Was the American Revolution justified?

[Hegel]

Americans in justifying the Revolution usually bring up a wide range of "injuries" done by the British as just cause. But was it justified? They claim that the British soldiers were quartering in American homes. This can be countered by the fact that they were just finished fighting a WAR with the French and Indians to the west, and the border situation was quite hostile at that time. They also claim that the British were overtaxing the colonists. Again, acording to the British, the tax increase was to pay for protection from the French and Indians. One of the final major reasons that the Americans claim that the revolution was justified is that the British refused them representation in Parliement. While this was quite reprehensible, lets think about why the colonists came to the U.S. anyway. For religious reasons, (i.e. breaking the LAW of England against non-Anglicans, not exactly law-maker materials.) for judicial reasons (e.g. being sent as an indentured servant from the debtor prisons) or being poor or the youngest son of a noble. These were all reasons not to let them into Parliement which was reserved for the Lords in the House of Lords, and for the burger class of the towns in the House of Commons. Almost none of the people that came to the U.S. were inheriting nobles or powerful enough to be in the House of Commons, after all if they had been they would have stayed in England.

So do you have any other info that would be relevent to the debate? And do you think the American Revolution was justified?

 

[shanek]

Americans in justifying the Revolution usually bring up a wide range of "injuries" done by the British as just cause. But was it justified? They claim that the British soldiers were quartering in American homes. This can be countered by the fact that they were just finished fighting a WAR with the French and Indians to the west,

Which they started.

They also claim that the British were overtaxing the colonists. Again, acording to the British, the tax increase was to pay for protection from the French and Indians.

Which wouldn't have been necessary if they hadn't gone beating up on them in the first place.

One document that I think does the best job of showing the mindset of the Colonists against the British was the Tryon Declaration of Independence, drafted and signed in August of 1775 by a band of patriots in Tryon County, NC who, I'm proud to say, included my great*6 grandfather Thomas Beatty:

The unprecedented, barbarous and bloody actions committed by British troops on our American brethren near Boston, on 19th April and 20th of May last, together with the hostile operations and treacherous designs now carrying on, by the tools of ministerial vengeance, for the subjugation of all British America, suggest to us the painful necessity of having recourse to arms in defense of our National freedom and constitutional rights, against all invasions; and at the same time do solemnly engage to take up arms and risk our lives and our fortunes in maintaining the freedom of our country whenever the wisdom and counsel of the Continental Congress or our Provincial Convention shall declare it necessary; and this engagement we will continue in for the preservation of those rights and liberties which the principals of our Constitution and the laws of God, nature and nations have made it our duty to defend. We therefore, the subscribers, freeholders and inhabitants of Tryon County, do hereby faithfully unite ourselves under the most solemn ties of religion, honor and love to our county, firmly to resist force by force, and hold sacred till a reconciliation shall take place between Great Britain and America on Constitutional principals, which we most ardently desire, and do firmly agree to hold all such persons as inimical to the liberties of America who shall refuse to sign this association.

So, they were hardly the lawless radicals you make them out to be. They were loyal subjects of the British Crown who, quite simply, had had enough.

 

[fhios]

We rebelled; and we built the first real democracy on Earth. Does someone have a problem with that?

 

[Hegel]

Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

So, they were hardly the lawless radicals you make them out to be. They were loyal subjects of the British Crown who, quite simply, had had enough.

What I'm asking is if you think that what they thought was enough was actually worth starting combat over. And I would say that people who go around picking off soldiers from forests may possibly fall under the category of lawless brigand. Since I'm taking a U.S. History class right now I think it was fairly clear that the Americans as much as the British wanted a war with the French and the Indians (well more the land then the war, but you can't have one without the other).

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

What I'm asking is if you think that what they thought was enough was actually worth starting combat over.

The combat had already started! King George declared them rebels when they dared stand up for their rights, and he turned on them. What were they supposed to do?

Remember Concord and Lexington?

