[acumensch]

The Americans had no real reasons to revolt.

The British Empire did as any just empire would do in their situation.

First of all, the reason why the American colonies were taxed so much was to pay for the protections Britain offered. Britain had, after all, just defeated the French in the Seven Years' War (AKA the French-Indian War). After this war, Britain's taxable population--which included America--needed to pay off the debt. So, they used the Navigation Acts and Sugar Acts etc. This was perfectly reasonable. It's not like the Crown wanted to tax everyone in order to finance ignoble government projects or what have you.

Second, the notorious taxes (the Stamp Act, the Sugar Act etc) were all repealed long before the Revolution, long before Lexington & Concord. The only tax that was left at the time of the Revolution was the tax on Tea. But apparently that was too much for the colonists, who had to have their tea so much they decided to dump a shipload of it into the Massachusetts Bay.

Third, most of the silly regulations, like the Nav Acts, were simply a reflection of the mercantilist goals of the days. Americans themselves were mercantilists even long after Adam Smith was published and circulated. And since everyone else was mercantilist, it was beneficial to go with the flow and maitain mercantilism. The Nav Acts kept the other empires from gaining powers that could rival Britain's. The Dutch, for example.

Fourth, Americans were taller, better nourished, and had more land than the average British citizen. They had a higher standard of living by far. Booksellers sold more books in the American colonies than anywhere else in the empire. The Americans should have been grateful for the motherland, Britain, who generously funded the colonies and subsidized outposts and producers (such as indigo producers) in order to keep Her children viable and healthy.

Fifth, as far as taxation w/o representation goes, the American colonies largely had the rights to govern their own land. They had judicial power to deal with their own land disputes, for example--with one exception: the Crown set boundaries that said Americans couldn't move further West. (The Crown respected the Native Americans' property claims, but the Americans did not.) Judicial rulings over the Western Land Dispute is repeatedly cited in the Declaration of Independence and it simply goes to show how inconsiderate and greedy the colonists were. They could care less for the natives. At any rate, other British colonies like India never had representation and judicial power like the American colonies did. Is this the beginning of American Exceptionalism? Yes it is.

Sixth, the tax burden on the colonies was incredibly small. Economic historians estimate the burden was roughly $1 or $2 per annum for each colonist. To put that into perspective, an indentured servant contract which took about five years to fulfill was only about $250. Even for an indentured servant--America's poorest citizens at the time--the tax burden was theoretically only about 1/50th of their annual pay. (Atack and Passell). None of these figures are adjusted for inflation, of course, but we can easily compare $1 and $250 without adjusting.

Seventh, the taxes did not crush American commerce. It merely shifted the emphasis of production. The Nav Acts, for example, pushed the demand for tobacco down, but in nearly the exact proportion raised demand for New England shipping vessels.

The American colonists had no sound reason to revolt.

[Mac]

The only tax that was left at the time of the Revolution was the tax on Tea. But apparently that was too much for the colonists, who had to have their tea so much they decided to dump a shipload of it into the Massachusetts Bay.

It's my understanding that the so-called "Boston Tea Party" was in fact a way in which the smugglers could disrupt the import of British tea, which despite the tax that remained, was far, far cheaper than that offered by Boston's smugglers.

[acumensch]

right the Tea Party was performed by smugglers (smugglers like John Hancock) to keep the price of tea higher than imported British tea.
in my post i made it sound like the Tea Act was a tax hike, but it was actually a tax drop. And once the port of Boston became too obnoxious, the Crown closed the port and occupied it with troops.

Then one day five colonists were killed for throwing stones and ice at British soldiers, which traditionally marks the beginning of the Revolution.

[malachi151]

Here is why the Revolution:

The Brits wanted the Americans to stop moving westward and fighting with the Natives. The Brits wanted the Natives' rights to be recogized. The Brits were opposed to slavery and were in the process of making it illegal. In 1772 the British illegalized slavery in England, and they were in teh process of illegalizing the slave trade across the empire.

[Captain Hat]

The Brits wanted the Americans to stop moving westward and fighting with the Natives. The Brits wanted the Natives' rights to be recogized. The Brits were opposed to slavery and were in the process of making it illegal. In 1772 the British illegalized slavery in England, and they were in teh process of illegalizing the slave trade across the empire.

