Form I-1765 Instructions: Fill & Download for Free

I certainly do. My heritage is 75% English and Scottish (some by way of Northern Ireland) and 25% Norwegian. I’ve been fortunate enough that the ancestors were sufficiently prominent to have left reliable records going back in all English, Scottish, and Irish lines to before the Revolution, in some cases, back to the Mayflower (1620) and the Virginia colony at Jamestown (1607).This is me, at a British Classic Car Show in Lewes, Delaware, just four days ago:And this is me a year ago, May 2018, outside the excellent Fish & Chips restaurant in Rehoboth Beach, “Go Fish” (which has another nearby branch named “Go Brit”) (which has a genuine chips-maker imported from Britain). “Go Fish” is festooned in celebration of the Harry-Meghan marriage:Readers may find this surprising, considering that my major research project for 2016–2017 was to research the reasons why the Revolutionary leaders took-up arms prior to the Declaration of Independence (posted on SSRN in September 2017).And I am a descendant of Rev. War General John Stark, and represent his son major Caleb Stark in the Society of the Cincinnati (in the State of New Hampshire). Both of them fought at Bunker Hill and crossed the Delaware River with George Washington to attack Trenton.But I also have direct Winslow ancestors who, loyalists besieged by the Starks et al. in Boston, signed the paper offering to fight for the Crown if General Gage would arm them (he did not); and a loyalist Patterson ancestor who was Royal Collector of Customs at Philadelphia both during the First Continental Congress in 1774, and as the Second Continental Congress was assembling in 1775.Speaking generally and summarily (Quora answers are not the place to insert lengthy research, such as my SSRN paper, which describes all the exceptions and details to general policies and trends), from the founding of each colony beginning in the early 1600s, each colony had the kind of self-governing autonomy that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have today.The hand of the Crown in America was light under the first two Stuarts, James and Charles; and there was no Crown at all, even in Britain, during the Cromwell days. When the Stuarts came back in 1660 (the Restoration), the Crown continued its basically hands-off policy, excepting some efforts in the late 1600s in New England, which met with great resistance.There was not even a unified Parliament of Great Britain; there were separate Parliaments for England and for Scotland (until 1707). Neither Parliament presumed to make laws to operate inside America, except in a limited sense understood as necessary to regulate over-the-ocean trade; and this lack of assertion of jurisdiction continued after the union in 1707.Britain made wealth from the colonies not by taxation but by holding a monopoly on trade in American raw materials. Developing America required encouraging emigration from Britain to America - and the liberal self-government principles in the American colonies are what made America an attractive place to emigrate to.Self-Government with representation far more accurate-to-the-population than the ancient corrupt boroughs that sent representatives to Parliament; freedom from London taxation; and being willing to live without London government protection or support (i.e., no cash-costs to London) meant that only hard workers, willing and able to defend themselves against the Native Americans without British troops, would want to emigrate - precisely the kind of people necessary to develop the colonies into productive entities.The basically hands-off policy continued through William and Mary (the “Glorious Revolution”), and Queen Anne, and even during the reigns of the first two Hanovers, George I and George II. The rights established in 1689 in the Glorious Revolution established in Britain the kind of rights that Americans had already been living with.I have many ancestors who fought in the various “colonial wars,” including the 1690 Battle of Quebec, where it was my ancestor Thomas Savage who under flag of parley went into Quebec to deliver a message so insulting that the French commander almost hanged him from the battlements:In the painting, below, Savage is the person dressed in red; his surrender demand lies torn to shreds at his feet:Shifting focus from Savage to Stark, we have this:[Note: The expedition of Germans, mentioned above, was in 1495, hired by Margaret of York (Duchess of Burgundy, sister to both King Edward IV and King Richard III) to establish one Perkin Warbeck as king, as a son of Edward IV (claiming to be one of the two “princes in the tower” whom Richard III is generally thought to have murdered). The King of Scotland, James IV, in 1496, sent military forces to aid Warbeck, but Henry VII thwarted all these efforts.]None of the early colonial charters recognized any power of the Parliament of England or of the Parliament of Scotland to legislate generally in any of the colonies, or to have a power to override or participate in the relationship of the King to the legislature of the colony.In 1755, during the reign of King George II, shortly prior to the outbreak of the Seven Years War in 1756, prominent lawyer William Murray, later to become Justice Lord Mansfield, considered where lay the power to make laws in a settled colony (Nova Scotia) prior to the convening