Was the American Revolution a Reflection of British Hubris?

[usertron2020]

We just don't like your tea. No need for an invasion over it!

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.

No one was injured, and as I stated earlier, closing the port of Boston meant a near-siege. It was like being hit with slingshots and responding with cannon fire! Also, the newly enforced (but long ignored) anti-smuggling laws caused a flood of capital out of the colonies and into (private) British coffers. So yes, the colonists were seriously angry. The Tea Party was to strike at an available target. As far as cheapness goes, the colonists wanted a CHOICE, which they were denied. If they couldn't buy other teas, they were essentially unable to trade with other countries as they wished. The British wanted a trade monopoly.

The lower classes in the colonies being more politically engaged was not the problem. It was that the lower classes of Britain were politically barred (The working class?) from any such activity. One of the many reasons people went to America was to escape aristocratic rule. After the Seven Years War, the aristocrats came after them, financially.

As far as the question: "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?". Hmmm. Let me think. I don't recall the events in London leading up to that little unpleasantness known as the English Civil War being particularly civilized.

 

[usertron2020]

There'll always be an England!

Yes the colonialist did as a few less rights but did not pay anything near as much in taxes.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't lower taxes having to do with concessions made to the Mother Country in regards to the colonies not being allowed to build up any factory base? Even by mid-1700s standards, I mean. So that manufactured goods had to be purchased from Britain.

Also, more farseeing MP's saw lower taxes in the colonies (which wouldn't be much after all) as a way of helping the economy of the colonies to keep growing (from a VERY low base). The Opposition very ACCURATELY predicted where the "colonies" would be by 1850, even 1900, which explains their desperation in opposing anything the North Government did regarding the colonies. The Opposition screamed that North was throwing away a chance for the Empire to become as mighty as every other power in Europe one day, and they were right. After all, the Dominions of the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, Malaysia, Burma, the Caribbean, France, stop me when you want...

 

[Shawn Endresen]

While the diplomatic element was important, I'd argue that the largest problem for the British was a failure to understand their own army, and the perception of that army.

Consider the track record of the British Army in North America: 1675, they put down the first rebellion of Virginia (instigated by its corrupt governor). 1686, troops are used to try and strip the New England colonies of their charters. Petty fighting and occasional atrocities persist through 1688, when the Catholic is out and William is in (which calms the Puritan New Englanders considerably, although there was also fighting in New York). 1711, they fail to throw the French out due to cowardice (bad officers) and refusal to cooperate with local militia. 1740, southern militias believe they can take Florida, but the regulars retreat. Also in 1740, joint forces attack Cartagena; they fail due to cowardice, and incidentally squander the colonials so badly that very few made it out alive. 1745, a joint (regulars and militia) expedition takes Louisbourg; the regulars claim all the prize money and sail away, leaving the colonials to walk home (900 of whom died of starvation and exposure on the way). FINALLY they get Wolfe, who spends his soldiers' lives carelessly and callously but at least is no coward and wins - and all the land theoretically won will go to Indians, the number of troops stationed in the New World will be increased despite the withdrawal of France, and the colonials will be expected to pay for the lot.

At protecting the colonials from France, Spain and the Indians, the colonial perception of the regulars is an unbroken record of failure, incompetence and (usually) cowardice. The colonials believed they won in 1763 despite the regulars, and instead of a reward they got a bill. And they're not frightened of the regulars for obvious reasons. That's a nasty mix.

As for political awareness of the lower classes - no. Parliament, for all its faults, could plausibly claim to represent the middle class by this period, although not the tenants and mechanicals obviously. But all of the States were tightly-knit oligarchies, dominated by 6 or 8 families, the great grandchildren of the original charter holders, generally. They were set up that way deliberately, since it's an effective way to extract profit, and the colonies were supposed to generate profits. The property requirements to vote and hold office made politics open to many fewer people in the colonies than in the mother country. Which was another thing that irritated the colonials.

 

[Timmy811]

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

Dead trees FTW!

More like America FTW! Korea FTL!

 

[Socrates]

As for political awareness of the lower classes - no. Parliament, for all its faults, could plausibly claim to represent the middle class by this period

I disagree with this. Sure, it could claim to represent non-aristocrats, but only in terms of the landed gentry, extremely rich merchants, and plunderers coming back from India. More than 90% of the population could not vote.

 

[Socrates]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't lower taxes having to do with concessions made to the Mother Country in regards to the colonies not being allowed to build up any factory base? Even by mid-1700s standards, I mean. So that manufactured goods had to be purchased from Britain.

