Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Colonial Resistance
After our initial discussion in class, as well as your readings in the textbook, how has your viewpoint changed, if at all, about the issue of colonial grievances against the British? Post two comments, the first sharing how your viewpoint before class compared to it after, and the second a response to your classmates. Feel free to post more than two comments if necessary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
my viewpoint has not changed much after learning more about why the colonies revolted againt britain. England was taxing the colonies for a war they really did not want at all and had no control over. also the english looked at the colonists as lesser even though they fought just as hard for land they did not even get to use.
ReplyDeleteI feel basically the same way as Ricky because I knew that the British were being unfair to the colonists and were taking advantage of them. And what I learned in class just renforced what I thought because we learned today that the British gave back a peice of land that the colonits fought for, so I think that the colonists had the right to complain and have a grudge against the British.
ReplyDeleteBrittany i agree with your opinion on this matter, the british were very unfair to the colonists
ReplyDeleteSince reading in the textbook and discussing in class my views on the colonists revolting has not changed either. As much as the colonists acted like little babies when the British took control again, they put the coclonists on a rollercoaster of power and it is not fair to tighten their reigns on the colonists when it is convenient and this up and down battle the colonists had really got them upset and they finally couldn't take the back and forth of power.
ReplyDeleteWith the British victory in North America after the French and Indian War, they had won a significant amount of new territory in America and defended the colonists from the imposing French. However, with this great victory came a big debt. The British motherland was already being taxed to the max and as a result, the colonies were needed to help pay for the debt. with a smaller portion of taxes. The entire war had been fought to protect the colonists and thousands of British soldiers gave thier lives to protect the colonies, so they needed to help as well. But the colonists reacted in a barbaric manner. They continuously caused problems by refusing to pay taxes and purchase standard British goods. Taxation was the ONLY thing that the British government could do to pay off its debts. The colonies were given chances to offer alternate methods of raising money, but they couldn't think of any. Plus, the war was heavily affected by colonial actions because it was thier movement into the Ohio River Valley that caused the war in the first place. Any civilised European would agree that these taxes were perfectly fair and that the colonists were NOT AT ALL taken advantage of in any way. In fact, it was the barbaric actions of the colonists that took advantage of the British system. They deliberately broke trade laws and sabotaged tradde. Such as the Boston Tea Party when Boston colonists dumped 10,000 pounds worth of tea into the harbour and were suprised when the governemt made them pay for it. Seriously, did the colonists have any common sense? The only reason why Britain might have looked down upon the colonists was because of thier barbaric behavior.
ReplyDeleteI liked how Alexis referred to the post-French and Indian War period as "a rollercoaster of power." I found this point really interesting and after the comparison to the teacher leaving the classroom and then coming back, it allowed me to see how the British unintentionally set themselves up for the rising tension that escalated in the post-war period.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Joe, my viewpoint is based primarily on the fact that the British left the colonials a vast amount of independence already prior to the French-Indian War. Because they had already been given such a large degree of freedom to run things their own way, colonial assemblies and whatnot, they had already experienced a degree of liberty that gave them enough wiggle room to do things largely as they pleased. Britain's great error on hindsight was to not place a strong hand of governance on the colonists. There was British pride on both sides in some form, the British even to their own citizens when not from the homeland treated them with a degree of patronizing disdain as if their sense of loyalty to the crown remained their greatest priority, the colonists are proud of what they have fought and toiled for in North America. Both parties did seemed to me to operate just fine without one another - until of course an action was taken that interfered with their own goals.
ReplyDeleteMy view point hasn't really changed at all either. The way the British suddenly took control over the colonists after the French and Indian War wasn't very fair. The British neglected the colonists and basically left them alone to figure out how to govern themselves and survive. I don't think it is fair at all how the after the war, the British pulled a stronger hold over the colonists. In addition, I believe that the way the British taxed the colonists wasn't fair. Though they needed to make up for the debt that Pitt brought on, they shouldn't have enforced so many taxes on the colonists. It wasn't their choice to enter the war, therefore they shouldn't have to pay for a debt they didn't want. I vaguely remembered some of this information from previous U.S. history courses, but the class discussions and the text book readings helped me reinforce my beliefs.
