Was the American Revolution a Reflection of British Hubris?

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by Nytram01

So...the answers no?

Not really. People floated various ideas around, but none of them ever came to anything.

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

If people treated every government adding a tax to something as tyranny, god knows where we'd be today.

Also, riots are not always justified, to say the least..

No, of course not. I wouldn't agree either of those things are justified. You have an obligation to obey or at least not disrupt a government that's fairly elected by the people. A country has to compromise in order to work as a country. And yes, no government in the 18th century was elected by the people. But at least some representation is better than no representation.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

There is a huge gap between "Parliament was the legitimate authority and not doing anything oppressive with that authority in regards to measures like the Stamp Act." and "Government should be obeyed all the time without question."

So Parliament is damned either way, eh?

No, not either way. They should have stuck to the way they had done things in the past rather than trying to increase their authority.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Also, if the American colonies "might as well have been on the moon", the frequent exchanges (trade and information) between Old World and New World kind of debunks that.

American population in 1800: 4 million.

British Isles: 16 million.

For comparison, 1750 is 2 million to 10.5.

I'm not sure when the US population surpassed Great Britain's, but it wasn't any time soon.

Looking it up, it was the 1850s. Which was a long way off, but I was just trying to bring that argument to its logical conclusion. Why should the British Parliament have been regulating the internal affairs of the colonies without their input, at a time when they were populous enough to run and defend themselves? In the later OTL British empire, Canada and Australia were given internal self-government well before reaching the population level the 13 colonies had, so obviously the absolute parliamentary supremacy over the empire principle didn't last.

[Timmy811]

Originally Posted by Sucrose

Anyway, come on, think about it. Would it have made sense for Parliament to hold supreme lawmaking authority over the colonies in another 50 years when their population level would be approaching equality with the British population?

In 50 years (1820) providing representatives would be less impractical, and become ever less so over the next two decades with the invention and wide spread adoption of the clipper ship, the steam engine, rail, and the telegraph.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Sucrose

No, of course not. I wouldn't agree either of those things are justified. You have an obligation to obey or at least not disrupt a government that's fairly elected by the people. A country has to compromise in order to work as a country. And yes, no government in the 18th century was elected by the people. But at least some representation is better than no representation.

This idea that only a democracy has a right to exist is kind of annoying.

No, not either way. They should have stuck to the way they had done things in the past rather than trying to increase their authority.

So, they should have let the colonists continue to have all the benefits of being part of the British Empire, including the protection of the military, and not paying one schilling of the cost.

That's about the least desirable way to run a country or an empire I can think of, and certainly the most exploitative - by the colonies.

Looking it up, it was the 1850s. Which was a long way off, but I was just trying to bring that argument to its logical conclusion. Why should the British Parliament have been regulating the internal affairs of the colonies without their input, at a time when they were populous enough to run and defend themselves? In the later OTL British empire, Canada and Australia were given internal self-government well before reaching the population level the 13 colonies had, so obviously the absolute parliamentary supremacy over the empire principle didn't last.

The 13 did have internal self-government - unless you think Parliament as governing body over the empire charging taxes denies that, in which case I think our definitions of "self-government' are at odds.

Would like to know the source for the population there (on Canada and Australia).

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by Timmy811

In 50 years (1820) providing representatives would be less impractical, and become ever less so over the next two decades with the invention and wide spread adoption of the clipper ship, the steam engine, rail, and the telegraph.

It's true that getting there would be faster, but an American representative would still be just as unqualified for passing laws over Hampshire as before. Besides, it wasn't 50 years later, when such a thing might be more seriously considered, it was then. I tell you, most people on both sides of the ocean thought it was a bad idea. Even radical Whig politicians late in the war thought it was a bad solution for trying to end the war.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

This idea that only a democracy has a right to exist is kind of annoying.

Under modern political philosophy, I'd say yes, but I shouldn't apply modern standards to the 18th century. I didn't say that though, I just said some representation is better than no representation.

Anyway, you seem to have the impression that I think the Stamp Act was worth revolting over. I don't.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

So, they should have let the colonists continue to have all the benefits of being part of the British Empire, including the protection of the military, and not paying one schilling of the cost.

