Weren’t they all dead by the 1880s?
Yes. Typo. I know. But some are more fun than others.
Well OK then.
E-C-G claimed it was a fact, not that people at the time thought so. Some people did, as I acknowledged, but they were also really wrong. It’s also extremely important that the key Ministers during the years leading to the Revolutionary War believed there was wealth to extract, as they kept trying to do so. Further, the only reason the colonies were costing so much is that the ministry kept trying to control them with garrisons, expensive royal officials, and lots of badly-written laws administered by the aforementioned (and often corrupt) officials.
You can’t really excuse gross incompetence on the grounds of ignorance, nor vice versa. Although in point of faft, they were right, and there was great wealth potentially available in the colonies - but not easily extracted in portable form. It would be something like a generation later that the young United States began to work out the issues based around a lack of specie with paper money, and it wouldn’t really be solved until the introduction of greenbacks in the Civil War.
In 1776, the British did not have a worldwide Empire. They had the colonies, Canada, some islands in the Caribbean, and the East India Company had Bengal. Except that Canada was a restless and not-especially loyal place, the Colonies were in revolt, the Caribbean was a constant sore spot and always needed defending, and Bengal was an entirely private investment that had gone south and cost the Honorable East India Company over a million sterling (not helped by the British government’s own policies). British leaders went forward with bailing out the HEIC in Bengal more to keep the French from snapping it up than to defend the “Empire,” which didn’t really exist yet. And they had Ireland, I guess, which was such a great Imperial possession that the British could only manage to hold with brutal violence and constant garrisoning for five centuries.
In terms of global reach, the British were certainly competitive, but certainly not clearly leading against the Dutch, Spanish, or Portuguese. Even against the French, their lead was narrow and largely based around the results of one war.
If we can’t agree that something that is potentially valuable in a hundred years if the world changes sufficiently is worthless today, then we can’t possibly have a discussion on the issue.
What next? Argue that Spain should have joined forces with Britain because gold would be found in California in 1848?
You do know that the difficulties with specie shortages, and the the freedom and opportunities offered by paper money, also affected Great Britain? Silver flowing to China was a major reason for the crisis which sparked the Boston Tea Party.
Secondly, no, you are again completely misreading what I wrote. The Colonies had great wealth, just not gold and silver currency. Colonists had lumber, iron, food, large trading networks, and were extremely productive - and were in the process of reaching for new, yet more productive lands well before 1776. A major part of the problem with taxation was directly due to the British policies, which tended to drain specie from the colonies but also tried to erect as many walls as possible to the trade necessary to obtain specie.
Dewey, I think you’re splitting hairs. It’s not like we’re going to celebrate the discovery of a photocopy from the 1970s! Am I missing something?
I don’t believe I am misinterpreting your clear words. The colonies had potential wealth but not current wealth.
The majority of other British colonies were producers of goods for import, based on exploiting native or slave populations. In most ways the southern colonies with economies based on plantation slavery were similar. The northern colonies were not. They behaved more like regular trading partners: they were good customers for exports as well as imports but also competed with Britain for trade despite the restrictions placed on colonial shipping.
That indeed what was caused so much resentment in Britain. Here was a competitor with the advantage that they didn’t have to pay taxes, which were extremely high because of the wars, not just the French and Indian War but also the Seven Years War (which more than gave Britain Bengal: it knocked the French out as competitors in India). The southern colonies weren’t all that much of a bargain, either. The plantation owners tended to be hugely in debt to British bankers and didn’t have much hope of paying those debts, none of them being able to foresee the cotton gin, which is why they - unlike the Caribbean colonies - joined the rebellion.
I keep asking you where the wealth was in current 1776 terms. I haven’t received an answer. I don’t think there is one, but you would be defending your position better by proving me wrong.
Yes. He even drafted (but didn’t sign) an instrument of abdication after Cornwallis’s surrender at Yorktown, so closely was he associated with the failed British military policy by 1781.
