"Give Me Liberty of Give Me Death " American Revolution Debate

[Hellkite]

Fore note

Keep in mind everyone, there shall be no flaming tolerated by anyone. So if you partake in a debate, keep it civil... the war was fought a long time ago, keep it that way. Please don't anyone make me have to use my admin powers in a fashion other than improving our site. Syf

Define: The American Revolution

The American Revolution refers to the political upheaval during the last half of the 18th century in which the Thirteen Colonies of North America overthrew the governance of the Parliament of Great Britain, and then rejected the British monarchy itself to become the sovereign United States of America. In this period the colonies first rejected the authority of the Parliament to govern them without representation, and formed self-governing independent states. These states through the Second Continental Congress then joined together against the British to defend that self-governance in the armed conflict from 1775 to 1783 known as the American Revolutionary War (also called American War of Independence). This resulted in the individual states uniting to form one nation, breaking away from the British Empire in 1776 when the Congress issued the Declaration of Independence. While the states had already rejected the governance of Parliament, through the Declaration the new United States now rejected the legitimacy of the monarchy to demand allegiance. The war lasted for seven years, with effective American victory in October 1781, followed by formal British abandonment of any claims to the United States with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

In some respects, the American Revolution commenced a series of intellectual, political, and social shifts in early American society and government. The development of American republicanism was particularly significant, including election of a representative government rather than the prevalent patronage and inherited nobility of the European ruling classes at the time. However, sharp political debates broke out over the role of democracy in the new government, with a number of even the most liberal Founders fearing mob rule. Many issues of national governance were not settled until the Constitution of the United States (1787), which replaced the relatively weak Articles of Confederation that framed the first attempt at a national government. In contrast to the loose confederation, the Constitution established a relatively powerful federated government. The United States Bill of Rights (1791), comprising the first 10 constitutional amendments, quickly followed. It guaranteed many natural rights that were so influential in justifying the revolution, attempting to balance a strong national government with relatively broad personal liberties. The American shift to republicanism, and the gradually increasing democracy, caused an upheaval of the traditional social hierarchy, and created the ethic that has formed the core of American political values.
_______________________________________



Five reasons for the revolutionary war

1.) Freedom from a oppressive British government " Non representation government Via the British colonial government "

2.) Be able to trade with whomever they'd like "The English Navigation Acts were a series of laws which restricted the use of foreign shipping for trade between England (after 1707 Great Britain) and its colonies."

3.) Intolerable and all other acts" Proclamation of 1763,Sugar Act, Currency Act,Stamp Act,Townshend Act and Tea Act


4.) Arrangements over religion and government mixing Namely the use of taxes to support the Church of England

5.) British soldiers "Quartering Act, which stated that British soldiers were to be cared for by residents "

 

[Syf]

That pretty much sums it up. While there were other factors involved, the primary issue was the colonies were treated little more than slaves. With all the taxes being collected, the average person had nothing left for themselves. It was to the point several people were so poor after paying thier taxes they couldn't afford to eat. I can't see how anyone can not justify that the colonies did. And to further the results, the USA has had such a profound impact on the world like no other nation since Rome. I'd even go as far to say the USA has out done Rome in world influence and changes.

A lot of people overlook that Democracy was almost a dead concept when the North American colonies revolted. England was defacto ruled by a Monarch at the time (the so called Parliment was a political propaganda show). Also, people like to point out the USA had a bloody start... Show me a country that has not started in blood! England was at one point the most violent country on the face of the earth. Just ask the Scotts and Irish. And combing over the histories of the nations of the world, I have yet to find a country that was formed without bloodshed, political propaganda, and even foreign influence.
While I can not say every battle in every war is justified... I can say those battles and wars served a purpose in one way or another.

 

[Knight]

not much to offer, but i swear this thread shares a name with a Knight Rider (TOS) episode from season 1...

 

[Hellkite]

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!
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

It was given at Virginia Convention, at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia, and is credited with having swung the balance in convincing the Virginia House of Burgesses to pass a resolution delivering the Virginia troops to the Revolutionary War.

 

[Creed]

Like others on this forum and in this country I am very much pro-america, I applaud their successes and am proud to call them allies. Perhaps like the rest of the world I am prone to expecting a little too much from them, but hey I can blame that on US media... right?

A few issues i think might be... not the whole truth.

the American Revolution commenced a series of...
Not true, by quite a margin, the thinking was already there as were the processes, and Americans far from the first peoples to bring up the issue by force of arms. Indeed a good number of the residents of that country were deported there for espousing these views, there was a 'patriot party' in America from the 1600's, and one of the most influential theorists was the very British John Locke (dead 1704)

One might also point out precursors like classic republicanism (including the works of Machiavelli) and even more ancient works of far more complete democracy, like the constitution of classical Athens.

and the gradually increasing democracy
Actually democracy rapidly receded after the DoI, in particular when the full Constition came out it had removed many of the most egalitarian sections and established some very undemocratic forms (electoral schools etc). The story following the DoI is mostly a victory of the plutocratic elite over the idealists who copied their original document from other people of the same bent.

