APUnited States History (2013-2014)

Was the American Revolution inevitable? Could the thirteen colonies have remained attached to Britain for many years and then peacefully achieved their independence as the British colonies of Canada and Australia later did?

Are there any events that could, or should have, turned out differently that would have changed the course of our nation?

47 comments so far

  1. Mrs. Williams
    10:36 am - 9-25-2013

    Well, ladies and gentlement of APUSH (rte 262), let the blogging begin. ECS students, I will be looking for your entries to come through my email tonight and tomorrow. I am hoping to see some good banter back and forth with our BB neighbors. HAPPY BLOGGING.

  2. mnanauo
    10:45 am - 9-25-2013

    The American Revolution was a long time coming, and not as revolutionary as it is sometimes described. The colonies had been largely left to themselves since their founding, and established their own governments etc. With the added stress from Britain, and the post-French and Indian War taxes, it was inevitable that the colonies would want to take their independence to the next step by officially denouncing Britain. So the American Revolution was more of an evolution; it was the logical next step for the colonies, and was not as revolutionary as many people maintain.

  3. dakotahirsch
    10:51 am - 9-25-2013

    Ok, well first of all, im sure we all know that the colonies were under severe stress between the ending of the French and Indian War(the resulting success of Britain gaining most of Frace’s American territory)and the new orders being implemented on the colonies. This includes the stamp act or even most importantly the fact that the colonists had no “voice” we’ll say, in Britain’s parliament. The Document “Ideology and Nationalism on the Eve of the American Revolution” mentions how if someone tries to understand the coming of the revolution that they will fail to understand the “shrill, even paranoid” tone of the shocked american colonists over Britain’s assertion of authority (p. 152, 1st full paragraph). Therefore, I believe that indeed the colonies could not have peacefully gained their independence, and the revolution was inevitable.

  4. allie zambito
    7:43 pm - 9-25-2013

    By the time the American Revolution came about, it was clearly one of the few if not the only option left for the colonies due to the continuous conflicts they faced with Great Britain. The outcomes of the French and Indian War clearly set the stage for a revolution, with the implementation of The Proclamation of 1763 which prohibited all white settlers from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains in an effort to satisfy indian tribes upset with american settlers whom they felt obstructed their lands and hunting grounds. New taxes were imposed as well including, The Stamp Act which provoked even more discontent among colonists now that not only was the amount of land able to be settled limited to a small section of the North American Continent, there was also an excess of fees colonists were forced to pay in order to allow Great Britain to gain more revenue from the colonies. Unification and Nationalism was also on the rise and widespread throughout the colonies as shown in The Unknown American Revolution which states, we can not capture the “life and soul” of the Revolution without paying attention to the ordinary people who came together and preformed most of the protesting, fighting, dying, and dreaming about how a victorious America might satisfy the yearnings of all its peoples. Revolution was clearly inevitable as people began to view it as a necessity in order to bring about change and as stated in The Unknown American Revolution, to bring a better future imagined by those who felt increasingly dissatisfied with the conditions they experienced as the quarrel with Great Britain unfolded.

  5. allielacey
    8:27 pm - 9-25-2013

    The American Revolution could be seen coming in the “rear view mirrors” of the colonies. Throughout the history of the original colonies, the idea of revolution and independence always seemed to be an option that could not be ruled out. The new found freedom that was achieved after the events of the French and Indian War for the colonies made the revolution and reform seem so much closer and in grasp for the colonies as a whole. After the war and the implementing of the Proclamation of 1763, the idea of freedom from the ones that held then colonies from freedom seemed to be an inevitable force and idea looming in the air. Under all of the demands and stresses from the British government, the idea and need for revolution became more prominent in the every day lives of the colonists. The ideas of having a peaceful split from the harsh rule of the British by the colonies seemed far from view, and to the colonists, the only way to gain their freedoms from the one that held them back would be to start a revolution and reform the way of live and government in their nation. The impact of the French and Indian war gave the colonist a new sense of nationalism, and the road to revolution seemed to be the next logical step in the direction of independence and freedom.

  6. Kyle Andrews
    9:46 am - 9-26-2013

    The lager involvement of the American colonies is within the confines of war. In particular the French and Indian war. It is key to understand that this war was the premises of most of the following conflict between Britain and the American colonies. This conflict involved smaller and lesser battles then that of the American Revolution, however their importance was paramount in assuming the inevitable confrontation of the Americans and British on the battlefield. Quite frankly it wouldn’t have been possible for the Americans to stay attached to the British. The British were sucking the life out of the American colonies through slow taxation as well as abuse of rights. As we can see through this leech like existence with America it became seemingly impossible for them to even tolerate this existence which led to war. This war was inevitable and fore coming .

  7. drcommanderpudz
    10:07 am - 9-26-2013

    The American Revolution was an inevitable thing, the colonist were basically left to their own devices shortly after their founding. The colonists gained confidence and nationalism through their military duties and adventures, and the british regulars basically belittled them and pushed them around. The tensions of being bullied by British officials,coupled with the fact that the colonists despised the taxes that were made after the French & Indian War would have led any country put in the colonies’ place to revolt from their Overseas Overlords. But if the Proclamation of 1763 wasn’t made or if Britain had given more curtesy to their colonies, the revolt might have taken a longer time to start or maybe, just maybe the colonies might have made a more peaceful transition to freedom.

  8. Jake Rada
    6:22 pm - 9-27-2013

    Due to the policies and actions taken by the British, the American Revolution was a foreseeable outcome, so long as the right people were informed. The barring of the settlers into land west of the Appalachian Mountains due to the Proclamation of 1763, the various taxes imposed onto the colonists to pay for the expensive wars waged by the British, and the rising sense of nationalism between the people of the colonies contributed to both the impending revolution and separation from the British. There was always a possibility of the colonies gaining independence peacefully like Canada and Australia up until the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord, however the distributors of information at this time propagated every actions by the British as one of betrayal and greed. Both the retreat of American troops from New York to the crossing of the Delaware River, and the survival of the Continental Army while they were camped at Valley Forge should have ended disastrously for the Americans, but didn’t.

