What was the British perspective on the American Revolution? It can be summed up in one word,

ingratitude. Britain, after all, had saved its American colonies from French domination by winning

the French and Indian War, 1756 to 1763, known as the Seven Years' War in Europe. But wars are expensive. The British were prepared to foot

80% of the bill. It had every reason to expect that the colonists would be willing, if not happy,

to pay the rest. Parliament's first attempt at collection was the Stamp Act of 1765, a new tax on paper and printed materials.

This had the great disadvantage of hitting precisely those people who were most likely to complain,

lawyers, merchants and journalists, and complain they did loudly with boycotts and protests.

The T Act of 1773 was, likewise, ill-conceived. By giving

the colonists the opportunity to buy cheaper tea from the British East India Company,

the British endangered the business model of rich East Coast importers. They were making a fortune

selling more expensive Dutch tea,

so preferred the status quo. These merchants employed many of the men who, on the night of

the 16th of December 1773, dressed up as Indians and threw 342 cases of tea into Boston

Harbour, an act of rebellion that became known as the Boston Tea Party.

Had the British at this juncture truly endeavoured to understand Americans' grievances,

they might have salvaged their relationship with the colonies, but that would have required

extraordinary statesmen. Unfortunately, no such leadership could be found in

London. Of the 14 prime ministers who served under King George III during his nearly 60-year reign,

only two were truly first-class, William Pitt the elder, and his son William Pitt the younger,

and neither served during the years of the American Revolution.

By contrast, the Americans were led by men of remarkable talents.

Britain had no hope when faced with a soldier possessing the leadership qualities of George

...