Give me a quick rundown on the American war of Independence 1775

Give me a quick rundown on the American war of Independence 1775
Who were the "good guys"?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VWpk4kdgQAM
youtube.com/watch?v=DB96oPafQgg
oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1776-hutchinson-strictures-upon-the-declaration-of-independence?q=thomas hutchinson#
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

the colonies started the war

Then the French won the war

just pay your taxes

>Who were the "good guys"?
The British.

>Who were the "good guys"?
The oligarchical land owning elite, of course.

Just give representation

Not even the people in England had representation.

Well those people were cucks

The British
>Pissed about having no representation
>Don't even tell anyone you want it
>England having to deal with France
>HURR DURR LET'S STAB OUR COUNTRY IN THE BACK WHEN THEY NEED US THE MOST

Objectively speaking the British Empire during the 1700's was nothing but a seedy tea dealing cartel trying to expand their tea franchise.

Should have started their own revolution then.

And yet we use the East India Company flag as our own.

They sound like cucks.

You WERE offered representation.

The East India company flag only a red resemblance to the US flag after 1800

The colonists overreacted but the brits can blame themselves for taxing them heavily without giving them political representation

>what is the Olive Branch Petition

>You

>muh representation
They had their own parliaments, it was just the British parliament overruled them. Although 'no representation without taxation' was still bullshit, as the premise was they had no official way to lobby for how the taxes were spent, when actually the governors were often locals and had they wished it had an audience with the king on the running of HIS colonies.
However they delegitimised parliament by saying that as they received their charters from the king, they were answerable to him only. So when the king said he supported parliament because he was 100% English, they then said 'fuck the king'
TLDR amerifats enter into tax dodging scheme with the French having just started a war with the French

>political representation
>in a time before universal suffrage
Oh no the aristocrats have a 5% lower profit on their plantations, wonder if they'll kill their slaves to recoup costs for next year or kill their legal masters, oh shit they became the very niggers they bound in iron

Taxation is malum in se, you fucking statists.

why are Brit apologists so often ignorant of historical record?

Could you correct the record for me O Wise user?

There are no good guys in a war between anglos.

The Native Americans

Ha!

The Canadiens.

>England establishes colonies
>pretty much lets them do whatever the fuck they want as long as shipments of resources keep rolling in
>this continues for more than a century
>eventually a war kicks off with the French over the continent, and the Brits win
>they start enforcing laws that require the colonies to buy British goods and pay relatively small taxes
>the colonists, having lived under the more lax laws for generations, disagree
>they believed that, having already done so for quite some time, that the colonies should be left mostly to run themselves
>they also really fucking loved smuggling and not having to buy expensive British shit
>the Taxation Without Representation thing wasn't about them trying to get representation, Parliament didn't really work that way, it was about trying to get out of taxation
>and more importantly stop a precedent of heavier authority and taxes from forming
>a few radicals start shitflinging, situation deteriorates from there
>war begins
>Britain's rivals seize on the opportunity
>between them and Washington's ability to keep his army in the field no matter how badly he loses, they win

not a party

British incompetence was another factor in their success.

see Burgoyne, the german commander of mercenaries the crown used to put the jackboot down on their countrymen, Clinton camping in new york ad inifitum

>history
>good guys

>Who were the "good guys"?

Well it depends on which side you stand, for example, if you're American (as I am) most will think, "Muh Amurica" and say the Patriots, when they are the ones that started the war over the infamous, "Taxation Without Representation" (mixed in there with a bunch of other reasons), but from the British side, they were trying to recuperate from a war (The Seven Years War aka. The French and Indian War), but did have a mentally unstable king in power. However when the colonies asked for representation in Parliament, it never happened, hence the forwarding to the American Revolution.

Professional AWI historian/Interpreter here.

>Who were the "good guys"?
The British. Hands down, and without question.

Yep.

