Why was there a revolutionary war when the colonists were same as the British themselves?

Question

I mean the Americans at that time were of British origins right? so why fight, why disagree on something, i thought same ppl stick together and dont rebel, unless some Americans were of different ancestry that time like Ulster-Scots, Dutch etc but most i assume were English so why wud British go against British.

Answer 1

Actually, you've sort of hit on the very point, though oddly many miss it -- it was BECAUSE the colonists regarded themselves AS Englishmen, with the RIGHTS of Englishmen, that they began to object to recent British policies.

Though there is something to the idea that these people "now thought of themselves as Americans", their COMPLAINTS against the policies of Parliament and the King were mostly based (with good historic precedents) on the rights they had previously enjoyed as ENGLISHMEN, but which they believed were now being denied.

It is, in fact, true, that for MOST of the colonial period, until 1763 the British HAD allowed the colonies to handle most of their own affairs and problems, including defending themselves and taxing themselves. (Some key British leaders in Parliament pointed this out, but unsuccessfully.)

_____________

The best way to get a clear understanding of this is to read the official statements made by their representatives. Some of this may be found in the Declaration of Independence (and in other STATE declarations around the same time). But perhaps even clearer is the document I'm about to quote from.

The SITUATION: Britain passed harsh measures ("Coercive Acts", colonists called them "Intolerable Acts") against Boston and Massachusetts and a sort of warning to the other colonies, in response to the Boston Tea Party (an act that was the result of the colonists attempts to BOYCOTT tea shipments which, though cheap, included a TAX they believed Parliament did not have the right to require).

The colonies then sent representatives to the "FIRST Continental Congress" to plan their response. This ended up including a planned COMPLETE boycott, as well as the following official "Declaration and Resolves" (October 1774) sent to the British government to lay out its complaints and ask them to rescind their recent acts against the colonies.

After listing the specific legislation they objected two, they began to summarize their REASONS for objecting, including the RIGHTS they believed were being denied to them.


"The good people of the several colonies. . . justly alarmed at these arbitrary proceedings of parliament and administration, have severally elected, constituted, and appointed deputies to meet, and sit in general Congress, in the city of Philadelphia, in order to obtain such establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties, may not be subverted: Whereupon the deputies so appointed being now assembled, in a full and free representation of these colonies, taking into their most serious consideration, the best means of attaining the ends aforesaid, do, in the first place, AS ENGLISHMEN, THEIR ANCESTORS IN LIKE CASES HAVE USUALLY DONE, FOR ASSERTING AND VINDICATING THEIR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, DECLARE,

That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS:

Resolved, N.C.D. 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty and property: and they have never ceded to any foreign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.

Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural- born subjects, within the realm of England.

Resolved, N.C.D. 3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy.

Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity. . . .

[followed by six more resolutions detailing specific grievances, that is, ways in which their rights, esp. their rights as ENGLISHMEN were being denied]
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/resolves.htm

In fact, these sorts of complaints based on asserting their rights as ENGLISHMEN or BRITISH subjects (or subjects to the King) is found in the earliest protests -- the Declarations of Rights of the Stamp Act Congress, October 19, 1765 !
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/dor_sac.htm

Answer 2

The first problem was that the colonist began to have their own identity. A lot of them were born here and pretty much lost their English identity. During the French and Indian war The colonists found more of that American identity as they were fighting for their homeland and not for England.
Historians like to say that " The Revolutionary war began on the Plains of Abraham" ; which was the last battle of the French and Indian war.
This attitude increased when the English Parliment decided to tax the colonies for the cost of the war. Since the war also took place in Europe, the colonists felt that this was grossly unfair.
And since they had no representation in Parlement they had a lot of objections to the tax to begin with. Remember also that they were not allowed to manufacture anything here. All raw goods were required to be sent to England and then shipped back as finished goods. Those raw goods were taxed when they entered England and then taxed again when they were sold in the colonies.
I already said that the colonists were loosing their English identities. Well now they were beginning to feel like victoms of the Crown instead of subjects.
As they sent representatives and letters and protestations to England and as they were continually ignored they felt more and more that only total seperation would end the problem.
The Revolution was not totally approved of by the colonists. A lot of them ( the Torys) were against that seperation. But slowly the seperatist gained popularity.
Finally the British begain putting down small rebellions and then protests.
Finally, after every other avenue was exausted the colonies made a proclaimation (the Declaration of Independance) it was total war.
Personally I think there was a negotiated peace between the two sides but that is not really accepted by historians.
This is a very short explaination but I hope it helps.

Answer 3

The colonists wanted their own Parliament, one that would answer only to the crown and that would be equal to the English Parliament.

Instead they were given non-voting advisers in Parliament and offered full voting rights in the English Parliament. That would have been worthless as the intentions of the English govt and the intentions of the colonial govt were just too different.

To show that they only answered to the King and not to Parliament, the Declaration of Independence was addressed to the King and all transgressions were blamed on him. In reality, the King did absolutely nothing to the colonists and all the supposed transgressions were done by Parliament.

Some other colonies would have revolted as well, but the revolting colonies werent strong enough to protect them. Jamaica was on the fence, but stayed in the Empire because their black to white ratio was so high they feared violent rebellion by the slaves.

Some other reasons for rebellion were:
Trade laws suddenly being enforced stopped colonial merchants from making huge profits.

