|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: US Revolution was English Civil War II etc
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
To avoid derailing the other thread any further:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't believe there is any serious argument of that. All of your historical claims are disputed, you've just laid out a view of history and vaguely linked it to conditions in the USA. Your knowledge of history is poor and the link is tenuous.
I said 'there is an argument' - and there is, I've heard it said and have read comments to that effect. It doesn't mean that I agree with that argument.
Go on then, give a reasoned argument a) why that is an argument and b) a reference of someone who makes this claim.
Note that just saying there is a historical argument about something does not mean there is one.
quote:
There are parallels and echoes, but whether the links are any more than tenuous is a moot point.
Not really. Show your working and your sources and we'll talk about it.
quote:
Parallels have certainly been suggested between the situation in 1688 when RC officers replaced Protestant ones in various militias in this country - leading to a certain jumpiness that James II was going to use the militias to put down dissent ... and the situation in the Colonies in 1776.
By whom and when?
quote:
I'm not saying that's definitely the case. All I'm saying is that the American Revolution didn't happen in a vacuum -- as well as drawing on models and antecedents from classical antiquity, the Founding Fathers drew on historical precedents and rhetoric about individual freedoms and rights from British history. How could they not have done?
Well for a start it was a certain kind of person who went to the colonies, there is not necessarily a connection between the official behaviours of the Crown in England and the behaviours of the Revolutionary leaders in the USA.
It is a point for you to prove, not just make assertions.
quote:
I was posting in a rather broad-brush and rather flippant way and certainly wasn't laying out any kind of historical manifesto for scrutiny.
Right. Maybe you shouldn't. Now, address these points please.
quote:
I don't claim to be an historian - but I have studied aspects of British political satire in the late 18th century - mostly in connection with the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars - rather than the earlier American War of Independence - although I did have a quick look into that.
That's good, we should have an interesting discussion then.
quote:
I've been more than happy to accept your corrections and clarifications on the location of Chi-Rho monograms and Romano-British artefacts over on the 'oldest church' thread, mr cheesy - but I must admit I find your picky and carping tone rather tiresome at times.
I have started a thread in hell, see me there to discuss this latter point.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not saying that's definitely the case. All I'm saying is that the American Revolution didn't happen in a vacuum -- as well as drawing on models and antecedents from classical antiquity, the Founding Fathers drew on historical precedents and rhetoric about individual freedoms and rights from British history. How could they not have done?
When one considers the complaints about the king contained in the Declaration of Independence and the English writers who were very influential on our Founding Fathers, sure.
Mr Cheesy said quote:
Well for a start it was a certain kind of person who went to the colonies, there is not necessarily a connection between the official behaviours of the Crown in England and the behaviours of the Revolutionary leaders in the USA.
While I'm no sure what you mean by "certain kind of person", the Declaration of Independence strongly suggests, even indicates to my mind, that there certainly was a connection between the behavior of the crown and the behavior of the the leaders of the revolution. It's why they revolted.
About all I can say about "certain kind of person" is that King George was a square and our Founding Fathers were groovy.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
While I'm no sure what you mean by "certain kind of person", the Declaration of Independence strongly suggests, even indicates to my mind, that there certainly was a connection between the behavior of the crown and the behavior of the the leaders of the revolution. It's why they revolted.
Agreed, but were they associated with the Parliamentary side of the English civil war? To suggest that there was a straight line from the one to the other, there would need to be a strong connection between the participants.
Also worth saying that an interpretation of Magna Carta certainly influenced the USA's founding fathers, but there is a lot of questions about whether anyone else had this kind of interpretation - or whether it is related to views held by Parliamentary forces in the English Civil War.
quote:
About all I can say about "certain kind of person" is that King George was a square and our Founding Fathers were groovy.
Seems fair to me.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
I don't recall ever reading or hearing that the English civil war had anything to do with the thinking behind our revolt. The DOC seems to just talk about how George was treating the colonists in a nasty fashion.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The reason people say they did something and the reason they actually did something might, just might, be in conflict.
ETA: Nasty? Please help pay for the war you started and we didn't really need is nasty?
[ 24. June 2015, 15:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The reason people say they did something and the reason they actually did something might, just might, be in conflict.
