Was American Secession Justified?

[Patticus]

I'll agree that independence was inevitable, but that's not my point. Was war inevitable, or mightn't a softer approach on the part of the colonies have eventually led to a more peaceful resolution?

My question is not "did the colonists deserve independence," but "were the colonists justified in pursuing that independence violently."

I'm not sure whether they were truly justified in pursuing a course of military actions in order to gain independence, but these people, over a decade or so, became so desperate as that they resorted taking up an armed struggle against a vastly superior military power. Why? Why did these obviously civilised folk feel the need to do this?

They were loyal to the British Empire because they, unlike other Empires of the day, allowed their colonies a large degree of autonomy and self-governance in everything from electing their own leaders to choosing their own tax rates. This was a key part of why they were loyal to the British Empire. Without this element (and even with the various tax repeals the feeling that it had vanished or had been severely eroded remained), without the voting and representative privileges of Englishmen they surely deserved, they felt that they could no longer be loyal servants of the British crown.

It was only a matter of time, therefore, before they started to refuse to obey British orders, which would lead to more oppressive measures from London, which would in turn lead to rioting, confrontations and, in the end, armed rebellion.

Granted, but as you pointed out, Pitt managed to have most of those taxes repealed. It sounded as though you were referring to taxes that came into being after Pitt lost control of his party and the Parliament.

I was referring to them all really... they all served to undermine the trust and loyalty the colonists felt toward the British Empire. Even though many taxes were repealed, that some remained and others were brought in would have maintained the feeling amongst the colonies that the very elements that fueled their loyalty toward the Empire were being eroded by a greedy and corrupt government thousands of miles away. Remember that William Pitt was removed from office by King George III in 1761, so the colonists after that point would not have felt any loyalty at all toward the government if it, in their eyes, betrayed their freedom, and while a potent combination of his oratory skill and sheer desperation managed to see the Stamp Act (and others?) repealed, it wasn't enough to prevent further acts (which have been discussed), nor was it enough to prevent the corruption that drove Benjamin Franklin home in 1774 to tell his countrymen that reconciliation was impossible.

The years between Pitt's removal from office, his decision to enter the House of Lords rather than re-take the Prime Ministerial position in the Commons, and Ben Franklin's journey home were marked by the debates over taxes. Policies adopted after the revolution which would hold the rest of the Empire together weren't even so much as considered by many politicians because it didn't occur to them as it did Pitt that the American colonists would even dare to revolt against the crown.

The colonists were getting desperate. They weren't being given voting or representation privileges despite holding the same responsibilities as Englishmen. Their loyalty was fast on the wane as it did not seem that there would be an end to new tax programs being fousted on them (even if some were repealed), the British Empire was looking more and more like all the rest; just as ruthless and just as abusive of colonists and their freedoms, their "rights".

And an interesting essay it is. It certainly lays out the colonial grievances. That said, I'm still not convinced that a military response on the part of the colonists was necessary, nor am I convinced that England would have been nearly so oppressive had the colonists not behaved as criminals and terrorists.

They believed a military response was necessary because, without regularly-attending MPs with the same intelligence, world views and opinions as Pitt in Parliament to champion their cause, there would be no end to the abuses thrown at them; they weren't represented in parliament, they weren't given any voting privileges, yet they paid more tax, were more tightly administrated and held more responsibilities. It did not seem like this would end, particularly once Pitt became an ineffectual voice in the House of Lords.

It looked as if there was nothing other military action that would force London to listen, negotiate a fair treaty or relinquish control to the colonists.

What is my opinion? They were right. Without an armed revolution, London would not listen to them, political corruption would bring more taxes and ruin more freedoms, and they would in the end become 'slaves' on the same level they would have been on had they united under the French or another imperial power; something they wanted quite desperately to avoid.

Additionally, without a revolution (assuming Pitt went the same way he did in reality), England would have lost India and other colonies much sooner and many parts of the world would today be deprived of the political, legal, religious, educational and travel infrastructures our empire exported all over the globe, e.g. South Africa's legal system, India's railway network etc. However, it also would have lead to a much more regulated spread westward, with none of the land rushes that marked the 19th century we've all learned about, and in all likelihood many of the native tribes would have been accomodated rather than exterminated/deported west to the desert. There are its upshots as well as downsides.

[Badnik Zero]

I stepped out of this discussion because it seems you two (or three) know much more than me about this war. But I don't see the relation to the African colonies. It would make more sense to compare the American Revolution to the Haitian Revolution, because they occurred in the same period and were both successful in achieving independence. The situation in Haiti really shows the difference between being a crown subject and being a physical possession of the ruling class, especially considering its racist policies. The Haitian Revolution was a slave revolt.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Stretchy Werewolf

[Sega DogTagz]

I stepped out of this discussion because it seems you two (or three) know much more than me about this war.

I learned by participating with people that were over my head, IMO it is the best way to learn. In fact I am still learning. All this talk concerning Pitt is news to me. It is quite interesting actually.

But I don't see the relation to the African colonies.

I believe that it is connected in a big picture kind of way. The US colonies were established to preform the same functions as the other British colonies. The domination of the US colonies is just a bit more hidden in the eyes of history.

Africa is just a good example of what happens when the forces of that Era run amok. The US colonists vision of colonialism back then probably would be just as negative as the position some of the worse off African nations exhibit today.

Colonialism in general was not an ideal path to follow for the US colonies. They knew that in the back of their heads when they were weighing the value of revolution.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Sega DogTagz

[Patticus]

The way I learned about these events was primarily through reading the book I already sourced. The book, and the other two in its series, focus on eminent historians (and other noted authors) providing counterfactual scenarios that were by no means implausible or impossible before their occurance; indeed some looked more inevitable than the eventual outcome (e.g. the Anglo-American War of 1896).

In order to gain an understanding of an historical 'what if?' situation, one must first have a grasp of the events leading into and the actual event as we know it; the writers are very thorough and go into quite a bit of detail, which means you get a good dose of knowledge over what really happened as well as what might (or should, in the case of appeasing Hitler) have happened.

Pretty damn sweet stuff. Highly recommend them books.

But, I digress, and I'll let yous all get back to the discussion.

