TEH AMERICAN REVOLOOTION

[Fate]

And become a northern Louisiana? No thanx.

Quebec would have important tons of Carribean slaves?

As opposed to unimportant tons of Caribbean slaves?

I believe the term you're looking for is Puerto Rican.

[Oexmelin]

Not a very good argument--some people in the colonies were happy to take advantage of some of the benefits available to them, but at the end of the day their overall opinion of british colonialism was expressed through the revolution.

And in return, that is to take an overly simplistic view of what the Revolution was about. The question of British goods was a complex one and, as T. H. Breen has well researched, became important not so much for reasons of economic policies, but as short-hand symbols of the political struggle in and of itself.

In other words, no one really cared about where the goods were produced, but people cared about how they were taxed and, subsequently, how this issue of taxation was related to a political struggle. In so doing, British goods became associated with policies that had to be repelled, and therefore, had to be opposed as goods - not because of opinions over mercantilism, but over opinions over political power.

Then, all of this has to take into account the way the Southern colonies engaged in the Revolution based on issues related to slavery, much more than simply questions of economic theory (see W. Holton «Forced Founder»).

[alfred russel]

Not a very good argument--some people in the colonies were happy to take advantage of some of the benefits available to them, but at the end of the day their overall opinion of british colonialism was expressed through the revolution.

And in return, that is to take an overly simplistic view of what the Revolution was about.

I think simplicity is a virtue. But the simplicity aside, why the arguing with my statement? I've always thought that the early american assessment of british colonialism was negative. Had the american people loved british colonialism, there wouldn't have been a revolution.

[jimmy olsen]

Not a very good argument--some people in the colonies were happy to take advantage of some of the benefits available to them, but at the end of the day their overall opinion of british colonialism was expressed through the revolution.

And in return, that is to take an overly simplistic view of what the Revolution was about.

I think simplicity is a virtue. But the simplicity aside, why the arguing with my statement? I've always thought that the early american assessment of british colonialism was negative. Had the american people loved british colonialism, there wouldn't have been a revolution.

The American people loved being British citizens, and as such believed they had the same rights as citizens in Britain as if the sea did not divide them. If Britain had compromised on the issue of representation they would have been happy to remain in the Empire, Navigation Acts or no Navigation Acts.

EDIT: I really miss JSTOR access now that I'm not going to URI anymore.

[The Minsky Moment]

Not a very good argument--some people in the colonies were happy to take advantage of some of the benefits available to them, but at the end of the day their overall opinion of british colonialism was expressed through the revolution.

I would second Oexmelin's response - rebellion had many other motivations than opposition to imperial trade policies.

[alfred russel]

Not a very good argument--some people in the colonies were happy to take advantage of some of the benefits available to them, but at the end of the day their overall opinion of british colonialism was expressed through the revolution.

I would second Oexmelin's response - rebellion had many other motivations than opposition to imperial trade policies.

I never said otherwise--and certainly not in the post quoted by Oex.

[alfred russel]

At the time of the revolution, there certainly wasn't an affinity for smithian economics in the colonists motivating rebellion. But I don't think that is to say overall british policies adversely affected the colonists, and while they might not have interpreted them in the same ways as I am, they still recognized and were repulsed by their effects.

I'm saying colonialism was not in the interests of the american colonies because (and this is not a comprehensive list):
a) Trade--with europe severely restricted due to the navigation acts, with asia effectively legally prohibited due to the East India monopoly
b) Tax and Spend issues--not likely to be to the colonies benefit due to representation, and their second class status in the empire.

Both of these were recognized by the colonists at the time of the revolution, though perhaps not in the same way we see them. The Boston Tea Party, for example, was a protest movement against the British attempting to take advantage of the East India Monopoly which had been sporadically enforced. The Boston Tea Party and similar protests led to the Intolerable Acts, which included actions such as closing Boston Harbor, which highlighted the second class status and lack of regard for the colonists, as that would not take place in a similar english harbor.

[jimmy olsen]

You act like it would take an all our nothing radical political realignment to avoid the revolution AR, but that's only true if the compromise is made in the 11th hour.

A moderate compromise on this issue of Representation between the mid '50s to mid '60s would have been enough to cool things down for quite a while. And Britain and the Colonies had the kind of political culture where compromise will beget more compromise. Oh it might take a few decades, but it would have come.

[alfred russel]

You act like it would take an all our nothing radical political realignment to avoid the revolution AR, but that's only true if the compromise is made in the 11th hour.

I'm not so much interested in what it would take to placate the colonists to remain in the empire for a while longer. But since the colonial system concentrated economic and political power in the home country, I do think that achieving a situation in which it was in the colonists' interests to remain british would take a radical realignment.

[Valmy]

You act like it would take an all our nothing radical political realignment to avoid the revolution AR, but that's only true if the compromise is made in the 11th hour.

A moderate compromise on this issue of Representation between the mid '50s to mid '60s would have been enough to cool things down for quite a while. And Britain and the Colonies had the kind of political culture where compromise will beget more compromise. Oh it might take a few decades, but it would have come.

If the British had not passed the Townsend Act after they repealed the Stamp Act, that is all it would have taken.

They screwed up when they didn't appease the egos of the Colonial assemblies.  Pitt the Elder kissed their ass and they gave him everything he wanted.  The only people they needed to make happy were the Colonial elites and claiming Parliament had the right to pass laws over them was never going to fly.

[grumbler]

I'm not so much interested in what it would take to placate the colonists to remain in the empire for a while longer. But since the colonial system concentrated economic and political power in the home country, I do think that achieving a situation in which it was in the colonists' interests to remain british would take a radical realignment.

I think that you are correct, but I also think that, had the British made compromises in 1775 that would have temporarily averted the American Revolution, world events in the subsequent decades may have made independence seem less desirable to the colonists.

[jimmy olsen]

You act like it would take an all our nothing radical political realignment to avoid the revolution AR, but that's only true if the compromise is made in the 11th hour.

I'm not so much interested in what it would take to placate the colonists to remain in the empire for a while longer. But since the colonial system concentrated economic and political power in the home country, I do think that achieving a situation in which it was in the colonists' interests to remain british would take a radical realignment.

If a compromise was made in 1765 and things went well, why could there not have been further incremental compromises in 1785 and then 1805. This is not an irrepressible conflict as there existed between the North and South over slavery. 

[alfred russel]

I'm not so much interested in what it would take to placate the colonists to remain in the empire for a while longer. But since the colonial system concentrated economic and political power in the home country, I do think that achieving a situation in which it was in the colonists' interests to remain british would take a radical realignment.

I think that you are correct, but I also think that, had the British made compromises in 1775 that would have temporarily averted the American Revolution, world events in the subsequent decades may have made independence seem less desirable to the colonists.

I'm curious as to why you think it would seem less desirable.

[Barrister]

I'm curious as to why you think it would seem less desirable.

I suspect he's talking about Napoleon.  However I can not speak for grumbler so he is free to tell us what he was thinking of.

[jimmy olsen]

I suspect he's talking about Napoleon.  However I can not speak for grumbler so he is free to tell us what he was thinking of.

Assuming that there was a violent revolution in France it would I think give pause to many Americans who wish to overthrow the existing system, and move them towards embracing compromise instead.