"No, We Wouldn’t Be Better Off If The American..." Topic

…Revolution Never Happened.

"We have come to quite a pass in American society when major publications are publishing straight-faced criticisms of the very existence of the United States. But in this week's New Yorker article by Adam Gopnik ("We Could Have Been Canada"), he questions the goodness of the American Revolution two and a half centuries ago. Seeing Trump at the head of our government has driven Leftists so mad, they now question everything—including America itself. The result is a bad argument against the ideas that led to the greatest country on Earth…."
Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

LOL! Canada was only granted independence peacefully because of Britain's experience with the American Revolution. Better to set them free and keep them tied to Britain than go through another bloody, painful independence war.

Are you insane SBminidguy? You clearly have utterly no idea about how Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa developed through colonial to Dominion status. There was never a point where Canada was on the verge of revolt: they never needed to. Why would they when Britain was allowing them to move towards complete independence at their own pace?

As to the claim to be tbe "greatest country on earth", you may find that most countries feel they are great, albeit for different reasons.

"The British Empire is the Cradle of the Anglosphere, but one cannot live forever in the cradle" – with apologies to Tsiolkovsky.

You clearly have utterly no idea about how Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa developed through colonial to Dominion status. There was never a point where Canada was on the verge of revolt: they never needed to. Why would they when Britain was allowing them to move towards complete independence at their own pace?.

And why would they ever have had "Dominion" status, rather than just being kept as a Crown Colony if the jewel in the crown (before India was named that) hadn't violently revolted against British rule? Do you think the Crown would have given a fulsome fart about Canadian Colonial sentiment for independence if not for the painful example of the American Insurrection?

How many Colonial possessions gained independence by grant from their Crown, willingly, before the American Revolution? Answer: 0. How about after? Well, the various Kings and Emperors needed to be ejected by more blood, didn't they? In the Spanish colonies, revolt after revolt patterned after the Yankee independence movement, etc.

Hampered by distance, resources and money, it was hard for a Colonial power to support war against a distant popular revolt. It cost a lot of blood and treasure they could ill afford to spend when they needed to worry about one of their European neighbors marching across their borders if they stretched themselves too thin. And so after America, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, etc., won their independence through war it became apparent that if the local Colonial populace was pissed off enough and would shed the blood, you could not stop them from going free. Better to accept reality, loosen the leash and let 'em go on more or less friendly terms.

In contrast, poor Ireland right next door to Britain, never had a chance. Independence sentiment be-damned, it was relatively easy to overwhelm the Irish and keep 'em down.

So indeed, Canada never needed to revolt -- their Southern Cousins and others paid for that in blood, eh?

The lives of average Americans in 1783 wasa no different than in 1775, you still had to be a white male with property to vote. It was not a revolution, it was a change of power between the landed aristocracy. Nonetheless, I agree with John Keegan that America had to become independent in order to become great,

Yep, that landed aristocracy that wrote the Constitution and had no kings or lords. America has made its mistakes,like all countries. But imagine history without it. I do not believe that would be better without us warts and all.

Thanks,

John

MD you are suffering from fashionable historical revisionsm. The revolution broke the nobility class, the traditional aristocracy and the practice of wielding power by virtue of your bloodline was upended.

Oh, in 1775 an American male could not vote for an MP for Parliament. A right denied them by the Crown, nor did they have property rights since their property could be arbitrarily seized, they further has no right to a fair trial, to free speech and free assembly. In short they had none the Rights secured in the US Constitution.

And the Founders paid for their revolution. This is by memory so my numbers may be off, but of the signers of the Day some 6-9 were killed in combat or captured and hung by the British, 3 more lost their sons in the fighting. Another 12-15 lost all their property and wealth, and in one case at Yorktown one signer personally directed artillery fire onto his own estate when Cornwallis used it as his HQ. He died destitute.

As some of the Americans have indicated, a major academic train of thought, also, regard the American Revolution as a primary reason why the British adopted the Commonwealth framework. Plenty of papers on it if you want to do the research.

