American Revolution redux

[Joseph Sullivan]

The administrators had a technical problem when trying to edit the original American Revolution thread. As a result, it was deleted. We have reconstructed much of it from a backup on the 12th of August -- but have edited out parts that were not germane to the topic. it is a long and complex topic,and we will be lost in a vast thread is we deviate from the topic.

What follows (in segments) is the reconstructed portion of the thread. I will then try to summarize the key missing points, but welcome any prior posters to restate their positions. <i><b>It is important that we maintain our usual friendly and open tone, even with a topic like this that, as we have learned, can arouse passionate feelings </b></i>

Cheers!

Joe

[Todd]

Actually it was my fumble fingers - so direct fire appropriately!
[B)]

Todd H.

[Pat Holscher]

Oh oh, the "redux" part doesn't mean that they'll be insertion of cutting room floor footage from the vaults of Francis Ford Coppala does it?

Pat

[Joseph Sullivan]

Originally posted by Kevin Fox

On the War of the American Revolution:

(1) The English (& other) colonists in the British colonies in America were traitors to their King. That is not disputable. Were they justified? That is where the political & philosophical debate begins, and most all Americans have a definite answer.

(2) The American Revolution did become more radicalized as it proceeded, as stated above. The comparison with the English Civil War is very interesting, again as stated above. I believe that the American Revolution became far less radicalized in comparison with the English in the 1640's. I also believe that the primary reason is the difference between Washington & Cromwell.

(3) Here in Virginia, there are many circles in which it is still grossly incorrect to refer to the (American) Civil War. Please, it is the War between the States. Yet, America did have a "true" "civil war." It was the one fought in the Southern Colonies from 1779-1783 and on Long Island in the bloody "Longboat War." It was horrific. You need to go to Atlantic Canada and to find some elderly United Empire Loyalists really to hear about it. Kenneth Roberts' novel, "Oliver Wiswell," gives a start. In the South, horse soldiers played the key role in that long-ago "civil war."

Godspeed!

Kevin +

Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan

Posted - 07/14/2004 : 20:02:35

Kevin:

Your assertion that the colonies were traitors will not stand scrutiny. The monarchy had been progressively hemmed in and circumscribed since Magna Charta, and was already pretty much a Constitutional dependency. In actions towards the colonies, the monarch, or more correctly, his government, was ignoring the well established rights of Englishmen, and destroying the intricate balance of rights and power that had developed through the great struggles of a thousand years -- most recently during the 17th century. The rights of the King and the rights of ordinary subjects all depended on that balance -- which we would now call the unwritten COnstitution of England. The Stuarts had already been taught that in a rather dramatic way. Now the House of Hanover and its ministers were reminded of the lesson. It was they who were at fault, they who deviated.

It is currently popular to call our Constitution (USA) experimental, radical. revolutionary, when it was none of the above. Its very lack of experimentalism, its harmony with the English past, gives the lie to the "rebellious traitors" school of thought.

Well, this soapbox is getting a bit unsteady, so I'll step down now.

Cheers!

Joe

Originally posted by Pat Holscher

That argument can be taken one step further, and actually was by none other than Winston Churchill.

This thesis is that the colonies started off as individual bodies each with a sort of contractual realtionship to the Crown. Each developed its own government, over time, which in turn had a mutual contractual relationship with the Crown as to each others obligations.

During the English Civil War, this view holds, the relationship altered to where each colony was its own body politic, but with a special relationship to England, or rather to the Crown. This view would hold that the Colonies were sort of an early version of what some imagined the Dominions were in the 20th Century. English troops stationed in North America were withdrawn, violating the Crown's duty to protect the Colonies, during the Civil War. When they reappeared, they were the "red coated" Army which descendant from the victors in the English Civil War, and therefore a bit of an alien presence (but not so much so as to be fully welcomed in the French-Indian Wars).

In the meantime, with the Crown's influence minimized during the English Civil War, the Colonies became practically self governing, if not fully self reliant. However, given as each had its own government, they did not view themselves as a people whose government solely sat in London.

These governments, therefore, could hold the view that they could field troops against the English Army without really rebelling against the United Kingdom. When they finally declared the relationship severed, it was not so much a case of rebelling against the crown, philosophically, as firing the Crown.

Of course, like any other situation of this type, this isn't necessarily how the common man viewed it, and at least 1/3d supported the Crown, and only about 1/3d supported the Revolution. The remaining 33% just sat it out. There were still British sympathizers willing to aid British troops in the war of 1812.

Pat

Originally posted by Todd

Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan

It is currently popular to call our Constitution (USA) experimental, radical. revolutionary, when it was none of the above.

The French Revolution, on the other hand, was all of these and more.

Todd H.

Originally posted by Kevin Fox


Dear Joe & Pat,

Thank you for rehearsing various theories advanced by various parties at various times to justify the American Revolution. As you rightly point out, Pat, about one-third of all Americans in the 1770's "bought" such lines of reasoning. That third triumphed militarily (with huge assistance from their traditional enemy, the old monarchy of France), and, so, their assessments of history have generally been enshrined & prevailed.

Joe, in rereading my post, I was relieved to see that I had never said that the "colonies" were traitors. I said that the colonists (I meant some of them) were. A colony may be in rebellion as a body politic, but it could never be executed for treason, if defeated. It could be punished as a body politic, but never executed, as a person could be. Its standing as a body politic could be dissolved - a form of execution, I suppose - but, having no flesh, it could not suffer in the flesh for treason. Treason is a crime committed by an individual against state or King - the King being the personal embodiment of the state. You can hang Sam Adams, but not Massachusetts.

Now, to say that the colonists were justified in their actions by the actions of Lord North's ministry (& other British ministries) - which some (Jefferson, for example) have termed "tyrannical" - does not change the fact that, in rebelling, they committed treason. They were not the government. They had (most of them), in various contexts, sworn allegiance to the Crown against which they - whether right or wrong - rebelled. The signatories of the Declaration of Independence knew that, if they lost the war, they would be hanged. Franklin said, "We had all better hang together, or we shall surely hang separately." They chose to appeal in arms against what they perceived to be misgovernment. British history is full of such instances. Those who won (Henry Tudor at Bosworth Field, Cromwell, Washington, etc.) occupy very important positions in the historical evolution of what Churchill called "the English-speaking peoples." If they had lost, they would have been foot-noted "traitors." (I realize I am pouring gasoline on the fire.) Those who lost prove this point. Were those who led the Pilgrimage of Grace "traitors?" Henry VIII was certainly the poster child for tyrants. Is the answer, "Yes," because they lost? Or "no" because they were "right?" Or were they "right?" Is success in history what makes right or wrong? How about William Wallace? Is treason simply a matter of political perspective? Do only victors decide questions of treason? (Richard III, fighting alone & valiantly "in the thickest press," was cut down shouting "Treason! Treason!") Was the Duke of Monmouth a traitor? He himself admitted he was. How about the Canadian "rebels" in 1837? On that line, was Louis Riel a traitor? Ummm. Getting a bit close to home.

I put you this question. When George Washington was made an officer in the Virginia Militia did he or did he not accept a commission & swear an oath of personal allegiance to his King? A second question: (Really the same question.) When Washington was sworn into the House of Burgesses, did he swear allegiance or not? Did he break those oaths? Those are different questions from the question, "Was he justified by the 'exactions' of George III's ministers in doing so?"

How about Robert E. Lee? Lee is certainly one of the greatest men of character in American history. Was he, a Colonel in the U.S. Cavalry, a traitor because he supported "rebellion?" (Southerners, please note that I put that word in quotation marks.) If he had decided the other way, would he have been a traitor to his native state, Virginia? These are not simple questions.

The Middle Ages & the Renaissance constantly debated a huge theological, philosophical, & political question: did there exist a "right of rebellion?" Some said, "Yes." You could rebel against a tyrant. (That's why Jefferson tries so hard to make George III a tyrant.) Others said, "No." A tyrant was God's judgment & punishment on a sinful people. (That interpretation seems to be constantly tested in history by human sinfulness.) These questions are not so remote as they appear. Is my memory correct that, as late as 1944, von Stauffenberg asked his confessor whether it was a sin to kill a tyrant and, on being told "No," proceeded to put the bomb at Hitler's feet at Rastenberg?

Most of my random points were about the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Here's another one to pull this back toward the Military Horse.

Proposition: if Sir William Howe's British forces had possessed, in the 1776 New Jersey campaign, a powerful cavalry force, the War of the American Revolution would have ended long before it was revived at Trenton.

Godspeed!

Kevin +

Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan

Fr. Kevin:

I am glad that you enjoyed our rehearsal, but surprised that you would waste a paragraph debating something that was obviously not at issue (colonies/colonists). But, let it lie.

Without spending too much more time drifting (or rather charging) off topic, allow me a few observations:

1) Your points on the meaning of treason miss the thrust of my argument. My Latin is very rusty but I seem to recall that in Logic the error involved is called Ignoratio Elenchi. My argument was that with regard to the colonies, the monarch violated the principals of law upon which his kingly rights and those of his government depended. This is not trivial, Britons never being slaves and all. Divine right and absolute authority were conclusively laid to rest by Parliamentary forces asserting a variation of the same thing. And, as I noted, the notion of law as binding on the monarch ran strong in English history for nearly a thousand years and is the reason why Elizabeth II R is the figurehead that she unquestionably is. The point being that the right of kingship was lost when the king failed in his obligations and overreached his rightful authority. His government became illegitimate by its own actions. Such subtleties of course would not lead to a voluntary withdrawal from something as valuable as the southern half of North America. Hence the war.

2) Such oaths as may have been taken by GW and others were not in a vacuum. They were made in the full context of history and tradition. The fact that the founders would have been labeled and executed as traitors is irrelevant. We are discussing the rightness of the war, not the practical consequences of losing it. When royal government lost legitimacy, the oaths were no longer morally binding.

3) Your point about the nomenclature of The War Between the States resonates fully with my argument.

4) Lee's position was as stark as that of a character in a Greek tragedy. The two positions were irreconcilable, he was expected to accept both, but of course, had to choose one. By the lights of the time, his choice was correct. Interestingly, once again the thinking was that the central power (the Federal Government in this case) had broken the laws and compacts by which the states were confederated. The contract being broken, the obligations of the States were ended.

5) English culture, from which we sprang as a nation, and from which came the English Liberalism that so improved the world, is radically different from continental culture, and especially German. German/Prussian thought and tradition approached the State, the Monarch or Ruler, and the role and rights of the people from a direction that would well explain Stauffenberg's concerns. I seem to recall that you are originally a Marylander, but as a Virginia resident, you can look at your flag and see the English answer to Stauffenberg's question -- "Sic Semper Tyrannis."

Cheers!

Joe

Originally posted by Trooper

Kevin, Joe, Pat,
Outstanding debate! Nothing to contribute but I'm trying to grasp it all.
Dusan

Originally posted by Kevin Fox

Dear Joe,

Thank you for your reply. We are in much agreement & some interesting disagreement.

For the nonce, let us not discuss whether the colonies/colonists were correct in their assertions that the actions of the London government constituted "tyranny," "exactions," etc. I believe that we may end up there at some point, & you might possibly take some umbrage if I were to say that I do not think it so tyrannical to have expected the colonists to bear a fair share of the cost of maintaining a large, necessary (see Pontiac's Rebellion), defense establishment in North America. We born & bred "Baltimorons" just see things in curious ways.

More interesting to me, for now, are the questions of political philosophy. I think that you are saying that, according to the "Social Contract Theory," the colonists were justified in rebelling - or, better, in seeking to establish a new, more satisfactory body politic - because King & ministers had let down their end of the Social Contract. (So, ultimately, we would have to get into whether revenue raising in North America constituted "exaction" or not - if we were in the Social Contract paradigm.)

