Was the American Revolution a Reflection of British Hubris?

[Elfwine]

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

I don't know enough about it to say.

It being justified doesn't mean that the AR was justified, however.


One thing I'd like to note.

I acknowledge that from the standpoint of American merchant self-interest having to actually pay custom duties is contrary to self-interest, but that doesn't make it unjust, unlawful, or otherwise something that there is legitimate reason to protest as contrary to rightful principles (unless one takes the position that if the people don't want it, it's automatically a bad thing for the government to try to impose it, which is more anarchist than democratic, IMO).

 

[Socrates]

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.

You can point out all you want. But you can't credibly deny that there is a long tradition in British politics that, in parallel for being concerned for the whole Kingdom, the representative of a constituency is supposed to represent the interests of that constituency. That is unchanged to this day, and I know it well, having worked for MPs.

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

Again, this isn't even true on its own merits. The exploitative trade system on the colonies was far more economically damaging than the advantage they got from lower taxes. If the British government had said to them "we'll up your taxes but you can trade as freely as Britain can" then the colonists would have jumped at the chance.

the rights some radicals thought should exist under the law.

Exactly the same way Syrians, Egyptians and Tunisians have had an uprising against their governments in the last few years. Are you arguing that its unreasonable to think you should have some of nature's rights that aren't given by 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).

You mean like the new ban on Western settlement? Prevention of trial by one's peers (something written into the Magna Carta)? An end to innocence until proven guilty? A permanent standing army on colonial soil (and having to pay for the pleasure of it)? An economic blockade on an entire city? The stripping away of Massachussetts self-government?

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, I'd say that that punishing the whole of Boston for the BTP arguably isn't even collective guilt.

Just over a hundred people then. If you really think 6,000 people turning up for a meeting is a crime, I can understand why you are pretty blase about repression generally. And, to be honest, it wouldn't matter if it WAS a third of the population. Collective punishment of a whole city's population for the crimes of a minority is simply repressive and wrong.

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.

Well, I'm British, so not really "an American partisan". If you really don't think absence of political representation, collective punishment or an end to trial by one's peers are grievances, than fine, but you'll find most people disagree.

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

Indeed. But the colonists were actively punished for protesting, which meant they didn't get either.

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.

It certainly held back their industrialisation. We saw the same thing in Ireland and India. As for the benefits of the British army, are these the same benefits of a standing army that was prohibited in Britain during peace without the consent of the people? Consent that didn't exist in the colonies, who preferred standing militias?

Meanwhile, the British companies getting this isn't something that was imposed on the colonists post-'63

No, but it was a longstanding grievance. How does that make it any better.

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.

It was also considerably less than legal American non-smuggling traders could sell for, and threatened to put many out of business.

 

[Elfwine]

You can point out all you want. But you can't credibly deny that there is a long tradition in British politics that, in parallel for being concerned for the whole Kingdom, the representative of a constituency is supposed to represent the interests of that constituency. That is unchanged to this day, and I know it well, having worked for MPs.

Supposed to according to who as of the 1770s?

Something that started in say, the 1830s would be "a long tradition" by now (2010s), but rather irrelevant.

Again, this isn't even true on its own merits. The exploitative trade system on the colonies was far more economically damaging than the advantage they got from lower taxes. If the British government had said to them "we'll up your taxes but you can trade as freely as Britain can" then the colonists would have jumped at the chance.

And the exploitative trade system hasn't stopped the colonists from prospering, wasn't imposed in the 1760s, and isn't part of some evil plan to enslave anyone.

Exactly the same way Syrians, Egyptians and Tunisians have had an uprising against their governments in the last few years. Are you arguing that its unreasonable to think you should have some of nature's rights that aren't given by law?

I'm saying that arguing that "nature's rights" include _____ above and beyond the actual rights granted by the law is separate from saying the government is denying you the rights you are entitled to under the law.

You mean like the new ban on Western settlement? Prevention of trial by one's peers (something written into the Magna Carta)? An end to innocence until proven guilty? A permanent standing army on colonial soil (and having to pay for the pleasure of it)? An economic blockade on an entire city? The stripping away of Massachussetts self-government?

1) Isn't infringing any rights.

2) As I recall, the only case that you're not tried by your peers is smuggling, though you might have mentioned something else on an occasion this came up. And you're the Briton (as you state later in the post you're responding to), but what exactly is the legal standing of the Magna Carta as of this period (the mid-18th century)?

