The Subsequent American Wars for Independence

The Luddites were a major problem and source of unrest the period, and of course Ireland rebelled in 1798.

How far did the Luddites go compared to the anything but peaceful Americans?

1798 is a generation after the colonial stuff started, so I'm not sure its relevant to how things were at the time of the mid 1760s to early '70s.

I'm really a bit perplexed here. The war for independence cost way more than paying the tax would have. And the colonists did turn down several peace offers which would have lowered their taxes.

Do you think they were all economically irrational?
1) Did they know this from the start of the protests?

2) They'd still be paying them at all, and by the point it got to fighting, they (meaning the Patriots, obviously) had convinced themselves (rightly or wrongly) that Britain was oppressive.

This is downright creepy to me. The colonists were doing what we would call appropriate in response to an unpopular bill. Lobbying, boycotts, protests.
Protests that went far beyond peaceful.

I'm not saying the colonists were being all wrong - if it stayed at the level of lobbying, boycotting, and peaceful protesting, I'd say it was the right way to go (if unjustified). But to say that they were oppressed from the first is misleading. It took until years of radicalizing resistance has happened before we see Boston harbor closed.

Sure. It was a principle of English law that it's better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to go to jail.
That may apply to the innocent, but it doesn't apply to the guilty. Which is to say, those who should have been punished.

Hrm. This is another example of how the colonists were better at the PR game. John Adams defended the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre, showing how reasonable and zealous in defense of liberty the colonists were.
Which would mean a lot more if it wasn't for the Paul Reveres and Sam Adamses blatantly and shamelessly lying about that. Reasonable they most certainly were not.

Parliament closes a port, galvanizing all of the colonies, as punishment. So in other words, Parliament responded with a bill of attainder, which the US constitution then forbade. Heh.

You're also ignoring the Massachusetts Government Act of 1774, which disbanded the colonial legislature, and the other Coercive Acts.
And I'm ignoring it because Socrates brought up closing Boston Harbor as the main thing he's referring to as an act of grossly cruel and unusual punishment.

If you want to talk about those, we can look at those too.

Personally, what upsets me the most is the attitude that the colonists were meek victims of cruel and arbitrary policy, which was specifically designed to oppress them with no relevance to any legitimate exercise of governmental authority.
 
Every city? I'm assuming you're not just using this in the technical sense of a city as - if memory serves - somewhere with a cathedral and/or a
university.

Whatever definition you want. Every settlement in England was in a constituency, and as long as it was reasonably large, would have men of property that were from the place that could vote in parliamentary elections.

By the standards of the day, and I'm using that phrase because that's the basis for "unusual", what Parliament ("the government" if you prefer) did was hardly cruel and unusual until provoked to the point of being the victim rather than the victimizer.

The problem was that the "standards of the day" had moved on in America and the British parliament was still clinging to old authoritarian methods that were morally repugnant to the people living there. Even if it was otherwise, I don't see it as a very persuasive point. You could say the same thing about Assad's crackdown in Syria. It's not about the standards of the day, it's about whether the people suffering under the government's policies have a strong argument for being unjustly abused in an absolute manner, not in a moral relativistic one.

The Port Bill isn't until '74, the colonists have been causing trouble since '65.

And the Declaration of Independence wasn't until 1776. Until then the colonists were working towards a non-rebellious solution, until they were pushed to it by a hardline government. After 1765, the bulk of the "trouble" you are referring to were petitions to the authorities, nonviolent protests, boycotts and forming of assemblies. Yes, there were a handful of trouble-makers who caused violence but these were a tiny minority.

Behavior after Boston has pushed things practically to the point of insurrection. I do not regard its punishment as undue in the least.

The "insurrection" was vandalism to property (not to the person) by a few dozen men in a city of 15,000. For that, the entire city is punished. I'd love to see how you would have reacted to the UK student protests or even the London riots. Punishing an entire population for the crimes of a few is extremely undue.

The problem is, the protests ran well above the right to express dissent. I'm not saying I approve wholly of the British punishments, but as stated - between Sam Adams and the Lobsterbacks, Sam Adams is doing more to make things worse, and I say this as someone of the middling merchant class (dad's a lawyer, can't see that changing here, although obviously his field of law didn't exist then).
...More than a few people. That's also very wrong, but apparently they should - not necessarily by your logic but certainly their own - get off scot-free.

No, I don't think they should get off scot-free. Like Ben Franklin, I would regard acts of violence and vandalism as criminal offences to be investigated and individuals responsible tried in a court of law by due process.

Just for reading in full, if you're interested (and its probably worth the trouble).

Note that this only applies: ". . . until it...

I will read it. But regardless of the conditions of the collective punishment, it's still collective punishment. Some unrelated merchant in Boston shouldn't be placed under martial law and have his economic livelihood destroyed due to actions he's got nothing to do with. It's offensive authoritarianism and the Americans were right to fight it. If London had been cut off from trading and placed under martial law after the riots, I would have done the same.
 
Could you see an analogue to the development of the Afrikaners- Americans resentful of British authority simply trekking out into the wilderness, removing themselves from European civilisation and developing a fiercely independent culture. They're not going to be anywhere near as intellectually stunted as the Boers were because American culture already had a functioning educational ethos.

Kind of like Jefferson in For Want of a Nail?
 
