Forum dems/libs: Would you have supported the American Revolution?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Without a hindsight, I'd certainly sympathize with a revolutionary forces, embracing best ideas of the Enlightenment (as imperfect we may see them now) against an imperial power. I'm still not sure what my position would be with a hindsight.

I'm not sure--I would be vehemently opposed to integrating the colonies in any way into parliament, because that would prolong slavery. I guess I would, given that the colonies staying as mere colonies in the long term is unlikely.

Why do you say that?

With the colonies remaining loyal, slavery would likely be abolished no later than 1833, as in the rest of the British Empire. Unless there would be a provision to exclude some American colonies (the South), like there was a provision of exclusion "of the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company," the "Island of Ceylon," and "the Island of Saint Helena", and these exceptions were abolished in 1843. I really can't imagine London retaining slavery just to please a couple of colonies. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to see abolition process speeded due to this.

[Murica!]

Yes(sane, Revolutionary Socialist of an anarchist variety)

[TNF]

I would not have supported the 1776 slaveholder's rebellion, no.

The majority of revolutionary activity immediately preceding the conflict was centered in Boston. The Sons of Liberty rallied against unjust taxation, not against threats being made to slave ownership by the British (of which there were none that I am aware of during that period.) Castigating the whole of the revolution with the desire to preserve slavery is shoddy historical analysis with little basis in fact.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

An interesting - and sometimes forgotten - fact is that in Britain there were many supporters of the Americans.

[TNF]

An interesting - and sometimes forgotten - fact is that in Britain there were many supporters of the Americans.

If memory serves, wasn't one of the leading generals of the British war effort a Whig inclined toward support of the Americans? Howe, maybe? Its been awhile since I didn't a lot of reading on the topic.

[afleitch]

Mixed feelings on this one. Samuel Johnson captured it best; 'we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes.'

[MATTROSE94]

Most likely yes (not a registered Democrat and only liberal on certain issues).

[TDAS04]

Yep.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

An interesting - and sometimes forgotten - fact is that in Britain there were many supporters of the Americans.

Charles James Fox comes to mind here, though his antipathy toward George III and perceived "increasing powers of the crown" played an important role in this.

[All Along The Watchtower]

An interesting - and sometimes forgotten - fact is that in Britain there were many supporters of the Americans.

Including Edmund Burke, IIRC.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

My family fought in the American Revolution, so all signs point to yes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My family fought in the American Revolution, so all signs point to yes.

So did mine, which is why they had to flee to Canada afterward.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

An interesting - and sometimes forgotten - fact is that in Britain there were many supporters of the Americans.

If memory serves, wasn't one of the leading generals of the British war effort a Whig inclined toward support of the Americans? Howe, maybe? Its been awhile since I didn't a lot of reading on the topic.

Yeah, it was Howe.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If we had representation and were outvoted, it wouldn't have been an issue because what was disputed was not the tax itself, but the principle that taxes could only be levied by representatives of the persons being taxed in question. The fact that the Americans were not represented in Parliament made the taxation levied by Parliament upon them illegitimate.

Exactly. The principle issue of the Revolution was whether Americans would continue to live under representative government. The taxes themselves were not hated so much (in some cases, they actually lowered the existing tax) as the idea that they had been passed without regard for the rights of the colonists as British subjects. I wonder how many of the people answering "no" would actually like to live in a world where unelected aristocrats make the rules.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, I think sometimes people get caught up in the 'second opinion bias' whereby upon realising a historical period wasn't the black and white world taught in primary school inadvertently distort the issue into the complete opposite.

It's kind of like how, when a person first realises that the Union during the Civil War wasn't 100% pure and moral, then come out with statements like: 'the Union was just as bad as the confederacy'. This manner of thinking often distorts morality and overcompensates perceived learned bias. Another example is people learning about Allied War Crimes and using them to promote false equivalences between the Allies and Axis.

Obviously the world doesn't run exactly like a Schoolhouse Rock episode. That doesn't mean it is any more historically accurate to paint the founding fathers as demons.

[Murica!]

My family fought in the American Revolution, so all signs point to yes.

So did mine, which is why they had to flee to Canada afterward.

lol.

[Hatman 🍁]

Like Ernest, my ancestors were loyalists who fled to Canada. Unlike Ernest, they stayed here. But still, my answer is no.

[Mechaman]

I guess you could describe me as pretty liberal, so I'll answer yes for the purposes of this thread.

I am guessing that the Americans who voted "no" obviously didn't have ancestors who were either dragged to Barbados for some sweet "indentured servitude" or were subject to the Penal Laws.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I guess you could describe me as pretty liberal, so I'll answer yes for the purposes of this thread.