This is more "Since you mention it I'd like to ask" than an argument on the subject there - I know the system doesn't work entirely identically to ours, so I'm wondering.

3) OH NO A STANDING ARMY THE HORROR THE HORROR!

4) Which was after and only after repeated and consistent insurrectionary behavior by Boston.

Just over a hundred people then. If you really think 6,000 people turning up for a meeting is a crime, I can understand why you are pretty blase about repression generally.

No, I think it means that 6,000 people turning up for this meeting means 6,000 people are at least somewhat involved.

And I am not "blase about repression", I am hostile to the idea that the government expecting to collect taxes without its tax collectors being attacked is tyrannical.

You want an example of repression, go to the Ukraine, not New England.

Well, I'm British, so not really "an American partisan". If you really don't think absence of political representation, collective punishment or an end to trial by one's peers are grievances, than fine, but you'll find most people disagree.

Political representation does exist, no matter how passionately you or Pitt or Adams hate VR, it is representation as is practiced at the time. Collective punishment - because the majority of Bostonians are totally innocent. Really.

And see above on trials.

As for being British, I'm an American - but that doesn't mean I side with the colonist position. The other way around seems to apply for you.

Indeed. But the colonists were actively punished for protesting, which meant they didn't get either.

No, they're being punished for lawbreaking.

The Stamp Act was repealed because of American protests, Boston Harbor was closed because of American crimes (not sure off the top of my head what the exact charge/s was/were).

It certainly held back their industrialisation. We saw the same thing in Ireland and India. As for the benefits of the British army, are these the same benefits of a standing army that was prohibited in Britain during peace without the consent of the people? Consent that didn't exist in the colonies, who preferred standing militias?

No, we don't see the same thing. And yes, the benefits of having the army protecting the colonies.

And prohibited in Britain is not the same as prohibited everywhere - I don't recall anything prohibiting stationing troops outside Britain, like at Gibraltar or Montreal (to pick areas outside the Thirteen).

No, but it was a longstanding grievance. How does that make it any better.

It was also considerably less than legal American non-smuggling traders could sell for, and threatened to put many out of business.

It makes irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of the British policies specifically created in the 1760s and 1770s.

Which is known as "capitalism", not "slavery" or "tyranny".

 

[V-J]

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.

This is not exactly outright distortion, but the wording is putting a pretty positive gloss on how the system actually operated at the time.

 

[Elfwine]

This is not exactly outright distortion, but the wording is putting a pretty positive gloss on how the system actually operated at the time.

As I understand it:
The system is pretty blatantly not intended to represent everyone equally - we get some cities (in the American sense of the word) having MPs and some not, presumably on the basis of something other than the rights of man.

So if it worked similarly with colonial representatives being added, I wonder how messy it would get.

 

[Dupplin Muir]

Anyway, I don't think that pointing out that all 13 colonies joined the rebellion is a particularly good argument: Loyalists were systematically oppressed and brutalised and never had a chance to participate in the decision to rebel. It would have been interesting to see how many colonies would have taken part if there'd been a fair debate and vote on the matter...

It is often claimed that the Rebels were trying to negotiate in good faith and that the failure of talks was due to British intransigence, but I think the reverse was true: any concessions made by the British were merely the the trigger for yet more demands, while any refusal was portrayed as unreasonable behaviour. Basically the Rebels went through the motions of negotiating for two main reasons:

- Firstly because many of their supporters didn't actually want independence, so the leaders of the rebellion had to pretend to be looking for a compromise solution to keep the waverers 'on side'. If they could also provide some tangible benefits then that was the icing on the cake.

- Secondly, in case Washington's army was captured: they could then start bleating about how unfair it was to continue fighting while negotiations were in progress, and that the talks could not possibly resume until Washington and his men were released.

 

[Faeelin]

Anyway, I don't think that pointing out that all 13 colonies joined the rebellion is a particularly good argument: Loyalists were systematically oppressed and brutalised and never had a chance to participate in the decision to rebel. It would have been interesting to see how many colonies would have taken part if there'd been a fair debate and vote on the matter...

What brutalization?

There was some, but the idea that the US was a police state which crushed all dissent is ridiculous. There were plenty of moderates who opposed independence at the Continental Congress. Dickinson for instance, who was the big proponent of the Olive Branch petition.

