Humanities desk
< December 15	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 16

Original War Aims of the 13 Colonies

What were the original war aims of the 13 Colonies in the American Revolutionary War?

I know that the colonists ultimately got independence and got territory up to the Mississippi River with the exception of Florida, southern Alabama, and southern Mississippi. However, were those their original war aims or were their original war aims something different? Also, if their original war aims were different, what exactly were their original war aims?

BTW, any reading on the topic of the colonists' original war aims would be greatly appreciated--especially if this reading can be found online for free. :) Futurist110 (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original grievance was that the colonies had "grown up", and were fairly densely-settled in places, and economically-established by the standards of the time. They were no longer scattered settlements needing British Army protection against Indian attacks (and the capture of French Canada by the British had removed another threat). Some among the colonials were rather tired of being the subject of experiments in mercantilism imposed from London, and being vulnerable to sudden shifts of policy that could occur with each revolving-door change in ministries in the British parliament, often devised by people with little knowledge of colonial conditions and enacted with little consultation with the colonials. From a political point of view, they wanted colonial MPs in the British Parliament ("No taxation without representation"), or perhaps some kind of entrenched guarantee for certain colonial rights and privileges, so that they couldn't be overturned by a simple majority vote in Parliament. British politicians refused to seriously consider even for a moment any such ideas, so what were originally limited economic grievances evolved into a series of sharp confrontations over the basic legitimacy of British rule, and eventually a war of independence.

On the purely military level, the British occupied most of the main port cities early in the war, and the Americans had little hope of dislodging them by frontal military attacks. The American strategy was to grind down the British by repeated attacks (sometimes guerilla warfare) when they ventured inland from the port cities, and to try to attract the support of another European power (such as France or Spain). The Americans wanted, and attained, independence for the 13 Atlantic colonies, including their westward claims which did not conflict with French or Spanish claims. The Americans also had dreams of driving the British out of Quebec, but had to give up the idea after the Battle of Quebec (1775)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Declaration of Independence lists the items that the colonists wanted changed. Even after the declaration was issued, much of the population would have found correcting most of these sufficient, even without independence. Rmhermen (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How likely would it have been that the King would say, "OK, sure, let's give the colonists what they want"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather unlikely, as the British crown to learn from its mistakes first, and there was no historical precedent for what the colonies were demanding. But what is interesting is that in the later case of other similar colonies like Canada and Australia, the UK largely acceded to reasonable demands from the populations and independence was a peaceful and gradual process. Lessons had been learned. --Xuxl (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was Parliament, not the king, that made the decisions. However, in those days, the king could personally appoint like-minded ministers regardless of whether they had Parliamentary support or not. :::"Did you know? On 5 March 1770 British troops in Boston fired into a crowd protesting against the Townshend Duties, killing five people – ironically on the very same day on which Lord North recommended to Parliament the repeal of the Duties" www.parliament.uk. Alansplodge (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Boston Massacre. I'm reminded of this item from a semi-scholarly history published in the 1980s: "In response to [the Boston Tea Party], the British Parliament voted the Intolerable Acts of 1773, followed by the Repressive Acts of 1774, and finally, Parliament being what it is, the Unnatural Acts of 1776." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xuxl -- one difference between the later Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa) and the 18th-century Atlantic colonies of British North America is that by the mid-19th-century the prevailing British economic ideology had shifted from mercantilism to free trade (symbolized by the 1846 repeal of the Corn Laws), which gave less scope for economic conflicts between provincial elites and central London elites. The British never did reform the British/UK parliamentary system to give any special structural status to overseas domains -- so that until 1982, the Canadian constitution was still under the authority of the UK parliament, and the Canadians had to beg the UK to act to place the Canadian constitution under Canadian authority ("Patriation"). AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." I think that lays out the aims fairly well, especially the part that states "these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." --Jayron 32 16:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What did the colonists want the U.S.'s borders to be early on in the American Revolutionary War, though? Futurist110 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the war aims were not really about boarders and land... most colonists probably didn’t even think to ask the question of what the boarders of the new US should be. Those that did think about it would have said the boarders of the US should be the boarders of the colonies that formed the US (as mixed up and contradictory as those boarders were). Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 1776, there were a few conflicting territorial claims between the different colonies east of the 1763 settlement line, and a whole lot of theoretically-conflicting claims west of the 1763 settlement line. The various Continental/Confederation Congresses reconciled some of the claims, and persuaded colonies/states to give up some of the more theoretical ones (such as claims to land between two latitudes all the way to the Pacific Ocean), and ultimately assembled the old Northwest Territory. (This mostly happened after 1781, though...) AnonMoos (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although, to expand on this a bit, the British government's policy of barring colonial settlement west of the settlement line is an often underappreciated factor in leading to division and war. Many of the colonists viewed this as oppressive and unjust. All that land there for the taking (from the savages living there), but the King says we can't have it! Yes, exact territorial claims were certainly not widely agreed upon, but broadly, many colonists viewed westward expansion as their right. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean borders not boarders all 5 times. Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]