Well, I don't think there was a direct justification for any of these systems. Rather there were various advantages and disadvantages of different places as these things grew up haphazardly. But certainly the mercantilist system Britain forces on the colonies was the most negative thing the colonies had to face. The only reason it wasn't a bigger deal during the debates before the ARW was that (a) it had existed for a while, so it was hard to say it was a new abuse, (b) it was clearly an imperial matter, so didn't fit with the colonists arguments about what powers should belong where, and (c) while it hurt the colonies in aggregate, there was no individual group that was particularly aggrieved to it (mainly because the laws prevented manufacturers from forming!). I'm sure if some sort of deal on representation had been worked out, this would have come increasingly to the fore as the industrial revolution got on the way and the Americans realised what they were missing out on.

Standing back and trying to get to the root cause of the problems, however, was simply a lack of understanding of how the other side saw things. There were very few colonists in Britain arguing their case, and they weren't there long enough to have the sustained case needed to change minds. It's the sort of thing a permanent presence of a parliamentary delegation in London would have helped with considerably.

 

[Elfwine]

The main problem I think with Anglo-American reconciliation is that the American side of things stubbornly refused to see any legitimacy whatsoever in Parliament's actions and saw it only as acts of malicious tyranny.

I'm not saying that there was no prejudice on the other side of the Atlantic, but the fact of the matter is, the problems were because Americans - rightfully or wrongfully - refused to accept Parliament's decisions. Parliament was trying to gain revenue, if it had achieved that, that would have been the end of it until the next potential flashpoint. The issue of Boston harbor being closed and such only came about after the colonists have been, in a word, uncooperative.

So long as that viewpoint that Parliament is always wrong (ironically, George was not targeted - it was a visible distinction between "Parliament" and "His Majesty", for reasons that sound a lot like earlier "its not the king we have a problem with, its his corrupt advisers" things - which I think says something on the AR attitudes, but I digress) is in place, Pitt (who is just as adamantly pro-Power-and-control by Parliament and of the economic situation as anyone on North's side of the aisle, if not more so) and his fellows being different/ "better" is utterly irrelevant.

And frankly, the American insistence on being given the benefits of empire without having to pay taxes to support that empire - and let's face it, if we took mercantilism to its illogical extreme we'd see making hobnails and horseshoes outlawed (to reference the - ideological - position of Pitt) so the idea that the colonies are paying their share by buying British goods is going to convince no one, whatever it may sound like to modern, post-mercantlism scholars.

I fully agree that the British bungled things, but if we're talking someone needing to compromise, those saying "No taxes whatsoever" are compromising less than Parliament, which repealed the Stamp Act for instance after the protests - it just tried something else to raise revenue because raising revenue is important.

Also, a note on the economic thing: Sure, the American economy may be weaker and smaller than the British one. But "the American fair share" is not ignoring that. It's a matter of the colonists essentially having the best of independence and imperial protection as of the start of this mess.

 

[Faeelin]

And frankly, the American insistence on being given the benefits of empire without having to pay taxes to support that empire

Two thoughts: the colonists did pay taxes; after all, the colonies had a lot of debt postwar too.

Second, is it your position that all Americans were economically irrational? They launched a war with Britain over a couple of pence under your argument. This suggests there's more at play.

 

[Elfwine]

Two thoughts: the colonists did pay taxes; after all, the colonies had a lot of debt postwar too.

Second, is it your position that all Americans were economically irrational? They launched a war with Britain over a couple of pence under your argument. This suggests there's more at play.

1) Could use elaboration. They certainly evaded custom duties and they like as practically a "national" sport. (and "but they would have been ruined if they had to pay!" - because of course you can only charge a given rate, so if they had to charge more for their products the universe would end in some kind of paradox).

2) My position is that selfish merchants and the like convinced other Americans that Britain was engaged in evil and malicious tyranny - possibly believing it themselves, possibly using it cynically (given that the Boston Massacre was blown far out of proportion deliberately, I suspect the latter) so as to have their support against the British government's policies.

Looking at the period up to '75, after '75 we have the usual reasons men volunteer, which rarely involve cold reason and often involve emotion and passion that has nothing to do with the war's justice or lack thereof per se.

 

[Umbric Man]

I just have to say I'm with John Adams' position as he put it in (I believe) Noavanglus - either pay full taxes with representation in the Imperial Parliament and no trade restrictions like the British, or full representation in the Imperial Parliament or their own localized Parliaments approving any taxes if they'll still be kept under mercantilism and trade restrictions.

That seems pretty fair to me, and I usually tend to be an Anglophile when it comes to Anglo-American relations and so try to at least attempt to look at the British side more objectively.

 

[Elfwine]

I just have to say I'm with John Adams' position as he put it in (I believe) Noavanglus - either pay full taxes with representation in the Imperial Parliament and no trade restrictions like the British, or full representation in the Imperial Parliament or their own localized Parliaments approving any taxes if they'll still be kept under mercantilism and trade restrictions.