  9. Sean O'Donovan
    7:02 pm - 9-27-2013

    The American Revolution was truly a Revolution, due to the swiftness of the colonists to take action against the British, and the sudden eagerness to fight for what has not even become a country yet. Even though the Seven Years War gave colonists a sense of individual identity from Britain and feelings of nationalism, only a minority acted on it at first. The British took advantage of the colonists at the wrong time with the Stamp and Sugar acts, hitting a colony full of nationalistic people with the regulations. The colonists, who had not previously interacted with the mother country this often, strongly opposed to it. This was when a radical few, such as Samuel Adams and Paul Revere, to name a couple, began to use propaganda to inform the public of real events, in occasionally distorted context. This new information caused the people to boycott the implemented taxes, and strengthened the nationalist views of the colonists. The boycotting of these taxes did not stop the British from attempting to reap the colonists of their money. The Seven Years War was expensive, and King George thought it right for the colonists to pay for it, so they implemented the Tea Act. The Tea Act allowed the selling of tea to be less for the seller, who would be an English merchant, and tax the buyers, the colonists. This caused a large decline in tea consumption, and the Boston Tea Party, where merchant ships’ cargo was emptied into the bay. Many people think that representatives of the masses did this, but it was a radical group known as The Sons of Liberty. The British reaction was a series of acts of parliament that abused the colonists, known as the intolerable acts. These acts allowed British to have a clear dominance of power over the colonists, such as The Quartering Act, making every colonist open their home to British Red Coats who needed somewhere to stay. As more colonists followed the radical groups in the colonies, more public protests were led against occupying British troops, most infamous of all was The Boston Massacre. British troops were walking in the streets, and were approached by a group of protesters. The protesters gradually became violent, and British troops fired at them, killing five. The incident itself could have been avoided altogether, had it not been for hostility on each side, but radical Paul Revere created a cartoon making public the event. Although inaccurate, the cartoon was practically the cause of the Revolution, enraging the public, and creating their complete desire to separate. It was not the gradual act of the majority, but the sudden spread of idealism between radicals and the people that caused this revolution to be.

  10. Michaela Kenward
    7:29 pm - 9-27-2013

    When looking back at the American Revolution, we, as Americans, often believe it was destined to occur, an idea associated with the term “manifest destiny”. If utilizing accurate facts and a clear, unbiased mind, it becomes evident that the American Revolution was not based on conditions or circumstances of a typical revolution. At the same time, one could say that the American Revolution occurred under the outstanding leadership of men such as George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. One can no more than speculate what the country would have become without these prominent intellects. The American Revolution easily could have been avoided, if there had not been the development of a strong American Spirit, detestation of the British Empire and its’ king, and apprehension at the very thought of oppression. Independence, however, was never avoidable.

    The Declaration of Independence is the source from which the horrors typically associated with the American movement for independence come from. The American colonists felt that the king had “dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly”, as well as “plundered [their] seas, ravaged [their] coasts, burnt [their] towns and destroyed the lives of [their] people”. This, in addition to unfair taxes such as the Stamp Act, Sugar Acts, and Coercive Acts, created a great deal of strain on the relationship between the colonists and their imperialistic mother country. The colonists attempted to petition against this harsh rule, but their “repeated Petitions [had] been answered only by repeated injury”, according the Declaration of Independence. Thus began the belief that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Power to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

    In “Radical Possibilities of the American Revolution”, Gordon S. Wood points out the fact that “little evidence of those social conditions we often associate with revolution…” were present in the American Revolution itself. There was “no mass poverty, no seething social discontent, no grinding oppression” (110). The lives lived by colonists were healthier than if they lived in Great Britain. Statistics even show that colonists were two inches taller than those back in England. The colonies had an entirely different structural social system, one in which “social classes based on occupation or wealth did not set themselves against one another, for no classes in this modern sense existed” (111). Though equality seems ideal, “it was the persuasive equality of American society that was causing problems” (111). For the colonists, “…any possibility of oppression…was especially frightening” (112), due to living in a society with “expanding republican expectations of liberty and independence” (113). One would often argue that the taxes placed by the British upon the colonists were oppressive, but in retrospect, taxes ought to be expected by any citizen, and the colonists were indeed citizens of Great Britain themselves.

    Thus it becomes perplexing to distinguish whether the American Revolution was inevitable or not. If the Americans were simply taxed unfairly, could they have someday broken away from Great Britain peacefully? Possibly, yes. However, the American Revolution did happen, and this is because of both a strong sense of nationalism and influential leaders. According to T. H. Breen in “Ideology and Nationalism on the Eve of the American Revolution”, “a powerfully self-confident British nationalism” arose “some time during the 1740’s”, when “English men and women of all social classes began to express a sentiment that might be described variously as a dramatic surge of national consciousness, a rise of aggressive patriotism, or a greatly heightened articulation of national identity” (147). This left the colonists feeling lost they “attempted to construct their own imagined identity within the empire” (148), while they were also “struggling to comprehend the demands of a powerfully self-confident imperial state” (149). The colonists demonstrated their nationalist feelings towards Great Britain by assisting in the French and Indian War, and many had the feeling that of “imperial identity” in which “England and America were equals” (150). However, over time, the colonists began to come to the realization that they were not, and never were, equal. Therefore, Breen claims “the source of anger was not so much parliamentary taxation without representation as it was the sudden realization that the British regarded white colonial Americans as second-class beings” (151). Newer taxes only assured the Americans that they were considered inferior. This betrayal completely destroyed the possibility of peacefully breaking away from Great Britain. If the British had been able to look at the colonists as equal, perhaps the colonists never would have felt so strongly about independence. The colonists thrived in a society built upon egalitarianism, and they expected respect from their brother in England. This expectation, and the failure of the British to comply with this expectation, drove a wall between the two countries, one that could not possibly have been repaired.

