Was the 1776 revolution truly justified.
Draconifer
Was the American Revolution really a classic scenario of revolution degenerating into regime change ? Did the subsequent legacy in the aftermath of Yorktown morally or politically credify the professed ideals?
As exemplified by the Civil war and participation in the age of imperilaism I argue that the professed ideals were negated.
Did the ends truly justify the means is what I'm asking.
Report offensive material
| kuvaszsleepybear |
1
First off it wasn't a "Revolution" it was a war for Independance,in fact if you want to get technical aboot it it was a Civil War,Englishmen fighting Englishmen(I know,I know,there were Scots,Irish,Germans and others in there too,LOL) but it was a Civil War or War of Independance.Now the French Revolution,now that WAS a Revolution although only the French could get rid of a King and end up with an Emperor(Vive L'emperor)!!!
Posted: 25-Aug-2008 22:58
Report offensive material
|
| wardog |
2
Seems all good causes eventually run out of gas. I'm sure many Americans wonder these days about the true price of independence. How much better the world if America had stayed in the British empire.
Posted: 26-Aug-2008 07:05
Report offensive material
|
| deankal |
3
As I am an American, you probably won't be surprized to learn that I disagree with point of view of the original question, and with some of the details of the other responses. The 1776-1782 war would probably fit the definition of a "rebellion." The population of several of the British colonies in North America rebelled and took up arms against what we preceived as mal-administration, and harsh measures to suppress dissent. By 1775 Americans were viewed as different on both sides of the Atlantic, and Americans did not have full access to rights that an Englishman in England would have. Now there were aspects of the American Revolution that were revolutionary. The leaders of rebelion were committed republicans (i.e. proponents of a republican form of government). They sincerely intended to vest soverignity with the people (or white people at any rate). In a time of increasing absolutism among European crowned heads, this was revolutionary. For a good discussion on American republicanism vs. European absolutism see Robert Kagan's "Dangerous Nation," Knoff, 2006. It is ironic that the American colonies rebelled against the most democratic monarcy in Europe, but there were some serious flaws in the British form of government. Britian's recent efforts at "devolution" have exposed some of them, flaws we tried to explain in 1775, but no one in the UK would listen, even when we started shooting.
Posted: 17-Sep-2008 00:27
Report offensive material
|
| Draconifer |
4
As to the nationalist response:
This goes back to the debate of one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Technically the sons of Liberty behaved as contemporary insurgents do.
Many of the signers of the 1776 declaration were
elitists rather than egalitarianists. To claim the likes of Washington were populists is ideal but not accurate. From Washington's writings he does have an open contempt for the commoner. Initial contacts were reconcilatory rather than overtly Revolutionary. Even in battle the "Redcoats" were called regulars rather than British.
There were also advocates in parliament eloquently sympathetic to the colonies.
John Locke's ideals and that of Thomas Paine
sounded inspiring but only in theoretical terms.
In practice and application less so.
Also Irish Catholics although "white" were not initially afforded equal rights. To Britain's credit abolitionism was implemented long before that of the States.
Posted: 23-Sep-2008 05:08
Report offensive material
|
| Draconifer |
5
Second Volley...
In all fairness it was the British "redcoats" who defended the colonies from the invading French and Native American massacres with their own lives. The taxes that were implemented after the Seven Years War were comparatively negligible to those today.
The revolution was not a populist uprising to
Jefferson and the ringleaders. There was no serious intention to institute a pure democarcy but an oligarchy. The founders acted as Old world ante-bellum aristocrats. European nations did not entirely practice "absolutism." In fact British subjects John Locke and Thomas Paine were really the authors of the ideals professed. Most Americans considered Thomas Paine to be an unsavoury radical even in the aftermath of the revolution.
Also continental Europe made independence possible by their military intervention. Without Rochembeau and a French naval blockade at Yorktown there would have been no victory.
Posted: 23-Sep-2008 07:38
Report offensive material
|
| deankal |
6
Waiting to see the whites of their eyes-----
You need to re-read my comment. I never claimed that Washington and Jefferson, or any of the other Founding Fathers, were populist. I said they were republicans. Their republican model was Rome, not early 21st Century America. So yes, suffrage was limited to white males, 21 or older, who owned property. This was pretty much the requirements to vote in the UK at the time. If you were French or Spanish, I don’t think you got to vote. And I agree they were not enthusiastic democrats either. They were very fearful of mob rule. (If you really want to get off subject I could argue that the rebellion gave us a republican form of government, expansion into the West made America democratic.)
I also agree that Parliament had a pressing need for revenue and that part of the heavy debt was due to defense expenditures in North America. You won’t hurt my feelings if you point out that many colonial Americans were trying to shift their responsibility to pay taxes onto someone else. I agree. Many of my fellow citizens desire to continue this tradition. BUT, if the North American colonies had seats in Parliament this issue might not have come to a head. If the British had not forced all trade to go through the UK, when free trade within the hemisphere would have been more prosperous, there might not have as much irritation at increased taxes. (And yes, I know the inhabitants of the British Isles paid these taxes too.) Most colonial Americans would also like the lands inhabited by American Indians opened to settlement. I concur that preventing settlement of Indian lands was a wise policy, but I’m a politically correct 21st Century American. And a hypocrite since I live on lands that the British closed to settlement.
The immediate cause of the conflict was the British response to the protests against policies imposed by Parliament. The Crown closed the port of Boston, occupied an undefended city, and outlawed all meetings of local governments. So while I agree Parliament had reasonable arguments for its tax and trade policies, trying to impose them at bayonet point on population which believed themselves free, self-governing men would cause me to rebel as well. And yes the French were invaluable to the cause of Independence. This alliance would not be the first to be made with a non-democratic nation. If an alliance with Louis XVI was soiling of democratic principles, then what can one make of an alliance with Stalin in WWII?
I also stipulate that the republic that was created after the war had, and continues to have many flaws. Racism---race discrimination and race-based slavery are central themes of America’s drama. Prejudice against Irish Catholics----only the beginning of bias against new immigrant groups. Aggression against neighbors------guilty. Failing to live up to ideals of the Enlightenment--------guilty again. On the other hand, the U.S. never had a war of religion. Prejudice against Catholics were never codified into law, and this year several Catholics ran for President, and one is now the candidate for Vice President. And John Kennedy, Roman Catholic, was elected President over 40 years ago. We fought our bloodiest war to end slavery. Legal segregation has been ended. An African American is running for President as a major party candidate. The U.S. Government, through the Homestead Act and Mining Claims Acts, transferred more wealth to poor and middle class citizens than any other government is history. I don’t know what country Draconifer is from, but it probably also has long list of flaws and accomplishments. I would still rather live in country that is capable of changes that allow a John Kennedy and Barack Obama run for President. For all of Europe’s high ideals, I don’t think modern European countries have pushed the boundaries of their national identities as far we have.
The original question attempts to tie the actions of the current Administration to the motives and principles of the Revolution, a spurious effort at best. The excesses of the Wilson Administration in WW One make the actions of the current Administration seem petty in comparison. Whoever is elected in November will shift policy back towards the center. American government and society often fall short of its ideals. There is a continuous striving to reach those ideals. It is often a convoluted path to the “shining house on the hill.” It’s the journey, not the destination that is challenging and interesting.
Still holding fire until I see the whites of their eyes.
Posted: 25-Sep-2008 03:18
Report offensive material
|