What's the UK slant of the American Revolution

That's basically what happened.

Well, we didn't just kick them out. We had a lot of help from the French. We probably would not have won if it had not been for their help or at least it would have taken a lot longer.

It amazes me that the Brits would not allow representation from the colonies. Their arrogance still amazes me.

I'm not sure how effective the French military assistance was, other than at Yorktown. I don't mean that it wasn't, I literally mean I'm not sure. Their financial assistance was vital, though. The war started because of the British intention to tax us. The attempt to tax us was not in itself so unreasonable, although their subsequent handling of our protests against the taxes, and their insistence that our legislatures were of no consequence were pretty arrogant. Our position was that taxes on the colonies could only be imposed by the colonial legislatures.

You'll be sorry now, Grand Duke . . .
Letty had a thread, i don't recall the title, but in that thread, i stated that i do not believe that the American revolution was inevitable. Here's why, in brief. I will start with the caveat that, for considerations of space, I'm leaving out a lot of detail, and in some ways oversimplifying things, so anyone who cares to dispute my thesis will need to be specific, so i can answer specific objections.

In 1628, Charles I prorogued Parliament. That means he sent them home without dissolving that Parliament, so that there would be no new elections (monarchs in England can no longer to this). He did so because he was trying to force the Scots to accept the Book of Common Prayer, at the urging of Bishop Laud, and needed money for the war. But all Parliament wanted was to discuss religion and the established church, which he did not intend to discuss. John Knox had gone to Geneva in 1554, and again in 1555, when he asked to be the pastor of English refugees in that city. John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli had established a "godly republic" in that city. Knox had a very "exciting" life as a proponent of Protestantism, and was once the Bishop of Rochester. When he returned from Geneva, he helped to establish the Scottish Kirk, based upon many of the principles of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Church, an amalgam of Calvin's theological writings. Calvin had in fact, advised Edward VI on the writing of the Book of Common prayer. However, the Bishops in England had rejected many of the more radical ideas of Protestantism, and to many protestants, especially the followers of Calvin, there was little to choose between the Episcopal Church, the Lutherans and the Catholics-they favored a congregation centered religion, and opposed ritual and hierarchy. When Knox returned to Scotland, and the Kirk was founded, the Lollards and others who had settled there to escape persecution before Henry VIII had broke with the Pope and founded the English Church returned to England, and Calvinism gained a great deal of popularity. "High Church" adherents sneeringly referred to the new English Calvinists as Puritans, and they decided that the term was a badge of honor. It was the Puritans who opposed giving funds to the King for a war to force the Scots to adopt religious practices which they themselves opposed. It was at this time that English Puritans, many of whom were wealthy merchants, decided to establish their own "godly republic" in the wilderness of the New World. Some of them had gone to Holland, then the most religiously tolerant nation in Europe, and it was decided that many of these would follow a godly man to the new world, along with Puritans from England, and a lawyer in the Court of Wards and Liveries, John Winthrop was chosen to be the new governor of the Massachusetts Bay Company. When that charter was issued by the crown, for a reason unknown, the usual requirement that the Governor and Selectmen of the Company should meet in London was left out. So the canny Puritan merchants sent Winthrop with the charter to Massachusetts in 1630. Once there, Winthrop took a more radical step, and allowed any adult male in good standing in a Puritan congregation to vote as a selectman. This was the broadest franchise yet known in a European community since the days of the "barbarian" invasions of the Roman empire.

In 1638, the Scots soundly defeated Charles' army, and he was sufficiently humiliated and broke, that he was obliged to recall the prorogued Parliament. So many members had either died, or gone abroad, that a new election was held, and in 1640, the "Long Parliament" sat for the first time, and immediately took up "the vexed question of religion." The eventual result was civil war, two civil wars, from 1640 to 1649. During this period of time, both Massachusetts and Virginia were obliged to fend for themselves in wars with the Indians, and to defend themselves against possible attacks by catholic Spaniards or French. Winthrop's selectmen, and the burgesses in Virginia became the true governors of their colonial territories. This began a tradition of self-government in the colonies which was not necessarily at odds with royal government, but which set up the conditions for an eventual collision with Parliament.

In England in 1660, the son of Charles I was restored to the throne as Charles II, by General George Monck. Charles reward Monck, as well as his cousin Prince Rupert, and some other cronies, such as John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough, with the charter of the Hudson's Bay Company. He rewarded English Catholics who had sheltered him when he was a fugitive after 1651 by giving the Calvert family, in the person of Lord Baltimore, a colony which they named Maryland in honor of Charles' sister. He owed Charles Penn a great deal of money in debts incurred by his father, and rewarded Penn's son William Penn with a colony which became Pennsylvania. Scots-Irish farmers who were fleeing the oppressive land laws in Ireland, and French Protestants established the two colonies named in his honor as North and South Carolina. Rhode Island and Connecticut had been established by those who fled what they saw as the repressive government of Massachusetts. New York and New Jersey were established after the territory was taken from the Dutch at the conclusion of the Anglo-Dutch war, and New Amsterdam was renamed New York in honor of Charles' brother James, the Duke of York. In all of these colonies, some form of representative body was formed to lay taxes and regulate commerce.

