Why did Britain lose the war over America's independence???

The riddler

Yesterday was independance day and it got me wondering why Britain losed the war for American independance. I've never really heard the full story behind it, at the time the British empire had the most powerful military ever known so it confuses me to how the American colonists won.

Any ideas???

TubbaBlubba

They got tea abstinence after their tea was dumped into the ocean.

Topher925

Basically it was because of the support from the french and different war tactics that the army had never seen before. Sort of like guerrilla war but with muskets.

arildno

That is a premise of doubtful accuracy.

The East India Company, for example, was a private enterprise, with its own fleet&mercenaries, not a compliant extension of the British Crown. The British state didn't take the reins of India before the establishment of the Raj in 1857 or so.

Thus, that the British Crown had a lot of resources is something that has to be shown, rather than assumed.

Dadface

I think the Americans cheated

arildno

Besides, Norwegian claims to superiority over those lands have been consistently ignored for 1000 years. USA and Canada are Norwegian lands we have not granted independence.

Have no fears, though, we are working towards a, preferably, diplomatic solution to this injustice.

Astronuc

Happy 4th, arildno!

arildno

The same to you, Astronuc!
I do nourish hopes, though, to convert you to celebrate the 17th of May instead..

Jimmy Snyder

I thought it was because the British wore bright red with a white X marks the spot.

Astronuc

Yes - the red coats did make it easier to spot targets.

Astronuc

I'll put it on my calendar for next year and there after. Allow me to wish you a belated Happy 17th of May, National Day of Norway!

FGI - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit...e_constitution

AUK 1138

Because, they were unable to match the colonist's cajones level.

arildno

On a lighter note, dispensing for the moment with serious discussion of the crucial political importance of testicle size (thanks to AUK), it is worth noting that as a result of the all-european seven-years war, Britain was a victor of sorts (1755-62), but with a drained treasury (France was also ruined).
ONe of the British Crown's attempts to fill the coffers was to introduce revenue-raising schemes like the Stamp Act, that fuelled the ire of the colonists in the Americas.
Previously, taxation had been fairly light, as an inducement for colonization, I think.
The political balance that the colonists had minimal political representation, but also minimal taxation level, was upset by these tax-raising schemes the Crown regarded as necessary.
Thus, that the British Crown had huge resources to set in against the Americans is fairly doubtful, and coupled with a natural hesitancy to be swift&severe towards "fellow Britons" (in contrast, say, with British behaviour in India) made the British reaction against the independence movement rather feeble.

Astronuc

Adding to arildno's comments, I think there were a number of factors, including geography (the British Empire was over extended), economics, politics (the American colonists were highly motivated to break political ties), and military (strategic and tactical).

An interesting backstory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

England experienced its own internal and local turmoil, as did the continental powers. The 17th and 18th centuries were marked by rapidly changing political situations. The traditional regal/imperial systems were being replaced by more democratic systems.

Interesting point here - " . . . with estimates of 10,000 prisoners not surviving or not returning home (8,000 captured during and immediately after the Battle of Worcester were deported to New England, Bermuda and the West Indies to work for landowners as indentured labourers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English...War#Casualties

England's legal system was rather harsh. Small infractions of civil or criminal law were met with deportation, and in the extreme, captial punishment (execution). People who escaped to the colonies were certainly not bound to the system.

Don't forget, Canada, Australia and New Zealand eventually established some sort of indepedence from England.

arildno

Yes, we cannot underestimate that:
1. THe Americans had reached a level of prosperity, and hence, a level of self-confidence that made alternative political arrangements thinkable.

2. The Enlightenment movement, with its ideas of popular control of the government made the yoke of the far-away Government seem much more onerous than when the King was, for all practical matters, a deified figure.

The Civil War certainly removed some of the glamour around the King, but it can't be regarded as a major direct factor, I think, for developments a century later.

Astronuc

There was a confluence of socio-political trends.

One aspect of the Civil War was the depletion of the King's treasury, and I don't believe the royal treasury really recovered. It also put pressure on the social system, which was quite punitive, which IMO eroded the social fabric.

I think it also interesting the impact of sending 'criminals' to the colonies. Once they served their indenture, they were free, and certainly were not supportive of the crown or the crowns institutions in the colonies.

I prefer to look at history as a continuum in which all upstream effects determine to some extent what happens downstream.

Had the kings (and queens) (English in the case at hand) behaved differently, history could/would have been quite different.

arildno

Well, Australia was the archetypical prison convict colony of Britain, whereas the Americas were not.
Australia is still part of the Commonwealth, and real political independence came there much later than for the US.

Petty thiefs do not make great leaders (not even for each other!), but landholders and puritan preachers do..

So, although I agree that history must be understood along numerous time-scales, I remain doubtful if colonies of convicts are breeding grounds for effective independence movements.

It is an interesting assertion, though, that deserves an empirical examination.