of the first elected representative legislature of that colony. The last sentence of the decision is what matters to us:The King’s “commission and instructions” contained the rules for establishing the colonial government, the “commission” being the commission to the appointed governor as governor and the person charged with setting-up the government, and the “instructions” being the description of the kind of government that governor was to make. The ruling establishes that the governor cannot act “as” governor until the legislature has convened. Parliament played no role in drafting or in approving or issuing either the commission or the instructions.Here, the King by “his sign manual or by order in Council” has the power to make laws until the colonial government has fully formed - and there is no mention of the Parliament of Great Britain having any power or role at all in making laws in the colony.Then came the Seven Years War, 1756–1763, and the defeat of French power on the American continent in 1763. Americans did a lot of fighting in that war (which in America was called the French & Indian War); my ancestor John Stark, the future Revolutionary General, was a lieutenant in Rogers’ Rangers, and fought strenuously, winning the reputation that would serve him so well in 1775 and after.In 1760, three years before the victory in the Seven Years War, George III assumed the throne.With the French threat dispelled from North America; Parliament now being the unified Parliament of Great Britain; and America now being so well populated that there was no longer any need to promote emigration from Britain, the British lords and wealthy upper-class decided to assert the power of Parliament to legislate all matters within America. They asserted that this power had always existed.The Americans replied that it had never existed.This is the substance of approximately the first half of my lengthy research paper on SSRN posted in September 2017; and I find, based on quotation of numerous documents, that it was the American position that was correct.The Americans kept hoping that King George III would adopt their position - but he steadfastly took the position of Parliament. Partly this was due to the fact that in 1760, King George III rendered himself totally financially dependent solely upon the Parliament of Great Britain, which no King or Queen before him had ever been, as we see below:George III was only 22 years old when he became king on the death of his grandfather (born in Germany), and in his accession speech, mainly written by a Lord, he personally added “Born and educated in this country, I glory in the name of Britain.” This Civil List Act of 1760 put him inescapably in the power of the Parliament of Great Britain alone.As the wikipedia excerpt above states, by 1769 “the Civil List arrears amounted to more than half a million pounds and the King had to apply to Parliament to pay it off.”With there no longer being any need to foster emigration from Britain to America, the leadership in Britain decided to assert a power to revoke the self-government and freedom from taxation that originally and continuously, for some 160 years, had been the basis provided by Britain for the settlement and development of America. Taxation of America, payable to the control of Parliament, would provide the funds to pay-off the arrears in the Civil List - and provide money to pay for a lot more than that.The taxation effort began with the Stamp Act of 1765, which required that legal documents and newspapers be written on paper made in Britain and bearing a stamp to that effect. The price of the paper included a tax, in the form of payment for the stamp. No land sale, no court decision, could be made, except on this paper.Widespread resistance defeated this effort, but in backing-down on the tax, Parliament vastly increased its claim to power, by on March 18, 1766, adopting the Declaratory Act (“American Colonies Act”), stating“That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”Following this there were escalating controversies, that included Parliamentary commands that colonial legislatures either enact laws they did not want to enact, or rescind laws that Parliament objected to - which then escalated into Parliamentary legislation suspending the operation of such colonial legislatures that refused these commands. My SSRN paper goes into all of this, in detail.And the afore-quoted William Murray, co-author of the 1755 Nova Scotia decision, suddenly discovered a role for the Parliament of Great Britain in the governance of colonies - a role he had seen no trace of in 1755. He did this after being elevated to the title Lord Mansfield, in 1774, in a case involving another colony, Grenada; the case is called Campbell v. Hall. Grenada, when under French rule, had a lower tax-rate on exported sugar than did nearby British sugar-islands, but was taken by Britain in the Seven Years War, effective February 10, 1763. King George III issued a proclamation on October 7, 1763 (apparently not the famous general proclamation of that date, concerning all four new dominions, but specific just to Grenada), stating that he would commission a governor for Grenada, with instructions to form an elected representative legislature.On March 20, 1764, King George III issued a proclamation establishing allotments and boundaries in Grenada, and inviting settlers to