No doubt, but we did have a legit beef with George.
quote:
ETA: Nasty? Please help pay for the war you started and we didn't really need is nasty?
What war is that? I'm regarded as mild-mannered and try to get along with folks.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The French and Indian War, I presume. Not that this itself happened in a vacuum in North America: it was in part at least the North American theatre of the Seven Years War.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[QUOTE]
When one considers the complaints about the king contained in the Declaration of Independence and the English writers who were very influential on our Founding Fathers, sure. quote:
Well yes, that's what I had in mind and all I had in mind. I wasn't arguing for direct causation or correlation.
I've not heard anyone seriously suggest that there was but I've certainly seen comments about the US Revolution being a 'British Civil War' as much as anything else - and there was even a Cambridge history model recently - people can Google it if they wish - which dealt with that issue.
I've also heard the War of Independence / Revolution referred to as 'The English Civil War Round 2' - but with a bit of a sparkle in the eye when it was said.
As I pointed out - parallels and echoes have been suggested. That's all. I'm not saying any more than that - nor did I on the thread that mr cheesy took so much exception to.
If he'd have given me a bit of space to make my point clearer instead of going off on one and starting a Civil War here with me then perhaps we could have all moved on ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
As I understand it, the French and Indian war as triggered in large part by the colonists desire to expand. Yeah, it is more involved than just this.
As far as the colonist's beef with Britain, what was that?
There is a myth in America about a populist uprising against unfair treatment.
Really, just before the war began, the sentiments for separation were roughly split by thirds. One third each for rebel, maintain loyalty and bugger off, you lot, I just want to farm. So, not so populist.
So, really, it was a few people who had most to lose with the new taxes, rousing the ire of a portion of the population who would end up no better, and likely worse, after independence. And doing so against a larger portion who would rather everyone just calm down.
Read here.
Really, it is rather like a person borrowing money to buy a house. Then, after years of partial payments and missing payments, the bank reduces the payment amount but insists it get paid. In response to which, the borrower fortifies his house and shoots at the loan officer.
To make matters worse, instead of outlining the problems, the colonial representatives lie and say "Oh sorry, that was just a bunch of nutters, everything is alright".
Not saying there were no legitimate issues, major events are rarely completely one-sided. But it wasn't Evil King George against the noble colonists.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
The English Civil War II is usually thought of as the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
I believe it's generally thought that the Founding Fathers of the US were influenced by John Locke, whose political writings were largely justifications of the Glorious Revolution. There's some argument that earlier writers such as James Harrington who wrote into the Civil War itself were also influential on American republican thinking.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But it wasn't Evil King George against the noble colonists.
Yes, it was with the possible exception of his simply being mentally unstable due to being raised from birth with the silly notion he will be my king because he was born.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There's also the view that Parliament was as much to blame as the King for digging their heels in when the Colonists made reasonable demands. But it was Parliament who finally called for an end to the War on the grounds of expense.
Poor old King George did suffer from periodic bouts of insanity. I'm not sure that believing oneself to be the anointed King is any crazier than the Colonists' apparent belief that they had a God-given right to own slaves. All men are created equal and are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unless they have a difgerent skin colour ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure that believing oneself to be the anointed King is any crazier than the Colonists' apparent belief that they had a God-given right to own slaves.
Well, at least one of us has dropped a bad idea.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
We ditched that one before you did. The other remains relatively harmless and brings in tourist revenue.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Many High Church Episcopalians secretly pray for our rightful king every Sunday.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Many High Church Episcopalians secretly pray for our rightful king every Sunday.
Which rightful King? The Duke of Bavaria?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, Beeswax Altar, I was surprised to find High Church US Episcopalians online who are as, if not more, Monarchist than any of the most ardent monarchists I've come across here.
I think you'll find, though, that they'll be praying for our current sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II rather than any King, 'rightful' or otherwise.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Many High Church Episcopalians secretly pray for our rightful king every Sunday.
Which rightful King? The Duke of Bavaria?
Ahhh...you too secretly pray for the rightful King? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The rightful King of England is the Duke of Beaufort
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Beeswax Altar, I was surprised to find High Church US Episcopalians online who are as, if not more, Monarchist than any of the most ardent monarchists I've come across here.