Simplistic, entirely too simplistic.

The Brits knew that the Americans would be heading west, the Proclamation of 1763 was designed to slow the pace of western settlement until London knew how to properly keep tabs on the alarming growth of the American Population (it doubled every 20 years). British Royal Governors in Virginia and farther south ignored the proclamation along with every one else.

The British weren't so much concerned with recognizing Native rights as much as they were concerned with maintaing lucrative trade relations. Now that the French, and for the most part, the Spanish were out of the way, the British felt (as did numerous American merchants) that trade policy could be dictated to the Natives. As a result, the Natives were forced to trade their goods to British and American merchants for low quality goods. Even the tradition of giving annual gifts to the tribes was discontinued for a time by the British. Furthermore, London felt that in exchange, the King would proclaim a temporary end to western colonial expansion, which neither fully enforced nor fully respected. The Natives, of course, reacted with anger to both British and American provocation and made war, like Pontiac's Rebellion of 1763. All over the frontier, British forts were conquered and destroyed, only Detroit and Pittsburgh managed to escape Native destruction.

As to the Slave trade, it was not to be made illegal within the Empire until 1832. Nor was slavery made illegal in England by act of Parliament in 1772. Certainly, slaves could sue for their freedom in England, as some did and some gained their freedom in this way, however, actions like this were few and far between. The slave trade was a booming business in England and the Royal Africa Company made tons of cash by shipping hundreds of thousands of defenseless people to a life of slavery in the Caribbean and the American South. The abolitionist movement in both America, Britain, and France all got their start during or after the American and French Revolutions. Sometime around 1773, Quakers in Philadelphia founded the first abolitionist group in the world and in 1790 petitioned Congress to put an end to slavery. In 1788, the famous HMS Bounty made its ill-fated voyage to the South Pacific to collect bread fruit with the purpose of transplanting the bread fruit to America to feed Caribbean slaves. So, not only was slavery not made illegal in England in 1772, but the Empire was far from shutting down the horrific and lucrative slave trade.

As to the taxes, it wasn't merely the tax that Americans had a problem with, but they had a problem with how they were created and how they were implemented. For years, the Atlantic seaboard colonies had almost been semi-autonomous, each with their own legislature, and judges paid out of the colonial treasury, etc, etc, etc. The crown did little to govern the American colonies and the few revenue acts passed on the colonies before 1764 (such as the Navigation Acts) were either not enforced, or generally ignored. In 1764-65, this all changed. Britain passed what it deemed would be a fair tax. America had been defended (although New England and Virginia militia had done more than its share alongside the British Army both along the frontier and in New France) and now it had to pay its share.

What never occured to the British Parliament is that the Americans would react so angrily. The answer? The Americans were decrying the destruction of their English Liberties. (ie. "No Taxation without Representation") Rather than trying to make an accomodation, the British merely pushed back, first by sending troops to places like Boston, then paying all colonial judges out of the royal treasury, and so on, and so forth until before either side knew it, dead British redcoats lined the road between Concord and Boston.

The rest, as they say, is history.

[QatzelOk]

Intersting, Captain Hat, how the British thought the colonies would be grateful for having been used as a pawn against France.

"We helped defend you against our enemy."

Sort of like the way the US helped Iraq defend itself against the US enemy, Iran.

Imperialists always see the world as having the same basic objectives and ideals as themselves, and always imagine themselves as "helping" the less fortunate [meaning less powerful].

[Captain Hat]

Kind of scary, isn't it?

[Mac]

As far as I know, the slave trade was made illegal by the British in 1807, and slavery within the empire itself was officially abolished in 1832.

[malachi151]

Regarding slavery in England:

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pi ... 300483.htm

A judicial decision handed down in 1772 by Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of England, in favor of a Virginia-born bondsman with Norfolk connections was the initial impetus that eventually resulted in freedom for all African Americans in the English-speaking world.

My overstatement was very slight... The point remains.

[Sans Salvador]

My overstatement was very slight... The point remains.

Conflating a ruling that gave one person freedom and provided the "initial impetus" for outlawing slavery with outlawing slavery altogether is slight?