[Shan Zhu]

Africa is just a good example of what happens when the forces of that Era run amok. The US colonists vision of colonialism back then probably would be just as negative as the position some of the worse off African nations exhibit today.

Please read my argument as a whole before you respond to each part. The latter half defends the assertions made in the first bit.

I'm not interested in getting back into this discussion as a whole, but while my premise was for the fun of being contrarian, I really don't agree with comparing Americans to Africans. Thing is, American colonists were not in the same position as natives of any imperial holding—Native Americans were. American colonists were more akin to the colonists of those holdings, and as history has shown through Canada, Australia, and Hawaii, colonists can emerge as successful

Now, I've given up on my main premise, so I'll admit that American secession was justified and led to good things. But that in itself demonstrates the difference between American colonists and African natives. After 156 years of colonial rule, they could still emerge as a politically sound, militarily strong, and economically prosperous* independent nation. That could not have happened in an African nation. I'll discuss the major reasons why below.

Aside from the obvious difference in rights—no matter how oppressive Britain got, it would never have enslaved colonists—the most important difference was that the African native was almost completely uneducated. The colonists were more or less Europeans, and enjoyed a European education. Africans, on the other hand, came out of a basically tribal culture, but were expected to function in a European society. An uneducated society is not nearly so prepared to take care of itself once the imperial masters leave as an educated society. Thus, the causes of African collapse were not purely economic, but also political and social. The colonists did not suffer those political and social deprivations.

In addition, the colonies had significant experience governing themselves and possessed the groundwork of a local army in the form of trained militias. Thus, men like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were prepared to create a stable government once Britain pulled out. Once in place, that government had the military infrastructure to keep its population in check. What would have happened with Shay's Rebellion had there been no militia force? Africa lacked such a foundation for independence.

So, the colonists had a huge number of rights that natives did not, they were educated, armed, and had experience in self-government. Because of these differences, it is unfair to compare the position of the United States to countries eventually run by natives, like Zimbabwe. Instead, we should compare apples to apples, and compare the situation of the US to other nations run by colonists—i.e. Australia, Canada, and Hawaii. Sure, the natives didn't do so great there, but the colonists did.

*There were depressions, of course, but obviously they worked out.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Fieuline Tabby

[Sega DogTagz]

Please read my argument as a whole before you respond to each part. The latter half defends the assertions made in the first bit.

I'm not interested in getting back into this discussion as a whole, but while my premise was for the fun of being contrarian, I really don't agree with comparing Americans to Africans. Thing is, American colonists were not in the same position as natives of any imperial holding—Native Americans were. American colonists were more akin to the colonists of those holdings, and as history has shown through Canada, Australia, and Hawaii, colonists can emerge as successful

Now, I've given up on my main premise, so I'll admit that American secession was justified and led to good things. But that in itself demonstrates the difference between American colonists and African natives. After 156 years of colonial rule, they could still emerge as a politically sound, militarily strong, and economically prosperous* independent nation. That could not have happened in an African nation. I'll discuss the major reasons why below.

Aside from the obvious difference in rights—no matter how oppressive Britain got, it would never have enslaved colonists—the most important difference was that the African native was almost completely uneducated. The colonists were more or less Europeans, and enjoyed a European education. Africans, on the other hand, came out of a basically tribal culture, but were expected to function in a European society. An uneducated society is not nearly so prepared to take care of itself once the imperial masters leave as an educated society. Thus, the causes of African collapse were not purely economic, but also political and social. The colonists did not suffer those political and social deprivations.

In addition, the colonies had significant experience governing themselves and possessed the groundwork of a local army in the form of trained militias. Thus, men like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were prepared to create a stable government once Britain pulled out. Once in place, that government had the military infrastructure to keep its population in check. What would have happened with Shay's Rebellion had there been no militia force? Africa lacked such a foundation for independence.

So, the colonists had a huge number of rights that natives did not, they were educated, armed, and had experience in self-government. Because of these differences, it is unfair to compare the position of the United States to countries eventually run by natives, like Zimbabwe. Instead, we should compare apples to apples, and compare the situation of the US to other nations run by colonists—i.e. Australia, Canada, and Hawaii. Sure, the natives didn't do so great there, but the colonists did.

*There were depressions, of course, but obviously they worked out.

The US colonist’s perception of colonialism would not have benefited from modern day Canada, Australia and Hawaii because those colonies had yet to run their course. All the US colonists had to go by was a handful of failed and folding colonial systems (as I named in a previous post), so it is quite simple to understand why they wanted out. There weren’t very many success stories for British colonies back then (especially from the colony POV).

While I am here, I would also like to point out that under colonialism, the benefits were only reaped by the motherland and a select few colonists, with Hawaii in a particular example. There, I see a guy named Dole, a dude named Marriott and a seriously repressed population.

Also, yes, the African colonies lacked a good deal of what the US colonies had, but that is only in context. They were considered uneducated only by British standards. In their own way of life they were surly as educated as anyone else. They were not incompetent and without government before the outsiders came. In fact, Africa was home to some of the world’s greatest civilizations. While the US colonies had a few years of self-rule (you can’t even call it self rule because they lacked sovereignty) Many African nations had centuries of nation-state activities to their name. They were organized in the past and several nations could claim even more experience in that field than any of the US colonists.

The African nations could have well taken care of themselves just as they had been before. The colonialism process stripped them of that opportunity and left them in a desolate position when they emerged. Yes, again there were politics and social factors involved, but these too were the result of colonial powers drawing up boarders for land they did not understand. (Or even colonial powers granting legitimacy to minority populations). Their tribal culture did not make them ill-fit to survive or govern. It was just different.

If you were to switch the situation and throw a British guy or US colonist into the African wilderness, I think you would see my point. Once he’s out of ammo he’s a goner. (even with it he may be a goner).

I believe that a comparison between African Colonies and US colonies is an apple to apple comparison because at the end of the day those were the populations that were depended on to bring the goods back to the motherland. The domination of the US colonies put it in a situation not too dissimilar to the African held ones. I have said that the African colonies represent a more extreme case, but both basically represent the same practice and methods.

