Was the American Revolution a Reflection of British Hubris?

[Wolfpaw]

The British leadership fundamentally did not understand the Revolution and maintained the delusion that the Colonists were a loyal populace that had allowed itself to be hoodwinked by demagogues and agitators, and that one more stern blow will break their madness and reconcile them to the Mother Country. They also did not see the American rebellion as something caused by a constitutional issue of taxation and representation, but as the revolt of ungrateful "country clowns" who did not appreciate the removal of the Franco-Papist threat in North America (in exchange for more popular sugar islands) and were unwilling to shoulder their share of the economic burden.

 

[Tripwire]

The British leadership fundamentally did not understand the Revolution and maintained the delusion that the Colonists were a loyal populace that had allowed itself to be hoodwinked by demagogues and agitators, and that one more stern blow will break their madness and reconcile them to the Mother Country. They also did not see the American rebellion as something caused by a constitutional issue of taxation and representation, but as the revolt of ungrateful "country clowns" who did not appreciate the removal of the Franco-Papist threat in North America (in exchange for more popular sugar islands) and were unwilling to shoulder their share of the economic burden.

I agree with this. They also were convinced that most of the complainers were more or less bluffing, and that they would back down if Britain showed they weren't going to be swayed. "They will be lyons while we are lambs, but if we are lyons they will prove very meek." This attitude led to the British gov. to act in a more aggressive manner than they otherwise might have.

Like I said in response to this thread's actual question, no, I don't see the American Revolution as a reflection of British Hubris so much as a reflection of British massively-misjudging-the-situation.

 

[usertron2020]

That's an interesting take on it. What non-American sources do you base this on?

The Wind From America, by the noted French historian Claude Manceron (English Translation), Volume 2 of his classic history of the French Revolution.

Quote: "How true it is, that it is not the surrendering that hurts the most, but rather WHO you surrender to."

 

[Elfwine]

Usertron:

http://footenotes.net/Pages/Clio.htm

Would you say this is a fair review?

I haven't read the books, and my bookshelves overflow with my collection of books as is, so I'm left wondering if this is worth it.

 

[usertron2020]

Usertron:

http://footenotes.net/Pages/Clio.htm

Would you say this is a fair review?

I haven't read the books, and my bookshelves overflow with my collection of books as is, so I'm left wondering if this is worth it.

The book was a wonderful read, and I re-read it many times. The POV of the French at Yorktown was particularly delicious. If you are looking for entertainment, yes, I recommend it wholeheartedly. For specific accuracy of historical detail, nothing he wrote was WRONG. I suspect historians would be pissed at someone writing a history that also entertains. As in, IF it entertains, then it cannot be a true history. The Wind From America was a true history. But unless you are interested in delving into the French Revolution, I would not recommend the rest of the series.

There was one detail the Harpers critic got very wrong. The detail involving the title. Manceron's words are from the moment of Rochambeau's statement to General O'Hara that he could not surrender to him, due to the fact that his commander-in-chief was to O'Hara's left (Washington).

This is a paraphrased excerpt (from old memory):

<"As O'Hara approached Rochambeau, the significance could hardly be underestimated. If O'Hara surrendered to the French, then Yorktown was nothing more than another battle in the thousand year war between France and Britain. Washington and his men would represent no more than would Red Indians or German mercenaries. But if O'Hara could be made to surrender to the Americans, then all the world would feel the wind from America.">

The "Wind" that the critic is so dismissive of is in regards to what would be felt by the lower classes of Europe. A wind that told the long suffering masses that after a thousand years of failed peasant revolts, the upstart Americans, commoners all, had shown that the ruling classes could truly be beaten. Which is why in 1789, just eight years later, when Louis XVI asked his valet about the disturbance outside: "Is it a Revolt?" "No, Sire. It is a Revolution!"

 

[Elfwine]

The book was a wonderful read, and I re-read it many times. The POV of the French at Yorktown was particularly delicious. If you are looking for entertainment, yes, I recommend it wholeheartedly. For specific accuracy of historical detail, nothing he wrote was WRONG. I suspect historians would be pissed at someone writing a history that also entertains. As in, IF it entertains, then it cannot be a true history. The Wind From America was a true history. But unless you are interested in delving into the French Revolution, I would not recommend the rest of the series.

