Were the redcoats all that bad? and was the king all that evil?

Question

American movies tend to make the Red coats look like they were villainous, and the king like he was satan incarnate. Didnt the king have the right to tax america because we refused to pay him back for his help in the french and indian war??? If we just payed him then he wouldnt have taxed us so much right?

Answer 1

the king had the right to tax the colonies yes. but that's not what they were so mad about. all the colonies wanted was to be represented in Parliament like every other Englishmen was. but Parliament said since they were not in England they were not English men. so they didn't deserve to be represented as as English men. and that would out rage any body from any government to have yor country say you are not even a part of that country but yet u will still pay taxes as if you are.

now as far as the French and Indian war. in Europe it was known as the war for empire. and yes the crown did send some troops but mostly they used the troops they had there already stationed plus the colonies militia so they really didn't spend that much in America they spent more fighting that war every where else.

now the British troops were no saints while here during the revolutionary war. they looted burned among other things in fact they would throw whole families out in the cold to bed troops down. the soldiers came first everyone else second. and look at the way they treated captives from the colonel army since they didn't recognize them as a real army they didn't treat them like they would another country. they put them in a ship in new York harbor and piratically starved them. and those were the ones that were able to surrender to the English because most of the time the Hessians didn't give them a chance to with the famous bayonet charges of theirs

Answer 2

Well for a start King George III was actually mad. He had the basic sytem belief of the aristocracy of his day(which included slaughtering aborigines in Australia and/or pardoning or just sacking those responsible) and he did believe in an absolute monarchy-this is why he established a party of the King's friends in parliament. However althought mad he was no wickeder than the general monarchs of the day.
The redcoats were much better than the armies of continental Europe at the time and certainly much much better than the amies of Asia and Africa. The British empire treated it's subjects much more humane than did the other empires of the earth. However, they did committ cruelties and were upholding what amounted to was a colonial system - abet however comparitively humane.
The King, legally, had the right to tax America. America was legally under British law. However there is the rule of law and there is the eternal precepts of justice. Justice however made the Americans claim of no tax without representation justified. Also the Americans of the time were mostly either British or descendents of British. They should have had the rights of the average British subject at the time. The right of limited franchise, and of course representation at Westminster. The King had the right to tax them, but they had the right of representation. Conversly they had the right to refuse taxation if no representation was forthcoming.
If America had have not had the revolution then she would have most likely ended up like Canada or Australia. She would have been a dominion then fully indedpendent in the 20th century. However, the reason why the British were like that to their dominions was they learnt from the American war of Independence. However by now America would have been independent.
However because America had that emphisis and example of the revolution-they had the attitudes and concept to become great. Because they were independent because of the revolution in time for the 19th century-they had the immigration and the means to become great. Without the revolution America would have been a glorified Canada-not the world megapower it is today. And this would have had a great effect, most likely negative, on twentieth century history.
But America should be thankfull that it was under the British to start of with. It had the advantages of being a colony of the most liberal, advanced and powerful nation in the world at that time. Also if it had have been under someone else then it wouldn't have these advantages and there would have been a much harder letting go. America probably would have had to wait for the Napoleonic wars as did South America. However , without Americas example-would the French revolution have occured? Possibly not. And if it was France then France would have continued to regard America as a department of France right until the twentieth century, at least. So the redcoat was, after all, not all that bad. The movies need a villian. So the poor redcoat has to do. But think not too badly about the redcoat-he was no worse than many and better than most.

Answer 3

Of course the English were not bad and the King was not evil. America was her colony and therefore she (England) had the right to tax the colonies. The taxes in America were only a small fraction of the taxes that the British people paid. I think the problem came because from the beginning of the colonies in 1620 until the early 1760's, Britain basically left the colonies alone to government itself. It was not until after the debt of the French and Indian War did the British interfer with the colonies. Many colonist did not like the change in the policies of Britain towards the colonies.

Answer 4

You are absolutely correct. The colonists, as English citizens, resented a German sitting on an English throne. They were basically malcontents to begin with. Which is why they were here. Plus they bitterly resented the power the Hudson Bay Company had in Parliament. They were being limited in trade by the collusion between the Hudson Bay Company and the King. The Hudson Bay company wanted to maintain its control over colonist trade.

Answer 5

King George III wasnt all that bad even though he was proven to be a nut.

George III inherited more than just the throne. He also had the royal hereditary disease porphyria which had afflicted Mary Queen of Scots.

Answer 6

King George wasn't so bad, it was his advisors. George was certifiably insane thanks to centuries of intermarriage amoung royal families. So while he ran around the palace chasing young ladies (literally) his advisors took over the country.

And it wasn't so much that they were being taxed it was that they had no say in it. How would you feel if you had no representation, but you still had to follow laws other people made?

Answer 7

I often end up posting the same question on other sites

Answer 8

Need more details

Answer 9

they were just your average troglodytes. luckily, however, they didn't have access to the powerful weapons the current band of trogs/psychopaths have at their disposal. good luck to us all, eh? ;-)