Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dowding on January 17, 2003, 04:51:54 AM
-
WARNING: this is not a troll.
I was watching a TV program last night called 'Empire' about the rise of the British empire and its history. It dealt with the founding of the American colonies, the American Revolution and the consequences for the Empire, Britain etc. A lot of it was new to me and challenged mis-conceptions I had - you might already know much, if not all of this.
Firstly, the orginal settlers who settled in Virginia couldn't have picked a worse spot to set up a colony - right next to a malaria infested swamp that killed 50% of the settlers that ever landed there.
It then talked about the Mayflower - the Puritans who set sail thought that the Protestantism that had become Britain's state religion wasn't been taken far enough, and they saw America's wilderness as an ideal place to practise their faith. It also said that a large proportion of those aboard the Mayflower had no concern over religious matters at all - they were economic migrants and wanted to find their fortune within a new frontier of the Empire.
The Mayflower missed Virginia because of poor navigation by 200 miles and the rest is history. The American colonies flourished. By the 1770s, a New England land owner would be considered one of the richest citizens of the Empire - owning more land, wealth and slaves than anyone else. Around this point, the Empire, once considered a very free society by standards back then developed an insatiable apetitite for slaves.
Now onto the revolution. It's a misconception (still perpetuated today, looking at the film of tour guides etc) that taxation of the colonists was high and caused them to rebel. For instance the Boston tea party was not a demonstration by your ordinary citizen, it was by smugglers who were unhappy at the prospect of losing trade because the government had cut duties on tea - legitimate tea would be cheaper and they would be redundant. Yet the colonists, wanted at least some self-government, but this was refused and hence the revolution started.
Many in London thought the Americas weren't worth fighting for. Indeed, the value of the trade from Jamaica alone was 5 times more than that produced by the 13 American colonies. Secondly, with the French posing a sea-born threat to mainland Britain, an all out war was out of the question, given the huge distance over which troops etc would have to carried.
On surrender of the colonies, some 100,000 loyalists felt strongly enough to leave everything behind and go to Canada. This goes some way to explaining why Canada would retain that loyalty for so long.
At Yorktown, as Cornwallis surrendered, the American bandsman played 'And the world turned upside down' (or something like that). This couldn't be further from the truth, in terms of the Empire; even though it lost the Americas, it had expanded greatly on the other side of the world in Australia and Africa.
While the Declaration of Independance is a breath-taking document in its historical context (taken for granted these days), it wasn't entirely honest. The freedoms described and the assertion concerning the equality of all men were fine as long as you weren't black slave working the plantations. Indeed, the Empire outlawed the slave trade (1807) and slavery (1833) long before the US.
Australia would be a major turning point in the Empire's history. For one thing, the genocide of the Aborigenees was an horrific thing. However, this was very much a local phenomenon - farmers taking it into their own hands to 'clear' their land. If Australia had achieved independence, it would have been a lot worse - state sanctioned ethnic cleansing (as we would now call it) could be seen happening in the US.
Fortunately, around this time, after unrest in Canada (in Quebec), Lord Durham wrote his "Report on the Affairs of British North America." Durham stated that to retain its colonies Britain should grant them a large measure of internal self-government.
"The British North America Act of 1867 inaugurated a pattern of devolution followed in most of the European-settled colonies by which Parliament gradually surrendered its direct governing powers; thus Australia and New Zealand followed Canada in becoming self-governing dominions. On the other hand, the British assumed greater responsibility in Africa and in India, where the Indian Mutiny had resulted (1858) in the final transfer of power from the East India Company to the British government. To govern territories with large indigenous populations, the crown colony system was developed. Such colonies, of which one of the most enduring was Hong Kong, were ruled by a British governor and consultative councils composed primarily of the governor's nominees; these, in turn, often delegated considerable powers of local government to local rulers.
So the question is (a long winded run up I know ;)): if Lord Durham's report had been written before 1776, and self-determination partially transferred to the American colonies, do you think America would have remained part of the Empire, like Canada and Australia?
__________________
1) I am not a communist
2) I am not anti-American
3) I don't like Bin Laden
4) I am not a Muslim fundamentalist
5) I am not crazy
-
You wish... :D
Oh yea, how could I forget.. %$/'4 commie $$$@!$#25 ;)
-
Possibly ;)
-
And on a side note......the Captain of the Mayflower is one of my ancestors so you can blame me for the crap navigation.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Dunno about your question regarding Durham, but you missed my favouite parts about the founding of America.
The Mayflower sailed in 1620..there was quite a bit of history prior to that regarding the colonies.
Here is a timeline (http://www.bermuda-online.org/history.htm) of the early days.