At least in my impression, the problem is not so much writing something that entertains as writing something to entertain. It's not as if there's a conspiracy among historians to make conventional (for want of a better term) history boring.

There was one detail the Harpers critic got very wrong. The detail involving the title. Manceron's words are from the moment of Rochambeau's statement to General O'Hara that he could not surrender to him, due to the fact that his commander-in-chief was to O'Hara's left (Washington).

This is a paraphrased excerpt (from old memory):

<"As O'Hara approached Rochambeau, the significance could hardly be underestimated. If O'Hara surrendered to the French, then Yorktown was nothing more than another battle in the thousand year war between France and Britain. Washington and his men would represent no more than would Red Indians or German mercenaries. But if O'Hara could be made to surrender to the Americans, then all the world would feel the wind from America.">

The "Wind" that the critic is so dismissive of is in regards to what would be felt by the lower classes of Europe. A wind that told the long suffering masses that after a thousand years of failed peasant revolts, the upstart Americans, commoners all, had shown that the ruling classes could truly be beaten. Which is why in 1789, just eight years later, when Louis XVI asked his valet about the disturbance outside: "Is it a Revolt?" "No, Sire. It is a Revolution!"

"One result is that the actual wind from America, circa '78-'82, which has to do with the rights of man, does not blow very strongly through the book. The war in the colonies is fleetingly glimpsed by Lafayette, though Manceron includes aperçus from men like Rochambeau, de Grasse, and even Count Axel Fersen, a Swedish courtier and friend of Marie Antoinette. "

Not sure if that's dismissive of events, just Manceron. Posting the quote in case anyone else has any thoughts on it, I note.

In regards to the results:
What's weird there - speaking as a Socialist (which is to say, in favor of the bourgeois over the nobility but only just) - is that the "ruling classes" in England (well, Britain) are a step closer to the US than to France.

As someone anti-aristocracy, I don't really care - Louis got what was his ilk's fate.

I'm a monarchist, I'll admit it. But Louis is not my kind of king. He was neither enlightened or limited.

 

[Socrates]

I'm a monarchist, I'll admit it. But Louis is not my kind of king. He was neither enlightened or limited.

If you want a limited king, George III wasn't your man. He actively tried to increase the strength of the monarchy versus parliament, having felt his father had irresponsibly let the monarch's power lapse. When he came to power, he established a faction in Parliament ("the King's friends") and his party consciously used the monarchy's enormous wealth to supercede the patronage networks of the Whig magnates. He also famously intervened to prevent Catholic emancipation going through.

In fact, now I think about it, I think our debate of the privileges Britons versus colonists enjoyed is rather a side issue. I think our underlying disagreement is that you are a monarchist and believe government is legitimate as long as it abides by its own traditional rules, while I am a republican that believes legitimate government only comes from natural rights and the consent of the governed. Having just reread Common Sense and Plain Truth again, it is clear this is the crux of the division between the two sides at the time also.

 

[usertron2020]

If you want a limited king, George III wasn't your man. He actively tried to increase the strength of the monarchy versus parliament, having felt his father had irresponsibly let the monarch's power lapse. When he came to power, he established a faction in Parliament ("the King's friends") and his party consciously used the monarchy's enormous wealth to supercede the patronage networks of the Whig magnates. He also famously intervened to prevent Catholic emancipation going through.

In fact, now I think about it, I think our debate of the privileges Britons versus colonists enjoyed it rather a side issue. I think our underlying disagreement is that you are a monarchist and government is legitimate as long as it abides by its own traditional rules, while I am a republican that believes legitimate government only comes from natural rights and the consent of the governed. Having just reread Common Sense and Plain Truth again, it is clear this is the crux of the division between the two sides at the time also.

Seconded.(filler)

 

[Elfwine]

If you want a limited king, George III wasn't your man. He actively tried to increase the strength of the monarchy versus parliament, having felt his father had irresponsibly let the monarch's power lapse. When he came to power, he established a faction in Parliament ("the King's friends") and his party consciously used the monarchy's enormous wealth to supercede the patronage networks of the Whig magnates. He also famously intervened to prevent Catholic emancipation going through.