purchase them.On April 9, 1764, King George III issued a “commission” to the new governor, with directions to form a government similar to the Nova Scotia model - including an elected representative legislature.On July 20, 1764, King George III then issued proclamation, solely under his own authority, raising the sugar-duty to match the nearby British island rates. He signed this in London. The higher tax was to go into effect on September 29, 1765.The governor, carrying all these documents, did not arrive on the island until December 14, 1764, and the representative assembly first convened in about December, 1765.In 1755, regarding Nova Scotia, William Murray ruled that the King could make law “under his sign manual or order in Council,” without any involvement by Parliament, right up until the moment “Till there can be an assembly,” meaning, up until the legislature of the colony convenes. Applied to Grenada, this meant that the King’s July 20, 1764 proclamation raising the tax-rate was valid, because it predated the December 1765 convening of the first Grenada assembly. Under the law as stated in 1755, it did not matter to the King, or to his servants drafting the various proclamations, the order in which the King signed them.But in 1774, William Murray changed this, and made the sequence of signing the proclamations key. Murray said that once the King had declared his intent to appoint a governor (October 7, 1763), had determined the land subdivisions and offered them for sale (March 20, 1764), and had actually commissioned a governor (April 9, 1764), “the King had immediately and irrevocably granted … that the subordinate legislation over the island should be exercised by an assembly …. [T]hrough inattention of the King’s servants, in inverting the order in which the instruments should have passed, and been notoriously published, the last act [the July 20, 1764 tax increase proclamation] is contradictory to, and a violation of the first, and therefore, void.”This 1774 decision created a void in lawmaking power that did not exist under the 1755 rule. The 1774 decision meant that the King lost the power to make law in Grenada “under his sign manual or order in Council” from the moment of signing a commission with instructions to form a colonial assembly. From that moment until the assembly actually first convened, neither the King, nor the governor could make laws for the colony.By making this void, Murray then made a place for the Parliament of Great Britain to step-in to lawmaking power in a colony. From the moment of signing the commission until the convening of the assembly, Murray concludes the case, laws can be made “by an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain.”Had Murray stayed with the common-sense rule of 1755 - that the King’s power existed until the convening of the elected assembly, with the dates of signing the various commissions and instructions being irrelevant, the case would have been an easy victory for the government, and there would have been no occasion to mention Parliament anywhere in the decision.There was no “inattention” in the actions “of the King’s servants.” Until the assembly convened, the King had the power to make laws, without the Parliament of Great Britain being involved; and after that assembly convened, the King had a direct personal relationship with that assembly, without the Parliament of Great Britain being involved. The “King’s servants” acted in accordance with the long-established principles regarding the government of each colony.Such was the change made in constitutional law between the rule of King George II (in 1755), and King George III (in 1774), consistently with the increase in the power of Parliament over King George III accomplished by the Civil List Act of 1760.John Adams, the future President, just a few months later got into a “debate of published essays” over precisely this point. In accordance with the custom of the times, both his adversary and he used pseudonyms: Adams adopted “Novanglus,” meaning “New Englander.”In his seventh “Novanglus” essay, published March 6, 1775, Adams expressly advocated for the constitutional position that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have today. Adams maintained that this status is what the American colonies had always had, until Parliament’s power-seeking effort began in 1765:Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders who have since 1931 (the Statute of Westminster) been proud to call the Queen “Queen of Canada,” “Queen of Australia,” or “Queen of New Zealand,” ought find nothing odd at all in the sound of “King of Massachusetts,” “King of Connecticut,” or “King of Rhode Island.”And yet, as we know, Parliament and King George III refused this. Up until July 4, 1776, sufficient numbers of Americans still hoped that King George III would restore the ancient and customary recognition of colonial self-governing status by which Britain had founded the colonies. The Declaration of Independence is not a denunciation of kingship per se, but of this one specific king, for first his failure to reign-in the Parliament of Great Britain, and second his active assistance to Parliament’s claims of power. Here are the grievances, each one personal to King George III, as printed at the time in the “Dunlap Broadside” and distributed to be read in every city and town in America:Most of the grievances