The Declaration of Independence

[YNCS]

I am not a historian. I have read stuff but never made notes with the intention of debating the issues. I cannot name my sources because I don't remember the titles: what I remember is things like the colour of the book and what type of cover &c. (I read the a long time ago )

IOW, you're making definitive statements based on something that you read some time ago and cannot now source.

If you're going to give revisionist history, you should expect to be questioned by those familiar with more "mainstream" versions. I have no doubt that you're giving out what you remember having read, but I suspect that your memory is somewhat faulty.

Previously in this thread, I gave a couple of paragraphs on the origins of the American Revolution. Nobody asked me for sources because I was giving a mainstream explanation. However, if you or anyone else asked me for sources, I could have given them (unlike you, I am a historian).

 

[CivCynic]

I'd like to ask those of you who have been slightly/enormously angered by our historic leaders' act of treason: Why is treason so wrong in this case? Did the leaders of our nation necessarily do something wrong? Yes, it was a bloody revolt, but it was not for a transient or unjustifiable cause. We did what we knew to be just.

 

[Keirador]

That would be an interesting piece of history, and I won't say anything more until seeing both sides of the argument. Do you have any keywords or dates?

I thought the taxation argument existed because in retrospect, historians could not find an other way to support rebelion.

You're quite right that the colonial aristocracy made liberal use of propoganda, and I do agree that the complaint about high taxation was unfounded, as those taxes were funding the protection of the colonies; but the colonists did have legitimate complaints and they did try to work them out peacefully.
The most valid complaint was British mercantilism. American interests were disregarded time and time again so as to further British interests. Example: The Iron Act of 1750 illegalized the growth of the American iron industry because American iron was cutting into the British iron industry's profit margin. This move put thousands out of work.
The British also took the habit of quartering troops in colonist's homes, without the consent, approval, or even advance warning of the homeowners. It was perfectly legal for a band of soldiers to turn up at your doorstep late one evening and announce they were moving in. Colonists were required to give meals and bedding to the soldiers, even at the expense of their dinners and beds. See Parliament's Quartering Act of 1765.
Britain had no intention whatsoever to compromise with colonists. Americans, upset with the above British actions as well as the increased power exercised by Crown-appointed governors over elected colonial legislatures, began a perfectly legal and incredibly effective boycott of British goods, accompanied by the dispatch of a statesman, Ben Franklin, to London to negotiate. Britain, rather than ease restrictions and attempt to get along, simply passed more laws illegalizing colonial trade with countries other than Britain. Then, a small group of zealots boarded a British ship in Boston Harbor and threw its cargo of tea into the water as an act of protest. This was an illegal and prosecutable act, I do not defend it. The British went too far; though. Parliament passed the Coercive Acts, punishing the entire city of Boston for the crimes of a few. The port, lifeblood of the city, was completely shut down, and Boston was turned into a blockaded fortress of British troops. In response, colonists only shunned even more British goods. The boycott remained mostly legal- though smuggling was common, food was grown locally and the fashionable, patriotic thing became for women to sew clothes for their family. In response, the British put Boston under direct military rule in 1774, suspending civil rights. This did not sit well with the colonists. When rural Massachusetts citizens began illicitly supplying Boston with food and supplies, Parliament declared the colony to be in rebellion. At that point, colonists could either back down and dedicate their lives to improving the British economic engine, or they could rise up.
Of course, these problems could have been worked out had the colonists had any representation whatsoever in Parliament. Parliament insisted that MPs would act on the behalf of all subjects of the empire, and therefore the colonists did not need direct representation. This didn't sit well with the colonists. Several individual colonial legislatures offered to end boycotts and accept Parliamentary law if the colonies got representation. The First Continental Congress actually abhorred the idea of rebellion. They remained highly loyal to the King, Parliament was their enemy. Several pleas were sent to the King, most notably the Declaration of Rights and Grievances. When these went unheeded, eventually colonists began to offer to give up ground to Parliament itself, allowing for complete British domination if only colonists could elect MPs. Ben Franklin, John Jay, and others actually went to Parliament and offered compromises. When they were drummed out of Parliament, a warning was issued: if Parliament continued to ignore the colonists, the American colonies might rebel. This warning was ignored. Colonists, quite literally, were completely abject to the whims of an uncaring government an ocean away. As the British continued to deny American colonists the traditional Declared Rights of Englishman, it became very clear that the colonists were simply second-class citizens.