That seems pretty fair to me, and I usually tend to be an Anglophile when it comes to Anglo-American relations and so try to at least attempt to look at the British side more objectively.

Except the tiny ittty bitty detail that every American seems to forget: The Americans were represented in Parliament.

Is "virtual representation' a shitty idea? Definitely. But if we're arguing they were given less than the rights of Englishmen, that "virtual representation" was how Englishmen in England were "served" has to be remembered - and arguing that just means that the English were also gyped is getting into arguments on the rights of men, not rights specifically denied Americans, and quite frankly serves no purpose.


And of course forgotten even more thoroughly, the Stamp Act Congress "agreed to declare (representation in the flesh) 'impractical'. So they were altogether willing to scream tyranny for not getting something they didn't even want.

 

[Socrates]

Except the tiny ittty bitty detail that every American seems to forget: The Americans were represented in Parliament.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. I'm with Pitt on this, who described virtual representation as "the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of a man; it does not deserve serious refutation."

Even if we look at this on a direct comparison of colonists versus home islanders perspective, everyone in Britain had a representative whose mandate it was to look after that constituency. The Americans had nothing of the sort.

Secondly, "someone else is oppressed more" is not the killer argument you think it is. The reality is that the colonists were further along the road to liberal democracy than Britain was. Thus all the regressive moves taken by the British Government were an infringement on their liberties, even if (and that's a big if) they were considered acceptable at home. They were being asked to move from a system where taxes were decided locally by an elected assembly with a wide franchise composed of men who understood the local community, to a system decided by men who had never been within thousands of miles of them. And that certainly didn't push them to independence on their own: it was only when the government started to do things like economically cripple an entire city for the vandalism of about a dozen men, that things really got to breaking point.

Yes, there were individuals who screamed tyranny at every opportunity. But the vast bulk of those with grievances tried everything they could to get redress through peaceful means. They started with petitions, then they moved to boycotts, then they moved to civil disobedience. It was only when at every stage they faced more and more repressive measures that eventually it got to military opposition.

And incidentally, the "benefits of empire" you mention include having to trade everything through Britain, which was just licence for British companies to eat into the colonist's profit margins, despite doing next to no work. They had seen what this had done to Ireland's economy, and the economic loss from that pales into comparison with the extra taxes they had to pay.

 

[Faeelin]

And incidentally, the "benefits of empire" you mention include having to trade everything through Britain, which was just licence for British companies to eat into the colonist's profit margins, despite doing next to no work. They had seen what this had done to Ireland's economy, and the economic loss from that pales into comparison with the extra taxes they had to pay.

Franklin is really interesting on this; his travels in Ireland radicalized him and made him fear America would end up suffering the same fate.

 

[Faeelin]

1) Could use elaboration. They certainly evaded custom duties and they like as practically a "national" sport. (and "but they would have been ruined if they had to pay!" - because of course you can only charge a given rate, so if they had to charge more for their products the universe would end in some kind of paradox).

The Americans were hardly the only ones to engage in corruption and graft in this period; witness the East India Company.

As for the recession? This is well known, isn't it? http://books.google.com/books?id=tc...=onepage&q=colonies postwar recession&f=false

2) My position is that selfish merchants and the like convinced other Americans that Britain was engaged in evil and malicious tyranny - possibly believing it themselves, possibly using it cynically (given that the Boston Massacre was blown far out of proportion deliberately, I suspect the latter) so as to have their support against the British government's policies.

So rather than being an actual difference, such as Americans finding virtual representation to be a crock, the Sons of Liberty had the most effective propaganda machine the world had seen to that point?

 

[Faeelin]

One thing that's striking to me if you want to argue a pro-British position. Not a single colony sided with Britain during the war. Zero. Nadda.

Thirteen states as diverse as Massachusetts and South Carolina voted to become free and independent, states which only two decades before couldn't organize a common policy regarding the French.

 

[Elfwine]

I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. I'm with Pitt on this, who described virtual representation as "the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of a man; it does not deserve serious refutation."

Even if we look at this on a direct comparison of colonists versus home islanders perspective, everyone in Britain had a representative whose mandate it was to look after that constituency. The Americans had nothing of the sort.

I'm not saying the VR system is good. I'm saying that's the system the Americans are demanding cover them - which it already does.

There is no foundation for the idea that Americans are less represented than Britons when the system of representation does not work as MP from _____ stands for and only for _____."

But I suppose it wouldn't be worth the trouble to point out the basis of the system is that ever MP represents the whole body politic. You'll just repeat criticism of the VR system as if somehow it was only applicable to Americans.