I've said it before, but the colonies were under trade restrictions which benefitted the home country and were injurious to the colonies. I can quote everyone from Burke to Smith on that one. In fact if I can find it, I know there's an exact quote where Burke said Parliament could tax the colonies or restrict their trade, but not both.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

The 13 did have internal self-government - unless you think Parliament as governing body over the empire charging taxes denies that, in which case I think our definitions of "self-government' are at odds.

They probably are at odds, I would definitely consider taxation to be part of self-government.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Would like to know the source for the population there (on Canada and Australia).

Wikipedia. (Yeah, I know, it's wikipedia)

[hairysamarian]

Originally Posted by Timmy811

The revolution in America was rather bloodless as revolutions go outside the actual battles. Why would it be different in England?

That's almost funny. The American Revolution, especially in the southern colonies, was replete with episodes of partisan murder and atrocities. As an American, I'm pleased with the final results overall (I really don't like fish and chips), but I can't say that my ancestors came out of it with clean hands.

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by hairysamarian

That's almost funny. The American Revolution, especially in the southern colonies, was replete with episodes of partisan murder and atrocities. As an American, I'm pleased with the final results overall (I really don't like fish and chips), but I can't say that my ancestors came out of it with clean hands.

Yeah. Really, there was a ton of horrible shit that went on. It's just that the French Revolution was so horrible it apparently makes everything else seem less horrible in comparison.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Sucrose

Under modern political philosophy, I'd say yes, but I shouldn't apply modern standards to the 18th century. I didn't say that though, I just said some representation is better than no representation.

Anyway, you seem to have the impression that I think the Stamp Act was worth revolting over. I don't.

You didn't say that, but "You have an obligation to obey or at least not disrupt a government that's fairly elected by the people." implies that a nondemocratic government is not entitled to such.

And what do you think - if anything - in the context of the 1765-1775 events - was worth revolting over?

I've said it before, but the colonies were under trade restrictions which benefitted the home country and were injurious to the colonies. I can quote everyone from Burke to Smith on that one. In fact if I can find it, I know there's an exact quote where Burke said Parliament could tax the colonies or restrict their trade, but not both.

And yet those trade restrictions had little effect on colonial prosperity, especially when smuggling was ignored almost completely.

They probably are at odds, I would definitely consider taxation to be part of self-government.

Why should taxation for the good of the overall state (or empire, for purposes of discussion I'm going to use polity) not belong to the overall government of that polity?

Wikipedia. (Yeah, I know, it's wikipedia)

Better than random guessing. Hopefully.

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

You didn't say that, but "You have an obligation to obey or at least not disrupt a government that's fairly elected by the people." implies that a nondemocratic government is not entitled to such.

And what do you think - if anything - in the context of the 1765-1775 events - was worth revolting over?

Coercive Acts. Very bad precedent for both Massachusetts and its neighboring colonies, some of which had entirely elected governments, including governors, and very much treasured that. Worth at least trying to get rid of. I don't think anybody expected the war to last 8 years. Some thought it would be over in less than one. Some didn't think there would be a war at all.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And yet those trade restrictions had little effect on colonial prosperity, especially when smuggling was ignored almost completely.

Those trade commissioners and their ships wouldn't have been attacked by mobs if smuggling was ignored almost completely, nor would a law be passed to move smuggling trials out of the 13 colonies. Though, I should point out, smuggling was ignored to a large extent prior to the 1760s. I've read that Robert Walpole would enact colonial trade restrictions to keep British merchants happy with him, and then turn around and laxly enforce them in order to keep colonial interests (in this time period probably mostly Caribbean rather than mainland interests) happy with him.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Why should taxation for the good of the overall state (or empire, for purposes of discussion I'm going to use polity) not belong to the overall government of that polity?

Because its not representative unlike the sub-governments.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Better than random guessing. Hopefully.

Can we really not do this? Can you give me the courtesy to assume that my sources are legitimate unless you have information that differs? Wikipedia's sources for this are Statistics Canada and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Sucrose

Coercive Acts. Very bad precedent for both Massachusetts and its neighboring colonies, some of which had entirely elected governments, including governors, and very much treasured that. Worth at least trying to get rid of. I don't think anybody expected the war to last 8 years. Some thought it would be over in less than one. Some didn't think there would be a war at all.

So its worth rebelling over punishment for Massachusetts and neighboring colonies pushing the limits of protest to the point of insurrection.