 

[Keirador]

Patrick Henry's famous oration to a Virginia legislative convention sums up the feelings of the colonists quite nicely:

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 

[Keirador]

Sadly, there is less American-side documentation for the Revolutionary War and a lot of gaps appear to have been filled by fable. Less exagerated than King Arthur but the big picture does not click together in the same sort of way. I would like to know more about the data received by PM North: Without that information, he does come across as being a rather naive man. Being biased, I have no qualms with the notion that PM North & Parliament were actually starved of valuable information.

What documentation do you need from the colonists that you find lacking?

 

[YNCS]

The Colonials' complaint was not about high taxation. What angered the Colonials was that they thought themselves to be Englishmen, yet were denied that most basic English right, representation in Parliament. The rallying cry was "no taxation without representation." The colonies could have taxes and other laws imposed on them, but had no input on those taxes and laws.

 

[privatehudson]

I once heard that compared to the taxation imposed on the British, the taxation that the colonials suffered was rather less, is that true? (essentially someone was arguing that had the British just bothered to give decent representation the revolution would not have happened and used that as an example)

I personally don't know, so thought it was time to clear that up

 

[Keirador]

That is true; and in fact until the Stamp Acts, the Crown did not tax colonists at all, they merely charged import and export duties. It wasn't really about taxation, it was about the rights the colonists felt themselves entitled to as English citizens that were not granted by Parliament.

 

[privatehudson]

That is true; and in fact until the Stamp Acts, the Crown did not tax colonists at all, they merely charged import and export duties. It wasn't really about taxation, it was about the rights the colonists felt themselves entitled to as English citizens that were not granted by Parliament.

Excellent I have a few acquaintances on other forums that have often blathered on about how the British taxation caused great unrest in the colonies by itself and play down the representation issue. Now I can say "Get some perspective, it was a lot less than we taxed people living in Britain!"

 

[stormbind]

IOW, you're making definitive statements based on something that you read some time ago and cannot now source.

If you're going to give revisionist history, you should expect to be questioned by those familiar with more "mainstream" versions. I have no doubt that you're giving out what you remember having read, but I suspect that your memory is somewhat faulty.

Previously in this thread, I gave a couple of paragraphs on the origins of the American Revolution. Nobody asked me for sources because I was giving a mainstream explanation. However, if you or anyone else asked me for sources, I could have given them (unlike you, I am a historian).

Is the role of historians not to challenge mainstream beliefs?

 

[YNCS]

Is the role of historians not to challenge mainstream beliefs?

Historical objectivity and accuracy are ideals which can be approached but never achieved. The major debate in histography right now is revisionism. Generally, there is no objection to someone discovering a new fact that contradicts the mainstream perception of an event, nor if someone comes up with a new interpretation of an event, providing they give reasonable justification for the new interpretation. However, most revisionism today is history not written by the winners, but rather by those with axes to grind.

For instance, the holocaust deniers disregard literally tons of evidence and seize on a few grains of contradiction, usually in secondary sources, to claim that six million Jews and five million other people weren't killed by the Nazis.

One problem with historical accuracy is that two historians using the same data can come up with quite different conclusions. As an example, both the British and Germans claim victory at the Battle of Jutland. The Germans point out the facts that they sank more ships and inflicted more casualties than the British did to them and were able to escape a trap to return their intact fleet to harbor. The British say that the Germans returned to port and the High Seas Fleet never ventured out again until they surrendered in 1918.

