Colonial America's Identity in Britain's Eyes

Okay, so traditional historiography on the Revolution emphasizes that Americans tended to perceive themselves as Britons well into the 1770s, prompting some to call the Revolution the crisis of integration.

What's not explored, and is IMO as interesting, is how Britons perceived the colonists. Their status as Britons was called into querstion during and after the 7 years war. Increasing light was placed on their status as the descendents of convicts and riff raff, and the presence of a large body of immigrants. To quote one PM who opposed the American cause, Americans were not entitled to British liberties because they had been diluted by foreign elements, "particularly Germans innumerable."

Moreover, the expansion of the Empire after the 7 Years War reduced the British colonists, in some ways. The Americans became fellow subjects, along the lines of the French Quebecois, the Acadians, etc.

We can see this change between the War of Austrian Succession and the 7 years war. In the first war, one British newspaper referred approvingly to "Our countrymen and kinsmen of New England," and another to the courage of "Englishmen, in whatever latitude they are born."

By the end of the 7 Years War... American contributions to the conquest of Canada were largely ignored, and Americans were icnreasingly portrayed as a nonmartial people. IMO this attitude can actually be seen in the handling of the colonies; I cannot imagine Britain shutting down Liverpool in response to a riot, frex. Contemporary Americans noticed this too, as English politicians and commentators talked of "Our subjects in the colonies." Lord Halifax went so far as to express, in 1763, that he considered the Americans foreigners.

I'd elaborate on how this seems to have changed as the War broke out, if people are interested. But I will propose that a failed rebellion may confirm America's status as an "other" in the British body politic.
 
Hrm.... Funny I never thought to wonder at the English perspective. That does have some serious implications, no?

Perhaps the TLs where Britain and America merge seamlessly and become the Borg were overstated in some way.
 
I think there is danger of exaggerating this. The British really use kid gloves in the early days still - is it Bunker Hill where they advance with unloaded weapons???

Lawrence James' books on the Empire and the British at war have some more examples of quotes. Linda Colley might do as well but nothing comes to mind.

I think you might be on to something though - these people largely aren't Anglicans, so they are a bit not quite right.

Of course revolt in Canada prompted conciliation in the 1830s - although that was very much influenced by the American example.

It's all worthy of further study, but that is true of the British and the American Revolution in general.
 
I do remember reading "A Modest Proposal" in my high school English class. There was this part where the narrator mentions an American business partner who said he supports the narrator's idea of eating Irish children for economic benefits. The textbook explained that this was because in England the term "American" was associated with barbarianism at that time.
 
I think there is danger of exaggerating this. The British really use kid gloves in the early days still - is it Bunker Hill where they advance with unloaded weapons???

Nope? ??

I think you might be on to something though - these people largely aren't Anglicans, so they are a bit not quite right.

Of course, how the war ends might change things.

From From Fellow-Nationals to Foreigners: British Perceptions of the Americans, circa 1739-1783, by Stephen Conway:

As early as January I777 Sir George Savile, an opposition MP hostile to the conflict in America, was writing that "the cause itself wears away by degrees from a question of right and wrong between subjects, to a war between us and a foreign nation. ... I see marks of this everywhere, and in all ranks." By the following August, Edward Gibbon, the historian and a govern- ment-supporting MP, was criticizing the "wretched piece of work . . . we seem to be making of it in America" and was referring to the Americans as having "almost lost the appellation of Rebels."

This suggests an early victory might have the colonists viewed more as disobedient children, but I'm not sure. The hardening of ways makes it iffy.

A victory after Saratoga, though? I'm not sure how that will play out.

Of course revolt in Canada prompted conciliation in the 1830s - although that was very much influenced by the American example.

It's all worthy of further study, but that is true of the British and the American Revolution in general.[/QUOTE]
 
I'm reminded of a book I read which traces the war for a single British regiment, specifically the passages about their time in Boston just before the fighting started. They certainly felt themselves occupiers, and I thought immediately of one quotation: "These people, most of them originally Scotch or Irish [:mad:], have united in marriage with French, Germans, and Dutch and from them have sprung the high-spirited race that boast so much of British Blood and British Liberty, and who have the folly and impudence to talk of chastising Great Britain...man as well as everything else transplated here degenerates."

Interestingly, the officers who were more uneasy about fighting a war against their co-linguists and who thought of the impending conflict as "civil" seem also to have been those of a more whiggish persuasion. The author describes the "foreigners" view point as the idea that religiously-inspired anti-monarchism has spread to the colonies and the civilised order of Anglicanism and monarchy had to be saved again. The question, I think, could be intimately connected to political developments on our side of the pond.
 
Last edited:
Britain always has a problem with this kind of thing, as does any settler empire. As to how it was treated at the time - surely there must be some sort of media analysis for this period? I was reading a book (link here) on a related topic which relied upon this kind of study - but it focused more on the 19th - early 20th century - and it seemed to suggest that there was a very widespred view throughout the US/wider British 'White' Empire of kinship and respect.

