The American Revolution: Two Theories

Neither, really, although i would come closest to the first theory. When the Seven Years War ended, the English were left with a lot of officers on their hands, who now had no employment. George II had died while the war was still on, and George III was now on the throne. When George II's son Frederick died, Frederick's son George had lead a sheltered and very dull life (even by the Hanoverian standards of England's most drab dynasty). Knowing that he was now the next in line of succession, it was decided that George needed a good education, and some social guidance. The answer was a Scot, the Earl of Bute. Whether or not Bute assured George of a good education is really moot, as the standards of the day for monarchs weren't all that strenuous. As for his social education, Bute accomplished that by introducing George to military men--the officers who now found themselves unemployed at the end of that war.

England had always had a tradition of mistrusting and opposing a standing army, that being seen as the thin end of the wedge for oppression from above. The end of that war meant that the military establishments would be disbanded, with only a very small cadre being kept in service. The normal procedure, borrowed from the Royal Navy, was to put these officers on half-pay. This was a form of temporary retirement which sought to keep qualified individuals connected to the military establishment while reducing costs. Bute and George, however, understood that half-pay does not allow an officer to keep his household in the style which they preferred, and they cast about for a means of keeping them in service.

For the Americans, the Seven Years War played out as the French and Indian War. The war really began with George Washington, and the Commonwealth of Virginia stepped up to the plate first, with a huge military estalishment of Militia on the English model, later adding a second regiment of Militia. Pennsylvania reluctantly provided some Militia, but this was opposed by the Quakers, locked in a political fight to the death with the Assembly, and not caring how many German or Scots-Irish settlers on the frontier were scalped or murdered. The populations of the Carolinas and Georgia were so small and scattered, that Washington took it upon himself to provide the frontier outposts to which the settlers could resort for shelter when the French and Indians raided. New Jersey raised a regiment of Militia, known as the Jersey Blues, and from which the First Infantry Regiment of the United States claims direct, unbroken descent since 1756. New York provided quite a few Militia, and suffered as heavily as Virginia from Indian Raids. William Johnson was the Royal Indian Commissioner, who was able to enlist the Iroquois Confederation in the cause. Massachusetts, Connecticutt and New Hampshire had long experience fighting nasty border wars with the French and Indians, and they stepped up with as much loyalty and energy as ever. When Governor Shirley was recalled and replaced by Pownall, Pownall wrote to the Lords of Trade (who controlled the colonies) in the spring of 1758 that the Massachusetts House had operated on an annual budget of about 45,000 pounds sterling before the war, but had accumulated a debt in excess of 360,000 pounds in less than two years, and had passed a plan to sink the debt in two years by new taxes. He pointed out that the citizens of the colony had not protested, because their elected representatives had passed the plan. He also wrote that one in seven males in the colony then served the King by land or by sea. The participation of Massachusetts was crucial to Abercromby's successful assault on Louisbourg, which resulted in the capture of Accadie--modern Nova Scotia.

The point of the foregoing is that Americans spent a lot of blood and treasure to support the royal forces in that war. In England, the Parliament made the specious claim that the colonies should be made to pay for their protection--a claim English historians continue to assert today. The majority of the huge debt which England incurred in the Seven Years War derived from the heavy subsidies given to Frederick II of Prussia. Fredericks militarily brilliant brother, the Duke of Brunswick, lead Hanoverians, Prussians, Westphalians and Englishmen in a series of campaigns that totally frustrated the French, and prevented them from joining the Russians and Austrians in the attempt to destroy Prussia. If England wanted to protect Hanover (and George II, born there, certainly did), it was necessary to support Prussia. To maintain the balance of power in Europe as the English saw it, it was necessary to support Prussia. What England had spent in America was a pittance compared to what was spent in Europe, and the territory derived from the successful completion of the war made their participation in North America one of the greatest bargains in military history. But Parliament was comprised of the men who would be taxed directly if revenue was raised at home, or their representatives--so an argument about cheap Americans taking a free imperial ride appealed to them. Having taken significantly large territories from France, the government were intent on keeping the Americans east of the mountains, and therefore, it was decided that a standing army would be kept in America, conveniently giving jobs to the cronies of George III and the Earl of Bute. Of course, the Americans no more wanted a standing army on their territory than did the English, and they correctly identified these forces as being placed to keep them east of the mountains, and not to protect them from threats which did not exist. During Pontiac's War in 1763, it was American Militia who eventually defeated the Indians, and removed the threat to the small English garrisons trapped in their outposts. The whole military charade just inflamed American suspicions.