Two books that may be of interest: Iron Tears by Stanley Weintraub, about the American Revolution as seen in Great Britain at the time, which makes it clear that the King was very much a hands-on commander-in-chief and was determined to crush the rebellion. Also Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor by Richard R. Beeman, about the Continental Congress as it went about its work in 1775-1776. The King didn’t read the Olive Branch Petition, we know; Beeman doesn’t say whether he read the Declaration of Independence, but I would be amazed if he didn’t, at the time or soon thereafter.
Someone hand wrote this copy for the british parliament. The british Comm’ had sent it in a letter dated 11th August 1776.
Perhaps a Dunlap broadside was delivered to Comm’ and Comm’ hand wrote this copy out to send over the Atlantic.
Seemingly, didnt send a parchment for prosterity. Comm’ would have got a signed broadside from Thomson but sent hand written copy, written by Comm’ or staffer.
Oh its known that English sent two Dunlap broadsides in July and August 1776.
The parliaments pages are just the tabled handwritten copy for the official (Hansard) record.
Which suggests they were not given a parchment, since they only report a (Dunlap) print.
And no one reports producing a seconds parchment version legitimately. Franklin reports making the one parchment.
Anything else must be a copy for copy’s sake… or perhaps the brits thought of planting a fake for the purpose of saying “therefore it didn’t happen” ??
The French & Indian War was the American name for the Seven Years War; it was one war, fought in many theaters. It did give Britain an empire–which it set out to run efficiently. The encountered difficulties in those 13 colonies which had been running themselves in many ways.
In Washington’s Crossing, David Hackett Fischer describes the British arrival at New York in 1776.
(I really enjoy Professor Fischer’s dramatic style!) Yes, the British did make a serious effort to quell the Revolution.
In a series of battles, they succeeded in driving the Continentals out of New York & through New Jersey. The Howe brothers (an Admiral & a General) sympathized in some of the American aims and hoped to broker a peace after a smashing victory or two. Was General Howe impeded a bit because he’d witnessed the Pyrrhic victory on Breed’s Hill (called the Battle of Bunker Hill)? A few tiny victories in Trenton & Princeton demonstrated the British could not even hold New Jersey; throughout the war, their Army could conquer–occupation was the problem.
Later, French, Spanish & Dutch forces attacked British interests throughout the world. Forces were diverted from the 13 colonies to defend the more directly profitable sugar island of the West Indies. And the Royal Navy was so distracted that Lord Cornwallis was stuck at Yorktown. The King wanted to continue the war after that defeat but the energy & finances were not available.
The British really did try to win, expending fortunes & many lives. In the end, they managed to retain the rest of their empire.
Yes, we call our tiny corner of what some historians call the first world war (one of many candidates, however) by a different name. My point was that the part of the world that counted at the time saw the conflict very differently.
I have Washington’s Crossing. I also have his Historians’ Fallacies, a seminal book in teaching historians - and everybody else - how to think and how to avoid dumb thinking. With actual examples of mistakes by actual historians. One of the few books that should be made mandatory, and not just recommended.
Careful how you ask for it at the library…
Yes, a fine book.
I didn’t really feel like responding before, but as the thread was revived…
The colonials were certainly wealthier per capita than Great Britain, and already enjoyed what was probably the highest standard of living in the world. In total they still had lower wealth than Great Britain due to the difference in population, but they still had a substantial population already as I indicated.
I’m not sure what answer you expect other than “everywhere”. You keep expecting that there was some specific, conveniently described good that one can point to as “wealth”. But the colonies had many goods: iron, wheat, corn, tobacco, sugar, rum, lumber, and indigo. None of the colonies were near-monocultures in the same way as the Caribbean islands were. They were only hamstrung by British trading laws and desire to keep manufacturing at home, and they knew it.
Once they had their own government, the Colonies proved capable of taxing and supporting a bureaucracy and military of their own, despite having no established procedure or government, having the great difficulty of a much more scattered population over a far larger territory, and having hostile armies already at home. That the resources to do this existed at all and could be assembled spoke to the considerable plenty which already existed.