Okay, so I've been reading up just a little on the American Revolution and the things that caused it, and while American motivations in the years leading up to the the ARW get written about to death, I'm unclear on the British ones. I can't help wondering why Britain just didn't essentially just ditch the colonies during the taxation fiasco in the 1760s. All right, not really ditch them, but tell them to go fend for themselves if they wouldn't pay the taxes. In reality the colonies probably wouldn't get actual political independence, but Britain could have forced them to at least raise an army and pay for their own military costs. Hell, it sounds like it would have been a good opportunity to get out of paying any money at all for the colonies. This was the situation in the 1760s: 1. Great Britain was in debt due to the Seven Years War 2. The colonies were costing Britain money 3. The Stamp Tax and later taxes were introduced to pay for the troops defending the colonies and colonial administration, not to collect revenue for Britain. The colonists may have been afraid that taxes would be used for this purpose in the future, but it wasn't the motive at the time. 4. The colonies utterly refused to pay the Stamp tax, or any other taxes to Parliament So, why didn't Parliament just withdraw their troops, and tell the colonies to basically shove off and defend themselves if they refused to pay for their own defense? I don't quite understand how the above situation led to increased efforts to force the colonies to pay the tax, and then an eight-year-long war. Trade would remain essentially the same, as Britain was the largest trading partner of the colonies and would remain so. In The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith essentially states that a separation of Britain and the American colonies would result in economic benefits for both of them. Obviously most British politicians would be opposed to American independence for various reasons, but the point is that either way, the British economy wouldn't be damaged. As we saw in OTL, losing the colonies did little damage to British trade, and actually may have improved it, as the focus moved from the American colonies to other countries. In fact, unless I'm mistaken there was an economic boom in Great Britain in the years following the ARW. And from what I've gathered, the Proclamation Line of 1763 was largely in place to keep the peace between the native tribes and the colonists in order to avoid those expensive, expensive Indian wars. Why not make it the colonies' problem? Given that it's the 18th century, I doubt humanitarian reasons were much of a motivation. The biggest drawback I can think of is that the British could potentially be cut off from trade with the Iroquois trading network, but the colonies could have been negotiated with/forced to guarantee that British access to the Iroquois wouldn't be impeded. And yet, somehow, we get: 1. Britain wants colonies to pay taxes to Britain, to pay for colonies 2. Colonies refuse 3. ..... 4. War! So, maybe someone can help me out here, as I'm a little baffled. Why waste so much money on a fight over such small amounts of tax revenue?