Also your comparison between Africans and Native Americans in colonialism holds little weight. African populations were largely absorbed into the system. For the most part, Native Americans were excluded from the colonialism process and were either wiped out or relocated. I think you want to draw the connection because those are the populations that originally inhabited the land, but that is not the way the system is set up. Africans in the system stand to be compared to the bottom of the barrel colonists in the US variant.

[Badnik Zero]

I would say the African colonial situation was comparable to the Indian one. They were dominated nations, where the American colony was populated by actual British citizens. Upon this country's independence it essentially became an overseas European power. Compare to Haiti, which was a country ruled by French governors and landowners, but populated mostly by African slaves. When the slaves rose up, they were fighting for literal freedom, and when they established their nation it suffered from poor leadership and lack of education among the population. They were also economically boycotted by pretty much everyone including the newly formed United States, and had to fight for legitimacy. They were not part of any decision making process because they were not a European nation, among other factors. The American attitude towards the Haitian Revolution itself as well as the outcome of both revolutions show America's privileged position as a colony. Consider revolt over taxation versus revolt over slavery.

[Sega DogTagz]

I would agree with most of that, save for this

They were dominated nations, where the American colony was populated by actual British citizens.

At what point are we to consider the US colonists British citizens. Britain had infringed on their basic freedoms from day 1 and as with any government like that said citizenship was up to be voided by the populous.

Without that citizenship, the US colonies were only better off than the rest on the surface. They still faced the hardships of many of the other colonies (especially the ones held by Britain). They were just as dominated and just as controlled.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Sega DogTagz

[Tornado]

I'm not sure whether they were truly justified in pursuing a course of military actions in order to gain independence, but these people, over a decade or so, became so desperate as that they resorted taking up an armed struggle against a vastly superior military power. Why? Why did these obviously civilised folk feel the need to do this?

I will add to this:

When the war started in 1775, a lot of people didn't actually want to detach from the British Empire. They just wanted to show their resolve against the actions of the empire towards the colonies. It wasn't until a year later that outright secession became the majority voice.

[Shan Zhu]

You can respond to my argument piece by piece if you want; I just mean that you at least read it through before you response.

Good show, by the way Though it was Patticus who convinced me to drop the pro-imperial argument, I'm having a lot of fun discussing the details with you. You're very competent, Sega.

The US colonist’s perception of colonialism would not have benefited from modern day Canada, Australia and Hawaii because those colonies had yet to run their course. All the US colonists had to go by was a handful of failed and folding colonial systems (as I named in a previous post), so it is quite simple to understand why they wanted out. There weren’t very many success stories for British colonies back then (especially from the colony POV).

I'm no longer arguing that the colonists were unjustified in secession. The question is, in hindsight, were the colonists and the African natives really in the same position?

The answer is no.

See below for a repudiation of the idea of universal colonial failure.

While I am here, I would also like to point out that under colonialism, the benefits were only reaped by the motherland and a select few colonists, with Hawaii in a particular example.

The median standards of living in the American colonies in 1776 (after 156 years of colonialism) was higher than almost anywhere else in the world—including England itself. This was true in all of the 13 colonies and in Canada, and things were not much worse for English colonists in India prior to the various Indian uprisings.

The British Empire was built on men who left England because the colonies offered them better opportunities than England itself—from 1620 to 1947 inclusive. Even George Orwell's father, practically a commoner in the late 19th century, was able to make a better living in Africa than in England.

Also, yes, the African colonies lacked a good deal of what the US colonies had, but that is only in context. They were considered uneducated only by British standards.In their own way of life they were surly as educated as anyone else. They were not incompetent and without government before the outsiders came.

When the British pulled out of the African countries, the natives left behind had lost what lessons their heritage might have taught them about government. They were not prepared to return to their tribal way of life, or to set up the liberal democracies that thrived in the west. Because of this lack of wide-spread education, the African nations mostly fell prey to pragmatic Marxists, which, according to historian Paul Johnson's Modern Times, was the primary cause of the current African failure you've referred to.

The colonies educated their children. Europeans did not educate their slaves or the native populations they dominated. Thus, although Africans may have begun as an educated people, their children were deprived of that heritage by European imperialism. By the time colonialism began to decay, the African natives were objectively less educated than the colonists—not just in context.

While the US colonies had a few years of self-rule (you can’t even call it self rule because they lacked sovereignty)

They enjoyed at least 140 years of electing their own officials, levying their own taxes, laying their own criminal laws, enforcing those laws, writing their own colonial constitutions, etc. etc. In fact, as Patticus points out, the main cause of the American Revolution was that the British were infringing upon what America viewed as a long tradition of relative autonomy from England. No colonial African nation (and if that African nation was sovereign, it was not a colony; ipso facto it does not apply to this debate) enjoyed anything like that level of independence during the colonial period.

You'll argue that Britain was removing these rights, but I'll simply point to Canada again. Though Canada did suffer the loss of certain freedom and did suffer because of the British mercantilist policies, it remained one of the better places in the world to live.

The colonialism process stripped them of that opportunity and left them in a desolate position when they emerged.

Exactly. You've just admit my point. African natives were stripped of their heritage, their personal freedom, and their civilization by colonialism. Colonists were merely extensions of the motherland's civilization. Hence, Colonists did not lose what the Africans lost, and were in a better position when colonialism declined.

Many African nations had centuries of nation-state activities to their name. They were organized in the past and several nations could claim even more experience in that field than any of the US colonists.

The state of African nations in the BC era are irrelevant to the state of African natives under colonialism. The point is that Africans were stripped of that freedom and that experience and that education during colonialism so that their children lost what their parents had. The colonists, on the other hand, were able to pass their civilization, their knowledge, their experience, and so forth to their children, and that alone places them far above the state of African natives when colonialism began to end.

Thomas Jefferson, a man who spent his life studying European government and the Enlightenment philosophy that substantiated it, who participated in many of the colonial arms of government, was in a better position to create a national government than an African who has spent his entire life working to survive while Imperial agents rule for him. If the colonists were ignorant of government, how were they able to create a basis for government as brilliant and unique as American constitutional federalism?

A society of lawyers and bankers (colonists) is simply going to have a better grasp of how to set up a Democratic government than a society of sub-poverty level laborers (natives).

