A critical analysis of the course of the war and the situations that were present during this conflict provides a more concrete basis for realizing the flaw in this misunderstanding. There were no accounts of obscene taxation; neither were the colonists subjected to any form of slavery or oppression. The Americans have done nothing but a superb job of distorting the truth about their revolt.
The single largest remonstrance that the Americans cried out was their “no taxation without representation”. This was among the first of the list of items upon which they demurred. The protests took place in Virginia in May of 1765 when the House of Burgesses took the consideration of the stamp act. The corypheus who was responsible for this endeavour was Patrick Henry. He based his arguments on the fact that since the British Parliament did not consist of any members who were American and shared American interests, the power to tax should be confined to the House of Burgesses only. They refused to accept the British’s notion of virtual representation, a concept devised by the House of Commons vowing to represent the interests of all citizens of the British Empire, whether or not they were represented. A viable reason for this rejection by the colonist may lie in the fact that the Americans colonists had always enjoyed direct representation – electing members to represent the people. Privileges such as this and salutary neglect are what seeded the revolt in the first place.
The British opine somewhat differently from the colonial Americans. They instead point out that it was the Americans who refused to co-operate. The British had incurred a staggering debt of 130M pounds as a result of the Seven Years War. A war that was fought to wrest control of North America, in essence, a war that was fought for the colony of America. Yet when the British expected a meager sum contributed towards the expense of the military, the Americans responded with little more then petty complaints. Furthermore, the Americans raised an uproar when ordered to contribute a fraction of the cost of the 7,500 British troops garrisoned in New York. It is a mind boggling concept to think that the Americans balked at a tax of only six pence per year, compared to the 25 shillings burdened on the residents of Britain, a sum almost fifty times greater. Incidents such as the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Tea Act of 1773 were not opposed by patriots, but by smugglers instead. These legislatures dissolved their opportunity to earn a livelihood evading the authorities. Some even went as far as to committing acts of indecency such as the Boston Tea Party.
Therefore, the American colonials’ War of Independence was motivated by nothing more then the interests of profit seeking capitalists and smugglers. A heroic and valiant struggle definitely does not portray the realities of this revolution. Even George Washington, the preeminent figure in the history of America was as hypocritical as can be. While he claimed to fight for liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he had in his possession many oppressed black slaves, all of whom were denied the right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If this reading has informed you of the distorted past of America’s road to independence, the purpose of this essay has been achieved. None fought a war prior to the Americans in the history of the world over a matter as trivial as did the Americans in their supposed struggle for independence.
