Was the American Revolution a Reflection of British Hubris?

[Arafeel]

Originally Posted by Socrates

The "cost of defending the colonies" was largely to fund a standing army that the colonies did not want.

But they did need it, estimated about 40 battalions to protect the colonies. This was after the 7 year war and Pontiac rebellion, and clearly showed that the crown need to handle defense. Off course they were also to be used to defend the native against the colonist and keep the demarcation line.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Arafeel

Most Americans it seems, have learned an romantic narrative of the revolution. "The Founding Fathers led proud and noble Patriots to fight against unjust and tyrannical British rule and ultimately prevailed."

And not the "A group of disgruntled colonists refused to pay a small tax to partially pay for their own defense, even tough they had the highest standard of living in the world, payed only one 26th of the taxes a average Englishman did, and enjoyed greater freedoms. They firstly revolted and then started a war, and 13 out of 17 colonies seceded."

As a Briton, I'd say a fairer version would be:

"After largely being left to govern themselves for several centuries, efforts by the British government to more assertively tax and regulate her most settled American colonies led to a dispute about the legitimacy of a parliament without colonial input to govern them. Despite the removal of individual policies, colonial efforts to address their underlying constitutional concerns through legal means failed. The commitment to the principles of "no taxation without representation" and absolute parliamentary sovereignty on each side led to increasing acrimony and eventual violent confrontation. This led to the secession of the colonies and, after a war of independence backed up by Britain's rivals, the formation of a new republic, with greater commitment to Enlightenment principles than the British constitutional setup."

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Arafeel

And not the "A group of disgruntled colonists refused to pay a small tax to partially pay for their own defense, even tough they had the highest standard of living in the world, payed only one 26th of the taxes a average Englishman did, and enjoyed greater freedoms. They firstly revolted and then started a war, and 13 out of 17 colonies seceded."

The problem with putting it down to taxes is that it doesn't explain why the colonies were all so economically irrational.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Arafeel

Formally and formally, they did not elect delegates for the first congress, they elected but did not send delegates to the second congress. But the war should more properly be called a civil war, there were more Provincials under arms on the side of the Crown than regulars.

This seems very, very hard for me to believe. Got a cite for it?

I should also think the difference between Quebec and the rest of the colonies was obvious, no?

[Arafeel]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

This seems very, very hard for me to believe. Got a cite for it?

I should also think the difference between Quebec and the rest of the colonies was obvious, no?

Yes, but then Quebec should have been more likely to rebel, no? And you still have the Floridas, the west indies, nova scotia, georgia. Tought there were revolts in there as well.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Arafeel

But they did need it, estimated about 40 battalions to protect the colonies. This was after the 7 year war and Pontiac rebellion, and clearly showed that the crown need to handle defense. Off course they were also to be used to defend the native against the colonist and keep the demarcation line.

It may have been needed before the 7YW, but afterwards the French had been kicked out of Canada and the Spanish out of Florida. Thus the only defence needed was from the natives, and local militias could do that.

You can argue that British troops were needed to defend the natives from the colonists, and I'd have some sympathy for that, but it's no longer the colonists being taxed "to pay for their own defence".

[Arafeel]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

This seems very, very hard for me to believe. Got a cite for it?

I should also think the difference between Quebec and the rest of the colonies was obvious, no?

A modern estimate of loyalist strength allots about 50,000 at one time or another were soldiers or militia in British forces.

Sources:
Calhoon, Robert M. The Loyalists in Revolutionary America, 1760-1781
Smith, Paul H. "The American Loyalists: Notes on Their Organization and Numerical Strength,": http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21101163485427
Allen,Thomas B. "Tories"
Hibbert, Christopher. "Redcoats and Rebels"

Se especially Calhoon and Smith for numbers.
NB. the maximum number of Americans under arms for the the king at one time is estimated at 9,500-10.000

[Arafeel]

Originally Posted by Socrates

It may have been needed before the 7YW, but afterwards the French had been kicked out of Canada and the Spanish out of Florida. Thus the only defence needed was from the natives, and local militias could do that.

You can argue that British troops were needed to defend the natives from the colonists, and I'd have some sympathy for that, but it's no longer the colonists being taxed "to pay for their own defence".

The estimate iis for after the 7YW as the colonial militias proved incapable of handling the defense, as seen in Pontiac's Rebellion (63-66). It was originally hopped that the militias would be able to handle it, its not as if a government whit a 120 million £ debt after the 7YW wanted the costs. The price estimate was putt at roughly 200.000 £ pr anum, were it was hopped that new tax revenues from the colonies would bring in around 70.000 £ pr year and the crown covering the rest. There was still a French present in the Caribbean (and remembered, Jamaica alone was worth more than all of mainland colonies combined) as well as the Spanish.

