« Fuhgeddaboudit? | Main | Who Killed the Electric Car? »
July 03, 2006
Why Revolution?
Unlike Matt, I don't necessarily know that the world would've been better off under British rule (these sorts of historical counterfactuals are always tricky -- maybe with America behind them, the British would've taken on the Soviet Union directly), and given our size and inevitable economic strength, the split would've happened eventually. But my counterintuitive Fourth of July opinion is that the American Revolution set a stunningly low bar for revolutionary complaints. No taxation without representation? Really? Would anyone think DC or Puerto Rico should assume arms against their Congressional overlords? More to the point, whenever I dive into histories or essays on the civil rights movement, I'm struck by the distaste for Malcolm X, who advocated an uprising on grounds infinitely more understandable than that of the founders. The degree of contempt for his uncivilized, violent recommendations is a bit rich coming from folks who celebrate the Foruth.
For that reason, I find the whole teaching of the taxation-without-representation story to our youngsters a bit silly. The American Revolution was a structural affair, not an ideological one. A big, rich, geographically protected nation that could foresee its future growth picked a reason to revolt. But given our reaction towards violent insurrections elsewhere, and our acceptance of taxation-without-representation here, it's clear that we simply believed America should enjoy autonomy rather than that the Brits were actually oppressive. This one was really about independence, not tariffs. And that, I think, is a birthing ideal worth celebrating. Happy Fourth.
July 3, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8345ec88d69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Revolution?:
Comments
Taxation without representation is slogan that does not really explain the Revolution or address the legitimate grievances the colonists had with the British. The breakdown between the British and American Colonists was not inevitable by any means, and could have been averted, or perhaps delayed, if the British had not reacted so ineptly.
Posted by: hebisner | Jul 3, 2006 6:04:03 PM
I kinda doubt that Tom Paine and George Washington had identical understandings of the American Revolution.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 3, 2006 6:31:53 PM
"and given our size and inevitable economic strength"
"A big, rich, geographically protected nation that could foresee its future growth picked a reason to revolt"
Interesting. As I have said, aggressive imperialism and manifest destiny are in the pores of every American, forever. Even Ezra, who says he doesn't know why we are in Iraq. Be there an American ever, who could look at a map of the Original 13, and say:"It could have stopped there."
Rome and England were accidental Empires. America was born Imperial. From sea to shining sea.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 3, 2006 6:39:58 PM
A big, rich, geographically protected nation that could foresee its future growth picked a reason to revolt.
Now *there's* a stretch. Got anything for this beside flapping gums? Anything??
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 3, 2006 7:26:49 PM
hebisner has the perfect point.
As for DC and the Territories not having Congressional representation, please consult your copy of the US Constitution.
I am confidant that you will read it more accurately than the majority did in the las Takings Clause (eminent domain) decision.
Now, I still need paperwork and an oversized polo from TNR. Home of the finest courtesans!
http://slashdot.org/~GMontag/journal/138427
Posted by: Guy Montag | Jul 3, 2006 7:30:44 PM
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction^W^W^W^Wtaxation without representation, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jul 3, 2006 7:42:26 PM
England had an "accidental empire?"
roflmao.
I'm sorry, but I'm Scottish and I find that hilarious.
Doesn't anyone study world history anymore? By the time the colonial period came around and the "British" (read English) Empire was begun, England had been waging aggressive wars and conquering neighbours for about 600 years.
America eventually inherited much of the worst of the English attitude to the rest of the world and much of the best of the Scots and Irish - and Republicans inherited the nastiest bits from all.
Regards, Cernig
Posted by: Cernig | Jul 3, 2006 8:31:13 PM
"England had been waging aggressive wars and conquering neighbours for about 600 years."
600 years! Foul calumny I say, and I be Irish. It was the damn Normans who came over from that divil's den in France and corrupted peace lovin Saxons and Angles. Two-doors and Platain-agents what kind of good English names are these? It was Normans conquered Wales and Scotland, and then sold the ICC down the ribber to the Pope.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 3, 2006 8:43:12 PM
Oops. Tudors were Welsh. Hmmm. James the 1st and the Stuarts were Scots? The blame gets complicated. Why can't we all get along?
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 3, 2006 8:47:36 PM
Cernig,
I think that i am Scottish too. Thought I was Jewish, but I am much too cheap to be Jewish, this Scottish.
Working on an electronics project now and need some fine wire. Want to fight over a penny with me?
