Why were the American colonies not loyal to Britain as opposed

>>2755647
Because as with all native led revolts throughout history since Boudica and Civilis, the local noblemen who were educated by their imperial patrons got uppity and wanted to reap the rewards of their homeland directly without imperial oversight.

>>2755658
But didn't they feel bad that they betrayed literally the king who had his authority from god? The same king who gave them everything they had including their language, culture, wealth, people etc...

It's like a spoiled and rebellious child suddenly saying: I'm not your son anymore! It's insanity.

>>2755647

Why you ask?

Because one day we accidentally spilled some sea water into some tea and before we could apologize those fucking redcoats started shooting at us with muskets.

It was at this point we had enough of their communist taxation and started shooting back with ar15s the french gave us.

>>2755667

>It's like a spoiled and rebellious child suddenly saying: I'm not your son anymore! It's insanity.

No, we just became to intelligent for you redcoats too understand.

>>2755647
Formed a greater sense of identity and people quickly saw themselves as American rather then British and felt the colonies should become America. People in Australia still only saw themselves as British well into the 50's rather then Australia.

>>2755647
They actually were for the most part. The revolution did not have majority support

>>2755694
>to intelligent

Alright.

>>2755719

Point proven.

>>2755647
AmRev was led by arrogant slavers who were sufficiently populous to function autonomously.
It's not surprising they made a power grab, most Brits who emigrated in the late 17th and early 18th century were of lower stock, parliament was naive to expect them to be dignified.

>>2755647
>Maine (part of Massachusetts)
Wot

>>2756145
New Hampshire claims Ontario,
>chuckles in Canadian

>>2755647
American here

Some of the colonies got dragged into the Rebellion. England also did a pretty good job at creating more enemies in the early years. By 1776 even though the Declaration was written, not every single person sided with the now United States. And thereafter the war was won, there were still MANY people who felt loyal to England. The Early years of the United States also proved to be very unorganized, it took a while before things went somewhat smoothly. Even then more people started to doubt the whole war and if returning to England would be best. The War of 1812 axtually united the US though. Ironically there was a lot of disproval over amungst the US and the war of 1812 reestablished a bit of patriotism. Thus England successfully united the United States twice by declaring war.

>>2756428
The US declared war in 1812.

>>2755647
The best explanation I've heard for the American Revolution is that the country was full of rampant smuggling. The call for total independence was a way to get out of the eyes of the only authorities in the colonies.

>>2756145
Maine was separated from mass. To create a new non slave state in the 1800s iirc

File: 1484883923207.jpg (37KB, 504x360px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 504x360px

>tfw too intelligent to be part of the British empire

>>2756830
>British keeps on abducting ships
>British are killing our Navy
>British made a trade embargo
>British just landed troops on our shores.

Congress: "Well I guess we should declare war?"

>>2757424

>British just landed troops on our shores.

You mean their shores?

>>2757424
I am fairly certain the British did not land troops on the shores of the US prior to the declaration of war.

>>2757433
I mean the shores that were recognized as a separate country on July 4th, 1776.

>>2757439
Its an over exageration that the invasions started before the declaration, but there were skirmishes before the war was declared.

Not going to bother citing, just google events that lead to war of 1812, I'm sure youll see what I mean.

>>2755667
The king was a German. He was the first in his family who even bothered to learn the language.
George had nothing to do with the language or culture.

>>2757449
I am aware of naval engagements and of tacit British support for Indians, but I'm not aware of any land-based skirmish that had happened before the war.

>>2757470
I'm not your history teacher, look it up yourself.

>>2755667
>the king gave them everything

No, he didn't.

>>2757538
Well, let me put this more diplomatically then... I'm something of an 1812 hobbyist, and I have never encountered anything according to what you've described? Surely it shouldn't be so difficult to provide evidence?

>>2755667
lol stay assblasted

>>2755647
>Fight in the French and Indian War so we can move west
>Britain says no
>want to be represented in Parliament like other Britons
>Britain says no
>we want more white people to immigrate to the colonies
>Britain says no

Really activates my almonds.

>>2755719
>he didn't get the meme

The actual people living in USA had a better financial situation before the revolution. The crown was losing money maintaining the USA colony 1730-1770

The independence movement was due to the local aristocracy wanting fame and power even though the economic situation would worsen.

>>2755667
Why would they? Just remember the time most of these independence wars started; The ideas of Enlightment (democracy, social convenant, civil rights, etc) heavily influenced their leaders, so they didn't feel they "owe" something to their governors, as ultimately the legitimacy of them came from themselves (the people) and not from a divine right.