The American Revolution

Ok, here's an interesting question. Was the American Revolution neccessary? Did the colonists have the right to rebel against their King?

 

My 2 cents- no. At the time, I don't feel that the English government's rule over the colonies warranted a violent revolution.

I say yes, though I wouldn't say English rule per se was the actual reason so much as it was the lack of true representation in the decision-making process concerning the American Colonies. This isn't to say there weren't some rabble about the colonies doing their very damnedest to spark rebellion against English rule out of spite--there certainly were those--but the primary documentation seems to indicate the American Revolution as a militant act of rebellion for the sake of independence was only conducted after a long and thoroughly thought-out process. I can remember reading documents written by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington which alluded to their not wanting to rebel. In fact, there was already a plan drawn out in the situation that Parliament gave the Colonies a few MPs, in which case all military actions would have been ceased and the Colonies would have returned to British control, likely attaining a place in the British Empire somewhat similar to that of India later on and until relatively recently.

 

Then there were the rather hawkish, if not sometimes colourful characters like Hamilton (and in general the Federalists) who pushed for all but an invasion of the British Isles. I must confess, despite sometimes going off the deep end, Alexander Hamilton is one of my favourite characters in the American colonial drama. For instance, there's an episode related to us of him getting fed up with the Continental Congress: you see, the Congress at the time was trying to decide what sort of powers should be bestowed upon the chief executive of the Congress--the President--with the Anti-Federalists arguing against a powerful federal government and, thus, against a powerful executive, while the Federalists argued for a stronger federal government and stronger President (rather what the Presidency has become since the administration of Theodore Roosevelt at the start of the last century). Well, in any event, he finally grows tired of the arguing, stands up and declares that all power should be invested in the President to do as he wish and kill any members of Congress he so desires. He was, of course, not serious--merely tired of the bickering over how long the Presidential term should be and such.

 

But I digress...

SOCL you are a little out of date with the truth about the Revolution, as Franklin was told when he represented some colonies in London that under NO circumstance should he push for MP's in Parliament as they would be simply outvoted. Recent searches through historic documents show that most members of the Continental Congress were very Anti-English in their views. Also most historians admit that George III was not the tyrant the colonials made him out to be. Just my 2 cents, though I would have fought as a Loyalist had I been around at the time. - Grand Moff Conway

PS not to say you are not educated at all friend Just that most historians have a different view of things now

Now the way I see it is that the American Revolution was not warranted. The founding fathers used John Locke's belief of natural born rights to spell out the rights of the American citizens. Locke believed that people were born with the right to life, liberty, and property (was later changed to "pursuit of happiness by Jefferson, I think). He also felt that the government's role was to protect the people's rights, and if the government denyed the people these rights, than the people had the right, or were obligated to, revolt against the current government.

 

That being said, in retrospect from what I have looked into, the English government was not overly-tyrannical on the colonies. The problem was in the fact that the British government did not fully govern the colonies until after the French/Indian War. This is known as salutory neglect, where the British government imposed laws and tariffs on the colonies, but did not enforce them. After the FIW, Britain turned its head once again to the colonies and began to enforce its laws, like any government does to its people. The fact that the British ignored the colonies for so long and then suddenly began to enforce their policies there (to pay off debt from war) angered many colonists.

 

Its just that the English government's taxes and tariffs in America were not tyrannical enough to warrant a revolution. The colonists did not have a direct vote in Parliament, but Parliament spoke for them (though the colonists disagreed). The people of Britain were being taxed also in order to pay for the cost of the war. And as far as economic tariffs and sanctions, government's need to regulate the trade throughout their domain.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the United States is a bad thing. I love it, which is why I am focusing so much of my studies on it. I just feel that, at the time, the English government did not tread on the rights of the colonists in order to warrant a violent revolution.

SOCL you are a little out of date with the truth about the Revolution, as Franklin was told when he represented some colonies in London that under NO circumstance should he push for MP's in Parliament as they would be simply outvoted. Recent searches through historic documents show that most members of the Continental Congress were very Anti-English in their views. Also most historians admit that George III was not the tyrant the colonials made him out to be. Just my 2 cents, though I would have fought as a Loyalist had I been around at the time. - Grand Moff Conway

PS not to say you are not educated at all friend Just that most historians have a different view of things now

Not at all. Just not quite the way I read the documents, nor the way I've seen them interpreted. The mere fact that a plan existed in case the situation resolved itself outside complete independence explicitly shows an general unwillingness to fight at the onset of the rebellion, as it were. This is not to say that the general feeling did not change, nor does this have to do with the facts of the matter concerning the British perspective on it. What I wrote was based on a few documents I read in Collins and Smith (those are the authors, though I don't remember the texts' names...) from a few years back concerning the onset of the war and the general feelings, not the evolution of the thought as a whole.

