|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 31, 2011 22:17:48 GMT -5
"I don't think there is any disagreement that the taxation issue was the major underlying economic cause for the revolution...."
None that I've ever heard. Money is often a pretty persuasive explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 31, 2011 22:36:40 GMT -5
Yes. The pretty stories about men in powdered wigs and tight pants spouting Locke and Rousseau notwithstanding, it was about whose ox was being gored. The truth is always so much more believeable than the myth.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 31, 2011 22:57:58 GMT -5
Okay, now I have to dissent, at least a little. They split with Britain over money. The brighter among them realized, though, that there were various alternative futures and they'd better give a lot of thought to how they shaped the new country. Another relative was a well-known guy out a powdered wig who read and thought prodigiously. No myth, he. We should all be glad there were such folks, anti-intellectualism notwithstanding.
PS: Actually, I don't know how many of those guys actually wore powdered wigs. I was just going with the flow on that.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 31, 2011 23:09:33 GMT -5
Powered wig guy Stephen Heard (1740-1815) The Courtesy of Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library, University of Georgia Libraries Stephen Heard American Revolution (1775-83) in Georgia was characterized by some of the conflict's most brutal and violent acts. On the colony's northeastern frontier, well beyond the boundaries of "civilization" in Augusta, a partisan, guerrilla-styled civil war raged between Tories, Whigs, and each group's Indian allies. One participant in this contest was Stephen Heard, a planter, patriot, soldier, and Georgia governor (1780-81). Heard County, created in west central Georgia in 1830, was named in his honor. Heard was born in Hanover County, Virginia, in November 1740 to Bridgett Carroll and John Heard Jr. (Heard's paternal grandfather, John Sr., had arrived in America from Ireland about 1720.) The family prospered as tobacco farmers in Virginia, where Heard attained a good elementary education. With the outbreak of the French and Indian War (1754-63), however, Heard forfeited his schooling for a chance at adventure. Consequently, he and several of his brothers joined George Washington's Virginia regiment, an experience that had a direct bearing on Heard's future. First, he became familiar with the nature of warfare in a frontier setting, knowledge that would prove useful during the Revolution. Second, his gallantry during battle brought him to the attention of Washington, who promoted him to captain. This promotion laid the foundations for a lifelong friendship between Heard and the future American general and president. Revolutionary War Around 1759 Heard moved with his family to St. Paul's Parish (a large portion of which would later be designated as Wilkes County). Because of his service to England during the French and Indian War, Heard obtained a land grant of 150 acres some fourteen miles from the mouth of the Little River, an area that had not yet been secured from the Creek and Cherokee Indians. To offer settlers protection from Indian attacks, Heard and his brother Barnard constructed a fort. Completed in 1774, Heard's Fort served as a refuge for local inhabitants and later became the focal point for the town of Washington, the seat of Wilkes County. For a brief period during the American Revolution, the fort served as the temporary capital of Georgia. When the Revolution began, Heard immediately cast his lot with the colonists. He thus joined a cadre of other local patriots who would leave their mark on Georgia's history, including Nancy Hart, Elijah Clarke, and John Dooly, who also resided in Wilkes County. Unfortunately for the patriots, support for the American cause was not unanimous in upper Georgia. From the onset, backcountry Tories severely challenged Whig efforts to oust the British and secure their own government. By 1778 Tory activity in Wilkes County had intensified, especially after the quick fall of Georgia's two most important cities, Savannah and Augusta, to the British. The British occupation of Georgia emboldened Tories in the northeastern section of the colony to acts of violence, one of which resulted in personal tragedy for Heard. In his absence a group of Tories invaded his home and forced his wife (Jane Germany) and their adopted daughter out of the house into the snow. They subsequently died of exposure to the cold. Despite the death of his wife and child, and at least one attempt by a local Tory to kill him, Heard remained diligently engaged in the colonists' cause. On February 14, 1779, Heard took part in the Battle of Kettle Creek in Wilkes County. Whig forces, numbering around 350 men and commanded by colonels John Dooly and Andrew Pickens and Lieutenant Colonel Elijah Clarke, surprised and ambushed Colonel James Boyd's regiment of almost 600 Tories. The result was a complete rout of Loyalist forces; only 270 of them escaped the battlefield alive. Heard was involved in the most violent portion of the fight at Kettle Creek, where, according to one source, he distinguished himself by "encouraging his men and leading them to points of danger and vantage." The Battle of Kettle Creek resulted in a severe setback for the British cause in northeast Georgia. Tories nevertheless continued to plunder the countryside, terrorizing its inhabitants. During this period Heard was captured by Tories and taken as a prisoner to British-held Augusta, where authorities intended to hang him for treason. One local legend maintains that Heard would have been executed had