Was the American Revolution Justified

[H. Ross Peron]

Rather ironic that the result is so close for Republicans...

[Goldwater]

Rather ironic that the result is so close for Republicans...

I think it's fairly common for non-American conservatives to have a negative view of the American Revolution.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In hindsight it might have been better if the British Empire gave the colonists in America seats in Parliament and America never rebelled. It would only be a matter of time before a version of expansion to the West began and America would eventually become the economic powerhouse of the British Empire.

There is the possibility that the British Empire would be a massive "superstate" of sorts that would be practically unbeatable by any other power by 1850. By 1900 it would take an alliance of France, Germany, and Russia to even stand up to the British Empire, butterflies permitting.

The only downside I can see is that it might take the British longer to ban slavery considering the economic interests in the Southeastern American Colonies but it probably would be banned before 1865. Also consider the Southerners are less likely to rebel against a massive British Empire in this scenario.

IT owuld not have stopped the rebellion because that did not want representation in Parliament where they would be completely outvoted. Franklin was even instructed when he went there to never accept any such deal.

Also, it would be difficult with the restrictions on settlement and manufacturing for America to take off in the manner you describe.

[Mechaman]

lol at the people who think that British rule was "not that bad".  I'm guessing many of you didn't have ancestors whose livelihoods were impacted by the Penal Laws. . . . .  which yes, did actually carry over to the colonies.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  The American colonists were one of the least taxed group of people in Western Civilization, even with the levies the British sought to impose, levies that largely were targeted at the upper classes of the colonies because they were the ones with the money.  That said, the Americans did have some legitimate grievances, especially with the Stamp Act.

[Marnetmar]

Yes (American, normal, sane)

[Peter the Lefty]

Yes.  The government which we were fighting to create was ludicrous, but it was at least something of an improvement over the British crown.  I'll agree, however, that many of the tax grievances were overblown.

[Torie]

An excellent question. Ben Franklin's attitude about it all and mine I suspect would have been very similar. Try to patch things up, calm down the mob, but in the end, when one must choose, there is but one choice. I suspect he also knew that sooner or later the colonies would have to become independent. Ruling the place from the Home Counties was simply impracticable, and it was not as if the UK would offer the colonies seats in Parliament. If they had, well, Parliament would now sit in the US (the US having 6 times the population), and the US would effectively be telling the UK what to do.

[Хahar 🤔]

This isn't a particularly meaningful question, but my answer in the abstract is no.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

This is one I grapple with a lot. If I was a colonist, I can't say I would've been a staunch Patriot. I'm not really a fan of organized protests or sticking it to the man.

That being said, I'm a bit of an "Americanophile" these days, so I'm in a bit of a bind...

Does "I'm glad it happened but I don't think it was justified" count as an answer?

[Representative Joe Mad]

Revolutions against government are always justified.

What, all of them? The Russian Revolution for instance?

Anyway, yes, from a certain point of view (that of the Americans who wanted to have representation if they were to be taxed), and from another point of view, no, it wasn't (that of the British government and of the loyalists). Really and truly, nothing can be objectively justified; things can only be justified from the perspective of a certain number of people. From my perspective, no, an armed revolt was certainly not justified.

I don't think all are justified myself, but I've always considered the Russian Revolution a justifiable revolution.  Now what came after the Tsar was terrible, granted, but I don't think that retroactively causes the revolution to not be ok.  What happened afterwards could have went many different ways.  Of course, as you said, the criteria for what makes a revolution justifiable varies.

[angus]

Was the American Revolution Justified

Of course.  The only time your revolution isn't justified is if you lose.  Consider the Confederate States of America, who fought for local control and who are now branded as bigots and ignorami; or those who helped assassinate Caligula, who only helped crown a new and improved Roman Emperor; or even those Palestinian bastards who throw rocks at Israeli tanks to protest an invasion of their homelands, leaving a few scratches on the tanks, but whose rocks are answered with missiles which kills entire extended families.  Terrorists, all. 

If you win, you get to write the history books.  Justification is what you say it is.  It's just that simple.  The American Revolution was the Shot Heard 'Round The World.  It was the inspiration of freedom and liberty worldwide.  It's what I was taught and it's what I'll believe that till the day I die.

edit:  I've voted and I'm glad to see that a majority agree.  It's really a no-brainer.  Might makes right.  Especially when might amounts to will successfully employed against a superior force.  I believe that also lends the American Revolution legitimacy.  It'd be one thing if it crushed an ant, but it ousted the world's pre-eminent Empire from an erstwhile colonial outpost.  Right or wrong, it succeeded, and in its success lies its justification.  These things aren't accorded a Kantian analysis, after all.   