focus on the suspension of the self-governing legislatures and their power to make - or refuse to make - laws. “Taxation without representation” is merely the 17th on the list of 27 different grievances. I discuss the foundation for each of these in my SSRN paper, identifying actions that occurred during the “resistance period” prior to July 4, 1776.So - given all this, how can I, an American, happily wave the Union Jack and be proud of my British heritage?Because through a long, difficult process, the Parliament of the United Kingdom (successor to the Parliament of Great Britain), the Kings and Queen since George V, and the political leadership of Britain, have abandoned all of the exaggerated claims of their own power over others, that were the source of the American “resistance” prior to July 4, 1776, and that were the source of the Revolution.I say this by looking at the constitutional status of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It was not until certain constitutional changes adopted in the early 1980s that the process at last was completed.But completed it is. After a long, long bout of the disease of “imperial-itis,” the government in Britain has at long last, for the last some 35 years, abided by its proper moral place among the English-speaking lands.Accompanying this was, of course, the process of “de-colonialization.”The grievances over which the Americans fought the British have all been redressed - by the British conduct towards Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and by performing the process of de-colonialization.I don’t mean by this to say that America will be inclined to re-adopt the British Crown. There is still a fundamental difference, in that America stands for the proposition that the people (however vague the term may be) are sovereign. Declaring that was a necessary step in declaring independence; it is expressed in the famous preamble to the Declaration.To make an individual human being “special” and exalted” - which is what Royalty does - is an insult to the dignity of everyone else in the society.And it promotes a selfish competition to become a semi-exalted person, a noble, a lord, a knight, higher than the “commoners” (though subordinate to the King or Queen), that is corrosive to the society. In the aftermath of World War I, Germany, Austria, and other nations abolished titles of nobility, and some went so far as to exclude them even from people’s names, for precisely this reason. I researched and wrote about this issue - which has occasioned some recent cases in the European Court - in one of my recent research papers on SSRN.While Britain has been catching-up, morally, to where it always ought to have been, in terms of respect for the self-governing dignity of other peoples, other nations, including America, have been making progress on their own, that Britain ought to make the effort to catch-up to.But that is no reason to abandon pride in having the British heritage. And thus I conclude by repeating the photo with which I began this answer:Cheers, Britain!

George III did mishandle relations with the American colonies -- most modern historians, American and British, agree on that point -- but he actually did try the tact suggested in the question, to no avail. It showed, however, his mindset, which was really the root of the problem.To begin with, despite an assertion elsewhere here, George III was very firmly in control of the Lord North government, and had taken a keen interest in American affairs and managed them in great detail personally. Some background:In 1686, King James II revoked the colonial charters of several American colonies -- New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey -- and forced them into a mega-colony called the Dominion of New England. He filled the new colony's political positions with his personal political hacks, causing extreme agitation. When news of the 1688 "Glorious Revolution" reached the Americas (overthrowing James II in favor of William and Mary), the American colonists immediately rose in revolt and overthrew James' governors and administrations, and re-established the pre-1686 colonies. They arrested James' governors and then waited on instructions from London, hoping that William would accept and legitimize their rebellion. In effect he did, freeing the prisoners but allowing the old charters to be re-established. James II (a converted Catholic) was exiled to France but then landed in Ireland in 1689 to foment rebellion and form a Catholic army that would eventually land in England. That ended in defeat with the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, but France came to his aid nonetheless and this started a series of wars between England and France that would last through the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. In fact, this kicked off a serious Anglo-French rivalry that led to almost constant wars between the two throughout much of the 18th century. The point of all this is that after James II's ouster in 1688, London was largely focused on the rivalry with France, and essentially left the American colonies alone.In one regard, this was positive as it allowed the colonies to develop their own fairly democratic and self-sufficient political institutions - colonial legislatures and administrations that learned how to function for decades with minimal input (or interference) from