The taxes were not even the sticking point. The colonies hadn't paid 80% of the various taxes that they were required to, but were allowed to skirt by without, because they were making the empire so much money.

It was trade with the Spanish and French that pushed Brittan to act. Its literally as if modern day Puerto Rico was to start trading with North Korea.

As god intended.

They HAD representation. They had representatives from the NA colonial capital. The demand for a representative from each colony was a demand they knew could never be fulfilled.

And your statement is completely incorrect. Tea, while a major export, was not yet the defining production of any British colony. That would be tobacco, coffee, chocolate and wood. Tea was still a luxury that the rich enjoyed. Coffee and chocolate was the drink of the everyman.

Fun fact: across the board, most AWI scholars are loyalists.

/thread

>Fun fact: across the board, most AWI scholars are loyalists

This is why Tripfags should be banned. Ignorant as fuck and cancerous too

>from the British side, they were trying to recuperate from a war (The Seven Years War aka. The French and Indian War), but did have a mentally unstable king in power.

George III's first bout of 'illness' began in 1788, 5 years after the Treaty of Paris.

Can we please dismantle the myth that George III was a mad and despotic tyrant?

ACW historian here: Nope, we are 9/10 pro King George. Sorry.

>Professional AWI historian/Interpreter here.
>>Who were the "good guys"?
>The British. Hands down, and without question.

Can you please explain why you think that? Genuinely curious.

>Gropey
>ignorant
>cancerous
On spring break already? Clownbro is legit, newfag.

Found the newfag.

As an american, we started the war over baically fucking nothing and won because the french wouldn't to fuck over the british

This. As a native resident of Veeky Forums, Gropey is alright. I may not agree with everything he says and find him off-putting at time, but he's good shit.

> Taxation is theft
> Monarchy is garbage
> Brits occupying colonies are abusing power

REDFAGS GET OUT
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Protip: The Patriot and Turn are not documentation.

God save Him.

Using only the Brit/American dynamic, legally the British were the lawful party.

>Taxes didn't start the war. The taxes were not even the sticking point. The colonies hadn't paid 80% of the various taxes that they were required to, but were allowed to skirt by without, because they were making the empire so much money.

>The actual cause of sanction was trade with the Spanish and French that pushed Brittan to act. Its literally as if modern day Puerto Rico was to start trading with North Korea.

>They colonies had representation. They had representatives from the NA colonial capital of Virginia. The demand for a representative from each colony was a demand they knew could never be fulfilled.

>"Muh Boston Massacre" and such other events are mythologized and are generally never they are popcultured into.

If you want to select a morally justified "good guy", it would be the Hessians. The Hessians could not wrap their heads around the backwater loons hollering about liberty, and yet keep slaves. Look up black Hessians, and be in for a shock.

Bon Oui!

I know I can rub some folks the wrong way, but thanks.

The 13 Colonies had nothing to bitch about. A lot of the disputes between the Colonies and Britain could've been resolved peacefully, but retards from both sides mismanaged the critical years after 1763 horribly. The Albany Plan should've been implemented before George II kicked the bucket.

Ben Franklin toured Ireland because he wanted to see if there was something there he could observe and learn for the colonies' relationship with the motherland. He was horrified at how the Catholic Irish were downtrodden and impoverished while the Anglo-Irish landlords were living high on the hog. He feared that's what Britain would do the 13 Colonies; so the high-and-mighty Sons of Liberty should've STFU about their righteous indignation if they knew what Hanoverian Ireland was like.

In the end everyone came out on top, except the french monarchy
They got fucked over really hard

And the Natives. The colonists constantly expanded over into protected Indian territory.

>Who were the "good guys"?

The colonist. Theres a reason the founding fathers are so interesting while the british in that war are really boring.

Anyone that argues otherwise is either shitposting, some overly zelous british nationalist, a retard, or a combination of all three.