Although I must say as a personal observation my social (not legal or immigration) status (as a NZer) in the UK seems to be very favourable due to some sort of affinity based on the colonial connection/shared ethnicity/language.
 
Now this is an interesting question. Most of the materials I've read stress the differences in American culture that were developing as a basis for the coming Union, but they don't mention how the British saw these differences in culture. Definitely needs to be explored, if only to ruin a few britwanks:p;).

@IBC, what's with the :mad: after Scotch and Irish?
 
In a lot of ways the Colonists had it good, they were taxed far lower than their homeland counterparts, and also had more freedoms in a lot of ways. Many of the taxes were paying for the defence of the colonies, and the colonial war with France. I imagine the British establishment saw it to some degree as the American Colonists being ungrateful and wanting something for nothing.
 
In a lot of ways the Colonists had it good, they were taxed far lower than their homeland counterparts, and also had more freedoms in a lot of ways. Many of the taxes were paying for the defence of the colonies, and the colonial war with France. I imagine the British establishment saw it to some degree as the American Colonists being ungrateful and wanting something for nothing.

I can't help but notice those British troops started getting stationed after the war ended.
 
As a unionist Scotsman, I deeply resent the views of this bigot.
Yeah, there were some odd people in the Army back then. I guess that's what you get for allowing inbred idiots with more money than sense to lead the thing, rather than those of merit.

Personally I love Scotland and would hate to see it secede.
 
Yeah, there were some odd people in the Army back then. I guess that's what you get for allowing inbred idiots with more money than sense to lead the thing, rather than those of merit.

Personally I love Scotland and would hate to see it secede.

Is this the same inbred idiots who conquered the world? Or different inbred idiots?
 
Is this the same inbred idiots who conquered the world? Or different inbred idiots?
Most of the world conquering actually took place after the Army reforms that turned officers from cronies who paid for their commission, to those who gained their position through merit. Plus of course the American war of Independence, in a lot of ways taught the British army to fight.
 
Most of the world conquering actually took place after the Army reforms that turned officers from cronies who paid for their commission, to those who gained their position through merit. Plus of course the American war of Independence, in a lot of ways taught the British army to fight.

Your last point is perfectly correct, but then it puts your original assumption into doubt.

Purchase of commissions was not abolished until Cardwell reforms, in 1871.
 
Yeah, there were some odd people in the Army back then. I guess that's what you get for allowing inbred idiots with more money than sense to lead the thing, rather than those of merit.

An interesting fact is that by the end of the conflict a disproportionate number of officers were Scots, and it sealed the reputation of the Highlanders. The Scots also seem to have had a "skin the bastards" attitude. Are the reasons why relevant to this question? Scotland was very loyalist, of course, and for the highlanders, you had the matter of population pressures and the dress issue. But might there have been a greater willingness up here to view the rebels as a foreign nation?
 
Your last point is perfectly correct, but then it puts your original assumption into doubt.

Purchase of commissions was not abolished until Cardwell reforms, in 1871.
I didn't mean for the two to be taken together, more separate clauses :p. The British Army was made much more effective by the American War of Independence. I'm not saying that the army was incapable of fighting, or that it was particularly terrible by the standard of many of it's contemporaries. In fact sale of commission probably wasn't any worse than the Royal patronages of most European armies.

Sale of commission doesn't preclude you having good officers, I mean Arthur Wellesley? But there are also examples of stunning incompetence as well.

Besides I'd argue that the Royal Navy had a much bigger role in empire building, along side more political manoeuvring.
 
Last edited:
Is this the same inbred idiots who conquered the world? Or different inbred idiots?
The officers weren't all inbred idiots and as has been said the semi-meritocratic Royal Navy played its part. Also even if your officers aren't all the pride of Sandhurst or Woolwich superior kit, training and men can help compensate. I do think though that the real people to thank/blame for the British Empire were their bureaucrats, diplomats and administrators. The French and Germans might occasionally try to equal them on land or at sea but nobody pushed paper like the Brits.
 
In a lot of ways the Colonists had it good, they were taxed far lower than their homeland counterparts, and also had more freedoms in a lot of ways. Many of the taxes were paying for the defence of the colonies, and the colonial war with France. I imagine the British establishment saw it to some degree as the American Colonists being ungrateful and wanting something for nothing.

On the other hand, American merchants couldn't (legally) trade with anyone but Great Britain, there could be no banks or machine manufacturers in the colonies...

The Americans paid no taxes because they already did their duty to the Empire in submitting to mercantilism. As long as smuggling was allowed to go on with the (far closer) West Indies, they really didn't care. The problem came when that smuggling was stamped upon and taxes attempted to be imposed.

Talking about some amorphous 'British' opinion is missing the fact that the UK was still riven with divisions in this day. While some East Anglian MPs might be found who directly identify with people who are probably somewhat close kin in Massachusetts, a Northumberland based MP might be more willing to argue in favor of coercion against the rebels.

We really need an idea of what's meant by 'Britain's Eyes'.
 
Top