The way you’ve presented things assumes that everyone there was British
Everyone was British, including the rebels and smugglers.
That’s over a 100 years of people forming a new society, on new land, literally fighting the environments day in and day out to survive.
That’s what the propaganda sells, but it’s not true. Boston was as big a town as Liverpool in the 1700s. New York was roughly the same size as Manchester. Nobody was “literally fighting the environment to survive”. People had city-type jobs. Benjamin Franklin was printing newspapers. John Hancock was a smuggler. Sure, there were a lot of farmers working hard on their farms, but that was true everywhere.
I think it was an inevitable thing to happen as it’s happened throughout history to The British Empire.
Leaving the British empire has happened a lot. Fighting a war to leave definitely hasn’t. Which other countries have fought wars to leave the British Empire?
Leaving the British empire has happened a lot. Fighting a war to leave definitely hasn’t. Which other countries have fought wars to leave the British Empire?
The Irish War of Independence (Ireland)
The Indiain Rebellion (India)
The North-West Rebellion (French/Canaidan)
Mau Mau rebellion (Kenya)
Baptist War (Jamaica)
This isn’t even a full list, and not all of these were successful, but they were all fights against British Occupation. Being in The British Empire wasn’t all roses…
That’s what the propaganda sells, but it’s not true. Boston was as big a town as Liverpool in the 1700s. New York was roughly the same size as Manchester. Nobody was “literally fighting the environment to survive”. People had city-type jobs. Benjamin Franklin was printing newspapers. John Hancock was a smuggler. Sure, there were a lot of farmers working hard on their farms, but that was true everywhere.
How do you think all this happened? The cities just got shipped in from across the Atlantic? That’s the whole point of Britians expansion with the Thirteen Colonies across the East Coast of Americas - multiple attempts at forming and sustaining a base of operations to further expansions. It starts in the early 1600s, continues into the 1700s as ships continue to drop off both British Separists - those wanting to seek life in a new land - and British Militia. All of which had to build these cities to handle the import of goods needed for the British Empires expansion. It’s not some Game of Thrones shit where a fleet of British ships just completely encompass the East Coast and supply it with everything it needs. Ain’t no next day shipping in these days. Both Populace and Supplies would continue to come in through the century. These people had to explore, farm, forage, hunt, build shelter all in new land. Port cities would have been the first places to see the most improvement simply due to location and imports - again over 100 years, ~166 years from first landing a East Coast Colony to The Boston Tea Party.
John Handcock was born on Americans soil (not a British Separatist Import) and arguably had more right to the land and representation there of than the British Militia. He wasn’t some off-shore Chinese smuggler trying to undercut The East India Trading Corporation. The propaganda is framing local trade is “smuggling” when in reality, the locals who grew up in The Americas, building the city, not fighting The British Empires war, got fed up having to deal with trading through The British and the upcharges from The East India Trading Corporation - who were relatively loyal to The British Militia.
The annexation of the British Empire has happened in more places than just the Americas - history shows that it was inevitable. A century and a half (over 150 years) is a long time for a society to grow apart from The British Empire across The Atlantic Ocean.
How do you think it happened in Liverpool and Manchester? People moved there and built up a town.
These people had to explore, farm, forage, hunt, build shelter all in new land
Their grandparents did, sure. By the time they were born these were established colonies and it wasn’t too different from Europe.
John Handcock was born on Americans soil (not a British Separatist Import) and arguably had more right to the land and representation there of than the British Militia.
I don’t know who “Handcock” was, but Hancock was a Briton born in the colonies, sure. But, who do you think the British Militia consisted of? Militia members were locals. Even British army officers were locals in many cases. Before he became President, George Washington was a (terrible) Colonel in the British army.
The propaganda is framing local trade is “smuggling” when in reality, the locals who grew up in The Americas, building the city, not fighting The British Empires war,
You do realize that the colonists were fighting in the wars, and many of the wars were fought on behalf of the colonists, to protect them from the hostile French and “Indian” forces to their west, right?
got fed up having to deal with trading through The British
Yeah, just like the idiotic sovereign citizens today who don’t want to acknowledge that they’re part of a society and that they have to live by the rules of that society like everyone else. They didn’t like the government’s rules so they smuggled.
and the upcharges from The East India Trading Corporation - who were relatively loyal to The British Militia.
