American Revolution was a Mistake!!

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Our American revolution caused greater harm to many more people than the few who benefitted from it. Our American revolution made have free the white settlers from their British rulers but cause great harm to the slaves in the old British colony and to Native Americans in the west. The last item is we would have a better governance system if we had stayed with Britain.


But I'm reasonably confident a world in which the revolution never happened would be better than the one we live in now, for three main reasons: Slavery would've been abolished earlier, American Indians would've faced rampant persecution but not the outright ethnic cleansing Andrew Jackson and other American leaders perpetrated, and America would have a parliamentary system of government that makes policymaking easier and lessens the risk of democratic collapse.

The main benefit of the revolution to colonists was that it gave more political power to America's white male minority. For the vast majority of the country — its women, slaves, American Indians — the difference between disenfranchisement in an independent America and disenfranchisement in a British-controlled colonial America was negligible.

Abolition in most of the British Empire occurred in 1834, following the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act. That left out India, but slavery was banned there, too, in 1843. In England itself, slavery was illegal at least going back to 1772. That's decades earlier than the United States.

But all the same, the policy enraged American settlers, who were appalled that the British would seem to side with Indians over white men. "The British government remained willing to conceive of Native Americans as subjects of the crown, similar to colonists," Ethan Schmidt writes in Native Americans in the American Revolution. "American colonists … refused to see Indians as fellow subjects. Instead, they viewed them as obstacles in the way of their dreams of land ownership and trading wealth." This view is reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which attacks King George III for backing "merciless Indian Savages."

And, unsurprisingly, Canada didn't see Indian wars and removals as large and sweeping as occurred in the US. They still committed horrible, indefensible crimes. Canada, under British rule and after, brutally mistreated aboriginal people, not least through government-inflicted famines and the state's horrific seizure of children from their families so they could attend residential schools. But the country didn't experience a westward expansion as violent and deadly as that pursued by the US government and settlers. Absent the revolution, Britain probably would've moved into Indian lands. But fewer people would have died.


Government spending in parliamentary countries is about 5 percent of GDP higher, after controlling for other factors than in presidential countries. If you believe in redistribution, that's very good news indeed.

The Westminister system of parliamentary democracy also benefits from weaker upper houses. The US is saddled with a Senate that gives Wyoming the same power as California, which has more than 66 times as many people. Worse, the Senate is equal in power to the lower, more representative house. Most countries following the British system have upper houses — only New Zealand was wise enough to abolish it — but they're far, far weaker than their lower houses. The Canadian Senate and the House of Lords affect legislation only in rare cases. At most, they can hold things up a bit or force minor tweaks. They aren't capable of obstruction anywhere near the level of the US Senate.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here is a pro and con observation about the American revolution... a bit slated or tilted in favor of the revolt... lol


July 4 is almost over. But there is still time to address claims that history would have taken a better course had the American Revolution failed (or never started). In the United States, such arguments are made mostly by people on the left. This 2015 Vox article by Dylan Matthews is an excellent example. But similar claims are also made by a few libertarians, such as my George Mason University colleague Bryan Caplan, and by some Canadian and British conservatives. Here are the main arguments typically advanced by modern critics of the Revolution (most elaborated at greater length at the links above):
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here are more details of the effects of the revolution... If the revolution had failed the Black Loualist would have been free, Native Americans would have had a reluctant ally in the British, and free enterprise would have been stifled...

.

In the long-term, the Revolution would also have significant effects on the lives of slaves and free blacks as well as the institution of slavery itself. It also affected Native Americans by opening up western settlement and creating governments hostile to their territorial claims. Even more broadly, the Revolution ended the mercantilist economy, opening new opportunities in trade and manufacturing.

The Revolution’s most important long-term economic consequence was the end of mercantilism. The British Empire had imposed various restrictions on the colonial economies including limiting trade, settlement, and manufacturing. The Revolution opened new markets and new trade relationships. The Americans’ victory also opened the western territories for invasion and settlement, which created new domestic markets. Americans began to create their own manufacturers, no longer content to reply on those in Britain.

Native Americans, too, participated in and were affected by the Revolution. Many Native American tribes and confederacies, such as the Shawnee, Creek, Cherokee, and Iroquois, sided with the British. They had hoped for a British victory that would continue to restrain the land-hungry colonial settlers from moving west beyond the Appalachian Mountains. Unfortunately, the Americans’ victory and Native Americans’ support for the British created a pretense for justifying the rapid, and often brutal expansion into the western territories. Native American tribes would continue to be displaced and pushed further west throughout the nineteenth century. Ultimately, American independence marked the beginning of the end of what had remained of Native American independence.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here is an article that shows British and Native American relationships... I think this Royal Proclamation of 1763 did as much as anything to cause our revolution... @diane


The Royal Proclamation of 1763 further alienated the British colonists. Many sought to settle the west, and even Pennsylvania and Virginia had already claimed lands in the region. The proclamation prohibited the colonies from further issuing any grants. Only representatives of the Crown could negotiate land purchases with the Native Americans. Just as France had boxed the colonies into a stretch along the east coast, now George III was doing the same.


