WI the American Revolution failed?

[Faeelin]

This statement bears no resemblance to anything I have ever come across in studying this era. Could it be you're confusing early abolition societies (like the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, founded 1775), and the efforts of numerous other like minded patriots who led to numerous victories in the 1780's alone -- confusing them with later organizations like the American Colonization Society, which was about getting rid of black people, but wasn't formed until 1816?

Faeelin wrote:



First off, you are wrong. Slavery had been abolished in Great Britain in 1772 by Lord Mansfield in R v Knowles, ex parte Somersett (thank you Wikipedia). You are cherry-picking parts of the US and comparing it to the whole of the British Empire.

But the Empire didn't abolish slavery until 1833, so....

Secondly, the aim of the abolitionists in New England was to get rid of black people entirely, not integrate them into society. Compare the end of the Revolutionary War, when the British smuggled 100,000 ex-slaves out of the country despite feverish attempts by Washington inter alia to re-enslave them.

I think you really need to read up on the history of blacks in the south during the Revolution. The Brits saw them as a club to hold over the southerners, and there were some abolitionists. But to perceive a British abolitionist movement being responsible for the freeing of slaves is a mistake.

 

[stevep]

But the Empire didn't abolish slavery until 1833, so....

So they did it a generation before the US, where it was done at least partly for internal political reasons rather than anything to do with morality.

I think you really need to read up on the history of blacks in the south during the Revolution. The Brits saw them as a club to hold over the southerners, and there were some abolitionists. But to perceive a British abolitionist movement being responsible for the freeing of slaves is a mistake.

Are you referring to the abolitionists who ended slavery in the empire or to the situation in the American colonies in the 1780s? If the former I think you're obviously wrong. If the latter then yes they were freed for a reason, just as in the US. However the main difference is that Britain largely stood by them, despite going out of their way to appease the rebels in other ways.

I think if you want to find a stick to beat Britain with then the ending of slavery is not the best one.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Extreme measures? Like, say, disenfranchising most of the population of a country on religious grounds and then asking them to pay they upkeep of a minority religion in the first place? Burning villages and trying to ban a language in response to a fractious revolt that never had much of a chance isn't extreme? Or, and here's one that's not come up yet, matter-of-fact ethnic cleansing?

Obviously the past wasn't nice, and Britain was in no way exceptional among the European powers. But if, by the standards of the time, these were not extreme measures, then why should sitting down hard on some unruly colonials be so?

As you say that wasn't Britain's finest hour but then there were mitigating circumstances and a lot of religious minorities were treated worse, where they were allowed to exist at all. Even in the 18thC there were attempts to limit the control of the Protestant Ascendency. [As with the Americas the worse excesses were often performed by local settlers sometimes in opposition to the central government].

However the point I was making was that things could be a lot worse. Even the king had a lot of limits on his powers and wasn't the sort of autocrat so common on the continent, or in the wider world. The Catholic Irish were mistrusted and discriminated against but this was mainly to deny them political power. [Which was fairly limited even in Britain with restricted franchises]. However while there was the desire that they weren't there, there was no actual forced conversion or attempt to otherwise dispose of them as happened elsewhere.

Steve

 

[Gimple]

France still rebels, but without the American model it gets to keep Robespierre and maybe Napoleon. Louisiana does not get sold, Napoleon doesn't have the war funds he needs. Britain still has income from the colonies.
Napoleon doesn't attack Russia, Germany doesn't attack Russia. No Russian revolt, no communism. No world wars. Stronger European presence in China and Indochina. No Japanese wars.
India rebels rather then peacefully protests. Mahatma Gandhi stays a nobody.
No more Trans Atlantic slave trade thanks to William Wilberforce. Existing slaves in the thirteen colonies are released after seven years. The few there get equal rights once released.
Franco British wars continue in the Americas. Indian tribes fight proxy wars for the Euros and even learn metal working and gun powder manufacturing. They eventually make their own nation It absorbs many of the middle American horse tribes. Which combine cattle in with bison herds to trade with colonists. It survives as a commonwealth to this day.