 

[privatehudson]

That's not exactly true. The British tend to argue more that the Germans were unable to break the blockade or gain numerical parity with the RN (both being aims of the HSF prior to the engagement) since it's well known that the HSF did leave port after the battle making the "they never left" argument a little redundant.

 

[Hotpoint]

While that did occur, the ruling was igornored for several years. The British imposed fines on slave traders in 1807 (the US congress would follow suit in 1808). Lower Canada would abolish slavery in 1791. It was only in 1834 did Birtish slaves were freed.

Actually the ruling by Lord Mansfield was not ignored, the problem was that it was only binding in England not in the rest of the British Empire which was not under the authority of English Courts.

However the ruling did have an impact on the American Colonies since the Courts there were able to use English Legal Precedent on which to make decisions (because the Courts in the 13 Colonies followed English Common Law). In fact several slaves in the Colonies did bring cases to the Courts claiming that based on Mansfields Ruling they were now free.

A question worth pondering is would the Colonies have accepted an offer of unification with England (giving them equal legal rights and Parliamentary representation) if the automatic end result was that Lord Mansfields ruling automatically came into force and they had to give up their slaves? It was the Act of Union 1707 that legally united England and Scotland. Might another hypothetical Act of Union 1774 uniting Great Britain and the American Colonies really end the pressure for secession or not?

 

[Drewcifer]

Excellent I have a few acquaintances on other forums that have often blathered on about how the British taxation caused great unrest in the colonies by itself and play down the representation issue. Now I can say "Get some perspective, it was a lot less than we taxed people living in Britain!"

Yeah, taxes weren't really the issue. If Britain had been smart it would have given the American colonies MPs in Parliment and the crisis may have been averted, it would have at least co-opted much of the colonial elite who formed much of the leadership of the revolution. The issue was partially driven by the fact that because of distance many colonial legislatures had grown more democratic than Britain itself was at the time and both the populace and their representatives disliked having their decisions vetoed by appointed governors and subject to a Parliment that they had no power to influence. Without representation in London they saw their legislatures as being equal to Parliment and saw themselves as having the rights of Englishmen seperate from Parliment as they were gorverned by charters that came from the crown, not Parliment. Until their colonial legislatures were disolved and their lands and homes were occupied by British troops bent on enforcing those decisions most Englishmen in America didn't see any reason to revolt.

It is probably a lesson Britain had to learn the hard way though, and most likely had an impact on future policies towards Canada, Australia and New Zealand and the genesis of the Commonwealth.

 

[Hotpoint]

Yeah, taxes weren't really the issue. If Britain had been smart it would have given the American colonies MPs in Parliment and the crisis would have been averted. It is probably a lesson Britain had to learn the hard way though, and most likely had an impact on future policies towards Canada, Australia and New Zealand and the genesis of the Commonwealth.

Giving the American Colonies Parliamentary Representation would have likely required Union with Britain (as giving the Scots Parliamentary Representation required the 1707 Act of Union I mentioned before) and that would have had serious implications on the slavery issue as I mentioned before.

Considering the role of slavery in the causation of the later American Civil War would my hypothetical 1774 Act of Union really have stopped the War of Independence? I can certainly see several of the 13 Colonies still wanting out of British rule if the price for American MP's in the House of Commons was giving up their cheap farm labour.

 

[Drewcifer]

Giving the American Colonies Parliamentary Representation would have likely required Union with Britain (as giving the Scots Parliamentary Representation required the 1707 Act of Union I mentioned before) and that would have had serious implications of the slavery issue as I mentioned before.

Considering the role of slavery in the causation of the later American Civil War would my hypothetical 1774 Act of Union really have stopped the War of Independence? I can certainly still see several of the 13 Colonies still wanting out of British rule if the price for American MP's in the House of Commons was giving up their cheap farm labour.

