"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:

Perhaps slightly overstated, but there's a good amount of truth
in that. The residents of the British colonies: English colonists,
Britishers, et al, did have a number of grievances about their
treatment. But they weren't being particularly oppressed or
treated more harshly than the people living in the British Isles.

Don't mean to simplify the American Revolution into solely some pure,
idealistic movement to better humankind. Such a "spin" on the event
was fairly common in history books up to the 60's.

With the rise of the liberal left, interpretations became more complex
(which is good), but IMHO, more political in nature, and overly harsh.
It's gone from American history seen as a golden light to one seen only
as darkness.

As far as "oppression" of the colonies goes, I think you are generally
correct. As seen from today's perspective, what is so wrong and oppresive
about asking colonists to chip in for their own defense (our "French and
Indian" war)? Seems not unlike what the US has done, or tried to do, in
both Iraqi adventures!

My thinking is that the American colonies were simply used to governing
themselves (largely left on their own by Britain up to the war) and would
no longer tolerate being governed from abroad. "Coming of age" I suppose.

But the local gentry far from central control quite naturally
took the opportunity to avoid paying their taxes. Similarly
for the more common folk. And the revolutionary ideas from

Taxes have always been a sensitive subject with Americans!!! This sensitivity
continues to this day.

the continent surely did have a sympathetic audience, whether
the French did any organized meddling or not.

My understanding is that the French were prepared to keep the conflict going
without direct involvement for as long as possible. They really did not
expect a successful outcome, but would have been happy just to drain down
Britain in financial and military resources.


SMH