Those trade commissioners and their ships wouldn't have been attacked by mobs if smuggling was ignored almost completely, nor would a law be passed to move smuggling trials out of the 13 colonies. Though, I should point out, smuggling was ignored to a large extent prior to the 1760s. I've read that Robert Walpole would enact colonial trade restrictions to keep British merchants happy with him, and then turn around and laxly enforce them in order to keep colonial interests (in this time period probably mostly Caribbean rather than mainland interests) happy with him.

That's what I mean. Smuggling up to the point of the British actually stopping "benign neglect" was ignored almost completely, so for the status quo ante . .. um, what's Latin for "argument"? to continue, that would mean ignoring smuggling too in this decade.

And that sounds entirely too plausible.

Because its not representative unlike the sub-governments.

What does it being representative have to do with whether or not national government should have authority here?

Not to mention that the "representation" of the sub-governments is white, male, possibly Protestant (I'm not 100% sure), land owners, essentially. I'm fairly sure you know this, I just want to point out that neither Parliament (with 90% of the inhabitants of Britain not being electors for the same as Whately put it) or the colonies (with slaves, women, etc. adding up to a fairly substantial percentage) are really representing "most people".

Can we really not do this? Can you give me the courtesy to assume that my sources are legitimate unless you have information that differs? Wikipedia's sources for this are Statistics Canada and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

I can. I didn't mean to imply otherwise - I just find wikipedia being referenced to be hit or miss, and some articles are sourced better than others.

It doesn't help that I've had the misfortune to run into others who post wikipedia articles that have "verification needed' or "this article has issues" - which just strikes me as "I'm going to post the first website I find that mentions this" carelessness.

Again, my deepest apologies for implying something I didn't mean.

[Timmy811]

Originally Posted by Sucrose

It's true that getting there would be faster, but an American representative would still be just as unqualified for passing laws over Hampshire as before. Besides, it wasn't 50 years later, when such a thing might be more seriously considered, it was then. I tell you, most people on both sides of the ocean thought it was a bad idea. Even radical Whig politicians late in the war thought it was a bad solution for trying to end the war.

I'm saying that that if the Colonies had remained under British control for another 50 years as posited, then it would have been possible.

As for unqualified, that doesn't make sense. Was an MP from Scotland qualified for passing laws over London at the time? Is the representative from Alaska qualified to pass laws over Miami today? Not really, but that has nothing to do with whether we should have representative government or not.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Sucrose

Representative Union between Great Britain and the American colonies was impractical. Most people could see that. In 1770 the American colonies might have well been on the moon. An American representative from New York would be just as bad at writing laws for Liverpool as the other way around. I'm not saying separation was the only possible solution, but just pouring American representatives into the general British Parliament would have been a bad idea.

It took a few months to get between London and the American colonies. That was similar to the Faroes to London in 1707.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

The promise to provide just governance in exchange for obedience to legitimate demands.

And what does "just governance" entail here? In your view, the government defines what demands are "legitimate" and the people actually having to be "obedient" to these demands get no input.

And "democratic rights"?

The American colonists sought to defend their self-interest for more than a decade, and Parliament attempted to deal with them engaging in violent and unlawful behavior by attempting tighter control so as to deal with said insurrectionary activity.

You didn't answer anything about democratic rights.

Frankly, if we want to look at the situation Parliament was trying to grapple with, we have to look at the activities of the Sons of Liberty and the taring and feathering and so on. Presenting the British government's attempts to maintain control while presenting the American resistance as boycotting and speech-making is horribly misleading.

The Sons of Liberty were a tiny number of people. The vast majority of Americans played no part in vandalism. There were riots in London in the same era: its unimaginable that the Government would take away Londoners representation in response.

You really do have to support collective punishment (now illegal under the Geneva convention) and not value democratic rights (now part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), to support the British government actions here.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Nytram01

Just a question here, was there ever a strong case made by the Colonist to Parliament and the King for self-governance within the Empire? That is to say, did the Colonist ever attempt to present a reasonable argument to Parliament for them becoming essentially a self-sustaining Dominion/Dominions - which is clearly what they wanted - yet deferring to Parliament on matters of international politics? Or did they just declare the existing system impractical and offer no alternative?

