The United States had no right to declare independence.
Every other independence movement in history was spurred by deep repression, marginalization of the subject people by the ruling power that was no longer tolerable even by the most conservative forces in society.
Take Ireland: suffered hundreds of years of colonial brutality.
India: much the same story.
What was America's excuse for revolting? Britain marginally increased tax rates on a set of luxury goods in order to offset the enormous financial cost of the Seven Years War, a war fought to protect Americans from French imperial expansion, and paid for entirely by British taxpayers.
America stands as a mockery to all RIGHTFUL independence movements.
In the end, Britain was a distant island that many couldn't care less about.
They had been too hands-off, allowing a distinctly "American" identity to form (even the accents diverged by the 18th century), and the Colonies were self-sufficient enough to survive on their own.
"Captain Preston, what made you go to the Concord Fight [on 19 April 1775]?""What did I go for?" "...Were you oppressed by the Stamp Act?" "I never saw any stamps, and I always understood that none were ever sold." "Well, what about the tea tax? "Tea tax, I never drank a drop of the stuff, the boys threw it all overboard." "But I suppose you have been reading Harrington, Sidney, and Locke about the eternal principle of liberty?" "I never heard of these men. The only books we had were the Bible, the Catechism, Watts' psalms and hymns and the almanacs." "Well, then, what was the matter?" "Young man, what we meant in going for those Redcoats was this: we always had governed ourselves and we always meant to. They didn't mean we should."
- Captain Levi Preston of Danvers, Massachusetts, interviewed about his participation in the first battle of the American Revolution many years later, at the age of 91, around 1843
Wealthy American business owners astroturfed the independence movement because they observed that the anti-slavery movement was quickly gaining political momentum in London, and they needed to break away before a crackdown occurred on their lucrative trade.
The "War of Independence" was primarily fought to maintain the institution of slavery on the American continent, regardless of what poor cucks who fought in were lead to believe.
>What was America's excuse for revolting?
Why would anyone live under the rule of the culture foreign to them? People changed a lot in the colonies and because of extremely rich land and development they had, it was just a matter of time when a couple of land owners and influential people will start fueling a conspiracy against the crown. That would make them richer, probably they'd pay less taxes, wouldn't be controled by the redcoats and so on. It was probably financial thing in the beginning.
I also KINDA believe in that theory that psychology of the people is somewhat dictated by their natural surroundings and living conditions. Once colonists lived good and realized they have a vast country at disposal they could rule in, they grown to despise the crown and the unknown authority.
The American territory was also really inhospitable compared to European so some of the rebels were for sure 'uncivilized' and hardly tolerated such authority. Once they got rid of the crown, America went through a lot of local governing and that was a new catalyst for the development that continued long afterwards.
Which explains why the only reason the Declaration of Independence did not abolish slavery in 1776 was because South Carolina convinced everyone else to cut that line out lest the Declaration be killed then and there?
Explain why George Washington, a slave owner himself, upon becoming president quickly established the Fugitive Slave Act which transformed the state into an apparatus for facilitating the Atlantic slave trade, a system which lasted unmolested by any future president until the Civil War era.
>Every other independence movement in history was spurred by deep repression, marginalization of the subject people by the ruling power that was no longer tolerable even by the most conservative forces in society.
Except the South American independence movements, which were started and led by the descendants of Spaniard settlers (aka "Criollos") who were butthurt that the power was in the hands of the crown and the nobles that resided in Spain ("Chapetones") and wanted to rule these lands on their own instead of having to comform with having second-rate positions in the Colonial society while some fuckers thousands of miles away had the real power.
>muh indians and black slaves
Literally irrelevant during and after the Independence wars, except in Bolivia where Amerindians are a majority.
Of course it was. English couldn't properly control and influence the entire America and 200-300 years is a lot of time for local cultures to develop, especially in such new harsh surroundings. It was a very hard land with nature and natives untamed like those of Europe.
Confirmed for being not only historically illiterate but textually illiterate as well. Several southern states were initially willing to give up slavery as part of the Declaration of Independence, Virginia first and foremost, after all it was written by a Virginian slaveholder who was willing to manumit, but South Carolina threatened to scrap the whole shebang and go loyalist if they weren't allowed to keep the institution, and thus began a century of southern appeasement.
Why was slavery abolished in the 19th century? Society developed enough to stop tolerating such things or a different financial/political circumstances?
tl:dr, why did they gain from abolishing slavery?
>Atlantic slave trade, a system which lasted unmolested by any future president until the Civil War era.
You're an idiot
Mechanization made slavery unprofitable for all but the smallest farmers, thus wealthy elites could comfortably clamber up onto the moral high ground and admonish middle and lower class farm owners for their evil practice.
Here, because you don't understand the full impact of that tax I'll explain why it was a big deal.
The sugar tax was meant to cut the colonies off from Dutch sugar imports. What parliament didn't account for was the partial barter economy of the colonies. Sugar was made into rum and rum was traded by ordinary people and the wealthy alike for labor, slaves, goods, etc. because holy shit do we colonials like to get our crunk on. The effect of taxing this was to create immediate, widespread, catastrophic inflation across the colonies. If you make everyone that much poorer with the stroke of a pen, they are going to remember that.
Also, ignore dlavery guy. He is obviously a bisexual, tree-hugging, communist dicksuck who is himself the product of tree-hugging, bisexual, communist, dicksucks. Though which one is the father and which one is the mother is a matter for future historians to decide.
>In 1776 Americans revolted, less against taxes than against what those taxes were designed to enforce: triangular trade. Americans were required to sell raw materials to England, and buy from the rest of the world from British monopoly companies. The Tea Tax sparked the Boston Tea Party, not because it increased the price of Tea, but because it blocked Americans from entering into the lucrative tea market. Americans resented selling raw materials to England, having the English manufacture them into more valuable goods that were sold around the world, and then use the profits to buy spices, slaves and tea for sale in America. England became addicted to triangular trade, preferring war with its American colonies to negotiated peace
It was primarily because they had no fucking say in it. Nobody wanted to leave until it was clear that Britian would off itself before giving the colonies direct representation in parlement.
They also did it beause they hated the mercantilist policies Britian vehemetly enforced on the colonies that helped Britian at the expense of the colonies. English merchants largely had a monopoly on colonial trade and that was bad for the colonials because the English merchants could sell their shit at whatever they wanted.
It's because a select few British aristocrats thought they could get rich by splitting off from the tax system that had burdened them by forcing them to pay for defence against the French, and they convinced the people below them to agree with them.
There is no moral judgment to be made. We were willing to wage war for it, we did, and we won. We needed French assistance to win, true, but we got it, and we won. End of argument.