History The Morality of the American Revolution

[Terthna]

The American Revolution was immoral when it happened

Okay, you mind explaining this to me? Because this is an argument that I'd be very interested in seeing you expand upon.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Is it about British subjects declaring independence against the royal crown that if they failed all the founding fathers would be hanging from the gallows?

What's that phrase again? If treason doth prosper they never call it treason?

 

[Deleted member]

I will answer this at length, I promise, but for now have a song.

 

[S'task]

I will answer this at length, I promise, but for now have a song.

And I promise you I will rebut your entire argument point by point.

dun dun duuuuuun...

 

[Deleted member 88]

The American revolution is a consequence more of the benign neglect the English colonies had for about a hundred years. They basically ran their own affairs, and then Parliament started treating them like colonies, not nearly independent countries.

I don't believe the revolution was immoral in the sense of say-existing to defend slavery(contrary to the propagandists of the 1619 project), but the British were limiting American expansion west of the Appalachians.

The colonials argument regarding taxes, is not so much anger at being taxed(though who isn't?) but being taxed without a representative in Parliament. If a representative had been elected to represent their interests-then revolutionary sentiment would have likely been much more mellow. There wasn't, and efforts to do this occurred too late. The forced billeting of British soldiers and the Boston massacre also inflamed sentiments-especially in Massachusetts, that the British government was a hostile occupying force.

In fairness-the British did want the colonials to pay for the defense of them in the French and Indian Wars-however the colonial retort was that the colonies had their own militias and defended themselves against Indian raids and the like. And with the French gone from North America-the argument the empire was for their protection no longer held much water.

I would say the American revolution was moral-if the British had been willing to give everything and the colonials had still been set on rebellion, then it would not have been. But the colonials wanted to be accorded the rights of Englishmen(so expanded in conception due to benign neglect) and since they weren't getting them, they left.

 

[Sailor.X]

Well the Santee were no fans of the British Empire so any excuse for us and the Edisto to attack Redcoats was good enough. Some rode with the Swamp Fox back during the war. That tells you all you need to know about who side we were on.

 

[gral]

And with the French gone from North America-the argument the empire was for their protection no longer held much water.

That's, IMO, the origin of the American Revolution - while the French were there, the colonials were willing to submit to the British; once the French were gone(and only the debt incurred in protecting them remained), things became intolerable for them. I hesitate to say the colonials were ungrateful, because it's more complicated than that, but IMO, that's a bit... unseemly. OTOH, the British should have paid more attention to what was happening in North America, if only to see what was coming.

I would say the American revolution was moral-if the British had been willing to give everything and the colonials had still been set on rebellion, then it would not have been. But the colonials wanted to be accorded the rights of Englishmen(so expanded in conception due to benign neglect) and since they weren't getting them, they left.

I recall reading somewhere that, at some point(maybe shortly after the First Continental Congress, but before the Second one?), No Taxation Without Representation became just a slogan; even if the British offered what the stated aims of the colonials were, they would find a way to refuse it, because they wanted independence by then. Of course, by the time the British were willing to give the colonials representation, much blood had already been shed and the point was moot.

 

[Deleted member 88]

There is the issue of Applachian settlement as well-the British wanted to prevent colonial settlement both to appease pro British Indians(who were losing land) and Spain. The problem was the colonies demographic growth was simply irrepressible. I don't think the British understood that.

That the colonies' population was growing and growing and thus it needed more land, not to mention issues with actually enforcing no settlement policies.

I would argue in fact there was already an unconscious or subconscious manifest destiny of sorts-a desire to expand westward, to move one's family to new pastures. Regardless of what the king said or what parliament said, a man could defend his family and community from the Indians or Spaniards-and international accords meant little to the average colonist crossing past the Appalachians. Much less what the Indians thought or what the Spanish Viceroy thought.

The fact the colonies were growing on their own via more births, and not simply immigration meant that sooner or later the British would need to either give them representation, somehow repress their demographic and economic growth, or cut them loose.

 

[Arch Dornan]

There is the issue of Applachian settlement as well-the British wanted to prevent colonial settlement both to appease pro British Indians(who were losing land) and Spain. The problem was the colonies demographic growth was simply irrepressible. I don't think the British understood that.