(2) Navigation Acts are STILL in practice in america, where rules exist about who can participate in internal trade around the US. This was classic protectionism, and perhaps considerably less to the detriment of individual states than the wholly lop sided development of port facilities that followed (and can be seen as a major contributing factor in the causes of the American civil war)


(3.)The unfair taxes you are speaking of were directly started because of an increase in the burden that the protection of the American colonists was putting on the cash-strapped British Crown, a point nobody argues. The theory being that it wasn't fair to ask others to support the freedoms of the americas from their own pockets.

(4) Standard practice again, the CofE was the official church of not only the nation but the empire. It didn't just build churches but was about all the catch-net social welfare that existed anywhere. The church ran poorhouses, hospitals and just about every other thing we now think of as 'social projects', they might not have run them very well, but they were literally all there was.

(5.)Billetting was standard practice across the world, indeed the first barracks purpose built were only just coming into being at this point (as well as dirty, more cramped than prisons and expensive... see 3), and strongly resisted by many as creating an 'artificial' separation between soldiery and population. Most soldiers continued to be housed in public houses wherever possible, and the proprietor was paid a stipend for this. Also please note that a good number of these 'British soldiers' were american recruits and or american settlers after the occasion. (as well as germans, austrians, Irish, danes and even french)

could not afford to eat
As with much of the rest of the world the majority of the population was still rural and agricultural based. Affording to eat was an issue all over the world very often with or without taxes. America can hardly be said to be worse off than Ireland or indeed Somerset during this marked period of bad harvests. Taxes did contribute. But the nation had just come out of a costly war, things were bad everywhere.

"Democracy an almost dead concept".
Sorry, you are going to have to back that one up....

against this..
the 1688 'Glorious revolution' in Britain that began the legal process of turning the monarch into the figurehead they are today.
Cossack republics of the 16th and 17th.. actually included poorer, less advantaged people than the DoI allowed for.
As for the overwhelming tyranny of the monarchy..The majority of Historical thinking at the moment names this era as the point in history where the Aristocracy (as topped by the monarch) was steadily eroded to become the Georgian Plutocracy.. where money ruled.
(see schupeter, Hobson, )

Conclusion..
The revolution was a great thing, it gave voice to ideas that found international approval (one of the big things that prevented Britain from following the war to it's natural conclusion was widespread British parliamentary sympathy for the ideals espoused), impetus to others (france). It freed a new nation for self determination, earlier than it would ever have been granted Dominion status (eg Canada, Australia, New Zealand). But it was not new, and nor was it any more innovative than the 'Stars and stripes' (check the east india company flag of the same time), Nor was it universally supported in America, or even by an overwhelming majority, many americans felt they were entirely justified in naming the rebels 'Traitors'.

Can it also be understood that many of those soldiers fighting against it had a feeling of 'righteous outrage' over what they perceived as a betrayal, especially as the 23rd who got such a drubbing by the new irregular tactics were a few years beforehand standing and dying in line, fighting the french as they tried to stamp their version of far more complete monarchy on the fledgling nation.

Patriots and Loyalists both thought they were standing on principle, and for what was right. The main historiographical difference is one group won and the other very much lost, you have to believe that the whole process would have been presented very differently if those positions had been reversed.
(see Turtledove's 'Two Georges' for a fun fictional account)



And food for thought on that famous speech...

as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery
As long as you are white and male... When the former masters of America were fighting and dying to prevent slavery, can you think who was fighting back in order to ensuring another two generations of Africans would know the whip and the collar?

To this day much of the world mostly wrongly regards America as one of the most racist countries on the face of the earth... How long did it take to help the poor (read ethnic minority) areas of New Orleans? As opposed to the richer areas? Why is the division that clear cut? What proportion of adult African American males have done time?

 

[Hellkite]

You have some valid points but some points are very off ,but they are mostly Idea logical arguments two sides of the coin

And when it comes to Britain and her people I have survived with then a most addmirable people and it is honor to call you allies


But And food for thought on Slavery

Britain, the 'nefarious trade' and slavery

Britain followed in the footsteps of the Portuguese in voyaging to the west coast of Africa and enslaving Africans. The British participation in what has come to be called the 'nefarious trade' was begun by Sir John Hawkins with the support and investment of Elizabeth I in 1573. By fair means and foul, Britain outwitted its European rivals and became the premier trader in the enslaved from the seventeenth century onwards, and retained this position till 1807. Britain supplied enslaved African women, men and children to all European colonies in the Americas.