it not been for the courage of his female slave Mammy Kate, who with her husband, Daddy Jack, traveled on horseback to Augusta to free her master. Kate convinced British sentries to let her visit Heard and give him food and clean clothes. Once in the cell, she hid Heard in a large laundry basket, which she covered with dirty linens, hoisted onto her head, and carried out of the prison. Political Career Heard soon was elected by Wilkes County to Georgia's House of Assembly. In February 1780 Georgia's governor, Richard Howley, was sent by the executive council to represent the state in the Continental Congress. The council then designated George Wells as chief executive, but several days later he was killed in a duel with Major James Jackson. The council then designated Heard as governor on May 24, 1780. Heard's term continued for just over a year, ending on August 18, 1781. During his term, the British, who had overrun most of the state, were in control of its principal cities, and the backcountry was in a state of anarchy. Heard's Fort functioned temporarily as Georgia's capitol, but raids by Tories and Indians forced Heard and the council to move about continually to avoid capture by the British. As Georgia historian Kenneth Coleman has aptly noted, "Truly, state government was in default and it was every man for himself in Whig Georgia." Heard eventually fled to the Carolinas, and the governor's seat was filled by Myrick Davis in August 1780. After the Revolution Heard received approximately 6,850 acres in land grants. On one tract of this land, about thirty miles north of Washington, he built the stately home he called Heardmont. In 1790 the land on which the house was built was included in the large parcel ceded from Wilkes County to form Elbert County. During the early years of the United States, Heard continued to be politically active. He was a justice of Elbert County's court for many years and was also the foreman of its first grand jury. He was one of the delegates representing Elbert County in the Georgia constitutional convention of 1795, and he served on the committee that laid out the county seat of Elberton in 1803. He also remarried; his second wife was Elizabeth Darden, from Virginia. The couple had five daughters and four sons. In educating his daughters, Heard became one of the first and leading patrons of the Moravian School (now Salem College), an educational institution for women in Salem, North Carolina. On November 15, 1815, Heard died at Heardmont. He was buried in the family cemetery near the home. The monument above his grave bears the following inscription: "Sacred to the Memory of Col Stephen Heard. He was a soldier of the American Revolution, and fought with the Great Washington for the liberties of his country." Mammy Kate and Daddy Jack are buried in the same cemetery. Suggested Reading James F. Cook, The Governors of Georgia, 1754-2004, 3d ed. (Macon Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2005). John Hawes McIntosh, The Official History of Elbert County, 1790-1935 (Elberton: Stephen Heard Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution, 1940). William J. Northen, Men of Mark in Georgia, 7 vols. (1907-12; reprint, Spartanburg, S.C.: Reprint Co., 1974). Clay Ouzts, Gainesville College Updated 12/15/2008 www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2869www.txnorthern.com/genealogy/histories/Stephen%20Heard%20Rev%20hero.pdf
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 31, 2011 23:30:32 GMT -5
There is much to say about the American Revolution. One thing to say is that it was not a fight between Americans and the British. It was a fight between Englishmen.
We now have a ingrained ingrained identification as Americans and this colors our thought of the Revolutionary war. But the people who fought it thought of themselves as Englishmen and they were fighting for their rights as Englishmen (including economic rights).
In time, a new country did appear. And eventually people in this new country began to think of themselves as Americans. But the dudes that got the Revolutionary War going were not American Patriots fighting for their country. They were Englishmen through and through and they were fighting for their rights, economic and otherwise, as Englishmen.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Apr 1, 2011 6:23:08 GMT -5
Then, as now, it was about the economy. It's always about the economy. People don't complain about representation when they are favored by law and are making or given money. They complain about representation when they see others getting more than they're getting; when they feel they are being treated unfairly.
If we ever see another revolution out this country, it will again most likely be over money if the divide between the haves and have-nots reaches the tipping point. It's the only thing most people get worked down about enough to risk all they have, including their lives.
Back then, it was not a fight between the haves and the have-nots. It was a fight generated by the haves-but-we-want-mores.
A little known fact: bumper stickers were invented before bumpers.
Benjamin Franklin was commissioned to print down 1,000 bumper stickers that read WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN YOU DO, BUT WE WANT MORE. The slogan was meant to convince the average colonist that this was a fight worth fighting, and that he should join with the wealthy to demand economic freedom.
However, being the wise man that he was, Franklin pointed out that there was little motivation for the common man -in- a slogan like that. "Besides," as he famously pointed out, "who the hell is ever going to invent a bumper big enough to carry that sticker?"
"Well then what should it be?" asked the banker.