That the colonies' population was growing and growing and thus it needed more land, not to mention issues with actually enforcing no settlement policies.

I would argue in fact there was already an unconscious or subconscious manifest destiny of sorts-a desire to expand westward, to move one's family to new pastures. Regardless of what the king said or what parliament said, a man could defend his family and community from the Indians or Spaniards-and international accords meant little to the average colonist crossing past the Appalachians. Much less what the Indians thought or what the Spanish Viceroy thought.

The fact the colonies were growing on their own via more births, and not simply immigration meant that sooner or later the British would need to either give them representation, somehow repress their demographic and economic growth, or cut them loose.

A product of the system that made the US it is today huh?

 

[Deleted member 88]

What it was. The colonies became so successful they didn't need British assistance anymore.

BNA population growth was growing throughout the eighteenth century, unlike the French whose colonies were mere trading posts, or Spain where a small elite ruled over the native and mestizo population, English North America was independently dynamic. Not micro managed or dictated from London.

Thus the Colonials had both the impetus to expand-and the power to sustain said expansion. Not to mention-the backwoods frontiersmen as I said, did not care in the slightest he was legally a squatter, or had violated crown policy by settling on Indian land or encroaching into recognized Spanish territory. And the only way the British could have stopped such expansion was through a level of coercion they simply weren't willing to maintain or able to maintain.

And on the ground realities simply didn't reflect international treaties. There was no way-barring hundreds of thousands of british troops along the Appalachian mountains that this march westward be stopped.

While this resulted in the displacement or extirpation of the Indians, this wasn't really avoidable. Because to preserve Indian claims, the British would had to basically straitjacket their colonies in such a way as to be tyrannical in the extreme.

 

[The Name of Love]

Anybody who thinks the American Rebellion was justified ought to take a look at some of what the Loyalists said.

Thomas Hutchinson, the royal governor of Massachusetts from 1758 to 1774, took a look at the charges that the Declaration of Independence made and debunked them point by point in his Strictures upon the Declaration of the Congress at Philadelphia. He basically takes apart the central argument in the Declaration of Independence, piece by piece. In the words of Mencius Moldbug, "ouch, man, that was painful."

TL;DR, the Strictures basically shows that most of the charges the Declaration makes are either completely bogus, so vague so as to be unprovable, or were justified by the American colonies (mostly Massachusetts) violent and unreasonable behavior. And keep in mind that the Founding Fathers were supposedly trying to justify their rebellion against the British with these particular statements.

But my personally favorite part was how he responds to the opening lines of the Declaration. For those of you who don't remember this from your social studies classes, the opening lines say:

In Congress, July 4, 1776

A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled.

When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

WE hold these truths to be self-evident––That all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; and whenever [, that whenever]any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, [9] indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

To which Hutchinson responds with:

They begin my Lord, with a false hypothesis, that the colonies are one distinct people, and the kingdom another, connected by political bands. The Colonies, politically considered, never were a distinct people from the kingdom. There never has been but one political band, and that was just the same before the first Colonists emigrated as it has been ever since, the Supreme Legislative Authority, which hath essential right, and is indispensably bound to keep all parts of the Empire entire, until there may be a separation consistent with the general good of the Empire, of which good, from the nature of government, this authority must be the sole judge. I should therefore be impertinent, if I attempted to shew in what case a whole people may be justified in rising up in oppugnation to the powers of government, altering or abolishing them, and substituting, in whole or in part, new powers in their stead; or in what sense all men are created equal; or how far life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may be said to be unalienable; only I could wish to ask the Delegates of Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas, how their Constituents justify the depriving more than an hundred thousand Africans of their rights to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and in some degree to their lives, if these rights are so absolutely unalienable; nor shall I attempt to confute the absurd notions of government, or to expose the equivocal or inconclusive expressions contained in this Declaration; but rather to shew the false representation made of the facts which are alledged to be the evidence of injuries and usurpations, and the special motives to Rebellion. There are many of them, with designs, left obscure; for as soon as they are developed, instead of justifying, they rather aggravate the criminality of this Revolt.

Ouch, indeed.