    These combined factors inevitably led to the American Revolution. With the large multitude of unhappy colonists, it was only a matter of time before the colonists pushed back. The “Founding Fathers” led the charge, and their leadership became a vital aspect of achieving independence. In “The Unknown American Revolution”, Gary B. Nash argues that the Revolution is too often told from the side of people such as John Adams, and that, in the words of John Green Whittier, “certain historical facts…have been quietly elbowed aside” (162). In addition, Whittier questions why “a whole nation [does] honor to the memories of one class of its defenders, to the neglect of another class, who had the misfortune to be of darker complexion?” (162). Nash agrees with Whittier by believing that the story of the American Revolution is more than the stories recorded by our founding fathers, and that instead, it is the story of farmers, slaves, the poor, and the unheard of. Still, without the strong leadership offered by these honorable men, the American Revolution might never have occurred, no matter how inevitable the cause was. What would the Constitution be without the writings of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison? What would have become to the Continental Army without the fearless leadership of George Washington? Would the Continental Congress been able to emerge successful if lacking these intellects? But of course, one can only speculate, and in the end, history cannot be changed.

    American Independence was always bound to happen. If conditions had been changed, the strategy to obtain independence would have been drastically different. Although the colonists were
    thriving in the Americas, British taxation and a sense of inequality led the colonists to feel betrayed. Had the British respected the colonies, and had the colonies better accepted the taxes, independence could have been peacefully accomplished after time. Strong leadership and an unbreakable American spirit proved successful in defeating the powerful empire created by Great Britain. Gary B. Nash reminds us that we must be “conscious of a complex past” and remember that “if the history we are making today is subject to human will, or what historians call human agency, then yesterday’s history must have been fluid and unpredictable rather than moving along some predetermined course” (164).

  11. DanielleF(B-B)
    9:13 pm - 9-27-2013

    The American Revolution surely was an inevitable war that would’ve happened eventually, if it hadn’t occurred when it had. After the French and Indian War, the British found a new sense of nationalism within them. This caused them to want more from their colonies in the Americas and gain more power. They took advantage of the colonists in a way and looked down upon them as a second-class society. In The American Revolution: Moderate or Radical?, colonists felt as if they were “treated, not as the fellow-subjects but as the servants of Britain” (151). They did not think that the British thought of them as equals. The British parliament also set in place the Stamp Act and other ways of taxation in the colonies to regain money from the Seven Years’ War. The colonists did not think this was fair or constitutional and anger built up within them. The stress on the colonies would have caused them to rebel against the British eventually and that is why the Revolutionary War was inevitable and bound to happen at some point in history.

  12. Garrett Chapell
    9:14 pm - 9-27-2013

    I think the revolution was bound to happen. You got angry colonists who are begging for freedom, and to get it they have to break there ties with the British. if the revolution did not happen, who knows what our nation would look like today. The British might be taxing us on toothpaste or coffee.The American colonists definitely took the bull by the horns on that one and got what they deserved…….freedom

  13. Andrew Sczepanski
    9:21 pm - 9-27-2013

    The revolution was bound to happen, due to the colonist quickly growing away from their mother country of Great Britain. The stamp and Sugar acts of 1764 and 1765 were one of the main reasons the colonists wanted to separate from Great Britain. If the acts were not passed the colonist might of still relied on Britain but instead it caused the protesting and rioting of the colonists. The protests soon led to the Boston Massacre, which was the killing of protesters in Boston. The protests soon lead to the Boston Tea Party and soon the war. IF the British never passed the Stamp and Sugar Acts the colonist might have stayed loyal and never have pushed for independence, but instead it was passed and it sparked the revolution and changed the world.

  14. samantha walker (bb)
    9:49 pm - 9-27-2013

    I believe that the American Revolution was not inevitable. The colonists, at first, were fine with British rule, but when taxes were introduced, such as the Stamp Act, the colonists wanted out. Ideas of independence began to spread, and so the revolution began. So, if Britain did not put so much pressure, with taxes, and gave the colonists more freedom, the American Revolution could have been avoided, or at least postponed. It is hard to say whether or not the thirteen colonies could have peacefully achieved independence, but I think that if other nations broke away from Britain, the thirteen colonies could have too. It might’ve been hard though because the colonies still depended on their mother country. If many of the acts such as the tea act, the stamp act, the quartering act, and the townshed acts were more lenient or could have been averted, the colonies might not have revolted and avoided things like the Boston Massacre and Lexington and Concord. These events could have helped to avoid the American Revolution, in all, and aided the colonies in a more peaceful independency.

  15. bbfcstrassner
    10:03 pm - 9-27-2013

    The American revolution was a long time due,with the large amounts of conflicts with the British and the constant growth of the American colonies it seemed that it was in fact their only option. The Sugar and Tea acts led to strong feelings of nationalism which was like fuel to the idea of a revolution. For me it was no question whether to have a revolution but when. Even before that the Proclamation of 1763 and all the wants and needs of the British seemed to just give more revolutionary ideas to the colonists. Also, with the Coercive Acts or “Intolerable Acts” as the colonists called them which were outrageous to the people of Boston where most of the protesting took place. With no ships able to be loaded or unloaded in Boston it almost cut them off from the rest of the colonies or at least was intended to do. During all this British government realized the inevitability of a revolution and passed the Quartering Acts to subdue militias and protests. This did little but make the colonists want to get away from their mother country to them it seemed Britain needed the colonies more than the colonies need Britain. Yes the Revolution was inevitable with the modernizations of the colonies and the booming economic plantations to the south and port cities to the north. It was not a question of a revolution or not but simply when, when would the colonies catch up to the superior British mother country.

