Another British Perspective on the RevWar

[lysander6]

One of my fellow LewRockwell columnists penned this gem.  At first blush, it appears heretical to the goals of Appleseed but I think it simply makes us smarter to view the issue through all the prisms available.

Numerous men and women sprinkled throughout the Conservative/Libertarian movement have taken inspiration from the original Tea Partyites of December 1773 - the good Patriots of Boston who dumped 342 chests of British East India Company tea into Boston Harbor as symbolic resistance against imperial taxation. Politics is indeed theatrical. And what would otherwise have been an ordinary act of waterfront vandalism has been elevated to the lofty status of the quintessential American political protest.

Courtesy of my ex-wife Peggy who worked on his American Tax Reduction Movement staff, I had the distinct privilege of knowing personally Howard Jarvis, the late-leader of the modern American tax-revolt movement - an outstanding gentleman who spearheaded the passage of Proposition 13 in California and its progeny nationwide. Jarvis, a self-styled student of American history, bandied about a very effective slogan - "Death and taxes may be inevitable. But getting taxed to death isn't!" - which cleverly tapped into the Boston Tea Party legend along with an echo of Virginian Patrick Henry's famous cry: "Give me liberty or give me death!"

Today it's a cardinal article of faith that the America colonists were completely justified revolting against King George III and British colonial rule. However, the beauty of comparative history is that it allows us to look at this episode in broader perspective so that the alleged uniqueness of events often fade as larger patterns are identified. In fact, the American Revolution looks a great deal less wholesome - indeed rather unnecessary - upon sober reflection.

Now it goes without saying that some regimes are clearly so evil that they deserve to be overthrown. The American people may oftentimes lack sophistication regarding foreign affairs, but they instinctively know despotic government when they see it. The list of suspects who justly earned the opprobrium of the American citizens include such rogues as Kaiser William II, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Ferdinand Marcos, Manuel Noriega, and Saddam Hussein, to name just a few.

See:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/kolkey3.1.1.html

I happen to think it makes the history presenters more relevant and reflective.  In any case, it is yet another perspective to address questions at the AS history presentations that may have gone unanswered before.  I just finished reading a fictionalized narrative called Saratoga by David Garland which treats the war from the British perspective and it was very illuminating.

See:  http://www.amazon.com/Saratoga-American-Revolution-David-Garland/dp/0312361483/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265385454&sr=1-1

[Fred]

   There's plenty of people in this country today willing to downgrade/downplay/ridicule our Rev War ancestors.

   So no need for us to give them heed - or help.

   Sure, Parliment and the King were not Hitler and the Nazis.

   But, they were unspeakably corrupt.

   However, that doesn't matter.

   The issue was they were not representative.

   They did not represent us, in any way.

   The fact they "were not as bad as Hitler" or whomever was - and is - not the issue.

    Americans are not, and should not be, about accepting second best - or putting up with the lesser of two evils.

    And who can argue that, as a result of the American Revolution, a new principle was established in human history: The sovereignty of the citizen.

    Which is not dimished one bit by the 'drift' this country has undergone in the last generations, a drift toward becoming serfs, and subjects, once again.

    The principle was established.

    They accomplished their task; they are not responsible for the failure of future generations to protect what they handed down to them. That's our responsibilty.

     Hence, Appleseed!

   No intention of dissing your post - I'm glad you posted it - we can't have too many posts about those times...

[Another D.O.M.]

The issue was they were not representative.

   They did not represent us, in any way.

     Yeah, I got the same impression from some of the comments made by those involved in the April 19th (and thereafter) events.  Taxation, per se, was not the prevailing issue, it was the lack of representation in what was to be done with those taxes.  Just as our own Civil War had little to do with abolishing slavery and more to do with the federal government flexing its muscles and seeking to control that which they had no legitimate claim to, the American Revolution was about a society of self-governed people refusing to accept the dictates of a government several thousand miles distant telling them that they could no longer 'regulate their own affairs'.

That's my take on it, anyway.

[PHenry]

Ya know, I am the first to admit wholeheartedly and without reservation, that I am no expert on this subject and less than an amateur in terms of my literary abilities, but it would seem to me that the author may have failed to consider, or at least afforded sufficient weight to certain points in his assessment.

"In fact, the American Revolution looks a great deal less wholesome - indeed rather unnecessary - upon sober reflection."