 

[Socrates]

Actually, Americans were not viewed as Englishmen by 1776. Here's a quote IBC dredged up in a discussion we had on this a while ago, spinred by an article I came across: "These people, most of them originally Scotch or Irish [], have united in marriage with French, Germans, and Dutch and from them have sprung the high-spirited race that boast so much of British Blood and British Liberty, and who have the folly and impudence to talk of chastising Great Britain...man as well as everything else transplated here degenerates."

Firstly, could you provide some context to that quote? Who said it, when was it said, and about who, precisely was he talking? Secondly, the views of one person, unless of particular importance, don't provide much evidence of the views of a population. If referring to the entire population it would seem like an extremely stupid thing to say, given that, in 1790, about 66% of the free population were outright of English descent. If you include other Protestant Brits, considered at the time virtually as good as Englishmen, that number raises to 80%.

And then not solved for another 30 years. I'm not sure this truly helps your argument if you say "Listen, we'd have been more liberal if our constitutional monarch wasn't powerful enough to hold up rights for 30 years."

My argument was that the UK parliament was pretty open minded in dealing with things in a progressive manner. If we're talking about the response to the ARW it would be parliament that responded to it: not an ageing and increasingly mad George III. Lord North was George III's last attempt to prop up the Tory minority: parliament subsequently chose a complete US sympathiser in Rockingham, and followed up with several Whigs in a row. Are you arguing that the 2nd ARW would happen in the first five years or so during the initial clampdown? Or that the Whigs would somehow lose their utter dominance of parliament?

But replace Scotland with Gaeldom and the point stands, doesn't it?

It's certainly a valid point, but it lacks nuanced. As mentioned earlier, firstly, in the eyes of parliament at the time, it was dealing with Gaelic, Catholic, clan-based "savages", rather than English Protestant civilised urban dwellers. Secondly, it was about changing the structural situation rather than trying to use the brutality as a warning. In the Highlands case the structural problem was a clan lifestyle that clashed with the increasingly dominant lifestyle that was encroaching it. Thus the solution was to end the clan lifestyle. In the American case, it's simply a lack of political voice for the colonies, which means the structural solution would be a better channel for a political voice.

Bear in mind previous outcries from colonists had already led to:

- Acceptance of "free ship, free good" with the Dutch to re-allow colonial smuggling
- Heavy modification of the Proclamation Line to address all concerns
- Significant reduction of the sugar tax
- Reallowing the colonies to pay debt with paper money
- Repeal of the stamp act

Now, I understand other measures were not repealed, but clearly parliament gave heavy weight to American political voices - in a way they never did to Gaelic clans. Following a failed revolution, Parliament would clearly expect parliament to be accepted as sovereign, and would punish the trouble makers, but they would also try to deal with the underlying structural issue, which would mean political reform to give them more representation in some way. It's very possibly that reform, ultimately, would not be enough in the longer term to hold the Empire together. But it's equally possible that it would do enough, along with more loyalist immigration, to tide the problem over until other splits prevent colonial unity.

...Or, and here's one that's not come up yet, matter-of-fact ethnic cleansing?

My point wasn't that the British weren't prepared to be brutal if that would change the structural situation in their favour. It's that they weren't brutal for brutality's sake unless it did. If you look at their response to the French in Quebec, where there were too many of them for ethnic cleansing to work, they realised they would have to instead respect their language, religion and law to work. A similar view would have been taken in the situation we are discussing: "You have to accept parliament's ultimate sovereignty, but otherwise we'll try to address the issue".

As mentioned, I do think an initial crackdown for the first few years is quite possible. I just think that another revolution would be viable in those first few years, and that by the time it would be, many of the issues would have been mostly addressed.

 

[othyrsyde]

America in the end is a better place, because we're super Canada

 

[I Blame Communism]

It's certainly a valid point, but it lacks nuanced. As mentioned earlier, firstly, in the eyes of parliament at the time, it was dealing with Gaelic, Catholic, clan-based "savages", rather than English Protestant civilised urban dwellers.

Most people in Argyll, and many in other places, were nominally Presbyterian and while they might not have been so austere as Lowlanders they did regard their Catholic rivals with suspicion. The Protestant clans, Campbell in the lead as usual, were broadly speaking Georgite. And did that help them? Argyll at this time was, in material culture, also closer to the Lowlands than to somewhere like Sutherland in that it was undergoing "Improvement".