Independence became much more popular after Bunker Hill and news that the King was hiring foreign mercenaries to disband America's democratic institutions. For some reason it made people pissy.

How many British concessions do you see during the period? Repeal of taxes while continuing to affirm the right to impose them, and that's about it.

 

[Socrates]

Supposed to according to who as of the 1770s?

Yes, as of the 1770s, and indeed, much further back. Why else would every part of Britain be covered by a constituency?

And the exploitative trade system hasn't stopped the colonists from prospering, wasn't imposed in the 1760s, and isn't part of some evil plan to enslave anyone.

Just because you have prospered despite a massive unfair obstacle, doesn't make that obstacle any more unfair. The time it was imposed is irrelevant, and the last bit is you just being hyperbolic and trying to argue against strawmen.

I'm saying that arguing that "nature's rights" include _____ above and beyond the actual rights granted by the law is separate from saying the government is denying you the rights you are entitled to under the law.

Yes, but (a) they were denying them rights already written into law and (b) its perfectly reasonable to also complain about the government denying rights you are entitled to by natural rights

1) Isn't infringing any rights.

No, but when plenty of young people have died fighting to win control of an area from the French, I think its a grievance that that territory is then given back to the French you won it from, even if it isn't a rights-based grievance.

2) As I recall, the only case that you're not tried by your peers is smuggling, though you might have mentioned something else on an occasion this came up. And you're the Briton (as you state later in the post you're responding to), but what exactly is the legal standing of the Magna Carta as of this period (the mid-18th century)?

The Magna Carta was in standing so far as no law had been passed contradicting it. So obviously in this case, as parliament had passed a law saying it doesn't apply in cases of colonial smuggling, it was no longer in force here. But that doesn't stop it being an erosion of a principle of English liberty going back centuries.

3) OH NO A STANDING ARMY THE HORROR THE HORROR!

It's more a standing army which is a force apart from local civilian control. Students of history should know the danger to freedom this poses, and it was one the English parliament fought their own wars to prevent.

4) Which was after and only after repeated and consistent insurrectionary behavior by Boston.

Insurrectionary behavior by a number of people in Boston. That's like saying it's ok to suspend democracy in London after the riots, despite most people having done nothing wrong.

No, I think it means that 6,000 people turning up for this meeting means 6,000 people are at least somewhat involved.

Going to a meeting where a resolution is passed calling for a boycott means you are partially guilty for a later act of vandalism?

Political representation does exist, no matter how passionately you or Pitt or Adams hate VR, it is representation as is practiced at the time.

No, it was not representation as practiced in Britain at the time, and it was not representation as practiced in America at the time (where local assemblies ran the show and parliament acted with benevolent neglect).

Collective punishment - because the majority of Bostonians are totally innocent. Really.

Ah, so you're just presuming the entire population's guilt without evidence? This is precisely the sort of insult to traditional English liberty that the colonists rightfully had such a problem with.

And see above on trials.

You didn't seem to say anything above except for "only for smuggling", which doesn't mean it wasn't wrong.

No, they're being punished for lawbreaking.

I believe American ships were banned from fishing waters as punishment for an entirely legal boycott.

And yes, the benefits of having the army protecting the colonies.

Who exactly were the army protecting the colonies from that couldn't be done by local militias? Shouldn't it be the local colonies that decide the level of defence needed?

And prohibited in Britain is not the same as prohibited everywhere - I don't recall anything prohibiting stationing troops outside Britain, like at Gibraltar or Montreal (to pick areas outside the Thirteen).

Again, you're looking at it from a very legalistic perspective. But it's the reasons behind the laws that matter. Having a standing army not under local civilian control is a recipe for harassment and abuse, which happened both in England and in the American colonies. Yet its reasonable for the English parliament to complain about it but not a grievance for the American colonists?

It makes irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of British policy in the 1760s and 1770s.

Not true. Wrong policy is still wrong, even if it has been going on for decades.

Which is known as "capitalism", not "tyranny".

Mercantilism and capitalism are overlapping circles, but they're certainly not the same thing.

 

[Socrates]

As I understand it:
The system is pretty blatantly not intended to represent everyone equally - we get some cities (in the American sense of the word) having MPs and some not, presumably on the basis of something other than the rights of man.

It was certainly a corrupt and unfair system for Britons. Just not quite as unfair as the system being enforced for the colonists.

