Among the grievances listed in the declaration of independance is the claim that king George III had “destroyed the lives of our people.”
Were the British executing innocent colonists without due process?
Were they just taking them out of their beds in the middle of the night, hanging them from the nearest tree, and confiscating their property?
Is there any historical documentation of such British atrocities prior to the revolution?
There are two factors here: one is what happened, and one is what people then or now, through memory, faith and propaganda, are induced to believe. And that applies to both sides.
Bear in mind that as a legitimist I find George III and the Whig crew who ran him wholly disgusting; and apart from that, know of not a few British atrocities elsewhere. However due to my upbringing as a Britisher I would confidently believe that accusing George of utilizing Rape Squads is absurd.
However, many Americans believe he did, presumably to intimidate any opposition ( helpfully also called Whigs: only American whigs — there were a whole lot of different gangs of whigs in the 18th century ) or just for jollies.
I’ve not heard of them doing any murdering though: just low-level extortion and needling.
Boston Massacre?
Making families provide housing to British soldiers? If that’s not an example of the government getting to far involved in your affairs what is?
Probably refers to involving the Colonies in the French and Indian War (which was the American theater of the Seven Years’ War, as Wikipedia puts it.) The colonies, generally speaking, didn’t have any gripe with the French, but the British forced the colonies to use their militias to fight the war.
This is also the root of the complaints about having to supply and house foreign troops. The debt from this war was also used to justify the high taxes imposed on the colonies.
A site that gives the backstory of the items on the bill of particulars:
http://colonialhall.com/histdocs/declaration/
“… destroyed the lives of our people”:
http://colonialhall.com/histdocs/declaration/declarationanalysis24.php
That’s a common exaggeration of the Quartering Acts. They did not actually require colonists to billet soldiers in their private homes, instead it obligated colonial governments to pay to house troops and supply housing as needed. If insufficient barracks were available, troops were to be housed in derelict buildings, warehouses, inns and other public facilities.
It was the fact of permanent standing garrisons at all + having to bear the cost of maintaining them that the colonists objected to, not having soldiers sleeping in private parlors.
My understanding of history was the opposite of that – that there were territorial disputes between the French and English in the Ohio territory and those local issues were the primary impetus of the North American conflict. And the home countries were more than a little put out by having to take attention away from their European wars to deal with squabbling colonies.
Quartering soldiers in convenient premises was pretty much the norm in England in those days. There were no barracks (or certainly not enough). Often it was an inn, whose owner’s sole concern was to separate the newly-paid soldier from his money as quickly as possible (the newly paid-off sailor too, although many captains feared, with reason, that if sailors were given shore leave they would not come back).
Yeah, I’ll agree with leahcim, mostly. It wasn’t quite the opposite, as Britain of course was France’s main rival. But colonial hostility to the French was real and often more aggressive than the home country was comfortable with in times of peace. Remember the Puritans and their ilk who retained a lot of influence in New England were quite anti-Catholic. Beyond that there was a lot of local economic and territorial conflicts over adjacent resources ( for example over the borders in the north - the Kennebec river border in modern southern Maine was the source of considerable bloodshed, as Acadians jostled with New Englanders ).
Lieut-Colonel ( Militia — this is important, because after having sworn his oath as an officer to George II, he was angry that provincial officers were junior to regulars ) Washington is credited by some with kicking off the Seven Years War by his treacherous attack on the French under de Jumonville: but I doubt it since the world war would have started anyway since it was it’s time, and b/ the assault, with no declaration of war, was more in the nature of the Massacre of Glencoe that any regular fighting *. At most Washington could be credited with blunderingly starting the French and Indian War.
*“Judge it as we may” says Parkman, “this obscure skirmish began the war that set the world on fire”. *
** Washington and Tanacharison then ambushed Jumonville’s party, sneaking up and surrounding the French camp. Some were still asleep, others preparing breakfast, when without warning, Washington gave the order to fire. Those who escaped the volley scrambled for their weapons, but were swiftly overwhelmed. Ten of the French, including Jumonville, were killed, one was wounded, and all but one (who escaped to warn the French commander at Fort Duquesne) of the rest were taken prisoner.
The exact circumstances of Jumonville’s death are disputed. Contrecœur claimed that Jumonville and most of the other wounded French were massacred in cold blood by British musket fire after having surrendered; Washington claimed in his account that Jumonville was killed, but did not give any details. Other accounts claimed that Tanacharison tomahawked Jumonville while he (Jumonville) was reading the summons. When the British left the battlefield to return to their camp at Great Meadows, they did not bury any of the French dead.*
Wikipedia — George Washington in the French and Indian War
The colonists plenty hated their French rivals, and sought the mother country to crush both French and Indians. Even when, as so often in British military history, the administration back home was wholly unenthusiastic for expansion, empire or any fighting at all.
Since the Revolution resulted in going from the lowest taxes in the world + subordination to quite high taxes + independence it is at least arguable it was fought for the right to pay higher taxes.
I’ve always put stock in the idea that a considerable part of the impetus for the American Revolution is that the French and Indian War didn’t really resolve these rivalries. When Britain won New France, they didn’t say, “Go home, Frenchies, our colonies need some breathing room”. They by and large kept the same people with the same territorial claims under new management (and with the Quebec Act, mostly just replaced the top levels of government). What used to be the Colonies’ rivalry with a foreign power was now rivalry with their own mother country.
I think a considerable part of the impetus for the American Revolution was that the French weren’t there anymore. Before, the Americans were afraid of the French and wanted the government to protect them, but now, the threat had been removed.
The phrase is pretty clearly a reference to British naval attacks on Bristol and other coastal cities. The full context makes this clear: “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.” These attacks were a major source of Colonial outrage and propaganda efforts in the period between Lexington and Concord and the Declaration.
It doesn’t have anything to do with the French and Indian War (which was popular in the colonies and more then a decade past at the time), or quartering troops (which can hardly be characterized as “destroying peoples lives” and certainly doesn’t have anything to do with coast ravaging).