-
Possibly but... I like to think that Americans back then were even more of "individuals" than they are now and... would have resented any interferance in their lives from a country that was so far away.
In any case.. I like our constitution and laws and individual rights much more than british ones so am happy in the extreme that it turned out as it did. I really can't understand australia and new zealand.. Canada.. maybe.. they are pretty mild mannered. I allways thought of australia as a country of rugged individuals but when I seen em all turning in their guns and listening to some on this BB... I just don't know.
In any case... england is still shrinking. I can't see how we would not, at some point. just told the (lol) "home office" to butt out.
lazs
-
Not all americans were English either. When congress was deciding the official language for the new country English won out by 1 vote over German.
There were plenty of dutch , german, french, scandinavians and spanish in the colonies as well.
Americans werent ex brit criminals like the australians who were forced out and a good portion of those English that came to America did so to escape some segement of the "Empire".
-
...and a good portion of those English that came to America did so to escape some segement of the "Empire".
True, but most settled for the same reasons people settled in Africa and India - to make money and start a new life as economic migrants. They could have their own land and many became very wealthy, particularly in New England. After the revolution, they went to other places on the Empire - mainly Canada, but some went elsewhere.
Why the speech marks around Empire? It was an Empire - the largest the world had seen then or since. Sure, it eventually dissolved, but then every Empire that has ever existed had a 'best before' stamp on it. :)
I think if America had not gained its independance at that point of history, it would have happened eventually - it's natural that people want to govern themselves - but it might have remained as a dominion for many years, maybe into the dawn of the 20th century.
-
Hard to say Dowding. I think American colonists had a pretty good idea of the wealth and possibilities on the continent, and would have been resistant of any tribute requirements to an overseas master. Even if the rates, and what was offered in return (The protection of the Royal Navy, for example) were reasonable.
Charon
-
who knows, maybe.
as long as didn't have to keep using all those extraneous "u's" that British are so fond of.
It's color, damn it! ;) flavor!!!
-
At the time of the Revolution, the American population was decidedly split. About a third was for the revolution, a third against, and a third could care less. Any change as Wotan suggested could have tipped the balance for a while anyway.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
It's a misconception (still perpetuated today, looking at the film of tour guides etc) that taxation of the colonists was high and caused them to rebel.
No, it was taxes, the forced boarding of british soldiers in colonists homes, and the lack of power over their own lives, among other things. Read all the "He has"(s) in the Declaration for a complete list of grievances.
At Yorktown, as Cornwallis surrendered, the American bandsman played 'And the world turned upside down' (or something like that).
The song was played because a bunch of rowdies who shouldn't have, just defeated the most powerful army in the world.
While the Declaration of Independance is a breath-taking document in its historical context (taken for granted these days), it wasn't entirely honest. The freedoms described and the assertion concerning the equality of all men were fine as long as you weren't black slave working the plantations. Indeed, the Empire outlawed the slave trade (1807) and slavery (1833) long before the US.
So when the Declaration was written, the British Empire endorsed slavery, and because the colonists were then still British subjects, and since the cotton and tobacco based agrarian society of the south was at that time dependant on slavery, and that system was developed under British rule....
Fortunately, around this time, <1867> after unrest in Canada (in Quebec), Lord Durham wrote his "Report on the Affairs of British North America." Durham stated that to retain its colonies Britain should grant them a large measure of internal self-government.
It only took'em 90 years to figure it out...
So the question is (a long winded run up I know ;)): if Lord Durham's report had been written before 1776, and self-determination partially transferred to the American colonies, do you think America would have remained part of the Empire, like Canada and Australia?
And have QE on or money? no way.
-
perhaps if the british would have had less involvement in the "colonies" then we could have ignored them for some years longer but .... I can't see us letting them leech off of us too long in any case.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Not all americans were English either. When congress was deciding the official language for the new country English won out by 1 vote over German.
Funny. Every Cloggie I meet seems to mention it was Dutch that lost by 1 vote.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
And on a side note......the Captain of the Mayflower is one of my ancestors so you can blame me for the crap navigation.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
Swoop, I noticed he left your branch of the family behind....:)
-
edited
seems to be urban legend about the 1 vote language thing, it related to having official government documents printed in english and german and not to an official language for the nation.
After the war anti english sentiment lead some to offer an alternative "official" language for the us. They included everything from hebrew to greek.......
-
One of mine signed the declaration of independance.
William Floyd
I have a really nice reproduction but no where hang it presently.
:)
and an answer to topic is the same as others : dunno, possibly. hehehe
Originally posted by Swoop
And on a side note......the Captain of the Mayflower is one of my ancestors so you can blame me for the crap navigation.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)