Perhaps mistakenly, I associate the Social Contact with the ideas & thinkers of the French Enlightenment - Montesquieu, Voltaire, &, of course, Rousseau. I am not so sure that I agree with your earlier assertion that the American Revolution was "traditional" in that it was in keeping with the main strains of English constitutional development, whereas the French Revolution was far more radical & innovative. Now that latter part about the French Revolution is certainly true & was pointed out very early on by Edmund Burke in his truly great "Reflections on the Revolution in France," which I regard as the fundamental text for true conservatives to this day.

I think that the American Revolution, certainly through Jefferson, was deeply influenced by the French Enlightenment & that it propounded many constitutional ideas that were, if anything, more "Roman" (as interpreted by the Enlightenment) than British. Now the American Revolution never went so far as the Terror, but I think it was radical, nonetheless. "All men are created equal" vs. "due subordination?" I don't think that Charles James Fox & the other pro-Americans in Parliament could ever have followed Jefferson there - certainly not in 1776. Perhaps we might ask if the French Revolution were not, in many ways, an angrier & less kept-in-check American Revolution. The moderates in France lost control & direction, but, in America, Washington, Hamilton, & others kept things from going to extremes.

Did Parliamentary doctrines of political philosophy prevail in Britain after 1649? I absolutely deny it. The Restoration, the Cavalier Parliament, the 1662 Prayer Book, the Test Acts, all suggest that, by 1685, Charles II enjoyed, in terms of real power, more control than Charles I had ever attained, even in the period of "Personal Rule" (1629-1640). Hobbes & Filmer typify thinking about the essence of the state in this period. It was absolutist. From 2004 looking back, those types look like cranks. At the time, they were the mainstream.

Your argument about British history has a more solid base, I respectfully suggest, in the events of the Glorious Revolution. In just three years, James II managed really to "blow it." The great Whig dukes & landowners could not stomach his Popery & invited in a Protestant prince. John Locke is their idea man. From 1689 really dates the decline of actual monarchical control.

My point rests on the Bishops in the Tower. When James II decided to upset the applecart of the Restoration Settlement with his Declarations of Indulgence (Roman Catholics can be officers, the Church of England is not quite so established, etc.), seven bishops refused to have the Declarations read out on Sunday in the churches as James had commanded. They were sent to the Tower of London & became instant heroes. (A very unusual status for 17th century bishops!)

But, when William of Orange & Mary were given the throne by the Whig potentates, some of those same bishops refused to go along. They became the "Non-Jurors," who refused to swear the new oath to William & Mary. (Of course, many of us in Virginia are well prepared to swear by William & Mary today! A great school!) The Non-Juror position was that, undoubtedly bad & wrong as James was, he was still the rightful king & they would not swear before God that someone else was. I suppose this fits with the very old theory that a bad king is God's legitimate punishment on an evil & sinful people.

(The American colonists had been taught from Puritan times to regard themselves as a special, chosen people - "a city on a hill." It was no surprise, then, that at least one-third would not buy the traditional theory. Maybe the surprise is that so many Loyalists did!)

The Non-Jurors appeared to be losers, but, in the reign of Queen Anne & afterward, their ideas made a comeback. The idea man for that comeback was Lord Bolingbroke. His book, "The Patriot King," was very deeply influential on the young George III. It basically said that nations needed "patriot kings," ruling in accordance with "fundamental law," to maintain any sort of proper state. George saw himself as a "patriot king." He loved his country deeply. ("I glory in the name of Briton!") Why couldn't others (like Americans, Wilkes, & Fox) understand how important his beneficent, patriotic, fatherly, kingly authority was! (I pass over the theological aspects of all that.) Indeed, many scholars would say that the first period of George III's reign was a very nearly successful attempt to reimpose a royal authority even superior to Charles I's & Charles II's. Dr. Samuel Johnson was a Royalist of that stamp & by no means an isolated example. Some British scholars would say that the greatest outcome of the American Revolution was to defeat George III - in England! This is a much debated issue in English history & constitutional law & theory.

This is getting hugely long, so I'll make two points & cease.

First point. Opposing the Social Contract theory & John Locke's ideas was a different theory - that of Fundamental Law. This stated that the King must rule in accord with the Fundamental Law of his kingdom - unstated, but so basic that all knew them. (They were "in the mind of God.") Even Louis XV always insisted that he ruled in accordance with the Fundamental Law! (In fact, the Black Musketeers were trained to say that - like a sort of Miranda Warning - when they showed up in the middle of the night with the sealed coach for your ride to the Bastille, Vincennes, or Pignerolo!) The Glorious Revolution of 1689 denied the concept of Fundamental Law. Britain went down the route of statute law. Parliament's statutes are "fundamental." It is deliciously ironic that it is the revolted American colonies (now dba the United States of America) who are to this day the mighty defenders of Fundamental Law. We have a Constitution & Bill of Rights that define what are the "fundamental laws." Congress cannot pass laws in violation thereof. In Britain, however, Parliament is supreme. They could "declare" people to be traitors (Bill of Attainder), even if they couldn't prove it in court according to the Common Law. We don't dwell, now, on the prohibition of Bills of Attainder in our Bill of Rights, but it was big then!

American revolutionary theorists, like Jefferson & Paine, thought that they were doing radical, new, French political theory things (& to some extent they were), but, really, the American Revolution was fought to defend the old medieval concept of Fundamental Law, which had been the main prop of the monarchs. So, I could agree with you that the American Revolution was "traditional" & in keeping with British constitutional development if it were admitted that it was with the theories of the royal absolutists (!!!) that it was, really ironically, most in keeping. Do I recall correctly that George Washington, when he was out in his coach & four (matched white horses, yes?), was announced as "His Serene Highness, The Most Excellent, The President of the United States?" There is an echo the the Venetian Republic & the Doge there, but also an echo of "The King's Most Excellent Majesty." America has come a long way, but we still read books about "The Imperial Presidency."

Second point. About 1750, there arose a new version of the upper class in Britain. These were the administrators, nobles, & military officers who were the drive engines of George III's/Bolingbroke's vision. They even developed a new accent - the Scarlet Pimpernel/Oxbridge accent that we think of as so typically upper crust British - to set themselves apart from "the backwoods peers" and "Old" England. New fashions in clothing, hairstyles, music, etc. as well. When the rich Americans went "home" in 1720, they felt "at home." They fit in. By 1760-1770, however, they didn't. They felt left out. They were frightened that their power & influence (such as it was) would count for precious little in this "brave new world." So, they were very ready, on cultural grounds, to separate. I suspect that was, for many, more important than a lot of constitutional theory.

History is usually a bit messier than it seems at first blush.

Godspeed!

Kevin +

[Joseph Sullivan]

Kevin and all:

In cleaning up and reshelving parts of my library, I stumbled on an original printing of Edmund Burke's April 19th, 1774 remarks in Parliament concerning taxation of the American Colonies and the state of affairs in the Colonies. A few pages follow, scanned so as to save keystrokes:











As you can see if the type is legible on your monitor, Burke's points are sophisticated, as one would expect. He says:

A) by means of the navigation Acts the colonies were established as the instruments of monopolies, with the benefits to the mother country to be derived through that monopoly. The colonists never resisted this state of affairs, even when grossly inconvenient or unprofitable;

B) The colonies enjoyed self rule and the colonists lived as free men, having "...except the commercial constraint[the monopoly imposed by the Navigation Acts -Joe], every characteristic mark of a free people in their internal concerns. She had the image of the British Constitution. She had the substance. She was taxed by her own representatives. She chose most of her own magistrates. She paid them all, She had, in effect, the sole disposal of her own internal government.""

C) The imposition of "inland revenue" taxes on top of the monopolistic state of affairs was 1) unjust; 2) imprudent because it was alarming and enraging to the colonists; and 3) took away the rights of the colonies, "To join together the restraints of an universal internal and external monopoly, with a universal internal and external taxation, is an unnatural union; perfect uncompensated slavery."

In the last two scans, Burke gives the lie to the idea that the Colonies could justly be taxed AT THIS TIME to finance the expenses of the mother country for the support of the colonies, and that the colonies resisted contributing their fair share. He quotes a letter from Governor Bernard to a cabinet member as saying that,

" It should be considered that the American Governments themselves have, in the prosecution of the late war, contracted very large debts which it will take some years to pay off and in the mean time occasion some very burdensome taxes for that purpose only."



Burke later alludes to legal problems with the taxation schemes.

So, there, from an original source document, are arguments from the British side concerning the same issues that inflamed the colonists.

Cheers!

Joe

[Joseph Sullivan]

Originally posted by G.KUSH.UE

I recently saw an excellent documentary on American PBS titled "Redcoats & Rebels" (based on the book, which I have here) and all the way through the production the Revolution is referred to as America's true "first" civil War. A position I totally agree with. My own ancestors were among the one third of ALL Americans who were loyal the legitimate Government, Great Britain, and were forced, at point of arms into exile. They were proud, brave patriots who fought for THEIR country and lost all in the peace. The rebels were exactly that - rebels, and one might even say terrorists, because that is how they treated those patriots who fell into their hands. But as we all know, it's the victors who wrote the history and created the mythology of American liberty.

Keep in mind that not all of Britain's North American colonies chose to revolt. Colonies such as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland remained loyal. As did the French population in Quebec and the First Nations people, who in the end, lost the most.

Two of the most important causes of the American Revolution are almost always ignored by American historians. The right of French-Canadians to maintain their own laws, culture and Catholic religion, as set out under the Quebec Act of 1774, and the First Nations people to keep their lands and property rights in the Western territories.

Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the other leaders of the revolutionary movement hated the French with a passion & were absolutely set against the existence of a Catholic state in North America. As for the First Nations people, as long as they had lands and resources coveted by American speculators and settlers, they had no rights in a new American state.

Benjamin Franklin was a political animal, who showed one face to French Canada, and another towards France. Anyone one who disagrees should study his public and private writings. It was Franklin, who, with the aide of his vast financial resources and secret agents, tried to have French civil liberty outlawed in Quebec before the war. They tried to make it illegal for the French to sell their produce on an open market, worship in their own churches, hold public office, sit on juries, etc, etc, and so forth. They wanted to turn Quebec into some sort of slave state. American merchants and politicians bombarded London with petitions urging London to administer Quebec like other colonies, but the Crown in it's wisdom prevailed and French Canadian liberties were preserved and enshrined in the Act of 1774.

As for the First Nations people, they were viewed by the Sons of Liberty as nothing more than sub-humans who were to be swept aside in the cause of civilization and quest for expansion. It was the Crown that defended the treaties and tried to stem the flow of illegal settlement upon First Nations lands. In return the First Nations tribe supported the Crown during the war and fought for their freedom.

No people on earth lost more in the Revolution than the First Nations did. They lost what had been their birth-right since the dawn of time.

Cheers,

George

Originally posted by Pat Holscher


Posted - 08/02/2004 : 13:58:52

Very interesting resumption of this discussion. I unfortunately do not have time to address everything. George brings up the Intolerable Acts, however, and they are an important part of the story, and overlooked, so I'll touch on them briefly.

The "Intolerable Acts" are indeed generally forgotten, except amongst students of the period. They were:

1. The Boston Port Act, which was intended to close Boston's harbor until the tax on tea issued was settled in the UK's favor.

2. The Massachusetts Act, which was intended to reverse local control over the colonies' government, which was in the hands of the Assembly, and place it in the Crowns.

3. The Administration of Justice Act, which allowed the Crown to remove a British official in one colony accused of a capitol offense, and have them tried in the UK or in another Colony.

4. The Quartering Acts (there are two), which allowed the British to quarter troops in private residences.

5. The Quebec Act. This granted the Quebecois religious and civil liberties, but it also expanded the boundaries of Quebec, which of course was now a British colony, west of the Mississippi. It was interpreted as re-expanding the French-speaking colony west of the Appalachians.

All of these acts were set in the context of the results of the French Indian Wars. From the UK's prospective, the UK had waged an expensive war in North America and it was entitled to reimbursement from the wealth of the colonies for that effort. However, from the American prospective, the UK had an obligation to fight in North American and making the colonies pick up more of the tab didn't make sense.

