The American Revolution: What are some differences between the British and American versions of events?

Question

I realize that this topic is much more prominent and important in American history than it is in British history, so British history books probably don't say as much about it. But does anyone know of any significant differences between the two accounts?

Feel free to mention anything about colonial times or events leading up the to Revolution, as well. Like the Boston Massacre, or other events.

"I am pretty sure they don't call it the American Revolution"

I am fairly certain that that is the international term for it. The American term is "The Revolutionary War."

"The war was pointless since nones of the combatants managed to complete their objectives"

I certainly wouldn't call it pointless. The United States is a sovereign nation is it not? It owes no allegiance to the crown, and that is a direct result of the Treaty of Paris. I'm not sure what they're teaching you up north, but taking Canada was never the primary goal of this conflict.

Answer 1

the poster above seems to have confused the revolutionary war with the war of 1812... and the british, americans, and canadians have different interpretations of what the objectives were.

Anyway, back to the original subject. If you are asking about proper scholars on either side of the pond... my experience is that their versions are similar. They both look at the shifting politics in britain, the international situation, and how european politics were playing out in north america. Then they look at how the colonists saw it. It is fascinating to be able to see how all the various factions interpreted events. How things fit into the full pattern. And what a pattern it is! Seen in that light, the American Revolutionary War is only one part of a bunc h of proxy wars between the various european powers. And yet, even in that framework, there were many many many fascinating, revolutionary concepts coming to a boil in the colonies.

However, if you were to talk about the way it's taught to kids... Well, in the US, it tends to be reduced to a few Grand Founding Fathers, the evil King, and a bunch of soldiers blundering around. Something which does it a great disservice. Adopting the ancient model of the super-human Law-Giver completely subverts the very republican (not as in the political party, as in the political system) story it tells.

And, as far as I can tell from the off-hand comments of my british friends, the american war for independence is just one of a series of small squabbles as britain became an even mightier imperialist power. And the british didn't even care about it.

So, as far as I can tell, both versions taught to kids in school are both greviously incorrect through simplification.

Answer 2

Well, for one thing, American history rarely if ever looks at the political tribulations within the British government while this was all going on.

England made a specific decision not to conscript additional soldiers so as not to cause a potential rise in wages that could be demanded by mill workers throughout England.

There was very deep division in Parliament as to whether the colonies should be cajoled back into the empire, or dragged back broken and bleeding. This is why the British commanders assigned early were all either moderates or Whigs. None of them had a 'killer' philosophy towards the colonists, so none of them were willing to use terror early on when it might have done some good. Terror was only used later in the war (1777 - on) when the revolution had taken hold.

Simultaneously, the use of Hessian mercenaries seemed to the British just to be a conservation of resources, a financial decision which had undreamed of consequences when they were deployed. While the British troops would have some feelings of compassion for the colonists (no matter what Mel 'The Passion isn't Anti-semitic at all!' Roadwarrior Gibson says), the Germans felt absolutely no feelings of comradeship nor feelings of pity for the Americans they robbed, raped, beat and murdered - and they felt no distinction between loyalists and rebels! This was a very important reason why the percentage of Americans who either sided with the King or were passive dropped so dramatically as the war went on.

I hope this will help.

Answer 3

Hey pablodiablo1981,

Some of my family were loyalists, others were among the revolutionaries. The loyalists (in my family) had their land taken in Cape Cod, and had to flee to Canada where they were given land by the English. You can read about the loyalists to get a perspective other than the American view, and more up close and personal than English accounts.

Answer 4

I believe the Brits saw it much like we see the terrorists in Iraq now. We weren't playing by the rules--we hid behind trees and shot at them. At first, we didn't wear uniforms, so the soldiers looked just like everyone else. When France entered the war is when they started having problems--France was also fighting them in the Carribean, so they decided to cut their losses here and defend the areas which were more important to them. The war went on for them for wuite a while after we were granted our independence. There is still some resentment, though. My parents went to England one time, and Mom asked why we couldn't get such good tea in the states. The waitress replied, "Because the last time we sent it to you, you dumped it in the bloody harbor!"

Answer 5

The war was pointless since nones of the combatants managed to complete their objectives. US didn't take Canada ( woot woot Cananada!) and Britain didn't take USA. And usually Amricans think they won the war. The only thing they manage to accomplish was the americans destroyed Toronto but brits got back at them by burning down Washington and the white house.

Answer 6

I couldn't really explain the differences since I do not know how the British viewed what Americans have deemed as the American Revolution. Although, I am pretty sure they don't call it the American Revolution, but that is my opinion and not based on fact.

Answer 7

The difference is the point of view -- self government vs. preservation of the empire. that's the real difference in the perception and subsequent presentation of the events. the british were preserving a part of their empire and they were trying to pay for what they considered to be protection from other countries (ie paying for the french & indian war). the americans viewed the economic system as unjust and used political slogans (ie taxation w/o representation is tyranny) to seperate themselves for their economic betterment.

Answer 8

Americans think they won (which is why they ended up with Bush). The British couldn't have cared less.