I took a graduate studies seminar course, 13 weeks, on Anglo-American relations. One of the discussion projects was to create a timeline as if the American Revolution had failed or not happened. The base line was that European events remained the reference points.
The great unknown was the cohesion of First Nations and their relations. Another was the lack of unity among the American colonies. The friction and conflicts between States would have also occurred with the colonies.
Major offensives by Georgia to capture Spanish Florida with the aide of the Muskogee Free State which was recognized by the British in the late 1790s. Another attack on Spanish or French held New Orleans and St. Louis. French supported rebellions in Quebec.

The Spainish/Mexicans refuse to let British Anglos in Texas or California. Will the War of the 1830s and 1840 s occur? Yes after many filibuster Anglo operations into Mexico- Texas with combat becoming intense after the discovery of California gold. Also gold becomes a cause of the Crimean War.
Russia is unimpeded in its claim in land from Alaska to San Francisco. This will lead to major expeditions against the Russians in the Crimean War.
The first jumble of events was due to the French Revolution and Napoleons rise.

SBminis,
I think that you also suffer from a form of Historical revisionism .
Broke the noble class? really ?? No it merely put into place a class system based on Money without any of the responsibilities of a traditional system.
As to Bloodline – I assume that you are being deliberately naďve here . The power through inherited land and money are more easily wielded than an abstract title.

As to those "stories " of the founding fathers . The monograph that your information came from has been dis-credited many times, yet it still comes up to shower readers with its falsehoods .
NO FF were tortured or hung by the british (4 of the 5 captured were exchanged )
NO FF was killed in combat or died of wounds by the british (9 died during the war ) 1 did die of wounds BUT they were inflicted by a fellow American officer (Gwinnet from Georgia)
1 FF lost a son in the war
Very few lost all their wealth and property (and about half of the property lost was destroyed and looted by Americans)
The story of Nelson directing the fire onto his house is most likely a later invention -as are many stories of the revolution. The house was hit by artillery fire (as were most houses in Yorktown ) but did not take much damage and is still standing.
And by no stretch of the imagination did he die destitute.

Interesting…so you're basically outing yourself as an aristo, eh?

Broke the noble class? really ?? No it merely put into place a class system based on Money without any of the responsibilities of a traditional system.

No, it replaced it with the closest thing to a meritocracy the world had ever seen. Yes, money talks and it always will, but the monied class in such a system rises and falls. A guy selling cement like Henry Kaiser could, with drive and luck, found a manufacturing empire and join the monied class…while others in the monied class can end up bankrupt. So it's a huge change in the way the world works that there is no bloodright nobility, and there is at least (mostly) legal equality in the law.

The power through inherited land and money are more easily wielded than an abstract title.

Except in the Aristo system you seem fond of, that title is tied to money and land, and special deals. An Aristocracy is the epitome of the Crony Class. You don't like Wall Street getting bailed out by you the taxpayer because of their connections? Well, in an Aristocracy with a Crown running things that's just daily life. Every Aristo gets to be a Kennedy!

At least in a Constitutional system like the US with a relative Meritocracy in place it is seen as aberrant and something to be corrected by most people -- and there's a chance to correct it.

Indeed, that explains Trumpism very handily. Most people voted for Trump so he would break up the new technocractic aristocracy that has emerged in the US. Maybe that needs to go to the Blue Fez, though.

As for the rest, guess we have dueling sources. You evidently went to Snopes, eh?

But was this just a spat between ruling classes? Even if I accept your source (not like Snopes is unbiased), so 10% of the Signers were arrested, 20% died of different causes (which you cannot rule out as being linked to the war), and if it's not 12 losing everything, lets say half that since your Snopes article doesn't tabulate it but rather serves as "myth buster" if you will. Still that's 10% losing everything.

Pretty serious repercussions. Here's a deal, "Hey grtbrt, please sign this document! If you do there will by 6 years of brutal war with a very uncertain outcome. If you win there's a 30% chance you'll be arrested or die and 10% chance of being impoverished!If you lose, well, you'll most certainly face worse. Great deal, hmmm?"

Would you sign??

Considering the political climate in my beloved country, I have wondered if we wouldn't have been better off in a Parliamentary style Democracy. If an grievous mistake was made in an election.

We just have a new election and try to fix it and no electoral college or gerrymandering. Oh yeah slavery would have been outlawed early on. Also single payer health care.