That's not to say you're incorrect: parliament did believe that Gaels were backward and Catholic. By pointing out that many of them weren't, I am merely trying to suggest that a misconceived idea could cause indiscriminant repression against groups who were otherwise pro-British. The idea in the American case is that the Americans are not English at all, and the wrong sort of Protestant into the bargain.

Secondly, it was about changing the structural situation rather than trying to use the brutality as a warning.

Why can't it be both? The abolition of heritable jurisdiction, the ban on arms, and the half-hearted attempts to repress the language were directed against the social structure as it stood - but there were, in the more immediate term, violent reprisals all over the place.

In the Highlands case the structural problem was a clan lifestyle that clashed with the increasingly dominant lifestyle that was encroaching it. Thus the solution was to end the clan lifestyle.

It was a lifestyle that was on its way out anyway: the Duke of Argyll and the Earl of Breadalbane were thoroughly establishment figures; most chiefs wore trousers for official business and a growing number were concerning themselves with ways to extract more moulah from the clans; in parts of the Highlands Lowland-style clearances were already happening; Wade's system of roads and garrisons had brought government soldiers to the Highlands at last; cattle-banditry was giving way to cattle-racketry. If the '45 had never happened, you'd see a fair few butterflies but the clannish lifestyle was going.

But because there was a rebellion you had reprisals, dispossesions, language persecution, and other deliberately harsh measures. It seems to me that whatever the structural problems might be, rebellion was met with repression.

In the American case, it's simply a lack of political voice for the colonies, which means the structural solution would be a better channel for a political voice.

That's a structural solution. Another, from the point of view of having crushed the rebellion, is repression. If you believe throughly in the importance of the mercantilist system and the Established Church and you feel that it's just been decisively proven that the colonists are no match for the state, well.

I'm be no means very well-informed about America, but I know a bit about 18th century Britain and so I just felt the need to clarify that a lot of people's attitude to the colonists was pretty openly hostile.

Bear in mind previous outcries from colonists had already led to:

- Acceptance of "free ship, free good" with the Dutch to re-allow colonial smuggling
- Heavy modification of the Proclamation Line to address all concerns
- Significant reduction of the sugar tax
- Reallowing the colonies to pay debt with paper money
- Repeal of the stamp act

So, you go out of your way to help them and they fuck it up, as the playwright scrieves? That might lead to the opposite approach.

Now, I understand other measures were not repealed, but clearly parliament gave heavy weight to American political voices - in a way they never did to Gaelic clans.

Hmm? The chief speaks for the clan, and the top chief is Campbell, who is also the Duke of Argyll and unofficial viceroy of Scotland. Nothing's ever so stark as it seems. And it was pre-'45 practice to make some show of wining and dining local chieftains.

Following a failed revolution, Parliament would clearly expect parliament to be accepted as sovereign, and would punish the trouble makers, but they would also try to deal with the underlying structural issue, which would mean political reform to give them more representation in some way. It's very possibly that reform, ultimately, would not be enough in the longer term to hold the Empire together. But it's equally possible that it would do enough, along with more loyalist immigration, to tide the problem over until other splits prevent colonial unity.

Things would chance and I don't know enough about the colonies to speak with authority, but I think I know enough about the British ruling classes to say that it's hardly beyond the realm of possibility for them to crack down on this this degenerate Puritan lot.

My point wasn't that the British weren't prepared to be brutal if that would change the structural situation in their favour. It's that they weren't brutal for brutality's sake unless it did. If you look at their response to the French in Quebec, where there were too many of them for ethnic cleansing to work, they realised they would have to instead respect their language, religion and law to work. A similar view would have been taken in the situation we are discussing: "You have to accept parliament's ultimate sovereignty, but otherwise we'll try to address the issue".

Oh, sure, I'm not saying that any ethnic cleansing is going to happen in this case. That remark was rather secondary to the point, I know: I was just pointing out to SteveP that harsh measures were by no means considered "extreme" in the 18th century.

