Under the British Empire, The British Crown, as a port city, where The British primarily ruled.
That description fits Boston perfectly. It was in the British empire, under the British crown, in a port city where the British ruled.
Not everything was Boston and established, flushed out colonies with paved streets and whatnot
Yes, just like there were rural areas in England, there were also rural areas in the colonies. There wasn’t much difference except the settlements in the Americas were newer.
It was still very much roughing it
Yes, Benjamin Franklin was really “roughing it” when he worked in various cities running a printing press. I’m sure he was out hunting and foraging all the time. There were people who lived in very rural areas in the colonies, but that’s also true of Great Britain.
British Militia were stationed there
Militias aren’t stationed places. Militias are called up as needed. I suspect you don’t know what a Militia is.
You do realize that this wasn’t some nice thing Britain was doing for the people wanting to leave Britain and had more to do with the British Empire trying to expand their reach over The World as they did in Africa and India? This is what The British did at the time, expansion and conquering through colonization.
Yes, and? That doesn’t change that the primary beneficiaries of their plan to expand were the colonists who lived nearby. They weren’t doing it as a favour for the colonists, they were doing it as a strategic investment in the empire, of which the colonists were a part.
This was a social change driven by that society’s desire to be rid of British Occupation
No it wasn’t. That’s the propaganda. The truth is that it was a revolution kicked off by the wealthy elite colonists who were greedy and didn’t want to have to share their wealth with the government. They wanted the benefits of the wars that Britain had fought to expand the empire’s reach in North America, without having to pay the bill or agree to the terms of the treaty that ended the war.
According to John Adams, only about a third of the colonists were “Patriots”, or revolutionaries. The other two thirds were Loyalists or undecided. You’d think that if anything he’d be overestimating the number of “Patriots” to make it seem like there was more support for the war on his side.
Otherwise, this “revolution” would have fizzled without ongoing support, much like the “sovereign citizen” movement has.
No, because the people backing the revolution were rich, and could afford to raise armies to fight for their side. Meanwhile, the British were still trying to pay off the debts from the previous war. The revolution succeeded because rich smugglers like John Hancock paid the bill, not because it had near universal support.
During this period, with the British waging war and needing supplies (along with colonies needing supplies), this was primarily handled by The East India Trading Company to handle shipments and imports
No… as you might be able to tell from the name, the British East India company operated in… India. They were a trading company, not a company that supplied the needs of colonists in the Americas.
Annexation in that after the American Revolution and the British Surrender, this allowed the newly formed society to be separated entirely from the British Empire and British Militia.
You might want to look up the definition of “annexation”, you’re not using the word correctly.
Now it just seems like you’re suggesting that Britain never released its control and influence over America
Britain never “released” control over the colonies in the Americas until the rebels won the war. Until then the colonies were an integrated part of the empire. Most colonists considered themselves as British. Some of them were Britons who had disagreements with how the government was run. But, that’s like Texans today who consider themselves American but think the government should be run differently.
removal of British Militia has apart in this.
Apart means separate. The words you mean to use are “a part”. Your grasp of history is as weak as your grasp of grammar.
That description fits Boston perfectly. It was in the British empire, under the British crown, in a port city where the British ruled.
Yes, just like there were rural areas in England, there were also rural areas in the colonies. There wasn’t much difference except the settlements in the Americas were newer.
Yes, Benjamin Franklin was really “roughing it” when he worked in various cities running a printing press. I’m sure he was out hunting and foraging all the time. There were people who lived in very rural areas in the colonies, but that’s also true of Great Britain.
Militias aren’t stationed places. Militias are called up as needed. I suspect you don’t know what a Militia is.
Yes, and? That doesn’t change that the primary beneficiaries of their plan to expand were the colonists who lived nearby. They weren’t doing it as a favour for the colonists, they were doing it as a strategic investment in the empire, of which the colonists were a part.
No it wasn’t. That’s the propaganda. The truth is that it was a revolution kicked off by the wealthy elite colonists who were greedy and didn’t want to have to share their wealth with the government. They wanted the benefits of the wars that Britain had fought to expand the empire’s reach in North America, without having to pay the bill or agree to the terms of the treaty that ended the war.
According to John Adams, only about a third of the colonists were “Patriots”, or revolutionaries. The other two thirds were Loyalists or undecided. You’d think that if anything he’d be overestimating the number of “Patriots” to make it seem like there was more support for the war on his side.
No, because the people backing the revolution were rich, and could afford to raise armies to fight for their side. Meanwhile, the British were still trying to pay off the debts from the previous war. The revolution succeeded because rich smugglers like John Hancock paid the bill, not because it had near universal support.
No… as you might be able to tell from the name, the British East India company operated in… India. They were a trading company, not a company that supplied the needs of colonists in the Americas.
You might want to look up the definition of “annexation”, you’re not using the word correctly.
Britain never “released” control over the colonies in the Americas until the rebels won the war. Until then the colonies were an integrated part of the empire. Most colonists considered themselves as British. Some of them were Britons who had disagreements with how the government was run. But, that’s like Texans today who consider themselves American but think the government should be run differently.
Apart means separate. The words you mean to use are “a part”. Your grasp of history is as weak as your grasp of grammar.