On the other, I am not sure that what is now the contiguous 48 states would be around. Probably divided into two or more countries. Interesting thought

Why would I be outing myself as an "Aristo" as you so smugly put it ? I am not sure you fully understand what a meritocracy really is and how it impacts inheritances-but whatever.
Legal equality -haha. perhaps in the future .But money has always influenced the US legal system and always will. Unless I have misread your wherewithal (and based upon your comments likely not ) I can guarantee you that you and I would be treated very differently for the same offence.
I am guessing you have never actually met anyone you classify as an "aristo" nor have experience in that area of society – But why let facts interfere with your soapbox speech.
Not really dueling sources at all, There are facts and there is that monograph. I did look at Snopes(you are correct ,they can be misguided and wrong at times ) ,but I also looked up the biographies of the signers .Your monograph comes up every 6 months or so and unfortunately uneducated (at least in that area)folks repeat it as if it were fact . There was a very good rebuttal piece to that monograph -I believe by the Order of Cincinnatus(I think that is where I first saw it -I could be wrong )
As to the percentages of losing -Yes that is a great deal when the upside is you will increase your standing and wealth -even most of the ones that died their families made money and gained considerable amounts of land and political power.
But such is the cost of insurrection and rebellion .
Would I sign (putting aside me not rebelling ) Yes I would -The majority of the ones that died were of the age to die anyway and as an investment it would be worthwhile .
so 30% chance of dying of natural causes or being arrested and exchanged -none died in or because of , captivity
10% of losing some money and property
Sign me up
As to bailing out Wall Street-if the laws of the land allow it blame the laws and change them ,don't blame people for taking advantage of them …….
As to voting for (or against) Trump I think you give way too much credit to the average voter -Most voters have absolutely no idea of what any candidate actually stands for .

MD you are suffering from fashionable historical revisionsm. The revolution broke the nobility class, the traditional aristocracy and the practice of wielding power by virtue of your bloodline was upended.

Only in America, that same aristocracy went on to give us the largest empire the world has seen, their power and influence fading only as the empire faded in the 20th century. Are you telling us that the WASPs in the Hamptons aren't the State's aristocracy?

Just so you don't misunderstand – I actually do not think America would have been better of staying in the Empire .
Granted they did pay ,by far ,the least amount of taxes of any British subject -not just colonists .So their taxes skyrocketed .
And independence from Britain had a lost less to do with the locals being "pissed off" than with a strong opposition party in parliament. Led by Aristo's -lol

Leaving aside the politics baiting in the opening statement".. has driven leftists so mad…" (seriously? I have to take offense, I was mad long before Trump was elected!)

I think it's curious to speculate about what a failure, or lack of, an American Revolution would have had on the subsequent revolutionary movements in central and south america. (Either in the Bolivar era or much later in the communist period.) I'd be interested to know if any of the students in RudyNelson's class touched on this. He speculates that filibusters would still have been active, but I'm not sure the UK government would have allowed this since they might (with good reason) have been seen as subversive given the UK's own colonial administration in the western hemisphere at the time. It might have been just as likely (more likely in my opinion) that the UK (and France, since the Louisiana Purchase wound't have occurred) would have been supportive of the Spanish crown suppressing revolutionary agents in their own empire.

Jaded much, grtbrt? It seems your anger and cynicism have colored your perception of history.

Why would I be outing myself as an "Aristo" as you so smugly put it ?

Because you speak very fondly of having an elite Aristocracy managing society within the "responsibilities of a traditional system," and look down on the idea of meritocracy. The traditional system sucked for the average person, which is when why the hoi poloi got Rights the institution of aristocracy was largely ended in the West.

am not sure you fully understand what a meritocracy really is and how it impacts inheritances-but whatever.
Legal equality -haha. perhaps in the future

Pretty sure I do, not sure if you understand it since you seem kinda pissed off at the idea. And yes, legal equality -- not perfect since people with money and power can always try to get special treatment. But eventually even that can catch up with them in a system with legal equality -- so we see Harvey Weinstein, aristos of Hollywood and others finally being brought down by their crimes and vices -- which wouldn't happen if they were truly aristocrats.