Yes, again there were politics and social factors involved, but these too were the result of colonial powers drawing up boarders for land they did not understand. (Or even colonial powers granting legitimacy to minority populations). Their tribal culture did not make them ill-fit to survive or govern. It was just different.

Their tribal culture did not make them ill-fit to govern, but the destruction of that culture by colonialism did. African nations are not largely tribal today, but run as nations defined by the imperial era. Unfortunately, those who ran those countries after the exodus of the imperialists were either ignorant of how to run a European-style government, or else were Marxist pragmatists.

The colonists, on the other hand, inherited European culture and understood European government, so there was no cultural conflict.

If you were to switch the situation and throw a British guy or US colonist into the African wilderness, I think you would see my point. Once he’s out of ammo he’s a goner. (even with it he may be a goner).

We're not debating which side was better able to survive in the wilderness (though even that is debatable, considering that much of North America was wilderness at that point anyway. Daniel Boone, anyone?), but which side was better prepared to run a nation. The problem with Zimbabwe now is not that Africans cannot survive in the African wilderness, but that their government failed and fell under the rule of an oppressive dictator. The same thing could easily have happened in the United States had the nation's government been put together less capably. Same goes for Australia and Canada.

This is actually an argument for my side. Yes, the Africans belonged to an entirely different culture than their European masters, and because of that they did not work well with the European-style governments. But the colonists are merely extensions of the mother-land—colonists and Englishman share a common language, a common heritage, a common Enlightenment-derived idea of how government is to be run, and so they do not lose their heritage because of colonialism. This is one of the major advantages that colonists have over natives.

I believe that a comparison between African Colonies and US colonies is an apple to apple comparison because at the end of the day those were the populations that were depended on to bring the goods back to the motherland. The domination of the US colonies put it in a situation not too dissimilar to the African held ones.

If they are not dissimilar, why did all of the colonially founded governments (US, Canada, and Australia) succeed and go on to become 1st world nations, while the natively founded governments (the three nations of the Congo, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Algeria, etc.) failed and have become corrupt 3rd world dictatorships?

Africans in the system stand to be compared to the bottom of the barrel colonists in the US variant.

Again, they do not. Let me review the reasons why:

-Even the lowest Americans had access to schools, thanks to the Puritan's emphasis on education. African natives did not.

-Even the lowest Americans enjoyed a level of class mobility—a poor indentured servant could rise to become a successful colonist if he played his cards right. Africans lacked the rights that led to that mobility.

-All Americans enjoyed the political experience, economic knowledge, military expertise, and Enlightenment philosophy of men like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and all of the Founding Fathers. Because the Africans were so much more harshly oppressed, they had no such brilliant crop of leaders, and what leaders they did have lacked actual political experience.

-All Americans enjoyed a common heritage with their British motherland, meaning that colonialism did not destroy their civilization, as it did in African nations.

-All Americans enjoyed the benefits of locally run militias. Actually, you never touched on this point. Africans were obviously not permitted to create and run their own local armies because the typical imperial fear of arming and organizing natives. In the colonies, however, the Americans enjoyed a pre-existing colonial military infrastructure, without which the United States could not possibly have survived. This was yet another way in which the colonists were objectively better prepared to take care of themselves than African natives after colonial rule.

-And of course, the median American colonist lived under much better standards of living than the median African native. Colonists simply belonged to a wealthier and more independent group than the conquered natives, no matter the specific colony.

~

For all the reasons I've given, the colonists were simply better prepared to run an independent nation than the broken African natives. I can prove this not only by giving the reasons I've already provided, but also by empirically pointing out that this is precisely what happened. When Imperial powers pulled out of nations and left them to native rule, those nations almost uniformly failed. When imperial powers pulled out of nations and left them to colonial rule, however, those nations almost always thrived.

If the American, Canadian, and Australian colonists were really in the same position as African natives, why did they do so well after their respective 156, 257, and 161 years of colonial rule?

Edited November 7, 2009 by Fieuline Tabby

[Badnik Zero]

At what point are we to consider the US colonists British citizens. Britain had infringed on their basic freedoms from day 1 and as with any government like that said citizenship was up to be voided by the populous.

Well this is part of what Tabby is saying. The point at which they stop being citizens is irrelevant, only that until the abuse of the American colonies started, they enjoyed British privileges, which made them more equipped for uprising and nationhood. They entered the arena as a European power, and had that respect among nations.

I brought up Haiti because I think American colonial concerns could have been worse, at least in order justify armed conflict. Haiti fought a war of independence contemporary to the American Revolution that I believe was more justified. In my first post I said it was as justified as any other war, because how can we really draw that line. If America is analogous to Haiti however, I'd compare the colonists to the government of Haiti - the exploiters rising up against their superiors, not the slaves rising up against their masters. That scenario would describe an African or Native American revolt against the colonies, which would be a true upheaval (revolution). The conflict here was between our colonial authority and the authority of our sponsor, and that word is very important. Americans were colonists, not natives. Looking at it that way makes it easier for me to understand why the war was fought over money. The architects of our revolution were the American aristocracy, essentially.

[Patticus]

At what point are we to consider the US colonists British citizens.

Well, I would have thought that many people there at that time would be first or second generation immigrants having hailed from Britain (or other European countries whom Britain kicked out as it spread its tentacles of power up and down the eastern seaboard).

[Sega DogTagz]

The conflict here was between our colonial authority and the authority of our sponsor, and that word is very important. Americans were colonists, not natives. Looking at it that way makes it easier for me to understand why the war was fought over money. The architects of our revolution were the American aristocracy, essentially.

That would be the jist of why we are not seeing eye to eye. I would argue that because the native population of the US colonies were removed, the colonists themselves were forced to fill on the gap (especially before slavery really took off stateside) in a manner that saw them deprived of many of the “privileges” they held over other colonies of the era, particularly the African ones.

Good show, by the way Though it was Patticus who convinced me to drop the pro-imperial argument, I'm having a lot of fun discussing the details with you. You're very competent, Sega.

Same to you. I always have to respect someone who can defend their position, even if its not the most popular.

I'm no longer arguing that the colonists were unjustified in secession. The question is, in hindsight, were the colonists and the African natives really in the same position?