[Arafeel]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

The problem with putting it down to taxes is that it doesn't explain why the colonies were all so economically irrational.

Sure, and it is not only about taxes either, but the narrative of the revolution, especially as i have seen it, is. More or less.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Socrates

Again, hard to not repeat myself here, but the MPs for Warwickshire, Yorkshire and Lancashire would have particular concern for bills affecting the cities within their constituencies. Boston, New York and Charleston were in no MP's constituency. The concept of "virtual representation" was entirely contrived to stonewall the colonists and didn't exist before then.

Only if they felt like it. And I'm looking forward to you explaining that, because that's not what Tuchman's account.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h640.html

http://www1.assumption.edu/users/mcc...t/default.html

No dates for either, but no mention of it being invented simply to handle this when the system of representation has been around for longer.

The unjustness was the Stamp Act was being passed by people that weren't elected by those affected by it, not the policy itself. I agree the stuff about tyranny is overblown rhetoric, but that was common place in the 18th Century.

"The Merchants of London, a numerous and respectable Body of Men, whose Opulence exceeds all that America could collect; the Proprietors of that vast Accumulation of Wealth, the public Funds [i.e., holders of British government bonds]; the Inhabitants of Leeds, of Halifax, of Birmingham, and of Manchester, Towns that are each of them larger than the Largest in the Plantations; many of less Note that are yet incorporated; and that great Corporation the East India Company, whose Rights over the Countries they possess, fall little short of Sovereignty, and whose Trade and whose Fleets are sufficient to constitute them a maritime Power, are all in the same Circumstances; none of them chuse their Representatives; and yet are they not represented in Parliament? Is their vast Property subject to Taxes without their Consent? Are they all arbitrarily bound by Laws to which they have not agreed? The Colonies are in exactly the same Situation:"

Trying to focus on just this issue as its the one we appear stuck on.

[TaylorS]

IMO the core cause of the Revolution was that Parliament was quite ignorant about the practical facts on the ground in the colonies, and were politically tone deaf (even the Elder Pitt and Edmund Burke thought the "Virtual Representation" argument was a load of horse manure and said so). The colonies had developed a distinct political and business culture under the years of "benign neglect" and then after the 7 Years War Parliament did a sudden 180 degree turn that collided with colonial culture as it had developed in the previous 100 years like a speeding car smashing into a brick wall. 100 years of habit becomes accepted precedent, and when Parliament thought they could simply turn the ship that was colonial culture on a dime the colonists were all like "WTF, London???"

As an American, though, I am annoyed by the idiotic "patriotic" mythology surrounding the Revolution. Especially ridiculous is the notion that is was a revolt against monarchical tyranny, by 1776 the king the little direct power and it was Parliament that enacted the outrageous legislation that pissed off the colonies. The stuff about "Evil King George" in the American Declaration of Independence was pure propaganda. Hell, George III was out of it a good chunk of the time because of psychotic episodes caused by Porphyria.

[Elfwine]

It may be a load of horse manure, but it was something most Englishmen had to eat along with far heavier burdens, and when the Virginia House of Burgesses practices the same thing . . .


Admittedly, this is why I "defend' it:

Yet the differentiation between actual and virtual representation was really a convenient fiction from the American side. Most colonists realized the total impracticability of sending representatives across the Atlantic. London was too far away, too much time would be needed to issue instructions to colonial representatives, and any American representation would be so badly outnumbered as to make it totally ineffectual.




If taxes were necessary, then the Americans wanted their own assemblies to impose them. Further, the colonists wanted Parliamentary recognition of this perceived right. Essentially, "No taxation without representation" really meant, "No taxation by Parliament. No representation in Parliament. Let us run our own affairs."



And speaking as a centralist, I have zero sympathy with "we want our own assembles to vote for them" when the distinction is between "local" and "national/imperial" as distinct from direct vs. virtual (Which at least has some legitimacy).

Parliament largely let, even with the taxes, the colonies run their own affairs - it was affairs concerning imperial interests that Parliament was passing laws on.

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by Socrates

As a Briton, I'd say a fairer version would be:

"After largely being left to govern themselves for several centuries, efforts by the British government to more assertively tax and regulate her most settled American colonies led to a dispute about the legitimacy of a parliament without colonial input to govern them. Despite the removal of individual policies, colonial efforts to address their underlying constitutional concerns through legal means failed. The commitment to the principles of "no taxation without representation" and absolute parliamentary sovereignty on each side led to increasing acrimony and eventual violent confrontation. This led to the secession of the colonies and, after a war of independence backed up by Britain's rivals, the formation of a new republic, with greater commitment to Enlightenment principles than the British constitutional setup."

yeah, that covers it pretty well... particularly the first sentence...

