In Britain, how was the American Revolution regarded (if at all?)

by TheOber

I know that at the time, Redcoats were involved in worse matters, but how was the American Revolution presented? Did it take more of a Proxy status or was it popular?

ombudsmen

I immediately think of a pair of quick-reading, not-too-dense books on the subject that I read through speedily when doing research:

Stanley Weintraub, Iron Tears: America's Battle for Freedom, Britain's Quagmire: 1775-1783 (New York: Free Press, 2005)

Don Cook, The Long Fuse: How England Lost the American Colonies 1760-1785 (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1995)

Sadly, I don't have either of these on hand to pull up and grab some quotes from, but this NPR interview with Weintraub (who is the author of the worse or the two books) served as a refresher for me and should be enough to give you the quick and dirty on the subject.

One of his better points is on how the revolution disrupted a long-standing trade balance. America heavily relied on the British for manufactured good, and Britain depended on America for natural resources. Combine this back-and-forth with the products coming from the plantations in the West Indies, and we have a macro-economics scale triangle of trade that is greatly disrupted. This obviously turned some heads in England.

However, Weintraub notes that we shouldn't undercut the more emotional side of the story:

They were very important as a source of raw materials, particularly agricultural materials and tobacco. But the Colonies were also important as a source of pride. We think in terms of `the jewel in the crown' applied to India, but that term was really first applied to the American Colonies. They were the jewel in the king's crown.

He describes this rebellion against the extension of British culture and pride in North America as shocking the British. They were surprised about the war, confused about how the colonists were decently well-armed, and flabbergasted when reports of casualties that began to trickle in overseas. Cook's explains that this shock resulted in a schism in Parliament on how to deal with the colonies, which he attributes (along with a series of errors) to costing the British the war.

If I recall correctly, Cook's point in emphasizing the fractures in Parliament is to describe the many voices and opinions involved. This makes it difficult to pin down a single perception, so others may have more nuanced aspects to add, but my impression is that reaction from the British side of things is in concern for the disruption of this financial transaction and shock over their "crown jewel" rebelling.