[Captain Hat]

My overstatement was very slight... The point remains.

Your overstatement was not slight and your point was destroyed.

I pointed out that slaves could be freed on a case by case basis in England and the time in question, however, this was a rare occurance. And your point that slavery was being actively destroyed as a policy of the British Government in the 1770's was turned down.

[The Immortal Goon]

It should also be pointed out that in the north many of the American Revolutionaries were opposed to slavery, Jefferson - a southerner - also went so far as to repeatedly attempt to illegalize slavery before ultimatly giving.

As for the revisionist topic starter above, the British were far from protecting the rights of the Native Americans. The systematic genocide of the native population began with the British under Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America:

According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. July 13, 1763:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:

P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

Source:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html

Furthermore, in addition to what Captain Hat points out, there are some larger historical factors at work, not unnotably the Enlightenment. In this way alone, the American Revolution represented the progress of science (at least in theory) over tradition. The US today remains one of the few nations without an official church, or that gives yearly money to churches (or was until the Faith-Based Initiative). Part of this also was the Great Awakening which aspoused the idea that grace was given to everyone; thus challenging the Divine Right to Rule. To many also, the idea of revolution would mean limiting the power of the wealthy elite and granting full rights to the people - per Thomas Paine.
This was more or less the crux of the argument by the Radical Patriots.

The colonies were, as you pointed out, very economically successful and the leaders of the production saw little or no reason to be giving their success to a foreign and feudalistic class (the House of Lords were in charge of England until 1911) that did very little aside from live off of other's work. They themselves were quite capable of exploiting labor with out giving a baron on the other side of the Atalntic a taste.
This was more or less the crux for the Federalist Patriots.

These two came in to flux immediatly after the revolution in the lack-luster climax of the radicals v. the federalists in the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Revolt. After this, it took a parlimentary tone with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists and was ultimatly more or less settled aside from a few issues which were finally resolved after the very climatic Civil War.

Anyway, as has been pointed out, it's the British's own fault for trying to solve their problems by moving troops in and force everyone to comply to King and Country instead of just sitting down and having a two second conversation. Of course, that wouldn't have alleiviated any of the broader tensions, and we all know that most nobles were born better than the rest of us and it would have been disgraceful for one to have to lower himself to talk to one of us commoners - per Conwallis's surrender at the hands of one of his assistants, and not himself. Besides, it was easier to send Cornwallis over to murder unarmed and starving Irish people instead of the systematic genocide of the Americans of all sorts, which would have left things in the hands of the dirty papists of France or Spain.

-TIG

[acumensch]

Immortal Goon,

In discussing the issue of native american rights, i was simply pointing out that Britain's stance on the Western Land Dispute respected Native American property claims more than the American desire to expand westward. I had nothing to say regarding british colonels causing massive epidemics, which of course I am not denying.

<QUOTE>
What never occured to the British Parliament is that the Americans would react so angrily. The answer? The Americans were decrying the destruction of their English Liberties. (ie. "No Taxation without Representation") Rather than trying to make an accomodation, the British merely pushed back, first by sending troops to places like Boston, then paying all colonial judges out of the royal treasury, and so on, and so forth until before either side knew it, dead British redcoats lined the road between Concord and Boston.
</QUOTE>

Their English liberties were just as respected as any English citizen living abroad. Even in Britain, Lord Grenville is reported to have said, fewer than 5% of the population were directly represented, as the colonists demanded.

What kind of "representation" were these colonies looking for? What possible kind of representation could Britain have given them (that Britian hadn't already given them) that would have quelled their thirst for revolution?

At any rate, what taxation? By the eve of the revolution, there was hardly any taxation left! But even before then, great care had been taken to make the acts and taxes acceptable to the colonies. After over a century of colonial rule, Britain had perfected the art of taxation. They started by only taxing colonial land owners, of course (hardly "fair" by any standard.)

But by 1763, the wide range of duties, which averaged only 70% of their equivalent in Britain, had been devised to provide an equitable distribution of the burden. The defense of America was after all very expensive--the annual cost of the army alone standing at an estimated 350,000 in British pounds. (sources, PDG Thomas "the grenville program", "british politics and the stamp act crisis")

But then of course, those wide range of duties were all repealed due to the whiny Boston smugglers and wealthy elites.