ReplyDeleteAfter our initial discussion I found that Britain was primarily responsible for colonial grievances. The British had managed to turn skirmishing in the frontier into a massive war for empire between European super powers. Many colonists opposed the war strongly; however, they still had to pay for it afterwords. Additionally, the newly imposed taxes were purely for profit, and would provide no trade security or public service for the colonists.
ReplyDeleteHowever, now I believe that Britain and the colonies mutually share responsibility for rising tensions. Britain couldn't tax the English any more. In order to pay their war debt, the colonists had to be taxed. Although extra taxes were justified, the British failure to understand colonial interests was not. The war began because the colonies had a need to expand. After the war the British stopped such expansion with the proclamation line, thus making the war seem even more useless. The lands acquired in the treaty of Paris could have really benefited the colonists, yet the British were too concerned with maintaining strict control.
My viewpoint has not really changed. Before our discussions in class I had felt that the British were the villains in the situation; suppressing the colonists. The taxes they heavily bestowed on the colonists were one of the main reasons for the colonial grievances. However, after learning more about both the British and colonists' arguements I now have more sympathy for the British. Although Parliament was harsh, they had no choice but to tax the colonists because the people of England could no longer be taxed because they were being taxed so extremely already.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Carlee's points. I also think the colonists had the right to feel angry after being neglected by the British and that it was unfair how Britain suddenly came back into the picture to tighten their hold on the colonies. This was one of the first of major issues that would build the negative tension between Britain and the colonies.
ReplyDeleteJoe, you make several great points, however, I disagree with some of the conclusions in your comment. It is true that colonial expansion into the frontier started the war. However, the fight didn't become a huge expense until Britain decided to turn it into a war for imperial supremacy. The colonists were taken advantage of, since Britain used their affairs as an excuse to try and establish British hegemony in North Eastern America. Additionally, British policies had a mercantilist nature, meaning that they were designed to only help England. Therefore, it is reasonable for the colonists to break rules that would help them in no way whatsoever. It is unfair to label the colonists as barbaric for opposing wars that weren't meant to help them, and breaking rules that only took advantage of them.
ReplyDeleteAfter our discussion in class, my opinion has been reinforced. The British had allowed the colonist to gain a sense of freedom and control over their own affairs prior to the French and Indian War. Suddenly introducing stricter regulations was bound to antagonize the colonists. It was also completely unfair for the British to make the colonist pay for a war they didn't want. The British also had no respect for colonial interests, creating the proclamation line to create a smaller area that would be easier to control.
ReplyDeleteI think Joe's point is very interesting because he is the only who has taken a pro-British stance on the topic. While I agree Britain had to tax the colonists to gain money back, I think calling the colonist "barbarians" for refusing is a bit extreme. The colonists weren't just reacting to new taxes, but increased British interference overall.
ReplyDeleteI was absent for the class discussion, so I can't say that my viewpoint has changed because of it. However, in regards to the colonial grievances against the British, I am neither pro-British nor pro-colonists. In my opinion, both sides are out of line in a few ways. The British had every right to tax the colonists as it was the best and most efficient way to pay war debts. However, while this is acceptable, it was NOT acceptable for the British to begin restricting the colonists' economy, and they did not have the right to directly control the colonies as they did. As for the colonists, I do not blame them for speaking out against British control. However, they should not have refused to pay taxes so stubbornly. They played a part in the French and Indian War and are therefore partially responsible for the debts. So overall, I am on the fence about which side to support.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Laura about how the British should have had respect for colonial interests. However, I disagree with her idea that it was unfair for the British to make the colonists pay for the war. Even though the colonists did not want the war, they did take part in it. It doesn't matter how the war started; the point is that both the British and the colonists became involved with it. Seeing as the colonists were involved, they are responsible for at least a small share of the war debts.
