I mean, while that is true, I don’t know how much the news of a recent event like the Great Bengal Famine in a time of slow news and even slower analysis really impacted the American Revolution’s internal support. Most American colonists were probably not particularly aware of the Great Bengal Famine, and those that were were probably not in possession of the full data of the event and its causes; and revolutionary sentiment had been on the rise all through the 1760s in any case.
I think calling the rising sentiment of the 1760s as revolutionary is a presentist perspective. The sinking of the Gaspee was in 1772 and the Tea Party in 1773 both are at most forms of uncivilized protest rather than revolt. At earliest revolution/independence wasn’t even a firm niche view until 1775 IMO.
As for the pace at which word spread regarding India, here is an article from Sept 1771 on the matter published in a New Hampshire newspaper https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025582/1771-09-27/ed-1/seq-3/ (pg 3). I do not think it is unreasonable that by 1775 the American people would have been informed of the hazards of the extractive policies of Britain as evidenced by Bengal.
Obviously one newspaper article doesn’t show full knowledge of the extent of the incident (despite that it was published in various other local journals). But thinking of the terrible conditions often unpaid men faced in the patriot camps avoiding what even this one article claims seems like a worthy hill to die on. Here’s a section:
“On our arrival here, we found a river full of dead human carcasses floating up and down, and the streets crowded with the dead and dying, without anyone attempting to give them relief; so horribly has the famine raged here, that they who were able to walk and procure food for themselves were so accustomed to see their fellow creatures perishing before them, that it did not even create a painful emotion."
I mean, while that is true, I don’t know how much the news of a recent event like the Great Bengal Famine in a time of slow news and even slower analysis really impacted the American Revolution’s internal support. Most American colonists were probably not particularly aware of the Great Bengal Famine, and those that were were probably not in possession of the full data of the event and its causes; and revolutionary sentiment had been on the rise all through the 1760s in any case.
I think calling the rising sentiment of the 1760s as revolutionary is a presentist perspective. The sinking of the Gaspee was in 1772 and the Tea Party in 1773 both are at most forms of uncivilized protest rather than revolt. At earliest revolution/independence wasn’t even a firm niche view until 1775 IMO.
As for the pace at which word spread regarding India, here is an article from Sept 1771 on the matter published in a New Hampshire newspaper https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025582/1771-09-27/ed-1/seq-3/ (pg 3). I do not think it is unreasonable that by 1775 the American people would have been informed of the hazards of the extractive policies of Britain as evidenced by Bengal.
Obviously one newspaper article doesn’t show full knowledge of the extent of the incident (despite that it was published in various other local journals). But thinking of the terrible conditions often unpaid men faced in the patriot camps avoiding what even this one article claims seems like a worthy hill to die on. Here’s a section:
“On our arrival here, we found a river full of dead human carcasses floating up and down, and the streets crowded with the dead and dying, without anyone attempting to give them relief; so horribly has the famine raged here, that they who were able to walk and procure food for themselves were so accustomed to see their fellow creatures perishing before them, that it did not even create a painful emotion."