But money has always influenced the US legal system and always will.

It always influences *every* system and always will, because we're all flawed humans prone to wanting special deals and treatment.

Unless I have misread your wherewithal (and based upon your comments likely not ) I can guarantee you that you and I would be treated very differently for the same offence.

Don't know what you mean, you'll have to provide examples.

I am guessing you have never actually met anyone you classify as an "aristo" nor have experience in that area of society – But why let facts interfere with your soapbox speech.

Met some, not fond of the assumption of superiority simply because great great great grandad was a Junker or something. But sounds like you have experience with nobility, so pray tell!

As to the percentages of losing -Yes that is a great deal when the upside is you will increase your standing and wealth -even most of the ones that died their families made money and gained considerable amounts of land and political power.
But such is the cost of insurrection and rebellion .

Have you ever actually read letters and diaries of those involved? If you did you see that they were actually motivated by a genuine passion for freedom and the chance to cut the strings tying them to Britain. Hard to believe in our jaded days, that you would actually risk it all for freedom…but then maybe you don't know anyone from Russia or Eastern Europe who fought for their liberty at the close of the Cold War. One Romanian acquaintance of mine charged a tank with brick in full rage and passion against Ceaușescu, and had his arm shot off by machine gun fire. Another gent I know was with the group that occupied the Russian parliament building when the Gorby guys ordered the tanks into the streets and lost some of his hearing when he was too close to a tank shell that hit the building.

I was born with what they risked death to get. I was lucky, am lucky, that those who came before me did the dying and bleeding to get rid of the Ceaușescus and Gorbachevs of their day -- who were basically the nobility of Communism and give at least some of humanity a choice in their future not determined by their bloodlines.

Oh, also met former East German apparatchiks who were still bitter that the system that gave them aristo treatment as part of the Communist Party nobility was torn down. They had preferential treatment in the legal and economic system -- better education, a nice summer home and status. All gone when the Communists fell. Boo hoo!

So, I'll step off the soap box, all yours!

Just so you don't misunderstand – I actually do not think America would have been better of staying in the Empire .
Granted they did pay ,by far ,the least amount of taxes of any British subject -not just colonists .So their taxes skyrocketed .
And independence from Britain had a lost less to do with the locals being "pissed off" than with a strong opposition party in parliament. Led by Aristo's -lol

Well, if the Americans had been granted the right other Britons had to elect or select MPs, probably never would have rebelled.

And yes, the Americans benefited from an opposition party pushing back against KG III's desire to expand the power of the Crown…not to mention the millions of pounds in commerce being lost to American privateers, etc., etc.

The Rebellion was won against stiff odds, with luck, timing, perseverance, cunning and hard fighting. Don't be cynical as to believe it was just a change of rulers, Aristocrats for Plutocrats.

"And independence from Britain had a lost less to do with the locals being "pissed off" than with a strong opposition party in parliament. Led by Aristo's -lol"

There's that. People don't seem to know about the Whig opposition and the trouble Wilkes was stirring up at the same time as the rebellion.

Not sure where you think I am angry or pissed off at an idea or look down at some -I merely am a realist – I actually really don't care either way.
But perhaps that is your jealousy and envy showing through.
Am I fond of the "aristo" system =perhaps but no more so than pure capitalism or even actual meritocracy . I can and have thrived in all of those.
Actually Weinstein has not been brought down by the legal system ,they have been brought down by the court of public opinion/ mob rule via social media . Please show me where he has faced a legal trial. Though There are some personal lawsuits pending against him. So he may not have been a good example .
I do have experience with what you term the "aristo system " -I was brought up in it -though my cousin will get the title.
Perhaps that assumption of superiority you dislike isn't from a fortunate accident of birth but rather based on education level and income .
I have read quite a number of biographies and letter and diaries of that time – Yes, some were motivated by those passions -. I hesitate to use the word risk -because there was no risk and they fully understood this . They wee British and were the ruling class (even in the colonies ) they understood there was no danger to them personally . Very different from the Eastern European examples you use.
I do know quite a few Eastern Europeans -as well as western Europeans that fought for their beliefs -Again they are vastly different from the privileged leaders of the American Rebellion.
There will always be bitter people when forms of government change and they don't have as much as before -Oh well , I certainly don't care .
But to compare the leaders of the rebellion to the everyday people fighting against communism is to do a vast disservice to those anti-communists (and any ant-totalitarians) that knew they could die . It is Apples and Bananas .

