Could the American Revolution have been Avoided?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Odin


IIRC most of the "whining" came from New England merchants.

From all classes in New England. And from lower elements in society in the middle colonies for the most part.

The southern plantation owners were divided, Virginians more patriot, Georgians usually tory, divisions by religion and local interest elsewhere.

Im surprised someone as usually historically astute as Molly would make such an egregious error as to take the Johnson quote as an accurate sociological description.

[Dr Strangelove]

The American Revolution coincided with a major conflict between the Tories and the Whigs. In the government of England there was still some question about the true nature of the relationship of the elected government and the crown. Who served whom? Remeber that twice in the preceeding tow cwnturies the Paliament had removed the royal head of state, yet had found it necessary to arrange for the instillation of another one. There were those who still believed in the sovreignity of the monarch and who saw Parliament as an advisory council, they were the Tories. OTOH there were those who saw the crown as administering the will of the Parliament, and they were the Whigs. The Whigs played the military losses in America for every bit of advantage that they could extracty from them. In the end the monarchy was weakened. For all intents and purposes the American Revolution irrevocably sealed the decline of royal power in England. Yes, George III's illness and George IVs scandals also helped weaken the royal party, but by the time that another able monarch, Albert, took the throne, the most he could do was use the force of his personality to advise and influence the leaders of Parliament.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

When Parliament overreacted to the Boston Tea Party and related acts of civil disobediance by enacting the Intolerable Acts the fateful line was quickly crossed. Sides rapidly polarized. When Ben Franklin met with British parliamentarians in an effort to prevent the escalation of the conflict he was insulted and humilated by the parliamentarians, it is said that he went into that meeting British, and came out an American.

Am I the only one who suspects Odin copied this from somewhere?

I didn't copy a damn thing.

[Drake Tungsten]

That's what I would expect you to say...

[KrazyHorse]

Indeed. It sounds like a middle school history text.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Im surprised someone as usually historically astute as Molly would make such an egregious error as to take the Johnson quote as an accurate sociological description.

Oh good grief.


I don't for one minute suppose that Dr. Johnson (who left a large amount of his estate to his African servant, Francis Barber) had in mind an exhaustive sociological survey of the colonies and who was in favour of independence and who not, when he wrote his pamphlet.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Oh good grief.


I don't for one minute suppose that Dr. Johnson (who left a large amount of his estate to his African servant, Francis Barber) had in mind an exhaustive sociological survey of the colonies and who was in favour of independence and who not, when he wrote his pamphlet.

It would hardly have taken an exhaustive sociological survey to know, for example, that Ben Franklin had founded the first anti-slavery society in North America.
Or that the sugar planters of Jamaica and Barbados were loyal to the king.

Lets face it, even brilliant men can say wrong and unfair things, and Samuel Johnson did.

You at least, must realize that.

[Drake Tungsten]

Indeed. It sounds like a middle school history text.

You read my mind, dude...

[Zkribbler]

Bleechaaa, that's the most disgusting prospect I can think of.

[Blaupanzer]

Neither Ben Franklin nor Samuel Johnson serve as good examples in proving the possibility that the Revolution could have been avoided. Both held views that exacerbated the potential for conflict. However, a significant number of other "patriots" were much more reluctant to take up arms against the King. The English brought the revolution on themselves in the end by deciding on a military solution to what was a political and social crisis.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
...by deciding on a military solution to what was a political and social crisis.

...and financial crisis. Remember, they had a whale of a debt to pay off for the Seven Years War. That's why all the taxing.

[Blaupanzer]

Yes, economic, too. Soldiers don't solve economic crises when attacking their own citizens.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

It would hardly have taken an exhaustive sociological survey to know, for example, that Ben Franklin had founded the first anti-slavery society in North America.
Or that the sugar planters of Jamaica and Barbados were loyal to the king.

Lets face it, even brilliant men can say wrong and unfair things, and Samuel Johnson did.

You at least, must realize that.

What's 'unfair' about his comment ?


Wasn't Jefferson a Virginian ? Didn't he own slaves ? Is he not famous for his defence of the 'natural' and 'essential' liberties of the colonies and the colonists ?

I seem to recall that Patrick Henry and Henry Laurens were from the south too...

In fact, Congress removed part of the original draft of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence which contained material laying the blame on George III (!) for the slave trade.

To Jefferson's recollection, the colonies of South Carolina and Georgia found the passage offensive, as did delegates from the northern colonies, because, in Jefferson's own words:

...for though their people have very few slaves themselves yet they had been pretty considerable carriers.

Well quite- since the Dutch landed slaves there in the early part of the 17th Century.

New York was one of the larger slaveholding areas, the largest north of the Chesapeake, and in Albany and New York City, slaves amounted to 15%- 20% of the population. In fact, New York saw a slave revolt in 1712...


It's calculated that one third of the white population owned at least one slave- the difference being the way that slaves were distributed throughout the more northerly colonies, being house servants, farmhands or working in smithies or at trades, rather than being concentrated in larger numbers as they were on southern plantations.

Ergo, slavery was an institution throughout the American colonies.

According to Gordon S. Wood, in 'The American Revolution- A History' in the chapter 'Republican Society' :

At first, it seemed that slavery might be eliminated even in the South.. More anti-slavery societies existed in the South than in the North, and manumissions became very frequent in the immediate post-Revolutionary period; in Virginia alone the number of free blacks increased from 3 000 in 1780 to 13 000 by 1790.

By the way- Johnson's pamphlet is dated 1775. Franklin became President of the Pennsylvanian Abolition Society in 1787.

And he still owned slaves in 1772...

...that Ben Franklin had founded the first anti-slavery society in North America.

And you're quite sure about this, are you ? Not confusing him with Anthony Benezet, by any chance ?

[KrazyHorse]

It's calculated that one third of the white population owned at least one slave

That's by far the highest figure I've ever seen for that. What's your reference?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

It's calculated that one third of the white population owned at least one slave

That's by far the highest figure I've ever seen for that. What's your reference?

I'm fairly sure it's in Wood's book, but it may also be in 'The Free and the Unfree' by Peter N. Carroll and David W. Noble, publ. Pelican, 2nd ed. 1992 .

The authors are both Yankees, not axe-grinding Canadians or Brits...