In many respects the American colonies governed themselves, but as they started to expand, Indian depredations became an increasing problem, obliging Britain to deploy regulars, in order to police this situation and protect the colonist’s homes. Then during the seven-year war (1756-63) the French tried to crush and drive the (non-French) colonists out of America, so Britain had to maintain a force of ten thousand men to defend them, because when the colonists were left to their own devices, they nearly always lost, George Washington was particularly useless, getting himself captured by the French; (it wasn’t until the revolution that he became an outstanding General).
But the burden of protecting the colonists was nearly all being borne by the British taxpayer and protecting them during the seven-year war had added another 150 million pounds ($280,500,000) on top of an already crippling debt incurred while defending Hanover from the French, Austrian, Saxon, Swedish and Russian Alliance.
This deficit was made worse by corruption in the colonies actually causing tax revenue to cost Britain £8000 in order to collect £2000 tax, and this at a rate of only sixpence a year each.
The British had repeatedly tried to get the colonists to pay towards their protection, by introducing various taxes, but all were unpopular.
So after the seven-year war the British had a massive debt with few ways to reduce it, so they had to limit expenditure and as the colonists had been the beneficiaries, it was decided:
1. The settlers were to stop taking more and more Indian land, to limit spiralling defence costs and adding to the debt burden
2. The settlers were to stop murdering the Indians (many of which had helped defeat the French), so as not to upset the only money maker in America, that of trading for Furs
3. They had to stop endemic corruption such as smuggling and bribery, that was costing the exchequer so much money
4. They had to find a way of introducing a tax system that worked to help with the debt burden.
No taxation without representation, the rebels said, but they did have representation through the colonial legislature/governor. and were only being asked to pay one twenty-sixth of the tax that a British tax payer paid, who had and were effectively subsidizing them by bearing the burden of their protection.
The British had also drawn a proclamation line along the Appalachian Mountain peaks, honouring agreements to limit further encroachment onto Indian land and arrest the spiralling cost of protecting the colonists from Indian reprisals.
Therefore those that settled beyond this line were the cause of a lot of problems as not having any money; they just became adept at murdering the Indians in order to take their land. Such people put extra strain and expense onto the British defences and were of course the natural allies of those powerful colonists, such as George Washington who wished to benefit from Indian land speculation.
The rebel leaders or founding fathers (all quasi-atheists e.g. Deists) only represented about 27% of two and quarter million colonists (although they said it was 33%), but even if this was correct they knew they would have never won power through a referendum, so as they possess considerable propaganda skills, they called themselves Patriots, contrived incidents like the so called ' Boston massacre', portrayed their own vested interests as philanthropic ideals, and incited a reign of terror, aimed at civil authorities to disrupt society.
http://www.redcoat.me.uk/
So apparently the British were not only defending the colonists, they were also protecting the natives.
Is this true?
But the burden of protecting the colonists was nearly all being borne by the British taxpayer and protecting them during the seven-year war had added another 150 million pounds ($280,500,000) on top of an already crippling debt incurred while defending Hanover from the French, Austrian, Saxon, Swedish and Russian Alliance.
This deficit was made worse by corruption in the colonies actually causing tax revenue to cost Britain £8000 in order to collect £2000 tax, and this at a rate of only sixpence a year each.
The British had repeatedly tried to get the colonists to pay towards their protection, by introducing various taxes, but all were unpopular.
So after the seven-year war the British had a massive debt with few ways to reduce it, so they had to limit expenditure and as the colonists had been the beneficiaries, it was decided:
1. The settlers were to stop taking more and more Indian land, to limit spiralling defence costs and adding to the debt burden
2. The settlers were to stop murdering the Indians (many of which had helped defeat the French), so as not to upset the only money maker in America, that of trading for Furs
3. They had to stop endemic corruption such as smuggling and bribery, that was costing the exchequer so much money
4. They had to find a way of introducing a tax system that worked to help with the debt burden.
No taxation without representation, the rebels said, but they did have representation through the colonial legislature/governor. and were only being asked to pay one twenty-sixth of the tax that a British tax payer paid, who had and were effectively subsidizing them by bearing the burden of their protection.
The British had also drawn a proclamation line along the Appalachian Mountain peaks, honouring agreements to limit further encroachment onto Indian land and arrest the spiralling cost of protecting the colonists from Indian reprisals.
Therefore those that settled beyond this line were the cause of a lot of problems as not having any money; they just became adept at murdering the Indians in order to take their land. Such people put extra strain and expense onto the British defences and were of course the natural allies of those powerful colonists, such as George Washington who wished to benefit from Indian land speculation.
The rebel leaders or founding fathers (all quasi-atheists e.g. Deists) only represented about 27% of two and quarter million colonists (although they said it was 33%), but even if this was correct they knew they would have never won power through a referendum, so as they possess considerable propaganda skills, they called themselves Patriots, contrived incidents like the so called ' Boston massacre', portrayed their own vested interests as philanthropic ideals, and incited a reign of terror, aimed at civil authorities to disrupt society.
http://www.redcoat.me.uk/
So apparently the British were not only defending the colonists, they were also protecting the natives.
Is this true?