As mentioned, I do think an initial crackdown for the first few years is quite possible. I just think that another revolution would be viable in those first few years, and that by the time it would be, many of the issues would have been mostly addressed.

How much do you concede to people you've defeated? As had been pointed out, Britain's prestige as well as its mercantilist system were at stake here.

 

[Bulletsfromthegrassyknoll]

Okay, this doesn't affect Manifest Destiny, because like someone said, it was an Anglo-American Idea, but I see a Spanish America, a French America, and a British America.

 

[stevep]

But because there was a rebellion you had reprisals, dispossesions, language persecution, and other deliberately harsh measures. It seems to me that whatever the structural problems might be, rebellion was met with repression.

That's a structural solution. Another, from the point of view of having crushed the rebellion, is repression. If you believe throughly in the importance of the mercantilist system and the Established Church and you feel that it's just been decisively proven that the colonists are no match for the state, well.

Repression, especially of the more militant opponents is likely but its extremely unlikely it would be the only tool used. Britain wanted light taxes on the colonies to lighten the burden on itself of defending them. Prolonged and indiscriminate repression won't help that.

I'm be no means very well-informed about America, but I know a bit about 18th century Britain and so I just felt the need to clarify that a lot of people's attitude to the colonists was pretty openly hostile.

You mean a lot of people, but by far means all, were hostile to the rebels. There were a lot of colonists that were loyal to the crown, even at great cost to themselves.

So, you go out of your way to help them and they fuck it up, as the playwright scrieves? That might lead to the opposite approach.

It might but again as mentioned above there are serious problems with that.

Things would chance and I don't know enough about the colonies to speak with authority, but I think I know enough about the British ruling classes to say that it's hardly beyond the realm of possibility for them to crack down on this this degenerate Puritan lot.

Again possibly but extremely unlikely that would be the only or even the primary response. If nothing else the ruling class were highly mercantile, which will mean they will want to continue trading with the colonies and harsh repression is not going to enable that.

Oh, sure, I'm not saying that any ethnic cleansing is going to happen in this case. That remark was rather secondary to the point, I know: I was just pointing out to SteveP that harsh measures were by no means considered "extreme" in the 18th century.

Which missed the point I was making. I was saying that the culture and the checks and balances of Britain made extreme measures, such as used elsewhere, were less likely in this case. In part also racism probably would have played a part here since the colonists were seen as British.

How much do you concede to people you've defeated? As had been pointed out, Britain's prestige as well as its mercantilist system were at stake here.

Judging by history quite a lot. Britain has a fairly extensive history of crushing rebelling and following it up with constitutional reforms. Its a bit different here in that the colonies already had the vast majority of what was given to settler colonies later. What Britain would want to do would be crush the rebellion, get some taxation system in place to get the funding for defence it wanted and then basically get back to life as before, with benign neglect for the colonies, leaving them largely to their own devices.

Steve

 

[I Blame Communism]

Repression, especially of the more militant opponents is likely but its extremely unlikely it would be the only tool used. Britain wanted light taxes on the colonies to lighten the burden on itself of defending them. Prolonged and indiscriminate repression won't help that.

Of course not. Chastising with scorpions never works. Britain would try to re-organise the colonies for sure - but greater oversight from the metropole, tighter control of arms, a subordination of the colonial legislatures, and a policy in favour of the established church is also change, isn't it? Change which I gather had already been happening before the fighting started.

You mean a lot of people, but by far means all, were hostile to the rebels. There were a lot of colonists that were loyal to the crown, even at great cost to themselves.

Sure, but why does this mean that every in Britain necessarily recognised this fact? I've already provided sources. I haven't seen anything from anyone in the government saying that the Americans were all Britons True.

It might but again as mentioned above there are serious problems with that.

These being?

Again possibly but extremely unlikely that would be the only or even the primary response. If nothing else the ruling class were highly mercantile, which will mean they will want to continue trading with the colonies and harsh repression is not going to enable that.

It won't? I'm not talking about sowing the fields with salt here, I'm talking about asserting political social control - in ways which, I've pointed out, were in some cases familiar back home in English history - and in this way guaranteeing, or so the theory goes, Britain's profits from its newly subdued and ordered mercantilist empire.

