Was King George III right?

[Zeeboe]

I recently took an interest in the American War for Independence. Up until recently, the little information I knew about it from schoolbooks and Hollywood, and both of those sources have vivified the British, but after doing some studying beyond those sources, as of right now, to be perfectly honest, despite being a proud American, I find myself siding more with Great Britain then the American Colonies and question if things may have been better off if King George III won. I'm not trying to start an argument, or offend anyone. I only wish to be educated, and perhaps educate as well, and I would share what I have learned.

Since childhood, one of the popular grips of white guilt I have ever heard has been the fact that "white men invaded this land, and stole it from Native Americans". Well, I learned something very interesting recently: Many American Colonists wanted to invade Indian country, but Great Britain made it illegal. London thought it was fair and safe to reserve those lands for the Natives who had always loved and hunted there.

Now I doubt it was because the Brits wanted to be nice, rather they just wanted to avoid new conflicts along the frontier in the years following the end of the French & Indian War. George Washington however agreed with plenty of other American colonial settlers, who thought that law unfairly limited their rights. They invaded Indian country anyhow, and that was one of the many reasons the American Colonists went to war with England.

One of the reasons why so many Native Americans sided with Great Britain during the war, and fought along side with them was because they knew England was going to respect their land and rights. So if England won, perhaps Natives would have their own Independent states in this country, and lots of suffering and war could have been avoided.

Many black slaves also joined the British Army because they were promised freedom. Now I am sure this was just a recruiting tool, but it appears that England actually wanted to end slavery at some point, but the rich American Colonists however did not want to end it. Again, if England won, perhaps slavery would have ended much sooner, and there would have been no American Civil War, and black people could have be given equal rights much sooner, and not suffered for as long as they did.

In general, England wanted a living, breathing Constitution that changed with the times. The American Colonists however did not want such a thing.

Now I've rambled enough, and I don't want to post too much in the event that there are no responses, but these are some of the things I learned, and I hope to have a nice chat about all this. Thank you for reading.

 

[dallas1125]

I highly recommend the book 1776. I havent finished it yet, but I just started it! It is an extremley good read!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The war of Independence is of course the "first American civil war" Fought by some dissenting colonists against a mixed group of regular soldiers, colonists, natives and slaves. British soldiers were very much the minority. The war was mostly fought against fellow Ameriicans.

The outcome might well have been a better America had the dissenters not won.

However the British knew they were dealing with a land and people that were too large and unruly to ever be governed from afar. Had they sent a full sized army they would have won the war, but would have lost the peace, and at great cost to the growing empire.

As a result the adventurer colonists got their way, and established what has become, after a further civil war, the America of today.

In many senses the USA is still ungovernable. it is still divided by states, laws and ideals. it is still a dissenter population under arms.

 

[Father Heathen]

In many senses the USA is still ungovernable. it is still divided by states, laws and ideals. it is still a dissenter population under arms.

That's still preferable to stagnant complacency and servile conformity.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That's still preferable to stagnant complacency and servile conformity.

That is of cours true, however it is not a realistic alternative. Or one a sensible person would offer.

 

[Valjean]

Britain made the mistake of essentially ignoring the colonies for many years whilst it occupied itself with wars and political machinations on the continent. It left the colonists to their own devices for so long that they got used to managing their own affairs and resented it when England resumed an active interest.
Still, it was only by the most unlikely twist of fate that the Americans came out on top.

What would have happened had the British prevailed? -- look at Canada.

 

[Onkara]

17th Century interest in the US appears to be more financial than a matter of pride or power. My impression is that the 17th century British were not looking for a war but financial support and the drive for change was based on US self interest.

The question could be what were the immediate changes or benefits following the war? Was life really that much better in 1790, for example?

 

[Zeeboe]

Great Britain had been in one war or another for fifty years and was drowning in debt. Over in London, Parliament decided that Americans should help out by paying their fair share, and King George agreed. After all, Great Britain had spent plenty of money fighting in America for the good of the colonies. 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. The majority of Americans however felt it was not.