Starting with the last item first, the UK's position was bound to create problems. The UK had restricted the types of enterprises which could be licensed for operation in North America. Keep in mind here that this was really before the days of free enterprise, and the now charming item that appears on some good stating "By Appointment To His Majesty. . ." really meant something. In quite a few instances a business could not really operate either in the UK or in her colonies without a charter.

In North America this was much more difficult to control, but the effort was still made to do so. So, the economies of the North American colonies were underdeveloped economically as a result It was bound to be very upsetting, therefore, when the UK came in and demanded greater contributions for paying for the war, when it was also restricting the colonies economic opportunities. Likewise, the war was a much for British purposes as for the British colonies, so the request was insulting as well.

The Massachusetts act starts off: "WHEREAS the method of electing such counselors or assistants, to be vested with the several powers, authorities, and privileges, therein mentioned, ... in which the appointment of the respective governors had been vested in the general courts or assemblies of the said colonies, hash, by repeated experience, been found to be extremely ill adapted to the plan of government established in the province of the Massachusetts Bay ... " The text of it was a naked attempt to revest power in the Crown, and it couldn't be other than upsetting. This particular act was, no doubt, truly intolerable. It also demonstrates, however, that the Crown was attempting to reassert itself where it had long been absent. All the colonies were used to governing themselves, and for the Crown to declare (or Parliament, more accurately) that they were incapable of doing so was really a power grab. The surprising thing here is not that it provoked a violent reaction, but that the UK did not realize that it would. The Administration of Justice Act was similar.

The Quartering Act was no doubt aggravating, but the presence of the war raised it to new heights. A lot has been written about it, and the fact that the US Constitution prohibits quartering troops in peacetime in private homes probably says all that is needed to be said about it.

The Quebec Act is likely the most controversial of the Intolerable Acts. Was it Intolerable? The debate goes both ways, and some of it is not a comfortable debate for modern Americans.

In the context of the times, it cannot be doubted that the Quebec Act was very upsetting to Americans. For one thing, it seemed to favor the feared French in all sorts of ways, in spite of their recent defeat. And the French were feared. Probably the most intolerable aspect of it, at the time, was the reservation of the area west of the Mississippi for Quebec. This seemed to restore French colonist, now under the Crown, to what they had prior to the French Indian Wars. And this restoration was at the expense, it seemed, of the British colonist who expected to expand in hat direction.

Moreover, the Crown was taking an effort to treat the Indian subjects west of the Appalachians as its subjects. This was also very upsetting to Americans, as they tended to look upon the Indians as the enemy, a fear which had increased during the French Indian Wars. There's no way to put a nice face on this, it is not the view most Americans would have now. But it was upsetting then, as the American colonies already viewed themselves as having a natural right to expand, and the Crown was restricting it in favor of a people whom American colonies viewed as a natural enemy. It may be to the Crown's credit for being so enlightened, but it was bound to upset many Americans.

Finally, what of the religious aspects. I'd agree with George that at that time, and well into the 18th Century, Americans were very bigoted, as a rule, against Catholics. Indeed, this made up a large part of the opposition to Irish immigration, as the Irish were regarded as a wholly separate, Catholic, race. There's no putting a smile on this part of our history either.

And the fact that the French were Catholic had been part of the propaganda in defeating them in the French Indian War. So the extension of full rights to them, when the Crown had lately portrayed the war as an anti-Catholic war, in part, was surprising, but admirable.

However, it is worth noting that some of the States themselves started protecting religious freedom fairly early after independence. And actual practice in the war was somewhat other than what a person might think. The Continental Army commissioned Catholic officers, while the British Army prohibited Catholics from being commissioned (Benedict Arnold actually complained that the Continental Congress was too lax with Catholics). Several of Washington's generals, including his quartermaster (who had been a cavalrymen) were Catholic. Catholics in the American colonies contributed a regiment to the Loyalist side, but the majority of Catholics sided with the Revolution, and nearly all of the prominent Catholic families (which weren't numerous) supported the Revolution. One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was Catholic, and at least one of the signers of the Constitution was. Probably in religious terms, Catholics instinctively assumed that the Crowns extension of religious liberty in Quebec was purely political, which it was, but that the newly independent United States would likely evolve into religious freedom, which it did.

As for the Native Americans, no doubt they were the greatest looser. The Crown favored them more than the United States did, and their history would have been different. How different can never be known, but by and large they seem to have instinctually sided with the UK, and were no doubt correct their chances were better with the King than with Congress.

Does this shed light on whether or not the Colonist were rebels? Certainly those who stayed loyal, 1/3d of the American population, cannot be claimed to have been in rebellion. The 1/3d who sat it out probably cannot be regarded as disloyal to anyone. The 1/3d who supported the war, well, that still may be dependant upon a persons view. As stated earlier, the position that the Colonies were independent states with some rights was well established. Even they did not attempt to separate for two years after the war had broken out, which would indicate that Congress believed it could field troops and remain loyal. When it did declare independence, it framed it in the context of acts of the Crown against the Colonies, rather than a desire to separately leave.

Was it a civil war? In some areas it no doubt was. In some areas it was much less of one. In the South it took on a near genocidal character in some places, in which both sides were guilty of inexcusable conduct. And the colonies did repress the Loyalist in some areas. Indeed a very early US Supreme Court case deals with an act of the Viriginia legislature expropriating Loyalist property, where the Loyalist had gone to the UK in the war. Congress had outlawed such acts, but Viriginia proceeded anyhow. The S. Ct. decided Congress could outlaw such behavior, but by that time the Loyalist property owners were no doubt already hopelessly damaged.

I have a question about the charters of the Loyal Colonies. I understand the situation with Quebec, but was the traditional relationship with the Crown that remaining English speaking colonies, such as Nova Scotia, different at that time, or was it the same as say Vermont, etc.?

Pat



Pat Holscher


Posted - 08/02/2004 : 14:22:12

To add just a bit, this gets into the "could they?" argument that surrounds some revolutions, and their results. Interesting question.

That is, here the question would be; could the Continental Congress legitimately raise an army and fight the British army? It thought it could, without even going into a revolution. The Crown, quite obviously, didn't think it could. If the Continental Congress could not do that, well then it was indeed acting in insurrection. If it could to that, it would seem it might not have been.

Another oddball more recent instance of this occurring would be the Irish rebellion commencing in 1916. The Dail came into existence at that time, well prior to Irish independence. It viewed itself as the legitimate government, and the English one as illegitimate. The UK, and every government in the world, viewed it from the opposite position. Ironically, when the Dail did meet to vote on the Treaty, it effectively voted itself out of existence and a new one into new existence, as it agreed to take the oath, thereby providing one of the principal causes of the Irish Civil War. There too, the Irish Free State thought it could pretty much ignore the British declaration of war in WWII, making it the only Dominion to do so, so I guess that it could, as everyone seemed to agree that it could.

Well, I'm trailing off and no doubt showing the effects having come to work to early and having skipped lunch. Interesting conversation, however.

Pat

Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan


Posted - 08/02/2004 : 17:16:19

George raises some good points, but rather oversimplifies more than a few.

Rebellion against the established powers is not necessarily illegitimate (and if we were to say that it is, then the entire history of England before the American Revolution is a catalogue of successive illegitimacies!) There is a strong case to be made, as discussed above, that the Crown and Parliament were illegitimately extending their powers. As Kevin pointed out, I used anachronistic language in discussing the point -- but no matter, my points have not themselves been addressed here, only the language.

Yes, there was anti-Catholic sentiment and outright bigotry. I do not excuse it, and as you may recall I am a Catholic myself and not likely to overlook such a thing. However, I understand the dynamic. It was the result of the religious wars of Europe that had made of England a shelter for dissenters. Many of the more extreme dissenters moved to the Colonies, including a dozen or more of my own forebears who arrived on the Mayflower and a few years later on the Talbot and the Arabella in the Great Migration. Many atrocities had been committed on both sides, and memories were fresh.

Yes, many colonists remained Loyalists, and many lost much or all. I too have Loyalist ancestors who went to Canada. The treatment of Loyalists cannot be justified in any sense, but can be explained in the context of the passions of war.

The so-called First Nations (in Canadian parlance), Indians or "Native Americans" to us, lost much. They played the great game of nations and they lost. Early on they made alliances of equals (or were more than equal). They engaged in warfare for a hundred years. This caused lasting animosity. Some of the consequences can be justified, and some were unjust and inexcusable blots on American history. We have discussed this in more detail in other threads. However, the "subhuman" idea simply will not stand. In the passions of the moment, that kind or rhetoric and response existed, but on the other hand, a large percentage of those of us who are Mayflower descendants, or Jamestown Colony descendants, or are from other early families have Indian ancestors. I have two in my own colonial pedigree, along with the second Charter Governor and the first Royal Governor of Massachusetts, Billy Dawes (who rode with Revere), and many other known figures of colonial and revolutionary times. So George, how do you reconcile the "subhuman" theory with the marriage (legitimate, recorded) fact? Especially as it existed at the highest levels of the colony and not just in some backwoods family? I suggest that the reality is a bit less clear cut that you chooses to acknowledge.

As to the idea that Jefferson disliked the French, you are simply misinformed. I have a few feet of shelf space here in my library devoted to him, and find nothing in his writings or writings about him that will support that. In fact he was profoundly influenced by French Rationalist ideas. I can't speak to Franklin, as I have never studied him except in a very superficial way.

I'd like to hear a response, not to me, but to Edmund Burke. I posted some important excerpts from the transcript of an important parliamentary address on colonial taxation, and scanned the original 227-year-old paper so that everyone would be comfortable that I was not quoting out of context. Let me now quote from the preface of that document:


<center><b>"The following speech has been the subject of much conversation; and the desire of having it printed was last summer very general..."
"This piece has been for some months ready for the press. But a delicacy, possibly over scrupulous, has delayed the publication to this time. The friends of the administration have been used to attribute a great deal of the opposition to their measures in America to the writings published in England. The Editor of this Speech kept it back, until all the measures of government have had their full operation and can no longer be affected, if ever they could have been affected, by this publication. Most Readers will recollect the uncommon pains taken at the beginning of the last session of the last Parliament, and indeed during the whole course of it, to asperse the characters and decry the measures, of those who were supposed to be friends of America; in order to weaken the effect of their opposition to the acts of Rigour then preparing against the Colonies. This speech contains a full refutation of the charges against that party with which Mr. Burke has all along acted. In doing this, he has taken a review of the effects of all the schemes which have been successively adopted in the governing of the plantations.</b>.."</center> It is quite clear from this quote that opinion and sentiment in England itself was very far from settled on the very questions I raise. It was so unsettled that the Crown worried that the mere publication of the controversy would intensify its Colonial troubles.

SO, my friends, I would relish a discussion of the issues -- not a rehashing of the past grievances of generations long dead, but of the facts as they existed at the time. After nearly 400 years of family history in North America (if you disregard 10,000 or so more years on the Indian side), I can match grievance with grievance, but to what point? But the facts and the theories -- there is the meat of it.

Cheers!

Joe

Originally posted by Pat Holscher on 8/02/2004

Regarding rebellion and legitimacy, one of the questions that would have to resolved here is what the legitimate authority was.

That may sound odd, but it has to be kept in mind that Parliaments relationship to the 13 colonies that formed the United States was not quite a clear as that of the UK to later colonies, nor as clear as that of the UK to Quebec. I'm frankly uncertain as to the status between the Crown and the other remaining North American colonies, such as Nova Scotia.

Something of the colonies founding has already been noted. Clearly Parliament viewed itself as supreme in North America at least as early as the 1760s. However, not all the colonies did. In 1769 Virgina's legislature was already taking the position that only it could pass tax measures in Virginia, and was on record protesting British actions in Massachusetts. Armed resistance, but not a declaration of independence, started in 1774. Congress formed a national army in 1775, the same year that Congress sent commissioners to the Indians. Independence was not declared until over a year later.