Throughout the 17th century, the English colonies of the Atlantic seaboard largely defended themselves from the depredations of the Indians, who had a not unnatural objection to the spread of Europeans in their lands. The French in Canada sponsored a good many raids into New England and New York, and the colonist organized to defend themselves, without any aid from England. In 1753, a young George Washington supplied a spark to this powder keg, and what Americans know as the French and Indian War began. In Europe, a paranoid and arrogant Frederick of Prussia finally aggravated Maria Theresa, the Empress Elizabeth and Madame de Pompadour to the point that France, Austria and Russia all attacked Prussia. England supported Prussia, largely by monetary subsidies, and few troops, in order to protect Hanover from the French. The Royal Navy took on France and Spain, and for the first time in American history, large numbers of English troops came to the New World to fight the French. With long experience of fighting the French and the Indians, Americans responded as loyal subjects. When Pownall became governor of Massachusetts, he sent a letter to the Lords of Trade (those who were responsible for the colonies) in April, 1758, in which he said that the colony of Massachusetts had operated on a budget of 45,000 pounds sterling before the war, but had in two years incurred a debt in excess of 300,000 pounds. He then said that the colonial legislature had passed a plan to sink the debt within three years by instituting new taxes, and the citizens had not objected, because the taxes were passed by representatives whom they had elected. The lesson was apparently lost on Parliament. Virginia made similar sacrifices, establishing and funding two large militia regiments, with which they protected the frontier of Virginia, as well as of the two Carolinas and Georgia. The Quakers in Pennsylvania, of course, found ways to avoid paying for their own defense, and in New York, William Johnson brilliantly worked with the Iroquois-traditional enemies of the French-and state militia to make their contribution to the war. New Jersey raised the Jersey Blues in 1756, and they are considered the oldest military unit in continuous service in America, being the ancestors of the First Infantry Regiment. All in all, Americans showed themselves to be loyal and enthusiastic supporters of the crown's war.

In 1760, George II died, and was succeeded by George III. Before he came to the throne, George's social circle was largely among English military officers to whom he had been introduced by his former tutor, the Earl of Bute. Bute briefly formed a government, which did not last long, but both he and George had decided to reward their friends in the Army, most of whom were without employment after the end of the Seven Years War, by setting up a military establishment in America. Royal American troops were raised in independent companies, and these were supposedly there to defend the colonists. But the Lords of Trade had now acquired vast new territories from the French, which were valuable because of the fur trade, so they did not want settlers moving in. So, in essence, there was now a standing army in America, the true purpose of which was to prevent the Americans from crossing the mountains into the Ohio valley. This was how it was seen, at any event, by the Americans. They were very likely correct, although it never came to a test of arms.

Additionally, Parliament had acquired huge debts through the expense of supporting the Prussians in their war on the continent. The traditional means of raising revenue, property taxes or the excise, was not likely to be used by the House of Commons, most of whose members were land owners or merchants. It was decided that the Americans would be taxed to provide their "fair share." Americans felt, not unreasonably, that they had already contributed their fair share, and that they should not be taxed by a body in which they were not represented. Parliament responded that they were virtually represented, and although the turmoil which greeted the Stamp Act lead them to repeal the act, they also passed the Declaratory Act, which affirmed their right to legislate for the colonies in all matters. The rest of this history is fairly well known to Americans-for our English friends, suffice it to say that political demagogues and those seeking an advantage in their local struggle with political opponents capitalized on the opportunity to stoke American resistance to taxes passed by Parliament.

The Americans had a very murky basis at best to say that Parliament had no right to raise revenues by taxing them. The English had never cared for a standing army in their midst, and the Americans were no different in this regard. The English were very disingenuous to claim that the new taxes were needed to defend America, which had largely defended itself for more than a century, and which had contributed what were for them staggering sums and thousands of soldiers and sailors for "King George's War." Both sides indulged in a good deal of arrogant ill-temper, and political propagandizing-incompetent government, especially that of Lord North, assured that cooler heads would never prevail. An American Revolution was never inevitable, but the course of events lead there naturally, given the poor communications arising from the distance between London and the New World, and the pig-headedness of both parties. I believe pig-headedness is considered a natural trait of John Bull; it certainly can be said to characterize Americans when they "get their back up."

Brandon, the French went into the alliance "whole hog." Largely, they hoped to profit in the West Indies and in India. Souffren lead a brilliant naval campaign in the Indian Ocean, which lead to heavy naval reinforcements there by the English. When Admiral De Grasse defeated Admiral Graves at the Battle of the Capes, which assured the defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown, he had come from the West Indies. Although the English eventually prevailed over the French in the Battle of the Saints in the West Indies, the expense to both sides in this war for the sugar islands was huge. Additionally, the French provided uniforms, powder and shot, and muskets. By the end of the war, France had provided more than 70,000 Charleville muskets to the Americans. Louis XVI's government virtually bankrupted itself in the American War, and failed to attain any of their objectives in the West Indies and India. In fact, the fianancial chaos which ensued could be construed to say that the French involvement in the American war enventually lead to the conditions from which the French Revolution arose.