  16. Kate Nagel
    11:43 pm - 9-27-2013

    The American Revolution was an event that was clearly outlined and a logical step for the Americans. The people that resided in the British colonies were generations and ocean apart from any connection with the British and the King. The people had their own market; they were developing their own dialects and had unique blending that made the Americans proud of their culture that was emerging. Combined with the British distain and holy then thou ideas to Americans the ties between the nations were quickly being severed. Many Americans pushed for independence, and many of the slights listed in the Declaration of Independence seem to be the King attempting to govern the colonies, which is normal for a state in subordination of another. However the Americans do not wish to be a subordinate any longer. Complaints such as “For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” Seem to be the King attempting to take back control of the colonies, and in response the colonies declared freedom. They moved from reliance on England to mainly self-rule and self-reliance and when their government was threatened they rose up. The colonists would not have stood for being kept under the English thumb again and the British would not have given up America lightly after all the profit that it brought England. The revolution was an inevitable step for the colonies and nothing else would have satisfied the people of America at the time.

  17. Rebecca Phelps
    11:46 pm - 9-27-2013

    Rebecca Phelps
    I believe the American Revolution was not revolutionary, only because I believe it was an inevitable evolution of the American people. The colonist started out dependent on the British, relying on them for basic needs. As time went on, the colonies matured and evolved causing them to long for independence, the American people “outgrew” Britain, and sought out their own independence. I believe the American Revolution was inevitable and necessary, the laws and oppression of Britain were simply superfluous for the self-reliant colonies; they had evolved. They no longer needed Britain to rule them. The colonies grew tired of Great Britain’s constant oppression and the feeling that the “English were systematically regulating Americans to second class standing within the empire.” (T. H. Breen, 152) Reverend Henry Cumings eloquently states “it was far from our intention or inclination to separate ourselves from Great-Britain; and that we had it not even in contemplation to set up for independency; but on the contrary, earnestly wished to remain connected with her, until she had deprived us of all hopes of preserving such a connection, upon any better terms than unconditional submission.” (T.H. Breen, 153) The American Revolution was not in fact revolutionary, but a mere evolution caused by the festering resentment towards the “repeated injuries and usurpations” (The American Revolution, 105) Great Britain caused the colonies.
    The American Revolution was indeed necessary, there had been such a “patient sufferance of these colonies” (The American Revolution, 105) they felt betrayed by Britain. The Tea and Stamp Acts were intolerable to the American Colonists and a constant reminder of their standing in the British Empire. “The source of anger was not so much the parliamentary taxation without representation as it was the sudden realization that the British really regarded white colonial Americans as second-class beings.” (T.H. Breen, 151) The enduring resentment the colonist felt towards the English lead to the progression of the movement for independence. However I do not believe that independence could have been achieved without the American Revolution, violence was necessary and “without their ideas, dreams, and blood sacrifices, the American Revolution would never have occurred, and would never have followed the course that we can now comprehend, and would never have reverberated around the world among oppressed people down to the present day.” (Gary B. Nash, 157) The American Revolution served as an inspiration to other countries, the revolutionaries “hoped [the American Revolution] would serve to instruct the generations to come.” (Gary B. Nash, 158)
    I believe the American Revolution was a process, fueled by the anger over inequality between the English and the colonists. The colonists were appalled by their “second class” status as citizens, and “their assault necessarily was as much social as it was political.” (Gordon S. Wood, 113) However they only considered revolution after the repeated mistreatment and Britain’s unequal policies. The American Revolution was not a rapid change, but a series of intolerable policies put in place by the British government that lead the colonists to resent England. “The American sense of humiliation slowly transformed itself into bemused reflection on having been pushed out of an empire that once seemed to guarantee liberty and prosperity.” (T.H. Breen, 153) Understanding these principals needed to be fought for if the colonists wanted the promised liberty and prosperity, and the gradual acceptance that Great Britain was only looking out for its own prosperity, not for the success of the colonies only added to the necessity of a revolution, to create a country independent from oppression and misrepresentation, where all men are created equal. The American Revolution was not revolutionary, it was the evolution of the principal of equality among all men, fueled by passion and necessity.

  18. MeghanJohnson (BB)
    11:58 pm - 9-27-2013

    The American Revolution was inevitable. Had Britain not introduced so many taxes and obscene requirements of the colonies then yes it is possible that the colonies could have stayed with the British a while longer and separated peacefully such as Canada and Australia did. For example if not for the outrageous taxes on things such as tea, the Boston Tea Party could have been avoided. Had the British never put the soldiers in place at Boston, perhaps they also could have avoided the Boston Massacre. The point is, as long as Britain kept Taxing the colonies, then yes, the American Revolution was inevitable.
    Some events that could have changed the way or nation was formed would be if the United States had never separated from Britain. Then we would still be a colony and our government would be completely different. The American Revolution would never have happened and we would probably be taking European history instead of American History. There would be no President, just a King in a distant country. That is how our country could have changed depending on the events in past history

  19. Michelle L
    12:06 am - 9-28-2013

    I believe that the Revolutionary war was indeed inevitable. There were many factors that could have eventually led to war. The colonists were just mere pawns of the British Empire. Great Britain only used the colonies to obtain natural resources and have a market for the goods they were creating to improve their own economy and not the colonies. This fact alone could eventually have driven colonists to rebel against their mother country because of their unfair treatment. I believe any country would rather have their own terrible government than have a foreign power in control. The country in control would not know exactly what the other country needs and would not care much as long as their own country is benefitting.
    The taxation could also be enough to push a country into war. Putting a tax on one of the most profitable things, tea, just so a nearly bankrupt company could regain some of its money, would make just about everybody angry. The stamp act included. Nobody would want these ridiculous taxes on their everyday items.
    There is a chance that the war could have been put off longer. If parliament eased up on taxes possibly but American unrest was growing. They felt as if Great Britain treated them as inferiors that should be treated without care. They were not a brotherhood of countries but a mother country with a lesser country. With the British military patrolling the streets they were pushed towards war. Therefore, it was in fact inevitable that there would be a war for freedom.