But it's important to understand every city had an MP that represented them. It's just that Leeds would fall into Yorkshire constituency, and be represented by Yorkshire's MPs. Indeed, Leeds' population meant it had more voters than other parts of Yorkshire, and thus the MPs were very sensitive to its concerns.

 

[V-J]

It was certainly a corrupt and unfair system for Britons. Just not quite as unfair as the system being enforced for the colonists.

Not really seeing how the average man having no political rights at all is a fairer system than one in which the average man has limited autonomy in the form of his local colonial assembly. Can you explain that one to me?

Indeed, Leeds' population meant it had more voters than other parts of Yorkshire, and thus the MPs were very sensitive to its concerns.

This is simply not how the system actually worked. County seats were technically more representative in having large electorates, but in practise they were often no less pocket seats than some of the rotten boroughs. Actual elections were often rare in these seats, despite the large number of voters. You keep insisting on an anachronistic, modern understanding of diligent representation which simply by and large did not exist until well into the 19th century.

 

[Elfwine]

Yes, as of the 1770s, and indeed, much further back. Why else would every part of Britain be covered by a constituency?

Except that the system is set up in such a way that some places are represented directly, some places aren't.

Just because you have prospered despite a massive unfair obstacle, doesn't make that obstacle any more unfair. The time it was imposed is irrelevant, and the last bit is you just being hyperbolic and trying to argue against strawmen.

That they've prospered despite it indicates that it isn't a significant obstacle.

And no, it's not. The term "slavery" was used by people at the time.

For instance,to quote from The March of Folly (in regards to American statements about the Stamp Act): "When Boston learned of the Virginia resolves, 'the universal voice of all the people,' wrote Hutchinson, supported them in the conviction that 'if the Stamp act must take place, we are all slaves.'"

There's your hyperbole, not my comments.

Yes, but (a) they were denying them rights already written into law and (b) its perfectly reasonable to also complain about the government denying rights you are entitled to by natural rights

A) So far we have at most the very specific "smugglers tried in Halifax". And for all I know of British law, that overriding the general provision to be tried by one's peers is lawful.

B) And even if representation is a natural right, I point to the Stamp Act Congress agreeing to declare representation in the flesh "impractical".

So its wrong to be "denied" something you don't even want. Makes the Americans sound like spoiled children.

No, but when plenty of young people have died fighting to win control of an area from the French, I think its a grievance that that territory is then given back to the French you won it from, even if it isn't a rights-based grievance.

I have to say I have a problem with the idea that "we bled for this, therefore we have a right to it".

The Magna Carta was in standing so far as no law had been passed contradicting it. So obviously in this case, as parliament had passed a law saying it doesn't apply in cases of colonial smuggling, it was no longer in force here. But that doesn't stop it being an erosion of a principle of English liberty going back centuries.

It very much does.

It's more a standing army which is a force apart from local civilian control. Students of history should know the danger to freedom this poses, and it was one the English parliament fought their own wars to prevent.

It's more a standing army which is a force subordinate to control of the government. That "the government" isn't centered in Massachusetts doesn't make it a threat to Bostonians.

Insurrectionary behavior by a number of people in Boston. That's like saying it's ok to suspend democracy in London after the riots, despite most people having done nothing wrong.

No, it's like saying that when most people are involved, we should treat it accordingly.

Going to a meeting where a resolution is passed calling for a boycott means you are partially guilty for a later act of vandalism?

December 16, 1773: The Boston Tea Party At 10 o'clock in the morning on December 16, 1773, thousands of colonists gathered at the Old South Meeting House for a last meeting to decide what to do about the tea. Over 5,000 people, more than a third of Boston’s entire population, crowded into the meeting house.
During the meeting, the Patriot leaders asked Francis Rotch to make a personal plea to Governor Hutchinson for permission to leave the harbor without unloading the tea. The Patriots were seeking a legal way to refuse the unwanted tea. Mr. Rotch left the meeting and made the long trip to where the Governor was staying in Milton, Massachusetts. Rotch asked the Governor to grant him a pass to sail the Dartmouth out of Boston harbor, safely past all the guns in the harbor, so that the tea could be returned to England. The Governor refused his request.
Thousands of people waited at the Old South Meeting House for Francis Rotch to return with the Governor's answer. It was near evening when he finally came back. Candles had been lit in Old South. Mr. Rotch reported that he had not received a pass and that he would not attempt to leave the harbor without the Governor's permission.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/teaparty.htm

which mentions even larger numbers, incidentally. So we're looking at a substantial fraction - probably a majority - of Boston's adult population.