 

[FriedCFour]

Anybody who thinks the American Rebellion was justified ought to take a look at some of what the Loyalists said.

Fought and bled for a war Britain started in the colonies. Received absolutely nothing from said war. Forbidden from taking advantage of the territory won in said war. Had taxes imposed on them to pay for the war that had no benefit to the colonists. Had their economies restricted and forced to be tied to Britain. Had to quarter troops in their own homes. Martial law declared in peace time. Given no representatives. Attempted, multiple times, to come to peace. Rejected each time. Yeah Britain was totally justified.

I do love one slave holding nation to another saying “lol you have slaves”. Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[The Name of Love]

Fought and bled for a war Britain started in the colonies. Received absolutely nothing from said war. Forbidden from taking advantage of the territory won in said war. Had taxes imposed on them to pay for the war that had no benefit to the colonists. Had their economies restricted and forced to be tied to Britain. Had to quarter troops in their own homes. Martial law declared in peace time. Given no representatives. Attempted, multiple times, to come to peace. Rejected each time. Yeah Britain was totally justified.

I do love one slave holding nation to another saying “lol you have slaves”. Pot calling the kettle black.

Okay, let's go through the facts that you ignored.

Britain didn't "start a war in the colonies." The colonies were part of Britain, and they fought alongside Britain in the war against the French. The alternative was the French winning. I don't think any British colonist wanted the French to win. Did you see what happened when the French lost?

The colonists had no right to settle the territory won in the French and Indian War. The British state could use that territory however it wished.

Again, to say that the Americans didn't benefit from the war is misleading at best. If the French had won that war, North America might have become largely French-speaking with a British minority rather than largely English-speaking with a French minority. And, as Hutchinson points out, there's no justification for the colonist's complaints about taxation.

Their economies were not restricted during the time they revolted, and it was only after they began revolting that the British government started restricting their trade.

The quartering of troops was already accepted by colonial governments and was necessary to prevent mass desertion of the British troops.

Martial Law was only declared in Massachusetts, where there was an active rebellion led by a terrorist group called the Sons of Liberty.

There's no part of the English constitution that says you need representation; Parliament represents the colonies already.

They didn't attempt to come to peace. The colonists made demands, the British conceded, and these concessions led to further demands. Furthermore, as Hutchinson pointed out, at no time before the Declaration of Independence did the colonists try to petition the government to end these grievances.

Finally, Hutchinson wasn't taking shots at the American slave trade but American hypocrisy; declaring yourself to be defending the inalienable rights of men while owning slaves is definitely hypocritical, and it's a hypocrisy the British did not share.

 

[FriedCFour]

Okay, let's go through the facts that you ignored.

Britain didn't "start a war in the colonies." The colonies were part of Britain, and they fought alongside Britain in the war against the French. The alternative was the French winning. I don't think any British colonist wanted the French to win. Did you see what happened when the French lost?

The colonists had no right to settle the territory won in the French and Indian War. The British state could use that territory however it wished.

Again, to say that the Americans didn't benefit from the war is misleading at best. If the French had won that war, North America might have become largely French-speaking with a British minority rather than largely English-speaking with a French minority. And, as Hutchinson points out, there's no justification for the colonist's complaints about taxation.

total lack of political representation is a pretty just complaint. The war was also started by the British pushing to take the Ohio territory. The colonists did not benefit the way that the rest of Britain did and took the brunt of the hardships with nothing in return. It’s not a benefit to the colonists that they won when it’s an offensive war the British started.

Their economies were not restricted during the time they revolted, and it was only after they began revolting that the British government started restricting their trade.

thats entirely false. They started enforcing Mercantilist economics very shortly after the war ended.

The quartering of troops was already accepted by colonial governments and was necessary to prevent mass desertion of the British troops.

Complete fabrication. They had to pass the quartering act to enforce it because it was entirely unaccepted. There is also a massive difference between finding quarters for the much smaller military presence that they had before and the much larger presence after. “You were fine with providing your food and property for 1000 soldiers, why not ten thousand” is not an argument that holds any ground.

Martial Law was only declared in Massachusetts, where there was an active rebellion led by a terrorist group called the Sons of Liberty.

