Destructive Pride

Most may disagree with me but I can see where the colonists and the British are coming from. From the British point of view, levying a tax to make Americans pay for their own defense seems sensible. The Americans on the other hand never asked for this defense so to them it seems absolutely absurd. I think the British were simply blinded by their own pride. The British saw their empire as vast, powerful and one. They did not care about granting representation in Parliament, they were use to having their way go. When push came to shove on most of the taxes levied by the British, the British would back down. But it was their own sense of pride, the notion that they were being defied by people miles away, that made them keep insisting and keep taxing. The passage that most perfectly defines this is, "Finally, former prime minister William Pitt and his friends demanded that 'the Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally, and immediately' as a failed policy. Pitt tried to draw a subtle distinction between taxation and legislation; he argued both that Parliament could not tax the colonies and that British authority over America was 'sovereign and supreme, in every circumstance of government and legislation whatsoever.'" Their pride kept holding them back. It was this same sense of pride that made the British march in columns while the colonists shot from behind rocks and inside houses. A revolution also must have seen implausible. How could anyone defeat the greatest army on earth? This revolution is indicative of what America would be. A place where people could fight for what they believed to be right. Against all odds, America defeated the British, freed slaves, won women's rights and civil rights. It defines the spirit of the country.
A couple of other points that I found to be interesting. I did not realize that only five people were killed in the Boston Massacre, just by the title obviously, you would guess more. Also, I can at least see where Grenville or Rockingham were coming from in their terms. But Townshend almost seemed like he was trying to bully the colonists. Taxing colonists who were already uneasy with the British to pay for the salaries of royal governors, judges and imperial officials seemed as if he was just trying to stir up trouble. The colonists already did not want to pay taxes for the British military, why would they want to pay the salaries of royal governors, judges and imperial officials so they would be paid by the crown and made more loyal to the crown?

Instigating

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.

What if?

What if Ben were to of stayed in England? Would America of ever turned out the way it was? or would America still be a part of England? I dont understand how William can defend Americans so easily and then return to England becasue he is loyal to the crown during the revolution. It seemed as if a war was going to happen. England controlled Canada, the colonies and everything from the Appalachains to the east bank of the Mississippi. The Sugar and Stamp Act helped ignite the struggles England placed on the colonies