Firstly, the war was not begun over anything more than the desire to retain a natural right - the right to self defense. Professional troops came to steal their powder and they were "resistant" to that idear. They had honest cause, beyond the normal level, to be concerned about being disarmed. They did not want a fight - their very deeds makes this clear. They merely refused to give up their arms. Some would argue that they started the fight and the King merely intended to finish it, but I would say that the king made a serious tactical error of underestimation. Such is the arrogance of privilege - it clouds the mind and misdirects the "moral compass".

Further, the Revolution went far beyond simply throwing off taxation or a distant ruler. At this time, hereditary rule was the norm. It was accepted as the way of man. Our ancestors were, at least to my limited understanding, of a different genetic profile, having been through a "filter" of sorts. To get to America in the 1700s would be akin to traveling to Mars today - a journey of epic proportion with the odds of a safe arrival most poor. Only thems who wanted Freedom more than life itself would have been willing to gamble their lives on such a perilous trip.

I see the end result of this "filter effect" as a grand genetic experiment gone horribly right. People of all races, creeds and religions, braving the treacherous waters of the Atlantic in tiny wooden crafts with no guarantee of success, simply because they yearned to live a life unfettered by kings and tyrants. A quote from a Hessian merc sums it up for me "What is this thing they call "Liberty" that causes common rabble to rise up against kings?". He was clearly incredulous, his family having lived under a king for generation after generation.

Life was hard and adversity abounded, resulting in greater character and a self-reliant people who bristled at the notion of "rulers". I believe it was this filter effect that bore the fruit of Revolution - the "turning over" of the old for a new way, where the common man could determine his own destiny.

I must presume that the author does not see the king as "bad enough" to warrant a war for independence. He would have had plenty of company in 1775 - we know that from the words of men like Sam Adams and Thomas Payne. And yet, does not any man who would be god, deserve any less? "Can a virtuous man hesitate in his choice?".

"The right (not only to tax), but to BIND US IN ANY CASE WHATSOEVER. Even the expression is impious, for such a power can belong only to God".

I believe that our ancestors created a precious gift to the world - the gift of self-government. Did they invent the concept - no they did not. They merely hazarded an experiment and it resulted in the freest and  most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

I think they had no choice, but to revolt. Not because the King George was so bad - because he was a king at all. I think the world needed America to show them the light then and I think they still need it today. I think we are the children of Liberty and I see it as our duty to maintain what they created, for better or for worse, because if Freedom dies here and now - God help the entire human race for all eternity. I fear the odds of regaining Freedom now would be even slimmer now than they were in 1775.

My .02

[AZRedhawk44]

I gotta agree with Fred on this one, too.

I've had "comparative history" foisted upon me through high school and college.  I've seen it mostly as a means to demean the successes of some societies by reflecting upon the concept of "see what THESE people put up with before they revolted, or what they NEGOTIATED for rather than demanding freedom?"

Europeans often call the Revolutionary War, the Babies' War.  They saw it as immature and poorly motivated.

To this day, they still (mostly) don't get it.

But, once we annex Canada as the 51st state of the Appleseed Union, then we can make a Viking-like invasion in Ireland (I'll bring the mead! ) and carry the torch of not just the American Revolution, but the Humankind Revolution!

(But first, I need to 'Seed more in AZ )

I'm a fan of "absolute history" and "absolutism" in general.  I consider absolutism to entail a full, 100% appreciation for something in its own light rather than watering down its meaning by attempting to draw parallels to other events.  

If I may use a comparison to describe absolutism (blasphemy to absolutism, but such is life)...
-It's like truly loving a significant other for the person they are rather than simply going through the dating motions looking for someone that is "good enough" against a set of standards you might have, or they're the "best you've found so far."  That implies you'll move on once you find something that measures higher on your standards, rather than setting your standards upon the person you love.
-It's like having a PhD in a subject and continuing to delve into its intricacies, rather than teaching the subject after making a cursory familiarization course and then getting an "education" degree so you can teach anything similar to that subject.

I intend to convey the passion of the American Revolution to my students at Appleseeds, and the only way to do that is with Absolute History.  Comparative History is just another masked form of Comparative Morality or comparative social standards.  

Isaac Davis didn't die for us to equivocate on the appropriateness of his troops to march on the British in Concord while it was burning due to their actions.

Jonas Parker didn't die for us to equivocate on the appropriateness of him returning fire on the British at Lexington.

Asahel Porter didn't die for us to suggest he should maybe not have heeded the muster call of a neighboring town.

And John Adams WILL regret from heaven that he took half the pains to safeguard our liberties, if we question the intensity of their purpose and the clarity of their reason.  We, the generation of the entertainment idols and moral relativity.  We, the asleep.