Personally, what upsets me the most is the attitude that the colonists were meek victims of cruel and arbitrary policy, which was specifically designed to oppress them with no relevance to any legitimate exercise of governmental authority.

the colonists were perfectly happy without representation for a long time simply because they were thriving due to Britain's long benevolent neglect. They didn't want direct rule, effective governors, tax collectors who actually did their jobs, or the same taxes as the people in Britain had. Mostly what they wanted was lots of land in the west opened up for settlement, and protection from the French and hostile natives. The colonials were taxed very lightly and really didn't pay what they actually owed, due to whoppingly inefficient tax collectors (a couple of the Founding Fathers were royal tax assessors who were waaaaay behind in their collections, and were being called to account for it). The colonials were actually joyful and happy with the crown when the French were defeated, seeing a long and prosperous life ahead of them, and the lack of representation still didn't matter. It only mattered when Britain suddenly and out of the blue decided to crack down on the heretofore neglected colonials, tightening up on smuggling and taxation, and imposing new taxes to boot. If there is any one reason behind the ARW it is this more than anything else...
 
the colonists were perfectly happy without representation for a long time simply because they were thriving due to Britain's long benevolent neglect.

Its also important to remember that each colony was essentially governing itself via combinations of town councils and colonial assembly. Benign neglect is a two-way street, and Britain got the benefits of colonies (captive markets, prestige, and strategic resources) for a fraction of the costs.

They didn't want direct rule, effective governors, tax collectors who actually did their jobs, or the same taxes as the people in Britain had.

Because Britain had never provided them with direct rule.

Mostly what they wanted was lots of land in the west opened up for settlement, and protection from the French and hostile natives. The colonials were taxed very lightly and really didn't pay what they actually owed, due to whoppingly inefficient tax collectors (a couple of the Founding Fathers were royal tax assessors who were waaaaay behind in their collections, and were being called to account for it).

The need for a standing army was considerably diminished after the French were extricated from Canada and the Northwest territory. British troops on the frontier would have been welcomed, provided they were stationed on the frontier. As for the economic benefits of the colonies, I dare say in retrospect the wealth earned by the British merchants and manufacturers who dominated the american internal market outwayed the token taxation Georgian England sought to extract.

The colonials were actually joyful and happy with the crown when the French were defeated, seeing a long and prosperous life ahead of them, and the lack of representation still didn't matter. It only mattered when Britain suddenly and out of the blue decided to crack down on the heretofore neglected colonials, tightening up on smuggling and taxation, and imposing new taxes to boot. If there is any one reason behind the ARW it is this more than anything else...

Well, the taxes certainly weren't welcome. However blaming revolutionary sentiment solely upon taxes is somewhat fallacious. The American colonists thought of themselves as Englishmen, and entitled to all the benefits of citizenship. This was particularly true amongst the colonial elites who felt chaffed at the continual lack of respect they received from their British peer's. Furthermore the intolerable acts had little if anything to do with tax revenue, and they were ultimately the ARW's catalyst.
 
Whatever definition you want. Every settlement in England was in a constituency, and as long as it was reasonably large, would have men of property that were from the place that could vote in parliamentary elections.

Where's my copy of the March of Folly when I need it, I swear there are mentions of places not having any representatives.

The problem was that the "standards of the day" had moved on in America and the British parliament was still clinging to old authoritarian methods that were morally repugnant to the people living there. Even if it was otherwise, I don't see it as a very persuasive point. You could say the same thing about Assad's crackdown in Syria. It's not about the standards of the day, it's about whether the people suffering under the government's policies have a strong argument for being unjustly abused in an absolute manner, not in a moral relativistic one.

In an absolute manner: No, and no, and hell no. Not until very late in this do we even begin to see abuse, and that only in response to the colonists picking a fight.

And the Declaration of Independence wasn't until 1776. Until then the colonists were working towards a non-rebellious solution, until they were pushed to it by a hardline government. After 1765, the bulk of the "trouble" you are referring to were petitions to the authorities, nonviolent protests, boycotts and forming of assemblies. Yes, there were a handful of trouble-makers who caused violence but these were a tiny minority.

I seriously doubt it was a tiny minority of those actively opposed.

The "insurrection" was vandalism to property (not to the person) by a few dozen men in a city of 15,000. For that, the entire city is punished. I'd love to see how you would have reacted to the UK student protests or even the London riots. Punishing an entire population for the crimes of a few is extremely undue.

For that, the part of the city that is dependent on Boston harbor is punished. And "a few dozen"? http://www.boston-tea-party.org/facts-numbers.html 116 actively involved, over five thousand showing up. I'd say this is grounds for treating Boston as a problem, not <50 people.

No, I don't think they should get off scot-free. Like Ben Franklin, I would regard acts of violence and vandalism as criminal offences to be investigated and individuals responsible tried in a court of law by due process.

I wish that Franklin had his way here, I would note.


I will read it. But regardless of the conditions of the collective punishment, it's still collective punishment. Some unrelated merchant in Boston shouldn't be placed under martial law and have his economic livelihood destroyed due to actions he's got nothing to do with. It's offensive authoritarianism and the Americans were right to fight it. If London had been cut off from trading and placed under martial law after the riots, I would have done the same.

See above note on numbers.

Not quite the same thing.
 
Well, the taxes certainly weren't welcome. However blaming revolutionary sentiment solely upon taxes is somewhat fallacious.
well, taxes, the general crackdown on smuggling, the general taking more control over the colonies, and the lack of representation, not taxes alone...
 
Top