  20. mnanauo
    1:30 pm - 9-30-2013

    @Samantha Walker (bb)
    It was totally inevitable, which is owed to the rights that the colonists had come to enjoy. For the colonies to get off the ground, Britain had to leave the colonies alone to some extent. This gave the colonists a sense of independence, which was agglomerated by the fact that many of the colonists were I dependence minded to begin with, as they came seeking freedom from various ailments of Old World society. So it was inevitable that the colonist would take this next step and seek total Indendence. It the stamp acts and such were not put in place, the colonies would still have had to generate revenue In some way, so there was no logical way for Britain to not tax the colonies without bankrupting the mother country, so these acts in themselves were somewhat inevitable.

  21. Kyle Andrews
    1:33 pm - 9-30-2013

    @samantha walker (bb)
    Basing the entire idea off of whether or not Britain simply would have pitied the colonies is irrelevant. The colonies had liitle control over the outcomes of the various taxes that were passed to begin with. The king was never bargaining mood, ask yourself, what was the original purpose of the colonies? The original purpose was to use the colonies in a mercantilistic manner. What was Columbus looking for? A path to India. The original purpose is clearly defined and within the hierarchy of England it is easy to see why they would want to keep the colonies for that purpose. Even today there are countries using exports and imports to benefit their country. It is something that has been happening for a long time. Point being all the taxes issued by his majesty were by no means could not have been averted the colonists had no means besides war to avoid it and Britain was never going to relinquish it’s grasp on the colonists without a fight.

  22. dakotahirsch
    4:35 pm - 9-30-2013

    (@ samantha walker)
    Although the revolution may have been able to be prevented or postponed, the issues that you suggested that resulted in the revolution were a result of the larger issue for Britain…debt. The debt that was associated with providing food, clothing, supplies, etc for any of Britain’s troops stationed in both the U.S. and in Europe during this struggle all added up to create a rather large National debt for Britain. This is what sparked the various taxes that were implemented on the colonies. To add to the issue, the more the colonists showed discontent and rebellious acts upon the British soldiers for instance, the more Britain wanted to retain their control over the colonies by making life much more miserable for the colonists. Considering the war was not the easiest of accomplishments ever to be achieved by Britain, nor the cheapest, it would be hard to say that the debt they did have after the war could have been of a lesser degree. Therefore, the question still remains whether or not Revolution truly was inevitable.

  23. allielacey
    9:00 pm - 9-30-2013

    @samantha walker (bb)
    Considering the fact that the American Revolution could have been postponed or prevented, or that our independence could have been won in a more peaceful manner, which you made a very good illustration of, the colonies were not at ease with the British even before the French and Indian War and at the time when all of the British taxes were imposed onto the colonists. The struggles and conflicts between the colonies and Britain did not first emerge when the British imposed all the harsh taxes upon the colonists. The feelings of independence and freedom was spoken about even before the time of the French and Indian War, and this sense of freedom and democracy was something that first came about during the time of John Locke and the Enlightenment Era. In the long run, the colonists did initially go to America hoping to find a sense of freedom and independence from something that the British was holding back from them. Whether that reason be for the freedom of religion or just to get a fresh start, I believe that the colonists went in search of freedom right from the beginning, and those feelings of freedom and independence from whatever their initial motive was fueled the fire that they held on the issue of independence from Britain at this time. However, the colonists did form harsh views of the British and their government power over the colonies, and at times the colonists did express their feelings in vulgar and unfair ways, but they did get their point across. Whether we fought for our freedom in such a harsh way or whether we waited until a time when a peaceful agreement could be made by both countries involved, those feelings and desires for freedom were still present from the beginning. Due to the circumstances and acts thrust upon the colonists by the British, I believe that the colonists acted on this issue at a very appropriate time considering all the things going on around them.

  24. Rebecca Phelps
    9:52 pm - 9-30-2013

    I feel like the majority of students concur on the inevitability of the American Revolution, however there are two sides of it and I feel both have sufficient evidence to support them. As Samantha Walker stated “if Britain did not put so much pressure, with taxes, and gave the colonists more freedom, the American Revolution could have been avoided, or at least postponed.” We all acquiesce to some extent that Britain’s taxation contributed to the colonist’s necessity for change. The taxes Britain implemented such as the Tea Act, Stamp Act and Coercive Acts were too much for the Americans to take, making change a necessity. Whether or not the change Americans desired could have occurred without violence will never be known, but the course of action leading to that change I believe correlates directly to the individuals in authority at the time. If the British would have negotiated a compromise with the Americans perhaps conflict could have been avoided, however if other actions were taken perhaps a completely inconceivable outcome would have resulted. We all concur that change was a necessity to the American people, they did not feel their interests were adequately represented and understood that without some form of change they would continue to be viewed as “second class citizens” by the British. The American Revolution proved that the colonists were not inferior to the British and they fought for their rights as human beings.
    Sean Donovan mentioned individuals such as Paul Revere, who used propaganda to portray his aversion of British oppression to the masses. This is one technique revolutionaries used to gain support for the patriot cause, accompanied by the feelings of resent already existing among colonists. The collaboration of angry colonists, anti-British propaganda, intolerable taxes implemented by the British, and the inferiority the British viewed the colonists with all prove the inevitability of the American Revolution. And as Garrett Chapell states “if the revolution did not happen, who knows what our nation would look like today” the concept creates quite the conundrum, what would become of the United States if the American Revolution did not happen quite as it did, what if other individuals were placed in power and destructive decisions were implemented? I believe that in this case violence was necessary to bring about a positive change. I believe the American Revolution was inevitable and the proper measures were taken to bring about the necessary changes.