Which missed the point I was making. I was saying that the culture and the checks and balances of Britain made extreme measures, such as used elsewhere, were less likely in this case.

I don't follow. Why didn't it stop them being used elsewhere, then?

In part also racism probably would have played a part here since the colonists were seen as British.

Still not seeing any sources. I'm sure they exist - as I say, there certainly were people sympathetic to the colonists, and certainly the colonists saw the early part of their struggle in terms of Freeborn English Rights - but it's a bit rich to keep asserting this against direct quotes from people who were involved in fighting the revolution saying that they were nothing of the sort.

Judging by history quite a lot. Britain has a fairly extensive history of crushing rebelling and following it up with constitutional reforms.

Any sensible person follows rebellion with reform, but where has that reform actually meant giving autonomy and representative government to the rebellious lot? In the white dominions, where the American example already existed. Britain in 1777 had no such history.

Its a bit different here in that the colonies already had the vast majority of what was given to settler colonies later. What Britain would want to do would be crush the rebellion, get some taxation system in place to get the funding for defence it wanted and then basically get back to life as before, with benign neglect for the colonies, leaving them largely to their own devices.

But I was under the strong impression that Britain had been trying to strengthen its control over the colonies and consolidate its trading system. After all, taxation is the start of state power.

 

[stevep]

Sure, but why does this mean that every in Britain necessarily recognised this fact? I've already provided sources. I haven't seen anything from anyone in the government saying that the Americans were all Britons True.

Well the most famous person arguing for not enforcing taxing them was Pitt the Elder.

These being?

As I said, see my reply to you're previous point.

It won't? I'm not talking about sowing the fields with salt here, I'm talking about asserting political social control - in ways which, I've pointed out, were in some cases familiar back home in English history - and in this way guaranteeing, or so the theory goes, Britain's profits from its newly subdued and ordered mercantilist empire.

Why all that expense. All Britain wanted was for the colonies to start contributing to their own defence. They were aiming to cut expenditure not increase it. True the young George III was fairly eager to expand the position of the monarchy but he was more concerned with his power in Britain than in the colonies.

I don't follow. Why didn't it stop them being used elsewhere, then?

Because other cases were either non European/non Protestants or were not ruled by Britain.

Still not seeing any sources. I'm sure they exist - as I say, there certainly were people sympathetic to the colonists, and certainly the colonists saw the early part of their struggle in terms of Freeborn English Rights - but it's a bit rich to keep asserting this against direct quotes from people who were involved in fighting the revolution saying that they were nothing of the sort.

Which quotes are you talking about? I think you made one single comment a couple of pages back.

Any sensible person follows rebellion with reform, but where has that reform actually meant giving autonomy and representative government to the rebellious lot? In the white dominions, where the American example already existed. Britain in 1777 had no such history.

This was I think the 1st revolt in a Protestant white settlement area. We know what happened in later such cases that were suppressed. [Admitted this was probably influenced by what happened in the US but there's no way of knowing what would have happened after a successful defeat of the rebels. The directly guilty would of course be punished but I don't see the point in repression of the broader population. [I'm not counting establishing the rule of law as repression].

But I was under the strong impression that Britain had been trying to strengthen its control over the colonies and consolidate its trading system. After all, taxation is the start of state power.

As far as I'm aware the only discussion was about raising taxes to meet some of the costs of garrisoning the colonies. There could have been some sinister master plan to reduce the self-government of the colonies but without evidence supporting such an idea that sounds more like a conspiracy theory than anything else. If you remember at the time, prior to the American and French rebellion there was heavy pressure for political reforms in Britain itself. They were blocked in large part because of reaction to the other two revolutions and the wars they sparked.

Steve

 

[Socrates]

Most people in Argyll, and many in other places, were nominally Presbyterian and while they might not have been so austere as Lowlanders they did regard their Catholic rivals with suspicion. The Protestant clans, Campbell in the lead as usual, were broadly speaking Georgite. And did that help them? Argyll at this time was, in material culture, also closer to the Lowlands than to somewhere like Sutherland in that it was undergoing "Improvement".

