Was the American Revolution a Reflection of British Hubris?

[Faeelin]

In celebration of the 4th, I've been reading through a book on the rise and fall of the first British Empire, and itm akes an interesting point. The Revolution reflected a failure of British policy on all fronts.

After 1763, there was a feeling across much of Europe that Britain had disrupted the balance of power. [1] In response, the British government resolutely reused to be involved in European politics. In the 1760s Britain refused to make any move to build a rapproachment with Austria or Prussia, or make any alliance with Russia. Britain had trouble fililng even prestigious diplomatic posts, and so there was no ambassador to Madrid for several years.

This, of course, meant there was no pressure on France to halt her drive naval rearmament, because no one threatened French interests on the continent. And so the period after 1763 to the Revolution actually saw a series of blows to British policy, as the limits of Britain's (diminishing) naval supremacy became clear. Britain was powerless to stop the sale of Corsica.

Indeed, Britain's passivity in European affairs in the 1770s was rather stark. Britain didn't do anything about the Partition of Poland, when in the 1730s whether or not Britain would intervene had dominated politics.

Consider the straits Britain found itself in by 1780. Britain was at war with America, France, Spain, and Holland. But it also faced opposition from Sweden, Denmark, and Russia in the form of the League of Neutrality.

Meanwhile, Austria was a French ally, and Frederick the Great hated Britain for its actions in the Seven Years War. Britain stood alone with all of Europ either ambivalent or hostile.

The reason I'm pointing this out is because Britain is because Britain's diplomatic failures and failures in America both seem to stem from the same source; the ability to recoginze the intersts of other parites, and to seek accomodation with them. As such, it suggests that any hope of Anglo-American reconcilliation is nigh impossible.

Thoughts?


[1] I know this might be hard for some of the British readers to believe, because it's only when France starts acquiring swathes of continents that the balance of power is threatened.

[Midas]

There's been trend throughout history of British governments, whether popular or monarchical, wanting to avoid "continental politics". Kind of like how their brainchild modern America for the longest time loved staying completely out of European politics.

Not sure how, but it feels relevant.

[usertron2020]

I read the book(s) myself years ago. The end of the Seven Years War left Britain with a sense that the American Colonies had not paid their "fair share" of the war burden. There is some truth in that. But politics are about perception, not facts. The GDP of the colonies were small potatoes compared to Great Britain. Yes, the average commoner in Britain did not enjoy the standard of living enjoyed by their cousins in America. But the whole point of getting settlers to impoverish themselves, even sell themselves into indentured servitude, was to offer them a chance at a better life in the New World.

After 150 years, it was inevitable that some Americans would have begun to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps. The perception that America had to "pay more" was unfortunately an act of ignorance. That is, ignoring the fact that compared to Britain's crushing war debt, any major contributions made by the colonies would not only bring down their own fragile economy, but it would hardly make a dent in what Britain needed.

Yet it WAS done. The suddenly rigid enforcement of the anti-smuggling laws (rum, molasses, and slaves) that had been ignored since the colonies were founded caused a massive balance of trade deficit between the colonies and Britain, in Britain's favor. Ironically, that deficit caused such an impoverishment of the colonies and such a flood of capital into Britain that the demands for war debt payments were essentially met. Except the money was going into the coffers of private British companies, NOT the British government, so as far as government ledgers were concerned, NO payments had been made.

But from the American POV, the cupboard had been stripped bare. Add to this the sudden reversal of British policy on how the colonies should be ruled? Marshal Rochambeau asked the Marquis de Lafayette what the American Rebellion was really all about. Lafayette responded that after virtually ignoring their colonies for 150 years, to the point that the colonists had to set up their own form of self-rule, after the Seven Years War they abruptly decided to run the colonies directly from Westminster.

And THERE is your hubris.

[loughery111]

Title of the book, please? I want to pick that one up sometime.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

[1] I know this might be hard for some of the British readers to believe, because it's only when France starts acquiring swathes of continents that the balance of power is threatened.

Hey! The Russians can to!

But yeah, on a more serious note, that's fairly true. The British even had trouble keeping the Iriqouis on their side, since they ignored their own interests in the area, particularly after the Seven Years War. They did keep most other Native Americans on their side however.

[Jord839]

Originally Posted by Atom

Hey! The Russians can to!