I didn't say he was my man either. My man in this sense in the 18th century is a woman.

If I wasn't a teetotaller, I'd drink a toast to her memory.

Since I am one, I'll settle for posting this link: http://www.distinguishedwomen.com/biographies/maria-th.html

Not to mention that I really can't be arsed to get upset over royal patronage beating Whig patronage, at least not in the abstract. What George wanted, yes, because George was, in a word, immature as a king, but that's a problem with him personally.

In fact, now I think about it, I think our debate of the privileges Britons versus colonists enjoyed is rather a side issue. I think our underlying disagreement is that you are a monarchist and believe government is legitimate as long as it abides by its own traditional rules, while I am a republican that believes legitimate government only comes from natural rights and the consent of the governed. Having just reread Common Sense and Plain Truth again, it is clear this is the crux of the division between the two sides at the time also.

I am a monarchist and believe that government is legitimate as long as it holds up its end of the social contract. Traditional rules don't enter into it.

And the colonial rejection of their obligations while insisting on their privileges is exactly the kind of behavior that would take a writer as good as Paine to portray as heroic defense of liberty and the rights of Man.

 

[Socrates]

I am a monarchist and believe that government is legitimate as long as it holds up its end of the social contract. Traditional rules don't enter into it.

You believed parliament changing the Magna Carta was perfectly reasonable.

As for the social contract, who defines it? I have studied social contract theory and usually a key part of it is the consent of the governed. This does not seem to matter to you.

 

[Elfwine]

You believed parliament changing the Magna Carta was perfectly reasonable.

As for the social contract, who defines it? I have studied social contract theory and usually a key part of it is the consent of the governed. This does not seem to matter to you.

I'm not aware of anything in English law - this is a confession of my ignorance of the same, not an argument - that says outright that the Magna Carta is the supreme law of the land, bar none, and cannot be altered or changed by Parliament under any conditions.

Tradition and precedent are wonderful things, but that something has been one way or another in practice does not make it actually mandated or prohibited in fact.


So I see no reason why it is more unreasonable than amending the US Constitution. Doesn't mean I approve of all actions done there, but if I treated every law that I disapproved of as the government failing its end of the bargain, I'd be a goddamn anarchist with all the things I oppose.

And what doesn't matter to me is the governed whining that they are being oppressed when no oppression is taking place.

The governed do not have the right to demand their government do what they want without giving anything in return any more than the reverse.

 

[Socrates]

I'm not aware of anything in English law - this is a confession of my ignorance of the same, not an argument - that says outright that the Magna Carta is the supreme law of the land, bar none, and cannot be altered or changed by Parliament under any conditions.

This is exactly my point. For you, whether it's legitimate or not to change the Magna Carta is dependent on the existing English law. For me, whether it's legitimate or not to change it depends on whether fundamental, natural rights are being abrogated.

The governed do not have the right to demand their government do what they want without giving anything in return any more than the reverse.

No, they don't. But, for people like me, governments only have legitimacy if they have the consent of the governed. This doesn't mean consent for individual policies, but for an overall regime. In the American colonies, there was no mechanism for consent.

 

[Elfwine]

This is exactly my point. For you, whether it's legitimate or not to change the Magna Carta is dependent on the existing English law. For me, whether it's legitimate or not to change it depends on whether fundamental, natural rights are being abrogated.

No.

I'm not sure how you got the impression that I believe the social contract reads "the government has the power to do what it wants and the people are obligated to obey no matter what", but its gotten very, very, very old and is very, very, very wrong.

If existing English law doesn't prohibit changing the Magna Carta, I have no more problem with it being changed than I do with changes to the US Constitution.

That doesn't mean I believe all changes are legitimate as long as they're not illegal. That just means that I don't see changing the Magna Carta as in itself illegitimate.

No, they don't. But, for people like me, governments only have legitimacy if they have the consent of the governed. This doesn't mean consent for individual policies, but for an overall regime. In the American colonies, there was no mechanism for consent.