The answer is no.

Same? No. But I think I can get you guys to see things a little bit more like me regarding how the African colony was a lot like a run-away US variant.

See below for a repudiation of the idea of universal colonial failure.

The median standards of living in the American colonies in 1776 (after 156 years of colonialism) was higher than almost anywhere else in the world—including England itself. This was true in all of the 13 colonies and in Canada, and things were not much worse for English colonists in India prior to the various Indian uprisings.

The British Empire was built on men who left England because the colonies offered them better opportunities than England itself—from 1620 to 1947 inclusive. Even George Orwell's father, practically a commoner in the late 19th century, was able to make a better living in Africa than in England.

This I will give you. Standard of living was a stark contrast. It is easily the biggest difference between the two.

When the British pulled out of the African countries, the natives left behind had lost what lessons their heritage might have taught them about government. They were not prepared to return to their tribal way of life, or to set up the liberal democracies that thrived in the west. Because of this lack of wide-spread education, the African nations mostly fell prey to pragmatic Marxists, which, according to historian Paul Johnson's Modern Times, was the primary cause of the current African failure you've referred to.

But it stands to reason that if the African nation had revolted in a time period similar to that of the US colonies, than they could have avoided the decolonization process. Rather than being forced into a system of government that they were not prepared to run, they could have made a more natural transition over the cause of the coming century.

I also argue where you say that they could not return to a tribal culture, because both slavery and colonialism as a practice does not remove the lessons of heritage. American slavery and how African –Americans retained their heritage offers good insight onto how tribal knowledge can move down the generations. People do not forget where they come from, even if they are being suppressed. If they had exited colonialism in a manner of the US colonists, they may well have avoided being exploited by Marxist thinking (by building a government they were accustomed to controlling) and may well be better off today.

The colonies educated their children. Europeans did not educate their slaves or the native populations they dominated. Thus, although Africans may have begun as an educated people, their children were deprived of that heritage by European imperialism. By the time colonialism began to decay, the African natives were objectively less educated than the colonists—not just in context.

If the African nations bypassed decolonization in a matter similar to the US colonies, their lack of education in British context would become irrelevant.

They enjoyed at least 140 years of electing their own officials, levying their own taxes, laying their own criminal laws, enforcing those laws, writing their own colonial constitutions, etc. etc. In fact, as Patticus points out, the main cause of the American Revolution was that the British were infringing upon what America viewed as a long tradition of relative autonomy from England. No colonial African nation (and if that African nation was sovereign, it was not a colony; ipso facto it does not apply to this debate) enjoyed anything like that level of independence during the colonial period.

To be technical, Britain never infringed on their rights to govern/law. The US colonist never held that right in the first place. They NEVER were awarded sovereignty. In the eyes of Political Science (shameless plug) the US colonist had no more experience with running a government than the slaves of other colonies. They had 0 experience.

When you get down to it there is no such thing as relative autonomy in Politics. You either have sovereignty or you don’t and the colonists did not. When you compare the colonists and African natives like this, the natives actually hold the edge due to previous, successful endeavors into self-governance.

You'll argue that Britain was removing these rights, but I'll simply point to Canada again. Though Canada did suffer the loss of certain freedom and did suffer because of the British mercantilist policies, it remained one of the better places in the world to live.

Not exactly. I’ll argue that the US colonies never held these rights in the first place. Just like the Africans in the colonies of that continent.

Exactly. You've just admit my point. African natives were stripped of their heritage, their personal freedom, and their civilization by colonialism. Colonists were merely extensions of the motherland's civilization. Hence, Colonists did not lose what the Africans lost, and were in a better position when colonialism declined.

If colonists were an extension of the motherland, than they could’ve fooled me. We already came to the conclusion that they lost a good deal of the rights they held as humans and as British during the move. (lets say they got dropped into the Atlantic).

Also, I would point out that US colonists were in better standing due in large part of how they exited colonialism. US colonists did so and restructured under terms they were comfortable with, while African colonies obviously did not.

The state of African nations in the BC era are irrelevant to the state of African natives under colonialism. The point is that Africans were stripped of that freedom and that experience and that education during colonialism so that their children lost what their parents had. The colonists, on the other hand, were able to pass their civilization, their knowledge, their experience, and so forth to their children, and that alone places them far above the state of African natives when colonialism began to end.

Thomas Jefferson, a man who spent his life studying European government and the Enlightenment philosophy that substantiated it, who participated in many of the colonial arms of government, was in a better position to create a national government than an African who has spent his entire life working to survive while Imperial agents rule for him. If the colonists were ignorant of government, how were they able to create a basis for government as brilliant and unique as American constitutional federalism?

Again, I would argue that suppression does not remove heritage or tradition.

The Decolonization process had alot to do with the failures of African independence. Its easy to point to US architects because they were very apparent since the transition was largely on their own terms. The same cannot be said of their counterparts.

A society of lawyers and bankers (colonists) is simply going to have a better grasp of how to set up a Democratic government than a society of sub-poverty level laborers (natives).

Back then, there would have been no need to establish a democratic or even modern government after shedding colonialism. It did not matter that the US colony was better equipped for it. The natives were well able to take care of their own government system before colonialism.

Their tribal culture did not make them ill-fit to govern, but the destruction of that culture by colonialism did. African nations are not largely tribal today, but run as nations defined by the imperial era. Unfortunately, those who ran those countries after the exodus of the imperialists were either ignorant of how to run a European-style government, or else were Marxist pragmatists.

And I think that is a testament as to how African colonies were forced into bad positions post colonialism. Nation-States that were tribal before domination exited with a broken grasp of government.

The colonists, on the other hand, inherited European culture and understood European government, so there was no cultural conflict.

They thrived in an environment they were accustomed to. No argument there.

We're not debating which side was better able to survive in the wilderness (though even that is debatable, considering that much of North America was wilderness at that point anyway. Daniel Boone, anyone?), but which side was better prepared to run a nation. The problem with Zimbabwe now is not that Africans cannot survive in the African wilderness, but that their government failed and fell under the rule of an oppressive dictator. The same thing could easily have happened in the United States had the nation's government been put together less capably. Same goes for Australia and Canada.