London. The downside was that London also largely abandoned the American colonies in terms of security. Every war between England (after 1711, Britain) and France also played out in the Americas as France sent professional soldiers, colonial militias and Indian allies to raid American colonial towns and ports, with Britain doing nothing to help the colonists defend themselves other than to advise them to form their own militias. From 1690-1697 was the war over James II's ouster - called King William's War in the Americas - and then came the War of the Spanish Succession (1700-1713) known as Queen Anne's War to Americans, then Father Rale's War (1722-1725) when New Englanders and Quebecers fought over Maine, then came the almost simultaneous War of Jenkin's Ear (1739-1748) and the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748) which was known as King George's War in the Americas. These all led to a near-constant state of intermittent warfare in New England, New York, Pennsylvania and to a lesser extent the border towns of other colonies, and not just in the border areas; professional French forces, militias and Algonquin Indian allies continuously raided deeply into the English colonies, most infamously with the Deerfield Raid of 1704 during which a sizable town in western Massachusetts was burned down and more than a hundred captives taken to Quebec. (In the last war, King George's War, fed-up New Englanders united their militias to form an army that attacked and successfully captured France's Fort Louisbourg fortress at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River in 1745, but because of reverses in the European war, London gave the fortress back to France in 1748 in the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.)While he wasn't king yet, George III was instrumental in 1754 in changing all this. When Virginia Colonel Washington's mission to oust the French from the confluence of the Ohio, Allegheny and Monongahela rivers went disastrously wrong and war once again loomed between Britain and France (the Seven Years War), London convened a conference in Albany, NY (1754) with most of the American colonies to settle some lingering relationship issues with border region Indians, especially the Iroquois - but this conference was also a notice to the American colonists: America had too long been neglected, and Mother Britain was going to be more involved from now on. The Americans reacted with jubilation as the first manifestation of this renewed British involvement came in the form of armies - actual British regular forces were defending Americans, for the first time since the 1680s! Though relations between regular British forces and American militias were often strained (in what Americans and Anglophone Canadians call the French and Indian War; 1756-1763), nevertheless Americans were thrilled as after a few years of setbacks, General Amherst gradually overcame French colonial defenses, culminating in General Wolf's legendary conquest of Quebec. Victory in 1763 sent the American colonies into utter euphoria -- the French threat was removed, and London had finally proven that it actually gave a crap about Americans, sending armies to defeat the French and end the years of constant raids and suffering. What they didn't understand (yet) was that George III -- king since 1760 -- was going to be taking a much more detailed interest in American affairs, in ways that the Americans hadn't anticipated.As we all know, the Stamp Act was passed in 1765, as an add-on to another bill in Parliament, almost as an after-thought. The British thinking was simple: the Mother Country had sent several armies to defend the colonies - at considerable expense - and so why shouldn't the colonies pitch in to pay off the large debt the war cost Britain? And hey, it had technically started in the colonies themselves anyway. The American reaction to the Stamp Act fell into three basic categories of Americans, however:The Intellectuals, who resented being treated like conquered colonials. By not being allowed to send representatives to the British Parliament, they felt as if a key British right was being denied them, and indeed that was their argument: they or their forefathers had emigrated to the Americas freely, and could move back to England if they wanted -- many did so -- so didn't they continue to have the rights of free Englishmen in the Americas? At which point in the Atlantic did they lose those rights? These colonists invoked the famous Parliamentary charge against England's Stuart King Charles I in the 1630s when he tried to illegally raise taxes for a war against the Presbyterian Scots without Parliamentary approval: "No taxation without representation!" By using that slogan, they consciously were invoking the rights of Englishmen - an argument lost on George III. For these Americans, the issue was less the tax than the legal process behind it. William Pitt the Younger recognized this argument, however, in his famous speech in Parliament arguing for the repeal of the Stamp Act:Upon the whole, I will beg leave to tell the House what is really my opinion. It is, that the Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally, and immediately; that the reason for the repeal should be assigned, because it was founded on an erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend every point of legislation