Most Indigenous and legal scholars recognize the Royal Proclamation as an important first step toward the recognition of existing Aboriginal rights and title, including the right to self-determination. In this regard, the Royal Proclamation is sometimes called “the Indian Magna Carta.” The Royal Proclamation set a foundation for the process of establishing treaties. For example, treaty-making typically involved presence of both parties — the First Nation and the government, for there to be some form of consent between the two, and for the First Nation to be compensated for any lands or resources taken. However, the Royal Proclamation was designed and written by British colonists without Aboriginal input, and clearly establishes a monopoly over Aboriginal lands by the British Crown.


The Royal Proclamation continues to be of legal importance to First Nations in Canada, being the first legal recognition of aboriginal title, rights and freedoms, and is recognized in the Canadian Constitution of 1982, in part as a result of direct action by indigenous peoples of Canada, known as the Constitution Express movement of 1981–1982.[4]
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here is a look at the Native American relationship with the British and Americans during the revolution...


The framing of the American Revolution through the eyes of Native Americans has always been plagued with bias and misinformation. For historians and students, much of this is no fault of their own. Tribal groups rarely wrote anything down or kept records, and events are often depicted markedly one-sided by European narrators.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here is something from the Smithsonian that is related... Myths... more Myths to read...


Actually, the British cabinet, made up of nearly a score of ministers, first considered resorting to military might as early as January 1774, when word of the Boston Tea Party reached London. (Recall that on December 16, 1773, protesters had boarded British vessels in Boston Harbor and destroyed cargoes of tea, rather than pay a tax imposed by Parliament.) Contrary to popular belief both then and now, Lord North’s government did not respond impulsively to the news. Throughout early 1774, the prime minister and his cabinet engaged in lengthy debate on whether coercive actions would lead to war. A second question was considered as well: Could Britain win such a war?

But as the colonists discovered how difficult and dangerous military service could be, enthusiasm waned. Many men preferred to remain home, in the safety of what Gen. George Washington described as their “Chimney Corner.” Early in the war, Washington wrote that he despaired of “compleating the army by Voluntary Inlistments.” Mindful that volunteers had rushed to enlist when hostilities began, Washington predicted that “after the first emotions are over,” those who were willing to serve from a belief in the “goodness of the cause” would amount to little more than “a drop in the Ocean.” He was correct. As 1776 progressed, many colonies were compelled to entice soldiers with offers of cash bounties, clothing, blankets and extended furloughs or enlistments shorter than the one-year term of service established by Congress.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
I like to point out the British were taxing to pay for the colonies' defense and pay for a war that saved us from the French...


The attempts by Britain to tax its North American colonists in the late 1700s led to arguments, war, the expulsion of British rule and the creation of a new nation. The origins of these attempts lay, however, not in a rapacious government, but in the aftermath of the Seven Years' War. Britain was attempting to both balance its finances and control the newly acquired parts of its empire, through asserting sovereignty. These actions were complicated by British prejudice against the Americans.

In addition, the war had revealed that the existing colonies needed defense against Britain’s enemies, and Britain believed that defense would be best provided by a fully trained regular army, not just colonial militias. To this end, the post-war government of Britain, with a major lead taken by King George III, decided to permanently station units of the British army in America. Keeping this army, however, would require money.

It appeared to the British government that a few new taxes to pay for their garrison should be easily absorbed. Indeed, they had to be absorbed, because there simply didn’t seem to be any other way of paying for the army. Few in Britain expected the colonists to have protection and not pay for it themselves.

No one in the British government appears to have asked if colonial troops could have garrisoned America, or if Britain should ask the colonists for financial aid instead of voting in taxes above their heads. This was partly the case because the British government thought it was learning a lesson from the French-Indian War: that the colonial government would only work with Britain if they could see a profit, and that colonial soldiers were unreliable and undisciplined because they operated under rules different from those of the British army. In fact, these prejudices were based on British interpretations of the early part of the war, where cooperation between the politically poor British commanders and the colonial governments had been tense, if not hostile.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here is the next big thing that leads to the revolution was the Navigational acts there were many over the decades... It regulated the trade of the colonies... which the colonies hated and turned to smuggling...


The Navigation Acts, or more broadly the Acts of Trade and Navigation, were a long series of English laws that developed, promoted, and regulated English ships, shipping, trade, and commerce between other countries and with its own colonies. The laws also regulated England's fisheries and restricted foreigners' participation in its colonial trade.[1] While based on earlier precedents, they were first enacted in 1651 under the Commonwealth.


In England, the Navigation Acts had clear benefits. In addition to creating decades of economic upswing, the Navigation Acts turned English port cities into hubs of commerce thanks to the exclusion of foreign shippers. London, in particular, benefited from the Navigation Acts, and the eventual rapid growth of the Royal Navy helped England become a maritime superpower in the seventeenth century.

