"The American Revolution as a Consititutional Controversy" Topic
3 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the American Revolution Message Board Back to the 18th Century Media Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.
Featured Profile ArticleIf you were a kid in the 1960s who loved history and toy soldiers, you probably had a WOW figure!
|
Tango01 | 20 Jul 2016 12:45 p.m. PST |
"We begin with a mystery. In 1763, the British Empire was the most successful, and the freest, that the world had ever seen. And yet, within thirteen years, the thirteen mainland colonies of British North America -- the jewel in that empire's crown -- attempted something that no colony had yet managed to do in human history: to revolt against the mother country. The British could not understand it, nor could many Americans who wished to remain loyal to King and country. What happened? I. DEFINING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
Many myths surround what happened between Great Britain and her rebellious colonists -- myths that had great persuasive power then, and still do today. The most popular and most pervasive myth is that the American Revolution was a simple tax revolt launched by people who were tired of the burdens of paying for "big government" -- though not of the benefits it conferred. According to this view, the Revolution had no larger principled or substantive reason behind it. Even many scholars who realize that the Americans and the British were arguing about something real and important in the years between 1763 and 1776 do not grasp what the controversy was about. Many previous historians lined up along the fault-lines of what is, in essence, a false choice. Some historians (such as Robert Livingston Schuyler and P.D.G. Thomas) insist that, when American colonists denounced British colonial policy as unconstitutional, they were arguing bad law, and they knew it. Because the British consistently rejected those arguments as bad law, the Americans invoked other arguments based on such vague notions as natural rights and natural law. Other historians (such as Charles McIlwain) insist that, when British policy-makers defended their policies as constitutional against American arguments of unconstitutionality, they were arguing bad law, and they knew it…" Full text here link Amicalement Armand |
Cardinal Ximenez | 20 Jul 2016 1:36 p.m. PST |
From the article: "The efforts to forge an intercolonial union began as early as 1643. In that year, while England was convulsed by what became the English Civil War, four of England's American colonies -- Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, New Haven, and Connecticut -- formed the New England Confederation. (Throughout the Confederation's history, its members agreed to keep Rhode Island out, distrusting the colony because of its policy of religious liberty.)" Lovely. DM |
rmaker | 20 Jul 2016 2:42 p.m. PST |
The basic constitutional fact is that the great foundation of English political history is "The King is not above the Law". The fundamental law in each of the colonies was the colonial charter. When George III began ignoring the charters, he put himself above the law. Which is precisely why Charles I lost his head and James II was deposed in favor of his daughter (and son-in-law). |
|