  25. Mr. Muhlenkamp
    10:20 am - 10-1-2013

    I think Sam makes an interesting point about the inevitability of the Revolution. (I know, Mr. Muhlenkamp to the rescue.) I think that by saying the revolution was not actually inevitable you are saying that it is truly revolutionary, which I believe is the case. There are a few points I’d make to support the claim.
    1.During the French and Indian War the Colonist fought on the side of the British and most were proud to be British Subjects. It was the taxation without representations that really drove the colonists over the edge.
    2.Had Britain not responded to the Tea Party with the Intolerable Acts and had realized the frustration of the colonist I think things would have been different.
    3.Had the militia not responded to the British attempt to seize munitions with battle (Lexington and Concord) things may not have escalated. Remember the munitions had already been moved.
    4.It took a near miracle to get the delegates to pass the Declaration of Independence. First Richard Henry Lee asked for the resolution to be tabled to allow Adams and Franklin to try to get the necessary votes. If they would have voted for it in June of 1776 it may not have passed. When it comes time to actually vote South Carolina only votes yes because no one votes no. A Delaware Delegate is recalled to ensure a yes vote, New York abstains and they ask a delegate from Pennsylvania (John Dickinson) to not show up the day of the vote because he is a Quaker and cannot support war. Mind you this was also after the King rejected the Olive Branch petition. It is safe to say if any of those things had not happened the Declaration of Independence would have never been approved.
    5.The Americans nearly lost the war on multiple occasions and in order for the Revolution to be complete the Americans had to win. Otherwise it would have been known as an infamous failed rebellion attempt.
    6.The whole concept of Revolting against Britain, the most powerful nation in the world, was truly revolutionary. Not to mention we were the only country to ever win independence from Britain through war.
    Now I realize that this is a lot of speculation and conjecture (what ifs) but I think it’s important to recognize how easily things could have been much differently.

  26. drcommanderpudz
    10:21 am - 10-1-2013

    @DanielleF(B-B). You seem to have mistaken something, the British didn’t chose to tax the colonies because of a sense of nationalism. King George decided to tax the colonist because he felt that his people in Britian had enough financial pressure on them and he saw that the British solders were protecting the colonist. He saw that it was the duty and privilege of the colonists to help repay the debts that the British had accumulated while fighting for the colonies protection and also the safety of the colonists themselves.

  27. Michelle L
    6:06 pm - 10-1-2013

    @Sam Walker
    I agree to some extent that the war could have potentially been prevented. The taxes did push the colonists over the edge. But there is a chance that if these taxes were eased up they could have had a more peaceful separation. If they were even given a chance to take part in parliament then they would have been happy with their representation and would have no real reasoning against the taxes.

    @Kate Nagel
    I do agree that there was a small chance America could have separated peacefully, I agree more with that fact that colonists were beginning to have a separate identity than that of the British. Americans are stubborn and do not like to follow rules and would not be under anyone elses rule but their own.

  28. Michaela Kenward (BB)
    7:17 pm - 10-1-2013

    (@Garrett Chapell)
    You pointed out the fact that if we were still under British rule nowadays, we could be taxed on simple everyday commodities, such as coffee or toothpaste. Yet, today, we are not under British rule, and are we not in fact taxed? Taxes are entirely necessary in order to have a stable economy. Taxes are used in order to fund national defense, health care, food stamps, and others. Of course, food is essential to survival and most is not taxable in our society. A great example, however, is gas. In America, there’s an 18.4 cent federal tax, on top of a state tax, for each gallon of gas. This tax helps to sustain the public highway transportation system. Without this system, roads would be in poor condition, and neither good nor people could be transported across the country. Although there is opposition to this tax, there is a general understanding that it’s necessary in order to maintain our country. The taxes placed upon the colonies were not necessarily the problem. Rather, the problem was the level of unfairness of the taxes, in addition to many other underlying pressing issues. In school, the cause of the American Revolution is often taught broadly to be the taxes imposed upon the colonists. In reality, the situation was much more complex and intricate.

  29. Michaela Kenward (BB)
    7:18 pm - 10-1-2013

    @ Kyle Andrews
    The term mercantilist manner is used in an awfully negative way. However, mercantilism should not be viewed as all bad. When we look back on the policy of mercantilism in history, it’s typically defined as a political system in which one country is benefiting, and ignoring the needs of the country which they are exporting. This proves true when analyzing the situations of both India and multiple African countries. One could argue, however, that mercantilism can be beneficial to the colony as well. Even the American colonists thrived in their new homeland, and were supported by the British in certain aspects of life. There were unfair policies and taxes as well, but the Great Britain provided a market for colonial goods to be sold. It’s very possible to presume that, under different conditions, the colonists could have gained independence peacefully. Australia and Canada both achieved independence from Great Britain at some point, without excessive fighting. Had the colonists wanted independence further down the road, it’s highly possible that Great Britain could have given up control of their mercantilist grip. They also, in time, could have discovered that the Americas were no longer useful or worth the effort to rule. Countries today still use the policy of mercantilism, including the United States, which controls Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Isles, to name a few. This does not mean that these countries are unfairly ruled, or that the American people only use them for their own selfish needs. In the future, these present day colonies too could achieve independence. Whether they achieve this peacefully or through rebellion, one can only presume. For all we know, though, these countries are thriving and perfectly content with remaining colonies. Independence is not always the answer; in the case of the Americans, it happened to become the answer, but many events could have easily changed that answer.