That is fairly remarkable is it is definitely not the norm in revolutions for governmental bodies to meet, raise armies, but not declare a severance. So, in context, the colonial governments, which were legitimate, viewed themselves as having nearly national powers. When independence was declared, it is interesting to note that the first grievance was listed as being:

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

It may be a matter of semantics, but it seems not to have been taken that way. The question as to whether to remain loyal to the Crown, or become an independent nations, was not as clear as to whether to revolt against an authority or not. That is, it was not at all like the French Revolution, where a people sought to replace the existing government with a new one. Rather, the question, at least to a degree, was whether or not to modify the existing government into a new one and severe a relationship with a sovereign in the process. That may be why the American Revolution was so much more successful than most others. No government needed to be replaced. Rather, the existing one needed to be modified, a process which took almost a century to complete.


Pat

[/quote]

[i]Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan on 08/02/2004


It is not a matter of semantics. It is of the essence. Parliament's relationship to the colonies was not at all clear, especially as the colonists did not participate in Parliament. Parliament itself evolved through centuries of English resistance to the caprices and pretensions of its crowned heads. Now, Englishmen living outside the precincts represented by Parliament found themselves in a novel position. They had definite obligations to the Crown, but no clear obligation to Parliament in which they also had no representation. Remember the rallying cry "no taxation without representation." The obligation to the Crown, in their view, was to be governed and tempered by the traditional rights of Englishmen. In truth, though, no one had ever fully thought through or tested what the relationship would be in practice. It seemed obvious at first to the holders of various charters and grants. The relationship was as spelled out in the documents. But as with all documents, the words required interpretation--and later on, as the colonies prospered and became more important to the mother country, original powers were taken back. This began with the revocation of the Massachusetts charter and the substitution of a Royal governor.

Distance and distractions like the English Civil War gave the colonists a high degree of freedom and self-rule. They filtered this through their various establishing documents and mindsets, and the common law tradition that is one of England's glories. As Burke makes clear in the excerpts above, they established, abided by, and paid for perfectly functional civil infrastructures in each colony. Despite the undoubted presence of smugglers (like Hancock), they lived for 150 years or so in compliance with the Navigation Acts (of course, smuggling was the economic bedrock of several coastal counties in England and Ireland for centuries, so that was not new). Thereby, they provided much benefit to the mother country.

In this context, the various impositions and changes demanded in the mid 18th century came as an outrage and an awakening that they had no rights except those granted to them, no representation, and no ability except through aggressive lobbying, to have any self determination at all. They did not have the rights of all Englishmen. As Americans, they lived by grace and favor. And then, in the view of many, the favor left. The Stamp Acts, Intolerable Acts, etc. proved it. the seeds of revolution were thus sewn.

However, with the exception of some hotheads and true radicals (eg Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams)--many drawing inspiration from the ferment in pre-revolutionary France which had a completely different situation, most people wanted a measured response. Few wanted revolution. There was much concern about the obligation to the Crown, which few disputed. However, in the inherited English tradition--confirmed in the Civil war, and reasserted after the Restoration, the colonists believed that the Crown had obligations to them, and was limited in the powers it could assert over them. In the view of many the Crown had breached this two-way obligation, arrogated illegitimate powers to itself, and had thereby relieved the colonists of their reciprocal obligation. For the most part, they were not "revolutionary" in thinking. Rather, they were conservative in demanding what they saw as their inherited rights. Initially, they tried to forcefully maintain their status quo.


Ineptitude and arrogance in London and in the generals sent here touched off the spark.

Joe

[Joseph Sullivan]

Originally posted by Pat Holscher on 08/02/2004 : 22:34:48

Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan

It is not a matter of semantics. It is of the essence. Parliament's relationship to the colonies was not at all clear, especially as the colonists did not participate in Parliament.

This is especially significant if a person considers that loyalty to the sovereign, loyalty to Parliament, and loyalty to the government were not all the same thing.

In our modern government there's no distinction between the Chief Executive and the Head of State. But in most traditional governments there is. This was particularly the case here. The sovereign was the King. But who was the government? A person could be perfectly loyal to the King but view the government as the legislature of Virginia, or the Congress, and dispute acts of Parliament. That is, the head of state could still be the king, without the government being Parliament.

When Congress complained of King George's failure to assent to laws, they meant he failed to acknowledge laws passed by the legislatures. In other words, they felt their acts were entitled to assent from the King, just as Parliaments were. That's a pretty significant accusation, as if the legislatures did not have some degree of sovereignty themselves, they'd be entitled to no such assent. So, in essence, they fired the King for failing to do his job with that accusation.

Of course, Parliament had another view.


Pat

Originally posted by G.KUSH.UE on 08/03/2004 : 01:15:33

Joe,

Perhaps the term sub-human was a bit unfair, but when I think of those Kentucky volunteers making quirts & flutes from the bones of Techumseh's fallen warriors, or tanning their skins to make purses and ladies shoes. Well, perhaps I should have used a gentler term - like passionate.

As for the Jefferson comment, I actually should have qualified it and said French Canadian. I'm actually somewhat of a fan of Mr. Jefferson, particularly his views on the Christian church.

Pat,

I should mention that the Quartering Act was also instituted in the other colonies, including Quebec. New England merchant Thomas Walker was a prominent voice against both the Quebec & Quartering Acts. He was conspicuously involved in a number of violent anti-French and anti-British incidents and eventually fled Montreal with the defeated American invasion force.

I thought my comments were fair and balanced. The Rebels were traitors, while the Loyalists were true patriots. They were American Patriots who fought and died for their country.

The United Empire Loyalists were not the wealthy upper class of American colonial society as so routinely portrayed by Hollywood. They were, for the greater part, ordinary citizens, farmers, clerks, tradesmen, laborers, etc., who were united in their loyalty to the legitimate government.

But for twist of fate and the lucky arrival of a French fleet, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and many of the others would have been tried and executed as traitors. Even Geo Washington conceded that such would be his fate if captured, a noose for treason. It just doesn't get any simpler than that. It's not such a complex issue.

Had the revolution failed, there would have been a negotiated peace and eventually home rule followed by independence. North America would today be one country, possibly the "Dominion of America." France & Spain could never have held on to their N. American possessions, and today we'd all have universal health insurance, low cost drugs and a gun registry.

Cheers,

George

Originally posted by Kelton Oliver on 08/03/2004 : 02:36:12

Originally posted by G.KUSH.UE[/]


...today we'd all have universal health insurance, low cost drugs and a gun registry.

Cheers,

George

And I'm supposed to think that's a good thing?

[i]Originally posted by Pat Holscher on 08/03/2004: 08:54:32


On Jefferson, I've always thought his most interesting comments had to do with democracy essentially being limited to a nation of small farmers. I probably like that for personal reasons.

Originally posted by G.KUSH.UE

The Rebels were traitors, while the Loyalists were true patriots. They were American Patriots who fought and died for their country.

Originally posted by Pat Holscher

I don't think it is that simple. Here's why.

I would agree that the Loyalist were patriots for the Crown, and I don't dispute that they were well within their rights to support it.

However, those who supported the elected governments of their legislatures were not traitors. Here's why.

In order to be a traitor you must betray your government. Whose government did the colonist live under? They lived under the Crown, to be sure, but the Crown was only their sovereign, not their government. After all, the Queen was the sovereign of Canada up until her constitution was brought home, I believe, under Trudeau. The Queen is Australia's sovereign presently. Australia debates every few years bringing Constitution home, but doesn't do so.

In spite of the Queen being the sovereign of Australia and (I think) New Zealand) the Parliament of the United Kingdom has utterly no right to decide what those nations will do. If Parliament decided to tax all the shipping out of Sidney Harbour, and sent the Royal Navy to enforce it, would the Australians be traitors for resisting it? I think not. They'd be patriots. Perhaps some Australians who particularly admire the Crown might side with the Royal Navy, but I think everyone would concede that Australia could resist the presence of a foreign navy, albeit one with the same sovereign, in their harbour.

This example may sound far fetched, but there actually is a 20th Century example of this occurring. During WWII Ireland was the Irish Free State and the Crown was her sovereign. When all the other Dominions went to war, she did not. The English government made repeated demands to use Irish harbors, and Ireland refused. There was a real fear in Ireland that Ireland would be invaded by the British Army, after all Iceland was, and there's no doubt that Ireland would have resisted. Would the Irish have been traitors, then, if Irish officers with a sworn allegiance to the Crown had fought English officers with a sworn allegiance to the Crown? No. To go one step further, probably both sides would have been within their rights had that occurred, which fortunately did not.

Likewise, given the very muddy origin of the 13 colonies which did leave, I do not think the men who fought in the armies authorized by the elected bodies which were the recognized governments of their colonies were any more traitors than those who were in the Irish Free State army in 1940. But I agree that this doesn't mean that the Loyalist were wrong in a difficult decision.

Originally posted by G.KUSH.UE
who were united in their loyalty to the legitimate government.

Originally posted by Pat Holscher
I agree they were average people, for the most part. But this is the essence of the difference in our view. They were loyal to the Crown. Nothing wrong with that. They chose the Crown and the government of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland over the colonial and North American government under which they actually lived. But all of the governments were legitimate.

Originally posted by G.KUSH.UE
But for twist of fate and the lucky arrival of a French fleet, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and many of the others would have been tried and executed as traitors. Even Geo Washington conceded that such would be his fate if captured, a noose for treason. It just doesn't get any simpler than that. It's not such a complex issue.

Originally posted by Pat Holscher
They would have been hung, no doubt. But hanging is not proof of treason, it is proof that you've lost. At least one legitimate English king was beheaded for simply loosing in a civil war, and it can be argued that the House of Orange was only legitimate for being picked out in a scrap in which the other side only lost the crown through the misfortune of loosing.

Because the other participants in this debate have stated what their family members were doing at the time, in the interest of disclosure I'll do so also. My only ancestors in North America at this time lived in Quebec, and spoke French and Native tongues. So, if they took sides at all, they would have been in the French speaking group in Quebec, or in the Native group in the same province, FWIW.

Pat

[Joseph Sullivan]

Originally posted by Pat Holscher

Originally posted by G.KUSH.UE

Had the revolution failed, there would have been a negotiated peace and eventually home rule followed by independence. North America would today be one country, possibly the "Dominion of America." France & Spain could never have held on to their N. American possessions,

Perhaps, but perhaps not. The problem with counterfactuals is that, well, they are counter factual. The bigger problem, however, is that the inevitable temptation when engaging at them is to start right at the point the debate begins, and then take the counter factual in a linear manner forward. That is, for example, we take the example here of the revolution failing, and then presume the entire English domains develop along the same lines as Canada did.

That can't be validly done, however, without asking why Canada (and Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc) developed that way, and not, for example the same way the Spanish and French colonies did, which largely caste off their colonial overseers violently.

One thing that definitely can be said for the English colonial enterprises is that the English were extremely adept in learning from their mistakes. The 13 colonies which left were their first empire. They did not simply chalk up their loss as a freak incident, and as Joe's material shows, they debated the loss in Parliament.

In the second British Empire, which is the one we normally think of as the British Empire (which was already forming before the US left) the British would not resist efforts to form local self governing administrations. This contrast enormously with the example of the American Revolution. In the Revolution we see Parliament coming in and trying to reassert the control of Parliament over the colonies. After the American Revolution, however, we see the English government at first administering through appointed representatives from the UK, and then forming local governments that take over. In later years the UK would be so hasty to do this that the wisdom of it in some circumstances is questionable, as for example the rapid Dominion status of South Africa.

It cannot, however, be assumed that this comes about due to some great force of nature, and that without the example of the American Revolution that history would have developed in that fashion.

Take for example the contrasting example of France. France lost her first empire to a defeat to the British. She lost and sold her second empire during the Napoleonic era. She acquired her final empire in the 19th Century.

In the early 20th Century the UK was granting dominion status to nearly all of her colonies. Moreover, when trouble arose in one of the four states forming the United Kingdom, while she did fight, she amazingly worked towards a negotiated settlement, granted that state independence within the dominion (Irish Free State) and didn't object when that state finally rejected its dominion status. She didn't really fight to hold on to any of her colonies, and insured that most of them at least had a chance of having a democratic government.

