The British American Revolution

The horrible, no good, awful nation known as the United States is turning 250 this year. We have this assumption in this country that the U.S. was good and the British were bad and that’s…..just a bit oversimplified. PBS–and presumably this was made before Herr Trump ended all funding to it–has a new documentary about the British perspective on the war and the description at least is pretty interesting:

The British response to the war with America was mixed. Some viewed resistance by the colonists against George III, whom they considered ordained by God, as treason. British merchants generally opposed the conflict; they had invested in the Colonies and stood to lose money if the crown no longer had a foothold in North America.

Broadly speaking, “Britain in the 18th century was changing,” Olivette Otele, a historian who is featured in the documentary, tells Smithsonian. “People wanted more rights, and therefore some parts of the population, mainly the working class, didn’t understand why they had to fight their fellow countrymen or cousins. They understood these people were fighting for their freedom and independence.”

At the same time, many in the British Isles failed to fully grasp the complicated political issues underlying the colonists’ rebellion. In a letter, Jane Strachey, the middle-class English wife of a British member of Parliament, expressed confusion over the “ambitious and restless spirit of the Americans,” which had destroyed “the domestic tranquility of many happy families” around her. Still, she added that she wished the colonists only peace.

Public support for the war waned over time. In February 1775, politician Horace Walpole described the burgeoning conflict as “fashionable,” adding that he expected the colonists to capitulate within three months. In his memoirs, historian Edward Gibbon wrote that at first, “the pride of England was irritated by the resistance of her colonies,” leading to widespread approval of the war. As the fighting continued into the 1781-82 session of Parliament, however, “the loss of armies; the accumulation of debt and taxes; and the hostile confederacy of France, Spain and Holland indisposed the public to the American war.”

Events in England also reflected evolving views of the conflict. In late 1776 and early 1777, a series of arson attacks inflicted damage on royal dockyards in several British cities. The crimes caused a panic; rumors suggested that America or its European allies had sent saboteurs to attack the British on their own soil. The truth of the matter was far simpler: James Aitken, a Scottish-born petty criminal who’d developed sympathy for the patriot cause while living in the Colonies, set the fires on his own—without the Americans’ backing—in hopes of destroying the Royal Navy. He was hanged for his crimes on March 10, 1777.

Aitken’s solo arson campaign wasn’t indicative of a wider American plot to infiltrate Britain. But his actions influenced British perceptions of the war, convincing members of the public that the fight for American independence threatened their own safety.

Interestingly, when violence broke out in England’s capital in June 1780, it was only “indirectly caused by the American Revolution,” Worsley says. The British “were just desperate for troops to send to North America, so they relaxed this rule that had previously existed, which was that Catholics weren’t allowed to serve in the army. This upset Protestant opinion that thought that this was giving too much toleration to Catholics.”

The result was the Gordon Riots, which London shop owner and abolitionist Ignatius Sancho witnessed firsthand. In a letter, Sancho described the “poor, miserable, ragged rabble, from 12 to 60 years of age … all parading the streets—the bridge—the park—ready for any and every mischief.” He also recounted that the rioters didn’t shy away from violence. Lord Sandwich “narrowly escaped with life about an hour since,” Sancho wrote on June 6. “The mob seized his chariot going to the house, broke his glasses, and, in struggling to get his lordship out, they somehow have cut his face.”

Over six days, tens of thousands of protesters swarmed London, burning down and ransacking buildings associated with Catholics. “It started as a protest against [Catholics in the army], but actually it turned out to be something bigger,” Otele says. An increasing number of people were “fed up with war because the country’s coffers were depleting,” she adds, “and more was asked of them—the price of food, everything was becoming much more expensive for people who were already struggling. And on top of that, you had the elites and the crown telling them to basically suck it up.”

George stopped the riots by sending troops out into the streets. The soldiers killed an estimated 300 people and arrested hundreds more. The unrest, once quelled, failed to spark a larger uprising against the crown. “People were still convinced that the king had a divine right” to rule, Otele says. “It wasn’t a deep, profound discontent against the institution of the monarchy. It was just that at one point in time, they wanted more.”

Whole thing could be pretty interesting. And at the very least, we need to move off the idea that the American Revolution was some great thing just because we are Americans, which is a really stupid reason to support anything at all.