But, when we have schools that use Payne's Common Sense and Mao's Little Red Book in the same class without any sense of value guidance, who can we blame but ourselves for allowing our critical reasoning skills to deteriorate so?

This begins to stray a bit from Appleseed, but I like to think that part of the reason I Appleseed is because I think "discrimination" is a maligned word.  Appleseeding helps wake up people's analytical skills to the world around them.  It turns them into more discriminating consumers, savers and voters.  Hopefully.

Anyways... I'd hope we all are wary of the dangers of comparative history.  If nothing else, please keep in mind that comparative history is a slippery slope into the territory of comparative morality.  It also dilutes the passion of the message we try to convey, and that's far more important than particular names and dates or numbers of dead that might sometimes get inadvertently changed or forgotten between tellings.

[V]

In a nutshell

Being "British" by accident of birth doesn't make me an expert on British History and Heritage no more than being American by accident of birth makes americans American.

"I have but one lamp to guide my feet and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way to judge the future but by the past" Patrick Henry.

"Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in 6000 years will never happen again." Daniel Webster

Teach your children well, do not assume that this stuff just rubs off on them.

We do not need to guess what causes may or may not have affected the outcome of a unique place, time, events and people, we can read what they wrote, we can read what they read. Do not accept what anyone tells you, not because they are lying or manipulating but because they may just be mistaken, check it our for yourselves. We live in an age where nothing is more than a few keystrokes and clicks away from you. Make good use of it.

[starfox]

As Ronald Reagan made popular, "Trust, but verify."  Words to live by.

[SamD]

"What made you go to the Concord Fight?" Chamberlain wanted to know. "Young man," replied Preston, "what we meant in going for those Redcoats was this: we had always governed ourselves and we always meant to."

[Fred]

   Some more thoughts about this outstanding thread of posts:

...the good Patriots of Boston who dumped 342 chests of British East India Company tea into Boston Harbor as symbolic resistance against imperial taxation. Politics is indeed theatrical. And what would otherwise have been an ordinary act of waterfront vandalism has been elevated to the lofty status of the quintessential American political protest.

    This is fuzzy thinking of the first order, as in the same sentence he says "symbolic resistance" and "ordinary act of waterfront vandalism".

     However, it has to be one or the other. It can't be both, regardless of how the British may have viewed it.

Today it's a cardinal article of faith that the America colonists were completely justified revolting against King George III and British colonial rule.

     I'm prob being 'picky' with this comment, but I don't see it's "a cardinal article of faith" in a land where a big chunk of the population does not know even the century in which the event took place - and none of the rest know or care, either, if the truth be known.

However, the beauty of comparative history is that it allows us to look at this episode in broader perspective so that the alleged uniqueness of events often fade as larger patterns are identified. In fact, the American Revolution looks a great deal less wholesome - indeed rather unnecessary - upon sober reflection.

     Clearly iconoclasm ("one who attacks superstitions or shams") is working here - tear something down (I believe, because it makes the critic look good - at least, in his own eyes). In fact, tearing down, not "superstitions" or "shams", but substance - in a shameful way, from the perspective of the founders - but of course, their view is the last view to ever be considered by the "smarter than you" boys.

      Plus a total misreading of the events in question. Is this the lack of someone pickled in the PC brine we're all immersed in from birth, any more?

      But now to a different question, just as interesting: Why did the shooting break out that day?

      Lexington: The British fired on Americans (no, historians in their short-sightedness don't know it - but we, in this program, do). Any American firing would have been in self-defense.

      North Bridge: British fired on Americans first - not much historical doubt about it. Again, any American firing would have been defensive.

      Merriam's Corner: Again historical ambiguity as to "who fired first" raises its ugly head.

      But clearly, the British had fired first twice in a row. And likely word of the attack at the North Bridge on peaceful Americans spread in a flash, and those Americans at the Corner knew about the North Bridge. I recall Fisher saying something to the effect that the issue as to who fired first was clouded, but in his opinion the weight of historical was in favor of the Brits firing first. A quick look at several books has it split, with some saying one side fired first, others, the other side...

      A Park Service employee at the North Bridge related his version: That an American militia unit approaching down the road from the north saw in the far distance the British column passing across and down the road to Boston, and, in the spirit of defiance, angry at the account of the North Bridge (and maybe Lexington) fired their rifles in the air as a warning to the Brits not to come back. But not straight up in the air - sorta at an angle - and some of the ball, fired far outside effective range, rained down or past the redcoats - who, believing they'd been deliberately fired on, returned fire.