France, on the other hand, fought to hold on to everything she had, going so far as to make some of her colonies overseas departments of France, when it was obvious that these regions would never agree to remain French possessions. This gave France the bitter wars in Indochina and Algeria, at the same time the UK was pretty much wrapping up its overseas empire, wishing its Dominions well, and turning its focus to Europe.

Can it be said that the British Empire would have faded so gracefully, and with such notable successes as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand without the American Revolution? Perhaps, but I think it more likely that the United States served as a huge cautionary tale, which in some ways is partially responsible for those later successes.

Pat

Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan


Pat makes good sense. I have been reading the rest of the 90 some pages of the Burke speech and find that there was absolutely raging debate in about the political wisdom, commercial impact, revenue impact, and even legality of the actions in North America. The loss of the colonies pretty much resolved the debate. Even in those days, on the floor of the House of Commons, constant reference was made to England's "great commercial Empire." By the mid 19th century, policy in places like Africa (before the odd phenomenon of the Scramble) was oriented towards commercial dominance rather than political dominance. Commercial concerns lead to the evolution of the Commonwealth. The inescapable conclusion is that our Revolution was expensive of blood and treasure and bad for trade all at the same time. This lesson was well learned. India poses a special case for many reasons, of course.

George, no honest person would deny that atrocities were committed against Indians in the United States. Nor could anyone deny that the Indians themselves were masters of cruel and savage tactics. However, that is not the entire story or even most of the story as is attested by the inconvenient fact of so many of us who are at once descended from the very earliest settlers and Indians.

Being unversed in early Canadian history, I cannot cite from texts. However, I suspect that the records in the Jesuit Chronicles and other early histories will reveal that atrocities by and against Indians occurred in Canada. Some probably occurred as late as the 19th century. I suspect that the so-called First Nations are not completely settled and satisfied even today.

When I suggested balance, I was hoping that a Canadian steeped in the history of his country could shed some light on the overall situation in North America rather than focusing it so exclusively on his neighbors.

Joe

Originally posted by Pat Holscher

Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan

Being unversed in early Canadian history, I cannot cite from texts. However, I suspect that the records in the Jesuit Chronicles and other early histories will reveal that atrocities by and against Indians occurred in Canada.

I won't be able to find it, but I have seen, at one time, a text which addressed Jesuit missions in Canada to a certain tribe of Indians. I can't recall which one. Anyhow, the Indian tribe ultimately determined to convert, because they kept killing the Jesuit missionaries, and they kept coming anyway. They were impressed that they'd keep coming in the face of certain death.

Well, that doesn't shed much light on the topic, but I thought I would mention it.

Pat

Originally posted by G.KUSH.UE

I'm not focusing exclusively on our neighbor. I'm not even comparing Canada to the United States. This thread is about the causes of American Revolution. I spoke of the Quebec Act, the First Nations in America, and the fact that the Loyalists were the true patriots. What does that have to with Canada as a country, Canada did not even exist at the time of the Revolutionary War. Reading back through this thread I don't even think I used the word Canada. Fully half the Loyalists who left the new United States went to British colonies other than Nova Scotia or Quebec. I could be corresponding from the Bahamas or even England. The Loyalists WERE Americans, they WERE NOT Canadians. There were more than 20,000 people living in the Crown colony of Nova Scotia before the Revolution, they WERE NOT and ARE NOT Loyalists, nor were the people of Quebec.
Every Loyalist that took up arms on behalf of the Crown was a patriot of the highest order, and not a "damned Rebel." Those Loyalists who served in the "American" Provincial Corps were Americans, they were not British and they were not Canadian.

As for legitimacy of the Revolution itself. All the high-toned words and fancy arguments in the world don't change the fact that it was treason. It's not such a complicated issue. Your own founding father General George Washington stated privately and publicly that his fate, if captured, would be the hangman's noose. The charge, "High Treason." He fully understood his position was resigned to the possibility of execution.

The fact that many North Americans have aboriginal bloodlines has nothing to do with anything, except lust. To 18th century European society in North America, the First Nations peoples were looked upon as savages, red devils, with few if any civil rights. Such views had nothing whatsoever to do with what side of the current international boundary you happened to live on. The people that exterminated an entire First Nations population in the colony of Newfoundland were Europeans who did so because they thought that God gave them the right to do it. That is North American history. Your history, my history.

Cheers,

George

[Joseph Sullivan]

Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan

George:

While still firmly believing that you are wrong on the issue of the legitimacy of the Revolution, I certainly understand that you are quite earnest about it. Obviously you see my views the same way from your own perspective. That discussion, as between you and me has come to the point where we must agree to disagree and move on--though I certainly do not mean to block out contributions from other people.

As to the Indian heritage question, I would ask you to reconsider your words. Pure lust led to many a temporary backwoods union. We cannot doubt that 17th and 18 century French and English colonists surrendered to lust on many occasions. Indians too were as capable of lust as the rest of the children of Adam and Eve. I know your background and have followed your past comments too closely to suspect that you think the aboriginals were living in a state of Rousseauan nobility and peace, blessed by innocence. So let us agree in a non-judgmental way that coinciding lust often led to offspring.

Having set that aside, though we must deal with the question of genuine, recorded marriages, duly entered into the "stud books." Those are the inconvenient facts that give the lie to your oversimplification. Without in any way denying the existence of bad blood, atrocities, and even genocide (and often by Indians against other tribes) in North America, we must somehow explain how legitimate and sanctioned unions could have existed at the highest reaches of the 17th century colonies. Why wasn't John Rolfe stigmatized? Why was his wife Pochahontas(at the time the houseguest in Plymouth, England of a senior employee of and advisor to Fernando Gorges) invited to be the houseguest of the Queen of England? Why were my ancestors referred to earlier, who were among the clergy and governors of Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Plymouth Colony, not stigmatized? In fact many went on for generations of clerical and civic leadership-- and eventually some remained Loyalists and went to Canada, and others were officers and soldiers in the Revolution. Their pedigree was and is clearly recorded and known. In the 13th generation of ny maternal grandfather's family are: Canonicus, son of Wessonsuoum and Keeshekoo; his wife, a Naragannsett maiden whose name is lost, whose daughter married Chief Sachem Ihy Annough, whose grandaughter married the son of Capt. Thomas Lucas Esq.; Quadequina, son of Massasoit, whose daughter Margaret Oiguina married Gabriel Wheldon, a colonist born in Nottingham, England, and so on. Some of these people were related by blood or marriage to two of the early governors of the Colony, etc.

So, again the question -- how does the fact of this careful recording of marriages and offspring -- marriages that occurred in more than one family over a period of a hundred years -- fit into your view of English-Indian relations? Doubtless there was a carnal element or I would not exist. But it was sanctioned, recorded, and accepted, not hidden and shunned. One possible key to the answer is that Christian names began to appear among the Indians at or before the time that the Indians began to intermarry. Apparently, the English would marry Indians, so long as they were not pagans. Especially in the context of religious passions of the time, and the religious nature of the New England colonies, this puts a somewhat different light on the nature of the question, does it not?

Cheers!

Joe

Originally posted by Pat Holscher

Originally posted by G.KUSH.UE

The charge, "High Treason." He fully understood his position was resigned to the possibility of execution.

High Treason, in English law, was the offense of treason against the sovereign. It required an overt act of attempting to overthrow the sovereign, or of betraying the sovereign to a foreign combatant.

FWIW, at that time, there was also petit treason, which was the crime of a wife killing her husband, or a servant killing his lord, etc.

Would Washington and others have been convicted of high treason? It certainly could have occurred. If they had been tried and convicted I'm not entirely certain that it would prove anything, however, as in that era the looser in any type of conflict such as this, whether he be siding with Parliament or the Crown, which after all had fought each other, could expect to die. On the other hand, it did not always occur, and it cannot be certain that they would have been charged.

Anyhow, if we are to levy charges of treason against them, FWIW, I think that we should at least state who they were treasonous towards. That is, if Washington, Jefferson, et al, were guilty of treason, treason towards whom?

Washington and Jefferson were Virginians, so I suppose the owed their loyalty towards the legislature of Virginia. Did they betray Virginia? I can't see whereas they did. Virginia sent delegates to Congress, so I suppose they owed their allegiance to Congress. Did they betray Congress, we'll we can't say that.

Probably both, given as Washington had been an officer, and Jefferson a lawyer, had taken an oath to the English crown. Did they betray the crown? A case could be made there, but the traditional counter to that was that the crown owed duties towards the subjects, and if it failed in them, the duty lapsed. After all, the English Parliament itself had fielded an Army well within historical memory against the Crown. Was the entire English Parliament guilty of treason in doing so? If it was, it would seemed to have altered the common law in its actions.

Did they betray Parliament? I'm not sure, but I doubt they'd taken an oath to Parliament, and a case can certainly be made that they did not owe fealty to it. Unless, of course, I'm wrong and they did take such an oath.

So, if they were traitors, who is it that they were betraying?

On the Loyalist, I'm not claiming that they did anything wrong. If they were Patriots, and no doubt many thought of themselves in that fashion, then whose Patria were they acting for? That itself can be confusing, and no doubt there were many individual answers. Some no doubt were purely loyal to the Crown, which would really make them Royalist more than anything else, which is fine. Others were no doubt loyal to the United Kingdom, which would be a type of Patriotism, also fine. Others probably just thought that severing ties to England was a bad idea, which is also fine.

Indeed, the opposite would also be true. Some American Patriots saw the departing colonies as their country, to which they were loyal. Others probably just thought it was a good idea, or joined in with the Continentals for any other number of reasons.

As a complete aside, an interesting aspect of this is to look at it as a war between the Continental Army and the Parliamentary Army. It isn't normally looked at that way, but given as the English Crown and Parliament had recently both fielded armies to fight each other, it could be. Who would be the traitors there? Tricky question.

Finally, it strikes me that much of the debate about who is a traitor, or who is a Patriot, might not really mean much in the over all scale of things. After all, a person can be a Patriot in a bad cause. Some traitors are right on the mark in their treason. In this situation, I doubt any aspersions towards any of the now long dead participants in the Revolution, on either side, can bear much scrutiny, as it seems to me that at least at the upper levels the various viewpoints were seriously held.

I note, and would associate myself with, Joe's remarks regarding the marriages between Indians and non-Indians in this regards but won't otherwise try to add to Joe's well thought out remarks.
Pat

[Joseph Sullivan]

Originally posted by G.KUSH.UE

Joe,

"Every coin has two sides."

Pat,

Treason, high treason, was treason against the Crown. You speak of the Virginia Legislature and the Continental Congress as if they were powerful governing bodies, but they were not. At best they were provincial bodies with limited powers, no more and no less. Parliament represented federal authority and the political assemblies you mention did not in represent the interests of the majority of the American colonists. Certainly they did not represent the interests of those Americans 1/3 of the population who remained loyal to the Crown. After the famous Declaration of Independence Loyalists were not even considered Americans with basic civil rights. Prior to the Declaration of Independence, the rebels stopped short of murdering Loyalists, after that, Congress passed a number of edicts that declared it a crime to be loyal, a crime punishable not only by hefty fines and imprisonment but also by death. Thousands of loyalists were in fact murdered in the name of American liberty & justice. Their only offense - that of loyalty.

The careful recording of First Nation people being assimilated into European society does not change the fact that aboriginal nations in North America suffered incredible hardships. I WILL NOT use the term genocide, but most of my close Blackfoot friends & associates use it with some regularity. As do my Nez Perce and Sioux friends, of which I have many.


Cheers,

George

BTW. The Loyalist were not patriots who defended a bad cause, they were Americans who fought for a good cause.

Originally posted by Pat Holscher

Originally posted by G.KUSH.UE

After the famous Declaration of Independence Loyalists were not even considered Americans with basic civil rights.

That's not quite that clear cut. For example, the heirs of Lord Fairfax, who had never resided in the United States, whose British heirs found redress in the United States Supreme Court, resulting in a Virginian claimant to his estate loosing the property he claimed as his.