WTF are you talking about?
The annexation of the British Empire
What do you mean by “the annexation of the British Empire”? The British Empire was never annexed.
A century and a half (over 150 years) is a long time for a society to grow apart from The British Empire across The Atlantic Ocean.
And yet, it didn’t happen, probably because there was constant contact and trade back and forth between British ports in the Americas, British ports in Asia, British ports in Europe, etc.
How do you think it happened in Liverpool and Manchester? People moved there and built up a town.
Under the British Empire, The British Crown, as a port city, where The British primarily ruled. This is a bit different than when The British Empire was across an entire Atlantic Ocean.
Their grandparents did, sure. By the time they were born these were established colonies and it wasn’t too different from Europe.
Not everything was Boston and established, flushed out colonies with paved streets and whatnot. Just because “Their grandparents” hunted, farmed, and build lodging doesn’t make their children’s lives much different during those times. It was still very much roughing it, especially the more lower class you get. They still had to hunt, farm, forage, build, and work.
Militia members were locals.
British Militia were stationed there like any other wartime, but they were still loyalists to the British Empire, whereas society at that time was clearly moving away from Britain’s control over the communities.
You do realize that the colonists were fighting in the wars, and many of the wars were fought on behalf of the colonists, to protect them from the hostile French and “Indian” forces to their west, right?
You do realize that this wasn’t some nice thing Britain was doing for the people wanting to leave Britain and had more to do with the British Empire trying to expand their reach over The World as they did in Africa and India? This is what The British did at the time, expansion and conquering through colonization.
Yeah, just like the idiotic sovereign citizens today who don’t want to acknowledge that they’re part of a society and that they have to live by the rules of that society like everyone else. They didn’t like the government’s rules so they smuggled.
A small group of smugglers didn’t just start a Revolution across roughly ~1500 miles of the Americas East Coast on their own. This was a social change driven by that society’s desire to be rid of British Occupation and Governance. Otherwise, this “revolution” would have fizzled without ongoing support, much like the “sovereign citizen” movement has.
and the upcharges from The East India Trading Corporation - who were relatively loyal to The British Militia.
WTF are you talking about?
During this period, with the British waging war and needing supplies (along with colonies needing supplies), this was primarily handled by The East India Trading Company to handle shipments and imports - this was more or less controlled by The British Empire. This meant that the local populace would need to trade and barter with the Trading Company, who favored The British Militia, which meant less fair trade/barter.
What do you mean by “the annexation of the British Empire”? The British Empire was never annexed.
Annexation in that after the American Revolution and the British Surrender, this allowed the newly formed society to be separated entirely from the British Empire and British Militia. The colonies would no longer be under British Militia control and the society would be free to formulate it’s own government and trade.
And yet, it didn’t happen, probably because there was constant contact and trade back and forth between British ports in the Americas, British ports in Asia, British ports in Europe, etc.
Now it just seems like you’re suggesting that Britain never released its control and influence over America, which I can’t agree with. America certainly grew up into a society different than Britain, certainly the revolt and removal of British Militia has apart in this.
Under the British Empire, The British Crown, as a port city, where The British primarily ruled.
That description fits Boston perfectly. It was in the British empire, under the British crown, in a port city where the British ruled.
Not everything was Boston and established, flushed out colonies with paved streets and whatnot
Yes, just like there were rural areas in England, there were also rural areas in the colonies. There wasn’t much difference except the settlements in the Americas were newer.
It was still very much roughing it
Yes, Benjamin Franklin was really “roughing it” when he worked in various cities running a printing press. I’m sure he was out hunting and foraging all the time. There were people who lived in very rural areas in the colonies, but that’s also true of Great Britain.
British Militia were stationed there
Militias aren’t stationed places. Militias are called up as needed. I suspect you don’t know what a Militia is.
You do realize that this wasn’t some nice thing Britain was doing for the people wanting to leave Britain and had more to do with the British Empire trying to expand their reach over The World as they did in Africa and India? This is what The British did at the time, expansion and conquering through colonization.
Yes, and? That doesn’t change that the primary beneficiaries of their plan to expand were the colonists who lived nearby. They weren’t doing it as a favour for the colonists, they were doing it as a strategic investment in the empire, of which the colonists were a part.