That's not to say you're incorrect: parliament did believe that Gaels were backward and Catholic. By pointing out that many of them weren't, I am merely trying to suggest that a misconceived idea could cause indiscriminant repression against groups who were otherwise pro-British. The idea in the American case is that the Americans are not English at all, and the wrong sort of Protestant into the bargain.

Firstly, while there was certainly a lot of nonconformists in New England, more colonies had the Church of England as the established church - something Parliament would have been aware of. Secondly, its laughable that Parliament would have thought a free population that was TWO THIRDS OUTRIGHT ENGLISH would be "not English at all".

Why can't it be both? The abolition of heritable jurisdiction, the ban on arms, and the half-hearted attempts to repress the language were directed against the social structure as it stood - but there were, in the more immediate term, violent reprisals all over the place.

Yes, "in the more immediate term" - but that's not the same thing as long term policy. Particular if those violent reprisals were concentrated on the non-Anglican colonies, which were the ones that would receive the most fresh immigration of people who would not have experienced the immediate repression.

That's a structural solution. Another, from the point of view of having crushed the rebellion, is repression. If you believe throughly in the importance of the mercantilist system and the Established Church and you feel that it's just been decisively proven that the colonists are no match for the state, well.

Repression isn't a structural solution - and it was well known at the time. Every other case we have shows Westminster usually would reassert their authority, and then have constitutional reform.

I'm be no means very well-informed about America, but I know a bit about 18th century Britain and so I just felt the need to clarify that a lot of people's attitude to the colonists was pretty openly hostile.

Yes. Those people were called Tories. The people that were positive to the colonists were Whigs, and those were the ones that were dominant in parliament in the late 18th Century. By the time the "Tories" label came back it actually represented another type of mindset.

So, you go out of your way to help them and they fuck it up, as the playwright scrieves? That might lead to the opposite approach.

You seem to be wanting it both ways here. If the British were shown to not accomodate the colonists that shows they would then repress them. If the British were shown to accomodate the colonists, that means they would learn that approach didn't work and would then repress them.

Hmm? The chief speaks for the clan, and the top chief is Campbell, who is also the Duke of Argyll and unofficial viceroy of Scotland. Nothing's ever so stark as it seems. And it was pre-'45 practice to make some show of wining and dining local chieftains.

And how much did this manifest itself in actually reversing policy that the clans didn't like?

Still not seeing any sources. I'm sure they exist - as I say, there certainly were people sympathetic to the colonists, and certainly the colonists saw the early part of their struggle in terms of Freeborn English Rights - but it's a bit rich to keep asserting this against direct quotes from people who were involved in fighting the revolution saying that they were nothing of the sort.

Unless I'm mistaken, you've provided one anonymous quote with no context. If you want evidence, Edmund Burke led the Whig cause on this issue:

"The people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen. England, Sir, is a nation, which still I hope respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. The colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character was most predominant... They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas, and on English principles."

"When they bear the burthens of unlimited monopoly, will you bring them to bear the burthens of unlimited revenue too? The Englishman in America will feel that this is slavery; that it is legal slavery, will be no compensation either to his feelings or to his understandings."

How much do you concede to people you've defeated? As had been pointed out, Britain's prestige as well as its mercantilist system were at stake here.

Often a lot, once you've established your authority by winning. Just look at what they gave the Quebecois or the Afrikaans.

 

[Elfwine]

I'm quite far from an expert here, but I want to throw in my two pence:

Firstly, while there was certainly a lot of nonconformists in New England, more colonies had the Church of England as the established church - something Parliament would have been aware of. Secondly, its laughable that Parliament would have thought a free population that was TWO THIRDS OUTRIGHT ENGLISH would be "not English at all".

The question is not what we can prove was the case statistically, the question is what the attitudes of the time were.

It would be very, very easy to think of even those who were supposedly "outright English" as "corrupted" by the influence of the nonEnglish element, or just by being provincials.

If Burke has to actually point out that they are descended from Englishmen as if that was in dispute, that's telling.

 

[Socrates]

I'm quite far from an expert here, but I want to throw in my two pence:



The question is not what we can prove was the case statistically, the question is what the attitudes of the time were.