Britain only repsonded by "sending troops to places like Boston" because wealthy Bostoners were a bunch of silk stocking brigadiers congregating to complain about taxes that largely no longer existed, vice-admiralty courts that were no long unjust, tea acts that lowered the price to consumers, and a kind of unthinkable "representation" that could not possibly be afforded.

[Red Rebel]

@acumensch
Look at America during the 16th and 17th century. For the most part England/Great Britain left the colonies to fend for themselves. They considered themselves Englishmen and enjoyed being in the British Empire. But they did not feel any loyalty to the British crown.

Did the colonist have it better than the English (on average) yes. But America was 3000 miles away from England. They wanted to be left alone (ie most colonist said "No Taxation with out Representaion," but they didn't want a seat in Parliment ). They were stuborn and picky, but the New World made them that way. Your statement:

The American colonists had no sound reason to revolt.

Is more or less true, except that the colonist didn't want to sucseed from the British Empire, they wanted the right of Englishmen without the duties of Englishmen. Funny, isn't it?

[Captain Hat]

Their English liberties were just as respected as any English citizen living abroad. Even in Britain, Lord Grenville is reported to have said, fewer than 5% of the population were directly represented, as the colonists demanded.

What kind of "representation" were these colonies looking for? What possible kind of representation could Britain have given them (that Britian hadn't already given them) that would have quelled their thirst for revolution?

The same kind of "representation" that was guaranteed to English subjects in the homeland. Most Americans at the time viewed the taxes as an afront to their own assemblies. For years, the Colonial Assemblies had taxed and governed themselves.

In the early stages of the Revolution, Royal authorities dissolved the popularly elected legislatures (so it can't be said the Britain granted any representation to the colonists.) As there were no voting colonial representatives in London, the Americans had no voice in that body, which decided to tax the Americans anyway. On top of this, during the 1760's, the colonies were going through a horrible economic depression that didn't fully let up until about 1773. Furthermore, several types of "union" were proposed to quell the tension between colony and mother country. Franklin's Albany Plan of 1755 comes to mind.

At any rate, what taxation? By the eve of the revolution, there was hardly any taxation left! But even before then, great care had been taken to make the acts and taxes acceptable to the colonies. After over a century of colonial rule, Britain had perfected the art of taxation. They started by only taxing colonial land owners, of course (hardly "fair" by any standard.)

True, but on the eve of Revolution, the Colonial Assemblies of several colonies had been forcibly dissolved (most notably, those of the two largest colonies, Massachusetts and Virginia), with their records moved, some of their members imprisoned. To add to all of this, the colony of Massachusetts was under martial law with the city of Boston closed. I'm not sure if the British ever got to perfect taxation, but they sure as hell turned tyranny into an art.

Where do you get the idea that only colonial land owners were taxed first? Acts like the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act affected almost all levels of society, from the land owners, to the merchants, to the consumers.

But by 1763, the wide range of duties, which averaged only 70% of their equivalent in Britain, had been devised to provide an equitable distribution of the burden. The defense of America was after all very expensive--the annual cost of the army alone standing at an estimated 350,000 in British pounds. (sources, PDG Thomas "the grenville program", "british politics and the stamp act crisis")

The Standing army you speak of was also a long-standing issue with the Americans. For over 150 years, colonial militias had served to protect the frontiers, and very few British soldiers saw garrison duty outside of American ports or away from the front lines with New France. All those new soldiers served to scare the colonists.

But then of course, those wide range of duties were all repealed due to the whiny Boston smugglers and wealthy elites.

You forgot about the poor Virginia, New York, North Carolina farmers, the New York dockhands, the Philadelphia apprentices, the Pennsylvanian and Marylander Germans. Not to mention a much longer list of lower and middle class farmers and artisans in and around colonial towns and cities from New Hampshire to Georgia. The revolution was not just about a few disgruntled smugglers and landowners in Boston and Williamsburg, everyone was affected and almost everyone had an opinion.

