A different view of the American Revolutionary War

From an excellent Reddit thread:

Major factors that tend to get swept under the rug include the fact that the British had concrete binding legal agreements with a lot of the native peoples on land claims. The American settlers, however, were increasingly growing in numbers and wanted to expand the east coast colonies westward, and this was infringing on the agreed boundaries. After a while, the British couldn’t prevent the colonist from illegally expanding, because there were so many doing it.

This led to a lot of hostilities: both between natives and the expanding colonists as well as competing colonists making claims on contested land. This eventually led to violence, to which the colonist claimed the British were not effectively enforcing the new territory (which the Brits had said they shouldn’t be taking in the first place, mind you). After enough pressure, the British decided they needed to put more garrisons in the colonies to prevent the violence, but insisted the colonies pay for it seeing, you know, they bought it upon themselves. This is now popularized as “British ruling with an iron fist” and “unfairly taxing the colonies”. After a while, the colonies were refusing to pay the increasing taxes for the garrison, but knowing it wouldn’t fly if they just said “we aren’t paying up anymore” they used the classic “no taxation without representation” argument, which is essentially a straw man argument. However, the British initially responded with an offer to have constituents in British parliament representing the colonies, basically accepting the offer the colonies had made. Well, the colonial leaderships didn’t expect this outcome and didn’t know what to do (they just wanted the taxes lifted), so they declined the offer and pushed the whole tyranny line instead, which eventually led to the outbreak of the revolution.

TL;DR – History is decided by the winners and everything is a matter of perspective.

Share Button