It would be very, very easy to think of even those who were supposedly "outright English" as "corrupted" by the influence of the nonEnglish element, or just by being provincials.

If Burke has to actually point out that they are descended from Englishmen as if that was in dispute, that's telling.

I can't win here! I'm challenged to find someone from the home islands stating that the colonies were of English character, and then when I do, it's telling that "it needs pointing out"! If I couldn't have found someone stating such, would you have taken that as good evidence that it was accepted without being spoken?

In reality, Burke was simply making an argument in the style of the time. You state the accepted premises that all sides agree, and then build on them to form your argument. The theory is that as your opponents agree on the building blocks, they will be persuaded of your synthesis.

 

[Elfwine]

I can't win here! I'm challenged to find someone from the home islands stating that the colonies were of English character, and then when I do, it's telling that "it needs pointing out"! If I couldn't have found someone stating such, would you have taken that as good evidence that it was accepted without being spoken?

You can most definitely win here. As far as I'm concerned - I'm just an observer who happened to want to put in their two pence, not taking sides - if the great majority of Parliament can be shown to believe they're English (one way or another), then that's important - but Burke, alone, would be telling because "They are (not) mongrels and the refuse of Europe, but good solid Englishmen and free-born!" would imply the presence of those on the other side arguing they weren't.

Thus, to get back to whether or not you can win this one:
The real point is just that what parliament believed to be true may or may not be what obviously (to us more objective scholars) was true. That's what I'd like to see more on to be convinced (as opposed to happily neutral). Burke alone is a fine example of an individual member and posisbly even a faction (Whiggish or otherwise) but is he a representative of the norm? That I don't know the answer to, and that's what I'm hoping you can show one way or another

For purposes of "Did anyone believe they were such?", your quote quite satisfyingly shows that there were some who did. But that's not what I was questioning. My language might have implied otherwise, for which you have my most sincere apologies.

Hope this clears that up.

In reality, Burke was simply making an argument in the style of the time. You state the accepted premises that all sides agree, and then build on them to form your argument. The theory is that as your opponents agree on the building blocks, they will be persuaded of your synthesis.

Fair enough.

 

[Socrates]

Here's an excerpt from "A Modern History of New London, Connecticut"

"The truth persists that Englishmen, even in that day, believed that their fellow-Englishmen in the Colonies were fighting for the true principles of liberty as understood both in England and America."

 

[Elfwine]

Here's an excerpt from "A Modern History of New London, Connecticut"

"The truth persists that Englishmen, even in that day, believed that their fellow-Englishmen in the Colonies were fighting for the true principles of liberty as understood both in England and America."

I hate to sound contrary, but that's not very helpful (for me).

"Who believed that?"

There are always radicals. "Parliament" on the whole is another story.

Using radicals in absence of a better word for an minority on one extreme or another, nothing more.

 

[Socrates]

I hate to sound contrary, but that's not very helpful (for me).

"Who believed that?"

There are always radicals. "Parliament" on the whole is another story.

Using radicals in absence of a better word for an minority on one extreme or another, nothing more.

The quote I mentioned referred to Englishmen in the country generally. Obviously it's quite a precise thing to try to find references for as I don't have an academic password any more, but here's an excerpt from another book (Troy Bickham, Making Headlines: The American Revolution as seen through the British Press) that talks about British public opinion to the conflict:

"Washington personified the dilemma that faced many Britons during the conflict: he was a quintessential English-American gentleman, despite being the enemy."

While the remark is about Washington, note the implication that he was just a personification of the wider issue. Britons felt that the Americans were of English chracter, and thus didn't know how to feel about them being the enemy in a war. The book later goes on to describe at length how the newspapers only turned nationalistic when France entered the war. That's because they didn't consider the Americans to be foreign and thus nationalism didn't work against them.

It's also worth considering that leading generals like Cavendish and Amherst refused to take active commands against who they considered their brethren.

 

[Elfwine]

That (Cavendish and Amherest) seems worth noting.

 

[Shogun]

That (Cavendish and Amherest) seems worth noting.

Hate to sound ignorant, but I have never heard of Cavendish as far as he relates to the American Revolution. Who was he? I have tried googling him, but it hasn't exactly helped much.