To address your question about different treatment under the "equality of law". Basing this upon your distaste and dislike for anything to do with "aristo's" and affluence , here is an example :
You and I both get arrested for the same thing -a felony -doesn't really matter what .
Since I socialize with the DA along with State and National level politicians (and other business people) and contribute to their respective political funds – I will get treated very differently than yourself -Whom ,based on your declared disdain for these people , does not have that familiarity. Likely the charges against me will be changed to something more acceptable. it is unlikely I will spend much if any time in Jail . On the other hand most likely you do not get this treatment –
Hence my comment about perceived legal equality .

As to my risking it all for freedom – My comments were related to the topic on hand -The American Rebellion – Hardly risking anything – for the hierarchy there was not much risk at all . Different case for the lower levels that did become destitute because of the Congress refusal to make good on their promises and contracts .

But to compare the leaders of the rebellion to the everyday people fighting against communism is to do a vast disservice to those anti-communists (and any ant-totalitarians) that knew they could die . It is Apples and Bananas .

Why is is vastly different? It's not like Britain or any colonial power (which includes non-European powers) has ever extended full rights to their colonies without pain and effort.

In the last days of British America the average colonist had no rights, no rights afforded other British citizens and certainly no rights as we accept them today.

They could be arbitrarily arrested and tried, and if the trial didn't go the way the Crown wanted they would be moved to another jurisdiction and tried again until the Crown got what it wanted.

They had no property rights, they could have their holdings and property seized by the Crown without cause or recourse. They could also have soldiers or officers of the Crown just move into their home without their consent,and they would have to house and feed them at primarily their own expense.

They had no free speech and right of assembly.The Crown would allow it or not as the authorities saw fit.

And being caught supporting the rebellion or fighting could indeed be a death sentence as some 11,000 POWs and prisoners died in miserable conditions in British prison hulk ships.

Anyways, guess I don't see how you call rebelling against an Empire that had a track record of brutally suppressing rebellions (Ireland, Scotland, etc.) was "hardly risking anything."

If not for the experience of the American Revolution, going through an expensive and bloody war, resulting in humiliation as their traditional adversaries pressed into the conflict and made Britain vulnerable, it is doubtful that Canada and other colonies would have been granted independence as they were.

Perhaps that assumption of superiority you dislike isn't from a fortunate accident of birth but rather based on education level and income .

Doubtful. If you are born to privilege, either old fashioned aristocracy or the monied class, you grow up in an environment that inculcates a superiority complex. Unless you're unusual, you may have been raised this way and can no more detect it than can a fish detect the water in which it swims.

You and I both get arrested for the same thing -a felony -doesn't really matter what .
Since I socialize with the DA along with State and National level politicians (and other business people) and contribute to their respective political funds – I will get treated very differently than yourself -Whom ,based on your declared disdain for these people , does not have that familiarity. Likely the charges against me will be changed to something more acceptable. it is unlikely I will spend much if any time in Jail . On the other hand most likely you do not get this treatment –
Hence my comment about perceived legal equality

Yep, money talks and it's good to know low folks in high places, eh? That's exactly what happened with Ted Kennedy who killed a young woman yet escaped punishment because of the very sorts of connections you describe. It's always been that way, and always will because human nature is fundamentally flawed, though at least the worst excesses of political connections and money can be reigned in if we have a relative meritocracy and relative legal equality.

I just knew what I would see in this post and I was not disappointed, time for popcorn!

"The Rebellion was won against stiff odds, luck, timing, perseverance, cunning and hard fighting" – armed and reinforced by the army of an absolutist monarchy.

"In the last days of British America the average colonist had no rights, no rights afforded other British citizens and certainly no rights as we accept them today. "

They had the protection the Common Law like any English subject.

Today- is today.

"an Empire that had a track record of brutally suppressing rebellions (Ireland, Scotland, etc.)"

