Interesting thoughts here. Although I find all three reasons credible, for the sake of discussion I'd want participants here to focus on the 3rd reason:
America would have a better system of government if we'd stuck with Britain
Honestly, I think earlier abolition alone is enough to make the case against the revolution, and it combined with less-horrible treatment of American Indians is more than enough. But it's worth taking a second to praise a less important but still significant consequence of the US sticking with Britain: we would've, in all likelihood, become a parliamentary democracy rather than a presidential one.
Some compelling ideas in there, it might make for an interesting discussion on this the 238th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
Link is here at VOX
Of course if anyone wishes to take on the first two reasons, have at it. Have a happy and safe 4th of July!
As noted elsewhere, It is interesting to consider the ways that the Founding Fathers considered themselves as traitors to Britain - and what's even MORE interesting is that others often forget the British side of things, as many sent to places in the South from the Empire like Georgia were sent there due to being prisoners and folks who either committed crimes or had enormous debts they couldn't pay off.....and yet when they got there, they made an enormous economical giant that competed with the empire's interest.
Again,
British used North America as a penal colony both in the usual sense and through the system of indentured servitude from the 1610s to the American Revolution. Convicts would be transported by merchants and auctioned off to plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America, representing perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century. The reason than the ship Mayflower could reach the United States without restriction from Britain was because the land was not 'the land of opportunity' yet. Rather, North America was a land of wretched people, who were almost castigated by being transported to such a distant place from Britain.
As time passed, the United States lost its purpose as a prison, but still indentured servitude existed to continue to provide the labor for the colonies. Among many American colonies of Britain, especially Georgia served its role as a penal colony. When that avenue closed in the 1780s after the American Revolution, Britain began using parts of what is now known as Australia as penal settlements. Some of these included Norfolk Island, Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) and New South Wales. But the British still felt that American territory should've stayed in the position it was.
And when success started to develop, part of the British mindset was that they should still "pay off their debt" via taxes - even if they were allowed a greater level of independence with what they set up when in exile. After the French-Indian war, the British were very strapped for cash due to how much heavy borrowing had come to finance the war....and thus, they looked to their own colonists as a means of handling things. Having far-flung colonial possessions (besides serving as a penal colony) was to generate wealth for the mother country and the private companies working there.
Of course, it's not argued that all the colonists were "prisoners" - but for many who later rebelled, it is odd to consider their actions in light of their roots/ancestors who came over.
When the British strategy in America concentrated on a campaign in the southern colonies (as said best in
Southern Campaigns of the Revolutionary War ) - as the British commanders saw the "southern strategy" as a more viable plan since the south was perceived as being more strongly Loyalist - prison debt and penal colony backgrounds were not forgotten.
For reference:
From a British perspective, to have prisoners/British citizens who should've technically be doing time choosing to rebel against their authority was one reason amongst many as to why they felt the Revolution was without proper foundation.
The war of independence was declared by the governments of the colonies. In most cases, these were elected governments, often with leaders appointed by England. It was these governments that declared the tax rates unjust, the forced conscription of sailors and theft of property as immoral and illegal, and these governments were the ones that raised an army to enforce the rule of law in the Americas. By 1775, many of the colonists were fourth generation Americans. They had never been to England, and over the previous 100 years cultural and language differences had already developed. The colonies’ assemblies may have had pictures of the King on their walls, but the point is that those legislatures were duly constituted, and were the legitimate government in the Americas. When they declared independence, and rejected the legal prerogative of British Parliament to tax, it then became an American’s duty to obey their government. One could just as easily argue that it would have been a form of rebellion against government to refuse to support the revolution.
William Penn’s “holy experiment” was described by him as “self appointed government under the crown"...and because of this, it is said that even the British crown recognized the legitimacy of the local governments, and expected British subjects to do the same.
In England, many people still refer to the Revolutionary War as "The Rebellion of the American Colonies." It is interesting to me that often times how you view a thing depends upon where you are standing. You could argue that the claim of authority of the Americas by England was arbitrary. If you were a fourth generation American, and had never been to England, a legitimate question to ask is: “Why is the British King my authority?” The British parliament claimed that they had the right to tax the citizens of the Americas. Why were the Indians not the governing authority? Why not the French? Why not the American governments?
They all also claimed that same right. In fact, this is precisely the issue that solidified George Washington’s understanding of British rule in the Americas. As an officer in the British military, Washington’s first mission was to tell a French military outpost in Ohio to disband and leave the area. The French claimed the area fell under their authority, and the Indians agreed with the French. The British claimed it was theirs, and their claim was in essence based on their maps, which simply extended the boarders of the colonies indefinitely to the West.
Simply because a government makes a map with you under their authority, does not then bind you under the obligation. However, it does show the power of geography and maps - and the ways perspective makes a world of difference since folks complained on the British making arbitrary claims - and yet for the Native Americans who experienced the same at the hands of the colonists who took land from them/claimed it for their own even before the Revolution, they were wondering how inconsistent folks were.
Additionally, from the British side, if saying their claims were arbitrary, there's also the reality of how their actions were deeply embedded in the European international law tradition - as established in 1650. And with a better understanding of the legal relationship between the colonial governments and the British crown, a lot of things click. Some are of the mindset that the Revolution was a war between George’s greed in trying to finance England on the backs of the colonists (and all without representation from the colonies) and the colonist’s greed to keep taxes low and to grasp what power they could in Parliament. ..with others feeling that there was no submission by the colonies to England’s authority.
Considering the ways things connect to today (As it concerns how many now harp on secession being necessary due to the Tax Hikes/Tax reforms they don't like by President Obama), it's interesting seeing how England’s claims of authority was never disputed until taxation rose too high. Citizens and leaders remained loyal to England, until taxation sharply rose.. So this justification only emerged after the colonists became offended at George’s constant tax hikes and then started looking for excuses for independence. Moreover, for others arguing that most of the inhabitants of the colonies around 1776 were somehow blissfully unaware they were British subjects, under British rule, they alll spoke English and they sang English songs. Moreover, they all took pride in English patriotism. In that view, to argue that they were obligated to support their local government against England is incomplete - as others have pointed out that we owe increased loyalty to increased authority: if the mayor of your (or my) small town and Barack Obama show up on your doorstep and each one tells you to follow him (one east and the other west), who will you follow? You better follow the President.
The right to rule came because the Brits were the conquerors. They had cleared Native Americans from what became the British Colonies (and that's a serious moral issue there, but that's for another time...) and they settled that area. Their conquest and current control validated their claim to "set and enforce laws". As for colonial self-governance, did the Crown ever relinquish authority over the British Colonies in America? By analogy, let's say you come home one day and your wife tell you that you have together received a gift of $100. She asks how you want to spend it. You tell her that she might benefit from a purchase for herself and give her the freedom to buy what she would like. By giving her "self-governance" in this matter, have you abdicated your responsibility as a leader/husband or have you delegated a financial decision while retaining your authority?
There are a lot of things to consider when it comes to inconsistencies with how we view the American Revolution...but with what we did for the American Indians and others, it does make revolution look a bit odd...