Britain only repsonded by "sending troops to places like Boston" because wealthy Bostoners were a bunch of silk stocking brigadiers congregating to complain about taxes that largely no longer existed, vice-admiralty courts that were no long unjust, tea acts that lowered the price to consumers, and a kind of unthinkable "representation" that could not possibly be afforded.

You choose to forget that the mobs that caused Britain to send troops in the first place were usually led by men like Sam Adams, who was far from being a "silk stocking brigadier." The man was poor and the city of Boston had to buy him his first new suit in years to send him to the Continental Congress. The colonists wanted the representation they felt was their due as Englishmen and the English felt that Americans were no more civilized then they deemed the Irish.

Is more or less true, except that the colonist didn't want to sucseed from the British Empire, they wanted the right of Englishmen without the duties of Englishmen. Funny, isn't it?

This would make sense if the British had honored the English Liberties of the Americans in the 1760's and 1770's.

[acumensch]

In the early stages of the Revolution, Royal authorities dissolved the popularly elected legislatures (so it can't be said the Britain granted any representation to the colonists.) As there were no voting colonial representatives in London, the Americans had no voice in that body, which decided to tax the Americans anyway.

no, the colonies still had local legislatures. Massachusetts, for example, had always had a powerful "General Court". the colonies represented themselves to themselves in that respect. the colonies had internal taxation, just as every locality has their own internation taxation and legislative programs.

and it wasn't like Britain created the new legislation without knowing anything of what the colonies thought. Lord Grenville, the Prime Minister of the time, continously read the colonial despatches and made decisions accordingly. But as compensation for not having the best possible kind of representation the burdens of these act were significantly less than that of an English citizen living in England. If they actually had a representative who voted in parliament, traveling for months back and forth presumably, then you think the colonies would be satisfied with having to pay full British taxation as the burden of having been represented in parliament?

Also, if the colonists were so much against the idea of a stamp taxes and sugar taxes, why did they reinstate them after the revolution. It's funny how the colonists even got away with having a stamp act after all that revolutionary fervor about the stamp act being so abhorrent.

To add to all of this, the colony of Massachusetts was under martial law with the city of Boston closed. I'm not sure if the British ever got to perfect taxation, but they sure as hell turned tyranny into an art.

the colony was closed because the bostoners threw stones at british soldiers, dumped goods into the bay, rioted and looted extensively, beat loyalists in the street, tarred and feathered the loyalists and soldiers, and confiscated their land in order to sell in return for political support and also revenue to finance the rebellion.

I live in Seattle, and when we had the WTO riots, our city was essentially quarantined and policed for about a week. I don't think that was tyrannical in any sense. It's what any empire/government/state does to protect its citizens.

Where do you get the idea that only colonial land owners were taxed first? Acts like the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act affected almost all levels of society, from the land owners, to the merchants, to the consumers.

I'm saying "first" as in chronologically first.

When the colonies were first established, Britain gained revenue by taxing the acreage of land owners. That was all they taxed. But then as the economic theory evolved, taxation became more comprehensive, sophisticated and "progressive" in a sense.

The Standing army you speak of was also a long-standing issue with the Americans. For over 150 years, colonial militias had served to protect the frontiers, and very few British soldiers saw garrison duty outside of American ports or away from the front lines with New France. All those new soldiers served to scare the colonists.

No, all these new soldiers had just won a war with France. Britain had just won Canada and parts of the South. They had a surplus of troops after the war, and to protect and even larger empire, England needed to keep a larger standing force. This was a smart idea after all, because soon Napoleon would come to power, and since Britain had kept its army up to speed, this definitely paid off. (Britain did spend a lot of specie trying to prevent war in the colonies, and then actually fighting war in the colonies. So if the Americans had not rebelled, perhaps Napoleon would not have risen to power to begin with.)

You choose to forget that the mobs that caused Britain to send troops in the first place were usually led by men like Sam Adams, who was far from being a "silk stocking brigadier." The man was poor and the city of Boston had to buy him his first new suit in years to send him to the Continental Congress. The colonists wanted the representation they felt was their due as Englishmen and the English felt that Americans were no more civilized then they deemed the Irish.

I would say that that is an anomaly, but frankly, Sam Adams is no anomaly.

