I don’t think the British had a significant military presence in the American colonies prior to the Revolution. Cornwallis sailed to New York to start (and almost end) the rebellion.
Based on what I’ve read, once the seeds of independence were firmly sown I don’t think there was any turning back, but had King George been more accommodating in the 1770s (or so) I think independence wouldn’t have happened. At least not then.
I can’t really give you a parallel example because the dynamics were different in the FFs day. We rebelled against Britain (sorta twice), but the fighting was on our turf and we didn’t defeat the English in a way that required them to rebuild.
There wasn’t really a military occupation to my knowledge in the colonies and an occupation was the main driver (or even a driver) of the rebellion. The British ruled from across the pond not through force, but a threat of force and that whole divine rule thingy.
I don’t think there has to be an occupation. I think there has to be a legit threat of force, which the British obviously had.
I think it was happening to a degree, depending on what you consider economic control I guess. They created legislation that affected the colonial economy and they taxed without representation. I would consider that economic control.
No, if the parent government says okay cool then a war never happens.
England never tried to occupy the colonies, though. THey sailed over to kill a bunch of rebels, hang their leaders (Cornwallis actually thought many could still be saved), and then sail back and collect their taxes. To me, that’s not an occupying force.
It doesn’t have to be an occupying force. It just has to be a superior force. As far as I know, the British did not intend to “occupy” the colonies with their military. They want to get in, crush the resistance, and go home.
It wasn’t such an obvious thing in the 1700s. The US economy wasn’t the juggernaut that it is now and, post-revolution, US ambassadors had a difficult time securing trade agreements with other nations.
So would you say they showed up to militarily occupy the colonies UNTIL such a time that we met their demands? At which point they go home until we stop meeting their demands again?
We didn’t enter WW2 because of the holocaust. The people who flew planes into buildings were Saudis, if remember right, and we are good buddies with that oppressive regime. We didn’t invade Iraq because of UN sanctions, it was wmds which many called a bs reason at the time.
WMDs was one of the arguments used to invade Iraq, but it was the continued violation of UN resolutions and Saddam’s refusal to allow inspectors into the country that lead to his removal by coalition forces.
Since the colonies were technically Britain, British troops would not really be an occupying force. There were British troops here before and after the French and Indian War.
We were already the Crown’s to begin with, though. I think the context matters. This wasn’t England invading the United States. This was England squashing a rebellion in one of their colonies.
Sure. We’re just going round and round the semantics wheel now anyway.
For us, sure.
Imo, it was the final straw not the main drive, but it’s not worth arguing about.
From a certain point of view, sure. From their point of view they weren’t invading anything. Sorta like how some view the civil war as the “war of northern aggression”.