I live in a city (large town really) founded by loyalists that fled durring the revolution. I wonder which way I'm going to vote?

hmm.. but wasn't there a quote by someone at one time

 

something about a little revolution every once in a while is good? .. something like that

 

and people always have the right to rebel

 

There is no right..

 

but peaceful revolutions are possible...

 

but with living in *Hick Town* America i only see the American side of things... not much books on the British side >_< its always a young American musket man or general.. never a British person

 

But ... i know there was good on both sides

 

British people weren't evil like they were shown on "the patriot" (they made the british All look like heartless basterds)

 

Thats my view

 

But i think the american revolution was necessary... anyway.. without it I wouldnt be able to shoot off fire works on the forth ^_^

British people weren't evil like they were shown on "the patriot" (they made the british All look like heartless basterds)

 

they still are heartless bastards.. just kidding.. anyways.. I forget in which battle it was but General Cornwallis, seeing that he was losing the battle, actually ordered for cannon shot to be fired into the battlefield... into the backs of his own men.. he did this with full knowledge that he was going to hit his own men but also hit many continentals.. (cannon shot is like shotgun blasts from a cannon.. many little balls flying through the air).. he did this and thus caused the retreat of the continental army.. but with many losses.. it was a british victory by definition but actually considered a british defeat by amount of losses and other things.. im sure someone here will elaborate soon.. anyways.... hell yea the american revolution was warranted.. the americas were taxed, ruled and laws were made without any word to the colonies until after it was done.. "No taxation without representation"..

Without a more thorough research of the subject, I can only remember mostly the grade school version of American history, which doesn't leave much to study

 

All I can say is that is was very cold at Valley Forge. Brrrrrrrr

 

But seriously, I only know the standard "grade school version" which means I vote "Yea"

well.. many displays of evil are shown during war.. by all sides.. like in satr wars the rebellion did some evil acts...

 

like i think they led to the destruction of some imperial planet.. i forgot...

 

some terrorist act... something or a other..

 

 

my point is... evils come from both sides... but there usually is a greater good...

 

I think the american rev was pointless.. it coulda been avoided if britian wouldnt of been so power hungry and greedy.. but isnt all country.. especially in that time...

@ JH- I forget what battle, but that is true. It was in the southern campaign, and after the fall of Georgia. The exact battle escapes my memory.

well.. many displays of evil are shown during war.. by all sides.. like in satr wars the rebellion did some evil acts...

 

like i think they led to the destruction of some imperial planet.. i forgot...

 

some terrorist act... something or a other..

 

 

my point is... evils come from both sides... but there usually is a greater good...

 

I think the american rev was pointless.. it coulda been avoided if britian wouldnt of been so power hungry and greedy.. but isnt all country.. especially in that time...

 

Several things....

1) The rebellion is fictional and thus irrelevant.

2) Even so, if it were not irrelevant, the destuction of an imperial planet if innocent life was spared.. is not evil, its war.

3) Holding all things constant, such as "Britain being power hungry" as you put it, do you still find the American Revolution to be pointless?

and finally 4) Evil can be defined in relative terms and in absolute... and I was not speaking relatively.. shooting your own men to take down some of the enemy is evil said and done.. if you want to get into relatively speaking evil then yes.. everyone is at some point....

(cannon shot is like shotgun blasts from a cannon.. many little balls flying through the air)

 

Grape shot is the term for this .

 

My take on this is as follows:

 

The colonists had the right to form their own government, I don't think anyone would disagree., however the manner in which they achieved this was, well, over the top. There are two countries in North America that were once British colonies. One gained it's independence through war and violence, the other had a mild uprising and negotiated it's freedom with England. Strange that the way a country is forged is still reflected today in that nation's actions.

 

Anyway, the British were not as tyrannical as the rebels made them out to be, and rally England was just getting the colonies to do their fair share to recover from a long war. I find it funny that once the new government was established the colonists had to pay the taxes anyway...

 

On the matter of evil, it was a different time. No, it's not right, and I certainly wouldn't do it, but it was really a class thing. That, and Cornwallis wasn't one of England's greatest military leaders. That's why he was stuck in the colonies.

