Pre Revolt in American history.

The build up to the 1776 revolution was so much more than the throwing of tea into the Boston harbor. It was indeed about resources then as it is now with taxation theft, nothing new under the sun.
Same tyranny today, except it's from our own new Government.


The Pine Tree Riot

"The story of the English need for ship's masts, ship's timber, and naval stores and young New Hampshire's ability to provide these commodities is a tale of market dynamics, imperial politics, ecological shortsightedness, and crafty survival tactics…." 1 In short, timber was to the world at that time what oil is to the world today--a finite resource for which nations competed.

The Pine Tree Riot of 1772

a reply to: CataclysmicRockets

I think you can go a bit further back than that.

In May 1763, just a few months after the formal conclusion of the Seven Years’ War, a pan-tribal confederacy led by Ottawa chief Pontiac rose up in rebellion. His warriors attacked a dozen British forts, capturing eight of them, and raided numerous frontier settlements. Hundreds died in the process. In response, the British handed out smallpox-infected blankets to Pontiac’s followers. Moreover, a gang of whites known as the Paxton Boys massacred 20 defenseless Native Americans who had nothing to do with the fighting.

In an attempt to prevent similar incidents from occurring, King George III issued his royal decree. Acknowledging that “great frauds and abuses have been committed,” the proclamation furthermore prohibited settlers from buying tribal territory. Instead, only the crown could now make such purchases. “We shall avoid many future quarrels with the savages by this salutary measure,” said General Thomas Gage, who commanded all British forces in North America.

...the Proclamation of 1763 banned settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains, infuriating colonists—including George Washington.

www.history.com...

a reply to: CataclysmicRockets

It was indeed about resources.

Of course it was. That's why England colonised North America in the first place.

If it hadn't. then there would never have been a country called The United States Of America.

So which way would you have preferred it ?

originally posted by: alldaylong
Of course it was. That's why England colonised North America in the first place.

And France, Spain and Portugal but the Hudson Bay Company had the most staying power, in the end.

The Hudson's Bay Company (HBC; French: Compagnie de la Baie d'Hudson) is a Canadian retail business group. A fur trading business for much of its existence, it became the largest and oldest corporation in Canada, and now owns and operates retail stores across the country.[2][3] The company's namesake business division is Hudson's Bay, commonly referred to as The Bay (La Baie in French).[4]

After incorporation by English royal charter in 1670, the company was granted a commercial monopoly over the entire Hudson Bay drainage basin, known as Rupert's Land. The HBC functioned as the de facto government in Rupert's Land for nearly 200 years until the HBC relinquished control of the land to Canada in 1869 as part of the Deed of Surrender,[5][6] authorized by the Rupert's Land Act 1868. At its peak, the company controlled the fur trade throughout much of the English- and later British-controlled North America.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: alldaylong
If it hadn't. then there would never have been a country called The United States Of America.

So which way would you have preferred it ?

Perhaps we should ask the Natives that not the immigrant colonisers. All things considered.

a reply to: CataclysmicRockets



This fellow raises interesting points in this short video regarding the revolution.