He was a British Lord, with British heirs, who had not lived in the United States, and were found, under the Treaty of 1783, to have superior rights to an American claimant, by the US Supreme Court. The Court struck down an effort to deprive Loyalist of their property in that effort.

I will not claim that it was all fair, however, by a long measure, and I will note that was under the Treaty of 1783. The war was hard fought, and bitter, on all sides. The Loyalist did suffer very greatly, as no one can doubt. And their suffering was not just, and many severe injustices were indeed worked against them, no doubt all of the character you reference. And that should not have occurred.

Originally posted by Pat Holscher

Originally posted by G.KUSH.UE
BTW. The Loyalist were not patriots who defended a bad cause, they were Americans who fought for a good cause.

I didn't mean to suggest that they fought for a bad cause. I understand their position. And they were indeed Americans, as all the colonist, born here or elsewhere were. In the comfort of my house, over 200 years later, I think the winning side in the Revolution had the better side of the argument, but it hardly matters what I think. One side won, the other lost, and that's the way it is. Perhaps, in regards to the Loyalist, if there is a lingering suggestion that they did something wrong exists, that needs redress, as well as an acknowledgment as to their suffering. However, in the modern US, in which it is generally assumed that every war the US fought from before independence up until the present date was wrong, save for WWII, it hardly seems to be the case that an unvarnished view of any American achievement is any longer held. Indeed, either in school, or elsewhere, I've never heard it suggested that the Loyalist were bad in any fashion. And, while still a student, I never heard anything but abject criticism for the Indian Wars, as well as the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, and the Vietnam War, all of which, back over 20 years ago when I was still a student, and then later when I was a college student, were portrayed in the most negative light possible. And I think it is routinely acknowledged that the number of those supporting and opposing the war was each 1/3d. So, I think there be no fear that these matters remain unexamined, or that Americans roundly believe all of our past opponents were bad people, fighting for an immoral cause. On the contrary, with the Indians, I think the common perception is universal admiration for their opposition.


Pat


As a postscript in the interest of being, hopefully, as accurate as possible, It is true that Loyalist were deprived of civil liberties in Rebel held areas during the war, and I did not have mean to suggest otherwise by my reference to the Martin v. Hunter's Lessee case, which came well after the war (it was actually heard by the S. Ct right after the War of 1812). Sometimes they were deprived of their property under pain of death if they attempted to retrieve it. In others, they were harassed until they renounced their loyalty.

According to Ann MacKenzie, MA who authored the short history of the Loyalist for the Loyalist Association, the deprivation of civil liberties was matched, but in reverse, in the British held areas. That is, the British deprived those supporting Congress of civil liberties in their areas. To my surprise, MacKenzie estimates the Loyalist population at a high of 15% of the overall population, which is lower than the usual American estimate of 33%. Not sure how to explain that discrepancy.

Pat

i]Originally posted by Kelton Oliver[/i]

Originally posted by Pat Holscher

As a postscript in the interest of being, hopefully, as accurate as possible, It is true that Loyalist were deprived of civil liberites in Rebel held areas during the war, and I did not have mean to suggest otherwise by my reference to the Martin v. Hunter's Lesee case, which came well after the war (it was actually heard by the S. Ct right after the War of 1812). Sometimes they were deprived of their property under pain of death if they attempted to retrieve it. In others, they were harrassed until they renounced their loyalty.

According to Ann MacKenzie, MA who authored the short history of the Loyalist for the Loyalist Association, the deprivation of civil liberties was matched, but in reverse, in the British held areas. That is, the British deprived those supporting Congress of civil liberties in their areas. To my surprise, MacKenzie estimates the Loyalist population at a high of 15% of the overall population, which is lower than the usual American estimate of 33%. Not sure how to explain that discrepancy.

Pat

William Oliver supported the crown and lost everything except his life. Thomas Price opposed the crown, kept his property, but lost his life. Dragging Canoe supported the Cherokee Nation against the Wautauga Valley men who were opposing the crown and lost two sons. I'm proud that all three appear in my family tree. I think, George, that your perspective is overly simplistic and judgmental.

Originally posted by G.KUSH.UE

Pat,

Although I am a regular reader of the Loyalist Gazette, I really can't comment on the Mackenzie article because I've never seen it. I don't even know who she is.

I realize that some prominent Loyalists were compensated for their treatment and losses. They had the finances needed to pursue redress in American courts. However, they were only a handful in number and very lucky, 98%of the Loyalists received nothing from Congress or the courts.

As for how the Loyalists are portrayed in America. I recently saw a film starring Mel Gibson titled "The Patriot." If memory serves, the "evil Tories" burn down a church full of helpless old men, women and children. Shortly after, I read an article in the Smithsonian praising not only the films authenticity but the integrity of the script. There were many atrocities committed on by sides, that's a given, but when & where did British or Loyalist soldiers ever burn down a church full of innocent people. The Loyalists are also portrayed as wealthy, upper-class snobs, completely out of touch with the common man, who of course, are rebels. And that is what currently passes for history in the United States? Even by Hollywood standards? Did anyone protest?

If I'm over simplistic about the legality of the Revolution it's because treason is not a complicated issue. You were a patriot or a rebel. "Gray is more shade than colour."

American historians have had two centuries to build their case and to justify their actions. If I seem judgmental that's my right. I judge Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest of that rebel crew to be traitors. Had their necks been properly stretched ... well, I wouldn't have shed a tear.

Cheers,

George

Originally posted by Pat Holscher

I have not seen Braveheart so I'm not exactly sure what that meant, but it generally seems to mean that it was shot as an action film without a close regard for historical accuracy. Anyhow, I think I've seen one example of it being praised, which was met with a pretty quick criticism.

It's been awhile since I saw the film, but I don't think it criticized Loyalist that much. It mostly went after the British, and a fair amount of the criticism I saw is that it inaccurately portrayed the British as cruel. The Loyalist element of the film was not a major portion of it, I don't think. Indeed, that is somewhat ironic as I think that at least a portion of Tarleton's forces, who are thinly fictionalized in the film, were made up of locally recruited troops, although they do not fit the usual Loyalist mold as some of them were recruited from prison hulks, and were really simply soldiers of opportunity under the circumstances, if I understand it correctly.

Things may have changed in the over two decades in which I've been out of school, but it is worth noting that the teaching of US history, at least in the late 70s and early 80s, is not what non residents may think. At least at that time, historical teaching tended to be pretty harsh on the US, which still draws some complaints. As a rule, given the typical teaching, Americans coming up through the school system, at least in some locations, are pretty ready to believe the worst about our own history, and the best about that of others. Indeed, I can't recall any US history I took after my mid teens, either in public school or in university, which didn't address in some fashion something the lecturer felt was wrong with the US, or that the US had done incorrectly.

Pat

[Joseph Sullivan]

Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan

Ahh. That question of legitimacy grows more complicated. What is the source of legitimacy? Is it merely a legalistic question? Or is there a true source of legitimacy that may at times be affirmed, and at times sabotaged by "legal" authority? Or is there some of each?

What is the legitimacy of bad guys who legally ascend to power and then use the legal mechanisms available to them to do evil? I could mention a number of rulers and Presidents of various countries here, but for the sake of clarity, how about Chancellor Hitler?

Joe

Originally posted by Kelton Oliver

Originally posted by bisley45


Hank Messick's fine little book "King's Mountain" recounts the interaction between Tories and Over-Mountain men as mutual guerilla war. It could be worth ones' life to know where a neighbor's sympathies lie, and those sympathies could be subject to change.

My afore-mentioned ancestor Thomas Price was one of the Over-Mountain men who fought at King's Mountain. Of note, after the battle, there was discussion of hanging the Wautauga Valley men who had supported the crown, but Col. Sevier declared that he could not execute his neighbors regardless of the offense. Not all of the men were so forgiving, but in the event, the crown loyalists were not hanged. Following the Battle of Echota against the Cherokee, Thomas Price returned to the separationist cause (which most of the Wautauga Valley men did not) and was later killed in Augusta, Georgia along with his eldest son. Dragging Canoe lost two sons in the Battle of Echota which left him bitter so that when the Cherokee supported the United States in the War of 1812, he refused to participate. He later was one of the leaders of the Cherokee contingent which went west to settle parts of Missouri and Oklahoma about a decade before the forced removal of the bulk of the Cherokee Nation. He was probably about 70 years old at the time!
]/quote]

[Joseph Sullivan]

Well, friends, sad to say, all posts from here on have been lost except for my own latest effort which I did first in MSWord because of having accidentially killed the first attempt and lost an hour or so of hard work in the process. Everyone is welcome to amplify on my recollections below.

To try to summarize the items that were germane to the thread:

<ul><li> A poster made the point that if the war had been lost and the leaders hanged, all that would hasve been proven would have been the feelings of the victors </li><li> Kevin decried the trend to loyalty to ideas as opposed to loyalty to persons, He pointed out that personal loyalty is a virtue, and suggested that loyalty to persons is a very desirable quality that has become lost over the last couple of hundred years or so. He referred to William the Marshal of England, who stood by King John at Runnymede out of loyalty, despite policy disagreements with his monarch. Kevin said that the Marshal is one of his personal heroes, and that the Loyalists in the revolution were right to be loyal. He also suggested that cavalrymen were more likely for unknown reasons to be loyalists </li><li>There were a good many postings having to do with the south ends of horses, US-Canada relations and the character of various nationalities, that we will not recount here because interesting and well stated as they may have been, they were not really germane to this already huge thread.</li></ul>

Cheers!

Joe

[Joseph Sullivan]

<b>What follows is my response to Kevin. Because of the lost posts, Kevin is at a disadvantage because his comments appear only in my brief summary and therefore do not have their full force.I hope he will respond fully. <i>BTW, my own post only exists because I wrote it in MSWORD first, and it was still on my machine.</i></b>



Kevin:

Without rehashing all the prior discussion of the Revolution, and without reference to The Patriot which I did not see, let me make an overall observation and then respond individually to some of your points. The observation is that you are making of the “oath,” whatever its form and substance, into an absolute without reference to its context or the mutual obligations that made it valid. Lets set aside for the moment the facts that most of the colonists, Signers and Framers included, probably swore no such oath—but agree that Washington among others probably did, and that none of us seems to know the text of the oath. Your point seems to be that an absolute duty of loyalty was owed to the person of the King. You buttress your comments with reference to the William the Marshal, and comment that loyalty to ideas instead of persons is a regrettable modern trend.

As Richard Weaver famously said, “ideas have consequences.” Here are the consequences of the positions you are taking:

1. At any given time, because people owe a duty of loyalty to the powers that be, they should content themselves with upholding the status quo—indeed it is their duty to do so;

2. The English Constitution and liberal tradition (and by extension, the Constitution of the United States) as the end results of a multi-century series of “disloyal” or “treasonous” acts, are the fruits of a poisoned tree;

3. Loyalty in the public sphere to persons, not “ideas,” ultimately implies government of men, not of laws; in the last several hundred years, personal loyalty has always been valued in private life, but has not been the basis of the state or state policy except in tribal or despotic states. Among civilized states it resembles some aspects of Prussian thought, but is really more Oriental—say Imperial Japanese-- than anything.

Your position is internally consistent, but it is at variance with the history and traditions of the West, and especially of the English-speaking peoples. It does not reflect the way that the English of the time understood their government. It does not reflect the understanding of the Kings themselves. Charles I in his defense at the Regicide trial presented his understanding of the balance between the hereditary office of the King, and the law. He did so as clearly as he possibly could, because his own life hung in the balance. He was, interestingly, charged with treason. Here are some relevant excerpts:

Day one

“I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful. There are many unlawful authorities in the world, thieves and robbers by the highway. Remember, I am your King, your lawful King…I have a trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent; I will not betray it to answer a new unlawful authority; therefore resolve me that and you shall hear more of me.”