There is no doubt that Americans howled when the ministry moved to enforce revenue acts which had been ignored in the past. But their claim that they were being battened on by parasitic English placemen sent out to collect the revenues was valid. It was the old question embodied by Dickens as "what to do about Noodle." Both sides were being disingenuous on the issue of money, but the Americans had a valid claim to having paid their fair share and more. The conspiracy which Americans saw, however, was not initially one of their rights as Britons being denied. Rather, they saw a corrupted English society sending out placemen, political nobodies who were failures in any profession in England, to eat up their hard-earned substance. This fear was very real to them, although it was baseless, as are most conspiracy theories. The infringement of constitutional rights, known commonly to historians as the "constitutional argument" was articulated by men like John Dickenson in his Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer, and others who were groping to put a political form on the inchoate fears of the Americans. In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson had a very long passage about the former affection between Americans and Britons being betrayed--fortunately, his overblown prose was much edited, and that passage cut out altogether.

There was a conspiracy paranoia in America, but it was more in the form of fearing a formerly free and moral society in England having become so corrupt, that it sought to enslave Americans for the purpose of looting their hard-earned prosperity. The rights of Britons was simply a political stance taken to give the Americans a defensible debating position.

Oh, and no, it was not inevitable--it was specifically the product of George and the Earl of Bute, and the Parliament, all focused on their narrow personal interests, and ignoring the potential for disaster which they raised themselves by actions which were not necessary to the maintenance of their empire.

Wow, Setanta. You said "Hello" and I lost you.

It more than likely was a combination of the two, but I believe war was inevitable for two reasons.

British troops did not want to be in the colonies, and the colonies did not want to foot the bill for British wars. Over simplification, perhaps.

The American Revolution was a very unpopular war, and had it not been for Washington's military leadership and strategy, who knows.

Thanks, Setanta. That was a well supported essay.

Well Letty, I'll leave the history to Setanta, The Time Lord.
Not sure there would be enough enthusiasm over here for the UK to become the 51st state.
Mind you if the UK gets dragged shouting and screaming into a fully fledged Yourope, then I'm outta here. You got room for 2 more Brits Stateside

John Oak, two more delightful Brits won't make this peninsula sink, I don't think. Hmmmm. We might even find a way to get around The Quartering Act.

But you gotta agree to celebrate Thanksgiving and Independence Day. It's right there in the citizenship oath, I am told...hee hee....

Think you could learn to speak 'Merican?

Well Eva I have watched a few American TV shows ,, like Fiends, Daffy The Vampire Slave, Ally McSeal but a good voice coach would bee handy.
Thanksgiving and Independance would be no problem. Just go with the flo

We'd love to have you, OaK.
But if they have any smarts at all, England won't let you go.

Hi, Eva. Have you a preference for either theory, or do you have one of your own? I am most interested in your input, since we often measure change in the light of history.

I love reading Setanta's history lessons. He has such a way with words. I am certainly not as learned as he, but I would venture a guess that American independence was inevitable. Given the Brits' inability to hold onto their empire during the past 200 years, it seems unlikely that they would have been able to retain such a rapidly growing civilization as ours in any case.

Setanta's discourse has clearly given us the particular actions/reactions in play at the time, which is enlightening. Thank you for that, Set...

The particular timing of revolutions seems always to involve the emergence of exceptional leaders...and that is fascinating to me.

Thanks, Eva. I think, perhaps, that the "times" do make the man; consequently, Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, were the giants upon whose shoulders our visionaries have stood.

Today, I am wondering if these theories still apply. Inevitable that we are in Iraq or born out of the seed of conspiracy?

Well, Eva, actually most historians (any, as far as I know) think that loss of Britain's 13 American colonies in 1776-83 was compensated by new settlements in Australia from 1788 and by the spectacular growth of Upper Canada (now Ontario) after the emigration of loyalists from what had become the United States.