In the American colonies, however, the Navigation Acts led to significant upheaval. The colonists felt unrepresented by Parliament, and although most of the Acts had little effect on the average colonist, they drastically affected the livelihoods of merchants. As a result, merchants vocally protested the laws. The Navigation Acts are considered one of the direct causes of the American Revolution.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here is a little more on the Royal Proclamation of 1763...


The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was very unpopular with the colonists. For those living in the colonies, creating a boundary was not helpful because it did not address some of their biggest problems with the War. Colonial blood had been shed to fight the French and Indians, and many felt they had the right to go settle on the land that was won. In addition, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 did not account for American colonists who had already settled in the West.

Since the end of the War, colonial governments had started planning an expansion into the new western territory. In fact, this had become a big political issue among colonists. Now they were being asked to restrict their desires to expand and explore. This angered the colonists. They felt the Proclamation was a plot to keep them under the strict control of England and that the British only wanted them east of the mountains so they could keep an eye on them. As a result, colonists rebelled against this law just like they did with the mercantile laws. They took scores of wagons westward toward the Ohio Valley. They believed that if they acted together, it would be nearly impossible for the British to enforce their new law.

The fight between the colonists and the British over enforcement of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was one of many political battles between the British and their subjects in America. The colonists did not feel the law respected their needs for growth, so they ignored the Proclamation and headed forth into the west.
 

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
I can't imagine the Proclamation line would have been permanent. Too much land for the taking. Almost impossible to enforce. It's against the nature of empire.

Parliamentary system of government has some advantages, like encouraging cooperation because of the need for coalition government, but it is not one I'm keen on overall.
 

Matt McKeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,602
I think 5fish, you have a rosy view of what the British Empire was about.

It wasn't about protecting native rights.

The Navigation Acts were very porous and smuggling was wide spread. It still produced two million pounds revenue for Britain. An interesting contnrast with the Stamp Act and other taxes, which cost more to collect than they produced in tax revenue.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here is another case our American Revolution was an unjust war. I pointed out the British wanted the colonies to pay their way and the colonies wanted to be freeloaders...


Put in perspective, since 2001 the United States has spent $1.1 trillion, or about 7 percent of one year's gross domestic product, on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Seven Years War, as the French and Indian War is more widely known, with 100,000 British soldiers in the field—more than 20,000 of whom saw service in America—and 75,000 seamen serving in the Royal Navy meant the government went deep into debt to advance the struggle. Three out of every four dollars spent by the British Government directly helped secure a military victory, while borrowing from Dutch and British bankers drove the national debt from £75 million to £133 million. In today's world, used to near trillion-dollar annual deficits, the figures seem tame, but for the time they were extraordinary. The interest alone on the loans took 40 percent of Britain's tax revenue. The situation was unsustainable, and if left unaddressed, Great Britain faced defaulting on its bills, in effect, becoming bankrupt

Or was there something else? Had the war and the huge cost borne by Britain not been fought to bring Indian raids on the American frontier—encouraged by the French—to an end? Had the victory not ensured freedom from the threat of Catholic French rule that drove terror into colonial hearts?

But soon after the Peace of Paris, there was uproar. England proposed that the colonists provide $60,000 to cover a share of the $200,000 required to maintain a standing army to police the frontier. So, had the fear that the colonists felt for their survival evaporated? It seems unlikely, since Pontiac's Indian war was raging and the French were still on the west bank of the Mississippi. What went wrong?

To an outsider, a one-third colonist and two-thirds Great Britain split of the costs appears reasonable, even though it did involve the dreaded "T" word. At the time, taxes in Britain amounted to a punitive 26 shillings per head per annum. There were taxes on land, on houses—based on the number of windows—offices, carriages, newspapers, spirits, tobacco, and beer, to name but a few. When in 1763 the authorities slapped a tax on cider, there were riots. By comparison, in colonial America taxation per capita has been estimated at one shilling per annum, hardly "crushingly oppressive," in the rhetoric of the day. So when the 1764 Sugar Act and the Stamp Act of 1765 were introduced, were the colonists making excuses to dodge the check?
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,185
Reaction score
3,438
they won't take you back!
  • boris migh be for it (britannia unchained and all that)
  • richi won't have it (where should he go after been thrown out of no 10?)
you do know that 'defending' against the natives can be done a lot cheaper when the hq is not in london?
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
You even before we were a nation we were making trade agreements with other nations. These agreements kind of correspond with nations recognizing our independence...

The First Nation to recognize us as independent was????

.

On December 20, 1777, the Kingdom of Morocco became the first country in the world to recognize United States independence, only a year and a half after the U.S. Declaration of Independence was issued.


The Model Treaty was a template for commercial treaties that the United States Continental Congress sought to make with France and Spain in order to secure assistance in the struggle against the British in the American Revolution. Congress approved the treaty on September 17, 1776.


A link...

Free Trade, Privateering and the Treaty of Amity and


This is a list of nations by when they recognized the United States.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here is the British view...

 
Top