Discussion question for Honors section, 10/25/07
We will be discussing the Enlightenment a bit more, particularly the different views of human nature that Enlightenment thinkers expressed, but here let's think about the coming of the American Revolution. Here's your question:
Based on the reading, what is the best argument you can make (or could have made) AGAINST American independence from Great Britain? Why do you think that this argument did not carry the day back in the 1770s?
Based on the reading, what is the best argument you can make (or could have made) AGAINST American independence from Great Britain? Why do you think that this argument did not carry the day back in the 1770s?
posted by Jeff Pasley at 4:21 PM
6 Comments:
**First off: This is really weird. Blogger is coming up in Chinese for me. Weird.**
Now for the post...
Surprisingly enough for me to realize, there actually are reasons to not have revolted. That is a strange concept that they do not teach in earlier History classes. I believe that the biggest thing, though, is not a reason against revolting, but a reason against how they revolted and the consequences.
Ostensibly, what Americans set out to do, but got very wrong to begin with, was to create a more perfect union. Instead, they ended up creating a series of nearly autonomous states that were bound together in a "firm league of friendship". The Articles of Confederation created a country, ostensibly, that would have ended up far more volatile than even Europe was. All of those tiny states next to each other, it would have been all out war. In fact, it came down to that, but under the original establishment it would have happened much sooner.
The revolution was pretty much a thinly veiled way for the elite in America to increase their power and sort of "flex their muscles" in the broader community of the world. Many Americans thinkers and framers of American thought were in it for many noble and ignoble reason. Thomas Paine makes no hesitation in saying it is economic. Not even veiled much. Franklin, Jefferson: their ideas were taking steam. They were being listened to. They wanted more of that.
Aren't wars nearly always driven by the elite, yes. Does that make them more acceptable, no. Is that something that we are confronted with when taught history in high school, no. Anyways, them's my thoughts.
Curtis
I guess I’ll begin by responding to Curtis’ post…
First off, you used the word “ostensibly” twice in the same paragraph. Unacceptable.
Moving to a more substantive level: I’m not really sure why flaws in the political organization of the newly independent Union is relevant to the question of whether a revolution should have taken place. Clearly the colonist saw more limited government and local autonomy as the obvious response to a tyrant that ruled from oversees. Independence at least provided the opportunity for political experimentation, which (eventually) produced a system in which different states coexist as one Union.
I’m also not so sure about the Revolutionary War being some sort of conspiracy by the elites. Surely there was much opposition from the elites, as many benefited greatly from having the good favor of the British. The war for the most part enjoyed a pretty consistent level of popular support, which is actually what leads to believe that the war was not necessary…
Ruling a large number of colonies all the way across the Atlantic was no easy task. The presence of a relatively large number of British loyalist likely lead the British to believe that the revolutionaries were not quite the force that they turned out to be. Had there been a very obvious consensus in favor of independence, its doubtful that the British would expend the resources they on what would be a futile effort to keep the colonies. The fact that the number of loyalist was on the decline confirms that the conditions would have eventually been right for a more peaceful independence.
This also would have been more advantageous because it would have been perceived as less of an abuse of the right of rebellion. Either a) the British would have let up and the problems would be more or less solved or b) their rule would be so bad and so intolerable that there would be universal consensus in favor of revolution.
The best argument I can think of AGAINST American independence from Great Britain is from an economic stand point. While America did have an abundance of natural resource and a supply of "limitless" land, it did not, as a dependent colony, have the capacity to manufacture and refine its natural resources, nor the ability and credibility as a nation to establish a successful trade industry. The greatest advantage I can see of America being a British colony is the great economic support it would receive from a developed, powerful nation. Had America remained as a British colony, the two together would be an powerful economic and military ally, which still, today, may have been considered the most powerful duo in the world. In fact, perhaps the incredible strength and resources available to the pairing would have hindered the development of today's other major players, and made for a radically different social, economic, and militaristic situation globally, in which America and Britain would dominate.
I believe this argument did not carry for both sides back in the day simply because the Americans believed the British monarchy to be greedy and concerned only for the welfare of the British people, and cared only for America as a resource and not as a society of people. Also, since for many, America was a place of refuge from oppression and a land of opportunity, Americans were eager to be free from a country that had controlled them and suppressed them.
During the period of the American Revolution, Great Britan was arguably the world's most powerful country. As such, its military was the strongest IN THE WORLD. From this standpoint, rebelling against Britain's rule was a very good way to commit suicide. From a purely strategic standpoint, the American Revolution was a lost cause.
Thankfully, the colonists were so tired of Great Britan overreaching its authority that they were willing to ignore the odds. For people used to a certain degree of control over their lives, the imposition of strict taxes by a government across the ocean was an unacceptable affront. This was especially true since many colonists came to America in order to escape from repression.
The bigest reason against American indepenence was the loss of supplys, financing, and security. Back then, America was young and not truely able to support itself. Something that I could compare it to would be a kid being cut off from their parents. Parents provide children with finacial support and security, just like Britain provided to America. Britain was the only reason why America was even around and being cut off from the head was a big risk.
I believe financial security and military defense are the most significant reasons behind why colonial America should have stayed united under British control. Fortunately, back in the 1770's, people were less interested in their military defense or financial security, but rather on the justification of their innate personal liberties, especially the slap-in-the-face of taxation without representation. It was a matter of principle and liberty, rather than rationality trying to secure money and land.
Post a Comment
<< Home