"George III" Topic

link

Fwiw. I remain, nevertheless, glad that we are independent.

Excellent book!

Interesting … will need to add this to my reading list.

Thank you for posting about this book.

There was a short-hand version of this in the November issue of Smithsonian Magazine. It is clear that the author is totally ignorant about 18th Century British governance and politics.

George never vetoed a parliamentary bill. Of course, since "The King's Friends" controlled both houses, he never had to.

He accepted the policies of his cabinet ministers. Naturally, since he appointed them, and they were responsible to him alone. The idea of governmental responsibility to Parliament was a good fifty years in the future.

George aspired to be a good constitutional monarch. Yes, by unilaterally abrogating colonial charters.

rmaker,

By author, do you mean the author of the article, or the author of the book?

As I posted on this theme back in October

TMP link

IN Robert's "detailed, revisionis account of the American Revolutionary War" readers of these boards will be enlightened to read of the colonists' underestimated fighting capacity armed as they were with "an assortment of long barrelled hunting muskets with which they were highly adept" not least because "half of the military age militia men were veterans of the Seven Years War."

rmaker, George would never veto a bill passed by both houses of Parliament because by his reign it was already an established convention of the British constitution that the monarch could not veto such bills, and it remains so to this day.

I was commenting on the Smithsonian article, which was written by the author of the book.

arthur1815, I was remarking that his control of both Commons and Lords was such that he was never presented with anything he might want to veto.

Before accepting this rosy view of the Hannoverian monarchy, I suggest reading Lawrence Henry Gipson's "The British Empire Before the American Revolution"

Here is the actual quotation re muskets an militia: "Yet the colonists were armed with an assortment of personal weaponry (in particular, long-barrelled hunting muskets) with which they were highly adept. Around half of the military-age New England militiamen were veterans of the Seven Years War, and many of those were farmers and frontiersmen. Anyone who relied in part on his marksmanship to put food on his family's table was going to present a danger to the redcoats." Citing Anderson, Crucible of War. Does seem so far off the mark to me.

Excerpt From
The Last King of America
Andrew Roberts
link
This material may be protected by copyright.

I was quoting from the BBC Radio 4 version, evidently abridged. Whether Prof. Roberts signed off on that script I couldn't say ("No such thing as bad publicity").

However, when he refers to "long-barrelled hunting muskets" was he perhaps thinking of wascally webels armed with wifles?

As far as the reference to 'Crucible of War' goes, experience has proved that it is wise to check the cited passage to check how faithfully Robert's text reflects the source; if at all.

Be that as it may, Robert's generalised suggestion that the hapless Crown forces were about to be confronted by a host of rootin,' tootin' sharpshootin' frontier farmin' folk is surely overstating the case somewhat.

42,
Well, everyone is entitled to his own interpretation of what Robert's meant. Mine is that Robert's point is that many colonists had a significant amount of military experience and familiarity with firearms, and were not all merely "the embattled farmer." The fact that others may read it another way may open him to criticism that his choice of words might have been more clear.

@ dbf1676

Fair enough but "many" and "significant" are themselves open to interpretation. Apart from questioning to what extent that point is valid, I would ask whether it is justifiable to make that point with wooly, possibly erroneous statements of fact.

As a matter of interest, what do you think the professor means by the term "long-barrelled hunting musket"?

Probably a rifled musket. Anyway, it's a biography of a man who never was in North America or engaged in any military service, so I will give the author a pass.

Arguably, North America and military matters are fairly central to the narrative, but Roberts' reputation possibly depends on as many passes as he can get so, dip thee bread.
(Appropriate emoticon)

Given that the American Revolution was not about the level of taxes but about not being represented in the vote on those taxes, I am inclined to weigh this article's claims with considerable skepticism. This strikes me as yet another attempt to belittle the founding of the United States as being a glorified tax revolt by greedy rich guys. It wasn't. It was about the fact that decisions were being made by a distant governing body and monarch, decisions which directly affected the lives and wellbeing of people who were allowed exactly zero say in the matter. Had George III and Parliament wanted to avoid the war, they could have done so by simply granting the American colonies an equal and equivalent status in the Parliament— indeed, in both houses— and acknowledging that the people of America had the right to vote for their governors and legislative representatives and a right to determine what taxes would be applied to themselves. Had he done this, he would have been lauded for his wisdom and honored throughout the land.

He didn't.

Instead, he acted to strip the Americans of their long-standing local legislative bodies, leaving the people with no voice at all in their government. To me, that cannot be excused nor redeemed by slapping his history over with some rosy paint and claiming he was a really nice guy who occasionally chatted with people when he walked around town.

And that ludicrous claim that Buckingham Palace was just "a home." Give me a frickin' break! That's "just a home" in the same way that a battleship is "just a boat." It was a three story, three-winged mansion even then.
(Next they'll say it was just a summer camp.) link

Nope, not gonna give him a break. The American Revolution was his own fault for not listening to the people of America. He may have been the nicest tyrant the world has ever known— but he was nevertheless a tyrant.

Does that mean that if the 'book balancing taxes'had not been introduced following the victory over France, there would still have been a revolt?
Did George III become a tyrant at that point or was he a tyrant already before that?