The 'Slave Coast' came to be dotted with European forts, their massive guns facing out to sea to warn off rival European slave traders. Each 'castle' incorporated prisons or 'barracoons' in which the enslaved women, children and men were kept, awaiting purchase by the traders, who could initially only reach the coast at those times of the year when the winds blew in the right direction. The prisons – without sanitation, with little air – must have been hell-holes in the humid coastal climates. The death rates are not known.

The trade became a very lucrative business. Bristol grew rich on it, then Liverpool. London also dealt in slaves as did some of the smaller British ports. The specialized vessels were built in many British shipyards, but most were constructed in Liverpool. Laden with trade goods (guns and ammunition, rum, metal goods and cloth) they sailed to the 'Slave Coast', exchanged the goods for human beings, packed them into the vessels like sardines and sailed them across the Atlantic. On arrival, those left alive were oiled to make them look healthy and put on the auction block. Again, death rates (during the voyage) are unknown: one estimate, for the 1840s, is 25 per cent.

Plantation and mine-owners bought the Africans – and more died in the process called 'seasoning'. In the British colonies the slaves were treated as non-human: they were 'chattels', to be worked to death as it was cheaper to purchase another slave than to keep one alive. Though seen as non-human, as many of the enslaved women were raped, clearly at one level they were recognized as at least rapeable human beings. There was no opprobrium attached to rape, torture, or to beating your slaves to death. The enslaved in the British colonies had no legal rights as they were not human – they were not permitted to marry and couples and their children were often sold off separately.

Historian Paul Lovejoy has estimated that between 1701 and 1800 about 40 per cent of the approximately more than 6 million enslaved Africans were transported in British vessels. (It must be noted that this figure is believed by some to be a considerable underestimate.) Lovejoy estimated that well over 2 million more were exported between 1811 and 1867 – again, many believe the numbers were much greater.

 

[Creed]

We're deviating from the topic a bit, but because it's interesting all the same...

Some dates for you

1772 Slavery declared illegal in England, including overseas slaves living in England. Lord Chief Justice Mansfield rules that English law does not support slavery, Illegal to return slaves to north america forcibly.
ANY slave on landing in the Home Isles became free.
1783 Large numbers of slaves flee with Loyalists from newly independent US
1807 slave trade declared illegal and British warships began actively seeking and arresting slave traders, whichever nation they hailed from.
1815 British pay Portuguese £750,000 (several hundred million dollars in current values) to cease the trade
1817 Spain paid £400,000 by British to cease trade to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo
1833 Slavery illegal in British colonies, slaves set free
1843 Slaves in muslim and hindu india emancipated (Against their express wishes).

Britain was the biggest exporter of slaves, by a fair margin, the most heavily invested with massive economic incentive to continue, and yet it was the first of it's era to not only ban the trade but put its own citizens on the line to force an end to the iniquitous practice. British soldiers and seamen died to end the trade. Following people like Wilberforce and Carter the country took an ethical stand against it's own economic and strategic interest.
Britain cannot be proud of her part in the early trade, but she certainly can be proud of what she did, in the face of international armed opposition, to stop it.


meanwhile in the US
1810 Southern states make it increasingly difficult to free a slave, even family members required to continue to 'own' their kin on paper post-purchase
1810 -1830 Louisiana the number of slaves increased from under 10,000 to over 42,000
1844 the abolitionist movement finally begins to gain steam
1850 Slave trade 'sort of' abolished as part of compromise deal with south.
1854, 'Slave Power', especially the pro-slavery Democratic Party, controlled two of the three branches of the Federal government.
1860 Living Slave population in US 3,950,546
1865 slavery illegal in US. (yup the better part of a century later than in the UK)
.....Cue sharecropping, Jim crow laws, Segregation,

Even so the US was far from the worst offender... just ask Brazil, Zanzibar, Afganistan. In Haiti people are still being kidnapped and pressed into forced labour, by the truckload; in independent India and Nigeria kids are still being sold and the government is doing LESS about it than they were in 1843.

(fun fact the war of 1896 Britain vs Zanzibar over the continuing ban on slave exportation.. shortest in history 45minutes long)


Back onto topic.
Another thought...

How do the principles behind the American Revolution differ from those espoused when the South opened the civil war?

A distinct region with local issues being ignored by federal government, laws being passed specifically against their economic interests....


(any arguments including the line 'The north was fighting for the abolition of slavery' will be politely laughed at)

 

[Hellkite]

They don't

And the American civil war was not about abolition of slavery all thou it was the main underlining Ideological sticking point. Related and intertwined secondary issues also fueled the dispute; these secondary differences (real or perceived) included tariffs, agrarianism vs. industrialization, and states' rights.

in fact President James Buchanan publicly endorsed the Corwin Amendment and Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said he did not oppose the Corwin Amendment:

Spoiler: The Corwin Amendment

The Corwin Amendmentwas a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the United States Congress on March 2, 1861. Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin offered the amendment during the closing days of the Second Session of the 36th Congress in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. The proposed amendment would have forbidden attempts to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to "abolish or interfere" with the "domestic institutions" of the states, including "persons held to labor or service" (a reference to slavery). In particular, the Corwin Amendment was intended to prohibit the Congress from banning slavery in those states whose laws permitted it.