Sort of. They argued for self-governance within the Empire and proclaimed loyalty to the King. There was certainly no demands for changes of foreign policy to be brought to the local assemblies.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Socrates

And what does "just governance" entail here? In your view, the government defines what demands are "legitimate" and the people actually having to be "obedient" to these demands get no input.

No. In my view, none of the issues of illegitimate demands came up, with the possible exception of the issue of quartering soldiers (given the way that was handled as "If barracks aren't available").

You didn't answer anything about democratic rights.

Because none are relevant to the American whining about being expected to pay taxes and their assaults on revenue cutters?

The Sons of Liberty were a tiny number of people. The vast majority of Americans played no part in vandalism. There were riots in London in the same era: its unimaginable that the Government would take away Londoners representation in response.

You really do have to support collective punishment (now illegal under the Geneva convention) and not value democratic rights (now part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), to support the British government actions here.

What is your basis for saying they were a tiny number of people?

And no. I have to support legitimate government instead of insurrection.

But apparently, when most of Boston's population is involved in something, we should treat Bostonians as innocents for no apparent reason.

And consider this about democratic rights because the Americans made a point of how it was about "liberty" for them to do what they did.

Maybe North needed some better propagandists.


Personally, I'm not entirely sure that this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...ve_punishments covers closing Boston harbor and similar. A blockade in war presumably wouldn't, so why is this different?

But mostly, I mind the idea that the many were punished for a few guilty individuals as opposed to for the fact the many were involved.

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

That's what I mean. Smuggling up to the point of the British actually stopping "benign neglect" was ignored almost completely, so for the status quo ante . .. um, what's Latin for "argument"? to continue, that would mean ignoring smuggling too in this decade.

And that sounds entirely too plausible.

Ah, I get what you're saying here. Alright, I think the government had the right to enforce laws that had been on the books for a century. But if they were going to do so, they shouldn't have tried the tax scheme. One or the other, but not both.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

What does it being representative have to do with whether or not national government should have authority here?

Everything, really. Would you want your tax rate decided by a bunch of people who cannot be replaced and will not suffer any political repercussions for their actions? It's just as nonsensical as saying that it should have been acceptable if the tax rate back in England was dictated by the King or an unelected council or something like that.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Not to mention that the "representation" of the sub-governments is white, male, possibly Protestant (I'm not 100% sure), land owners, essentially. I'm fairly sure you know this, I just want to point out that neither Parliament (with 90% of the inhabitants of Britain not being electors for the same as Whately put it) or the colonies (with slaves, women, etc. adding up to a fairly substantial percentage) are really representing "most people".

I thought you might come back with this. Well, yes, being a woman I would certainly agree that a society where only white males can vote is not fairly representing most people. But as I said upthread, some is better than none. Quite a bit of difference, really.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

I can. I didn't mean to imply otherwise - I just find wikipedia being referenced to be hit or miss, and some articles are sourced better than others.

It doesn't help that I've had the misfortune to run into others who post wikipedia articles that have "verification needed' or "this article has issues" - which just strikes me as "I'm going to post the first website I find that mentions this" carelessness.

Again, my deepest apologies for implying something I didn't mean.

Ok, gotcha. I probably I reacted to that a little more sharply than I should have. I suppose I'm used to forums with worse debating standards.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Maybe North needed some better propagandists.

Between North proclaiming in 1770 that he'd repeal the tea tax when they had America at their feet, and his Colonial Secretary declaring in 1776 that he'd accept nothing but unconditional submission, the Tories were always their own worst propagandists.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Personally, I'm not entirely sure that this covers closing Boston harbor and similar. A blockade in war presumably wouldn't, so why is this different?

But mostly, I mind the idea that the many were punished for a few guilty individuals as opposed to for the fact the many were involved.

Because there wasn't a war at the time, nor was there anywhere close to being one before before that bill was passed. Keep in mind, the closing of Boston Harbor effectively crippled the city and caused a massive disruption to the entire New England area, creating a situation far more conducive to armed revolt than if the people had been busy going about their regular lives.

As for thinking that effectively neutering the representative power of the Massachusetts' assembly was justified because of riot activity, I don't even know what to say to that. At worse, the Assembly could be accused of looking the other way, but as they were a legislative, not an executive power (that was the Royal governor), I'm not even sure how far that goes.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Sucrose

Ah, I get what you're saying here. Alright, I think the government had the right to enforce laws that had been on the books for a century. But if they were going to do so, they shouldn't have tried the tax scheme. One or the other, but not both.