“I do not come here as submitting to the Court: I will stand as much for the privilege of the House of Commons, rightly understood, as any man here whatsoever. I see no House of Lords here that may constitute a Parliament…Let me see a legal authority warranted by the Word of God, the Scriptures, or warranted by the Constitution of the Kingdom and I will answer.

Day two

“If it were only my particular case, I would have satisfied myself with the protestation I made the last time I was here against the legality of the Court…but it is not my case alone, it is the freedom and liberty of the people of England; and do you pretend what you will, I stand more for their liberties. For if power without law may make laws, may alter the fundamental laws of the Kingdom, I do not know what subject there is in England, that can be sure of his life, or anything he calls his own.”

“…I do not know the forms of law; I only know law and reason, though I am no lawyer professed; but I know as much law as any gentleman in England; and therefore (under favor), I do plead for the liberties of the people of England more than you do: and therefore if I should impose a belief on any man without reasons given for it, it were unreasonable.”

[Later he argued that any every man was allowed to demur if he could show reason for questioning the capacity of the court—and upon being answered, responded] “Show me one precedent.”

[Bradshaw, who conducted the questioning, later said] “How great a friend you have been to the laws and liberties of the people, let all England and the world judge!” [Charles responded, “…it was the liberty, freedom, and laws of the subject that ever I took—defended myself with arms—I never took up arms against the people, but for the laws.”

Charles I was not known for taking a limited view of his position or the loyalty due him. Yet in 1649, he argued from the law. He argued for the liberties, freedoms and laws of England. He did not assert that he was above the law (although he did challenge the ability of a court to try a sovereign). His points were: 1) that he was the lawful king; 2) the House of Commons was not a court and even if it were, it had no standing to try him; 3) he the King recognized two legitimate sources of authority greater than himself—the Word of God, and the Constitution of the Kingdom; and 4) that he had supported the liberties, freedoms, and laws of England and therefore had committed no offense. He recognized that the rights of the sovereign did not stand by themselves, but were defined and circumscribed by the fundamental laws of England, by which he was bound.

Although we do not have George III on record, we must assume that given the events that led to the House of Hanover accepting the throne of England, his views must, if anything, have been less expansive than those of Charles I. Regardless of George’s personal views, the British Constitution (yes even though evolving and unwritten) and the rights of Englishmen were well established and generally understood. The colonists understood themselves as Englishmen to enjoy those rights. In addition, they believed they could rely on the texts of their various charters (which I have not read, but British historian and biographer John Drinkwater reports that in several cases the colony was subject to the crown, but only liable to taxation by its own assembly). Furthermore, the usage of more than one hundred years had shown that taxes might be granted to the Crown, but not imposed by the Crown. This distinction was important in the discussions on both sides of the Atlantic.

These understandings were not limited to the Colonies. Earlier, I quoted Burke and gave you scans of the 1st printed edition of his famous <i>Speech on American Taxation</i>. Other British statesmen of the time had similar views. In 1766, Pitt the Elder said in the House of Commons, “I rejoice that America has resisted…In a just cause or quarrel you may crush America to atoms, but in this crying injustice I am one who will lift my hands against it…America if she fell would fall like the strong man; she would embrace the pillars of state and pull down the Constitution along with her.” This was well before the Intolerable Acts, and at about the same time that George Washington wrote that separation was not considered by “any thinking man in North America…I think I can announce it as a fact, that it is not the wish or interest of government, or of any other on this continent, separately or collectively, to set up for independence.” In 1774, the young Charles James Fox (to whom you earlier referred, Kevin) said in the House that “…a tax can only be laid for three purposes; the first for a commercial regulation, the second for a revenue, and the third for asserting your right. As to the first two, it has been clearly denied that it is for either; as to the latter, it is only done with a view to irritate and declare war against the Americans, which, if you persist in, I am clearly of the opinion you will effect, or force them into open rebellion.” In 1775, Burke again spoke directly to the point, saying, “We ought to elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of this high calling, our ancestors have turned a savage wilderness into a glorious empire, and have made the most extensive, and only honorable conquests, not by destroying, but by promoting the wealth, the number, and the happiness of the human race. Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American Empire. English privileges have made it all that it is: English privileges alone will make it all it can be.”

The points being:

a. As understood at the time, the power and authority of the English King, while hereditary, flowed from Scripture and the Constitution and were subject to both;
b. The liberties and privileges of Englishmen were well established and understood;
c. The legal basis for imposed taxation—to say nothing of the other Acts that violated the Charters varied from colony to colony, was very shaky at best and sometimes plainly unsupportable;
d. “Americans” understood themselves as Englishmen with the same liberties and rights as their kindred in the mother country, of which they were unjustly being deprived;
e. All of this was very well known in England and debated for decades in Parliament.

In view of all of this, one cannot rely on a simple assertion of a duty of loyalty, or even on the presumed content of some unknown oath in order to determine whether or not the Revolution was just. Rather, one must weigh carefully whether George III and his ministers—chiefly Lord North—had abrogated the same Constitution, liberties, freedoms and laws to which Charles I referred in asserting his innocence. If so, the government was, <i>ipso facto</i>, acting outside the law and the colonial resistance was justified. It seems clear to me that this was the case, but I would welcome actual evidence to the contrary.

Your comments about ideology are quite valid in the general sense. However, they are wide of the mark in the specific instance of the American Revolution. As the earlier discussion in this thread indicated, the revolution was not ideological or in fact “revolutionary.” It was really quite conservative in its insistence on the inherited rights of Englishmen, and on the rights and sanding of the colonial assemblies under the charters—binding Royal agreements—that formed them. The French Revolution was radical in every respect and sought to overthrow the inherited order. The best discussion of this is Burke’s 1790 <i>Reflections on The Revolution in France</i> that you yourself cited earlier. A good gloss on the Reflections (and the rest of Burke’s thought) is found in Russell Kirk’s <i>The Conservative Mind</i>.

It is true that some notable figures of the Revolution were radical. Some were materially influenced by radical French thought. Paine, Samuel Adams (not to be confused with the very conservative John Adams), and to a significant degree Jefferson come to mind. However, many more were distinctly not. Among these are John Adams, Dickenson, Pinckney, Washington, Madison …and a long list besides. A good brief summary of the lives and opinions of the Framers can be found in <i>A Worthy Company </i>by my late dear friend, M.E. Bradford.

Likewise, it is certainly true that economic issues were important. However, economic matters were more a trigger than a cause. It was the imposition of taxes and duties in violation of charter and custom that alerted the Americans to their absence of rights and standing. They truly had no representation; hence the famous slogan “no taxation without representation.” Again I refer you to Burke, Pitt, and Fox rather than relying on potentially biased American views of the matter. However, to further support the point, consider without comment, these excerpts from the letters of George Washington:

Sept. 20th, 1765 to Francis Dandridge:
“…the Stamp Act imposed on the colonies by the Parliament of Great Britain engrosses the conversation of the speculative part of the colonists, who look upon this unconstitutional method of taxation as a direful attack upon their liberties…”

April 5th, 1769, to George Mason:

“At a time when our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprication of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke and maintain the liberty which we have derived from our ancestors…”

July 20th, 1774 to Bryan Fairfax:

“For, Sir, what is it we are contending against? Is it against paying the duty of three pence per pound on tea because burthensome? No, it is the right only, we have all along disputed, and to this end we have already petitioned his majesty in as humble and dutiful manner as subjects could do. Nay, more, we applied to the House of Lords and the House of Commons in their different legislative capacities, setting forth that as Englishmen we could not be deprived of this essential and valuable part of a constitution.”

August 24th 1774 to Bryan Fairfax:

“…the measures which the administration hath for some time been and now are most violently pursuing, are repugnant to every principal of natural justice…[and] subversive of the laws and Constitution of great Britain itself in the establishment of which some of the best blood of the Kingdom hath been spilt.”

Note: all Washington quotes above taken from W. B. Allen, <i>George Washington, a Collection</i>; LibertyClassics; 1988.

As a side note, Kevin, the right of dissent and armed resistance was long established in Europe and especially England before the 18th century, in a far different context. You are doubtless aware that all of Europe had been in religious turmoil for a couple of centuries before the Revolution. England, in particular, had become a refuge for Protestants. In fact, it has been argued (but I am not equipped to do more than mention this in passing) that Protestant thought greatly influenced the Sons of Liberty. I wonder your personal thoughts about oaths, vows, and duties of loyalty as they apply to matters of religion, specifically with reference to Martin Luther and Henry VIII?

Cheers!

Joe

[Pat Holscher]

Picking up here, and making some random comments here and there, I'd offer the following, admittedly taking Joe's thread out of context in numerous following areas.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Joseph Sullivan</i>

The observation is that you are making of the “oath,” whatever its form and substance, into an absolute without reference to its context or the mutual obligations that made it valid.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Does anybody have the text of an applicable oath from before the Revolution? I'm curious as to what they actually said. I've looked on line and been unable to find one. The National Archives has some nice on line scans of oaths from the Revolution for both sides which are interesting, and read much alike. They swear feality and renounce all previous oaths to the other side.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

The French Revolution was radical in every respect and sought to overthrow the inherited order. The best discussion of this is Burke’s 1790 Reflections on The Revolution in France that you yourself cited earlier. A good gloss on the Reflections (and the rest of Burke’s thought) is found in Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind.

It is true that some notable figures of the Revolution were radical. Some were materially influenced by radical French thought. Paine, Samuel Adams (not to be confused with the very conservative John Adams), and to a significant degree Jefferson come to mind. However, many more were distinctly not. Among these are John Adams, Dickenson, Pinckney, Washington, Madison …and a long list besides. A good brief summary of the lives and opinions of the Framers can be found in A Worthy Company by my late dear friend, M.E. Bradford.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Regarding the French Revolution, it is interesting to note that it is frequently claimed that the American Revolution was an inspiration for it. Also, both revolutions are cited by different people as the father of modern revolutions.

I do not believe that the French Revolution really was inspired by the American Revoution, in spite of such claims. The American Revolution was always characterized by highly organized governmental bodies on both sides. In that sense, the American Revolution really isn't a revolution at all, as the Rebels were not seeking to change the government of England, only severe its ties to it, ultimately. The French Revolution, however, sought to completely overthrow the government and society of France. In fact, it did so, although some roots of old France uncomfortably remain along with the France created out of trying to work out the results of the Revolution.

It is worth noting that the second war the US fought was an undeclared war against France. It was a naval war, and it lasted long enough that even Jefferson, who admired the French, waged it. This shows, I think, the extent to which the French Revolution was of a wholly different character than the US revoltion.

Probably both revolutions are the models of modern revolutions, but not of the same type. The US revolution probably went on to be a model for one people attempting to sever its connection with another, or one political thought trying to do so. The French Revolution was the model for the complete overthrow of an existing order. It is noteworthy that the French Revolution was not a success, but very few revolutions of that type really are.



Pat

[george seal]

Originally posted by Pat Holscher
Regarding the French Revolution, it is interesting to note that it is frequently claimed that the American Revolution was an inspiration for it. Also, both revolutions are cited by different people as the father of modern revolutions.

I do not believe that the French Revolution really was inspired by the American Revoution, in spite of such claims. The American Revolution was always characterized by highly organized governmental bodies on both sides. In that sense, the American Revolution really isn't a revolution at all, as the Rebels were not seeking to change the government of England, only severe its ties to it, ultimately. The French Revolution, however, sought to completely overthrow the government and society of France. In fact, it did so, although some roots of old France uncomfortably remain along with the France created out of trying to work out the results of the Revolution.

It is worth noting that the second war the US fought was an undeclared war against France. It was a naval war, and it lasted long enough that even Jefferson, who admired the French, waged it. This shows, I think, the extent to which the French Revolution was of a wholly different character than the US revoltion.

Probably both revolutions are the models of modern revolutions, but not of the same type. The US revolution probably went on to be a model for one people attempting to sever its connection with another, or one political thought trying to do so. The French Revolution was the model for the complete overthrow of an existing order. It is noteworthy that the French Revolution was not a success, but very few revolutions of that type really are.