And exactly this period was the time, when the full flower of the British Empire started (Australia, India, Africa).

and then, of course, there was the second war for Independence, Walter. If at first, and all that.

For those who think that the American revolution was inevitable, let me point out that, apart from the notorious visual acuity of hindsight, very specific factors contributed to the event, which might have shown up earlier or later, but didn't. It was a concurrence of events which caused the revolution.

Prior to the revolution, the Molasses Act had imposed a tax of 6d on the gallon of molasses imported into the colonies, and legally passed by customs. The merchants of New England had been running a trade route for generations--rum was distilled in New England, sold legally and smuggled into England, and smuggled into Holland (smuggled in that mercantile theory had lead Parliament to prohibit the colonies to trade directly with other nations), in both of which nations glass beads, cheap and colorful cotton cloth and firearms were purchased (at a considerable net profit) and then used to trade for slaves on the west African coast. The slaves were taken to the West Indies, and sold (at a considerable profit) in French, Dutch and English islands, and molasses purchased (any molasses purchased from the Dutch and French was technically contraband), which was taken to New England to produce rum to begin the cycle all over.

Smaller merchants simply sold rum in the West Indies (which did not at that time produce its own) along with food stuffs, and purchased slaves and molasses, selling the slaves in Charleston, and purchasing rice to be sold in the West Indies. Both of these trading routes grew up in the long period from 1609 to the early 1660's during which time the colonists were largely (and during the civil wars and the Protectorate, entirely) free of interference from the Lords of Trade. When the Molasses act was passed, a few placemen came out from England, but most simply stayed in London, and hired an agent to work in the colonies, and all promptly fell in with the process--the "smugglers" simply paid one penny-happ'ny (one and one half pence) on each gallon of molasses to the customs collector, and then landed the molasses illegally--at a quarter of the cost of the legal duty. The placemen or their agents occassionally cited someone for smuggling, to keep their hand in and to present a facade of enforcement. Those accused were taken before an American jury, who routinely acquitted them, or gave them a "slap on the wrist" fine.

In Charleston, slave dealers paid the customs men a fee, and then provided documents which they used to show that they had a tip that slaves were going to be illegally landed at such an such a location, but when they had gone there, the landing had not taken place (and everyone locally knew that the slaves were being landed elsewhere). This system worked well for everyone but the Crown, and no one involved gave a rat's ass for the Crown and its revenues. Indigo produced in South Carolina was so valuable that it could be traded within the legal constraints of mercantilism to produce a great profit for the growers, and rice was such a low cost for bulk product that it wasn't taxed. The planters in the Carolinas with rice and indigo, and in Virginia and Maryland with tobacco were being routinely and scandalously ripped off by their factors (agents) in London, which was largely understood, but, once again, it was a matter of how the pragmatic system worked, and not what the legal structure dicatated.

After the French and Indian War, when Parliament invented the fiction that Americans were getting a free imperial ride, and decided to tax the colonies to pay off the enormous debts incurred to support Prussia during the war, the Sugar Act was passed. This reduced the tax to 3d on the gallon--which was still twice as much as the going rate for the customs man to look the other way. But the ministry was determined to enforce the act, and voided the appointments of any customs agent who did not go to the colonies, and sent small vessels of the Royal Navy to patrol, and to keep the customs collectors honest. When someone was charged, they were no longer taken before local courts, but were taken before an Admiralty court, which assumed their guilt and seized ship and cargo, only releasing these if and when the accused could prove his innocence.

Smuggling continued, placemen remained venal and took bribes, and Royal Navy vessels were boarded and the crews beaten and bound, officers and men attacked in the streets, seized vessels were liberated by mobs, and juries, who still tried the cases brought for assualt and other mob actions, still routinely acquitted the accused. People like John Dickinson published tracts which provided the constitutional argument that whereas the Parliament had the right to regulate commerce, it had no power to directly tax the colony, and attempted to construct an argument about direct and indirect taxation--it was disingenuous, and largely a word game. Parliament responded that the Americans were virtually represented in Parliament, which was disingenuous and largely a word game. Parliament withdrew the more odious provisions of the Sugar Act, but passed the Declaratory act to assert that their right to tax the colonists was absolute. The Stamp Act and various other acts followed, the colonists howled, the Stamp Act was withdrawn, Parliament again asserted its right to tax--and the entire process accelerated.

