into declaring war. It began with the Sugar and Stamp Act. The British had to know that the colonists would be angry with both. They were not used to being under so much control. Also, when Charles Townshend passed the Townshend acts he actually had the intention of making the colonists angry. To me, it seems that the British brought this on themselves. They kept pushing and pushing Americans to the point where they were not going to put up with it anymore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Although I can see it from both perspectives, the British needed the colonists to pay taxes in order to pay for military and war debt and the colonists felt that the taxes were not fair, I agree that the British really seemed to be trying to make the Americans angry. The British knew that the Americans would be upset and they did not only add one new tax, they added several new taxes that seemed unnecessary.
I feel that the British were not so much instigating them into war, in their opinion, but they were definitely pushing them in that direction. With all the taxes, and land restrictions with not being able to move west of the Appalachian Mountains, the social liberties were being taken away leaving the Americans feeling like they need to stand up and fight. Townshend was definitely a major source for the problem, he purposely did make the colonists feel miserable leading them, meaning ALL CLASSES, to unite and stand up for one another. This was the first time that all classes in America united to fight for one cause and that was democracy in America, equality among the people, and now freedom from Britain's rule.
Now the original taxes like the stamp act and sugar act were to gain money for Britain's military expenses while serving in the colonies. But when Grenville resigned and Townshend came into power, that is when the real problem started. When he taxed the colonists heavily on tea and not the British who lived in England, that is when Americans felt something had to be done. Then when the quartering act was established, colonists were giving up their privacy to British soldiers that they felt shouldn't even be there in the first place. These are what began the revolution, when the colonists felt it was time that their voices should be herd. Besides the British army had to come to the colonies anyway, unfamiliar terrain, months of traveling, and not use to gorilla warfare that the colonists enjoyed using.
I do not think the British even considered the idea of war when taxing the colonies. I don't think they ever thought they would resist these acts. However the British should've realized that tax after tax were not going to go unnoticed.
The taxes put on the colonists were not fair. They were having to pay for the British military debt. Alot of people agree with the British for putting taxes on the colonists because they tax everyone. But the American colonists would stand up for themselves.
I agree that Townshend proposed many taxes with an ill intent, however I do not believe that the English expected the American's to revolt. I do not believe the English even had a revolution in the back of their minds. They just expected the colonists to offset the cost of war and that was that. Sure they knew the colonists would not be happy, but they never expected what was to come.
I completely agree that it seemed like the British were instigating the colonists. Someone had to of forseen the Stamp, Sugar, and Townshend Acts angering the colonists. I think it should have been more obvious that the British were going to be faced with some kind of fight from the colonists.
If the war was avoided, we may still be a part commonwealth of Britain's today. We could be like Puerto Rico is to us, but we would be in that same position under Britain.
The British of course took into account that some colonists would be angry with the passing of these taxes. But at the same time, I think they were betting on a lot of them thinking, "Well, this is my home country and the reason whey I'm here, so I'll pay these taxes and go with it. But if they put any more taxes on..."
Then I think since the first sugar act wasn't rejected by a large majority, I think Britain took advantage of that and thought, "We'll just tax these colonists more and get more money out of them."
But then when they were pushing these taxes, I agree, the British brought the colonists anger and aggravation on themselves. They didn't know when to stop. And Townshend is the individual that I have the least pity for, because his acts were enforced primarily on the basis of pride and a want to cause trouble. He wanted to "put the colonists in their place and show that parliament still reigned supreme" and that the colonists had pretty much no power at all. Townshend seemed like an asshole, who pushed the colonists too far.
I think that if the war was avoided America most likely would have stayed under severe British influence and we would not be the country we are today. America's reaction to the constant pressure and harassment from Britain could have gone two directions - either war of giving into Britain and remaining loyal to the crown. There's a lot to be said about American colonists and their courage to stand up to such a world power and eventually succeed.
The whole subject on how war wasn't inevitable and that it could have been avoidable is one of the biggest lies. People say that Britain could have done this or that, but really the Townshend Act and the Sugar/Stamp Act are just used as an easy explanation of why we had the war.
When you have a long established colony of well over 200 years, across a large body of water, independence has already been established by the environment. All it takes is a strong leader and you have a brew for revolution in your hands. It's the difference between people who say they want freedom, and the people who act upon those wants.
I personally think that the British were instigating the colonists into declaring was but they just didn't realize that they were doing it. I don't think that the British saw anything wrong with what they were doing, from their point of view what they were doing was okay. Where as from the Americans point of view it wasn't, because they were basically getting the short end of the stick on everything. They had to pay extra taxes that the British didn't and that didn't really seem fair to them because technically they were British too.
I definietly agree that the British brought this on themselves. The Townshend Acts, were agreeably the most unreasonable when they practically taxed anything and everything possible. Did they really think the colonists were going to just say ok and go with it? It is said that the revolution was unavoidable, which is a reasonable thought because if it didn't happen then it was bound to happen sometime because now-a-days we wouldn't be bound to any other country by any means other than us having power over them.
Well for sure Townshend had the intent of making the colonists angry in his eyes they had been defying him for far to long (smuggling and avoiding taxation). But Townshend had no idea that this would cause a war, this seemed impossible at the time, never had a colony of any country started a war for independence so it was insane to even think that. Although in the end it does of course look as though Townshend is the bad guy here but thats just history for you.
If you ask me I think that almost every war in the past could have been avoided. Howevere i do agree with what you said about the British insitgating the colonists into declaring war. I especially like the way you worded it "instigsting", because it seems as if the war would have never occurred had it not been for the British and both The Sugar and Stamp Acts.
Even though the taxes made the colonists mad they needed that money to pay off war debts. And the colonists were going to fight them being that the taxes were unfair to them. this would make the colonists protest.
Like some of you I think that the British basically had no clue that they were angering the colonists in America until basically it was too late. Communication across the ocean took so long, and the British had to wonder why the colonists in America might have become angry especially since was no racial resentment; they were of the same race. After all, the taxes were mostly to pay for their own protection. Also, because the American colonists were not particularly liked, there was probably not even much talk of the colonies in Parliament meetings except to sign new taxes into effect without pondering the consequences that might come from the American colonists.
i agree a lot with what you are saying. yes the war could have been avoided, but with all of the taxes and bullying, it just pissed off the colonists. eventually leading to the war.
I agree with what Kelly said, I think that the British thought that they had the colonists in their control. I think that they thought the colonists were too afraid and too small to fight against them, what they may not have realized, is that they would be fighting on opposing turf, and not by their (British) rules.
I can also agree with this post. It does seem like the British were simply picking on the colonists with all these taxes. If they would have continued taxing the people living in England it may have been a different story. But when you lift the taxes on the people who live in England and turn around and enforce taxes on the colonists you can only assume they are going to get angry about it.
Post a Comment