Secondly, "someone else is oppressed more" is not the killer argument you think it is. The reality is that the colonists were further along the road to liberal democracy than Britain was. Thus all the regressive moves taken by the British Government were an infringement on their liberties, even if (and that's a big if) they were considered acceptable at home. They were being asked to move from a system where taxes were decided locally by an elected assembly with a wide franchise composed of men who understood the local community, to a system decided by men who had never been within thousands of miles of them. And that certainly didn't push them to independence on their own: it was only when the government started to do things like economically cripple an entire city for the vandalism of about a dozen men, that things really got to breaking point.

The "killer argument" is that the Americans have nothing on which to protest they're being treated worse than Englishmen because Englishmen are the ones being treated worse - so any "oppression" is based not on the rights under the system but - at best - the rights some radicals thought should exist under the law. They're not asking anyone to move to anything, they're attempting to enforce nothing more repressive than what's already on the books (and sloppily enforced).

And we're talking well over a dozen men for the Boston Tea Party, so seriously, no.

http://www.boston-tea-party.org/facts-numbers.html

http://www.oldsouthmeetinghouse.org/osmh_123456789files/BostonTeaPartyBegan.aspx

Over a third of the entire population is assembling here. Considering that "the entire population" counts children (underrepresented at the meeting, one would think), I'd say that that punishing the whole of Boston for the BTP arguably isn't even collective guilt.

Yes, there were individuals who screamed tyranny at every opportunity. But the vast bulk of those with grievances tried everything they could to get redress through peaceful means. They started with petitions, then they moved to boycotts, then they moved to civil disobedience. It was only when at every stage they faced more and more repressive measures that eventually it got to military opposition.

How dare the British government not do what they wanted. How dare the British government try to collect taxes.

I know that its mind splitting painful for American partisans to acknowledge that maybe the colonists don't have any grievances to redress or that Parliament is not trying to repress them, but it's very tiring to see it presented as if Parliament was demanding that the colonists forfeit their rights out of greed and malice.

The right to protest is not the same as the right to get your way.

And incidentally, the "benefits of empire" you mention include having to trade everything through Britain, which was just licence for British companies to eat into the colonist's profit margins, despite doing next to no work. They had seen what this had done to Ireland's economy, and the economic loss from that pales into comparison with the extra taxes they had to pay.

Which somehow didn't do a thing to cripple the colonial economy, whereas they most definitely got the benefits of the British army and navy's protection against foreign threats.

Meanwhile, the British companies getting this isn't something that was imposed on the colonists post-'63, and the only example of any kind of monopoly is the British East India Company getting to sell tea for less than the price smugglers are charging.

Who suffers? Smugglers. Lawbreakers.

But of course, we can't possibly consider it criminal when Americans are doing it.

 

[Socrates]

One thing that's striking to me if you want to argue a pro-British position. Not a single colony sided with Britain during the war. Zero. Nadda.

Thirteen states as diverse as Massachusetts and South Carolina voted to become free and independent, states which only two decades before couldn't organize a common policy regarding the French.

It's also worth bearing in mind that a number of Tories who were so pro coming down hard on the colonists were actually Scots, a people who had made exemption from the restrictions of the mercantilist system a condition of joining the Union.

 

[Mikestone8]

One thing that's striking to me if you want to argue a pro-British position. Not a single colony sided with Britain during the war. Zero. Nadda.

Thirteen states as diverse as Massachusetts and South Carolina voted to become free and independent, states which only two decades before couldn't organize a common policy regarding the French.

Because we were hamfisted enough to adopt policies which annoyed all of them at once.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened had we slapped a tax on slaves instead of on tea. Would the Southern gentlemen have chucked a couple of hundred prime field hands into Charleston harbour? That would have been interesting to watch.

 

[Elfwine]

The Americans were hardly the only ones to engage in corruption and graft in this period; witness the East India Company.

As for the recession? This is well known, isn't it? http://books.google.com/books?id=tc...=onepage&q=colonies postwar recession&f=false

The Americans are the ones who are screaming that taxation is tyranny when the government tries to do something about it.

And that recession doesn't look like it has anything to do with taxation, so . . . um. . .

So rather than being an actual difference, such as Americans finding virtual representation to be a crock, the Sons of Liberty had the most effective propaganda machine the world had seen to that point?

As stated, VR was the system in place. If they felt they were being denied the rights of Englishmen, the facts of how representation worked in the system of the time do not support that.

So the SoL are creatively distorting what's going on, and because they're usually influential (in the context of the colonies) men . . .

 

[Faeelin]

Do you think the Irish revolt of 1798 was justified, Elfwine?