whatsoever: that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever - except that of taking money out of their pockets without their consent.Merchants: America was then and still is today a nation primarily of traders, and this tax hit them hard. In small transactions it amounted to little but in larger volumes it accumulated. Coupled with mercantilism -- the British practice of forcing American merchants to trade only with Britain -- this tax put a dent in the living standard of many coastal Americans dependent on trade. This in turn helped fuel an already rampant wave of smuggling, as American merchants sought to circumvent not only the tax but rules banning them from trading with other countries or even other British colonies without going through British ports first.Commoners: The stamp tax reached down to the lowest levels of colonial society, forcing colonists to pay a tax for any paper products from books, newspapers, receipts, letters; anything paper-based. Because doing so required a signed receipt - a form of public notary - paying the stamp tax required paying a tax. For these people, the tax was a real burden. This is why anger with London quickly spread like wild fire and to all levels of colonial society. Throughout much of the war Lord North and George III were convinced that the entire revolution was the work of a few bad apples like Sam Adams, despite constant reports from their military commanders of having to confront entire countrysides filled with enraged farmers.This was a very poorly-conceived tax, and revealed George III's thinking, which is that he failed to distinguish between freely-settled colonies -- most of the American colonies -- and conquered colonies. His thought process in this regard did not change throughout the entire American crisis, from 1765 to 1783. Infuriated that someone would challenge his government's prerogative, he stumbled from punitive measure to punitive measure until finally militarily occupying Boston in 1768 and putting it under martial law. In 1782, a year after the defeat of Cornwallis' army at Yorktown, George III granted the local parliament in Ireland broad autonomy for his Irish subjects ("Grattan's Parliament") but his ultimate motive was to show his rebellious American subjects just how magnanimous he could be, if only they'd lay down their arms and just resubmit to his rule. It took the collapse of his government in Parliament for the king to realize that the war was over. Incidentally, the Americans largely believed that George III did not know what was happening, and the Continental Congress sent him two petitions, in 1774 and again in 1775, trying to explain to the king that they were loyal to him but that an evil government was causing the troubles -- but both petitions were dismissed.So the problem wasn't that the taxes were too high -- though many farmers, fishermen and laborers saw it that way -- but that the taxes were imposed from London without either the local colonial legislatures being able to approve them, or the colonies being able to send elected representatives to Parliament in London. When the Stamp Act was repealed, George III thought that he was accommodating the Americans, and so thought nothing of imposing other taxes instead -- completely missing the American argument against the first taxes.In 1839, a year after a series of revolts had broken out across both Lower Canada (i.e., Quebec) and Upper Canada (i.e., Ontario), London sent Lord Durham on a fact-finding mission to understand why the Canadians had rebelled and he filed a famous report (The Durham Report). Over 142 pages, he came to two basic conclusions. The first was that the French were a bunch of medieval frog-eaters who were incapable of modern civilization, and that Quebec should be stripped of all autonomy and Anglicized as soon as possible. (Well, he was an Englishman, and we all have our prejudices.) His second was that the rebellion in Upper Canada (Ontario), however, was legitimate and caused by poor governance, and he suggested a series of democratic reforms to allow Canadians more say in the running of their colony. Local authorities had tried to blame the United States for the rebellion but Durham rejected this and even went so far as to admire American democracy and government. Moreover, several times he implied that if London had paid due respect to these American political institutions in 1776, then the United States might still be a part of the British Empire.By creating high prizes in a general and responsible Government, we shall immediately afford the means of pacifying the turbulent ambitions, and of employing in worthy and noble occupations the talents which now are only exerted to foment disorder. We must remove from these Colonies the cause to which the sagacity of Adam Smith traced the alienation of the Provinces which now form the United States: we must provide some scope for what he calls 'the importance' of the leading men in the Colony, beyond what he forcibly terms the present 'petty prizes of the paltry raffle of colonial faction'. A general Legislative Union would elevate and gratify the hopes of able and aspiring men. They would no longer look with envy and wonder at the great arena of the bordering federation, but see the means of satisfying every legitimate ambition in the high offices of the Judicature and Executive Government of their own Union.