As did any monarchy or other state of the time and as many continue to do in the present (not to mention the brutality of successful rebellions as in 1789).

Even George Washington had to put down a rebellion, and of course there is the history of the Native Americans to consider…..

Ooh us Brits, aren't we evil.

They had the protection the Common Law like any English subject

No they didn't, which was one of the greivances the had against the Crown, but since they had also been denied the right of representation in Parliament they could only petition for redress, not successfully at that.

SB-
Actually it's not a complex when it is true -and not to worry I can detect your jealousy and envy . But if you work hard perhaps you can rise ,after all this is the perfect meritocracy isn't it ?

Perhaps you misread what I wrote- I said the Hierarchy risked nothing-as you say rank has it privileges and the founding fathers were the ranking members of society (mostly)-The Hierarchy- and they risked nothing tangible (except a combat injury if they were the fighting type ).
I think that your friends who actually risked something would not be amused by your comparing the two .
regarding the prisoners-You likely do not know ,but the government that the prisoners belonged to was responsible for their food and upkeep and medicine . SO congress was at least as responsible for the deaths as he British Government .

If you would like a listing of reputable books that can help you understand and comprehend the actual underpinnings and political play of the rebellion – You just have to ask -There are quite a few very well read posters here .From both sides of the Atlantic

Hope you and your family have a Happy and Peaceful Thanksgiving .

Ooh us Brits, aren't we evil

Not particularly. Britain acted much as most empires across history. It did do some brutal things, and it did so in the American Revolution and other events. In contrast to other Colonial powers Britain was a nice guy, especially in its twilight it helped its colonies transition to Independence in a positive way most colonial powers did not. Contrast how Portugal stripped Angola of equipment and talent before it left vs how Canada was granted Independence.

I appreciate your holiday wishes, perhaps living in the San Francisco area and being surrounded by leftists who constantly revise history has made me touchy – my apologies. For example, one 3rd grade "history" book blamed the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor on US policies. If you read the text blind you'd think the US just suddenly embargoed Japan, threw Japanese Americans in prison and then nuked Japan.

The American revolution is rife with hostile revisionism.

I would just say that the hierarchy swap is too simplistic. It would have been far easier for Americans to operate in a known, predictable structure, which as wealthy and connected people already benefited them. Human nature is to accept the known system and avoid the unknown until it becomes intolerable and the risk of change seen as an attractive alternative.

I do not envy anyone their station or success, but am wedded to the idea of legal fairness in an unfair world.

In any event, I hope you and yours have a good holiday season.

It always makes me laugh when Americans talk about 'leftists.'

It always makes me laugh when Americans talk about 'leftists.'

I also find leftists to be funny!

"Also"? As well as making you touchy with their hostile revisionism. And what about liberals?

Be that as it may:

'The Common Law in Colonial America' William E. Nelson

This comparative legal history treatise challenges the traditional focus on searching for a unifying transmission and reception of the English common law in colonial America in order to explain how a truly American legal culture had developed by the time of the Founding era.

Through extensive research into archival legal records and existing historical scholarship, Prof. Nelson demonstrates that the legal cultures of the early American colonies were more characterized by divergence and dissimilarities than by any uniform reliance on English common law.

Seen from this perspective the origin story of a common American legal culture is a dynamic one of tension between imperial British efforts to transmit the uniformity of England's common law and colonial desires to maintain their distinct legal cultures and social norms.

The four-volume series of which this book is the first volume shows how the legal systems of Britain's thirteen North American colonies, which were initially established in response to divergent political, economic, and religious initiatives, slowly converged until it became possible by the 1770s to imagine that all thirteen participated in a common American legal order, which diverged in its details but differed far more substantially from English common law.

link

This book reveals how Virginians' zeal for profit led to the creation of a harsh legal order that efficiently squeezed payment out of debtors and labor out of servants. In comparison, Puritan law in early Massachusetts strove mainly to preserve the local autonomy and moral values of family-centered, subsistence farming communities. The law in the other New England colonies, although it was distinctive in some respects, gravitated toward the Massachusetts model, while Maryland's law, except during a brief interlude of Puritan rule, gravitated toward that of Virginia.

link

link