Pat

I think the American Revolution must have influenced France. I think Jefferson was ambassador in France by the time of the revolution, and Lafayette and his soldiers must have had some influence.

The US actively influenced independence in Latin America. They sent the first printing press to Chile (as presses were forbidden by Spain) and it was used to publish politcal writings on liberty and democracy. Whalers did a lot of political propaganda. Surely, Lafayette's troops in France talked politics with other Frenchmen. The degree of influence is debatable. But US independence was BIG NEWS it had to give ideas to politicians all around the world.

Of course the French revolution had a different nature. The American one was more similar to the English Civil War. I think the French revolution has become the "model" revolution. Most try to overthrow social order, and I'd say they are successful: China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, etc.

[Pat Holscher]

Originally posted by george seal

I think the American Revolution must have influenced France. I think Jefferson was ambassador in France by the time of the revolution, and Lafayette and his soldiers must have had some influence.

I can't claim to be any sort of an expert at all on this topic, but other than the fact of the Revolution having occurred, is there any indication of US influence?

Jefferson, Adams and Franklin all spent time in France as official representatives of the US government. Adams found Franklin to be past his prime while there, but he grew very close to Jefferson in France. It was their time together in pre Revolutionary France that really formed the basis of their friendship.

France would also be the source of their falling out, which they were eventually able to get over. While John Adams was President some in Congress urged a declaration of war against France, which was waging war against the US in the Atlantic. Others, like Jefferson, seemed to want to support France as a fellow revoutionary power. Be that as it may, Adams steered the middle ground, and when Jefferson was in power he didn't really go over to full support of France either. But then Jefferson would be in office during that period of time in which France fell to dictatorship.

Perhaps there was some subtle influence upon France that caused the revolution to have some support there. But I can't see it. The US was a nearly entirely agrarian society at that time, and the revolution in North America was conservative in nature for the most part. To the extent there were real radicals, their radical nature was not as far as that of the average French Revolutionary. The French Revolution, however was really urban, and the revoltionaries did not only want to end the Monarchy, but to stamp out all traces of it. And they wanted to attack all the elements of stability that had exited in pre Revolutionary France, whether they had been associated with the King or not.

A real oddity of it all is that Napolean's army would claim to march in the name of the Revolution's ideals. Clearly Napolean was no democrat, so the purpose of the French upheaval, as those of us in the US would like to understand it, makes no sense in connection with that at all. The UK, in opposing France in the Napoleanic Wars, was fighting far more in the name of actual liberty than the French, who claimed to march in the name of Liberty and Fraternity. And in what seems to be a modern irony, in light of later history, it's worth noting that a popular folk song in those portions of Germany under Napolean was (apologies in advance for botched German) Gedanken sind Frei, that is, "Thoughts are Free", which has the lyrics Thoughts are free, who can know them?. Point being, they resented the oppression.

But I digress. Anyway, if there is any American influence that occured in bringing about the French Revolution, I suspect it was quite small.

The US actively influenced independence in Latin America. They sent the first printing press to Chile (as presses were forbidden by Spain) and it was used to publish politcal writings on liberty and democracy. Whalers did a lot of political propaganda.

That's true, but for a long time after the American Revolution the US would view part of its mission as supporting, if only morally, revolutions in colonies against European regimes. I suppose the Spanish American War amounts to the best example. The Monroe Doctrine is really an expression of that, in that it essentially was a policy that Europe should keep its hands off.

Surely, Lafayette's troops in France talked politics with other Frenchmen. The degree of influence is debatable. But US independence was BIG NEWS it had to give ideas to politicians all around the world.

Perhaps, but didn't the French Revolution come more from the mob in the streets, as opposed to the Army?

Indeed, it seems to me that the French Revolution bears a lot of simluarlity to the Russian Revolution, in that it broke out in cities first. By the time any soldier was involved, it was more in the nature of trying to figure out what was going on. Of course, the Russian Revolution developed into a Civil War, which the French Revolution did not. Still, I think even the Communist viewed themselves as sons the French Revolution, but certainly not the American Revolution.

Of course the French revolution had a different nature. The American one was more similar to the English Civil War. I think the French revolution has become the "model" revolution. Most try to overthrow social order, and I'd say they are successfull: China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, etc.

I'd agree and disagree. It is a model of the modern revolution, but it wasn't really a success. What it created rapidly fell, and France in turn was ruled by a dictator, and would see various authoritarian governments again. It took a long time for France to develop a true republican form of government, and even now it hasn't been able to reconcile the past fully.

The Russian Revolution was a success, but it rapidly fell to a Bolshevek coup, which lead to Civil War. We'll never know if the Russian democrats, mostly socialist with democratic ideals, but others as well, would have been able to form a stable government. They had, but only barely, the support of the Army. The Civil War would drag on for well over its official length, and ultimately the government it created would collapse only 43 years after the last internal armed resistance to it was put down (Least any one wonder, I can add and that's not one of my frequent typos, some armed resistance to the Soviet Union was still going on, hopeless though it was, even in some isolated areas as late as a couple of years after WWII. The last serious armed resistnace to it would be in the very early 30s, if the break out of new armed resistance to it in WWII doesn't count).

China probably doesn't work well as a model either due to its unique history. The civil war between the Nationalist and the Reds had its origin in a breakdown between those parties who had both started out as more or less communist parties. The Nationalist evolved away from the Communist, and the Communist obviously didn't. But the whole thing is a history of destabilization that is pretty difficult to digest.

And, finally, I suppose Iran has some parrallells, and some differneces. It did overthrow the exiting order, to be sure. But it seems to have gone back to an idealized model of a preexisting one, and the country now finds many within it trying to move away from that.

Pat

[george seal]

Your points on the American and French revolutions are pretty interesting Pat. Your post actually reasures me on my conclutions on the nature of Americans and their extraordinarily unique Revolution. I'll try to explian meself beter.

My idea is your revolution was conservative. as you said, you did not whant to destroy and remake society. It was inspired by a perception of a failing of the part of the authority that had a relation of rights and obligations with subyects. As someone said earlier the British were never slaves. This is why I truly belive that the Founding Fathers where in their right and were no traitors.

The french revolution, and most others are truly revolutionary in the sense that they aim at completely reconstructing society (that gives you a measure of the revolutionary's ego and fanatism). You don't consider them succesfull because the end result is often a fanatical or authoritarian gobvernment. I think you are right, I remeber writing a paper in school protesting the French revolution!

The problem is most people in the world think that said revolutionary gobernments are good. Example: Chávez actually won the recall referendum and people call him a "democrat". Your idea of democracy includes responsibility, checks and balances, the rule of law and all those ango american niceties that most of the world don't give a dam about.

Yes I know, you Americans actually belive everybody in the world wants liberty, and yes they do. It's just they don't whant the same liberty you are talking about. They just whant an assembly gobernment, a fanatical freedom with no responsibility: like Chávez.

I have the dubious benefit of non angloamerican (or similarly responsible) democracy. People insult me because I was in the Army, but I had to go to University with terrorists as classmates (not big time terrs, but one burned a Mc Donald's with his Comunist Party Cell, no kidding. Nobody bugged him).

So you say the French, Iranian revs were failures? I agree, but the revolutionaries thought they did OK. Fukuyama is dead wrong, comunism, and all other sorts of dumb political ideas are very much alive and well. People never learn.

The revolutions clearly where successfull because they eliminated the exisiting order. That they ended up with worse stuff is another problem.

Just to show how we are different: if you are tried in a court of law, you are tried under an evolution of Common Law (tradition) by a jury of your peers (a sign of responsible comunity). If I'm tried I want Napoleonic Code (because I don't trust tradition, heck I don't even trust judges) and the new penal legal reforms gives me a jury of judges, if they were my peers, I'd be terrified: a "people's jury" in Latin America would end up a lynch mob. For us Napoleon was a democrat. He gave us laws that had punishments writen down, so the justice system could not do anything it wanted with you.

It is interesting that you consider Napoleon a dictator. He gave my part of the world a penal system, public service (ID papers and such), civil society (civil means not pertaining to the church as oposed to today's idea of not military) He ended an absolutist regime. He created social movility. But yes, he was into world conquest so I see your point, and Wellington´s and Blucher's.

This discution reminds me of philosofy class. We were studyng Socrates' execution. Socrates was no revolutionary (to my eyes, you would call him a revolutionary) he was a conservative. He was fighting this things: drafht dodgers, atheists, political and legal sophists (sound familiar?) so the real revolutionaries killed him. However, Socrates' legacy prevailed. Why? He was right, he saw what was good about society and tried to preserve it, regardless of political correctness. My teacher said that only conservatives do real revolutions because they don't destroy society. Revolutionaries destroy everything (in fact that's the idea of Anarchists). The class thought he was nuts. I bought he's idea. I think you do too.

So that's how I understand the revolutions of Cromwell and Washington as conservative revolutions meant to preserve something good of society, not as trying to change it. Do I make any sense?

I think the US revolution is unique. What revolutions are similarly conservative? I guess the Texian, but I don't know enough.

[Joseph Sullivan]

George:

According to my lights, you make very good sense. I can't respond to your points about South Ameica, because despite several friends from various South American countries, I am embarrassingly ignorant. However, you appear to havea good understanding of American Revolution.

I would argue that Cromwell and the Regicides were a different matter. The Civil War started along similar philosophical lines to the American Revolution, but the Puritans, the levellors, and other extremists and fanatics pushed it into destructive directions. In that connection, Charles I's comment about the need for depenndable law and due process was very valid. Where those do not exist, no one's life and property are safe. The "rule of law" is another one of those critical concepts that gets widely different interpretations. The most useful discussion I have read of the Rule of Law is in Frederick Hayack's little book <i>The Road to Serfdom</i>. It is simply superb. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Joe

[Pat Holscher]

Originally posted by george seal
It is interesting that you consider Napoleon a dictator. He gave my part of the world a penal system, public service (ID papers and such), civil society (civil means not pertaining to the church as oposed to today's idea of not military) He ended an absolutist regime. He created social movility. But yes, he was into world conquest so I see your point, and Wellington´s and Blucher's.

You raise an interesting point. I don't think of Napoleon as a democrat, but obviously I was not giving any weight to his having granted to his domains a code of civil law. The Code Napoleon was a great accomplishment.

I suppose that this may, in part, be the reason for his mixed memory in history. To many he appears to be a simple meglomaniac, a precursor to the bigger nuts of the 20th Century. But then, to others he was a liberator of a sort, which I had not credited him with being.

An imperfect liberator perhaps. A person has to wonder what would have occured if he hadn't given to imperial delusions.


Pat

[JV Puleo]

Gentlemen,
In reference to the possible relationship between the American and French Revolutions, I am reminded of a piece of scholarship I recently read of. It appears that a French scholar has utilized French army records to locate the homes of most of them men who made up Rochambeau's force. There were roughly 5000 of them in 4 regular regiments, two of which were French, one German (The Royal Deux Ponts) and Lauzon's Legion which contained the cavalry and was purposely sent in the hope that it would be able to recruit in America from German POW's. In as much as it is possible the purpose of the study was to determine if the regions these men came from were more or less on the revolutionary side in 1790. The preliminary evidence suggests that they were but it is premature to assume that the influence of local men who had been in America during our Revolution were a significant force behind this. I do know that the officer corps, virtually all of whom are known, seems to have split nearly equal in 1790. There were significant leaders on both sides that had served together here. On the Revolutionary side Lauzon, and the duc de Custine commanded revolutionary armies and lost their heads in the terror. Lafayette seems to me to have been a polished "fence sitter". Berthier, Napoleon's famous chief-of-staff, was an engineer on Rochambeau's staff and the future Marshal Jordan was a sergeant in one of the marching regments. On the other side Axel Fersen, a Swedish officer in French service, attempted to free the Queen and von Closen, whose memoir of the American campaign is probably the best, went into exile during the French Revolution but returned to serve Napoleon.

It is hard for me to imagine that the American war did not influence thinking in europe and especially France though to what extent is very difficult to appreciate.

Joe Puleo