Was The Revolutionary War Inevitable

Yes and no. I do not believe British efforts to create a true empire could have worked. The colonies had for many years been moving toward autonomy and were unwilling to accept the sort of royal construction and dependency the British government tried to establish at the end of the Vii Years War, particularly as there was no apparent military threat on the North American continent to forcefulness them to rely on British arms. On the other hand, I could hands see an arrangement, something similar dominionship, under which Americans would have remained part of the empire. If offered such an arrangement in the first months of the war, I believe most Americans would take happily accepted it.

–Dennis M. Conrad

Yes.  Ultimately, possibly by the mid-19th-century, British North America would have become independent in the same way Canada, Jamaica, and Australia became independent and self-governing under the British Commonwealth.  Franklin idea this would happen naturally.  The nature of the American Revolution though, was non inevitable.

–Robert J. Allison

I believe American independence was inevitable, not necessarily in 1776 only within decades. The continental colonies were growing as well fast and as Paine pointed out in that location was something ridiculous about an isle ruling a continent.

–Gordon South. Woods

No.  Almost nothing is inevitable in history.  Ane can easily envision counterfactual scenarios in which the American colonists, like their northern neighbors, resolved to remain inside the British Empire and so accomplished peaceful separation from Great Great britain during the nineteenth century. For those who would argue for inevitability, the question becomes, when does a lasting independence get inevitable? October 1781? Oct 1777? May 1776? April 1775? June 1774? 1765? 1763? 1688? 1607? Or, for that matter, 1814? At any of these points, circumstances might accept turned out very differently, or historical actors might have behaved differently and achieved some sort of peace and reunification.

–Benjamin L. Carp

"Inevitable" when? Certainly not in 1765 or 1768 or 1770. Nobody – not Samuel Adams or anyone else –spoke of independence in those years. (Myth alert: the notion that Adams did was trumped up by a Tory trying to frame him.) After the Tea Party, colonists differed over paying for the tea – and even so no talk of independence. But when Parliament disenfranchised the people of Massachusetts, those people, in August-October 1774, threw off British rule everywhere exterior of Boston, and these were the folks who starting time advocated independence – but Samuel and John Adams cautioned them to slow down then they wouldn't scare off other colonists. Just after King George declared the colonies in open rebellion late in 1775, hired foreigners to shoot at Englishmen in America, and burned coastal towns was the thought of independence mainstreamed. Finally, at that point, I'd say declaring independence became inevitable, but Americans still needed to win a state of war to defend information technology.

–Ray Raphael

Independence was Not inevitable. Quite the contrary. A British victory would have enabled them to turn the American colonies into another Ireland, with a imitation elite and a standing army to keep order. As early on every bit 1775, the British were pushing the line that the Americans weren't really English. They were a mix or a muddle of races, Irish, German etc. This was the kind of propaganda that they used to crush Ireland.

–Thomas Fleming

The only unassailable answer is, "So far every bit we know." Historians don't get to run experiments. Almost all of Britain'south other distant colonies have become independent, so we might conclude that political separation would have happened by this time anyway. Simply those other colonies gained autonomy in a earth with a U.S. of A. and its example affecting things, so is their independence independent of U.S. independence?

All that said, I theorize that if the London authorities hadn't tried to constitute a tax that affected nearly every adult British subject in North America in 1765 (the Stamp Act), American colonists wouldn't have developed the broad, united opposition to new revenue enhancement that lasted through other forms of taxes and other political issues and made independence feasible in 1776.

–J. L. Bell

No. Had the British made the overtures for peace even as late as 1775 and made the colonists total participants in the Empire the drive for independence would take faltered. After that it was going to be harder to put the genie back in the bottle, only we must e'er call up that the final results of the war could very easily had a different expect had many things not occurred as they did. Without French aid the Americans would not have won anything remotely close to what they did if fifty-fifty one colony had broken free which is extremely doubtful.

–Jimmy Dick

Nothing in history is inevitable. Different decisions by key individuals at crucial points can have major consequences. Suppose, for example, that General William Howe decided to strike at the "soft underbelly" of the rebellion in 1776 by taking his forces to the S. Georgia and South Carolina lacked the resources to repel such an invasion, and the Americans would accept been deprived of the five years in which they developed the infrastructure that supported partisan resistance in 1780. Besides, southern Loyalists would non accept been demoralized by persecution and thus more willing to assist the British. Howe could take quickly subdued Georgia and the Carolinas and moved to Virginia. Information technology is hard to imagine that if Washington tried to march his army south, the New Englanders would have gone. The British might accept regained command of every colony south of Pennsylvania by the end of the 1776 entrada.

–Jim Piecuch

Would the British-American colonies eventually receive their independence?  Yes, it is likely, peculiarly if nosotros look at Canada as a model.  But these kinds of questions probably autumn outside the realm of historical investigation.  Having said that, I don't think anyone in colonial America would accept perceived independence as inevitable until onetime between 1775 and July 1776.  The history of the British-American colonies is a story of growing Anglicization and British provincialism.  It is non a story about the seeds of independence, planted in the soil of Jamestown and Plymouth, growing into a full-blown revolutionary moment that finally blossomed in 1776.   If we take the long view, the American Revolution was one of the bully surprises of the early modern Western earth.  Most informed observers would have said that it was "inevitable" that the colonists would continue to enjoy the political and economic benefits (among others) of beingness part of the British Empire.