There is so Much prejudice here in some of the answers posted here they simply assume it because of their poor understanding of this community History.I do not really blame them as Vokkaligas During the rule of Adlishahis, Mughals , Hyder ali, Tippu lost most of their previous status many Vokkaligas kings and Vokkaligas palegars were forcefully converted and KilledGowda—Gouda-Gowder-Gounder - Gavunda- Gamunda-Kavunda. All are similar titles used by the Okkula community. These are variations of the title of the same name .Here Vokkaligas is the Old kannada name for the profession of these community who were traditionally into Farming activity read this to know more about the communities history.Pawan Raj's answer to What is the history of Vokkaliga?Bangalore was ruled by the Vokkaligas chieftens of Morasu clan which was annexed by the Mughals and the rulers were largely disposed off by the Mughals . Later it was sold to Mysore wodeyers .A Vokkaliga palegar Sikkappa Gowda ruled Sikkapallapura which was near Bangalore. Hyder be Ali sieged Sikkapallapura. At the end of the war Sikkapallapuram palegara Sikkappa Goudar agreed to pay Rs.6 lakhs to Hyder Ali.But Sikkappa Gowda could not pay Rs.6 lakh to Hyder Ali as agreed earlier. So Hyder Ali again invaded Sikkapallapuram and captured the fort.Sikkappa Gowda died in the battle field itself. Hyder Ali imprisoned Sikkappa Gowdas family members and kept them in Coimbatore jail in 1765.Earlier local Vokkaligas were recruited for Hyder’s army. Hyder Ali brought horses and more soldiers from outside and employed them in his army in the name of modernization of his military forces. Vokkaligas were appointed as Amildars and Sardars in his army.There was a fort of Hyder ali in Palakad in Kerala. He settled more Vokkaligas in Palakad. Vokkaligas were high level officials in Hyder alis army.He appreciated the efficiency and loyalty of the Vokkaligas.Later he stopped recruiting Vokkaligas to high positionDuring the period of Hyder Ali the Vokkaligas faced heavy loss. Hyder Ali removed 25000 agro martial heroes from military services and appointed full time professional soldiers in their places.Due to the loss of military jobs many Vokkaliga families suffered and their status came down.This agro martial Vokkaliga pattern faced challenge during the period of Tippu Sultan. Instead of Vokkaligas Tippu Sultan appointed Arabs /Muslims as soldiers in high positionsEarlier kings who ruled before Tippu Sultan had given free or inam land to Vokkaligas who did military services and they were also exempted from paying land tax.When Tippu Sultan came to power he had taken back all the lands given to such agro martial Vokkaligas.When Tippu Sultan was ruler he treated the Vokkaliga Goudas very strictly. He followed very hard military and heavy tax policy which caused big loss to the Vokkaliga Goudas.Many of their lands were withdrawn and returned back as lease . Later these lands were handed over to Mysore kings while some Vokkaligas who held small lands in south karnataka were allowed to keep it .To oppose the new military recruitment and increasement of tax about 600 people of the surrounding villages of Srirangapattana including the Vokkaliga accountants of villages gathered in front of Tippu’s palace.Tippus tax collecting officer Mir Sathak informed the king Tippu about the gathering of 600 people in front of the Tippu’s palace. Instead of this opposition Tippu increased tax from 30% to 37%. Tippu instructed his officials to bring two Vokkaliga representatives to represent their grievances to the King. Then immediately Tippu ordered to hang those two Gouda representatives in front of king’s palace. On hearing the kings order all other Vokkaligas dispersed . Many Vokkaligas community migrated to Tamil nadu due to strict policies.. More Vokkaligas were forcibly converted to Islam. Several groups of Vokkaligas migrated to Tamilnadu to escape from compulsory Muslim conversionWhy do Gowdas/Vokkaligas take pride in their cast it is because they take pride of being the orginal farmers and that they are able to provide food to millions of Citizens of the state .But also take the pride in establishing and ruling many different dynasties of Karnataka and served as soldiers , Administrators , Military officers, Army generals Throughout their History.As matter of fact every cast should feel proud of their community history as they have been instrumental in Hindu society in some form or the other without degrading the others.