(Don’t start an argument that US wilderness could even come close to African wilderness. That is one battle you cannot win )

I was just using the wilderness thing as an example of their education. British dudes would be no more apt at running a tribal government than the African natives would be at running a modern one.

Its easy to call out natives as uneducated when their adaptations of our government systems fail, but the same would be true if you reversed the roles.

This is actually an argument for my side. Yes, the Africans belonged to an entirely different culture than their European masters, and because of that they did not work well with the European-style governments. But the colonists are merely extensions of the mother-land—colonists and Englishman share a common language, a common heritage, a common Enlightenment-derived idea of how government is to be run, and so they do not lose their heritage because of colonialism. This is one of the major advantages that colonists have over natives.

Some basic advantages that they held just put the US colonies a few notches above the African colonies. These differences do little to change the basic structure of colonialism that was shared on both sides. Think of it as a head start for one side, rather than a measurable difference.

If they are not dissimilar, why did all of the colonially founded governments (US, Canada, and Australia) succeed and go on to become 1st world nations, while the natively founded governments (the three nations of the Congo, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Algeria, etc.) failed and have become corrupt 3rd world dictatorships?

Because of HOW these nations exited the colonial process. The time component also had a lot to due with the failures of African nations today (1700’s vs. 1900’s). They were similar in how they were established and run, but dissimilar in how they came out on the other side, which in the end is the factor that plays the biggest role in where they are today.

Had both sides come out of colonialism in a similar fashion with similar intangibles (I know that is impossible, but still) we would see both sides looking more similar in global standings today.

Again, they do not. Let me review the reasons why:

-Even the lowest Americans had access to schools, thanks to the Puritan's emphasis on education. African natives did not.

-Even the lowest Americans enjoyed a level of class mobility—a poor indentured servant could rise to become a successful colonist if he played his cards right. Africans lacked the rights that led to that mobility.

-All Americans enjoyed the political experience, economic knowledge, military expertise, and Enlightenment philosophy of men like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and all of the Founding Fathers. Because the Africans were so much more harshly oppressed, they had no such brilliant crop of leaders, and what leaders they did have lacked actual political experience.

-All Americans enjoyed a common heritage with their British motherland, meaning that colonialism did not destroy their civilization, as it did in African nations.

-All Americans enjoyed the benefits of locally run militias. Actually, you never touched on this point. Africans were obviously not permitted to create and run their own local armies because the typical imperial fear of arming and organizing natives. In the colonies, however, the Americans enjoyed a pre-existing colonial military infrastructure, without which the United States could not possibly have survived. This was yet another way in which the colonists were objectively better prepared to take care of themselves than African natives after colonial rule.

-And of course, the median American colonist lived under much better standards of living than the median African native. Colonists simply belonged to a wealthier and more independent group than the conquered natives, no matter the specific colony.

-Education would have been irrelevant had the populous not been forced into a more modern government.

-All that class mobility did not prepare the US colonists for the rigors of self-governance. It made them better off than their African counterparts, but only so far as societal standards, which they already held an advantage there anyway.

-Had they exited colonialism on their own terms as returned to a society style they were comfortable with, than it is not a stretch to believe that a few champions would have risen.

-it may have broken their civilization, but colonialism would not have broken their heritage. Given the chance, they could have rebuilt it.

-That local militia was more of a deterrent than a right. And humanity is born with the innate instincts of combat, so their lack of experience is somewhat negligible considering how far behind the times the continent is when it comes to weaponry.

-Standard of living is something I already gave you.

~

For all the reasons I've given, the colonists were simply better prepared to run an independent nation than the broken African natives. I can prove this not only by giving the reasons I've already provided, but also by empirically pointing out that this is precisely what happened. When Imperial powers pulled out of nations and left them to native rule, those nations almost uniformly failed. When imperial powers pulled out of nations and left them to colonial rule, however, those nations almost always thrived.

If the American, Canadian, and Australian colonists were really in the same position as African natives, why did they do so well after their respective 156, 257, and 161 years of colonial rule?

I will not argue that the US colonists were better equipped to run an independent government. What I will argue is that the system that contained the two were a lot more similar than people give them credit for. The domination of the colonies made the situation of US colonists quite similar to the positions of African natives. Their eventual exodus from the system amplified the differences between the two populations into what we see today.

Well, I would have thought that many people there at that time would be first or second generation immigrants having hailed from Britain (or other European countries whom Britain kicked out as it spread its tentacles of power up and down the eastern seaboard).

I meant that in a more theoretical sense. Do you cease to be a citizen when the government legalizes an infringement of your rights, or when you actually finish the secession process.

Tree falls in the forest kind of thing

Edited November 8, 2009 by Sega DogTagz

[BaronSFel001]

One is utterly incapable of simplifying this situation, and some generalizing has been downright fallacious. "Taxation without representation" is less than the tip of the iceberg: rather, it is about protecting one's natural rights. I will make this as simple as I can by listing the charges against the British government as quoted from the Declaration of Independence:

*Failure to uphold established British law in pertaining to the colonies

-Not giving local governors the ability to operate indepently

-Refusal to accommodate except at cost to right of representation (in other words, tyranny)

*Legislative decisions being made by people "out of touch" with the people of the colonies

-Dissolution of representative bodies

-Refusal to fill the spots left vacant by the above dissolutions

-Reduction of immigration to the colonies

-Blocking the justice process through the judiciary

*Related to above, appointment of judges that strictly conform to the royal ideology

*Formation of many new government programs that burden the resources of the nation and colonies

-Maintaining a standing army in the colonies during peacetime without the approval of the colonial legislature

-Placing military authority outside and above civil authority

-Improper use of constitutional jurisdictions

-Quartering of troops in private homes

*Staging mock trials to allow murderers to escape justice if they are favored by those in power

-Cutting off trade with the rest of the world

-Imposition of taxes without consent

-Denial of the right to trial by jury

-Extraditing colonists to be tried overseas without consent

*Forming a growing, more arbitrary government over the colonies

-Annulling colonial charters, laws, and forms of government

-Suspending colonial legislatures

-Waging of war against the colonies

-Plundering, ravaging, and burning colonial property and lives

-Hiring of brutal foreign mercenaries to wage war on the colonies

-Pressing colonial citizens into British naval service

*Excition of thoughts of insurrection within colonial dissidents, making the entire society vulnerable

-Every petition to address the above was responded to with additional grievances

-There was failure to heed warnings that such acts of tyranny would not be responded to favorably

This is what made it into the official declaration. Some listings were fairly broad categories (i.e. denial of rights and/or representation) without being broken down into specifics - for instance, on the eve of the Revolution the British government made an attempt to deprive the colonists of their firearms. The point should hit home that the right that leads to all other rights was being denied: the freedom to choose. The same thing happened in Texas in the 1830s, and in the American South in first half of the 19th century. The are also encroachments today - you may have noticed that there is an asterisk instead of a dash that bullets each violation (or a form of it) that is in effect in the American government right now.