I think, though I could be wrong, that it wouldn't have become an issue until later if the political will existed to create a union. Britain was still gleefully enslaving people for use in it's colonies. A decent politician could find a fudge if the will existed and the imperitive need was understood (which is was not). The desire for independence in America was caused mostly by troubles with Parliment and it's actions to stifle the colonies attempts to govern themselves and their inability to influence that body once the initial problems occured. Slavery was not the issue.

 

[stormbind]

What documentation do you need from the colonists that you find lacking?

Your posts have been very informative. They do not vindicate Washington though

I have not seen evidence to support your post, but I would like to. I would also like to see that the same documents actually landed on PM North's desk along with dates - which are required to see if suggestions were being made in a reasonable fashion.

Without evidence, your post could be just another fable like the one about a tyrant King George III raping and pillaging in the collonies

 

[Hotpoint]

Slavery was not the issue.

Although not one of the primary causes of the Revolutionary War I disagree that slavery was not an issue, certainly by the 1770's it was. There was in fact some considerable increase in disquiet in the Colonies regarding the ending of slavery in England and it certainly soured the situation in Virginia at least.

The early 1770s were a period of slave unrest in Virginia, prompting the city of Williamsburg to establish a night watch in July 1772 to apprehend "disorderly People, Slaves as well as others." Slave restiveness increased when news of the Somersett case reached the colonies in September 1772. James Somersett, a slave taken to England by his master Charles Steuart, had run away. Recaptured and in chains in the hull of a ship bound for Jamaica, he sued for his freedom. In June 1772, Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, held that slavery "is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law." As "the law of England" neither "allowed" nor "approved" of slavery, Mansfield ruled that "the black must be discharged."

Mansfield's decision outlawed slavery only in England; it did not apply to British colonies. But that was immaterial to American slaves. In January 1773, the General Court in Boston received the first of three petitions in which slaves pleaded their freedom with the argument that Mansfield's decision should indeed apply to the colonies, where they were "held in a state of Slavery within a free and christian Country."

By September 1773, the first of Virginia's 250,000 slaves were also trying to get "out of the Colony, particularly to Britain" - so noted John Austin Finnie's advertisement for runaways Bacchus and Amy - "where they imagine they will be free." The king was on their side - or so slaves thought - and against their masters, who feared a British-instigated slave revolt. Following the discovery in November 1774 of slaves conspiring to desert "when the English troops should arrive," James Madison wrote to William Bradford of his conviction that "If america & Britain come to an hostile rupture I am afraid an Insurrection among the slaves may & will be promoted" in an attempt to preserve Virginia for the crown of King George III.

When tensions between Dunmore and Virginia's ruling elite increased in early 1775, the ground was well prepared for his lordship to "arm all my own Negroes and receive all others that will come to me who I shall declare free," as he wrote to Dartmouth on March 1. Dunmore could argue that since the colonists were clamoring for English law, they could get a taste of it, Somersett and all. The slaves, on the other hand, considered the government in London and its local representatives to be sympathetic to their cause, and they were only waiting for the sign to take up arms to "reduce the refractory people of this Colony to obedience."

Armed conflict was looming, and Dunmore ordered Royal Marines to seize the gunpowder stored in the Williamsburg Magazine during the night of April 20-21. When Virginia threatened to erupt in open violence, Dunmore backed down. Forced to pay restitution for the powder, Dunmore lost his temper in front of the town leaders. Williamsburg resident Dr. William Pasteur heard the governor say that he would "declare freedom to the slaves and reduce the City of Williamsburg to ashes." He boasted he would have "all the slaves on the side of the government". By mid-May, rumors of Dunmore's plans had spread all the way to Boston, from where General Thomas Gage, Governor of Massachusetts, informed Dartmouth: "We hear that a Declaration his Lordship has made, of proclaiming all the Negroes free, who should join him, has Startled the Insurgents."