My grandmother, who is British-born and emigrated here in her teens, insisted for years that not only was monarchy the only good way ever for Britain to ever be, but that almost all Britons agreed. This was back when the monarchy was particularly scandal-ridden, so there was definitely disagreement, but she argued this with her English step-mother until my great grandmother had the good sense to drop it and go to the pub. She finally left the Episcopal church because of +Gene Robinson; she insisted that his election broke communion with the CoE.
[ 25. June 2015, 13:15: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, that makes sense Gwai. What I find less easy to understand is the apparent fixation with monarchy than some High Church Episcopalians - or the 'Continuing' version - appear to have when their ancestors seem to have settled in the US a lot further back.
I mean, I can understand someone who migrated from here in their teens having some kind of misty-eyed fondness for the Monarchy, alongside afternoon tea, scones and jam, cricket or whatever else -- proper hand-pulled cask ale, say -- but I find it puzzling and bizarre to hear 'Piskies who've had no family connections with the UK for years and years waxing lyrical about monarchist systems as opposed to republican ones.
Unless they are simply using it as yet another stick with which to beat Obama ... seeing as he seems to be blamed for almost everything that goes wrong over there at the moment ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I remember when Diana Princess of Wales died. The media coverage was massive. I was watching the local news on TV and the news announcer said, "... and there is going to be a memorial service tomorrow for her at Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax, VA." I am on the Altar Guild, and had not heard of a service. They need us to set the table! I phoned the head of the Altar Guild. She hadn't heard of a service either. I said, "We are going to have one. It was on TV!"
It turned out that the Rector had it set up with the British expat community, and hadn't come around to telling us. We hustled a team together to do the vessels and linens. The sanctuary was packed, and as I sat in the pew I saw the TV cameras, pressed against the glass outside and filming us.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I find it puzzling and bizarre to hear 'Piskies who've had no family connections with the UK for years and years waxing lyrical about monarchist systems as opposed to republican ones.
Unless they are simply using it as yet another stick with which to beat Obama ...
I've seen it used to beat up George W Bush on the grounds that Charles may have no qualifications for the job other than that he has the right family, but at least nobody is under any illusions about it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, that makes sense Gwai. What I find less easy to understand is the apparent fixation with monarchy than some High Church Episcopalians - or the 'Continuing' version - appear to have when their ancestors seem to have settled in the US a lot further back.
I mean, I can understand someone who migrated from here in their teens having some kind of misty-eyed fondness for the Monarchy, alongside afternoon tea, scones and jam, cricket or whatever else -- proper hand-pulled cask ale, say -- but I find it puzzling and bizarre to hear 'Piskies who've had no family connections with the UK for years and years waxing lyrical about monarchist systems as opposed to republican ones.
Unless they are simply using it as yet another stick with which to beat Obama ... seeing as he seems to be blamed for almost everything that goes wrong over there at the moment ...
One, I was kidding. Supporting your claim, high churchman, including Samuel Seabury, were loyalists during the American Revolution. However, Samuel Seabury remained in the United States and pledged fidelity to the United States. The Nonjuror Primus of Scotland consecrated Seabury after he promised to promote the communion rite in the Scottish Prayer Book over the one contained in the 1662 BCP. I see no reason why they wouldn't have also asked him to pray for a restoration of a Stuart monarch as well. Of course, Seabury would have to keep that a secret. Hey, Dan Brown makes a lot of money off this kind of conjecture. Tom Hanks would do a fine job playing Samuel Seabury.
Two, some traditional conservatives in the United States are monarchists and for the same reason that European conservatives used to be monarchists. Returning to your original premise, if the American Revolution was English Civil War II or III, then the United States has no conservative intellectual tradition only two competing versions of liberalism. What are conservatives to do? Well, some try to piece one together. For the best attempt at that, see Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind. Others throw their hands up and admit that the whole project was poisoned from the start and come out in support of a monarchy. And, if you support a monarchy, you'll probably go with a version of Christianity most compatible with it such as Traditional Roman Catholicism, High Church Anglicanism/Anglo-Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodox. You will also come to hate France.
Three, some High Church Episcopalians prefer the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. Taking that to the extreme means praying for the monarch. If you are serious in that prayer, you must at least give lip service to the idea of the monarchy. Now, this is a fringe of a fringe group.
Four, the Dark Enlightenment...