If the American's right to vote and participate in their own government had been acknowledged and provided for, and that representation resulted in taxation rather than it being imposed from a distant government, no there would not have been a cross-colonies revolt. Such unrest as existed would have been entirely regional, and a footnote in history. (I do think American autonomy would have eventually occurred, but peacefully on the order of Canada and Australia rather than via warfare.)

Even in 1775 the view in the Continental Congress was that the matter could be negotiated and the Americans would continue to be subjects of the British Crown.

The tyranny was entirely in the political and military actions of the day.
1.) Imposing taxes without representation and voting on the matter.
2.) Appointing governors with no accountability to the people.
3.) Closing down or attempting to close down elected American legislative bodies.
4.) Acting against freedom of the press both directly and indirectly (the Stamp Act).
5.) Sending troops in and demanding and seizing private homes/property for their use without any act of local government.
6.) Attempting to seize control of local militia armaments and ammunition stockpiles. (Actually, this action started the war. None of the rest did. The rest just made people upset and vocal about it. But seizing the arms? That was the final straw, and that started the shooting.)

Was the government of George III tyrannical prior to these actions? Well, yes, actually, since at the core the one significant principle remained true— the American colonists had no representation in Parliament and no ability to effectively express their preferences within the British government system. Up to that time the imposition may have been mild and the tyranny largely unnoticed, but whenever a people are denied the right to participate in their own government and can be subjected to acts of government fiat without recourse for redress, that is by definition tyranny. It doesn't matter if the government is attempting to be "fair" or "balance the books," or any other such weaselly cover words— the people have no say, and therefore the government is tyrannical. One can be a (generally) benevolent tyrant and still be a tyrant. One can be neutral and still be a tyrant. One can insist one is doing what is "good for everybody" and very much still be a tyrant.
As long as a government rules rather than serves, that government is tyrannical.

I see.

According to those principles, surely all governments in eighteenth century Europe were tyrannical.

If they denied the population and the individual a vote in the government, then yes, they were. "Tyranny" doesn't necessarily mean "despotic" or "behaved consciously evilly"— it just means that individual citizens have no say in their government. A benevolent tyrant is still a tyrant. A benevolent oligarchy is still tyrannical if the people have no voice. A benevolent majority is also tyrannical if it does not protect the rights of the minority or allow the minority a path of redress.

The vast history of the world is largely one of tyranny, not liberty. The moments of true liberty are few and far between. We in certain parts of the world are living in one, for the most part, but we would be foolish to believe that liberty will simply continue and flourish without any effort to preserve it. Very foolish indeed.

Attempting to rehabilitate the image of George III while denigrating the American Patriots and their cause is a dangerous step towards that folly. When you minimize the significance, goodness and value of what you have, you will soon readily sacrifice it for something that sounds good but really isn't. If there is tyranny, there is not liberty. In the end, they cannot coexist.

The American Revolution was NOT a "tax revolt." It was a fundamental change in the perception of why government exists, what it should and shouldn't do, and how it should function. No taxation without representation is not a statement about taxes, it's a statement about who has the say. It is a great folly indeed to forget that or to try to set it aside. The amount of taxation is irrelevant to that point, as are the motivations, intents and uses of the taxation.

"Long-barreled hunting muskets" are not rifles, nor are they rifled muskets, they are "long fowlers". They often have barrels that are five feet in length, smooth-bore, and around 20 gauge. Rifles were very uncommon in Mass. The one known rifle-armed militiamen who was involved in the Lexington and Concord fight was was from NJ who settled in Mass. along with his rifle.

It is interesting how King George didn't become the Bogeyman until after the decision to declare independence was made. Up to then the "Colonials" were claiming to be subjects of King George, but not Parliment.

@ Major Bloodnock
"Long-barreled hunting muskets" are not rifles, nor are they rifled muskets, they are "long fowlers"

Somehow, I don't think that's what Professor Roberts had in mind.

The author's been interviewed and has given a number of talks to promote the book. He has stated clearly that he holds the Founding Fathers ( and by extension those who fought for independence) in high esteem for both their courage and their foresight.
He has also stated that whilst he only regards two of the twenty eight charges they levy against George as valid; he believes that these two are in and of themselves sufficient to justify their appeal to Heaven.
His further states that their struggle for sovereignty and independence was no less heroic if we accept that George was no tyrant, and provides ample evidence for this statement.
Of course there's mileage to be gained in turning him into a Pantomime villain and we are of course in Panto season. But Panto is at it's heart pure escapist entertainment where the bad guy always gets his comeuppance.
PS I once saw Mr T star in Panto and he looked to be enjoying every minute of it.

Parzival is correct. Auithoritarian control is the NORM. Still is. The idea of natural inalienable rights and the social contract, first eunciated by Locke and then embodied in several American documents (by Mason in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence) were genuine NEW THINGS, break-throughs in political thought. They are why our revolution is unlike others across history, in doing more good than harm, and why the Revolution is a world-wide event of primary importance. And why ignorance of and consequent abandonment of our revolutionary principles is so disastrous.