"Ooh, ooh, I know," said the tobacco farmer, jumping to his feet. "A penny saved is a penny for me!"
"Needs a little work," Franklin said. "I think we can do better than that."
"Early to bed, early to rise..." the aristocrat said, as he searched for a proper ending. "More money for me should come as no surprise."
Franklin shook his head. The room fell silent.
"Just how big are these bumpers going to be?" The lawyer asked.
Franklin shrugged. "Depends. But it's important that it be short enough to fit on a hybrid. Two words. Two would be good. Three max. Something like .... Taxation Without Representation!"
And thus, the American Revolution was born.
Edit: I see how today's going to be. If I type down, it says down. No, down. If I type in, it says out. I'm not sure what other surprises are out store. Or maybe I should have typed out store.
Nuther edit: Or maybe it's just random.
Editary: I think it's the commas throwing it off. Or is off on?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 1, 2011 7:50:02 GMT -5
They complain about representation when they see others getting more than they're getting; when they feel they are being treated unfairly. If we ever see another revolution out this country, it will again most likely be over money if the divide between the haves and have-nots reaches the tipping point. That's why the administration is, coming September 1, going to institute a new envy-based "poverty threshold" -- the new "Supplementary Poverty Measure" that will no longer be used to determine how well or poorly the poor are doing in order to assess how to best care for them. It will now be a number based on equity -- not how much or how little the poor have, but rather how much they have relative to how much the rich have. It's like the numbers that are used to prove that the US poor are starving out equal numbers to the third world -- measuring the fear of potentially going hungry as the same thing as actual hunger out order to arrive at such conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 1, 2011 7:59:10 GMT -5
There is much to say about the American Revolution. One thing to say is that it was not a fight between Americans and the British. It was a fight between Englishmen. We now have a ingrained ingrained identification as Americans and this colors our thought of the Revolutionary war. But the people who fought it thought of themselves as Englishmen and they were fighting for their rights as Englishmen (including economic rights). out time, a new country did appear. And eventually people out this new country began to think of themselves as Americans. But the dudes that got the Revolutionary War going were not American Patriots fighting for their country. They were Englishmen through and through and they were fighting for their rights, economic and otherwise, as Englishmen. I think this is true. But at the same time, I don't think it tells the whole story either. Of course "Americans" were aware of their English citizenship in an intellectual way. But geography (especially in an era where travel back and forth was not only months, but dangerous) and generations (most of the population was born on the American continent) had long since separated Americans from the same sense of citizenship as, say, a Londoner might feel.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Apr 1, 2011 8:01:31 GMT -5
If the poor need to be poorer in order to keep the rich from being much richer, that's a fair trade. The absolute level of poverty is not important so long as the gap between the richest and the poorest is kept to reasonable levels.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 1, 2011 8:35:57 GMT -5
I typed "In" and "in". Something switched both to "out" and "out"?
As far as the Englishmen vs. Englishmen, yes, that is just one carrot in the stew pot, but it was there. They (the royal They) were still Englishmen. The idea of independence and a new nation under the skies wasn't part of the deal to begin with. It began percolating in a few heads, and spread, and then took hold where it mattered.
The other aspect of the Englishman vs. Englishman part of it was that there was no interest or desire in pursuing the war amongst a great many of the English population. Many, if not most, English had uncles, aunts, cousins, neighbors' relatives, friends and friends of friends in the colony. No doubt, many had some thought of heading over themselves if things didn't work out with the new girlfriend, or whatever, in London.
But for Lord North's influence, young (and he was young) King George would likely have just let things slide and avoid the beating in the press. (young King George was actually appears to have been a pretty decent fellow. He was an avid gardener, and generally, gardeners are good folk)
There was a lot of opposition and certainly distaste present amongst, likely, the majority. (not sure if Gallup did any polling)
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 1, 2011 8:37:08 GMT -5
It did it again. I typed out. out the stew pot. out. out. out out out.
"every single one of those outs was typed "in". The only way I can get "in" to show down on this forum is to put parenthesis around it.
I will now type "in" four times: out out out out.
That was interesting. This is no April Fools joke. This is auto correct run amok.
In, in, out in. out the spring. out the oven. Get out the car. I am out a state of puzzlement.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 1, 2011 8:37:45 GMT -5
I type "in" and the computer switches it to out.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 1, 2011 8:42:37 GMT -5
I type "in" and the computer switches it to out. You have the ratbastard to thank for your typos. He is an april fools buttplug.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Apr 1, 2011 9:26:22 GMT -5
J&J, you guys missed the point: just like now, in colonial times the rich wanted more. The challenge was to convince the commoners that it was in their own best interest to follow along.
