was it wrong for many colonists to maintain loyalty to England during the Revolutionary War?

Question

I'm undecided, so if anybody can help it would be greatly appreciated.

i already know that the colonists didn't really want to seperate from the British Empire, they only wanted to change a few things back to the way things were before the taxes and all that. I jus tcan't decide if I should put no or yes. I'm thinking no, but I can't think of a good reason to support my answer. Is it really a good reason to remain loyal to Britain for personal gain if they win? that is where I'm kind of thinking yes, but not all people thought that way.

Answer 1

Technically, all of the colonists had sworn an oath of loyalty to honor and obey the orders of the crown. So they were the only ones who were "correct" that is, according to their oath.
Now those who rebelled were in the "wrong". They were breaking an oath of loyalty.
Nevermind it was a desperate act brought on by an abusive monarchy. No one should blame the "British" as such, the severe measures put upon the colonies were laid out by the bloody King if you will.
But if he hadn't done that America would still be a British colony and we would still have a king. But it would most likely be a German king because the US would not have become a world power under the thumb of the king.

Answer 2

Wrong? not really.

While the treatment of the colonies by the British monarchy was in many ways unjust, the majority of "Americans" were barely off the boat, and were for all intents and purposes - socially, culturally - still British.

The fact of the matter is that the declaration of independence by the thirteen colonies was a result of the empire's economic policies, competition amongst the other European colonial powers, and the great distance of North America from the crown.

Answer 3

properly, the Aussies as is their wont will play confusing, that's no longer open to communicate! some gamers play could nevertheless call the playing cards or the photos like Clarke, Chris Rogers (wonder), Faulkner, Haddin, Pattinson, Siddle, Lyon & Doherty. at cases England might want to correctly be very at threat of the colourful Aussie area yet that's it, I difficulty plenty about the Aussie batting, an effect for a lengthy time period now. The bowling develop into continually promising, a magnificent crop of quickly bowlers being accessible like Jackson chook, Hastings, Kane Richardson all with some good %. & stream. even with the indisputable fact that, the promising batters have not come through, Khwaja no longer in favor, Cowan promising yet no longer fullyyt good, Warner in elementary words ordinary for pulling the rabbit out of the hat & Maxwell untested at this element. Yea, England truly are the outright favorites, its in elementary words a count number of time no matter if the Aussies capitulate in the first attempt or no longer! which will deliver shivers down their necks & in the journey that they are down 3-0, then the Ashes urn comes again to previous blighty

Answer 4

In my opinion yes & no. Just what you wanted to hear right?:) Let me explain. I think duty to county and devotion is a noble cause but had England not tried to keep such a stranglehold on the colonies they could have avoided a revolution all together. I mean look at the trade, England wanted EVERYTHING sent on English or colonial made ships, everything had to be sent to England before transported to the rest of the world and then anything going to the colonies had to be sent to England first. England should have expected a revolution. In short, it would have been nice if settlers could have remained loyal, but who wants to be loyal to a harsh taskmaster??? Up the British!!!!! Oops, that war is over:)

Answer 5

In some colonies, yes because they were loyalists, and if one steps out, than that would be an act of disloyalty. In Johnny Tremain, they say that there is two sides of the argument, to stay with England or to not. Some people have opinions, and that woudl never change in the world. For example, Ben Franklin's son was the Govenor of Massachusetts during the Revolutionary War, but he was against it himself.

Answer 6

no, the alternative was not well defined and it's difficult to fight your grandparents.

when i moved to a new city, it was years before i changed my nhl hockey team allegiance and even now i still want my original team to win. not as important a question i know but hopefully a useful metaphor.

cool question.

Answer 7

define "wrong"? I mean, in what way would it be "wrong"?

This sounds like a teacher's busy work question.

Tell him/her that I said that. And that I wonder at their definition of the word "wrong."

Answer 8

if their principles and beliefs were towards being loyal to the english no but if it was to keep their wealth and prividleges yes