 

Just as a side note to the tyrannical British government issue, if England was so horrible why would they, after loosing this war, march all the way to New Orleans during the next and say "You know what, we've got most of your country, and we have a battle hardened army with a brilliant commander sitting in Europe. But we won't send him over. You stop fighting and we'll go back to the way it was."? Sounds like a nice group of people to me.

History... Gah, not history again! I thought I was done with that for a year?!?

 

Ah well: My two pense worth is to side with Rob's initial argument. While the British increase in taxation did not feature any form of representation for the colonies it was, fact, justly based.

 

That having been said I'm rather glad that we're our own nation, primarily because we changed the historical views and greatly influenced the world from then on out.

eh

 

Yeah everyone has evil in them and good.. well most of us have good in us...

 

and thats why we are humans

 

yeah...

 

what in the fuck brought this up anyway

God, was that ever BEAKy! I voted yes. And that's all I've got to say about that.

what in the fuck brought this up anyway

 

Just a debate we were having in my French Revolution class. We were trying to see which revolutions throughout history were warranted.

 

And here's another thought. I feel that with constant petitioning and peaceful demonstrations would have eventually been granted independence without the need for a revolution. The 18th century was still during the "age of kings" when colonialsim and mercantilism were still commonplace. All the European powers were going through this massive feeling of nationalism, and were trying to accumulate more wealth for themselves in order to provide for an expanding population, as well as to create massive armies/ navys. Colonies and such were neccessary during that time. If you look at today, very few colonies (that are tied so strongly to the mother country) exist today. It's just a part of a change in the times.

It's just a part of a change in the times.

 

Yes, but what brought about this "change in the times" I ask... perhaps the forward thinking of a few rebellious colonials? And the fact that they won helped too I'm sure.. but think of it.. what if noone ever questioned the rule they were under.. we could still be paying for goods and services in pounds and paying taxes to the queen... whos to say if the change would've happened anyway.. the "age of kings" was coming to an end and it was facilitated by the revolution of many colonies (not just the American).. at least.. in my opinion.. but I'm just an engineer.. not an historian..

The thinking of these "rebellious colonials" most definitely would have brought about the change. Now here's an interesting what-if. Lets say that its the late 18th century. Many people in the American colonies are speaking of rebelling against England for one reason or another. The colonists hold several meetings and delegations, and in the end, it is decided to peacefully continue to petition the King and Parliament rather than go into open rebellion.

 

It may have taken awhile, but in the end, England would have given in and granted independence. Like I said, it's just a change in times. The King would eventually have to listen to thousands upon thousands of his subjects pleaing for independence.

ok.. you mean the way Canada did? As an incremental process that lasted from 1867 until 1982?..

 

I'm quite happy with the way we did it thank you... Not that Canada is any worse off or anything.. but I'm quite happy living in a country that has had more than 200 years of independence in order to work out the idiocy in the government.. only to allow it back in eventually...

.. but I'm quite happy living in a country that has had more than 200 years of independence in order to work out the idiocy in the government.. only to allow it back in eventually...

Well, luckily there's a two term limit (now). But the possibility of being in the White House a second time (as "First Man-Lady") makes me feel nauseated (darn I can't find that "barfing" icon ... We need more icons!! )

 

Maybe this was the focal point in time where "man" needed to have a little more say and control over themselves than someone else (that castle skit from Monty Python and The Holy Grail just jumps in my head: "'King'? We didn't elect no 'King'. Help! I'm being oppressed!" Meaning someone "elected" rather than "born" into the leadership role)?

I found something interesting today. I was doing some research for my Constitutional Development class, and was reading the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which was basicly where Scott, a slave, claimed he was a citizen of the US and that his enslavement was actually false imprisonment. The Court eventually ruled that he was a slave, not a person but property, and thus was not a US citizen. But heres the interesting thing:

 

Scott claimed that in the Declaration of Independence, it had basic rights and protections "for the people". What Justice Taney decided was to this affect: Scott was property blah blah blah. But he also said that the African slaves were never intended by the framers of the Constitution and Declaration to be considered citizens. Even though there was no explicit text in either document referring to slaves, Taney felt that it was left out because the "founding fathers" knew they would be criticized for this wording in a document expressing the rights of freedom to people. I thought it was interesting that this was thought was in peoples minds in the 1800s, and if true, even in the late 1700s.

I think it was that the issue couldn't be discussed until 1808, and by then the country was making all these new states as it expaneded west, so they felt that it was easier to say north=free, south=slave.