  30. Sean O'Donovan
    8:30 pm - 10-1-2013

    @drcommanderpudz That may have been how King George put it in his defense, but I will have to say I disagree. The British were not truly protecting the colonists, but their successful American economy/empire. We can not forget that the British had practically dominated the American economy after their victories in the Seven Years War, which also led to some anti-American feelings from the British troops, who saw the colonists as un-educated and below them. King George most likely wanted to preserve that economic success the British empire fought so much for in the many years before it. When the American Revolution commenced, they expected a small rebellion (mentioned in my last blog) that could be subdued in a small amount of time, like the various other assaults on the British colonial empire. It just happened to turn out that the American Revolution was the straw that broke the camel’s back, if you will allow me to use an idiom. The King was focused on the economic growth, and did not think of the consequences of mistreating other nations, Native Americans, and the colonists.

  31. Garrett Chapell
    9:22 pm - 10-1-2013

    @samantha walker

    The revolution was inevitable period. once the colonists got some leeway from the red coats, they wanted more and more. Its like getting bullied by a bigger kid except its a strong nation using the weaker American colonists for granite. there is always conflict between people or nations when something is wanted.

  32. Matt Hilbert
    10:52 pm - 10-1-2013

    @Kate Nagel

    I most certainly agree with what Kate is saying. And I will add a few Ides to her purpose and statement. Not only was there a geographical difference but more and more colonists were think of themselves as an American. Also the colonists, on average, were doing more physical work and started to have almost a genetic difference between them. The colonist were beginning to be taller on average and there were some other physical characteristics beginning to surface and show themselves. So not only were there differences purely cultural and based on ideas, but starting to have physical differences, which I feel, make the revolution even more inevitable.

  33. Matt Hilbert
    11:01 pm - 10-1-2013


    While I think are most certainly correct on the inevitability of the revolt I think there are some aspects that are not as prevalent. First, Britain didn’t really leave the colonists to their own devices. If things got a tad out of hand in the British eyes, they took away the self government and kind of took over for the colonists. Also, I don’t think Britain would have let the colonies go any more easily. They were the most powerful (militarily) country in the world at that time. Why not use it? Yes, maybe expensive, but there is a lot of land and possible lucrative business over the pond. (I know I’m going into the future here), but it took a lot for the British to unhand India and its people. So I really don’t think they would ever let go of these colonies that they owned so easily.

  34. Andrew Sczepanski
    6:36 pm - 10-2-2013

    @Garrett Chapell
    I would just like to point out that even though were not ruled by the British, were still being taxed on everyday items. but i do agree with the fact that independence was bound to happen, the colonists were fed up with the treatment they were receiving from the British and they had to do something about it and that was to start a push for independence and start a revolution.

  35. Jake Rada
    6:37 pm - 10-2-2013

    @Andrew Sczepanski
    While I agree on the fact that the American Revolution was an imminent and foreseeable event, I do not agree on the fact that the Sugar and Stamp Acts were the only main points of contention between the Colonists and British crown. There was a little over a decade of the colonists voicing their opinion of the unfair and unjust representation in government. The Proclamation of 1763 was made without any of the colonies consent or knowledge. The Stamp and Sugar Acts were also not the direct cause of the Boston Massacre as this event occurred in 1770, while both of those acts occurred about 3 years earlier.
    The British were relying on the colonies as their economic powerhouse to help propel them through the up coming years as the world power. There was little thought of the French being consumed by a revolution, so the British needed to have the best of everything to compete against them. The colonies had already shown themselves as a self-sufficient group of people, and the British wanted to exert their authority over them by showing that they were still in command. So no, I don’t believe that there would have been mutual cooperation even if the Sugar and Stamp Act had been vetoed or removed, as the very thought of the taxation without representation was frightening and angering to the Colonists.

  36. Jake Rada
    7:10 pm - 10-2-2013

    While the revolution was certainly inevitable, it was not the sense of nationalism that prompted them into the taxation of the colonies. The cost of the French and Indian War, and the protection of all their assets in the Americas put a tremendous strain on their economy. While true that the people in the colonies were treated as second class citizens, the taxes weren’t created to punish them for being second class citizens.

  37. samantha walker (bb)
    7:32 pm - 10-2-2013

    Even though colonists had “a sense of independence”, they could have gone about achieving this independence differently. The colonists could have attained a more peaceful approach in the journey to independence. Collective meetings could have been held to discuss options in their advancements towards autonomy. Even with the taxes put on the colonists by Britain they still could have responded more peacefully and less in a belligerent way. So in a way, the American Revolution was “totally” not inevitable.
    @Kyle Andrews
    I’m not saying “Britain would have simply pitied the colonies”, I was trying to say Britain could have handled things in a different fashion. I know Britain had to tax the colonies with little choice. But in a way the colonies obviously did have some control over it because they did revolt, and the American Revolution, so hence forth, occurred. I do not understand why you asked “what was the original purpose of the colonies?”. I do not see how that relates to this topic. Yes, Columbus wanted to find a new pathway to India, thank for verifying. The colonists made the decision to go to war, but they did not have to. It truly was up to the colonies and how they reacted to these taxes.
    Yes, Britain was in debt, but the colonists did not have to acknowledge the taxes in the procedure in which they did. Also by Britain agreeing to go to war with the colonies put the British into even more debt. So it is safe to say that Britain would have been better off not going to war and attempting to constitute reconciliation with the colonies.
    I realize “the colonies were not at ease with the British” and independence was already an intention in their minds, but the taxes on the colonists were what truly sparked the ideas. Colonists understood that now was the time to break away from the mother country. If their issues were presented by this “peaceful agreement”, then they would not have had to worry about independence anymore, and would have just been able to obtain it. Or better yet, the taxes could have been less severe and more reasonable and Britain could have given the colonists a right to speak out their political views of the issue at hand.
    It legitimately is hard to say what “could have”, “should have” or “would have” happened if things had gone a little differently. But all in all, history is the past and there really is no way of knowing if the outcome of things would have been different, if other actions were taken. Some of the points in stating the American Revolution was inevitable are valid, but also can be viewed the other way.