What made them terrorists?

There's no part of the English constitution that says you need representation; Parliament represents the colonies already.

Doesn’t matter. It shows the wholly unequal political status. I mean by this logic parlaiment would be wholly justified in making slaves of all English colonial men and taking all their wives as concubines and baking their children in ovens, and there would be no just response because the government doesn’t owe them that. Why should it just be totally acceptable to be a second class citizen, with no way to redress that in a wholly unequal relationship?

They didn't attempt to come to peace. The colonists made demands, the British conceded, and these concessions led to further demands. Furthermore, as Hutchinson pointed out, at no time before the Declaration of Independence did the colonists try to petition the government to end these grievances.

Petition to the King - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Olive Branch Petition - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Total fabrication. It wasn’t until these were rejected that the declaration was sent.

Finally, Hutchinson wasn't taking shots at the American slave trade but American hypocrisy; declaring yourself to be defending the inalienable rights of men while owning slaves is definitely hypocritical, and it's a hypocrisy the British did not share.

Like calling yourself a follower of Christ while sinning. I think you can grasp the idea of holding a set of ideals you aspire to uphold but falling short of it can’t you?

Do you believe that it is ever justified to revolt against a government? If so when? What are the conditions necessary?

 

[Deleted member 88]

The French didn't have the numbers to impose their will anyway in North America. So even if the French had won the Seven Years War-they would have just retained their forts in the Midwest, trading outposts, and Quebec. The notion that without the British the colonies would be French speaking is just stupid when you actually understand the on the ground situation.

The French never were much interested in colonizing en masse, and the French kings weren't usually in favor of it. So French colonies were far less populated. Not to mention they were always a lower priority to the French in defensive strategy anyway, as France had to deal with its European rivals at home.

Also as I said, the colonists were moving westward an inexorable march that the British government had neither the means or will to suppress.

Also the colonies were very distinct culturally speaking-from the deep south to the middle colonies, and up to Massachusetts. Thus only something like a third of the colonists were pro revolutionary.

 

[The Name of Love]

total lack of political representation is a pretty just complaint. The war was also started by the British pushing to take the Ohio territory. The colonists did not benefit the way that the rest of Britain did and took the brunt of the hardships with nothing in return. It’s not a benefit to the colonists that they won when it’s an offensive war the British started.


thats entirely false. They started enforcing Mercantilist economics very shortly after the war ended.


Complete fabrication. They had to pass the quartering act to enforce it because it was entirely unaccepted. There is also a massive difference between finding quarters for the much smaller military presence that they had before and the much larger presence after. “You were fine with providing your food and property for 1000 soldiers, why not ten thousand” is not an argument that holds any ground.


What made them terrorists?


Doesn’t matter. It shows the wholly unequal political status. I mean by this logic parlaiment would be wholly justified in making slaves of all English colonial men and taking all their wives as concubines and baking their children in ovens, and there would be no just response because the government doesn’t owe them that. Why should it just be totally acceptable to be a second class citizen, with no way to redress that in a wholly unequal relationship?

Petition to the King - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Olive Branch Petition - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Total fabrication. It wasn’t until these were rejected that the declaration was sent.


Like calling yourself a follower of Christ while sinning. I think you can grasp the idea of holding a set of ideals you aspire to uphold but falling short of it can’t you?

Do you believe that it is ever justified to revolt against a government? If so when? What are the conditions necessary?

You are just being hysterical. Just looking at the links you sent me only proves my point.

First, when you say that you can't have taxation without representation, that's not a part of the English constitution. That was just a slogan asserted by the colonists (as well as yourself). By contrast, the English constitution does not allow the king to treat his people as he wills. So you're wrong there.

You also ignore the reasons why the British attacked Ohio. There was a fucking world war that was happening at the time. All of France and all of Britain was at war with each other. This wasn't something that the colonists could stay out of, given how they were British citizens. Under classic international law (which was in effect at the time), all of the citizens of a country can be treated by the opposing armies as possible targets in a war.

Neither of those petitions reached the king before the colonists started to get violence. Hutchinson wouldn't have known about either petition because the first one got lost in the mail and the second one was torn up because, by that time, the colonists were already killing people.