King George was not only an asshole, but a literal crazy person

>myth that George III was a mad and despotic tyrant?

no because thats what he was. His whole thing was "muh absolutism!" and trying to make the king a dictator

>They had their own parliaments, it was just the British parliament overruled them.

so in other words, they had no representation.

>2/10 troll

>Monarchy is garbage

listen brainlet

youtube.com/watch?v=VWpk4kdgQAM

youtube.com/watch?v=DB96oPafQgg

...

It's not that George III wasn't a batshit loon, it's that he didn't have any actual say in what was going on in the day to day running of the colonies.

No it was actually trying to make the king seem more in tofu with good English folk and not just some german like his father and grandfather
They did in the colonial governor, and could still bing petitions to the king if they were fine with getting their knees socks ('picked with real nigger' cotton TM) dirty

Monarchy is a glorified military dictatorship

Military dictatorships benefit the elites over the people to a far greater degree than democracies do

Therefore, monarchy is garbage

>the people matter
Ah the slippery road to Islamic gommunism

>and could still bing petitions

which the king would wipe his ass with. Stop pretending they had any representation when it was clearly all for show as you just admitted.

>the king had no say over his subjects

Do you guys not realize the colonist didnt fight for independence until after Kooky George said he was going to hang them all?

not an argument

Very astute. 's post is not an argument, but vapid retardation. Thankyou for agreeing.

>all for show
No my point was people who could not be bothered to pay tax would not show respect to their king
You know he wasn't a tyrant and didn't have his bouts of madness until after the wars
>crazy kang George said he would hang them all
Did you know the colonists said they had their loyalty to king not parliament, and when the king said he suppourted parliament, the colonists then started to bring down George III's statues

Give an actual reason for why George the Turd was a good guy without resorting to pathetic reactionary shitposting.

"If he does that he will be the greatest man in the world!"-King George III on hearing Washingoton was going to resign his commission as Commander of the Continental Congress

republic soon

regards, regicide

>good guys
Do I alone hold the opinion that people who operate with terms good and bad on the subject of history are stupid?

>You know he wasn't a tyrant

So are you just going to pretend he wasnt an absolutist monarch who wanted the King to be an all powerful dictator? Or that he didnt jail John Willkes for simply criticizing him? Or that he didnt order the military to shoot protesting Englishmen, IN ENGLAND, at the Massacre of St. George Field?

oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1776-hutchinson-strictures-upon-the-declaration-of-independence?q=thomas hutchinson#

read this in it's entirety OP

The Hessians abused their powers as hired mercenaries though. There's numerous accounts of them plundering towns during the revolution, which only made them look as bad as the enemy they were fighting.

Well said.

I reject, every argument made in this post:
You seem to so fundamentally miss the point in every one of these infantile bullet-points that I begin to doubt the sincerity of your claim to be a professional AWI scholar or at least the validity of the institute you hold a degree from.
On your first point, the colonies never really claimed they were over-taxed, they rejected the way they were taxed and complained about taxation without representation, which we will expand on later. You then claim the "actual cause" to be sanctions. How lucky we are to have the one man on Earth to know the one and only true cause of the American Revolution in our presence! I apologize for doubting your qualifications earlier, as you are clearly the only man on the planet qualified to speak on this. To the readers, I would like to advise you to reject anyone who claims to know the "true cause" of a monumental event. Many times in my life I have rolled my eyes at the armchair scholar who claims to have the "true reason" that Rome fell, but rarely do I see them argue with the hordes of other geniuses with different yet incompatible "true causes". The American Revolution is no different. The sanction is among reasons such as the barring of colonial expansion into newly-gained British territories, the taxation, the representation, the development of a new culture, the occupation of the colonies by British troops, growing French influence, and Enlightenment philosophy. Onto your next bullet, I fail to see the point you are trying to make. They knew they could never reach their goal, so what is your suggestion? That they should have gone "Aww shucks" and quit?