And while there were plenty of Americans who remained loyal to England during the war, there were also plenty of British troops from England fighting for them as well. Although it is true that because the British could not raise enough troops at home, 30,000 tough, highly-trained German troops were paid to fight with them. (Although most of Britain's money ended in a German Prince who had sold the men's services. The men themselves were poorly paid.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

17th Century interest in the US appears to be more financial than a matter of pride or power. My impression is that the 17th century British were not looking for a war but financial support and the drive for change was based on US self interest.

...financial support to recoup the cost of defending the American colonies from the French during the Seven Years' War.

I see a strong parallel between the situation that led to the American Revolution and the current situation in Iraq.

 

[Onkara]

Great Britain had been in one war or another for fifty years and was drowning in debt. Over in London, Parliament decided that Americans should help out by paying their fair share, and King George agreed. After all, Great Britain had spent plenty of money fighting in America for the good of the colonies. 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. The majority of Americans however felt it was not.

And while there were plenty of Americans who remained loyal to England during the war, there were also plenty of British troops from England fighting for them as well. Although it is true that because the British could not raise enough troops at home, 30,000 tough, highly-trained German troops were paid to fight with them. (Although most of Britain's money ended in a German Prince who had sold the men's services. The men themselves were poorly paid.)

Fascinating! Fairly tragic that those risking their lives were poorly paid. Are you reading a specific book or documentary that you would recommend to us, or are you sharing information from multiple sources?

 

[Onkara]

I see a strong parallel between the situation that led to the American Revolution and the current situation in Iraq.

Could you elaborate on that thought for me, please, I don't understand the strong parallel?

 

[Zeeboe]

It's from various sources. I think if King George III won, the majority would see Washington as the villian and he'd be remembered as being one of the greatest tyrants in history. I don't think it's fair to make any person or country or group out to be bad guys because they just did what they consider to be the right thing. Whoever has won any war decided what good and evil was. I think by studying both sides in any war, a person can have a much better understanding about human nature.

 

[Onkara]

I will have to depend on your posting then
I agree in part with your last point, it seems in retrospect that there must have been good versus evil. I think we are prone to think like that due to the atrocities by Germans during the second world war (and the fact they did not win). In reality both sides were making choices and taking actions which they saw as open to them (I am in no way justifying or excusing anyone). In the American War of Independence, I cannot see who was really "evil" given your points above.

Could the American war of independence have been avoided? Could we ever suppose that could have been an option?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Could you elaborate on that thought for me, please, I don't understand the strong parallel?

I may be off-base here, but I think that there's an effort on the part of the United States to extract some of the cost of the war in the form of oil revenues. By depriving the Iraqi government of this revenue source, they're effectively creating the impetus for taxes that wouldn't have been there otherwise.

It's from various sources. I think if King George III won, the majority would see Washington as the villian and he'd be remembered as being one of the greatest tyrants in history. I don't think it's fair to make any person or country or group out to be bad guys because they just did what they consider to be the right thing. Whoever has won any war decided what good and evil was. I think by studying both sides in any war, a person can have a much better understanding about human nature.

Maybe he'd have been villified... or maybe not. Here in Canada, many of the leaders of our rebellions (e.g. Louis Riel, William Lyon Mackenzie) are generally held up as national heroes, even though their rebellions were put down by the government. In fact, in the case of Mackenzie, he actually returned to Canada and was elected to Provincial Parliament after he had led his unsuccessful rebellion.

 

[Bismillah]

I may be off-base here, but I think that there's an effort on the part of the United States to extract some of the cost of the war in the form of oil revenues. By depriving the Iraqi government of this revenue source, they're effectively creating the impetus for taxes that wouldn't have been there otherwise.

Penguin:

The Iraqis were deprived of much more than their oil prior to the second invasion of Iraq. It was more of a scheme worth billions for Enron and their gang of thugs in the White House.