No, it was not representation as practiced in Britain at the time, and it was not representation as practiced in America at the time (where local assemblies ran the show and parliament acted with benevolent neglect).

Yes, it is representation as practiced in Britain at the time. Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham having no seats is no better than say, Boston and Charleston having no seats.

Ah, so you're just presuming the entire population's guilt without evidence? This is precisely the sort of insult to traditional English liberty that the colonists rightfully had such a problem with.

No, I'm basing guilt on their actions. See the quote above.

You didn't seem to say anything above except for "only for smuggling", which doesn't mean it wasn't wrong.

Well, my point is that anything I would say on it is covered by the part of my post above, so all I'd be doing is saying what I said earlier again.

I believe American ships were banned from fishing waters as punishment for an entirely legal boycott.

Do you have a source for this? I wouldn't want to say it didn't happen, but I can't recall reading of it - so just mentioning it as "I think I read it somewhere" doesn't really add much, I'm afraid.

Who exactly were the army protecting the colonies from that couldn't be done by local militias? Shouldn't it be the local colonies that decide the level of defence needed?

Ask the people who planned British policy, not me.

Again, you're looking at it from a very legalistic perspective. But it's the reasons behind the laws that matter. Having a standing army not under local civilian control is a recipe for harassment and abuse, which happened both in England and in the American colonies. Yet its reasonable for the English parliament to complain about it but not a grievance for the American colonists?

I don't think it's reasonable to complain about a nonexistent problem.

And I'm looking at it from a legalistic perspective because I have a problem with breaking the law without very good reason - and British soldiers competing with Bostonians for positions as unskilled labor is more pitiable than outrageous in the sense of grounds for throwing rocks at sentries is outrageous.

Not true. Wrong policy is still wrong, even if it has been going on for decades.

Yes true. If you want to argue that the entire system was corrupt (which was only taken up by the radicals at the time), that's not the same as the idea that the policies after the Seven Years War were tyrannical.

Mercantilism and capitalism are overlapping circles, but they're certainly not the same thing.

The point is that the Americans being unable to compete is part of how the latter works. A reason to hate capitalism, yes, to claim Parliamentry tyranny, no.

 

[Socrates]

I don't have time to respond point by point for now, but here's the bit on fishing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraining_Acts_1775#New_England_Restraining_Act
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511576621&cid=CBO9780511576621A016

 

[Elfwine]

So (in effect if not intent) after war has already broken out, Britain does this.

In response to:

"a part of your Majesty's subjects in the province of the Massachusetts Bay hav(ing) proceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme legislature, that a rebellion at this time actually exists within the said province; and we see, with the utmost concern, that they have been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by your Majesty's subjects in several of the other colonies, to the injury and oppression of many of their innocent fellow-subjects resident within the kingdom of Great Britain, and the rest of your Majesty's dominions[2]"

Yes?

​

 

[Dave Howery]

Good Lord. Arguing about whether the ARW was 'justified' is so pointless. The basic fact is that the Brits and the Americans had just diverged too much, and that was Britain's fault. Having once established the colonies, they did little to watch over them afterwards. The colonists avoided a lot of taxes (failing to pay even a lot of the ones they were supposed to) because the tax collectors appointed by Britain just failed miserably to do their job, and were never called to account for it. Smuggling became widespread to avoid all the unpleasantness of mercantilism, and Britain mostly looked the other way. As for supposing to be grateful to Britain for finally ending the French menace in N. America.. they were grateful, but they also had memories of all the times that Britain failed to protect them in the long conflict. The French and their native allies committed a lot of appalling massacres on the English colonists (who responded in kind on the French, and with their own native allies), and Britain's response was fitful at best; short periods of intense military activity amidst long stretches of time where there were damn few redcoats on the borders (N. America was always a secondary theater of war for London). Plus, you have the fact that America was becoming less distinctly British and more polyglot, with immigrants from Germany and other places. So, suddenly, after all those long years of benign neglect, Britain changes gears and starts to clamp down on the colonies? Combine that with such things as restricting their movement west and quartering troops in private homes (for some reason, this annoyed the hell out of the colonists, which is why forbidding that is part of the Constitution), it's hardly surprising that the colonists went from civil disobedience to open revolt.. the two sides just had too little in common anymore...