This was a social change driven by that society’s desire to be rid of British Occupation
No it wasn’t. That’s the propaganda. The truth is that it was a revolution kicked off by the wealthy elite colonists who were greedy and didn’t want to have to share their wealth with the government. They wanted the benefits of the wars that Britain had fought to expand the empire’s reach in North America, without having to pay the bill or agree to the terms of the treaty that ended the war.
According to John Adams, only about a third of the colonists were “Patriots”, or revolutionaries. The other two thirds were Loyalists or undecided. You’d think that if anything he’d be overestimating the number of “Patriots” to make it seem like there was more support for the war on his side.
Otherwise, this “revolution” would have fizzled without ongoing support, much like the “sovereign citizen” movement has.
No, because the people backing the revolution were rich, and could afford to raise armies to fight for their side. Meanwhile, the British were still trying to pay off the debts from the previous war. The revolution succeeded because rich smugglers like John Hancock paid the bill, not because it had near universal support.
During this period, with the British waging war and needing supplies (along with colonies needing supplies), this was primarily handled by The East India Trading Company to handle shipments and imports
No… as you might be able to tell from the name, the British East India company operated in… India. They were a trading company, not a company that supplied the needs of colonists in the Americas.
Annexation in that after the American Revolution and the British Surrender, this allowed the newly formed society to be separated entirely from the British Empire and British Militia.
You might want to look up the definition of “annexation”, you’re not using the word correctly.
Now it just seems like you’re suggesting that Britain never released its control and influence over America
Britain never “released” control over the colonies in the Americas until the rebels won the war. Until then the colonies were an integrated part of the empire. Most colonists considered themselves as British. Some of them were Britons who had disagreements with how the government was run. But, that’s like Texans today who consider themselves American but think the government should be run differently.
removal of British Militia has apart in this.
Apart means separate. The words you mean to use are “a part”. Your grasp of history is as weak as your grasp of grammar.
That description fits Boston perfectly. It was in the British empire, under the British crown, in a port city where the British ruled.
If you can’t tell the difference between the long-term British Surrounded and Integrated Livington and the Colonies growing apart from Britian across an entire Atlantic Ocean then there’s nothing to talk about. Boston was only like Liverpool in a sense that it was under British rule. Many of the people living and working in Boston weren’t even born on Great Britian soil and were born on Americas soil.
At this point, I don’t think you’re arguing in Good Faith.
Yes, just like there were rural areas in England, there were also rural areas in the colonies. There wasn’t much difference except the settlements in the Americas were newer.
Again, this is different than being an entire Ocean away, constantly dealing with British Militia Occupation over a span of ~150+ years.
Yes, Benjamin Franklin was really “roughing it” when he worked in various cities running a printing press. I’m sure he was out hunting and foraging all the time. There were people who lived in very rural areas in the colonies, but that’s also true of Great Britain.
Benjamin Franklin was not the norm. He was born into a family that already had a demanding industry running which gave him access to money and resources to go to school and live relatively comfortably. Just because the city had a printing press does not make it “modern”. This was not the norm for the time in the 1700s and especially for the majority of people living out on the East Coast for the last ~150 years.
Militias aren’t stationed places. Militias are called up as needed. I suspect you don’t know what a Militia is.
I suspect you understand what I mean when I say “The British Militia”, or maybe you’re not familiar with The British Empire, but you’re definitely being pedantic. You said yourself The British Empire was fighting a war to the West. They had to setup military bases to feed their war.
Yes, and? That doesn’t change that the primary beneficiaries of their plan to expand were the colonists who lived nearby. They weren’t doing it as a favour for the colonists, they were doing it as a strategic investment in the empire, of which the colonists were a part.
Clearly the colonists disagreed or there wouldn’t have been a revolution to begin with. Unless you think Antifa somehow got mixed into the ~1600 mile stretch of the East Coast and rallied the people against the Angels of the British Empire. The colonists no longer identified as British and wanted free of British rule and British Military Occupation. Again, something that has happened throughout history to the British Empire…
No it wasn’t. That’s the propaganda. The truth is that it was a revolution kicked off by the wealthy elite colonists who were greedy and didn’t want to have to share their wealth with the government. They wanted the benefits of the wars that Britain had fought to expand the empire’s reach in North America, without having to pay the bill or agree to the terms of the treaty that ended the war.
