What does Sup Forums know about the American Revolution?

What does Sup Forums know about the American Revolution?

something about tea.

something about tea and taxes

1776-1783

Quebec Act was one of the "Intolerable Acts" that started it.

America lost.

god's chosen people won over the inbred savages in the end thanks to best friend france

something about kościuszko and his military forts in america and that pulawski sacriface to save george washingtons ass

And that the US Cavalry was founded by a Polish emigre who fled the partitions.

few wealthy Americans didn't want to pay taxes, terrorist organisation known as Sons of Liberty destroyed government property, then they made up some overblown slanders about Boston """massacre""", then the war broke up, Frenchmen and Spaniards did all the heavy lifting (the larges battle of the war was the Siege of Gibraltar), Britain gave up because America really wasn't worth it, USA didn't even bother to help France during their Revolution

Perfidious Albion tried to ram huge Jew taxes on the colonies which had no Parliamentary representation. There were other factors too such as the British mercantilist system, which meant that colonies could not produce manufactured goods except for domestic use, all imports from Europe had to pass through British ports first, and also the colonies in the South were directed by London to produce specific cash crops like tobacco and cotton. They did not have a choice in what they could plant, and they were not allowed to sell their crops in continental Europe, even if the prices were better there.

After the acquisition of the trans-Appalachian West in 1763, London also forbade colonists to settle there as the region was to be kept an Indian reserve as a reward for their help against the French. This also did not go over well.

>USA didn't even bother to help France during their Revolution
And we were going to take on Britain/Austria/Prussia with our 4000 man army, no navy, and no money how?

They were very naughty boys.

Another thing to consider is that the first two Georges were very weak, figurehead monarchs who didn't even speak English. They exercised very little power and Parliament had complete control in their reigns. George III however wanted to reassert royal power.

It was WWI for Britain; they fought alone against the whole world and lost.

Really pretty dumb reason if you consider what the point of the QA was.

>After the acquisition of the trans-Appalachian West in 1763, London also forbade colonists to settle there as the region was to be kept an Indian reserve as a reward for their help against the French.

very interesting

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION (fuck da police)

wat

Yes...the colonists figured that they won that clay with their blood, so it was complete bull that they couldn't settle it.

It was a war between Britain and France. The Eternal Baguette used the Americans in the hope that Britain would divert the Royal Navy to North America and crush the rebellion, instead they stayed in the channel and bullied the French until they went bankrupt.

America got independence, France got blown the fuck out and Britain remained top cat for over a century, occasionally having to deal with the jealous baguettes throwing stones at us and trying to get everyone to stop buying our shit.

Don't forget it was funded by Jewish money lenders, retarded liberal constitution that destroyed any hopes of homogeneous European extension state.

The Quebec Act was an extremely enlightened (for the time) decision by Parliament that they would not attempt to forcibly Anglicize the French-Canadian population, and instead they would be allowed to keep their language and Catholicism. Also Quebec's borders were extended down to the Great Lakes. So nothing wrong with that. Problem was that Americans were POed at having this alien, Catholic population next door to them.

During the Revolution, they also got the even more amazingly dumb idea that the Quebecois were being enslaved and oppressed by London and that they would welcome the Continental Army as liberators. Well, they didn't and the attempted invasion of Canada in 1775-76 totally fell apart.

You mean to tell me the French believed the RN would all go off to North America and leave England totally exposed so they could then invade it?

Wow.

>American defending the British giving oui-oui's their clay

I never thought I'd see the day...

Given how things turned out later, maybe forcibly Anglicizing Quebec wasn't so bad of an idea.

It wasn't so much about taxes as it was about representation and the maturity of the colonies. Perhaps it could have been avoided had there been a Statute of Westminster in the 1770s.

Not necessarily invade but they wanted to split up the fleet. It would have been impossible to take on the Royal Navy directly so by getting them to send a bunch of ships to America they would have had a chance.

Except it failed because Britain only sent a few ships to America while keeping the bulk of the fleet in the north sea and in the channel, effectively denying the French the ability to do anything at sea.

It was basically the whole reason France helped America, I doubt they even cared about your freedoms, they just wanted to be a thorn in Britain's side. It's the same reason Britain and Portugal maintained a good friendship, it benefitted Britain to have a close ally next to a hostile Spain and it benefitted Portugal to have protected trade and sovereignty.

>I doubt they even cared about your freedoms, they just wanted to be a thorn in Britain's side
Pretty much this, especially given that it would soon thereafter be toppled by the similar French Revolution.

I hardly know any details about America's history before the 20th century.

>1776-1783: independence from Britain
>1780s to 1850s: North industrializes with the South's help
>1860: we assume the largest GDP in the world
>1861-1865: South chimps out over slavery, Civil War and eternal butthurt ensues
>1850s-1890: Wild West
>1898: Spanish-American War, we gain the remnants of the Spanish Empire and become somewhat relevant for the first time

Sort of. After the war, the French also became unfriendly to the US and erected trade barriers to their exports. As things would have it, France preferred a weak US that could be a thorn in Britain's side, but not strong enough to challenge them.

>It wasn't so much about taxes as it was about representation and the maturity of the colonies
This is true. Benjamin Franklin had said that London completely failed to recognize growing American nationalism. The removal of French North America in 1763 also emboldened the colonies as they no longer felt that they needed the mother country to protect them from French invasion.

