On Jul 7, 10:02=A0am, a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Aaron Kuperman) wrote:
> Arguably, the American colonies were revolting against the England they
> had left behind (typically pre-1688), and that had the governance of the
> American colonies better reflected the England of the late 18th century
> (weak crown, a prime minister responsible to the elected assembly,
> nobility increasingly reflecting "new money", etc.), there wouldn't have
> been a revolution. The government in London thought that the Americans
> were colonials, and the Americans thought they were English and didn't
> like being regarded as mere colonists.
No offense, but it could be just the opposite. From the first (1607)
to the French and Indian War (1760), the colonies enjoyed a period of
salutary neglect, in which they were allowed pretty much free rein. It
was only after the end of the F&I War that because the treasury was
scraping bottom that George III and his group of advisors decided to
take a more "hands on" (i.e. taxation) approach to the colonies. But
as there as many people there, Parliamentary representation simply
wasn't possible. It's true that before 1770, we all felt that we were
English (British?) subjects and most of the Founding Fathers would
have done virtually anything to remain that way. It was only after the
high-handed attacks on personal freedoms that English citizens (mother-
country) enjoyed that events began to spiral out of control.
I give as cite Alan Axelrod's "The Real History of the American
Revolution; A New Look at the Past". Fascinating read BTW.
|
