3 ms·
William Dalrymple's book The Anarchy has some excerpts from American pamphlets decrying the EICs treatment of Indians (particularly during the Bengal famine of
by tticvs 3y ago
William Dalrymple's book The Anarchy has some excerpts from American pamphlets decrying the EICs treatment of Indians (particularly during the Bengal famine of 1770) and also warning that the British would attempt to re-organize the colonies in a way that matches the EIC. I don't have time to dig up the passages.
It's obviously not the singular cause but it was also very realistic. If you can manage it, try to think from their perspective: the Crown is preventing you from expanding westward to limit your power, you are hearing (distorted) reports of unimaginable atrocities being committed in the name of profit by the EIC in India, at the same time the EIC is being granted extraordinary privileges in your colonies. Fear of the Crown re-organizing your governmental structure along the lines to move to an extractive form of colonization were well founded.
Furthermore, and returning to the original topic of this thread, the colonists were very averse to monopolies on trade since the few examples they had lead to disastrous behavior by the monopolists.
> the level of control the East India Company had over India back in the 70s was quite limited and relatively indirect.
Completely false, after the battle of Plassey in 1757 led to the EIC gaining direct control over all of Bengal (the largest and richest kingdom of India at that time) and they had installed puppet governments in other kingdoms and provinces.
By the time of the American revolution their power had only grown, surpassing any of the remaining independent kingdoms.
As an aside, When the British public (and hence the American public) found out about the full extent of the atrocities committed by the EIC in India there was a very large public backlash including putting the director on trial for what we would now term Crimes against Humanity. These people were not angels, but they were not only rampaging colonial brutes. History is complex, historical people doubly so.
- qwytw 3y ago> Fear of the Crown re-organizing your governmental structure along the lines to move to an extractive form of colonization were well founded. I'm not sure that's reasonable. The crown was hardly capable (nor particularly eager) to strip the American colonies of their autonomy. They were barely even able to impose new (and quite reasonable if not necessarily fair) taxes. And anyway "selling" millions of Englishmen to EIC would be politically inconceivable both in England and in the colonies themselves. > at the same time the EIC is being granted extraordinary privileges in your colonies The parliament granted the company (which was on the brink of bankruptcy) the sole right to import tea to NA but they still had to really on local merchants to do that and AFAIK had no direct presence in the colonies. I'm not going to argue that was fair, especially when the colonial governments had no say on it but it's still quite a jump to what you're saying. > to an extractive form of colonization were well founded. That wouldn't have been feasible in the northern colonies because there wasn't much to extract. And they have already been practicing a form of extractive colonization in much of the south (which the plantation owners didn't mind). Of course to a much lesser degree than in the Caribbean which was much more suitable for growing sugar and other cash crops. > the colonists were very averse to monopolies on trade since the few examples they had lead to disastrous behavior by the monopolists. The EIC tea was actually cheaper (al though possibly that would've changed after some time) than the smuggled Dutch tea. So the EIC undercut many of the Boston merchants who made their money illegally importing it. I'm not defending monopolies but self-interest surely must also have paid a part > try to think from their perspective: the Crown is preventing you from expanding westward Yeah, if I was a rich landowner in Colonial American I would have also been pissed at the crown for not allowing me to the land (we rightfully won in a war) from the Indian Savages and would surely be enraging by it granting the freedom of worship and limited degree of self-government to the papist Frenchmen in Quebec. This is not sarcasm at all, I just think the self-interest was clearly the primary driving force behind the revolution. The politically active (i.e. well-off) colonists just felt there was more to be gained by getting rid of the British than by maintaining the status quo. > were not only rampaging colonial brutes. Unless you happened to not be white, then they more or less were. The thirteen colonies were the equivalent of the EIC, it's just that much lower population density in NA than in India significantly reduced the pool of people to commit atrocities against.
- tticvs 3y agoI don't really understand why you're arguing with me and you seem to be willfully misreading what I write. There are a lot of primary sources, for example, off the top of my head the pamphlets by Rusticus. It seems like you have a fixed view of history and assume that because you don't know about something it isn't true.
- qwytw 3y agoI never denied that various propaganda pamphlets and other material existed. Just like now, people back then tended to make all kinds of over-exaggerated claims related to politics and especially when they have very strong opinions and need to justify certain very radical actions. So what? > assume that because you don't know about something it isn't true Could you please elaborate on what do you mean by that? What specifically are you talking about (I agree that what I said about the situation in India in the 1770s wasn't that accurate, but it was only tangentially related to the situation in the US)?