Oh right, terrorists. That's what the Sons of Liberty were. They were a group of guerrilla fighters that fought for ideological reasons, namely in the name of Whiggism. They were the kind of people who would try and torture and murder government officials because they were loyalists. All under false pretenses.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Terrorism happens in just about every revolution or civil war. It should be understood in its context, not condemned simply for being terrorism.

@The Name of Love you didn't address my points.

Namely that the population growth of the colonies and the move westward was an organic process and thus meant that the British either needed to give them more and more concessions to remain in the Empire, try to restrict their growth, or cut them loose.

Now of course, these long term trends don't say whether or not the revolution was moral, simply that the British crown had to deal with the reality of the situation at some point or another.

 

[The Name of Love]

Terrorism happens in just about every revolution or civil war. It should be understood in its context, not condemned simply for being terrorism.

@The Name of Love you didn't address my points.

Namely that the population growth of the colonies and the move westward was an organic process and thus meant that the British either needed to give them more and more concessions to remain in the Empire, try to restrict their growth, or cut them loose.

Now of course, these long term trends don't say whether or not the revolution was moral, simply that the British crown had to deal with the reality of the situation at some point or another.

You're correct. Why, just look at all of the other former British colonies. Australia, New Zealand, and Canada all had these violent revolutions too.

But let's suppose you are right. So? We're talking about the morality of the American Revolution, not whether or not it was inevitable.

 

[FriedCFour]

First, when you say that you can't have taxation without representation, that's not a part of the English constitution. That was just a slogan asserted by the colonists (as well as yourself). By contrast, the English constitution does not allow the king to treat his people as he wills. So you're wrong there.

That’s not the point. Unless you argument is that you can never justifiably rebel ever it isn’t relevant what the English constitution says. No taxation without representation isn’t a legalese argument, it’s an argument about how citizens should be treated. What you are missing here is that Hutchinson and yourself are arguing from totally different axioms than the colonists. The colonists are arguing from the axiom of natural rights and how citizens of a state relate to their government, and how these should be. What Hutchinson and yourself are arguing is that “this is how things are, and what we are allowed to do.” You are saying that the colonists were treated as they were legally allowed to be under the English constitution. What I and the colonists argued is here is how people as a whole should be treated by government, here are the natural rights inherent to them as people, and here is how the government is in violation of that.

So I will ask again. Are there ever constitutions and laws that are inherently unjust and should be rebelled against? By your logic of justifying it by “the constitution as written doesn’t say they are owed these things, therefore it is unjustified to rebel” you can make the same argument of any communist regime, of any of the worst governments. “Our laws say it is okay to treat you like this, therefore you have no just cause to fight against it.” When does the law and treatment under it become unjust, when are you justified in taking up arms against it?

Also yes, violence had started. The British moved to use their army to deprive citizens of their means of defending themselves and to steal their property. That’s why the violence ended up kicking off. I would say that’s pretty unjust.

Also, reread the French and Indian War and Seven Years war. The colonies starting to fight was the spark that started the world war. It's even worse than I initially described, the fighting started in the colonies by orders of Britain who then attempted to use the colonies to pay off the debt from a world war they started that the colonists received zero benefit from.

You're correct. Why, just look at all of the other former British colonies. Australia, New Zealand, and Canada all had these violent revolutions too.

Different circumstances. Not equivalent, and in looking at all these countries I can say we made the right choice. All of these have far closer ties to Britain and their style and form of government, which is vastly inferior to Americas.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Logistics and different times.

Canada was populated by loyalists, but even then I recall there were some rebellions in the 1830s.

As for Australia and NZ-they were far more distant and by the time the colonies there became well established, the British didn't have the same policies of neglect for a century.

Also there was no real reason for say Australia to revolt-by the time it could have the British were granting self rule to their dominions and there was no incentive or desire to do so.

As for the morality of the revolution, it is incumbent on us to remember the American revolution didn't topple a monarchy or try to transform a society(that isn't to say social changes didn't occur). It just was some territories splitting away.

If we want to claim this is immoral, then just about every independence movement is immoral. Now from a perspective of total submission to authority-you can make that argument, but not anything else.