And I would say that people who go around picking off soldiers from forests may possibly fall under the category of lawless brigand

Oh, you mean the way British forces hid in forests and picked off French soldiers and the Indians who had allied with them?

Since I'm taking a U.S. History class right now I think it was fairly clear that the Americans as much as the British wanted a war with the French and the Indians

Why on Earth would you figure that? It's not like they had run out of room in the colonies. And the settlers had for the most part enjoyed peaceful relations with the Indians until the French and Indian War.

(well more the land then the war, but you can't have one without the other).

Two-word rebuttal: Louisiana Purchase.

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

Two-word rebuttal: Louisiana Purchase.

Didn't the French sell that largely because they couldn't defend it, and rather than let it sit there like a ripe apple they figured they could get a few bucks for it?

I mean, if that is true, isn't that kinda the same thing as land through war, except one party saw the writing on the wall and got what they could for it?

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

Didn't the French sell that largely because they couldn't defend it, and rather than let it sit there like a ripe apple they figured they could get a few bucks for it?

I thought Napolean sold it because he needed money to pay for his war.

 

[Hegel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

Why on Earth would you figure that? It's not like they had run out of room in the colonies. And the settlers had for the most part enjoyed peaceful relations with the Indians until the French and Indian War.

Right...the Americans enjoyed perfect relations with the Indians except for the Pequot Wars, and the Black Island raid, and slaughtering Indians for their food when they first arrived, and...after all the first Thanksgiving (to GOD not the Indians) was celebrated in Virginia, and was celebrated by this Plantation owner as a thanks to God for surviving Indian raids and for surviving the winter (mostly by stealing food from the Indians). Yep! Sounds like a perfectly plummy relationship to me.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

Right...the Americans enjoyed perfect relations with the Indians except for the Pequot Wars, and the Black Island raid, and slaughtering Indians for their food when they first arrived, and...

Well, the history of my family in this area shows otherwise. They settled west of the Catawba river. East of the Catawba were the friendly Catawba, on the west the more vicious Cherokee. Those two tribes fought like cats and dogs with each other. But oddly enough, they always fought around the white settlers. Their relationship with them, if not friendly, was at least indifferent.

Until the French and Indian war, that is. That changed everything...

So we went from SOME Indian tribes being hostile to MOST of them being hostile.

 

[Hegel]

Well, I must say that your family's history is farly unique because for American history as a whole the relationship with the Indians was any thing but cordial. They tended to raid back and forth, and ally with different factions of Indians in order to destroy tribes for the purpose of land conquest. So for the colonies on a whole the French and Indian war was NOT a start to the conflict but a continuation of it. I'm a bit suspicious about your history however, because the English generally allied with the enemy tribes to the French, so I would excpect that the English were allied with either the Cherokee or the Catabwa.

 

[Hegel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

The combat had already started! King George declared them rebels when they dared stand up for their rights, and he turned on them. What were they supposed to do?

Remember Concord and Lexington.

Previously you mentioned how King George denied the colonist their rights, and declared them revolutionaries. As a matter of fact King George had very little to do with the decisions made in England at that time. Parliment was running things almost exclusively in England at the time, because George was in fear of his life. King George was afraid, because Charles the II (I think, it could have been the 1st) had been executed by Oliver Cromwell, who led Parliment in rebellion against the King. The Monarchy was eventually reinstated, but the Parliment definately now held the upper hand. So while the colonists all hated King George, and despised him after he "refused to grant them their rights," there was in reality nothing that he could do.

I do remember Concord and Lexington being turning points in the Revolutionary war, but I don't quite see how that is relevant to the causes of the Revolutionary War.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

Which they started.

Which wouldn't have been necessary if they hadn't gone beating up on them in the first place.

Pfffssshh!!! So the British were responsible for the Napoleonic wars?!!?! Is Shanek a Malachi sock-puppet?

Then lets get to the 'they'. At the time, the colonists were British so all of this 'they' stuff is nonsense since everybody was on the same side before the sooting started.