 

[Socrates]

We can go back and forth on individual points, but I guess our main points of disagreement come down to these views of yours:

(1) It is adequate "representation" for a jurisdiction to be governed by an assembly of people who have never been there, elected by a population thousands of miles away
(2) Collective punishment is acceptable
(3) As long as parliament passes a law, it can't be an erosion of liberty
(4) The colonists had absolutely no reasonable grievances whatsoever

I guess you need to believe all four to support the British in this case.

 

[Elfwine]

We can go back and forth on individual points, but I guess our main points of disagreement come down to these views of yours:

(1) It is adequate "representation" for a jurisdiction to be governed by an assembly of people who have never been there, elected by a population thousands of miles away
(2) Collective punishment is acceptable
(3) As long as parliament passes a law, it can't be an erosion of liberty
(4) The colonists had absolutely no reasonable grievances whatsoever

I guess you need to believe all four to support the British in this case.

Close. Ish.

1) It is no more unrepresenative for Boston to governed by men from Devon than it is for London to be governed by men from Devon, and the Stamp Act Congress declaring (more direct) representation in the flesh "impractical" is conveniently forgotten so as to present the British as refusing to give into very reasonable American requests.

Seriously, when Britain giving representation is deemed "impractical" by representatives on the side of the American cause, this becomes less VR vs. real representation as Parliament vs. local governance, and I have no particular sympathy for decentralization.

2) Collective guilt (as in, a group being guilty) should mean collective responsibility, and when over a third of Boston's total population and probably well over half of Boston's adult population is involved in something, then the idea that the many were punished for the sins of a few is untrue - I'm sure there were were some innocents caught in this, but it was more like hitting one innocent man and nine guilty than the other way around.

3) Trial by Admiralty court is not an infringement of liberty just because it has previously been trial by peers who will vote to acquit.

4) The colonists had no grievances that justify lawbreaking and violence until very, very late in the dispute if at all - and those came about in Parliament's attempt to punish lawbreakers, not intentional malicious tyranny as was presented by colonial propagandists at the time.

I have no problem with the idea of the Americans wanting to get rid of an unpopular tax. I have a lot against them feeling that "If you tax us without our consent that's the same as enslaving us" rhetoric making this a matter of liberty, which was not infringed.

Whether you agree or disagree, I'm not saying the government is always right, I'm saying that the government did not do anything that justified the American response.

 

[Faeelin]

But the colonists didn't resort to violence until Britain sent out troops to seize the weapons of colonial self-defense forces and to arrest opponents of British rule, whose violence to that point was... burning tea.

 

[Elfwine]

But the colonists didn't resort to violence until Britain sent out troops to seize the weapons of colonial self-defense forces and to arrest opponents of British rule, whose violence to that point was... burning tea.

Tarring and feathering tax collectors and loyalists isn't violence? Among other far-from-peaceful actions.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

And when to all appearances (remember the Gaspee?) the colonists are engaged in rebellion, seizing the weapons of the militia and arresting the ringleaders is a pretty understandable response for the government to take.

I suppose if you think the Americans are in the right and the British daring to oppose them puts them and all their actions in the wrong, it doesn't matter however.


http://suite101.com/article/the-destruction-of-the-hutchinson-house-in-1765-a212319 Not violence towards people, but certainly grounds for the British government feeling its and its agents are the injured party.

 

[Socrates]

3) Trial by Admiralty court is not an infringement of liberty just because it has previously been trial by peers who will vote to acquit.

That's the whole point of trial by jury though. The theory was always that it's essential its people from the same society agree its wrongdoing because otherwise there's nothing to stop the government from penalising people under unfair laws. That was what was going on when it was put in the Magna Carta, and that is what was going on with the unfair Navigation Acts.

It's akin to saying, "well we can't prosecute under the "beyond reasonable doubt system" so we'll just remove that". The removal of the presumption of innocence was even worse. These are universal principles that are crucial to a free society, and don't cease to exist just because a government decides to change the law.

 

[Socrates]

But the colonists didn't resort to violence until Britain sent out troops to seize the weapons of colonial self-defense forces and to arrest opponents of British rule.

Which kind of shows up how ridiculous Elfwine's "That the government isn't centered in Massachusetts doesn't make [the standing army] a threat to Bostonians" argument is...