Was the American Revolution a Reflection of British Hubris?

[Elfwine]

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.

Can I ask you this then?

Assuming for discussion's sake that the 18th century system in Britain is acceptable, or at least as acceptable as any of the options in that century were.

Why should Boston get representatives when Sheffield does not?

I mean, both places are being taxed because of decisions made by men who they didn't vote for.

Also, how much do you know about the Opposition (Burke, Pitt, Richmond, Rockingham. . .) of this era? Most of what I've read about them is contained in Tuchman's book, which is rather too limited to get much of a sense of them beyond generalities if that.

 

[Tripwire]

Can I ask you this then?

Assuming for discussion's sake that the 18th century system in Britain is acceptable, or at least as acceptable as any of the options in that century were.

Why should Boston get representatives when Sheffield does not?

It was acceptable in the same way governments of today can be heavily corrupt or in thrall to interest groups and still be.....acceptable.

I don't how big Sheffield was in the 1760s, if it was on par with the other cities that got representatives, then like Manchester it was an anomaly caused by failure to update the election laws to reflect the 18th century rather than the 17th. And again, the interests of one city are not equal to the interests on an entire continent, unless Parliament's gonna pass special taxes or restrictions just on Sheffield.

Also, how much do you know about the Opposition (Burke, Pitt, Richmond, Rockingham. . .) of this era? Most of what I've read about them is contained in Tuchman's book, which is rather too limited to get much of a sense of them beyond generalities if that.

I've actually read March of Folly myself, it was very interesting, but it was a while ago. I....kinda hate to answer your question, because rating how knowledgeable I am about the Opposition depends on how knowledgeable other people on this site are. I'll say I know....some about the Opposition, some of them more than others. A decent amount. I'm far from an expert on 18th century British politicians. Were you wondering anything in particular? I'd love to discuss it.

 

[Elfwine]

It was acceptable in the same way governments of today can be heavily corrupt or in thrall to interest groups and still be.....acceptable.

I don't how big Sheffield was in the 1760s, if it was on par with the other cities that got representatives, then like Manchester it was an anomaly caused by failure to update the election laws to reflect the 18th century rather than the 17th. And again, the interests of one city are not equal to the interests on an entire continent, unless Parliament's gonna pass special taxes or restrictions just on Sheffield.

I know that it being mentioned as not having representatives is mentioned in Tuchman, but I don't have a population figure.

And I think it would be interesting to see a map of what areas elected MPs (counting pocket buroughs - they still count as having MPs after all), although finding or making one might be a hassle.

Just as a matter of compare and contrast, since at this point that's about all we have to discuss - I think are without much to say but repeating ourselves on the issue of American representation.

I've actually read March of Folly myself, it was very interesting, but it was a while ago. I....kinda hate to answer your question, because rating how knowledgeable I am about the Opposition depends on how knowledgeable other people on this site are. I'll say I know....some about the Opposition, some of them more than others. A decent amount. I'm far from an expert on 18th century British politicians. Were you wondering anything in particular? I'd love to discuss it.

Just wondering if you have any good sources to look into, to be honest. No one specific came to mind, although if you know of a good biography of Burke I'd be in your debt.

 

[Tripwire]

I know that it being mentioned as not having representatives is mentioned in Tuchman, but I don't have a population figure.

And I think it would be interesting to see a map of what areas elected MPs (counting pocket buroughs - they still count as having MPs after all), although finding or making one might be a hassle.

Just as a matter of compare and contrast, since at this point that's about all we have to discuss - I think are without much to say but repeating ourselves on the issue of American representation.



Just wondering if you have any good sources to look into, to be honest. No one specific came to mind, although if you know of a good biography of Burke I'd be in your debt.

Oh. Well, there's always the actual parliamentary debates if you're really interested. link. They're about 10,000 pages long, and unfortunately Parliament didn't keep official records until a few decades later, so the debate transcripts were collected years later from newspaper publications, so that most speeches are recorded in their entirety, but some are just one or two sentence summaries of long speeches, like "Mr. X spoke warmly in defence of the government." As far as I know their legitimacy is good. Also Parliament back then had the power to hold closed sessions without press access, so some debates aren't available. And then of course you have to be able to read some 18th century gibberish and parliamentary conventions. For example, there was a rule against referring to other other members by name, so "The noble lord in the ribbon" or just "the noble lord" is always a reference to Lord North.

 

[Elfwine]

Oh. Well, there's always the actual parliamentary debates if you're really interested. Link. They're about 10,000 pages long, and unfortunately Parliament didn't keep official records until a few decades later, so the debate transcripts were collected years later from newspaper publications, so that most speeches are recorded in their entirety, but some are just one or two sentence summaries of long speeches, like "Mr. X spoke warmly in defence of the government." As far as I know their legitimacy is good. Also Parliament back then had the power to hold closed sessions without press access, so some debates aren't available. And then of course you have to be able to read some 18th century gibberish and parliamentary conventions. For example, there was a rule against referring to other other members by name, so "The noble lord in the ribbon" or just "the noble lord" is always a reference to Lord North.

Should be an interesting read, after getting used to that.

Poor North. North was everything that would make the situation worse, no matter which side of the contest you're on. And at least according to Tuchman, aware of his inadequacy.

Unfortunately, God forgive him, George III liked him.


Frankly, while I stand fairly firmly in support of taxation as legitimate and British policy of trying to enforce its authority as defensible, once things get George's (or the diehard "right") hands on them, they rapidly become "I don't know if I'd consider this rebellion material, but I won't fight - or argue with - with anyone who does."

Its a tragically perfect display of folly driven by a complete refusal to deal with the realities of the situation.

Wouldn't have caused the Revolution had the initial stuff not stirred up enough dislike to allow the agitators to run with it,. but it was perfect grist for their mills.