Could the American Revolution have been Avoided?

[lord of the mark]

"The fact was that slaveholding in the colonies, including the loyal west indies colonies, as well as the the 13 colonies, was legal, and there was nothing in British law that made it illegal in those places. The british govt had done NOTHING to interfere with slavery in those places, and had even interfered with attempts in some of those colonies to limit the slave trade. "


"Johnson was not responsible for the British government, nor did he create the sugar plantations. This is all irrelevant."


Its relevant to the charge of hypocrisy. If X is trying to change Y, then accusing X of hypocrisy for benefiting from Z, when Z is not an issue of controversy, when its the accepted way of doing things, IS misleading and unfair. Almost any attempt to create social change could be ridiculed on that ground - for example slaveholders later attacked their liberal opponents in England and the Northern US for permitting oppressive conditions in factories. The reality of social progress is that the people advocating it are often NOT pure - its still a step forward. Which may be why Johnson, despite his reactionary politics, did NOT make the accusation of hypocrisy central to his case against the colonies, but simply used it as a throwaway line. But to try to belittle the founding fathers for say, not perceiving the justice of virtual representation, or accepting that soveriiegnty by its nature cant be limited, doesnt go very far these days, the only part of Johnsons polemic that gets quoted is the hypocrisy charge.


Well repeat it as often as you like. It wont change the fact that Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin were great men who advanced the cause of human liberty.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Originally posted by molly bloom

I had thought Odin was quoting somebody else.

Are you suggesting Odin was around in 1776 or earlier ? This could prove of some scientific interest.

The words were not original to Odin, but he used them IIUC to express his own sentiment in response to KH.

He did ?

I recognised them from my history studies. He didn't have to say they're by so and so, or attribute them, you know. It's quite a well known saying, even outside the United States... you know, like 'I have a dream', 'Ich bin ein Berliner', and such.

Now Johnson's writings I reasoned might not have such immediate recognition factor, so I attributed them.

A rhetorical throwaway, not even germane to most of whats in the polemic.

That's your opinion.

Certainly not worth quoting repeatedly.

I believe I have quoted it but a single time in this thread. I used part of it in a paraphrase. You have a peculiar idea of repitition...

Because, as you yourself said, the quote implies they were hypocrites, which, given the assumptions of their own time, and the struggles of some them (notably Jefferson and Franklin) had with slavery, they were not.

The quote doesn't imply it, it states it. If you say that all men are created equal, then either you believe all men are, or you don't. If you don't believe that 'negroes are men' or that Roman Catholics are equal to Protestants, then clearly all men are not equal.

Jefferson had a mighty struggle with his own hypocrisy about slavery:

I have made enquiries on the subject of the negro boy you brought, and find that the laws of France give him freedom if he claims it, and that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to interrupt the course of the law.

I have known an instance where a person bringing in a slave, and saying nothing about it, has not been disturbed in his possession.

[...] ... the young negro will not probably... think of claiming his freedom.

Thomas Jefferson to Paul Bentalou, 1786

Jefferson may have had his slave, James Hemings, at the forefront of his mind when he wrote this.

I dont know what you think,

You're darn tootin'.

...but some of your readers might get that impression (that I think Johnson was some kind of libertarian)

How, exactly ? That's plain nonsense and entirely unsupported by anything of his that I've quoted or anything that I've said about him. When in doubt clearly :

attempt to besmirch

I think reading Ned's nonsense is rubbing off on you.

If he was attacking anyone who opposed that govt, not only the colonists but English radicals as well, then to some extent he WAS responsible for it.

Rubbish.

Was he a minister ?

Did he elect of his own accord all of the ministers in that government ?

Using that specious kind of argument, then anyone who lived in the British colonies and bought products from the West Indies supported slavery, whether they were abolitionists or not.

And that includes all those pious New Englanders, shipping molasses and rum from West Indian slave plantations, in ships made by slaves, from wood hewn by slaves, clad in rope made by slaves, and held together with nails fashioned by slaves.

Johnson was responsible for his own actions, not those of the government.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

"Johnson was not responsible for the British government, nor did he create the sugar plantations. This is all irrelevant."


Its relevant to the charge of hypocrisy.

No it isn't.

Does Johnson say- ' Compare these yelpers after liberty with the wonderful slaveholding sugar plantation owners whose morals and ethics I find spotless, and whose ownership of human beings I find entirely commendable' ?


So far, you haven't shown anyone what Johnson thought about the West Indian sugar plantations, or if he even knew what conditions there were like.

Perhaps after his exhaustive survey of colonial American society, you think he should have taken a jaunt to the Caribbean too...

But to try to belittle the founding fathers for say, not perceiving the justice of virtual representation, or accepting that soveriiegnty by its nature cant be limited, doesnt go very far these days,

You keep repeating this: that I'm trying to 'besmirch' or 'belittle' the Founding Fathers.

I haven't done so to the best of my knowledge. I've simply shown in their own words, what they thought about 'negroes' and what they thought about liberty, and to whom liberty should be extended.

"it always appeared a most iniquitous scheme to me to fight ourselves for what we are daily robbing and plundering from those who have as good a right to freedom as we have."

Abigail Adams, September 22nd, 1774,

and

Does it follow that 'tis right to enslave a man because he is black ?