The main objectives of each sited in the war was to

United states of America " The North"
Was to To Preserve the Union.

Confederate States of America " The South"
Secession from the United States.

In fact it was not until December 6, 1865, Emancipation Proclamation came to light

 

[Creed]

Indeed even as late as 65 the legislators of the US were still arguing about what to do with the issue, with Lincoln and others still at least partly in favour of deporting them wholesale to Liberia.

 

[EAS_Intrepid]

I must say: This is a very interesting topic. Being a former history advanced course student I have to say that I am embarrassed (because I just do not feel up to arguing with anyone who has posted here... the American Revolution - or American war for independence, whatever your point of view is - was never really subject of any lessons.)


The United States are one of the most powerful nations on Earth and I guess it better stays so for some time. There was a comparison between the USA and Rome (by Syf). However, the US are not the only country that shaped our world - the fallen Soviet Union (as well as many other imperial countries have) have shaped that world, too.


That the residents of the Thirteen Colonies rebelled against their imperial oppressors, namely the British, was a necessary action.
However, I would not just minimize it to the rebellion of a large number of people who wanted to have their rights heard by the "ruling class" (yes, I do use that term by Karl Marx). It was not just a fight of democracy against oppressive monarchy or even dictatorship. A democratic regime can also act against the will of a good part of its people.
In my opinion the Brits did have a quite democratic government (judging from the standards of that time), but still they oppressed a part of the people. I also think, that such a revolution can be started against a democratic government. It is not a war or a revolution against democracy itself.
Democracy can be flawed. You and me, we see that every day. The American revolution was a revolution against a democracy, that neglected the democratic rights of a large number of its citizens. If you ask me: when a democracy does just that, it is time to rethink it- time to think about making that democracy more democratic, closer to the people.

In the case of the inhabitants of these thirteen colonies, it also meant to seperate from the motherland. If you want to secure your rights as a citizens - and even more so your basic rights as a human being, lets not forget that - and it is necessary to form a fully new nation, so be it.


I also feel urged to agree to Creed, who correctly stated, that many ideas of the American Revolution and also the basic ideals of this then new USA were based upon Euopean (and thus also British) philosophers. There is nothing wrong with that, you take what positive input you have, lol.

Just my thoughts... correct me if I am wrong

Stay safe!
EA

 

[Syf]

Well I will not argue any of the valid points. I agree with most of them. I do admit, the USA, it's founding, and the ideals behind it are not actually "original" ideas. Everything was copied from other nations, both from he time of the revolt, all the way back to the beginning of mankinds limited history.

As to what I said about Democracy, and the USA, was perhaps somewhat misunderstood. I take full blame for not going into greater detail of what I was attempting to point out. As for England being a Democracy at the time, I don't see it that way. While some history books might tell us it was a form of Democracy, I have to disagree. It was a Monachy with a limited Plutocracy heirachy. The Parliment, the "rich" class had only a "vote" in what was done, but the King or Queen was the ruler none the less and anyone that opposed the Monarch at the time was Jailed, stripped of their wealth and posessions, and usually sentenced to death. We don't see that happening in a true democratic hierachy (with the exception of a wealthy person being caught committing a crime). I ask anyone to prove otherwise. My familytree can trace it's lines back to a person that was stripped of wealth and properties and sentenced to death over political grievences. That's why my family chose to travel to the new world back in the 1700s. My family can even be traced back to "The Boston Tea Party" event that was so critical to the Revolution's cause.

Oh, and here's a funny story to boot:

My mother and Brother travelled to the east coast a couple years back. While there, they were visiting parts of the region, including Boston and Vermont. While they were visiting a historical Museum, when my brother introduced himsef to one of the people there, he was asked for his autograph because he is a direct decendant of Anthony Haswell (Anthony Haswell started the first printing press / Newspaper in Vermont - Vermont Gazette in Bennington, June 5, 1783).

Also note, I have been researching my family tee and it is amazing how many "events" in history my family is connected to in one form or another.

Anyways, to the end of my part of this -

The American Revolution may not be 100% justified... But without it, where would we be today? I thank my lucky stars to be living here today. The land that stands for freedom, and nobody can take that away. I am proud to be an American. While I don't agree with every single event or act, I can't think of many places I'd rather be than here in the heart of this great nation (Oklahoma (and surrounding States) is sometimes called "The heartland", hence, the heart).

All I can say from this point is... This is now, and the rest is history!