No that’s the propaganda you’re pushing because you think everything was just roses and jumpropes in the 1600s and 1700s. Your multiple comments give the impression that you believe everyone was living in cozy brick houses and got their food from the market. You seem to believe that this land was already cleared, explored, ready and waiting for the British to ship in their houses. Nobody believe that this was the case, but you won’t concede that people had to hunt and forage in a new land in which colonization is happening on new land? Get real.
The people growing up on that land, having to build their houses, having to build these towns, having to work in the area, these are the people who grew up away from Britian. These are the people who eventually got fed up with British Occupation and being under the British Empire’s thumb. Once again… Something that’s happened to The British throughout history…
According to John Adams, only about a third of the colonists were “Patriots”, or revolutionaries. The other two thirds were Loyalists or undecided. You’d think that if anything he’d be overestimating the number of “Patriots” to make it seem like there was more support for the war on his side.
Ya know I’ve read this and I think it tracks with how society goes. It certainly mirrors the U.S. political system pretty well since it’s a 2 party system (Patriots / Loyalists) and then there’s the undecided. I’d argue that’s the case in most 2 party systems. I don’t see this as the point you make it out to be, but a normal outcome to politics, and it’s especially surprising in a time with such slow communication (though when Adams says this, the Revolutionary War was already long past).
The “Loyalists” being those who wanted to stay within The Briths Empire.
The “Patriots” being those who wanted to be free of The British Empire.
The “Undecided” being those who just wanted to be left alone in the new land they’re exploring and homes they’re building for themselves.
The revolution succeeded because rich smugglers like John Hancock paid the bill, not because it had near universal support.
I don’t disagree with that. Most causes don’t have “universal support”, especially politically. That’s absurd.
No… as you might be able to tell from the name, the British East India company operated in… India.
The East India Trading Company came from the colonization of India and it’s base of operations was in fucking London during the period we’re discussing. This was an international shipping company used to facilitate trade between the British colonies, which included the American colonies, throughout the world. The British had a stranglehold, a Monopoly on trade at this time when dealing, especially when dealing with the American Colonies.
I don’t think you have a full understanding of how The British Empire used their wealth and power to try and colonize and influence the rest of the world. I don’t think you have a full grasp of how different the time period of the 1600s and 1700s is compared to modern day and what those people had to deal with as they were forming a new society on this new land. I don’t see any reason to keep discussing this topic with you, as you’re as stuck in your propaganda as I am apparently in mine.
Everyone was British, including the rebels and smugglers.
That’s what the propaganda sells, but it’s not true. Boston was as big a town as Liverpool in the 1700s. New York was roughly the same size as Manchester. Nobody was “literally fighting the environment to survive”. People had city-type jobs. Benjamin Franklin was printing newspapers. John Hancock was a smuggler. Sure, there were a lot of farmers working hard on their farms, but that was true everywhere.
Leaving the British empire has happened a lot. Fighting a war to leave definitely hasn’t. Which other countries have fought wars to leave the British Empire?
This isn’t even a full list, and not all of these were successful, but they were all fights against British Occupation. Being in The British Empire wasn’t all roses…
How do you think all this happened? The cities just got shipped in from across the Atlantic? That’s the whole point of Britians expansion with the Thirteen Colonies across the East Coast of Americas - multiple attempts at forming and sustaining a base of operations to further expansions. It starts in the early 1600s, continues into the 1700s as ships continue to drop off both British Separists - those wanting to seek life in a new land - and British Militia. All of which had to build these cities to handle the import of goods needed for the British Empires expansion. It’s not some Game of Thrones shit where a fleet of British ships just completely encompass the East Coast and supply it with everything it needs. Ain’t no next day shipping in these days. Both Populace and Supplies would continue to come in through the century. These people had to explore, farm, forage, hunt, build shelter all in new land. Port cities would have been the first places to see the most improvement simply due to location and imports - again over 100 years, ~166 years from first landing a East Coast Colony to The Boston Tea Party.
John Handcock was born on Americans soil (not a British Separatist Import) and arguably had more right to the land and representation there of than the British Militia. He wasn’t some off-shore Chinese smuggler trying to undercut The East India Trading Corporation. The propaganda is framing local trade is “smuggling” when in reality, the locals who grew up in The Americas, building the city, not fighting The British Empires war, got fed up having to deal with trading through The British and the upcharges from The East India Trading Corporation - who were relatively loyal to The British Militia.