But yeah, on a more serious note, that's fairly true. The British even had trouble keeping the Iriqouis on their side, since they ignored their own interests in the area, particularly after the Seven Years War. They did keep most other Native Americans on their side however.

Its worth pointing out though that just as much of the reason most of them stayed with the British, if not more, was the Americans fucking it all up. Frontier warfare had embittered both the Indians and the western colonists, to the point that an attack on colonists by one Indian tribe often led to a "revenge" raid on a completely different tribe, sometimes even an allied one, just for violence's sake. In fact, the colonists often knew they were attacking the wrong tribe, they just didn't care.

If British hubris can be blamed for the rest of the world turning against them, American hubris can be blamed for the near total opposition by the native tribes. It's an interesting reflection.

[Alex Richards]

Interestingly, you can pin the whole situation in a change of government. During the Wars of the Spanish Succession, Austrian Succession and first 4 years of the Seven Years War the government was predominately Whig. However, following the ascension of George III the Torys faced a period of rule, which encompassed most of the run up and causes of the revolution. While the Whigs were for using continental alliances in conjunction with the navy, the Torys completely renounced this idea and persued a policy of isolation (the argument being that Britain as an island should concentrate on the marine). Hence the Hubris can be said to stem from a drastic change in policy.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Jord839

Its worth pointing out though that just as much of the reason most of them stayed with the British, if not more, was the Americans fucking it all up. Frontier warfare had embittered both the Indians and the western colonists, to the point that an attack on colonists by one Indian tribe often led to a "revenge" raid on a completely different tribe, sometimes even an allied one, just for violence's sake. In fact, the colonists often knew they were attacking the wrong tribe, they just didn't care.

If British hubris can be blamed for the rest of the world turning against them, American hubris can be blamed for the near total opposition by the native tribes. It's an interesting reflection.

Yeah, certainly. The Native Americans were the real losers of the Seven Years War.

[Arafeel]

No sure Hubris is the right word to use, before the 7 year war, the British governments had only taken spasmodic interest in their American colonies. In these year of neglect the colonial assemblies assumed powers which should have been properly exercised by governors appointed by the Crown. Only 4 of the colonies were not Crown colonies by 1763 after all. (Pennsylvanian and Maryland remaind proprietary and only Rhode Island and Connecticut were chartered colonies with elected governors.)

Most Americans lived in the country side as tenants, and during the riots in Boston in 1760`s the cries of "Liberty and Property" were common.
A cry which Governor Bernard observed was "the usual notice of their intention to plunder and pull down a house".

We also have the establishment of the Proclamation line in 63 following Chief Pontiac`s attacks and destruction of several forts, garrisons and settlements between Lake Superior and the Lower Mississippi. This convince the British that the colonialists either could not or would not defend themselves, measures need to be take to deal with the problem for them.

A bit more than Hubris.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Arafeel

Most Americans lived in the country side as tenants, and during the riots in Boston in 1760`s the cries of "Liberty and Property" were common. A cry which Governor Bernard observed was "the usual notice of their intention to plunder and pull down a house".

??? My understanding is most (white) Americans were freeholders, at least in the northern colonies. (New York excepted).

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

Interestingly, you can pin the whole situation in a change of government. During the Wars of the Spanish Succession, Austrian Succession and first 4 years of the Seven Years War the government was predominately Whig. However, following the ascension of George III the Torys faced a period of rule, which encompassed most of the run up and causes of the revolution. While the Whigs were for using continental alliances in conjunction with the navy, the Torys completely renounced this idea and persued a policy of isolation (the argument being that Britain as an island should concentrate on the marine). Hence the Hubris can be said to stem from a drastic change in policy.

Sure, and I would argue that this is a bit of hubris. But as part of this concentration there was a desire to put the colonies in order, without recognizing why they were so unhappy.

loughery: The Book is called Three Victorys and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire.

[Arafeel]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

??? My understanding is most (white) Americans were freeholders, at least in the northern colonies. (New York excepted).

According to Christopher Hibbert`s book Redcoats and Rebels, 95 of every 100 colonists lived in the countryside and a majority of those were tenants, not freeholders. Now the numbers is for all of British Continental North American IIRC.

But the cry of Liberty and Property are from Boston riots.

[jkay]

I see the reason as aristocrats in charge. I ascribe the failure to King George III, whom was in power at that point, and was the last British monarch to have serious power; he was the last because he messed things up so badly.