       I found the Park Service people extremely knowledgeable and would not give this account short shrift; it can certainly be plausible as a scenario as to how the shooting started at the M.C.
     

[dart67eb]

The same person who remarked that the tea party was 'ordinary vandalism' would probably have said it was 'heroic resistance' if socialists were doing it.  Remember, winners write history.  We have to be the winners.

[Fred]

    Something to consider, whenever dealing with historical facts:

In the book What Happened on Lexington Green, Carl Becker a noted American historian writes in his paper What Are Historical Facts "What then is the historical fact? Far be it from me to define so illusive and intangible a thing! But provisionally I will say this: the historian may be interested in anything that has to do with the life of man in the past any act or event, any emotion which men have expressed, any idea, true or false, which they have entertained. Very well, the historian is interested in some event of this sort. Yet he cannot deal directly with the event itself, since the event itself has disappeared. What he can deal with is a statement about the event. He deals in short not with the event, but with a statement, which affirms the fact that, the event occurred. When we really get down to the hard facts, what the historian is always dealing with is an affirmation - an affirmation of the fact that something is true. There is thus a distinction of capital importance to be made: the distinction between the ephemeral event, which disappears, and the affirmation about the event, which persists. For all practical purposes it is this affirmation about the event that constitutes for us the historical fact. If so the historical fact is not the past event, but a symbol that enables us to recreate it imaginatively. Of a symbol it is hardly worthwhile to say that it is cold or hard. It is dangerous to say even that it is true or false. The safest thing to say about a symbol is that it is more or less appropriate.

"This brings me to the second question - Where is the historical fact? I will say at once, however brash it sounds, that the historical fact is in someone's mind or it is nowhere."

    PS: I can't find any other reference to Becker or this book; maybe one of you with better internet search skills can come up with something. Personally, I'd like to see what his version of events is for that morning.

     His point is well-taken - all we have to 'know' what went on that morning, is the statements of those who were there. Find ALL the statements, try to resolve differences and inconsistencies, and you're as close to the truth as you'll ever get.

[willorith]

Mr. Henry, my gentle friend:

Who are you to opine so ardently on the matter of freedom? But a mere working man, a wire monkey!

Who are you? You are the back bone of America. You are the mechanics that have been in the trenches fighting for freedom throughout history. The men and women of the skilled trades are the people that make any economy work. When they go to bed at night there is more wealth in the world because of the work they performed that day. The mechanics are the only source of wealth in any society. Anybody that does not produce, lives off the labor of those that do produce.

The mechanics are also a vast underestimated pool of intelligence that forms well thought out opinions on matters that affect their lives. Those opinions seem to coalesce around common ideas. In Paul Revere's day, as well as today, these ideas are simple and profound. They want to be left alone to go about their lives. They are deeply offended by the notion that the government knows better how to spend their money than they do.

The purpose of the colonies was to send wealth back to England. The purpose of the serfs of Europe was to generate wealth for the lord. The difference in the matter of America was the filter effect Mr. Henry speaks of. I have heard him expound on his theory at instructor's dinner several times. I believe that he has used his mechanic's wisdom to develop a theory of great importance.

In Europe the status quo had existed for centuries, The serfs worked the land. The lord provided protection, more or less, for his people, and the individuals that took offense at being a slave were such a minority that they were easily handled with a quick hanging or a little swordplay that served to remind the others that they were in fact the property of the lord.

Then the New World opened up. A place of wondrous adventure and vast unclaimed wealth. An irresistible draw for the boldest individuals in Europe. So, for a few hundred years the most intelligent, boldest most adventuresome people of Europe came to the North American Continent. They left behind the concept of peasant and serf. A curious thing happened. The individuals that valued freedom above life were no longer an insignificant, easily squashed minority, These people came up with the bizarre notion that they could rule themselves. Then, horror of horrors, they pulled it off, and the greatest nation ever to exist was born.

This nation derives its greatness from the mechanics that brought it to life, defended it through the years and make it work today. Men like you, Mr. Henry.

[Another D.O.M.]

PS: I can't find any other reference to Becker or this book; maybe one of you with better internet search skills can come up with something. Personally, I'd like to see what his version of events is for that morning.

     The closest match I can find is What Happened on Lexington Green: An Inquiry into the Nature and Method of History by Peter Bennett:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Lexington-Green-Inquiry/dp/0201004615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265468124&sr=8-1

     Carl L. Becker did write The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas and The Eve of the Revolution: A Chronicle of the Breach with England, among other historical works; possibly the writer has mixed up his/her authors?