–John Fea

American independence was inevitable, but victory in the American Revolution was not. The American colonies were filling upwardly quickly and building a distinctly American culture. After the French were expelled from the West and Canada, the American colonists did not "need" the British any more.

However, victory in the American Revolution from 1775-7 was far from inevitable. It is easy to encounter how a more aggressive British strategy could take led to full victory over Washington's Army. And it is easy to imagine that the Loyalist counter-insurrections that sputtered through 1776 would have gained more popular support if Washington's Army was crushed. French entry into the war in 1778 changed the state of war by diverting British military resources from the U.S., later which the British posture went from offensive to largely defensive. This, coupled with the improvement of the Continental Army, created parity betwixt the two militaries. At that indicate, the disability of the British to effectively support nascent Loyalist counter-insurrections in the South, made their defeat inevitable. But this was only the example later on the first few years of the war.

–Michael Adelberg

No, equally the example of Canada shows.  In fact, but for the obstinacy of Parliament in ongoing revenue enhancement exercises, the effect would have gradually receded.  Some sort of commonwealth of looser clan of the American Colonies, as has spread throughout former British possessions, was the more probable outcome.

–Scott Syfert

Chatham and Burke knew how independence could be avoided, but it involved surrendering much of Parliament's power over the colonists. Burke also glimpsed the possibility of using proffered concessions to play on the divisions in the Continental Congress, which included many delegates who opposed a intermission with Britain. Burke's notion might have worked. Only from the beginning the nifty majority in Parliament thought that in a worst case scenario the use of force would bring the colonists to heel. Given the political realities of the mean solar day, war appears to have been almost inevitable. Nevertheless, independence very probable would have been prevented had Britain had an adequate number of troops in America in April 1775 or a capable full general to atomic number 82 the campaign for New York in 1776, someone like Earl Cornwallis.

–John E. Ferling

Yep, I believe independence was not only inevitable but pretty much already existed before the revolution was conceived.  The British had allowed the colonists far too much autonomy over the past 100 years to go back.  The Stamp Act and the run to revolution tin can be described as an endeavour past Parliament to bring the colonies dorsum from a state of independence and into a state of subjugation instead of the other fashion around.  We weren't breaking away from a scheme of taxation but badly avoiding the implementation of 1.  The King responded by sending an army of 25,000 against an armed populace of 1.5 million.

–Wayne Lynch

American Independence was not inevitable, but for some communities the American Revolution was unavoidable. Many communities and private revolutionaries tried to reform majestic policies that offended them, at least initially.

For many British North Americans social and cultural bug stood at the eye of their quarrels with imperial rule. For these Americans, the American Revolution was as much most social reform equally it was about politics. For example, in Albany, New York many inhabitants rebelled and protested because they wanted Britons to accept them equally swain Britons. During the French and Indian War, the British Ground forces had treated the Albanians poorly and violated their English language constitutional rights with forcible quartering policies. The British Army violated the Albanians' rights because they viewed them equally "Dutch" or "Dutchmen," non as Britons. Many in Albany embraced the Revolution equally a movement for social reform. However, they became wary as talk and protests turned towards war and as war turned towards independence.

–Elizabeth M. Covart

In one case the British turned their focus to their Southern Campaign in 1779, some class of American independence was inevitable. They controlled simply New York and Philadelphia, had suffered meaning losses in troops, were squabbling in Parliament, and at present faced a war in the Caribbean area. The only thing still to be decided was what the borders of the new land would wait like.

–Daniel J. Tortora

No. While many political, economic, and demographic forces pointed toward independence, few individuals in 1774 would admit to anything other than being proud subjects of the British Empire. North American inhabitants mostly felt comfy living in provinces dominated by English language, culture, and values. I believe that a combination of more conciliatory British ministerial policies and, later, decisive American battleground defeats, might have combined to avoid or neutralize the American Rebellion. While hindsight always makes the result appear inevitable, rather than full independence the North American provinces might have achieved something akin to British Commonwealth status. Nosotros would have done and then far earlier than Canada and might have continued to number among other realms inside the empire where "the sun never sets."

–Samuel A. Forman

Probably nothing curt of full-blown secession would take appeased radicals like Samuel Adams or Patrick Henry, but the growing anger of many colonial Americans would have been assuaged had the British government made two concessions. The showtime was simply colonial representation in Parliament, a correction to an injustice forefront in American minds ("no taxation without representation" is a constant drumbeat in the letters of William Pitkin, governor of Connecticut in the years later the Stamp Human activity crunch). While such a system would have likely enfranchised male person landowners alone, even this imperfection would have dissipated much of the emotion that led to the Boston Tea Party. Secondly, England needed to treat American merchants the same equally their English language colleagues. American colonists thought of themselves as English and even fought and died for Britain in the contempo French and Indian War; yet under mercantilism, they were treated every bit suppliers of raw materials and captive consumers who, unlike England-based merchants, were prevented from trading directly with most strange markets. This in turn sowed widespread smuggling and condone for British authorization in the colonies. If the American Revolution was inevitable, it was but considering of Parliament'southward shortsightedness.

–Jackson Kuhl

Was The Revolutionary War Inevitable,

Source: https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/09/american-independence-inevitable/

Posted by: ashburnoicieffive97.blogspot.com

Share this post