>they were taxed far less than others in europe
they were facing being taxed double though. they already paid taxes to their colonial governments/assemblies, and then parliament was asserting its absolute right to tax them.
>Per capita wealth was higher in New England, and wealth was more evenly distributed, making them amongst the wealthiest people on Earth
yea they were rich, but rich people tend to be the ones who object the most to taxation. same group revolted against ship tax in the english civil war.
>The British monopoly on trade with America meant they would always have a market for their cattle, ships, agricultural produce, and the like
they would have had a market regardless, proven by history. if the british monopoly was good for the colonies financially then smuggling would not have been profitable
>Lord North offered them the ability to control their own taxation provided they actually funded their own services, institutions, and civil authorities
i'd like to hear more about this. all i can recall right now is when parliament repealed the townshend acts, it asserted its right to tax the colonies however it saw fit.
>They had their own representative assemblies in Massachusetts, Philadelphia and elsewhere
yea and the colonists realized these assemblies were better at anticipating and meeting their needs than an assembly across the sea.
>They had more religious freedom than anywhere else in the Empire
the revolution wasn't really about religion.
>>The British had a vested interest in keeping them, as they were a subsidiary to the immensely profitable sugar islands
the main cause of the revolt was chasing the french off of the continent completely. should've left the frogs some token territories so the colonists had something to fear and a desire for the king's protection.
i think with america in the commonwealth the world would be a much better place, but thats not what happened