After much study, John Locke came to the conclusion that violation of one's natural rights was a justification for taking up arms and rising up. That is what was happening back then, and while in 1775 the colonies were fighting for the reassertion of their rights as Englishmen, when the crown hired the Hessians and let them rape and pillage, the British government had crossed the threshold, and the best solution from that point on was to form a new, independent nation. The Americans were right in doing so, and since then the entire world has been better for it. No country has overcome such great odds and grown so quickly to such tremendous grandness in all of history as has the United States of America. The full story of how it first came to be is something every American should have an awareness of, because natural rights and liberty have never changed in their application.

These arguments about how the American Revolution was strictly about money or power directed by the elite are absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who thinks such needs to read their primary sources of history from the time. I can point out a few things right off: 1)the Founding Fathers could have formed any type of government they wanted, and they decided on a constitutional republic that maximized personal freedom by minimizing the role of government in everyday life; 2)in particular about Washington, he was such a homecoming hero that he could have had kingship over America, and he selflessly turned it down; 3)an analysis of the core beliefs of the Founders will reveal that they were all God-fearing men who, unlike so many politicians today, actually had the best interests of America at heart, both for their present and for our future. If you want an uprising of the time that was driven by elitist power, look at the French Revolution (or for a more modern variation, the Russian Revolution). Afterwards, compare and contrast the American and French revolutions, and tell me which made things better for everybody.

[UncleChuckTH]

Is that what you call it over in Britain, secession? That's not the term I would have employed at all. I can't view it as secession mainly because the British rulers did not recognize the colonies for much - they were mainly used as outlets for revenue and trade and were given no voice in the government. By the middle of George III's reign the colonists had every motive for secession, and it should be noted that at the time there was no "America" as we know it, only British citizens living in their own designated areas who felt oppressed. The colonies were so far removed from England I hardly think that "secession" is an applicable term since they were never truly a part of the British government in the first place.

I think if one pours over all the documents written at the time you will find thorough evidence that the call for independence was justified.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Lt.CommanderChuck

[Badnik Zero]

These arguments about how the American Revolution was strictly about money or power directed by the elite are absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who thinks such needs to read their primary sources of history from the time.

I could be more knowledgeable about the war, but if you think this nation wasn't founded by its elite, then it's you who believes in fairy tales. I'm not trying to say the revolution was a power grab, or especially motivated by greed. I'm just saying the people who were stepped on most were the powerful, and that's where the revolt began.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Stretchy Werewolf

[BaronSFel001]

I could be more knowledgeable about the war, but if you think this nation wasn't founded by its elite, then it's you who believes in fairy tales. I'm not trying to say the revolution was a power grab, or especially motivated by greed. I'm just saying the people who were stepped on most were the powerful, and that's where the revolt began.

Just as long as we also have the understanding that because many of the Founding Fathers were educated men who owned substantial property does not make this any less a movement of the people (which is what the distinguishing of an "elite" class implies). Some of them even donated their personal funds (and all put forth life-on-the-line dedication) to support the war. Even today, people have to be educated and disciplined in order to succeed as leaders. If the Founding Fathers were part of an elite class of the time, then that class in America has expanded virtually beyond measure today.

Edited November 8, 2009 by BaronSFel001

[Patticus]

RE Chuck: The American colonies were part of the British Empire, thus to break away was to secede. Just because they lay some three thousand miles across an ocean, doesn't mean they were any less part of the new-born Empire than India or, I dunno, Gibraltar.

[Roarey Raccoon]

Fuck history, nobody learns from it anyway :F.

[UncleChuckTH]

Aye, it's just that it's not a term I ever would have thought of using. I think the reason for that is that by the point of revolution the colonies were already their own bodies, really an entirely different thing from the rest of the empire.

But that doesn't mean I'm right at all. I generally associate secession with the CSA and war of northern agression, so I thought it was odd.

I'm getting away from the point here.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Lt.CommanderChuck

[BaronSFel001]

nobody learns from it anyway :F.

Disagreed. I grant that people are ignorant of it, but that just means that the rest of us have to teach people about history in the process of showing how history proves our point, or whatever it is.

[Roarey Raccoon]

America, fuck yeah! Etc. (Don't take me seriously, I'm just messing around.)

The history of Americas' foundation, along with a shitload of history in general, is so twisted with complete bollocks that it doesn't really serve any purpose to wade through it other than pure interest. I guess I'm just a tad jaded when it comes to hearing about American history and the founding fathers. Mainly because they murdered over 90 million Native Americans and despite that there's some bullshit whitewashing every year with thanksgiving and teaching kids about how wonderful it all was. Fuck off with it.

EDIT: Rofl, I feel like a rant now.

I think learning history is shit, right. Not entirely shit, there are some benefits, but I also think it's important to emphasise where the effort loses its value. We have the same damn stories again and again, they amount to people butchering a shitload of other people and finding increasingly more efficient ways to do it. Every country, every nation has a history written in blood and misery and to be honest I'm sick of it being sugarcoated to make it all sound like something it wasn't. The good old days were fucking wank, the days before it were even more wank. The world moves on when people look at what is happening in the present and then think about how it could be improved, occasionally taking advice in methodology from the efforts of others in history.