We were Frenchboos in the beginning, though. We would have been the second ever country to adopt the metric system were it not for the Quasi-War.

they gave you a sexy statue

Thanks

*Pułaski

Despite all odds we managed to single handedly btfo the largest empire of all time.

>single handedly

The population of the colonies was also growing by leaps and bounds; Samuel Johnson expressed mild horror at the average 6 kids that Americans were having. One reason for this was the very low age people married, typically 18-19 which meant more years of fertility (the average age of marriage in Western Europe then was about 28). Single women in the colonies were rare and an unmarried woman of 21 was considered an old maid.

Not that Europeans were having less sex, but the mushrooming American population had as much to do with better sanitation--the wide open spaces of America meant for healthier living conditions than the crowded European cities and thus fewer disease pandemics. Thus, lower infant and child mortality.

Probably better diet too. Although American food was often bland and monotonous, it was more plentiful, especially as far as meat was concerned, than anywhere in Europe. Hunger was only a problem for the lazy or physically disabled.

>The British didn't want Washington and told him to fuck off when he applied
>He was the 1776 version of trump where he was so assblasted at obama (King George III) that he rallied the people against him
>A bunch of rich assholes that didn't want to pay their fair share of the tax burden decided to incit the plebs into rebellion
>After years of getting pounded by the British and losing every major engagement they enlist the help of their butthurt patterns in asshurt, the french
>France literally bankrupts itself fighting the British so soon after 1763
>Britain finally gives up and calls it a day
>Washington goes on to fuck niggers and act like a king all because daddy George didn't want his ass in the army

Also most of the Loyalist cowards who wouldn't fight for freedom ran off north. We call their descendants "Canadians".

I recommend you watch Mel Gibson's "The Patriot". Pretty good documentary about the war.

Good b8, but would work better if all the Bongs weren't asleep now.

>A bunch of rich assholes that didn't want to pay their fair share of the tax burden decided to incit the plebs into rebellion
>their fair share
How much of the product of another persons labor is "your fair share"?

...

Don't forget
>1840s-1900s: massive German immigration, making German the single largest ethnicity in the USA

Anglos are actually still on top all muh heritaging aside, but in any case you are right that German was often spoken alongside English right up until the First World War.

The colonies in 1775 were a mosaic of all different nationalities--English, Scots-Irish, Scottish Highlanders, Irish, Germans, Dutch, blacks, etc. Many of them felt no particular loyalty to Britain, especially Germans. A whole bunch of Hessian mercenaries during the war also deserted and decided to make their home in America.

>A bunch of rich assholes that didn't want to pay their fair share of the tax burden decided to incite the plebs into rebellion

The way the British ran the American economy was shit. Britain wanted, like in India, for the Thirteen Colonies to produce only raw resources and did NOT want crafted goods to be created the colonies lest they out compete goods made in the home isles.

So if a man like Washington wanted some high quality tools or furniture he'd have to:
>Send an order form to Britain
>Wait for that letter to be received
>Pay a ridiculous shipping fee to the trade companies
>Item gets shipped to the American colonies
>It gets there almost a year later
>High probability that the voyage across the sea wrecked the shit they ordered

There was also a ban on Americans selling their raw goods to other Americans, they legally were supposed to ship all their raw goods to Britain and order raw goods from America from those scam trade companies in Britain.

As you could guess this pissed people off to no end and created a giant black market.

Then the British did the stupidest shit they could have done to British subjects, they gave all of the American spoils in the Seven Years' War to their new fucking French Canadian subjects.

American individualism had a lot to do with the loose, unregulated nature of colonial life and the fact that there was endless wilderness to run off to. This was a lot different from Europe where one might live in the same village as his ancestors 500 years earlier. In that environment, people tended to question authority less.

Like I said, they wouldn't let the colonies export manufactured goods; those could only be used for domestic consumption so as to not compete with Britain's native industries. They also required the South to only produce tobacco, cotton, and sugar, none of which could be sold to foreign countries. The colonies had no banks either and most currency consisted of quaint Spanish gold and silver coins. And finally, manufactured goods from Europe first had to go to a British port where customs dues were collected before they could be shipped to America.

The colonies had almost no ability to wage war in 1775; their tiny industrial capacity wasn't able in the slightest to equip an army. Soldiers had no uniforms, no powder, no muskets, no cannons. Benjamin Franklin said unironically that they may have to go back to the bow and arrow.

>They also required the South to only produce tobacco, cotton, and sugar, none of which could be sold to foreign countries

Right. The way it worked was that the colonies exported all their tobacco and cotton to Britain, and then trade companies would resell it to other countries for a huge markup. If you were French or something, you couldn't buy the cotton directly from the colonies, only through a British middleman.

It might be notable that British favoritism of the South was higher because those colonies were the main money generators, not the independent farmers of Pennsylvania or New Hampshire. This also caused resentment among Northerners. But on the other hand, the South had grievances as well due to Britain forcing them into a one crop plantation economy.

Oddly enough, for those reasons most Plantation Owners were Loyalists in the Revolution (although ironically so were their slaves who were promised freedom) and would later support the Confederacy.

Britain had a regular army at the time of 50,000 men, which was unique among European armies in being an all-volunteer force with no conscription. While generally effective soldiers, discipline was brutal and generalship was mediocre. They were primarily trained to fight in Western Europe, not the American colonies with their poor road network and huge areas of swamps and forests. It took several weeks for troops and supplies to cross the ocean, also orders from London, which were outdated by the time they got there. As for manpower, the mother country had a significant advantage with a population of 7 million versus the colonies' 2.5 million.