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I knew you were kidding, Beeswax Altar and I was gently kidding in return - although I do recognise the tendency of some US Episcopalians to act as if they're some kind of 'more British than thou' Fifth Column who've been left behind after 1783 like those Japanese soldiers on Pacific Islands after 1945.
I think you're right about the tendency of some forms of High Church spirituality to incline towards Monarchy -- but I've found some US Orthodox, for instance, to be as strongly Republican - in the non-monarchist sense - as their Protestant counterparts.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I am still not sure what this thread is supposed to be about; this seems to happen sometimes when a thread is spun off from the middle of another thread.
My comment is that the American Revolution was probably not simply a rebellion against the concept of monarchy. I see nothing to suggest that if George III had suddenly yielded most of his power to Parliament and become a reigning rather than ruling king, the colonists would have been appeased and canceled their rebellion. I imagine such a British government would not have behaved much differently toward the colonists. (In any case, by the time of George III, much of the power had already been ceded by the throne, a trend that started at Runnymede.)
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
There was a general trend towards everyone believing that they deserved to be treated with some fairness and humanity - and the British system has never been very good at adjusting itself in that direction voluntarily - even today
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, I don't know enough of the detail but I suspect that the anti-monarchy sentiments were simply a peg to hang some more general discontent on -- and a convenient target for the rhetoric.
The British Monarchy was a constitutional one by George III's time anyway - that'd largely been settled, arguably, in 1688.
There are far more knowledgeable Shipmates around than me when it comes to these issues, but my impression is that before 1776 Parliament was just as - if not more - recalcitrant as the King when it came to listening to the Colonist's gripes about 'not taxation without representation'.
In the end, Parliament opposed continuing the War, although 'Mad King George' wanted to continue it and to somehow regain the Colonies.
So, no, I don't think of the US Revolution being primarily anti-monarchy as such - it was more about self-determination and having proper representation - as well as not wanting to pay so much in taxes, of course ...
I've heard that the Colonists were taxed less heavily than the King's loyal subjects elsewhere - and that they also paid a lot less for their tea.
I'm not saying the Colonists didn't have legitimate gripes and grievances but they hyped the whole 'tyranny' thing up beyond proportion. As I've joked before, they should have tried living under French or Spanish rule at that time and then they'd have known what a despotic monarchical regime was like ...
Of course, the British liked to think they were among the most enlightened countries in Europe - alongside the Dutch ...
It was priest-ridden, Catholic Europe where the real despots held sway ...
Anyhow - I'm not sure what this thread is about now either - but it's pootled on.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I am still not sure what this thread is supposed to be about; this seems to happen sometimes when a thread is spun off from the middle of another thread.
Surely we will eventually get to the part where everyone buys me beer.
quote:
My comment is that the American Revolution was probably not simply a rebellion against the concept of monarchy.
Probably not. It seems that the complaints in the DOC was what he was doing to us, not that he existed. We set up a different form of government in the hope those kinds of things wouldn't happen to us anymore.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
What kinds of things? Sounds to me that you are doing worse things to one another than King George III was supposed to be doing to you ...
But I'd still like to buy you a beer. US craft beer or proper hand-pulled British cask-conditioned ale ... none of this beer substitute Budweiser stuff ...
But I'm sure you're right, the Colonists would have wanted independence sooner or later irrespective how constitutional or otherwise the British monarchy was.
Which is fair enough ... shame we felt the need to fight you over it rather than agreeing a peaceful handover with a cuppa or a pint ...
Hindsight's always a wonderful thing though.
On the whole English Civil War thing -- that didn't start out as an anti-Monarchy thing either. 'For King AND Parliament ...' was the rallying cry for the Parliamentarians. They generally thought they were doing the King a favour by fighting him - they thought that they'd steer him away from his allegedly wicked counsellors, his High Church pals and his French Catholic wife ...
Things got more serious when they realised that it was impossible to negotiate with him and he'd always start trying to playing people off against each other - Parliament against the Scots, the Scots against Parliament ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
When I was at school (England, 1960s) we were taught that the American Rebellion was a direct result of our winning the 7 Years War. Until then, the 13 colonies had been dependent on the mother country to protect them from the French to the north and to a lesser extent the declining Spanish to the south. When that danger was removed, the colonies decided they didn't need the mother ship any more and could do a UDI.