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

the American protests against taxation are morally equivalent to a child complaining that daddy expects him to do some chores around the house.

nah, more like a teen who always had an allowance and a decent curfew suddenly being cut back on both for no apparent reason...

Sure, by '76 things have gotten out of hand. But to judge the Stamp Act and the lowered prices of John Company tea as unjust and tyrannical is the stuff that makes people like me anti-revolution.

uh... huh? Anti-revolution? over 200 years after the fact? Kinda pointless, ain't it?

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by Socrates

To weigh in on a few other points:

- Nova Scotia and the Floridas were basically military outposts. The assemblies of Jamaica, Barbados and Granada all declared sympathy for the American cause.
/QUOTE]

They were a bit more than military outpost, not full of colonists true, but even west florida ha a population in 10,000 + region. Gennerally it was the urban middelclass that supported the radicals(tought this differers from colony to coloy), the same group that btw got to vote for the asseblis and the delegats to the congress. And its not if they are asked to do somthing horrible, the revenue was supposed to cover a third of the cost of defending the colonies. Somthing, with good reason, on could not excpet them to mange for themselfs.

The colonies couldn't manage their own defense? They did a pretty good job after the war, didn't they? The colonists didn't want or need those soldiers there, that's why they didn't want to pay for them. If they were in danger of being attacked, they would have wanted them.

Originally Posted by Arafeel

I always find it strange that the fact that John Hancock, a wealthy smugler, supported the boston tea party, when the price of that EIC tea would have been even cheaper than the smugeld tea.

So, given the Britain-centric economic system at the time, with significant trade restrictions on the colonies, you can't see why John Hancock, smuggler and one of the wealthiest merchants in the colonies, would support fighting the British?

Elfwine, why do you have so little sympathy for the local assemblies wanting more control? Sorry, I just don't quite understand your distinctions here.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

nah, more like a teen who always had an allowance and a decent curfew suddenly being cut back on both for no apparent reason...

Except that he wasn't.

uh... huh? Anti-revolution? over 200 years after the fact? Kinda pointless, ain't it?

Anti-revolution as in anti-revolutions in general, not anti-the-AR in particular.

I side with Burke on them more than Jefferson.

Originally Posted by Sucrose

Elfwine, why do you have so little sympathy for the local assemblies wanting more control? Sorry, I just don't quite understand your distinctions here.

As stated, I'm a centralist. Or to use the terminology of the post-AR discussions, a Federalist.

National government serves and covers the interests of the whole, local self-interest has a distressing tendency to be short sighted and selfish.

Let's take the issue of the British military presence in North America.

So what if Connecticut doesn't think it needs troops? Does that mean that other areas in NA don't?

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Anti-revolution as in anti-revolutions in general, not anti-the-AR in particular.

I side with Burke on them more than Jefferson.

See now, I can understand this position. This is a position I can respect, if not necessarily agree with.

(But since you brought him up, I should also point out that in Burke's opinion, the ruling British government had rejected compromise and was rushing into war with its own colonies)

Originally Posted by Elfwine

As stated, I'm a centralist. Or to use the terminology of the post-AR discussions, a Federalist.

But the problem was that the British Empire was not a federation. Its policies were only geared toward the interests of the home island. In the 18th century all other parts of the empire were only considered to be there for the home island.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

National government serves and covers the interests of the whole, local self-interest has a distressing tendency to be short sighted and selfish.

Let's take the issue of the British military presence in North America.

So what if Connecticut doesn't think it needs troops? Does that mean that other areas in NA don't?

Well, you can't rightly say that Connecticut refused to pay for its own defense. And I'm not sure why the troops would need to be stationed in Connecticut or any of the other colonies that were rebellious but unlikely to be attacked.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Sucrose

See now, I can understand this position. This is a position I can respect, if not necessarily agree with.

(But since you brought him up, I should also point out that in Burke's opinion, the ruling British government had rejected compromise and was rushing into war with its own colonies)

Yes. On the whole, I think Burke did a pretty good job arguing a reasonable position, from what I know of his arguments on the Revolution. People like him are why my beliefs sit between semi-conservative and very leftist.

Chatham/Pitt the Elder had too large an ego for me to appreciate him as much.

