Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by lord of the mark


As had ports in GB, IIRC from Braudel. Smuggling was common on both sides of the pond, in all countries. Many of the sea dogs England/Britain was most proud of smuggled to the Spanish colonies.

Given the restrictiveness of the Navigation acts, its not suprising there was smuggling.

So not only do the American colonists trade with the enemy in a time of war, keeping the enemy economy afloat, they evade paying indirect taxation and expect the British in the United Kingdom to foot the bill for protecting the colonists from the Catholic powers they fear so much.

Did they want jam with it too ?

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by lord of the mark


There are few signs of discontent with the status quo before 1763.

Not a shock given the existence of two Catholic powers on the same continent as the mainly Protestant colonists.

Until the end of the Seven Years' War the colonial oligarchs were more scared of what France or Spain might do militarily than they were of the British customs and excise.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by molly bloom



So not only do the American colonists trade with the enemy in a time of war, keeping the enemy economy afloat, they evade paying indirect taxation and expect the British in the United Kingdom to foot the bill for protecting the colonists from the Catholic powers they fear so much.

Did they want jam with it too ?

1. The post 1763 payments were predominantly to for Brit forces in NA after 1763, when, as you state below, the geographic situation in NA had changed dramatically.

2. To Americans (and their sympathizers in the UK), they had contributed to the war effort against the French by raising, paying for, and supplying, their OWN militia units. And of course the British forces did not fight the French for the benefit of the colonists, but for the benefit of the Britain.

Indeed so focused was Brit policy on the benefit of resident of Great Britain, and a certain class of residents of GB at that, the HMG seriously considered in th early 1770s cutting off emigration from Great Britain to North America, in order to prevent increases in wages and decline in rents in GB. Fortunately they decided to first implement a data gathering exercise, which has provided us a cornucopia of information on the migration in that period (the war broke out before that info could be digested by HMG) See Bernard Bailyn, The Peopling of the New World

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by molly bloom


Not a shock given the existence of two Catholic powers on the same continent as the mainly Protestant colonists.

Until the end of the Seven Years' War the colonial oligarchs were more scared of what France or Spain might do militarily than they were of the British customs and excise.

The other factor was that the navigation acts were not seriously enforced earlier, and there was no major attempt to impose taxes other than customs.

Oh, and a large part of the colonial oligarchy remained loyal, while much patriot sentiment was in fact working class and small farmers, despite the fact that in some colonies, such as Virginia, the oligarchs went with the patriot party, as they generally did not in the north or the deep south. The class split in this period was the staple of american revolutionary war historiagraphy from 1910 or so to the '40s, but went out of fashion during the cold war.

I am thinking particularly of the work of Carl Becker ("Home rule, or who should rule at home?") but also Jameson, Turner, and Beard.

[lord of the mark]

even reading a recent work like Ellis' "Founding Brothers" reminds one of the ties between the conservative Federalist Party and the ex-loyalists.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
even reading a recent work like Ellis' "Founding Brothers" reminds one of the ties between the conservative Federalist Party and the ex-loyalists.

Remember our first political parties were born because Hamilton wanted to have a Bank of the United States patterned after the Bank of England while Jefferson wanted no part of such a monarchial idea.

Hamilton became the head of what was to be the Federalist Party while Jefferson founded the Republican Party (later called the Democratic Party).

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. The post 1763 payments were predominantly to for Brit forces in NA after 1763, when, as you state below, the geographic situation in NA had changed dramatically.

Care to give us a breakdown ? Otherwise that's just an evidence-less assertion on your part.

The primary thrust behind the revision of North American colonial customs duties and taxation was to pay for costs incurred by the British in the Seven Years' War:

The second problem was that of defence, past and future. The central government had spent vast sums in fighting the recent war; sums much larger than could be covered by current revenue.

The colonial governments- some of them, at least- had similarly spent large sums in proportion to their local revenue; but for more than half of this expenditure, they had been reimbursed by the central government.

'The First American Revolt' in 'Trade and Dominion' by J. H. Parry.

See also L. H. Gipson, 'The British Empire Before The American Revolution' for the details of this subsidizing and reimbursement of colonial expenditure, which was without precedent in the other European colonial empires.

2. To Americans (and their sympathizers in the UK), they had contributed to the war effort against the French by raising, paying for, and supplying, their OWN militia units.

One would hope so. The colonists were the ones supposedly scared of the Catholic powers and their Indian allies in North America after all.

Of course, they were also the ones supplying the privateers in Martinique with provisions. The illicit colonial trade with Louisbourg in French North America and with the French islands in the West Indies had actually given the enemy material help in the Seven Years' War.

In any case, it could hardly be claimed that the colonies particpated wholeheartedly in their defence- local self-interest had in fact prevented proper wider coordination of military forces against the French and their Indian allies.

The other factor was that the navigation acts were not seriously enforced earlier, and there was no major attempt to impose taxes other than customs.

The Navigation Acts had been enforced but with varying degrees of success.

Again, as with the illegal trade with the enemy in time of war, local elected magistrates had connived at the evasion of customs duties or failed to punish the guilty.

Far from being as restrictive as you suggested, the Acts had provided a spur to the shipbuilding industry of New England and were instrumental in providing a central government subsidy for the North American indigo dye industry.

Oh, and a large part of the colonial oligarchy remained loyal

I'm aware of this. Loyalty to the Crown was affected by local conditions obtaining in the various colonies.

Minorities often adhered to the Crown- Anglicans in New England, ethnic minorities and tenant farmers in New York, western settlers in North Carolina, slaves for the Crown and against rebellious slaveowners.

Many of the sea dogs England/Britain was most proud of smuggled to the Spanish colonies.

I'm puzzled by your earlier comment.

The situations and actions and motivations of Drake and Hawkins in the conflict with Spain in the 16trh Century are hardly analogous with the profit motives of New England merchants in the 18th Century.