I've already reviewed the issue of keeping a standing army in America. This was greatly resented as well, because in 50 years of dealing with the French and the Indian raids they inspired and funded, the colonists felt, justifiably, that they had received little or no protection, and that the troops only showed up after the French had been driven from the continent, which could not have been accomplished without colonial aid, which amounted to a good deal more than the English had spent. When troops originally destined for Detroit, to deal with Pontiac, were diverted because the colonial militias had already dealt with the Pontiac War, and conveniently appeared in New York at the time of a tenants revolt in the Hudson River pallisades area, colonists up and down the coast protested. The abuse of the Quartering Act lead to the formation of local committees, such as the committee in Louisa County, Virginia, who sent the first protest and petition to the King, operating on the assumption that the King would right the wrongs perpetrated upon them by Parliament. Had the King been a man of the caliber and intelligence of Charles II, this might have worked. Pigheaded ol' George III and his crony Bute were incensed that the colonies would not meekly submit to whatever measures were taken, and we were that much further down the road which would lead to rebellion.

England did not have to defend Hanover in the Seven Years War, and would soon separate Hanover from the British Crown anyway. Prussia, if not obliged to provide for and lead substantial forces to protect Hanover and Westphalia, might have suffered badly, but would not necessarily have gone under to the Franco-Austro-Russian alliance, which was shakey at best. As it was, a Russian Army occupied Berlin and Potsdam, and the Prussian Kingdom survived. The war in North America would have taken place whether or not Frederick had provoked Maria Theresa, la Marquise de Pompadour and the Empress Elizabeth to the point of war. That war in North America profited England greatly, and at very little cost. Maria Theresa certainly was bent on getting Silesia back from Frederick, but needed a pretext, and was part of a Prusso-Russo-Austrian alliance which carved up Poland within a dozen years of the end of the Seven Years War (in fairness, she was appalled by what was done, but allowed her son and her foreign minister to bully her into compliance).

None of these events were inevitable. Absent the disturbances which lead to the revolution, there is no reason to believe that England could not have kept that empire together. England kept Canada, despite very bloody insurrections in both Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec) in 1836-37, because they had developed enough sense to keep their hands off and let the local authority deal with matters--which they did successfully and ruthlessly. A good deal of the agitation in America arose from political infighting in colonial assemblies, of ancient lineage, for which the incredibly stupid blunders of the Bute and North ministries simply provided fuel--such as the struggle between the Hutchinson and Otis factions in Massachusetts.

Very little in history is ever inevitable. It was inevitable that Napoleon would go to war with Russia in 1812, given the danger of the challenge Russia offered by refusing to observe the continental system. But is was not inevitable that the Emperor Alexander would cave in to the Russian aristocracy in that matter. Almost nothing in history has ever been inevitable, it only seems so in retrospect.

By the by, although it has been many, many years since i've read it, Barbara Tuchmann's The March of Folly has a section devoted to the blunders of the Bute and North ministries. It's been long enough, that what i've written here is not based on that book--but put it this way, whenever Miss Tuchmann agrees with me, she's correct; when Miss Tuchmann disagrees with me, she's much mistaken.

okbye

Setanta, Isn't most history hindsight?

For those of you who may be interested:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/british/brit-2.html

Well it's probably a good job that America got it's independance and set off down the long and winding road that leads to your door.
Otherwise would we of had Hollywood, Motown, Daffy Duck or any of those other great icons ? Nope.
What if the South had won the civil war, huh. Would we of had Hollywood, Motown, Daffy Duck or any of those great icons ? Nope.
What/who would have been the great mover and shaker ?
Perhaps Honorable Time Lord Setanta can expound a theory or 2 and thus enlighten our darkness

Ah, John Oak. The South lost the war cause you guys wouldn't buy our cotton

And think of this. Had you guys won the war, where would Alfred Hitchcock have gone to make all his fantastic movies?

Well, let's compromise and say that all wars are political; politics are definitely inevitable

Letty, of course history is hindsight--but the point is not to fall for the trap that what we know now is evidence that events were invevitable.