But the problem was that the British Empire was not a federation. Its policies were only geared toward the interests of the home island. In the 18th century all other parts of the empire were only considered to be there for the home island.

And this has what to do with lowered duties on rum or the (lowered) price of tea?

The British government was not doing this for the good of the home island, it was trying to do this for the empire on whole, of which the home island has been paying most of the costs.

Well, you can't rightly say that Connecticut refused to pay for its own defense. And I'm not sure why the troops would need to be stationed in Connecticut or any of the other colonies that were rebellious but unlikely to be attacked.

No, and I just picked it at random anyhow. But I can say that the colonies thinking they were unlikely to need those troops doesn't make them right.

And if it gets down to 'which side was right?" - well, talk to Arafeel.

Personally I think it was a poor investment for reasons pointed out by several eloquent MPs - how much will this tax actually provide? Not enough to be worth it.

I do note that as far as I know, no one raise that about rum and other "tightening existing stuff".

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Yes. On the whole, I think Burke did a pretty good job arguing a reasonable position, from what I know of his arguments on the Revolution. People like him are why my beliefs sit between semi-conservative and very leftist.

Chatham/Pitt the Elder had too large an ego for me to appreciate him as much.

Look man, I don't blame you for following Burkean Conservatism to some extent. Burke was a smart guy, even if I don't necessarily agree with much of what he said. But the 18th century was a strange and alien place. Applying modern political thought to it only goes so far. Pitt the Elder wasn't a philosopher, just a politician with a knack for getting the public on his side. He doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And this has what to do with lowered duties on rum or the (lowered) price of tea?

The British government was not doing this for the good of the home island, it was trying to do this for the empire on whole, of which the home island has been paying most of the costs.

Sure. The home island had been paying most of the costs. But the colonies were paying (economically) for their connection to Great Britain too, that's why they wanted to split. Trying to boil it down to who-owed-who money is a waste of effort. (trust me, people back during the actual timeperiod wrote reams of paper about it, "the colonies hadn't paid their fair share during the war", "yes they did they raised so much for the government that they gave them some back" "That wasn't enough" blah blah blah blah. You can read the arguments between Tories and Whigs about it in the Parliamentary records until your eyes glaze over) It ignores the fundamental problems that the British Empire was having in the late 18th century. The old colonial system was coming undone and it would have had to have come undone with or without the American Revolution. If the Revolution had been avoided ties between Great Britain and the American colonies would have had to become looser, not tighter. Taxation to the British crown was a way to make them tighter, and it would never have worked out in the long run. Like I said earlier in the thread, there was a reason this experiment was never again tried in any British colony.

And you're attributing far too much magnanimity to the British government of this time period: At the same time all this was occurring, they were enacting some of the most ruinous ever economic policies over Ireland.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Sucrose

Look man, I don't blame you for following Burkean Conservatism to some extent. Burke was a smart guy, even if I don't necessarily agree with much of what he said. But the 18th century was a strange and alien place. Applying modern political thought to it only goes so far. Pitt the Elder wasn't a philosopher, just a politician with a knack for getting the public on his side. He doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

In the grand scheme of things, no. In the context of picking speeches I admire, I like what Burke had to say - or at least his way with words.

Sure. The home island had been paying most of the costs. But the colonies were paying (economically) for their connection to Great Britain too, that's why they wanted to split. Trying to boil it down to who-owed-who money is a waste of effort. (trust me, people back during the actual timeperiod wrote reams of paper about it, "the colonies hadn't paid their fair share during the war", "yes they did they raised so much for the government that they gave them some back" "That wasn't enough" blah blah blah blah. You can read the arguments between Tories and Whigs about it in the Parliamentary records until your eyes glaze over) It ignores the fundamental problems that the British Empire was having in the late 18th century. The old colonial system was coming undone and it would have had to have come undone with or without the American Revolution. If the Revolution had been avoided ties between Great Britain and the American colonies would have had to become looser, not tighter. Taxation to the British crown was a way to make them tighter, and it would never have worked out in the long run. Like I said earlier in the thread, there was a reason this experiment was never again tried in any British colony.

And you're attributing far too much magnanimity to the British government of this time period: At the same time all this was occurring, they were enacting some of the most ruinous ever economic policies over Ireland.

British polices towards America not being tyrannical hardly means that they're being fair to everyone. And the colonists do owe their share of supporting the empire, on the whole, regardless of who owes who in regards to mother country vs. colony as components of such.

And that the British found that if even the American colonies that were asked to pay lightly would violently rebel after the fact does not make it an unjust or immoral policy, it makes it a, to paraphrase Burke, stupid policy.