Unfair high taxes-actually the lowest in the Empire and they were almost entirely to pay off the debt from protecting the colonies during the French Indian Wars.

Unfair monopoly for East India Trading Company-price caps made tea cheaper this way, this was done partially to save the company, which was a major part of the UK economy and partially to lower the price of tea for colonies to make them stop fussing about everything.

Westward expansion was halted and troops placed on the border, supposedly to put down rebellion of the colonies.
The troops were actually put there to protect the natives and colonists from one another. The agreement at the end of the French Indian Wars called for a halt to Westward expansion, the colonists didnt agree with that.

No military commissions for colonial soldiers-this is actually what got Washington involved as he was denied his commission.

There were other reasons, most things could have easily been patched up if either side had been willing to talk, but basically neither side was addressing the needs of the other. Nationality doesnt really factor into something like that.

On the other hand, at the beginning most people on both sides thought it would end peacefully with the colonies rejoining after having at least some of their demands met. Full rebellion was the intent of only a few people until hostilities began.

Answer 4

Your logic looks very faulty, and you must have read different historians than I have. You make false generalizations not only about historians, but also about slaves and about Native Americans. Some slaves fought with the British because the Brits lied and promised them their freedom. Many slaves fought for the Americans. Running to Canada was not a reasonable option for many slaves. You make it sound as if traveling 1000 miles through hostile territory is equivalent to walking a mile to the British camp. Native Americans also fought on both sides. There is no justification for treating Native Americans badly because some fought for the British, and there is no reason to think they would have fared any better if they had all fought for the Americans. Whites wanted their land. Your re-writing of history fails. Edit: Running to Canada was running to Briton. Canada was part of Briton. Suggesting that slaves brought misery on themselves because they failed to fight for the people who were enslaving them is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. You are indeed trying to rewrite history, there is no question that your version is based on a lame attempt to justify past injustices.

Answer 5

There were a lot of reasons, too many to list actually, but here are few ideas.

By the mid 18th century, not everyone was British, in fact, most of the colonists considered themselves American and *not* British.

The catalyst to rebellion can probably be traced to after the French and Indian War. The colonists thought they were fighting in order to colonize west of the Appalachian Mountains, but the Proclamation of 1763, by Parliament, forbade any further west colonization--this alone irritated a lot of folks. Plus this war, and several almost in a row, placed a financial hardship on England and Parliament wanted America to help pay for the effort. Not necessarily an unreasonable requiest, but unfortuantely, they used very little tact in attempting to do this by imposing a number of taxes on the colonies. The downside was that no *American* was in Parliament. The colonies had representatives, but they were locals in England.

Americans saw their "country" as independent due to salutary neglect and wanted official independence from Britian. It took an eight year war to do it, not to mention the rebellion before the war. Early on, Britain saw this as a simple rebellion by a few hot-heads not realizing the actual goal.

Now for your question (sorry for the long winded buildup). Not all "Americans" wanted war with Britian. They wanted to maintain a connection with Britain and did not want independence. These Loyalists or Tories fought with Britain during the war and were severely mistreated after the war. Also, and you are right, by this time, although the colonies were British, immigration had placed a multitude of nationalities in America and most of them had no intention of being ruled by Britain. The push for war wasn't an easy one and America came close to losing. History books have a tendancy to make it look like an overnight event. It was a long and very difficult struggle.

Very broad answer. Hope it helps.

Answer 6

Well, that is what happens when they take decissions on the land you live in without taking your opinion into account. Then, this is joined with the taxes that had been raised (hence the "No taxation without representation" labels). Besides, they had British origins, but most of them had been born in the American colonies and they felt their identity as American and not British, especially after the little attention they received from this country. Similar things have happened later in Ireland before the Irish Independence (having decisions taken for them without being asked and having no right to be in Parliament because of having a differnt religion is what made them feel different than the British)

Answer 7

THE reason that caused a split between the British adminstration with the colonist was the cost of the occupying army. King George III was strapped for cash, he pretty much had taxed England to its limits, and he turned around to mandate that the colonists NOT expand the westward expansion beyond the Appalachian Mountains, but instead to make peace with the Native Americans. The taxes were increased upon the future Americans to pay for the British army and those taxes were not approved by any colonists.

Answer 8

The colonists left Britain in the first place because of religious persecution and other disagreements. They wanted to be independent and especially as the others have said ..
" no taxation without representation ". A good slogan that but it still applies to a great many people today.

Answer 9

One motivation for the colonialists to break from politcal union with Britain was the increasing momentum of the anti-slavery movement in Britain, which banned the slave trade and slavery in 1807 and 1833 respectively. While there were other important political and cultural reasons for the revolution, such a threat to the livelihoods of high status colonialists (they depended on a free workforce to keep their trade viable) was undoubtedly another motive. Dont forget most the men who signed the declaration for freedom from tyranny etc. owned slaves. Therefore divergence in economic and political interests divided them.

Answer 10

If you read the Declaration of Independence, you will see the colonists had plenty of reasons to go. The British didn't see the colonists as anything but a source of income--remember many colonists left for religious reasons or were debtors--and being a debtor was a crime then. The British saw them as lessor life forms only fit to make a profit on.

Answer 11

That's what the war was all about. The British in the US wanted independence from The British in England.