- This topic has 2 voices and 2 replies.
-
Posts
-
I have heard that the patriots of the American Revolution began their revolt because of concerns or injustices which were less great than what Americans undergo in modern times. Does anyone think that this is true or false? Were the injustices of the American colonists grave enough to merit war? If so, how are modern-day concerns any less grave?
Quickly, no the American colonists were not technically justified in their revolt. George III and Prime Minister Grenville were guilty of nothing more than trying to pay the Empire’s bills in the aftermath of the Great War for Empire…(The French and Indian War in North America and the Seven Years War everywhere else). The times of Salutory Neglect had drawn to a close as the ministers of King George began to realize Americans had been smuggling and trading their surpluses with Britain’s competitors and enemies such as the French and the Spanish. Britain began to enforce its Mercantilist trade policies more strictly to control trade routes and the flow of goods. Americans had become spoiled and took for granted that London would keep looking away. But when London began to pay attention to the books again, Americans resented it. Of course there were other controversies such as establishing an Anglican Bishop in North America and the decision to keep a standing army in North America. These and other things (even though they were legal and well within the Empire’s rights) did not set well with the colonists.
... Of course there were other controversies such as establishing an Anglican Bishop in North America and the decision to keep a standing army in North America. These and other things (even though they were legal and well within the Empire's rights) did not set well with the colonists.
Even though these may have been "legal", and the Colonists' actions "illegal", were the Colonists morally justified? Assuming that King George offered the Colonists some leeway - say, an actual seat in Parliament, some minor form of self-governance, would the Revolution still be as legitimate as it is considered today? Perhaps an even better question would be whether the Colonists would have revolted had they been offered some tokens from England.
England repealed the Stamp Act and the Two Penny Acts because of colonial uproar. Over and over again the Parliament appeased the colonists, but Parliament had to save face by putting in the clause “Parliament held authority in all cases whatsoever.” The colonists understood this to mean Parliament intended to replace the King as the sovereign and the holder of their charters. This meant that Parliament “virtually” represented them rather than the direct representation formerly held by the King. The colonists desired to send representatives to the August Body, but Parliament declined this proposal citing the many burroughs in Ireland, Scotland, and elsewhere in England that were virtually represented by seats outside their district. Even here Parliament had a precedent from which to cite and the colonists had little to argue. However, the colonists were not without supporters in Parliament such as William Pitt. Nevertheless, Pitt could not wield enough influence to temper Parliament's harsh stance. The colonists proceeded to argue constitutional arguments based on Lockean definitions of property rights derived from moral law (i.e. their charters), and Parliament argued back with Hobbseian definitions of title law (i.e. the transference of powers from the Glorious Revolution of 1688). In sum, the colonists were still looking at matters from a seventeenth century perspective while Parliament was viewing things from an eighteenth century perspective. There was a chronological disconnect in their positions and thus no resolution was possible. So from the colonial perspective, they thought they were arguing things morally from how they always understood things to be, but due to their isolation from Europe and the effects of Salutary Neglect, the colonists did not keep up with the internal changes that occured within the Imperial government. Of course there is a lot more going on here than just what I have said, but it would take me several more posts to lay it out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