Sorry, almost all of ny "ethnic" jokes, save the one(s) here: http://slashdot.org/~GMontag/journal/138427
Posted by: Guy Montag | Jul 3, 2006 8:48:16 PM
The simple phrase, "taxation without representation", loses the full flavor of paranoia lying behind the Whig interpretation of history, which was the foundation of the ideology of the American Revolution. See Gordon Woods.
It was that Whiggish paranoia about precedent and the ultimate aims of British policy, which drove the American Revolution, and established forever after the pattern of American politics. In America, we are all Whigs and small "l" liberals; there are no socialists and no reactionary aristocrats or monarchists. The Right is as likely as the Left to propose reforms aiming at a revolutionary evolution.
I hope American Manifest Destiny does not include squandering our heritage grubbing for the last ounce of oil, with which to extinguish the habitability of the planet. Perhaps the Whiggish far-sightedness can still help us out from the yoke of monarchical tyranny of a new King George.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Jul 3, 2006 8:54:06 PM
If we were grubbing around for oil we would not have had to re-attack Iraq and an American flag would be flying over Kuwait.
Posted by: Guy Montag | Jul 3, 2006 9:00:33 PM
Um, Ezra, teachers may teach a simple theory of the American revolution in the public schools, but among us (Democrat-Liberal-Progressive-Natural Law) adults, saying that the revolution was about 'taxation without representation' just won't fly, since the text of Declaration makes it very clear that our claims were far broader - starting with the then-startling observation:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
A monarchy, especially an absolute monarchy, is not consistent with such a belief.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,..."
"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Then follow in the Declaration twenty-nine (29) paragraphs of grievances against Britain and its monarch. but "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent" is only the 17th of these paragraphs.
The first six listed grievances in the Declaration relate to the governance of the colonies through colonial assemblies elected by (some of) the people, and how the monarch had ignored their needs for laws and local resolution of local matters.
Here's some of the issues relevent to independence. They are far broader and more substantative than just taxation.
It might be argued (and I'm sure it has been sometime) that the actual Declaration was a cosmetic presentation of the causes of separation. Scholars, even today disagree on the weight of the various factors leading to the Declaration and the war, but I don't think many, if any, of them would proclaim that our backward look on those events sheds greater clarity than the straightforward words they committed to paper and signed with signatures that in effect made them traitors to Great Britain, punishable by likely cruel and unusual death.
The signers didn't know we were destined to become a global influence or empire - lets not project backward.
Ezra: The American Revolution was a structural affair, not an ideological one. If Natural Law versus Devine Right of Kings isn't an ideological issue, then the word ideology has lost its meaning. Yet there it is: All men are created equal....
The Declaration's signers didn't fall off their turnip trucks. They were educated and deeply aware of the writings of European thinkers that challenged Monarchy and religious rule.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 3, 2006 9:23:57 PM
American Revolution Wikipedia, 2/3 causes and precipitating events and 1/3 aftermath
"Intellectually, the Americans were primarily influenced by the "country" party in British politics, which roundly denounced the corruption surrounding the "court" party in London. This approach produced a political ideology called "republicanism" that was widespread in America by 1775."
Various things; lots of taxation, westward expansion. Our founding fathers were mostly 2nd generation who had sympathy for those who wanted just a wee place of their own, like Ohio.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 3, 2006 9:51:37 PM
I shore do wish folks would read the posts: "For that reason, I find the whole teaching of the taxation-without-representation story to our youngsters a bit silly. "
And I do. Was the revolution about more? Sure. Sort of. At times it was sold transcendentally, at times economically. But folks should stop teaching the kids that it was about taxes.
Posted by: Ezra | Jul 3, 2006 9:56:22 PM
Ezra said (in post):
The American Revolution was a structural affair, not an ideological one.
A big, rich, geographically protected nation that could foresee its future growth picked a reason to revolt. But given our reaction towards violent insurrections elsewhere, and our acceptance of taxation-without-representation here, it's clear that we simply believed America should enjoy autonomy rather than that the Brits were actually oppressive.
The seoond-bolded part above is pure backward projection, Ezra. Remove that part, and the basis for a structural view is minimal at best.
If not ideology (which seems prevalent in the Declaration), then a long list of grievances appears, also listed therein, as more appropriate a view. The leaders of the revolution seem to have clearly believed Britain was oppressive, as they stated boldly for the colonies here and world to se
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 3, 2006 10:18:08 PM
Bob...actually, the Tudors and the Stuarts (with their nobles, they comprised the Parcel of Rogues, who were "bought and sold for English gold") were technically Normans too, so you may have a point.