Silk Stocking Brigadier means they have economic interests of their own wealthy class in mind. Sam Adams was born to wealthy family and was concerned about his own economic interests as well as the economic interests of his constituents, despite having been given a suit to wear to Congress. and All of the framers were wealthy elites. All of our heroes were wealthy elites: Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Quincy Adams, John Adams, Washington, Hamilton, monroe, Jackson, hancock, etc etc. This is not revisionism. every schoolchild can tell you that the framers were well-said, well-bred, well-fed, well-wed and well-read.

but were you trying to suggest that Sam Adams was a populist or something of a physiocrat?

[Captain Hat]

no, the colonies still had local legislatures. Massachusetts, for example, had always had a powerful "General Court". the colonies represented themselves to themselves in that respect. the colonies had internal taxation, just as every locality has their own internation taxation and legislative programs.

No, the colonists had illegal legislatures. The royal authorities dissolved them (such as Massachusetts' General Court and Virginia's House of Burgesses) and the colonists set up extra-legal assemblies elsewhere. I know how the assemblies work. You, however fail to recognize that the British revoked this traditional colonial right in the 1760's and 1770's.

I have a real hard time believing that Lord Grenville carefully read American petitions of redress and then made decisions. Like most of the British elite at the time, he held Americans in the same contempt he may have held the Irish or the Scots.

Also, if the colonists were so much against the idea of a stamp taxes and sugar taxes, why did they reinstate them after the revolution. It's funny how the colonists even got away with having a stamp act after all that revolutionary fervor about the stamp act being so abhorrent.

Why? Because the Americans were taxing themselves. The ability to do such was one of the early issues of the Revolution. Remember "No Taxation without Representation"? That's the idea. Besides, I've never heard of an American instituted Stamp Act.

the colony was closed because the bostoners threw stones at british soldiers, dumped goods into the bay, rioted and looted extensively, beat loyalists in the street, tarred and feathered the loyalists and soldiers, and confiscated their land in order to sell in return for political support and also revenue to finance the rebellion.

I live in Seattle, and when we had the WTO riots, our city was essentially quarantined and policed for about a week. I don't think that was tyrannical in any sense. It's what any empire/government/state does to protect its citizens.

Very true, but then what would be the point in letting the city starve both economically and from lack of food? Furthermore, with this line of logic, why was the entire colony put under martial law? And why was it done for four years? Also, the loyalist-owned land you speak of was not sold until after the war.

When the colonies were first established, Britain gained revenue by taxing the acreage of land owners. That was all they taxed. But then as the economic theory evolved, taxation became more comprehensive, sophisticated and "progressive" in a sense.

This just isn't true. The first tax on the Americans was the Sugar Act of 1764. Now, the colonial legislatures instituted land and property taxes, but not the British.

So if the Americans had not rebelled, perhaps Napoleon would not have risen to power to begin with.

I'm sorry, but this utter tripe. How can you even support this? Did the British have super powers that allowed them to predict the future?

I see it differently. Following the Seven Years' War, the British noticed that the American colonies had a vast amount of land and resources, why not tax them? Well, the Americans felt their English Liberties were being violated, a fact which you have ignored and supported with little evidence.

And now, a question: Why would Britain post more troops in America following the Seven Years' War when before the war, there were more threatening enemies surrounding the Atlantic colonies?

And the whole reason the British put up such a good show during the Napoleonic Era is because they had such a poor showing in the Revolution. Before the Revolution, the British Army, and particularly the Navy were racked by corruption allowing men of class in high position and men of skill in the lower ranks.

I am saying that Sam Adams was a populist. There's next to nothing to suggest otherwise.

Also, there were many leaders of the revolution you forget about, how about Alexander McDougall, the New York dockhand that led the New York Sons of Liberty.

Finally, John Quincy Adams and (I presume) Andrew Jackson were not 'framers.' They were both children at the time.

[redstarline]

Although it may damage the pride of some Americans, the colonies in what would be the USA were no where near as important to the British as the Caribbean or Asian for example.

[Captain Hat]

I don't disagree with that. France forfeited New France in exchange for Martinique.

[redstarline]

England should never have swapped Cuba for Florida, bad deal that was! And we should have kept Manhatten Island, like Hong Kong, an outpost of Empire on the edge of an savage nation...