ReplyDeleteMy view of the British and colonist conflict have been slightly altered since the class discussion. Before our discussion I was completely ignorant to the fact that the colonists were antagonizing the British at all. I thought that the British simply acted cruel, and oppressive toward the colonists. Since the class discussion my eyes have been opened to the fact the colonists did cause some problems for themselves by their antagonizing of the British.
ReplyDeleteWell, at first I just thought that the British were more at fault for all the tensions between them and the colonies. After all, they were taxing them and putting all these trade restrictions on them. Plus, they weren't being clear with who was in charge. So then the colonist starting self-governing and got mad when British tried to take their power back.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after listening to everyone else, I could see how the colonists were also at fault. I can see how they were sort of testing the British with all the rebellions like The Boston Tea Party.
I like Jon's answer a lot. I agree with that Britain gave the coloniest a lot of independence and that it gave them "wiggle room." And it was totally unfair for Britain to rob the colonists of that once they had already felt the feeling of freedom.
ReplyDeleteWhile my view point has remained the same, as I believe that the grievances that the colonist held were justified, my reasoning has changed after the discussion. Before I thought that the colonists despised the British because of the taxation situation. however, now I am able to realize that the colonist were also mad because of the disrespect the British directed towards them. Also, a key point that was brought up in class about how the colonists had been granted independence and then it was repealed showed me another reason as to why the colonists held grievances against the british.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jon too because as many people have said, Britain gave the colonies freedom and then wanted to come back and take it back which angered the colonists. I also agree with Carlee because the British controled the colonies, and then left but then came back and wanted to take control again. With this change in power all the time colonists became angered with the shift and fickleness.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carly for the most part about her views of the colonists. However, in defense to the British the colonists did cause a lot of trouble for themselves by constantly testing the British limits.
ReplyDeleteMy point of view still remains the same about the British taking advantage of the colonists. Although the colonists had many resistances towards the British they had a reason. It was unfair that the British forced the colonists to pay taxes for a war they did not want to be apart of. Along with enforcing taxes they began to have tighter control on the colonists and pass laws and acts which did not benefit the colonists such as the Navigation Act, Currency Act, and Stamp Act. It was unfairly all put on the colonists
ReplyDeleteI think we need to realize that the colonies are BRITISH colonies, and that anything that benefits Britain, will benefit the empire in turn. Plus, the economy was NOT the colonists' economy, it was Britain's economy in America, which means that Britain would only do what is necessary to keep its empire intact and its economy flowing. Basically, MINIMAL taxes and MINIMAL control was put in place, only enough to keep things flowing. These are BRITISH colonies, so I don't know why they were suprised when a little control was put in place by THIER government. However, I think the colonists lacked the intelligence to understand this and acted like complete lunatics with foolish childlike behavior which only put them into more trouble. Some times are tougher than others, and people just have to tough it out like any civilized human. But I guess the colonists didn't understand this simple fact of life and turned to acting like childish barbarians.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt I think he makes a great point. Although neither of us changed our views on who was at fault just like Matt I did not realize that the colonists were antagonizing a fight whatsoever. I still think the British were mainly at fault but it is much clearer now that the colonists weren't angels in the situation either.
ReplyDeleteAfter our discussion, I think that both Britain and the colonists were responsible for the conflict between them. For every action by one side, there was usually a negative reaction by the other. The British tightened their control when the colonists tried to go around their laws, but the colonists also antagonized the British when they raised taxes.
ReplyDeleteI still think that the British were mostly to blame for the colonial grievances. In both the class discussion and our books, the British troops are described as overstaying their welcome after the French and Indian War by patrolling the western borders, disallowing any colonists from moving to the frontier. Back home, Parliament was continually imposing steeper and steeper taxes on the colonists, earning their resentment and also their resistance.
ReplyDeleteBut it's also true that the British were somewhat entitled to these actions. Since they owned the colonies, they could send however many troops they wanted. And, let's face it, they needed the money from the taxes. Their mistake was in trying to force the colonists to accept their renewed imperialism instead of easing them into it through negotiations.
