Was the American Revolution Inevitable?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/american_revolution_01.shtml

President John Adams believed that the independence of the colonialists was inevitable before the war even began on account of the shared ideology that they developed(one that transcended religious differences but was definitely influenced by the early Great Awakening in Xty in the Colonies). This short and readable summary of the revolution agrees at the end, finding that Great Britain had lost the trust it had with the Colonialists and that it's heavy handed ways of trying to suppress dissent further made it difficult for them to keep the colonies from seeking independence...
dlw

[NJon]

The British long lamented over the idea that if they had just promoted George Washington to be a general in their army, the war may never have taken place.

I feel that the Revolution could have been prevented (though for much different reasons than the Washington concept). The key to the Revolution isn't military; Washington lost almost every battle he fought. It was all about ideology and the upheaval of a social system. The perseverance of the rebels took a heavy toll on the British economy, and they simply didn't want to pay for it any more. After Yorktown, they decided that it just wasn't worth it to keep fighting and wasting their resources on it. Besides, they were by that time engaged in war with France once again; they loathed the French.

So, had England been willing to grant a little more autonomy and lessen taxation, and perhaps treat the colonists as equal citizens to native-born Englishmen, I feel that the Revolution may have never occurred.

[The Curtmudgeon]

So, had England been willing to grant a little more autonomy and lessen taxation, and perhaps treat the colonists as equal citizens to native-born Englishmen, I feel that the Revolution may have never occurred.

Yes, but your hypotheticals are so completely out of character for England of that time as to be nearly nonsensical. You might as well have said, "Had England been willing to adopt French as the national language."

Nope, I don't intend that as just English-bashing (I've got better lines for that :lol:). While there were a few pro-colonial English statesmen and writers of the time, they were very scarce on the ground; the overwhelming tone of the times was, "How dare they!" And the almost universally accepted Mercantilist economic theory made the "more autonomy" idea a complete non-starter: colonialists by nature existed only to serve the Mother Country, period. That's what being a colonialist meant. That, inevitably, led to the "non-equal citizen" status: since colonialists couldn't be allowed to control their own imports/exports (not to mention foreign affairs), then by definition they were in a second-class position automagically, politically speaking anyway.

There was also the more-or-less subconscious idea that "anyone who would leave Mother England for the wilderness can't be too bright to start with." The Spanish and French had both, at least at times, held at least some admiration for their colonials, but the English almost never. There was some admiration for strictly explorers, and there was gratitude for whatever benefits flowed to the Mother Country from new colonies, but almost always the idea about the colonists themselves was, "They gotta be nuts!" or words to that effect. So again, the non-equal citizen idea was bolstered by ingrained prejudice.

So I would agree with the OP and John Adams, that the American Revolution was inevitable. The colonialists, by their nature, were the types to go carving out a new world from the wilderness by dint of the sweat of their brow -- people of that type don't do it for the good of others who won't equally work at it; the stay-at-homes, by their nature, believed that the colonialists existed only to serve them. It was only a question of time.

The (and then there's Ireland, but that's :offtopic:) Curtmudgeon

[NJon]

Yes, but your hypotheticals are so completely out of character for England of that time as to be nearly nonsensical. You might as well have said, "Had England been willing to adopt French as the national language."


I certainly agree that they wouldn't have done it, even if given more time (obviously they didn't do it). Alas, if they did (theoretically), I'd say that would have made a difference --- a huge difference.

Though of course, we can only speculate.

[nomad]

What about after the revolution? As I understand it, Britain didn't really treat America with much respect afterwards, pressing American sailors into their navy, and other such actions. However, from what I have read, Britain found that an independent America really wasn't so bad, and most of America's early trade was with Britain. They made considerable income off of trade with us even independent. That probably blunted any desire to retake the colonies back for England. And they were still active against French and some Spanish colonies long after this point, iirc...

[NJon]

What about after the revolution? As I understand it, Britain didn't really treat America with much respect afterwards, pressing American sailors into their navy, and other such actions. However, from what I have read, Britain found that an independent America really wasn't so bad, and most of America's early trade was with Britain. They made considerable income off of trade with us even independent. That probably blunted any desire to retake the colonies back for England. And they were still active against French and some Spanish colonies long after this point, iirc...

Impressing sailors into the Royal Navy was more related to the War of 1812. Even after the American Revolution ended, the actual peace treaty (the Treaty of Paris) wasn't negotiated for several years. During that time, British troops remained in forts on the frontier and refused to leave until the treaty negotiated some of their expenses to be paid off.

After the new nation began to stabilize over several decades, England did become it's top economic trading partner. It was perhaps these economic links which kept the cultural ties between the U.S.A. and England so strong all the way to the present day.

[Ben Franklin]

Because of the war with France, Britain's government was strapped for cash, and the crown (and his ministers) felt that monies could be extorted (?) from the American colonies through the Stamp Act tax, Tea Act tax, etc... They could see no downside to treating the Americas the same as other colonies, but it was this heavy-handedness that worked against Great Britain, not an historical inevitability... America was driven to independence by rapacity...! Ironic isn't it, considering what drives America's federal government now... History just keeps on repeatin', don't it...?

[NJon]

History just keeps on repeatin', don't it...?

A lot of historians hate that phrase. History doesn't really repeat itself; it just takes cues from the past. An effective way to think of it is that history is a rear view mirror. It doesn't tell us what is going to happen in the future as if it will repeat identically, but by looking back, we can be better prepared for what may come in the future.