Gage was jumping the gun but not by much. On June 8, Dunmore fled Williamsburg for the safety of the man-of-war Fowey at Yorktown. The Virginia Convention quickly assured the governor of his own personal safety but expressed its extreme displeasure of this "most diabolical" scheme "meditated, and generally recommended, by a Person of great Influence, to offer Freedom to our slaves, and turn them against their Masters." But Dunmore felt that he had no alternative. His ranks reduced to some 300 soldiers, sailors, and loyalists, he let it be known that he welcomed supporters of any skin color. As word spread along the coast, about 100 black runaways reached Dunmore's fleet during the fall of 1775. In early November his troops routed a corps of Virginia militia at Kemp's Landing. That was the signal for the publication of Dunmore's long-anticipated proclamation to American slaves.

Dated November 7, it declared "all indented Servants, Negroes, or others (appertaining to Rebels,) free that are able and willing to bear Arms, they joining his MAJESTY'S Troops, as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing this Colony to a proper Sense of their Duty, to his MAJESTY'S Crown and Dignity". This was not a general emancipation of slaves and indentured servants. Dunmore invited only those slaves to his banner who were owned by rebels, and of those, only males could bear arms.

The response was overwhelming. By December 1, about 300 runaways were carrying muskets and wearing the garb of Lord Dunmore's Ethiopian Regiment, the words "Liberty to Slaves" emblazoned on their chests.

http://www.americanrevolution.org/blk.html

 

[YNCS]

That's not exactly true. The British tend to argue more that the Germans were unable to break the blockade or gain numerical parity with the RN (both being aims of the HSF prior to the engagement) since it's well known that the HSF did leave port after the battle making the "they never left" argument a little redundant.

I was simplifying.

And yes, the High Seas Fleet did venture out of harbor a couple of times after Jutland. In December 1917 the First Scouting Group (battlecruisers) attacked and sank a convoy (and one of its escorts) going from Scandinavia to Britain. As a result, the Grand Fleet provided a battle squadron to protect all the Scandinavian convoys. The Germans knew of this system, and Scheer saw his best opportunity so far to achieve the elusive aim of destroying a significant part of the Grand Fleet by overwhelming one of these battle squadrons with the whole High Seas Fleet. Beatty, then in command of the Grand Fleet, had 34 battleships and 9 battlecruisers to Scheer's 19 and 5. A British battle squadron usually consisted of 8 battleships.

It was a sound enough scheme. This time Scheer gave maximum attention to secrecy, passing off his assembly of the fleet in the Schillig Roads as an exercise, and imposing radio silence. The only drawback was that there was no convoy at sea that day, as German intelligence should have known. But total secrecy was achieved, for once, on April 23, 1918, the last sortie of the High Seas Fleet.

Scheer's plan was to send Hipper ahead with the battlecruisers to locate the expected convoy, attack it, and lead the escorting battleships to the guns of the waiting German battle line. Unreported by a British submarine which assumed they were friendly, the German ships sailed north-westward for 24 hours, the furthest they had ever been from their base. Then the battlecruiser Moltke had a serious mechanical breakdown. She fell back on the battleships and her condition led Scheer to decide to return home, leaving Hipper at sea to destroy the awaited convoy. He found nothing because there was nothing to be found, having searched the area as far north as southwest Norwegian waters before turning back and catching up with the homeward bound battleships.

Meanwhile, the Moltke's radio calls for help had alerted the British. This is more than can be said for one of their submarines which saw the Geman ships twice during their sortie and failed to report. Beatty took the entire available strength of the Grand Fleet out of the Firth of Forth, now its main base, and headed east with 31 battleships and 4 battlecruisers, with the usual escorts. This was their last excursion of the war, too, and they were 12 hours too late. No contact at all occurred between the two fleets and the Germans got home on the evening of the 25th. A British submarine torpedoed the limping Moltke, but she still managed to get to Wilhelmshaven early on the morning of the 26th. Beatty turned back, a bitterly disappointed man, and also very concerned that this time the Germans had managed to get into the North Sea without his knowledge.

 

[privatehudson]

I was simplifying.

I was clarifying