[Cowdog]

The Beauty of comparative history is that it allows us to look at this episode in broader perspective so that the alleged uniqueness of events often fade as larger patterns are identified. In fact, the American Revolution looks a great deal less wholesome – indeed rather unnecessary – upon sober reflection.

I just stepped on some "comparative history" in the barn tonight.

I will agree that a British historical perspective is useful. The New Englanders were well aware of the history that brought their ancestors to the New World---refugees from the rise of Continental style absolutism in the form of the Stuarts. John Adams and others were well versed in the events of 1688 Revolution and the 1640's Civil war, and were seeing a very disturbing trend. They also had plenty of friends among the English Whigs for the same reason.   

[franklinfarmer]

I agree with posters above who mentioned that the author seems to miss the serious commitment to refuse to be disarmed.  That was what was afoot, and even if it can be argued that one's current state is relatively comfortable, to have one's powder and arms confiscated opens the door to any manner of abuse (e.g., the events of Germany). 

This consideration makes particularly interesting the current confiscations, such as the one mentioned at http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/50093.html

What was it?  14,000 armed and marching by the end of the day on April 19, 1775.  How many would be marching in Massachusetts under similar circumstances now?

On another topic, had any of you heard that John Adams defended one of the regulars who participated in the Boston massacre?

ff

[PHenry]

Sir Willorith,
Right back atcha sir. "We few, we happy few, we band of (Appleseeds) brothers"


ff,
Adams was a man of law. He believed wholeheartedly in the rule of law and the fair and impartial application thereof. He wrestled with his decision to defend the British Captain, knowing full well that it would be an act most unpopular at that time.

His own wife Abigail, in whom he placed great confidence, begged him not to take the case, but Adams was a stubborn man and insisted that the fellow deserved a fair trial and knew well that no one else would have taken the job.

Adams proved that it were the crowd that initiated the fight and that the Regulars had little recourse but to defend themselves. Not one of our proudest moments, but a good man must embrace even the hardest of truths in order to remain true to himself.

Our ancestors suffered a long train of abuses before they fought and in doing so, they purchased in our stead, at great cost, a third option - to work within the framework that they created to change our government by peaceful means.

I have put down the "icebergs" and stepped into the light of reason - Appleseeds.

[ItsanSKS]

Dr. Jonathan M. Kolkey... received his Ph.D. in History from UCLA

Need I say more?

[V]

Dr. Jonathan M. Kolkey... received his Ph.D. in History from UCLA

Need I say more?

I wouldn't...   

[AFTERMATH]

Did King George III Deserve To Be Overthrown?

When did we overthrow the king?
I must have missed that part...
Guess I should go get me a Ph. D from the dollar store down the block...  There must be a sale!

[V]

Did King George III Deserve To Be Overthrown?

When did we overthrow the king?

Quite right Old Boy, it was just a little tiff about secession... No, wait a minute, that was that Other War...

They made it sound so much simpler in skool...

[AFTERMATH]

I see he was so kind as to have his e-mail address placed at the bottom.
You know what I think about this?
I think when he was writing this article; he was just searching for something like Appleseed.
He must be too shy to ask about it....
He's waiting for us to send him an invite... Or two.... Or 5277.
I'm sure you Californians would show Mr. Kolkey a great time. 
This is what he's been waiting for his entire life!
Heck, how can someone possibly aquire a Ph. D. in History without being to an Appleseed.

[lysander6]

Gents,

  All points well taken and I think the most instructive lesson to be taken from the essay is that defeat of an enemy is a formidable task but a mis-characterization or misapprehension of what makes the enemy tick and perceive the world the way they do robs us of the ability to leverage that.  We cannot become victims of self-induced propaganda.  This is one reason why our prosecution of the conflicts in the "Forever War" in the Middle East have become so difficult.  We expect the Pashtun or Iraqis to believe and behave in an American mindset.  Not only is that not the way they see the world but it incites them to resist.

  We are conducting a soft war in which all the contestants have to be understood.  Belief systems are complex machines and should be treated with that regard.

  Those who have read my essays on LewRockwell know that my definition of despot is quite a bit less tolerant than the esteemed Dr. Kolkey.

  Was George III a despot?  In my mind, yes and that is the key to successful empire.  Whatever the empire practices abroad will land on the home shores soon enough to be employed there.

  Ching, ching, carry on with your mud-pies. 

  Thanks for the great discourse.