From what we learned in past classes, it has always completely been Britian's fault. I agreed with this because we learned about the heavy taxation along with little to no representation in the government. Along with that, the forced quartering of soldiers further made me believe that it was soley the fault of the British
ReplyDeleteTaylor and Chris I think had the right idea when saying both sides were equally to blame.
ReplyDeleteTo use a variation of Mr. O's example in class, an overly benevolent parent - allowing too much freedom fostered a child that knew exactly how much to prod until they got what they wanted or new rules they felt were too restrictive to be taken back, fostering a more independent and assertive child. Take that example back to Britain and the Colonies and that is precisely what an Empire does not want, a colony that talks back and knows that persistant, nay, amazingly stubborn and persistant resistance will eventually remove any new rules deemed too tight around the belt for them. Each party set the stage for future conflict, it's not a case of who started it, but rather the fact that both of them let things reach such a point where they wound up equally at fault for the status quo.
From what we have learned, I still find the British primarily at fault, yet I am less biased. When I realized that the colonists were being taxed less then citizens in Britian, it altered my opinion a little on the topic. Along with that, the colonists were used to bascially a self rule and when the British imposed, they were very unhappy. In conclusion, although I still find Britian mainly at fault, I see their point of view a little more clearly now
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grant, and I also have slightly more sympathy for the British after our class discussion. The British were pretty much forced to tax the colonies because England was being taxed to the maximum capacity. The colonies just thought about how unjustly they were being taxed and kept protesting against their rules set.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joe somewhat because the British truly did have the right to tax the colonists because the colonies were by all means within their legal jurisdiction. I just think that their new laws and taxes came about too suddenly, and the shock the colonists experienced from lack of adjustment ultimately led to their rebellious behaviors and actions.
ReplyDeleteJoe I disagree with your mentality that Britain had no fault in the conflict with its colonies. I do agree that the colonists were partly at fault for the conflict, but I think Britain was equally, if not more, responsible. The colonists were not reacting with "childish" behavior, rather they were protesting the oppressive mercantilist system that Chris referenced before. Another good point that a lot of people made was the sudden takeover of the British when they tightened control during and after the war.
ReplyDeleteMy viewpoint really didn't change at all. The British certainly had a lot of fault in the colonists' anger towards them. Their troops stayed too long, keeping colonists from moving westward. Parliament imposed unfair taxes on them. I do understand that Britain had the right to do so in order to sustain both the colonies and Britain itself. However, the colonists deserved representation if they were going to be taxed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gallagher and Andrew. The colonists were doing what they needed to do to fight for themselves. They were being taxed by a country who's government they had to contribute to. And who is to say that the British can just march on in after a war when previously, they seemed to not care what the colonists did. They did tax the colonists, but I have always thought the colonists were taxed enough with the massive death toll and now there were widowed women trying to make a living for their family and pay the taxes. I don't think that's fair at all
ReplyDeleteMy view has not changed because I still believe the British were primarily at fault for the tension between them and the colonies. The British were the ones who didn't enforce control in the smartest way. The British often tightened then relaxed their control. In between these periods, the colonies were developing their own ideas on how to live. The British would then come back and try to force the colonists into subordination and accept taxes. This no doubt angered the colonists and was probably a reason for their resistance.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tyler. Although I still find the British mainly at fault, I do see their point of view more clearly.
ReplyDeleteI believed that the colonial grievances were primarily due to British's harsh enforcements, such as taxation without representation, but I do have a better understanding of the opposing viewpoint. The British unfairly took advantage of the colonies and it was only naturally for the colonies to resist the new strict rules/acts such as the Stamp Acts. The British should have also represented the colonies if they were going to tax them, especially for a war in which the colonies did not want to partake in.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with Joe's comment, although the colonies were under the authority of the British, it did not mean the British should do as they pleased. A good authority figure is one that leads firmly but knows to listen to his people. If Britain wanted to tax the colonies, the colonies should have been represented.
ReplyDelete