  38. Sean O'Donovan
    8:26 pm - 10-2-2013

    @Michaela Kenward I think you have many valid points, The story of the American Revolution often overlooks the perspectives of those “behind the scenes” of the Revolution, and therein lies the story of those who may have not even supported the Revolution. We cannot simply forget that an estimated 20% of the colonists were still loyal to Britain, and their side of the story is simply discarded when the average person thinks of the American Revolution. There is solid evidence for each side of the current argument, and when I disagree with you about the destiny or lack thereof the American Revolution, but I believe that it is a matter of which point of view is being used, and the evidence looked at for that cause.

  39. Kate Nagel
    11:04 pm - 10-2-2013

    @ Datkotahirsch, to your reply @ Samatha Walker
    I do concur that the biggest issue for the British was paying off the war debt, and that the colonists rage by the heavy taxation was a significant player in the course of the uprising. However, I do think that the British were not particularly concerned with the Colonists discontent; they only reacted to the anger once the colonists made a statement and deprived England from funds. I also believe that the British had no wish to make “life much more miserable for the colonies”, they simply wanted money to pay off what they viewed as a debt accumulated at the benefit of the colonist, by the British soldiers fighting a war on the continent of North America, with little gain to the. There is no indication that the British, although they held an attitude of superiority to the American, had any cruel intentions towards them or desire to make them unhappy. The colonists, who had enjoyed significant freedom until the taxation to raise funs to pay the war debt, were unable to abide and were too proud of their own heritage and culture by that point to allow something they had been free of for generations.

  40. Kate Nagel
    11:15 pm - 10-2-2013

    @ Rebecca Phelps
    I agree completely that the tensions between the Americans and the British were extremely high and that the Americans had little incentive to settle back down peacefully under English rule. I think you make an excellent point in stating that the leadership of the colonies throughout the Revolution and all events proceeding and following is a strong point on how and why the United States developed as it did. Without the leadership of the delegate in the Congressional Congresses, the individual states may have split apart or the revolution may not have been successful and instead a rebellion that was quickly crushed by the British troops because the Americans did not work together and cooperate. Leaders are a key point in how the young United States formed and developed.

  41. bbfcstrassner
    11:31 pm - 10-2-2013

    @samantha walker
    I disagree respectfully entirely with the idea that the American revolution was not needed that we could have kept living under British rule. You do have some good points but they themselves could not steer me a way from my opinion that the Americans were rising up and beyond the Britons and could not be held down. The Americans overall were becoming a superior group of people with their ability to adapt to surroundings and bring ideas from all over the world into a dynamic culture all together.

  42. bbfcstrassner
    11:44 pm - 10-2-2013

    @Garrett Chapell
    Though I agree with the basic ideas of your response and most details I disagree in the fact that you believe “the angry colonists were begging for freedom” where in fact yes there were angry colonists but there were also loyalists in the colonies and people who just didnt want to be on their own. So yes partially I agree but can not agree in the fact that they were begging to me back then they didnt even know what they wanted they just wanted to do what was best for them and at that time they honestly had no idea what was gonna happen

  43. mnanauo
    10:49 am - 10-3-2013

    The British were just trying to protect the colonists, and for their effort they were rewarded with rebellion. The British were forced to “bully” the colonists because the colonists were being so rebellious. I mean if I tarred and feathered you, you would trust me a lot less. And the proclamation 1763 was passed to keep peace between the colonists and the natives. Th British were trying to keep peaceful relations with the colonists but the colonists made that impossible.

  44. drcommanderpudz
    11:23 am - 10-3-2013

    Sadly the British were not trying to keep peaceful relations but were trying to humble and remind the colonist who was in charge.

  45. mnanauo
    1:12 pm - 10-3-2013

    The colonists needs to be reminded who was in charge, goin and throwin tea in the harbor :P

  46. drcommanderpudz
    10:37 am - 10-7-2013

    I agree entirely :P

  47. allie zambito
    11:04 am - 11-4-2013

    Clearly Andrew Jackson should be viewed as a villain as opposed to hero of American history. Even before his presidency, Jackson was known for his irritability and violence particularly with his involvement in duels,stabbings, and bloody frays. Once his presidency began he was also responsible for several corrupt and unfair policies such as, the Spoils System in which political supporters who donated large sums of money and endorsed a party were given political office, rather than having offices given to citizens based on ability. He was also in charge of a series of tariffs and bills beginning with the tariff of Abominations which heavily increased tariffs on goods, taking an extreme toll on the southern and leaving them feeling as though they were “stuck with the bill” for the entire nation. Following the abomination tariff, the compromise tariff of 1833 was passed which gradually reduced the high tariffs however, they were still extremely high. Then the force bill also known as the “bloody bill” , which authorized the president to use the army and navy, if necessary, to collect federal tariffs which further upset many southern states. Even after all his sad attempts, not one of Jacksons tariffs were ever beneficial to the nation as a whole. Following his tariffs he began initiating the process of expanding westward through inhumane policies such as, the Indian Removal Act. Congress passed this in 1830 allowing the heartless uprooting of all Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi. For the following decades after the removal act, countless indians died on forced marches along the Trail of Tears all because of Andrew Jackson. How could anyone view Andrew Jackson as a hero when nearly all his policies had negative effects on masses of people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>