Interestingly, the Northmen who conquered the until-then Celtic area of Normandy are often credited with the basic development of feudalism - and its fatal flaw, that the nobility and monarch were disassociated from the majority of the populace. Before then, most Western European groups hewed to the "scared marriage between king, land and populace". For instance, Bruce was King of Scots, not of Scotland...the land herself was regarded as just as sovereign as the King. The whole King Arthur schtick. It was the Normans who first made the break, simply because they had no blood relation to the Celts and Angles they ruled - thus the "Wasteland" of Arthurian tales. The same mindset can be seen in the Imperial leadership in the Colonies in events leading up to the American Revolution.
That's always the very beginning of the problem - elitism and thus a contempt for the non-elite populace.
I would argue that the British Empire and the American hegemon, more than less, inherited that contempt for those who aren't part of the elite, i.e. not British or American. You're right, its a Norman trait, but the Normans put more imprint on the people now known as English than on the other peoples of the Union.
Contrariwise, the Founders seem to have taken a whole lot from the Celtic people of Britain. Hume and Mill were both Scots, as was Adam Smith. It goes back further than that, though, ever read the Declaration of Arbroath?
If you wish to see an extreme modern example from the militant wing of Republicanism, here's the Idiot Rottweiller today, talking about a new poll that says Brits distrust America:
"Well thank G-d they’re not allowed to vote, then, since that means that their opinion is completely and utterly irrelevant."
Like,say, dead soldiers, schoolkids, anyone not American at all. Just irrelevant.
The flipside of that is, of course, "If we want their opinion to be irrelevant, we just prevent them voting."
Florida elections, anyone?
Regards, Cernig
Posted by: Cernig | Jul 3, 2006 10:47:06 PM
"The seoond-bolded part above is pure backward projection, Ezra."
"The Proclamation of 1763 sought to limit the conflicts between Native Americans and the American settlers by restricting settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains. However, groups of settlers, led for example by Daniel Boone, continued to move into the region beyond the Proclamation Line and fought with the Shawnees and other tribes inhabiting the area. The Proclamation was soon modified and was no longer a hindrance to settlement, but its promulgation without consulting Americans angered the colonists. The Quebec Act of 1774 extended Quebec's boundaries to the Ohio River, and seemed to turn the west over to the Catholics in Quebec. By then, however, the Americans had scant regard for new laws from London-—they were organizing at the local and colonial level for war." ...from the Wikipedia article above.
Now perhaps most Americans couldn't see California until the first quarter of the 19th century took the whalers and tea clippers to the Pacific. But the generation of the Revolution could see pretty clearly to New Orleans and the Mississippi, and somehow I doubt it was settled that those lands would remain in French or British control forever.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jul 3, 2006 10:59:27 PM
A big, rich, geographically protected nation that could foresee its future growth picked a reason to revolt.
Americans weren't actually looking for a reason to rebel. Up until the 1760's Americans had every reason to think they'd be most prosperous as a part of the British empire. Many of the leaders of the revolution considered themselves loyal British patriots until the conflict became severe (Franklin and Washington, in particular).
There were plenty of reasons for American discontent with the British parliament. Lack of representation was an obvious one, but in the 1760's parliament began passing laws and enforcing tariffs that could well have crippled the American economy. They threatened to strip colonial legislatures of all authority. They began stripping colonials of rights they'd enjoyed for a century. Corruption, arrogance and greed in London helped feed much of the worst of the abuse. Protesters, of course, were dealt with harshly. The Brits were actually oppressive and getting more so year by year.
Considering that today we're having many of the same debates: about privacy rights, executive overreach, rule of law, an inept and corrupt leader asserting ever greater powers at the expense of constitutional rights, I'd think you'd have a better sense of what the uproar was about. Rights aren't trivial and they're worth fighting for.
Posted by: Mike | Jul 4, 2006 12:49:41 AM
I think British rule of the American Colonies was much more arbitrary and capricious than is generally thought, which caused a lot of resentment. However, as long as France had an empire in North America, the colonists needed the help of the British against France. When the French were defeated, the Colonies seized their opportunity to renegotiate the terms of their relationship with England. It is no accident that opposition to the Stamp Act occurred in 1765, only two years after the conquest of French Canada in 1763. Britain's unwillingness to meet American demands halfway led to the Revolution.
I mentioned British rule was arbitrary and capricious. Britain made decisions of major import without even considering the legitimate needs of the Colonies. The most flagrant case of this occurred in 1745 during King George's War. The New England colonies mounted a major expedition against Louisbourg, which was a French naval fortress in what is now Nova Scotia. It had been a significant threat to them, as Privateers operating from Louisbourg raided New England and seized their ships. The expedition was financed by the colonies themselves and was successful, seizing the fort after a difficult siege. There was much celebration in New England over this important victory, as a major threat to New England colonists was removed.