Sentanta, you certainly know your English and American History. The American history books that I studied in high school and college were not what you would call accurate. The subject matter was slanted to make the British seem worse than they really were or, perhaps, to romanticise some of the events or people.

The Boston Massacre was not really a massacre. Only a few people were killed and it was pretty much the Colonists doing.

Well into the American Revolution, Benedict Arnold was considered a hero for his vitories in battle, but he was badly treated by the government. People with much less ability and experience were promoted over him or were given assignments that he should have had. The government would also not reimburse his out-of-pocket expenses in the war effort.

These are only two examples and the list goes on and on ad infinitum.

Napoleon made a bunch of crap statements about history, such as that it is written by the victors (if this were true, he would not have the reputation he has today), that it is a set of lies agreed upon . . .

Most history as taught in schools is a set of incomplete statements and outright distortions enlisted in aid of the nationalistic myths of the dominant culture.

What about land battles? I have a vague impression that Washington often had a hard time getting anything out of the foreign officers ostensibly assisting him, with the notable exception of Lafayette who commanded no troops.

Washington was burdened by a cloud of foreign officers who had gotten their jobs by lobbying members of Congress. Most of them weren't worth the powder to blow them to hell. There were many notable exceptions, however. Von Steuben introduced a regular drill to the American Army which made a good professional force first class. He also acted as commissary and as quartermaster for Washington's army at need, and operated as an indepedent commander in Virginia in 1778-1780. The Marquis de LaFayette indeed did act as a field commander, and although a very young man, proved himself to be a capable officer. In the 1778 campaign, LaFayette acted as a semi-independent commander of an ad-hoc division which shadowed Clinton's retreating army and hung on Clinton's right flank, in a very risky position, until re-united with the main army just before the battle of Monmouth courthouse. LaFayette also acted as an independent commander in Virginia, when Benedict Arnold was rampaging in that state commanding British forces. He didn't do well against Arnold, but Benedict Arnold was one of the finest natural combat commanders in American history, and he was operating there with professional British forces and ample logistical support.

Baron de Kalb, Kusziusko (sp?) and Pulaski all made valuable contributions to our military efforts. Washington played hell getting French commanders to contribute troops to any of his campaigns. They didn't trust their American allies, and didn't want to be left holding the bag. Early in their alliance with us, this is exactly what happened at Newport, Rhode Island, and they weren't about to be burned twice. Rochambeau's decision to join Washington in an extended land campaign, which depended upon cooridation with a French Navy which did not want to cooperate was a truly courageous decision. It shows that Rochambeau was an above average military commander. We are fortunate indeed that no above average English officers ever commanded forces operating against our main army. The seige of Yorktown may not have the flashy appeal of a decisive land battle, but, even though American infantry generally performed better than French infantry in that campaign, we could not possibly have conducted the seige without them.

Very, very interesting! Thank you.

Cheers, Boss . . .

James Thomas Flexner wrote a four volume biography of Washington, which is a great read. It was loosely used as the basis for the Washington bio which was done on network television several years ago. It was re-issued at that time in a one volume abridgement as Washington: The Indispensable Man. Here's a link to the Amazon page for it:

Flexner's Washington[/color]

Unfortunately, i think the four volume set is out of print.

I read the one volume version and am currently reading an excellent one volume version of Douglas Southall Freeman's biography of Washington. Did you like A & E's movie, "The Crossing" about the crossing of the Delaware?

I didn't see it, Boss, i don't have cable (i could steal cable, because i have a cable DSL connection, but that would be dishonest, and i don't watch that much tv anyway). I would be interested though, if you recommend it.

BTW, i'm a glutton for punishment, so i've read the entire 16 volumes of Freeman's biography. You might also be interested in the seventh and final volume of Francis Parkman's history of the French in North America: Montcalm and Wolfe, the French and Indian War, which i know has recently be released in paperback.

Hey Setanta -------- with all this knowledge that's percolating inside your head, when are you going to write the "Great American Novel" ? And thus stun the world & make a huge wad of mega bucks

When it comes to the point in our lives that we write, not for money, but for the wonderment of expression, then, OAK..we have truly reached the pinnacle of creativity, and in that acme, that Mount Everest, we finally discover the only true history is what we create ourselves. The great American novel has never been written, it is waiting to be written, and the people who write it, won't be the folks that we ever hear of or know about, it will be the ones who have lived quiet and unheralded lives, and by accident, someone will decide they are worth noting.

I thought it was a lot of fun. If you like history of the American Revolution, I definitely recommend it.

OAK, i'm like the typical glib Irishman, holding forth in the pub--i enjoyed the relaxed opportunity to hold forth in this manner, but i've not the least interest in writing the great american novel, nor even the common, banal american literary attempt at making a fast buck.

Thanks for your kind words, though.