That still strikes me as a good analysis.
Mind, one can also only call it a 'revolution' rather than a 'rebellion' by analogy with the Glorious Revolution of 1689. In modern terms, neither is a revolution. In both cases the social order was not overturned. The class in power before and after remained the same.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes - but 'Revolution' sounds a lot sexier than 'rebellion' of course and also makes it sound like the 'rebels' had a higher moral and ideological purpose than they might actually have done ...
I once chuckled at a comment I saw in a review of a book about Napoleon by a university lecturer who said that he'd always been tempted to put as an exam question for his students, 'Was Napoleon anything more than a successful shit? Discuss.'
'Were the Colonists and Founding Fathers any more than greedy slave-owners with an eye for the main chance?'
Discuss ...
Actually, FWIW I don't agree with that analysis - in either case. For a kick-off, Napoleon wasn't necessarily successful - he messed up big time with his invasion of Russia.
As for the US Colonists in 1776, probably mixed motives there. It doesn't do to demonise them, as the Wesleys did, any more than to hold them up as shining exemplars of all that is good, noble and true -- as happens in certain forms of US hagiography.
Like everyone else they had their good points and bad points, their weaknesses and strengths, successes and failures.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
When I was at school (England, 1960s) we were taught that the American Rebellion was a direct result of our winning the 7 Years War. Until then, the 13 colonies had been dependent on the mother country to protect them from the French to the north and to a lesser extent the declining Spanish to the south. When that danger was removed, the colonies decided they didn't need the mother ship any more and could do a UDI.
That still strikes me as a good analysis.
That's an angle that isn't taught in the standard American curriculum, and it's intriguing. However, I don't think it's a sufficient explanation. The diminished French threat may have given the colonists more self-confidence, but I don't think they would have been moved all the way to open rebellion if they hadn't thought that Parliament was depriving them of traditional English rights and liberties without at least the opportunity to be represented and heard in parliamentary debate. Unlike the English civil wars, it wasn't so much a conflict between the Crown and Parliament as between (an unresponsive, to American eyes) Parliament and an unrepresented segment of the populace.
[ 28. June 2015, 14:48: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dogwalker
Shipmate
# 14135
|
Posted
Not just an unresponsive parliament, but one that was a direct threat to them. From the Declaration of Independence:
quote:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these states
It's difficult for me, at this distance, to see the Quebec Act as they did. But it had two effects on the New England colonies, at least.
The boundaries of Canada were expanded to include everything west of the Appalachian mountains, which took away the western rights of the colonies. (See, for example, the Wiki article on the Western Reserve.)
Second, the allowance for French civil law and the continued establishment of the Roman Catholic Church terrified the colonies. If Parliament could "abolish the free System of English Laws" in Quebec, why not here, too?
--------------------
If God had meant for us to fly, he wouldn't have given us the railways. - Unknown
Posts: 155 | From: Milford, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The Seven Years War doubled the debts of England. The American colonists were being asked to pay for a goodly chunk of the war with the French. They didn't want to. So they started their war of independence.
That it has been spun as noble and about freedom and liberty is news to the large number of UEL families (United Empire Loyalist) who were burned out and exiled from their homes and farms. It is also news to the slaves who were granted freedom from American slave owners if they fought for the British.
I happen to have a brother in law descended from slaves who won their freedom this way. I happen also to have a branch of my family who lost a farm in New York to patriot terror squads. Can we have it back?
I think the economic analysis is by far more persuasive than anything about principles. America has been open for business ever since. Rights of property have been a most profound influence. As involved in your civil war 90 years later re owning people.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
Interesting suggestion. Where are we with Syria; English Civil War LXXIII, perhaps?
Perhaps the French Revolution would be a better candidate for English Civil War Part II. As with many, 'me toos' it was rather more successful than the original.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Except that the French Revolution didn't take place in a British Colony.
Nor did it take place among Anglophone peoples.
So that level of equivalence doesn't apply.
I would suggest, though, that with some caveats, one can trace a 'line' from the kind of thinking and debates that inspired the Parliamentarians in the Civil Wars and the positions adopted by the rebel Colonists in 1776 and the French Revolutionaries in 1789.