Basically, the gripe was about taxation, which the colonists didnt want to pay but was needed becasue the colonies needed to be defended. Even so, massive concessions were made- to the extent that the only tax being levied was on tea. TEA!. Funny how you all still pay taxes tho'...and on more than just tea.

 

[JAR]

One of the things that I find very regrettable about the American Revolution is it destroyed the concept that Americans are a branch of the English people. Nowadays, Americans are thought of as the absence of ethnicity. It's like we don't exist.

Why fight for the existence of an ethnic group that's not recognized? People like me could fight for the existence of white people, but then we'd be called white supremacists.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Nowadays, Americans are thought of as the absence of ethnicity. It's like we don't exist.

JAR, the word 'ethnic' has been effectively redefined as 'non-caucasian' Not just in the US either.

 

[JamesM]

Nowadays, Americans are thought of as the absence of ethnicity. It's like we don't exist.

Nonsense! You're Americans. I thought that was the whole point, to get away from the petty prejudices of the past and start again. You know, all men being created and all...

One of the final major reasons that the Americans claim that the revolution was justified is that the British refused them representation in Parliement.

If in Britain, people of equivalent status to the colonists didn't have representation, I've never seen the logic in concluding that this makes the colonists' actions unjustified. Perhaps the problem was with the British for not following the lead of the colonists?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Perhaps the problem was with the British for not following the lead of the colonists?

There was actually a significant movement in that direction in the UK.

 

[Zep]

An interesting sidelight, as told to me by a friend in Lexington a few years ago.

When the colonists marched from Concord and Lexington to Boston Harbour to express their anger, they started out in a pub and were drinking when they made their decision to do more public disobedience than just shout. So off they set, but on the way they stopped at a few more pubs, consumed more drink, and apparently gathered more of the drinkers in the pubs on the way.

So by the time they got to Boston Harbour later that night, they were in a right mess, barely capable of standing - the olde tyme equivalent of some British football hooligans at closing time after their team lost (I'm using my friend's words here!). It was as this time that they decided to throw the tea chests, the subject of some tax issues, off the ships and into the harbour.

So the "Boston Tea Party" was actually a drunken mob making a hell of a racket as they tossed the tea overboard - apparently the harbour nightwatchmen were either threatened or just plain thumped insensible, even though they were colonists anyway. Anyway, having done the deed, and with the British militia now roused by the noise and on the way to quell the riot, the mob then repaired to the nearest pub on the way home to sleep it off. More things then ensued...

Of course, this is totally anecdotal for me, but my Lexington friend, apparently a distant descendant of one of the mob!, swears it is pretty much true.

Was the American Revolution justified? On the whole, yes, but none of these revolutions are ever as neat and tidy and uncomplicated as they are made to appear later. Which is why they are still discussed today!

 

[shanek]

Well, I must say that your family's history is farly unique because for American history as a whole the relationship with the Indians was any thing but cordial. They tended to raid back and forth, and ally with different factions of Indians in order to destroy tribes for the purpose of land conquest.

Understand that it was the British government trying to conquer the land. All the settlers wanted to do was move in somewhere and live there; they did that by getting grants from the government for land which the government had already taken. They had no interest in raiding, or conquering, or obtaining more land.

It's clear, at least from the area my family settled in (which is the only area I've checked out in detail), that the tribes knew this and weren't about to antagonize anyone they knew wasn't a threat to them.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

Previously you mentioned how King George denied the colonist their rights, and declared them revolutionaries. As a matter of fact King George had very little to do with the decisions made in England at that time. Parliment was running things almost exclusively in England at the time, because George was in fear of his life.

In England, maybe. But Parliament never had any authority over the American colonies. That was all King George's doing. And many in Parliament supported the colonists.

I do remember Concord and Lexington being turning points in the Revolutionary war, but I don't quite see how that is relevant to the causes of the Revolutionary War.

It wasn't a war at the time, not from the colonists' point of view. It was hostilities against the colonies by the Crown.

 

[WildCat]

The French and Indian War, the French and Indians both lost!

Actually, there were plenty of Indians on the British side also, even during the Revolution.