The annexation of the British Empire has happened in more places than just the Americas - history shows that it was inevitable. A century and a half (over 150 years) is a long time for a society to grow apart from The British Empire across The Atlantic Ocean.
How do you think it happened in Liverpool and Manchester? People moved there and built up a town.
Their grandparents did, sure. By the time they were born these were established colonies and it wasn’t too different from Europe.
I don’t know who “Handcock” was, but Hancock was a Briton born in the colonies, sure. But, who do you think the British Militia consisted of? Militia members were locals. Even British army officers were locals in many cases. Before he became President, George Washington was a (terrible) Colonel in the British army.
You do realize that the colonists were fighting in the wars, and many of the wars were fought on behalf of the colonists, to protect them from the hostile French and “Indian” forces to their west, right?
Yeah, just like the idiotic sovereign citizens today who don’t want to acknowledge that they’re part of a society and that they have to live by the rules of that society like everyone else. They didn’t like the government’s rules so they smuggled.
WTF are you talking about?
What do you mean by “the annexation of the British Empire”? The British Empire was never annexed.
And yet, it didn’t happen, probably because there was constant contact and trade back and forth between British ports in the Americas, British ports in Asia, British ports in Europe, etc.
Under the British Empire, The British Crown, as a port city, where The British primarily ruled. This is a bit different than when The British Empire was across an entire Atlantic Ocean.
Not everything was Boston and established, flushed out colonies with paved streets and whatnot. Just because “Their grandparents” hunted, farmed, and build lodging doesn’t make their children’s lives much different during those times. It was still very much roughing it, especially the more lower class you get. They still had to hunt, farm, forage, build, and work.
British Militia were stationed there like any other wartime, but they were still loyalists to the British Empire, whereas society at that time was clearly moving away from Britain’s control over the communities.
You do realize that this wasn’t some nice thing Britain was doing for the people wanting to leave Britain and had more to do with the British Empire trying to expand their reach over The World as they did in Africa and India? This is what The British did at the time, expansion and conquering through colonization.
A small group of smugglers didn’t just start a Revolution across roughly ~1500 miles of the Americas East Coast on their own. This was a social change driven by that society’s desire to be rid of British Occupation and Governance. Otherwise, this “revolution” would have fizzled without ongoing support, much like the “sovereign citizen” movement has.
During this period, with the British waging war and needing supplies (along with colonies needing supplies), this was primarily handled by The East India Trading Company to handle shipments and imports - this was more or less controlled by The British Empire. This meant that the local populace would need to trade and barter with the Trading Company, who favored The British Militia, which meant less fair trade/barter.
Annexation in that after the American Revolution and the British Surrender, this allowed the newly formed society to be separated entirely from the British Empire and British Militia. The colonies would no longer be under British Militia control and the society would be free to formulate it’s own government and trade.
Now it just seems like you’re suggesting that Britain never released its control and influence over America, which I can’t agree with. America certainly grew up into a society different than Britain, certainly the revolt and removal of British Militia has apart in this.
That description fits Boston perfectly. It was in the British empire, under the British crown, in a port city where the British ruled.
Yes, just like there were rural areas in England, there were also rural areas in the colonies. There wasn’t much difference except the settlements in the Americas were newer.
Yes, Benjamin Franklin was really “roughing it” when he worked in various cities running a printing press. I’m sure he was out hunting and foraging all the time. There were people who lived in very rural areas in the colonies, but that’s also true of Great Britain.
Militias aren’t stationed places. Militias are called up as needed. I suspect you don’t know what a Militia is.
Yes, and? That doesn’t change that the primary beneficiaries of their plan to expand were the colonists who lived nearby. They weren’t doing it as a favour for the colonists, they were doing it as a strategic investment in the empire, of which the colonists were a part.
No it wasn’t. That’s the propaganda. The truth is that it was a revolution kicked off by the wealthy elite colonists who were greedy and didn’t want to have to share their wealth with the government. They wanted the benefits of the wars that Britain had fought to expand the empire’s reach in North America, without having to pay the bill or agree to the terms of the treaty that ended the war.
According to John Adams, only about a third of the colonists were “Patriots”, or revolutionaries. The other two thirds were Loyalists or undecided. You’d think that if anything he’d be overestimating the number of “Patriots” to make it seem like there was more support for the war on his side.