After reading a few posts, I'd have to admit that I'd say the same thing about the October Revolution in Russia.  A few rednecks get it in their heads that the legit government needs to be schooled.  If those rednecks succeed, then in their success lies their future legitimacy.  We like to ordain ourselves the most highly-evolved species, but when push comes to shove, we really shouldn't be so arrogant as to ignore 4 billion years of biological endeavor.  Simply put, those who survive are legitimate by virtue of the fact that they survive.

[Hatman 🍁]

No of course not.

[Dr. Cynic]

the US would effectively be telling the UK what to do.

As opposed to what they do right now

[SPC]

The "Revolution" was justified to the extent that they were merely reclaiming the self-governance they had effectively enjoyed prior to 1763. However, the confiscatory measures against Loyalists were unjustifiable and hypocritical.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes, to some extent.  While I can understand why Parliament would've wanted to tax the colonists as part of paying off their war debts, I would also agree with the Patriots that it wasn't right to have "taxation without representation."  If Parliament had allowed the colonial legislatures to pass/collect the taxes, or if they had allowed colonists to be represented in Parliament, then I think I would've been fine with them. 

However, as a fiercely loyal person, I don't think it would have been right to sever ties to the king without a legitimate reason.  As for westward expansion, I think it was only right that the British Crown keep its promise to the Native Americans.  But in the case of the way the taxes were initiated, I think the colonists did have a legitimate reason to revolt.

If I had to guess where I would've landed at the time, I suspect I would have remained neutral, maybe even siding with the Patriots ultimately.  But if I had supported the Patriots, I certainly wouldn't have been zealous about it.

[TNF]

The "Revolution" was justified to the extent that they were merely reclaiming the self-governance they had effectively enjoyed prior to 1763. However, the confiscatory measures against Loyalists were unjustifiable and hypocritical.

Yes, because the Revolutionists should have allowed the enemies of the new Republic to hold property and enjoy legal protection from it.

[angus]

Sensibilities change over time.  At one time it was the norm to expect free range.  Rape, pillage, and plunder were your rewards of surviving a successful military campaign.  Soldiers often returned home with loot, slaves, and perhaps a new wife or two.  Enemies were regularly skewered and beheaded.  Of course, enemy soldiers could be pardoned if the victorious commander was in a good mood, but it was really his call.

Nowadays, our armies are expected to be much more sensitive.  It must be a terrifyingly frustrating existence to be a modern-day warrior.

Anyway, confiscation was probably to be expected at that time.  Beheading would have been acceptable as well around that time, if they were Francophones.  As it was, they were of English descent and the English really had lost the stomach for that sort of thing by the mid-1770s.  Wimps.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the problem many are facing here is that they tie Revolution directly back to the primal causation (taxes) and state that it wasn't justified.

Taxes - Protests (culminating in the Boston Tea Party) - British Overaction (Intollerable Acts) - Revolution.

The Revolution did not start and it would not have started simply because of the taxes, or the various restrictions, but because of how Britain responded to the protests over such.

I do date the start of the Revolution to the Boston Tea Party but that on its own would not have started a Revolution had Britain not reacted in the way that it did. Certainly by 1775 and most definately by 1776 once Britain rejected the Olive Branch petition, it was justified. The ironic thing is that Britain offered the equivalent of dominion status in 1778, two years too late. Had they offerred that in response to the Olive Branch Petition, history would have been very different

[Repub242]

Yes, it was justified. (R)

[Simfan34]

No of course not.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, to some extent.  While I can understand why Parliament would've wanted to tax the colonists as part of paying off their war debts, I would also agree with the Patriots that it wasn't right to have "taxation without representation."  If Parliament had allowed the colonial legislatures to pass/collect the taxes, or if they had allowed colonists to be represented in Parliament, then I think I would've been fine with them. 

At a pragmatic level, there was no reason the colonies would have.  During the French and Indian Wars, even with the fighting going on, the colonies were largely unwilling to pay their share of the costs incurred in conquering Canada.  Had Parliament stuck to the Sugar Act and other similar measures that taxed trade, they likely would have succeeded in their intent, albeit with a lot of grumbling.  It wasn't until the Stamp Act was passed that major protests occurred.