Aristocrats like George III, and even elected aristocrats like the CSA's Davis, are far likelier to have a deficit at putting themselves in others' shoes. That means they're mostly bad at diplomacy. Georgie was the same way. The CSA was so diplomatic they lost most of the border states and made no allies atall.

Today's China, which is ruled an oligarchy of Communist aristocrats, has the same problem; they didn't understand why nobody else wanted a wireless standard that the Chinese gummint could've read at will.

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Sure, and I would argue that this is a bit of hubris. But as part of this concentration there was a desire to put the colonies in order, without recognizing why they were so unhappy.

loughery: The Book is called Three Victorys and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire.

Of course. Equally, it can be argued that part of the revolutionary sentiment appears to have sprung from an alliance of radical extremists and smugglers using the press to exagerrate every available event (e.g. Boston Massacre). Not the entire situation, but probably about 30-40%.

BTW, read the book myself. There's some very interesting stuff about the disaster of the Hudson Campaign.

[rcduggan]

Originally Posted by jkay

I see the reason as aristocrats in charge. I ascribe the failure to King George III, whom was in power at that point, and was the last British monarch to have serious power; he was the last because he messed things up so badly.

Aristocrats like George III, and even elected aristocrats like the CSA's Davis, are far likelier to have a deficit at putting themselves in others' shoes. That means they're mostly bad at diplomacy. Georgie was the same way. The CSA was so diplomatic they lost most of the border states and made no allies atall.

Today's China, which is ruled an oligarchy of Communist aristocrats, has the same problem; they didn't understand why nobody else wanted a wireless standard that the Chinese gummint could've read at will.

How do you define an aristocrat? Someone whose policies you oppose or dislike? I'm just kind of thrown off by your random inclusion and equation of the British government under George III and various PMs, the Confederate government under Davis, and the Chinese gov. under Hu. What is the common thread between these?

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

Of course. Equally, it can be argued that part of the revolutionary sentiment appears to have sprung from an alliance of radical extremists and smugglers using the press to exagerrate every available event (e.g. Boston Massacre). Not the entire situation, but probably about 30-40%.

On the other hand, when was a British port shut down because of rioting?

It was very clear that Americans didn't even have the rights that Englishmen possessed.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

On the other hand, when was a British port shut down because of rioting?

It was very clear that Americans didn't even have the rights that Englishmen possessed.

Closing a port like Boston was nearly putting them under siege. It's not like closing the port of London. Supplies can be brought overland to feed London. Boston's land bridge was very narrow for overland traffic at the time. It wasn't like they could use the "Big Dig."

[Timmy811]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

??? My understanding is most (white) Americans were freeholders, at least in the northern colonies. (New York excepted).



Sure, and I would argue that this is a bit of hubris. But as part of this concentration there was a desire to put the colonies in order, without recognizing why they were so unhappy.

loughery: The Book is called Three Victorys and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire.

Book looks awesome, but is it really worth it at $33 (kindle)?

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Timmy811

Book looks awesome, but is it really worth it at $33 (kindle)?

I got it for $12 at a book store in New York.

Dead trees FTW!

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

On the other hand, when was a British port shut down because of rioting?

It was very clear that Americans didn't even have the rights that Englishmen possessed.

When did a British port suffer riots resulting in the attack and destruction of symbols of British authority during a sustained period of several years, apparently without reason except for the sake of rebelling. I mean, the EICs tea would have actually been cheaper than the tea they were buying before! Yet the presence of a comparitively small tax meant they dumped it in the harbour.

Heck, the colonies were probably more liberal than England. Which was the problem really, the lower classes were more politically engaged, so things got out of hand quicker.

[Arafeel]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

When did a British port suffer riots resulting in the attack and destruction of symbols of British authority during a sustained period of several years, apparently without reason except for the sake of rebelling. I mean, the EICs tea would have actually been cheaper than the tea they were buying before! Yet the presence of a comparitively small tax meant they dumped it in the harbour.

Heck, the colonies were probably more liberal than England. Which was the problem really, the lower classes were more politically engaged, so things got out of hand quicker.

The tea was surplus tea from the EIC, and the American tea merchants dumped it as the would have lost money. Also the assembly issues were only issues for parts of the urban colonialists, more specific the urban male middle class and some large plantation owners, a very very small part of the population. Yes the colonialist did as a few less rights but did not pay anything near as much in taxes.