Why, other than the issue explored below?

Everything, really. Would you want your tax rate decided by a bunch of people who cannot be replaced and will not suffer any political repercussions for their actions? It's just as nonsensical as saying that it should have been acceptable if the tax rate back in England was dictated by the King or an unelected council or something like that.

Only if you think democracy is the only acceptable form of governance and will reject any other system.

What I'd want is a government that can determine a fair tax rate (among other things), and as long as they can do that, they can be chosen by the shape of rabbit turds and how closely their birthmarks resemble said turds for all I care.

I thought you might come back with this. Well, yes, being a woman I would certainly agree that a society where only white males can vote is not fairly representing most people. But as I said upthread, some is better than none. Quite a bit of difference, really.

Well, my point is that we're not really seeing any meaningful change to the situation if American MPs exist, and that the sub-governments are so unrepresentative as to be little better - I'd hate to be a poor farmer trying to get the House of Burgess acting in my best interests.

Not with a fair system of representation (fair as in relative to population), and not with whatever bizarre concoction would be produced with the existing system adding on American areas.

Ok, gotcha. I probably I reacted to that a little more sharply than I should have. I suppose I'm used to forums with worse debating standards.

That's okay, what I said was ill phrased.

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Why, other than the issue explored below?

Only if you think democracy is the only acceptable form of governance and will reject any other system.

What I'd want is a government that can determine a fair tax rate (among other things), and as long as they can do that, they can be chosen by the shape of rabbit turds and how closely their birthmarks resemble said turds for all I care.

Because the accepted form of government at the time was Representative (Not Democratic, that's different), supposedly enshrined in the English Constitution. All Englishmen, everywhere, were extremely proud of having a representative government, which at the time was probably the least despotic in the world with the possible exception of the Dutch Republic. Late 18th century English government ideals were coming off of 100+ years of enlightenment thinking, this stuff was solidly engrained in society. Wondering why representative government was the only acceptable government back then is like wondering why Democracy is the only acceptable form of government in the present day United States.

Because I can see this counter argument coming, I'll point out that you could argue that the present American system of governance is so corrupted by money and lobbying as to be no longer truly democratic, but nonetheless, changing to any other form of government would be unacceptable because the ideals and traditions of the country mandate that it be democratic, whether that's executed well or not.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Sucrose

Because the accepted form of government at the time was Representative (Not Democratic, that's different), supposedly enshrined in the English Constitution. All Englishmen, everywhere, were extremely proud of having a representative government, which at the time was probably the least despotic in the world with the possible exception of the Dutch Republic. Late 18th century English government ideals were coming off of 100+ years of enlightenment thinking, this stuff was solidly engrained in society. Wondering why representative government was the only acceptable government back then is like wondering why Democracy is the only acceptable form of government in the present day United States.

The accepted form of government at the time was something where 90% of Britain's population were not electors, Devon and Cornwall had seventy seats each to London's six, and so on. The average Englishman is represented as well as the average America, or vice-versa.

So if the idea is that the current system is the only acceptable system (and we're not going to compare monarchy or open oligarchy or something else, since neither Englishmen or Americans were for the most parti nf avor of any of those - Hamilton was a weirdo, enough said), then Americans have nothing to gripe about.

Representatives specifically for Americans only make sense with a government of direct representation.

Because I can see this counter argument coming, I'll point out that you could argue that the present American system of governance is so corrupted by money and lobbying as to be no longer truly democratic, but nonetheless, changing to any other form of government would be unacceptable because the ideals and traditions of the country mandate that it be democratic, whether that's executed well or not.

For discussion's sake, accepted.

[Sucrose]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

The accepted form of government at the time was something where 90% of Britain's population were not electors, Devon and Cornwall had seventy seats each to London's six, and so on. The average Englishman is represented as well as the average America, or vice-versa.

So if the idea is that the current system is the only acceptable system (and we're not going to compare monarchy or open oligarchy or something else, since neither Englishmen or Americans were for the most parti nf avor of any of those - Hamilton was a weirdo, enough said), then Americans have nothing to gripe about.

I'd once again argue with this and say that no representation is not the same as some representation, especially when it comes to entire continents, but we're just running around in circles now.