There was "no mechanism for consent" for 97% of Britain's population either, and yet most of them didn't feel they were ruled by an arbitrary tyranny despite paying heavier taxes than their American counterparts.

 

[Socrates]

There was "no mechanism for consent" for 97% of Britain's population either, and yet most of them didn't feel they were ruled by an arbitrary tyranny despite paying heavier taxes than their American counterparts.

Did they not? How on Earth do we know? Most of them were too busy struggling by trying to make a living to be politically active. When the issue did get attention in Britain in the following decades, huge numbers of British people did protest against the limited franchise. Had the British government refused to give into their demands in 1832, it's quite probable they would have taken up arms too.

Besides, since when did what "most people think" be the criteria of whether something is correct or not. You are right that the large majority (I'd like to see the exact number from an unbiased source) of Britons were also being governed without their consent. That was also wrong, and an abrogation of their natural rights.

 

[Elfwine]

Did they not? How on Earth do we know? Most of them were too busy struggling by trying to make a living to be politically active. When the issue did get attention in Britain in the following decades, huge numbers of British people did protest against the limited franchise. Had the British government refused to give into their demands in 1832, it's quite probable they would have taken up arms too.

I think the fact that they didn't take up arms in the period between 1760 and 1822, even with the French Revolution as a far closer and more radical influence, is at least worth noting on how seriously they minded their situation.

Besides, since when did what "most people think" be the criteria of whether something is correct or not. You are right that the large majority (I'd like to see the exact number from an unbiased source) of Britons were also being governed without their consent. That was also wrong, and an abrogation of their natural rights.

Not sure what an unbiased source would be here - Whately (here: http://www1.assumption.edu/users/mcclymer/His130/P-H/stampact/default.html ) refers to "9/10ths", I think 3% being able to vote is from wikipedia - ran into it in passing and can't remember now.

Also, the idea that natural rights state that only democracy is legitimate is awfully like the idea that divine right means kings are unquestionable.

As for the right and wrong part, I do want to note that there's no reason to feel the Americans were inherently more right than their English counterparts, or vice-versa.

 

[Nytram01]

Fact of the matter is that the Magna Carta was being re-written and admended within a year of it originally being written. King John had it annulled by the Pope, King Henry III twice re-wrote it and reduced it, King Edward I confirmed some of it along with the Forest Charter but then had the Pope annull his admendments as well, and King Edward III re-confirmed some of the rights of the charter in law.

 

[Elfwine]

Fact of the matter is that the Magna Carta was being re-written and admended within a year of it originally being written. King John had it annulled by the Pope, King Henry III twice re-wrote it and reduced it, King Edward I confirmed some of it along with the Forest Charter but then had the Pope annull his admendments as well, and King Edward III re-confirmed some of the rights of the charter in law.

So how does the document manage to have the image it does?

I mean, I'm sure Whig historians are involved here somewhere, but . . .

 

[Nytram01]

So how does the document manage to have the image it does?

I mean, I'm sure Whig historians are involved here somewhere, but . . .

It was re-invented and re-imagined in the late-Tudor/early-Stewart period by historians and authors and theorists and so on. Sir Edward Coke is generally believed to be the father of the idea of the Magna Carta being an unchangeable, unbreakable charter listing the fundamental and natual rights of an Englishman.

 

[Timmy811]

I'm not sure which bothers me more of the 18th century's idiotic ideas (listing the two relevant to this discussion), the idea that standing armies are the enemy of liberty, or the idea that mercenaries are savage barbarians who will rape, pillage, and slaughter at whim but the Parliamentary army now that there's an actual war (as distinct from them being there for peaceful - or at most enforcement of authority - reasons) will behave like civilized men.

Because they'd read recent 17th and 18th century history? Mercanary armies had shown themselves far, far more likely to commit such atrocities.

 

[Elfwine]

Because they'd read recent 17th and 18th century history? Mercanary armies had shown themselves far, far more likely to commit such atrocities.

As I recall, Louis XIV's army wasn't mostly made up of mercenaries when he attacked the Netherlands.

Nor was Cumberland's army in Scotland.

I'm not saying the Hessians or other mercenaries were innocent, but "Far, far more likely to commit such atrocities" gives mercenaries's more guilt than they deserve.