Unfortunately, during peace negotiations Britain gave Louisbourg back to France without even consulting the colonies. You can imagine the resentment this caused - and can understand why Americans would think they would be better off if they were free to manage their own affairs.
Posted by: Steve Marsh | Jul 4, 2006 12:50:50 AM
Its also worth remembering that the Boston tea party was an act of civil disobedience against the creation of a monopoly which undercut colonial merchants to the exclusive benefit of a wealthy, well-connected company (imagine Halliburton getting exclusive rights to sell coffee in Seattle).
In retaliation, the King blockaded the port of Boston, dissolved the elected government of Massachusetts, stripped the judicial system of authority in criminal cases, replaced all leaders with appointees beholden to the King, banned all public meetings unless expressly authorized and compelled colonists to house British troops on demand.
The other colonies realized if Massachusetts could be handled this way, none of them had rights either. Is this a low bar for revolution?
Posted by: Mike | Jul 4, 2006 1:21:18 AM
Mike - not the exclusive benefit. The consumers of Boston would also have benefitted from being able to buy cheaper tea. The only people who suffered were the tea smugglers who suddenly found their profitable business undercut. A better analogy would probably be the end of Prohibition - if Al Capone and Frank Nitti had dressed up in blackface and firebombed the Seagrams warehouses.
The reaction - the "Intolerable Acts" - were not unusual by 18th-century standards. Quartering troops in private houses was standard practice - the word 'harbinger' originally meant a billeting officer, who would arrive in town ahead of the main body of troops and chalk up unit names on the doors of houses.
The Boston Act was intended to produce redress for damage done - which Franklin, among others, thought was entirely just. (Franklin even offered to repay the damage himself.)
Given that the Massachusetts elected council was, basically, run by the smugglers (such as John Hancock) who had got up the protest in the first place, abolishing it wasn't entirely unreasonable. A comparison might be the carpetbaggers of Reconstruction.
And could everyone please stop referring to George III as an absolute monarch? It's ahistorical. In 1776, the British had spent more than a century spilling a great deal of blood to make sure that the monarch was constitutional, not absolute.
Posted by: ajay | Jul 4, 2006 5:51:35 AM
"But folks should stop teaching the kids that it was about taxes."
Well certainly they should have a more rounded account of wha the revolution was about. They should have a deep understanding of our rights and system of government.
...oh yeah they gave up on teaching civics. Since they're all just studying for a standardized test all the answers have to come in the form of sound bytes.
Posted by: david b | Jul 4, 2006 9:32:38 AM
not the exclusive benefit. The consumers of Boston would also have benefitted from being able to buy cheaper tea.
Sure, and if Exxon were given an exclusive exception to all gas taxes it would be the consumers who benefitted. Colonials understood the dangers of monopolies. It wasn't just smugglers who suffered. It crippled trade and industry. Colonial merchants were also hurt. Smuggling started because Britain gave preferential treatment to connected cronies at the expense of local businesses.
the "Intolerable Acts" - were not unusual by 18th-century standards.
True, one only had to look at the state of Ireland, where the locals worked backbreaking labor in return for living in penury. All the wealth of their labor was taken by their British landlords, most of whom never set foot in Ireland. Franklin had seen the results of that also and the Americans had no desire to be sucked dry for the benefit of British greed. They wanted to live in a better society, not a typical one. The time to fight against loss of liberty is when you still have the strength to do it.
the British had spent more than a century spilling a great deal of blood to make sure that the monarch was constitutional, not absolute.
That provided rights for the people of Britain and the Americans were suddenly being told that they didn't enjoy those rights. They were subjects, not full citizens. That's why men like Franklin went from being a British patriot in 1760 to a firebrand rebel in 1776.
Posted by: Mike | Jul 4, 2006 9:41:56 AM
Tax break /= monopoly, Mike. What local industry was harmed by a tax break on the importation of tea? Are you saying that the Massachusetts tea planters were suffering from the dumping of cheap foreign tea?
The taxes were imposed to pay the expenses of the British government - which had just fought a long and costly war in America, defending the colonists against the French and Indians. As soon as the war was over and the bill fell due, suddenly the colonists discovered the virtues of independence.
What on earth Ireland has to do with it I have no idea. Are you saying that the colonies were mostly run by oppressive landlords who brutalised the men who worked in their fields? (They were, but they had names like "Thomas Jefferson", and they kept doing it a lot longer than they would have been allowed to in the British Empire.)
Posted by: ajay | Jul 4, 2006 10:14:54 AM