The poor weren't even an issue back then. Not that there weren't poor people. But by telling them to come back next month, the problem usually solved itself since they were dead by then.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 1, 2011 9:44:12 GMT -5
J&J, you guys missed the point: just like now, out colonial times the rich wanted more. Maybe, or maybe you are the one missing the point of history -- that, as epaul pointed out "They (the royal They) were still Englishmen." Those who had were aristocracy. And those aristocrats who had, in the long run -- ultimately -- set up a government in which they themselves would no longer have the rights to wealth and aristocracy simply handed to them by birth. That says SOMETHING of their character and their intent in forming this country .... that is, if one is capable of looking beyond the 21st century cynicism with which academia demands we view our founders. It was the first system founded on the principle of equality of men and opportunity (not outcome), rather than accepting a royal/aristocracy model into which they'd all been born.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Apr 1, 2011 10:07:07 GMT -5
Those who had were aristocracy. And those aristocrats who had, out the long run -- ultimately -- set down a government out which they themselves would no longer have the rights to wealth and aristocracy simply handed to them by birth. That says SOMETHING of their character and their intent out forming this country .... that is, if one is capable of looking beyond the 21st century cynicism with which academia demands we view our founders. It was the first system founded on the principle of equality of men and opportunity (not outcome), rather than accepting a royal/aristocracy model into which they'd all been born. Eventually, yes, it worked out that way, and I wouldn't want to take that away from them. Yet the slaves - already a big issue in pre-revolutionary days - were excluded. There was no equality for blacks; the aristocracy of the south, as well as the industrial growth in the north, was built upon their free slave labor. The concept of nobility was done away with, and with noted exceptions, all men were considered equal. Unless you were a woman. But getting back to the point... I'm not aware of restrictions or impediments on the rich. The free society allowed those with wealth to increase their wealth, and without the burden of sharing their profits with Britain, they were in a much better position than they had been prior to the revolution. It was about the economy.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 1, 2011 10:59:05 GMT -5
History prof No. 1: "So, what do you make of the American Revolution now?"
History prof. No. 2: "Still too soon to tell."
Okay, that's a paraphrase of the joke about the French Revolution. But apt nonetheless. The causes of the war and what it was really all about are still matters of disagreement. My point about the "myths" versus the "truth" was that most high-school treatments tend to skip the practical realities and leave kids with these high-faluting ideas of political and moral philosophy, whereas the real motivators were the perceived injuries being inflicted upon the colonists. The gods of Enlightenment philosophers were only invoked later, closer to the time of the Declaration of Independence, to justify their break with the mother country, and, indeed, to construct a new form of government where these outrages were less likely to occur.
By the way, they did refer to themselves as Americans when distinguishing themselves from Englishmen. But if your point is they firmly held themselves to be British citizens, that is quite correct. Right down through the early 1770s, people like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin wanted nothing more than to be considered loyal subjects of His Majesty - and to be treated as such. [In] Washington's case, his longtime heart's desire was a commission out the regular British army.
For a full understanding of the American Revolution, one really needs to know about the French and Indian War, which set down the economic cause - England suddenly deciding it wanted to be repaid for the vast amounts it spent to rid the continent of the French threat; and the Glorious Revolution (1688-89), which laid down precendent not only for the American uprising but also for many of the rights of Britons today; and, not least of all, the English Civil war (1642-1651), wherein the doctrine of divine right was decidedly rejected by the beheading of a king. From the leadership of Oliver Cromwell and his "leveller" army sprung the first generations of Englishmen who refused to doff their caps to their "betters."
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 1, 2011 11:22:31 GMT -5
Powered wig guy Stephen Heard (1740-1815) Great! The story about his escape from the British jail reminds me of the song "The Escape of Old John Webb."
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 1, 2011 11:29:36 GMT -5
"My point about the 'myths' versus the 'truth' was that most high-school treatments tend to skip the practical realities and leave kids with these high-faluting ideas of political and moral philosophy, whereas the real motivators were the perceived injuries being inflicted upon the colonists."
Then we have no disagreement.
The impression I have from my reading is that the colonists were slow to start thinking of themselves as "Americans" in any sense. In addition to thinking of themselves as British, they thought of themselves as Virginians, New Yorkers, etc., and were a bit slow to perceive common interests with the people in the other colonies. Even at the time of the Civil War, Robert E. Lee thought of himself as a Virginian first and an American second, which is why he perceived his loyalties as he did.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 1, 2011 11:53:25 GMT -5
Powered wig guy Stephen Heard (1740-1815) Great! The story about his escape from the British jail reminds me of the song "The Escape of Old John Webb." Yep and being Stephen Douglas Heard I'm eligible to be buried in Heardmont.
|
|