Furthermore, your fourth point is just complete nonsense. The Boston Massacre, although not quite justified, but certainly overblown by Patriot propaganda, was a real event that actually happened. The outrage it caused was real and indicative of the zeitgeist of the colonies at the time. To compare to the modern day it was very similar to the shooting of Michael Brown and the Ferguson riots that ensued. I think we can all agree that, while it was sad that a life was lost, we cannot really fault the officer for shooting him, in that specific scenario. However, the riots were the release of a very real outrage bubbling in the African-American community. I am by no means a Civil Rights activist, but can we reject their concerns based on the simple fact that Michael Brown was not innocent? Recall again, that the officers were almost entirely acquitted by a jury of colonists (two soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter and branded on the thumb).
Then your last point is again nonsense. The Hessians were morally good. In what manner? They were mercenaries fighting for money, that is morally neutral at best. I also find it amusing you seem to think that all Hessians were philosopher-warriors who reveled in the paradox inherent in the revolution. "Look up black Hessians." The total amount of black soldiers in Hessian forces amounted to something of a couple hundred men. The American army at Yorktown was estimated to have around 1,500 blacks. The American forces took little exception with using free blacks in their army, and both sides at some point promised freedom to slaves who would fight. In total, around 5,000 blacks fought for the Patriot cause, a much larger figure than those in the opposing side, although this is not indicative of the sympathies of the those in bondage toward the war.

Because this is getting into the long side, I'll conclude here. The crux of your thesis seems to be that you think the British were in the right because the causes typically brought up in the oversimplified story are a bit murky. Well said, I can almost picture you clutching your copy of A People's History of the United States as I type. You don't once bring up the cultural or ideological causes of the war, which I would argue filled up the powder keg of the revolution much more than taxation without representation, or as you so eloquently put, "muh Boston Massacre". The one time you even begin to acknowledge this is in your (again quite eloquent) description of, " the backwater loons hollering about liberty, and yet keep slaves." First, I find it amusing that you bring up slavery when the largely pro-slavery South was also the most loyal part of the colonies (which is one of the reasons the British never really tried to arm slaves en masse), but I see what you are getting at. Yes, the American republic was birthed into hypocrisy by slavery. This is undeniable and inexcusable. Yes, but the American people also payed for it in one thousand places. In Shiloh, where more Americans fell in one day than in all previous American conflicts combined, at Antietam, where corn and men were scythed as one, at Gettysburg, the most important battle fought in the Western hemisphere, and the bloodiest three days in American history, and at Cold Harbor, where 7,000 Americans died in just seven minutes. Yes, America betrayed its own cause in its own birth, but it payed for it at the cost of the lives of 600,000 ordinary men.

Furthermore, how does this invalidate the idea of Democracy, of a government of the people. You may counter that the American democracy was imperfect, and it was, it certainly needed tuning over the years, but it is inarguable that Britain was a better, freer government. Furthermore, it was a clean break. A country that was founded on the idea of democracy, not one that developed from tyranny to freedom. Americans, in theory, were a self-determined people. Of course, it never works out as well as you dreamed, but it is a lasting and positive legacy in the psyche of the American people. Of course you did not acknowledge any of this, because you don't seem to be a historian at all, but a propagandist for King George born a few centuries too late.

God Save the King :)
Burgers will refute this.

>gentleman farmer
>gives the model farm for all people to use
>charity work
>budgeting himself and his household further, BELOW what parliament gave him so Britain could more easily fight Napoleon
>funding of the arts and sciences
Depends on the subject, as sometimes it is that simple, other times not. Like the Persian wars are ambiguous, whilst in the world wars Germany is unequivocally in the wrong, but the British do blur the moral lines in some events

>shooting Rioters
RIP Michael Brown, taken to soon by evil whitey for being jealous of his mixtape skills, shit was lit AF
>wanted the office of king to be absolutist
Which is why he said the colonies should follow the British parliament rather than him in political maneuvring