Are there different ways the british couldve handled the revolutionary war? or was it inevitable?

Question

Its a history project and I must write 2 pages about one question.... lol I dont know if thats normal but its hard for me.

Answer 1

If you mean could they have prevented the war in the first place? Yes. They could have prevented the war by resisting the urge to be greedy. One word comes to mind: sugar. Sugar was to the Revolutionary War what petroleum/oil is to ours. Wars were fought because of it and it was worth more than its weight in gold. Literally -- it was prized more than gold. Aristocratic Europe had grown addicted to it so the demand was very high. The Industrial Age had not yet come about so mass production of sugar was not yet a conceivable solution. So the Carribbean proved to be an ideal location (tropics) for growing sugar cane. In turn, the sugar cane was shipped to the nearby mainland (Colonies) where the sugar was then refined. Once refined by the Colonists, the sugar was ready for shipment to Britain and Europe (this is known as a Trade Triangle). But not before the Colonies were heavily taxed for the very sugar they worked hard to refine. The problem was that the Colonies and the sugar cane farms in the tropics got the raw end of the deal or the short end of the stick (sorry, I couldn't resist the puns) and Britain reaped all the profits from the sugar trade. Feeling over taxed for the sugar they refined but with no representatives to speak for them in British Parliament, the whole 'taxation without representation' thing didn't win the British any friends in the Americas. I'm sure I've skipped over very key and important moments in this war's history, but this is my understanding of it in a very broad sense. Usually the actual "cause" of a war is much simpler than the mechanics of it during its duration. But I side with the notion that it was British greed over sugar (and other commodities) and "over"-taxation without representation that caused tremendous resentment by the Colonists who had no other option but to stand up for their rights.

Answer 2

Nothing in history is inevitable. Given the right set of circumstances, every alternative is possible. What you need to do is look at the possible alternatives and see what the different outcomes would have been.

In this case, you have the English government which is trying to cement its empire. In 1707, England finally was able to force through a unification movement with Scotland but there was still strong support for independence in both Scotland and Ireland. Much of English capital was invested in overseas trading and the colonies. Much of the English economy is tied to the success of the East India Company. The problems of administering a large empire are creating unrest at home and raising expenditures without generating enough new tax revenue. France is posturing for war. This is the basic situation in England in the 1760's, when the Revolution had its birth (fighting may not have begun for another decade, but the mass unrest began in the 1760s).

England could have taken a conciliatory attitude and given redress to some of the colonists. Parliament could have given assurances to the southern colonies that it would not abruptly end slavery. Parliament could have reduced trade barriers to the colonies, allowing trade to expand. It was also possible to devolve some of the legislative authority to the local legislatures. With some combination of these it would have been possible to avoid an open breach with the Colonies, or if a rebellion occurred, it would be localized and could be put down.

Now lets look at the possible consequences of the compromises listed above. If England had eased the trade restrictions to the colonies, competition would have likely dramatically increased prices in England, creating a recession. The only thing worse than having poor, starving and pissed off colonists 2,000 miles away is having poor, starving, and pissed off citizens outside the palace gates.

Slavery was quickly becoming viewed as immoral in English society. Slavery itself was declared illegal in the home isles, and restrictions on the slave trade were coming. Compromising moral principles is not something governments should do. It was highly unlikely that the institution of Slavery in the colonies would have been permitted past 1800.

If England had allowed the Colonies local legislative authority, it is likely that it would have sparked separatist movements in Ireland and Scotland. The American Revolution in actuality sparked an Irish Rebellion in the 1790's, so this fear is quite justified. With the recent French War, and the threat of another looming on the horizon, England didn't want to have to deal with local unrest. Also if Parliament gave in a little today, what would the Colonies ask for tomorrow? The old adage "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile" comes to mind.

Finally from the Colonist's point of view, England had been restricting life in the Colonies and would continue to do so. The Colonies wanted to grow and expand, and that expansion was being hampered by Parliament. Had England given concessions in the 1770's, Americans would have been back in 1800 asking for more. The American and English cultures had grown apart. While the Colonists still viewed themselves as 'English', a new national identity was being formed and that identity would not be subservient to England or any other master.

So it is possible that the American Revolution could have been avoided or minimized. There are things that both England and the Colonies could have done to ease tensions. The likelihood that such compromises would have been made is small. It is even less likely that such compromises could have permanently avoided an independence movement. The nature of such of movement in time, place, manor, and temperament would be different from the American Revolution. While American Independence is the probable outcome, the American Revolution was avoidable.

Answer 3

The textbook I use for the college world history course that I teach states that Britain in the 1700s was basically ruled by about 400 families. These 400 families owned 25% of the land and dominated Parliament along with some non-titled wealthy businessmen who were not necessarily large land owners. Elections were not fully democratic in England since there were property qualifications to vote. (The same would be true of The emerging United States in 1787 where only WHITE MEN with PROPERTY could vote.)
The aristocratic men - the upper 1-2% - who ruled England were oppressive even to their own people at home. Just consider how the Royal navy was manned in times of war - by "impressment". Commoners were simply pulled out of pubs and forced to serve on ships. This heavy handed approach was not acceptable to independent minded Americans.
The Revolutionary War could have been avoided if the British leadership had been more accommodating to colonial demands, but it was not in the nature of the King or the majority in Parliament to be lenient. To be sure there were men in Parliament who spoke for American consideration, but these voices were not enough. The war would become inevitable because British aristocrats of that era were oppressive by nature.

Answer 4

at the time of the american attempt at secession there was considerable sympathy in britain for the difficulties which american colonists faced.

to be fair on both sides england was not deliberately pursuing a campaign of colonial oppression, but it was very difficult governing america efficiently from london. british politicians such as edmund burke argued convincingly that the american colonists needed some measure of autonomy. he probably didn't intend complete independence, but he would certainly have accepted that as better than the status quo.

our king george iii was suffering intermittent bouts of insanity, and most british politicians were more interested in managing england's problems at home than spending too much time on what was then a small and unimportant colony a very long way away.

and there were some very worrying developments in france (which would soon lead to the french revolution) which again had british military leaders watching the french army (on the other side of the channel) rather than the american one (on the other side of the atlantic).

france was a threat to britain. it needed to be taken seriously.

america wasn't a threat to britain. it could be left to get on with its own business.

Answer 5

We would have whupped them no matter what. It was the beginning of the American can-do attitude. The only way the Brits could have done anything different was to surrender, but they have no reason to quit.