history question

From what I remember of history, the colonies were established by English people but then people emigrated there from other countries as well. So it was probably easier to call them all colonists then to try and figure out who was what.

I have read that one of the colonists' complaints was that they were not being given the rights of Englishmen, nor were they even considered as such. The poster above me made a good suggestion. But maybe its even simpler than that. The colonies were a new source of revenue and perhaps it was easier for the crown to milk them for all they were worth by just saying: "They aren't English, we can do whatever we want to them." Not saying that as a fact, just a thought that came to mind.

Matthyew,

Actually, they did consider them as "subjects" which is to say they were subjects under the Crown of England. Many would argue that they had less rights than native born abiding in England. But this is not true, the colonists even the native Americans were considered "subjects". An unlanded (not owning land) Englishman had few rights, they could be siezed and pressed into military service at whim. One of the many attractions of coming to the colonies was the chance to own land.

Putting this in the perspective of modern citizenship is a false argument. If you resided in the colonies you were a subject regardless of your origin. Immigration status is a modern construct, and cannot be easily applied to the status of colonists.

One of the complaints of the colonists is there was no protective peerage in place. In England, if a peasant had a grievence, he could petition the Lord on whose land they were living. In America there were no Lords so you had to petition directly to the King. King George had little concern with reading the petitions of what he considered peasants. After the publication of "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine about one-third of the colonists no longer wanted America peers; they wanted dissolution.

Je