No, because the people backing the revolution were rich, and could afford to raise armies to fight for their side. Meanwhile, the British were still trying to pay off the debts from the previous war. The revolution succeeded because rich smugglers like John Hancock paid the bill, not because it had near universal support.
No… as you might be able to tell from the name, the British East India company operated in… India. They were a trading company, not a company that supplied the needs of colonists in the Americas.
You might want to look up the definition of “annexation”, you’re not using the word correctly.
Britain never “released” control over the colonies in the Americas until the rebels won the war. Until then the colonies were an integrated part of the empire. Most colonists considered themselves as British. Some of them were Britons who had disagreements with how the government was run. But, that’s like Texans today who consider themselves American but think the government should be run differently.
Apart means separate. The words you mean to use are “a part”. Your grasp of history is as weak as your grasp of grammar.
If you can’t tell the difference between the long-term British Surrounded and Integrated Livington and the Colonies growing apart from Britian across an entire Atlantic Ocean then there’s nothing to talk about. Boston was only like Liverpool in a sense that it was under British rule. Many of the people living and working in Boston weren’t even born on Great Britian soil and were born on Americas soil.
At this point, I don’t think you’re arguing in Good Faith.
Again, this is different than being an entire Ocean away, constantly dealing with British Militia Occupation over a span of ~150+ years.
Benjamin Franklin was not the norm. He was born into a family that already had a demanding industry running which gave him access to money and resources to go to school and live relatively comfortably. Just because the city had a printing press does not make it “modern”. This was not the norm for the time in the 1700s and especially for the majority of people living out on the East Coast for the last ~150 years.
I suspect you understand what I mean when I say “The British Militia”, or maybe you’re not familiar with The British Empire, but you’re definitely being pedantic. You said yourself The British Empire was fighting a war to the West. They had to setup military bases to feed their war.
Clearly the colonists disagreed or there wouldn’t have been a revolution to begin with. Unless you think Antifa somehow got mixed into the ~1600 mile stretch of the East Coast and rallied the people against the Angels of the British Empire. The colonists no longer identified as British and wanted free of British rule and British Military Occupation. Again, something that has happened throughout history to the British Empire…
No that’s the propaganda you’re pushing because you think everything was just roses and jumpropes in the 1600s and 1700s. Your multiple comments give the impression that you believe everyone was living in cozy brick houses and got their food from the market. You seem to believe that this land was already cleared, explored, ready and waiting for the British to ship in their houses. Nobody believe that this was the case, but you won’t concede that people had to hunt and forage in a new land in which colonization is happening on new land? Get real.
The people growing up on that land, having to build their houses, having to build these towns, having to work in the area, these are the people who grew up away from Britian. These are the people who eventually got fed up with British Occupation and being under the British Empire’s thumb. Once again… Something that’s happened to The British throughout history…
Ya know I’ve read this and I think it tracks with how society goes. It certainly mirrors the U.S. political system pretty well since it’s a 2 party system (Patriots / Loyalists) and then there’s the undecided. I’d argue that’s the case in most 2 party systems. I don’t see this as the point you make it out to be, but a normal outcome to politics, and it’s especially surprising in a time with such slow communication (though when Adams says this, the Revolutionary War was already long past).
The “Loyalists” being those who wanted to stay within The Briths Empire.
The “Patriots” being those who wanted to be free of The British Empire.
The “Undecided” being those who just wanted to be left alone in the new land they’re exploring and homes they’re building for themselves.
I don’t disagree with that. Most causes don’t have “universal support”, especially politically. That’s absurd.
The East India Trading Company came from the colonization of India and it’s base of operations was in fucking London during the period we’re discussing. This was an international shipping company used to facilitate trade between the British colonies, which included the American colonies, throughout the world. The British had a stranglehold, a Monopoly on trade at this time when dealing, especially when dealing with the American Colonies.
I don’t think you have a full understanding of how The British Empire used their wealth and power to try and colonize and influence the rest of the world. I don’t think you have a full grasp of how different the time period of the 1600s and 1700s is compared to modern day and what those people had to deal with as they were forming a new society on this new land. I don’t see any reason to keep discussing this topic with you, as you’re as stuck in your propaganda as I am apparently in mine.