I am guessing that the Americans who voted "no" obviously didn't have ancestors who were either dragged to Barbados for some sweet "indentured servitude" or were subject to the Penal Laws.

Welcome back!!  We've needed you, to say the least.

[Dr. Cynic]

I'm not sure honestly. At the time, my ancestors were in England and also the males were either shipwrights or sailors, so they probably weren't particularly sympathetic to America.

But if I was an American living at that time, I have a hard time seeing myself not supporting the patriot cause. I'd certainly be politically active and I'd probably be turned by the desire to have representation in the House of Commons if we were going to be taxed, since local authorities already collected taxes.

Also, to have British soldiers, at whim, be able to simply plow their way into one's home without so much as a courtesy would be so disagreeable to me. I probably would have wanted to stay with England, but found the actions of the crown intolerable.

[Orser67]

Yes, I think sometimes people get caught up in the 'second opinion bias' whereby upon realising a historical period wasn't the black and white world taught in primary school inadvertently distort the issue into the complete opposite.

It's kind of like how, when a person first realises that the Union during the Civil War wasn't 100% pure and moral, then come out with statements like: 'the Union was just as bad as the confederacy'. This manner of thinking often distorts morality and overcompensates perceived learned bias. Another example is people learning about Allied War Crimes and using them to promote false equivalences between the Allies and Axis.

Obviously the world doesn't run exactly like a Schoolhouse Rock episode. That doesn't mean it is any more historically accurate to paint the founding fathers as demons.

This is one of the greatest explanations of the internet that I have ever read.

Returning to the topic, I think my position in would be that the colonies should have representation, but that fighting a war probably isn't worth it. I doubt I would have been swayed to the Loyalists, but I might have been swayed to the revolutionaries.

[136or142]

I'm hardly one to answer this being Canadian, but while the Americans did fight for largely noble causes (no taxation without representation, the establishment of a constitutional democracy [or Republic for the purists]), the main reason for their starting the war was entirely lacking gratitude.

The British King fought off the French in order to prevent the colonies from being taken over by France (I believe that's why he fought them anyway) and because the war bankrupted the treasury he logically assumed that the colonists wouldn't mind paying something for that protection.

It started the typical American response we've seen so often since: opposing virtual any and all taxes no matter how justifiable they are or beneficial they may be.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm hardly one to answer this being Canadian, but while the Americans did fight for largely noble causes (no taxation without representation, the establishment of a constitutional democracy [or Republic for the purists]), the main reason for their starting the war was entirely lacking gratitude.

The British King fought off the French in order to prevent the colonies from being taken over by France (I believe that's why he fought them anyway) and because the war bankrupted the treasury he logically assumed that the colonists wouldn't mind paying something for that protection.

It started the typical American response we've seen so often since: opposing virtual any and all taxes no matter how justifiable they are or beneficial they may be.

First of all, its not like this was some sort of magnanimous gesture on Britain's part. The French and Indian War, like every other war fought during the colonial era, was one of territorial conquest. I doubt the British government cared very much about the colonists themselves; their main concern was over who was ruling them.
Second, it's not like the colonists were sitting around twiddling their thumbs while Britain did all the fighting. Numerous colonists (George Washington, Robert Rodgers, and John Parker to name a few) fought against the French, and Britain probably couldn't have won the war without them.
Third, so-called gratitude has nothing to do with political rights. As TNF said earlier, the size/need for the taxes was not what was being protested. The colonists had been paying taxes to their local governments for years and never batted an eyelash. The issue was that the British government voted to take their money without giving them a single vote on the matter. If you would rather live in a country where government has absolutely no reason to listen to you, then by all means oppose the American Revolution. To assume, however, that the colonists were somehow obligated to surrender their right to self-government because they benefited from one of Britain's many wars of conquest is, frankly, ridiculous.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

One has to remember the way colonists were treated by the British prior to revolt: Those militia men that had fought alongside the British were given little respect by regulars. As I recall, even Benjamin Franklin faced the view by those in London that he and his countrymen were provincial and relatively primitive. For the colonial elites that led the revolution politically and militarily, this was an affront to their identification as British citizens and made clear that they would not be seen by their rulers as "real" Britons. It was in light of this attitude that a lot of colonial leaders were dealing with the British. Trade restrictions on New England merchants didn't help. They had become little more than imperial subjects in a far corner of the empire.

[Sumner 1868]

Yes, I would have because I oppose colonialism and authoritarianism. Also, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire abolished slavery long before Britain solely because of the Revolution.