Actually trying to find factual historical information about very complex events is an excercise in tedium. We can't even paint a precise picture of what's happened this week never mind fucking decades ago. Is what we're doing now justified? Or do we really just not give a shit because we're too busy looking for which supermarket sells the cheapest bread and milk? All this talk of American history is teeming with patriotic vibe and that's what pisses me off about it. It stinks of shit to me, it doesn't feel right, it doesn't feel sane or rational or reasonable. The present is much better, I reckon.

[BaronSFel001]

Actually trying to find factual historical information about very complex events is an excercise in tedium. We can't even paint a precise picture of what's happened this week never mind fucking decades ago. Is what we're doing now justified? Or do we really just not give a shit because we're too busy looking for which supermarket sells the cheapest bread and milk? All this talk of American history is teeming with patriotic vibe and that's what pisses me off about it. It stinks of shit to me, it doesn't feel right, it doesn't feel sane or rational or reasonable. The present is much better, I reckon.

Perhaps, but some people dedicate their whole lives to the pursuit, which means the hardest work for the rest of us to do is verification. As far as justification goes, you would have to have an absolute, universal standard to judge that by, and not something that people have come up with after the fact. Taking your example to heart, what if, from the study of history, we learn how to make bread and milk even more affordable by figuring out which economic model has worked best for such in the past. You may like the present, but you also have to keep in mind that the future is looming, and while history often repeats itself, the fact that it does is evidence enough that people are probably not aware of it enough to avoid repeating past mistakes. I suppose if, on the other hand, people want to learn strictly through experience, they can go ahead, but they waive any right to complain about their lack of wisdom. And of course patriotism is irrational, as is any other drive or emotion, but what is wrong with loving one's country?

[Shan Zhu]

Actually trying to find factual historical information about very complex events is an excercise in tedium. We can't even paint a precise picture of what's happened this week never mind fucking decades ago. Is what we're doing now justified? Or do we really just not give a shit because we're too busy looking for which supermarket sells the cheapest bread and milk? All this talk of American history is teeming with patriotic vibe and that's what pisses me off about it. It stinks of shit to me, it doesn't feel right, it doesn't feel sane or rational or reasonable. The present is much better, I reckon.

Please don't derail my discussion Mr. Admin sir )= We disagree about the relevance of history and that's a fine topic for discussion, but it's not what I want to discuss here.

Maybe everyone here is a moron, but as long as we don't break the rules, we have the right to be morons in peace, don't we?

Is that what you call it over in Britain, secession?

I'm a Reagan-minded, Burke-spouting, libertarian American patriot This discussion was purely for fun, and as I was taking the British side, I made use of semantics that supported my side. As Patticus points out, it was technically secession.

One is utterly incapable of simplifying this situation, and some generalizing has been downright fallacious. "Taxation without representation" is less than the tip of the iceberg: rather, it is about protecting one's natural rights.

I'll agree that the violation of the British social contract (i.e. a violation of what the Founders viewed as natural rights) was the justification which the founders attached to independence, secession, etc. I'll also agree that a wide-spread understanding of liberty and the natural rights it protects is important if that liberty is to survive.

That said, the Founders were only the head of the Revolution; secession itself could never have happened unless revolution had popular support from the American colonists. To them, Lockean ideas of social contract held little importance compared to the general ideas Patticus laid out in his arguments—Britain violated freedoms traditionally enjoyed by the colonies by imposing illegal or restrictive taxes, and by imposing imperial rule where the colonists had formerly been accustomed to self-rule. Because this had a direct impact on how prosperously the average colonist lived, the average colonist supported the revolution.

The Declaration was specifically designed to stand up in a European court of law, and therefore addressed the grievances more exhaustively and philosophically than they practically existed in the minds of actual colonists. That said, I agree with your philosophy completely.

The full story of how it first came to be is something every American should have an awareness of, because natural rights and liberty have never changed in their application.

I agree. That was partly the purpose of this debate.

1)the Founding Fathers could have formed any type of government they wanted, and they decided on a constitutional republic that maximized personal freedom by minimizing the role of government in everyday life; 2)in particular about Washington, he was such a homecoming hero that he could have had kingship over America, and he selflessly turned it down; 3)an analysis of the core beliefs of the Founders will reveal that they were all God-fearing men who, unlike so many politicians today, actually had the best interests of America at heart, both for their present and for our future.

Apart from the God-fearing bit, I agree. But again, the ideas of the founding fathers are not equivocal to the causes of Revolution. American Constitutionalism and Jeffersonian Libertarianism were more consequences of the Revolution than its cause.

Segadogtagz and the rest: I don't have time to respond to your argument tonight, and I'm afraid that I won't be online again for about a week )= I'm still here though, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can x3

Edited November 9, 2009 by Fieuline Tabby

[Roarey Raccoon]

Please don't derail my discussion Mr. Admin sir )= We disagree about the relevance of history and that's a fine topic for discussion, but it's not what I want to discuss here.

Maybe everyone here is a moron, but as long as we don't break the rules, we have the right to be morons in peace, don't we?

No, you don't, actually. It's a forum, so you have no rights at all, rofl. We do like people to have freedom of speech though, but, believe it or not, that also applies to staff. So I can, if I like, actually make a post that slightly deviates from the original topic. Tosser.

Perhaps, but some people dedicate their whole lives to the pursuit, which means the hardest work for the rest of us to do is verification. As far as justification goes, you would have to have an absolute, universal standard to judge that by, and not something that people have come up with after the fact. Taking your example to heart, what if, from the study of history, we learn how to make bread and milk even more affordable by figuring out which economic model has worked best for such in the past. You may like the present, but you also have to keep in mind that the future is looming, and while history often repeats itself, the fact that it does is evidence enough that people are probably not aware of it enough to avoid repeating past mistakes. I suppose if, on the other hand, people want to learn strictly through experience, they can go ahead, but they waive any right to complain about their lack of wisdom. And of course patriotism is irrational, as is any other drive or emotion, but what is wrong with loving one's country?

Yeah I said looking at methodology in history to help you achieve goals is useful and whatnot. What's wrong with loving your country? Well, it doesn't love you back, for one thing. It's a very one-sided affair and generally leads to you taking it up the arse. Sure, it's a good thing to love something, but when it makes you more succeptible to being lied to and used you can see where the disadvantage lies. Like new lovers blinded by emotions, people can slide a lot past you.