James Otis, 1764

Well repeat it as often as you like.

Thanks, but I felt that once was more than sufficient.

[Dr Strangelove]

Suppose that Parliament and Crown had decided to open the Ohio valley to settlement and had not imposed new taxes on the colonies. I think that there still might have been unrest in the colonies. There were a number of people who harbored a grudge against England anyway. Many Scottish immigrants had been unfairly treated by the English after the rebellion in Scotland. They were stripped of their ancestoral lands and forced to find a new life elsewhere. One of the great rabblerousers of the pre-revolutionary days, Samuel Adams, would have found something to blame on the English anyway. Sam Adams blamed the government for ruining his father.

In some ways the American Revolution was a conflict waged in proxy for another struggle ongoing in England, a struggle to limit the role of the monarchy in the governing of Great Britain.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


In some ways the American Revolution was a conflict waged in proxy for another struggle ongoing in England, a struggle to limit the role of the monarchy in the governing of Great Britain.

I'd say that George III's role in the actual governing of Great Britain was limited anyway; the monarch was there really only on the sufferance of Parliament, and this had been the case since The Glorious Revolution of 1688.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Sure it could have. Open up the west to white settlers and land speculators. Don't tax the colonies that much. Bingo, the King reigns supreme.

It was actually the 13 colonies that insisted on the neutralization of New France. The Crown agreed, but they naturally handed them the bill (80m pounds).

I doubt that a king who can't finance his endeavours is reigning 'supreme'.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I'd say that George III's role in the actual governing of Great Britain was limited anyway; the monarch was there really only on the sufferance of Parliament, and this had been the case since The Glorious Revolution of 1688.

But there were still those who contested the supremacy of Parliament. After all, the end result each time Parliament removed a monarch was that another had to be found as a replacement. History had shown that Britain could not be governed without a monarch. The alternative had been tyranny, i.e., Cromwell.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


It was actually the 13 colonies that insisted on the neutralization of New France. The Crown agreed, but they naturally handed them the bill (80m pounds).

I doubt that a king who can't finance his endeavours is reigning 'supreme'.

No one griped about the crown annexing New France, it was the fact that it reserved the area for agents of the Hudson Company that irritated the colonists. The agreement was that there was to be no settlement west of the ridges of the Alleghanies. Ostensably that was the crown's keeping its bargain with its native subjects, but the real reason was that the Hudson Bay Company wanted the area reserved for its agents to procure furs from the natives. The crown was a major investor in the Hudson Bay Company. The colonies on the other hand profited the crown very little. After the Seven Years War many continental nations banned tobacco. France, Spain and Holland banned it because it was a British product. The Holy Roman Empire and some other nations banned it because the monarch thought it to be a nasty habit. Consequently the American colonies really didn't contribute much to the economy of the empire. Cotton was just beginning to catch on. England and the continent did not yet need American foodstuffs. By the end of the century American lumber would become crucial in the building of the navy, but was not needed yet.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


But there were still those who contested the supremacy of Parliament. After all, the end result each time Parliament removed a monarch was that another had to be found as a replacement. History had shown that Britain could not be governed without a monarch. The alternative had been tyranny, i.e., Cromwell.

Well that's not quite how the Glorious Revolution turned out- the new monarchs accepted an invitation from the real power- which was Parliament backed by the City of London.

This time, the previous king did not need to be executed, although a war of sorts had to be fought. The new monarch now 'ruled' through the consent of the people as represented by Parliament, but the real legislative power was to be invested in Parliament and cabinet government.

The Bill of Rights which the monarch had to agree to, contained these checks on any tyrannically minded king or queen:

i) no monarch could ascend the throne without the express consent of Parliament;

ii) the king or queen would be subject to all the laws of England;

iii) any Catholic was debarred from the English throne.

By George III's time, Parliament was the ruler- George could use influence or Royal patronage, but in no sense was he a monarch in the way that Charles I or James II had tried to be. The courts and Parliament governed.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


No one griped about the crown annexing New France, it was the fact that it reserved the area for agents of the Hudson Company that irritated the colonists. The agreement was that there was to be no settlement west of the ridges of the Alleghanies. Ostensably that was the crown's keeping its bargain with its native subjects, but the real reason was that the Hudson Bay Company wanted the area reserved for its agents to procure furs from the natives. The crown was a major investor in the Hudson Bay Company. The colonies on the other hand profited the crown very little. After the Seven Years War many continental nations banned tobacco. France, Spain and Holland banned it because it was a British product. The Holy Roman Empire and some other nations banned it because the monarch thought it to be a nasty habit. Consequently the American colonies really didn't contribute much to the economy of the empire. Cotton was just beginning to catch on. England and the continent did not yet need American foodstuffs. By the end of the century American lumber would become crucial in the building of the navy, but was not needed yet.

Interesting precision. Now the question would be, did the Crown reserve the land for the Hudson Bay Company as a retaliation for the colonies refusing to pay the bill, or was it their intent from the beginning?

[Dr Strangelove]

The crown prohibited settlement beyond the Alleghanies shortly after the end of the Seven Years ( French and Indian ) War. IIRC the first of the hated taxes weren't levied until nearly a decade after the end of the war.