I'm not, however, positing some kind of 'apostolic succession' of revolution ...
I'd also suggest that this line isn't a straight one but a wiggly one with lots of tributaries and other influences/streams feeding into it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
Back to the question of the English Civil War: Although I don't think it was a continuation of the same conflict, there were some similarities, and the Civil War may have been an inspirational example to the colonists. For example, in 1750 Jonathan Mayhew had preached a sermon titled "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers". Although he had framed it as an exegesis of Romans 13 as applied to Charles I, the implied parallels to the political condition of the colonies were obvious. According to Wikipedia:
quote:
Taking vigorous issue with recent efforts to portray Charles as a martyred monarch, Mayhew began with observations on the antiquity of English liberties. The English constitution, he asserted, “is originally and essentially free.” Roman sources, such as the reliable Tacitus, made it clear that “the ancient Britons … were extremely jealous of their liberties.” England’s monarchs originally held their throne “solely by grant of parliament,” so the ancient English kings ruled “by the voluntary consent of the people.” After forty pages of such historical discourse, Mayhew reached his major point: the essential rightness of the execution of an English king when he too greatly infringed upon British liberties.
John Adams later called Mayhew's sermon "the morning gun of the Revolution" and remembered that it "was read by everybody".
(You can read the full text of Mayhew's sermon here: http://www.academia.edu/906216/A_Discourse_concerning_Unlimited_Submission_and_Non-Resistance_to_the_Higher_Powers_With_some_ Reflections_on_the_Resistance_made_to_King_Charles_I._And_on_ )
[ 29. June 2015, 15:50: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Interesting suggestion. Where are we with Syria; English Civil War LXXIII, perhaps?
Perhaps the French Revolution would be a better candidate for English Civil War Part II. As with many, 'me toos' it was rather more successful than the original.
Nah, that's the American Revolution part 2. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
They spent lots of money and soldiers to 'win' whatever else we call the events in 1776 (AR I, War against cheap tea, war to keep slaves 17, 7 year War part 2, ECW2).
They'd also supported Ben Franklin and associated phrasing as useful support against the Brits. Which of course could be applied by against them too.
Perhaps we should just call the whole schebang the 4000 year war.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Except that the French Revolution didn't take place in a British Colony.
That is a matter of opinion.
quote:
Nor did it take place among Anglophone peoples.
Since when has that ever bothered the Brits? We just invade, shout loudly and gesticulate.
quote:
So that level of equivalence doesn't apply.
I would suggest, though, that with some caveats, one can trace a 'line' from the kind of thinking and debates that inspired the Parliamentarians in the Civil Wars and the positions adopted by the rebel Colonists in 1776 and the French Revolutionaries in 1789.
I'm not, however, positing some kind of 'apostolic succession' of revolution ...
I'd also suggest that this line isn't a straight one but a wiggly one with lots of tributaries and other influences/streams feeding into it.
It was clearly understood here during the French Revolution that Britain was wobblier than before. But fortunately the situation was different enough.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So it's only a matter of opinion that pre-Revolutionary France wasn't a British colony?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
What on earth are you driving at?
Of course Britain was rattled by the Revolution in France and the Government became very jumpy indeed -- hence the way that the Castlereagh government was arguably the most reactionary one this country ever had -- notwithstanding Thatcher's three terms of office.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Well, I suppose Mad King George™ didn't drop the title 'King of France' until 1801.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Obviously in over 100 years, the world had moved on. New ideas had gained currency. Nevertheless, many of the original North American colonists were Puritans. Several wanted men took refuge there after 1660. It was the obvious place to go. And 1688 was more recent. Going back to the OP, it's very difficult to argue that there's no ideological descent leading from the English Civil War to the events of 1776 and onwards.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Going back to the OP, it's very difficult to argue that there's no ideological descent leading from the English Civil War to the events of 1776 and onwards.
Well yes, that's what I've been trying to say all along, Hell-calls notwithstanding ...
I wonder whether you'll get a hell-call for this assertion now, Enoch?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Not clear why. Aren't you supposed to have abused someone?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Gentlemen: either call people to Hell or abuse them in Hell. If you want to discuss the validity of Hell calls past or future in the Styx, you could try, at your own risk. Don't try it on in Purgatory.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
