Greetings It seems to me that Dr. Cogliano presents only A British viewpoint. Mine's different in places, so - may I chip in with my "two penn'orth" please? "We" refers to Brits, throughout! I must admit that I do disagree with him about political resolution not being attempted... Any British historian will (almost by definition) have a different "objective" viewpoint from that of an American historian because we have a different perspective. The American colonies existed for the greater good of the Mother Country - that was why we had colonies in the first place. Consequently, any colony wishing to break free was acting against the purpose of colonisation and therefore the people involved were rebels against lawful authority. Whereas Americans see Washington, Samuel Adams et al as freedom fighters against the imposition of British rule, we see them as rebels against rightful rule. I suspect that the terminology labels the writer's nationality! In all the reading I've done, I don't recall ever seeing an American writer calling the leaders of the colonists "rebels". Similarly, I don't think that the war has been seen as "inevitable". Historians usually don't use the word - inevitability is only obvious with hindsight. The second Marquis of Rockingham repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 and appears to have sorted out the first major upheaval; it wasn't until the Declaration of Independence that the colonists complained about the Declaratory Act. Furthermore, Rockingham reduced the molasses duty to the 1d. per gallon that the colonists said they could afford and they paid it from 1766 until July 1776. The 1767 Townshend Duties were a blunder - but it was the colonists who had differentiated between "internal" and "external" taxes, saying they would pay the latter. The 1767 Duties were "external" - but then the colonists changed their minds... Lord North seems to have stumbled into further conflict in 1773/4 over the Tea Act, which had absolutely nothing to do with America but led to the Boston Tea Party. The last thing that Britain wanted was conflict with her colonies - wars cost a lot of cash for a start, and Britain had other things to deal with at the time - domestic problems were always more important!! It always struck me that the colonists wanted their cake and to eat it as well. They maintained that they were British subjects abroad and so were entitled to the "liberties" of Englishmen. Fine - but they didn't want to be subject to the same taxes as Englishmen. The Stamp Duty had been imposed on the English since the 1690s; import taxes had been levied for centuries; the tax on tea in Britain was 119% (!), but the colonists objected to the 3d tax. It seems that Cogliano thinks that once the war had started, Britain was "bound" to lose it - but Sam Adams said "In plain truth, we see that the American Revolution was only saved from being an abortive rebellion by two factors: one - the character of Washington; the other - the marshalling against England of European powers." That doesn't smack of inevitability!! Oh dear - it looks as though I've delivered a lecture. Mea culpa!! I'll try to keep further contributions short... Cheers Marjie.

The following refer to At 11:33 PM 9/20/2001 -0400, you wrote: Was the American Revolution inevitable? By Francis D Cogliano, April 2001 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_economy/empire/american_revolution_01.sht At 06:42 PM 9/23/2001 -0400, you wrote: >I must admit that I do disagree with him >about political resolution not being attempted... I'd agree with that. I believe that had their early attempts to do so expressed the offers made on their final attempts, they would likely have succeeded. >Any British historian will (almost by definition) have a different >"objective" viewpoint from that of an American historian because we have a >different perspective. If you are in a car following another involved in a wreck and I am standing on a nearby street-corner, we will both be witnesses to the same wreck, but the version we tell of the event will differ as a result of our vantage point. If we are both objective in what we report, would our accounts not be complementary rather than contradictory? But if we were to ask each of the drivers involved for their view of things, they could be expected to less objective and thereby more contradictory. I am idealistic enough to believe that historians who make a sincere effort to be objective will not be found to be contradictory in any substantive way. I've given up on so many of my ideals that I'd really hate to give that one up! > The American colonies existed for the greater good >of the Mother Country - that was why we had colonies in the first place. But of course. This was not lost on the colonies themselves. We would be well to remember that when we consider actions/reactions in the story of the war. >Consequently, any colony wishing to break free was acting against the >purpose of colonisation and therefore the people involved were rebels >against lawful authority. It makes sense to me that the British authorities would see things that way. And "from their point of view", it makes perfect sense. >Whereas Americans see Washington, Samuel Adams et >al as freedom fighters against the imposition of British rule, O.k., let's flip over that coin we just tossed. Does it not also make sense that, "from their point of view", it was a very reasonable way for them to have looked at things. >we see them >as rebels against rightful rule. I suspect that the terminology labels the >writer's nationality! Without a doubt. But at some point, I'd like to get into a denotation/connotation analysis of the use of that word. When the word is used by objective historians to refer to those attempting to achieve independence, it means (denotes) one thing. When Brit/loyalist partisans refer to themselves as "loyalists" (a positive term) but refuse to call their opponents as anything besides "rebels", they intend it to be a negative term (the antonym of tory). Now we get into the negative connotation of the word. This negative/positive combination of terms is a trustworthy way to spot a partisan (of either ilk). >In all the reading I've done, I don't recall ever seeing an American writer >calling the leaders of the colonists "rebels". I have, both in their writing and in their private conversation, but they mean it in its literal denotation, not in its negative connotation. > Similarly, I don't think >that the war has been seen as "inevitable". Historians usually don't use >the word - inevitability is only obvious with hindsight. I can see how one could take that view. However, I have read the writings of some "otherwise objective" historians who express the view that if it had not succeeded the first time, it would have very likely have come about sooner or later. >The 1767 Townshend Duties were a blunder - but it was the colonists who had >differentiated between "internal" and "external" taxes, saying they would >pay the latter. The 1767 Duties were "external" - but then the colonists >changed their minds... Lord North seems to have stumbled into further >conflict in 1773/4 over the Tea Act, which had absolutely nothing to do with >America but led to the Boston Tea Party. My daughter, an idealistic home-schooler, teaches her kids that it was all about "taxation without representation". I try to tell her that I thought it had much more to do with a reaction to *any* "taxation without". The colonies had gone their own way for so long, they simply didn't want to be taxed by parliament "at all". > The last thing that Britain wanted >was conflict with her colonies - wars cost a lot of cash for a start, and >Britain had other things to deal with at the time - domestic problems were >always more important!! The colonials in my view, were extremely well-informed on European political currents. The reverse was not true. >It always struck me that the colonists wanted their cake and to eat it as >well. They maintained that they were British subjects abroad and so were >entitled to the "liberties" of Englishmen. Fine - but they didn't want to >be subject to the same taxes as Englishmen. They would have been happy to have continued being Brits forever under "salutary neglect". For many, many years, they had defended themselves when all was at stake were their lives (the Seven Years War was much more about saving colonies than it was about saving colonists). They were accustomed to taxing themselves and governing themselves. Britain had waited entirely too long to expect success in tightening the strings of control on the colonies. They'd have fared much better if they had merely continued benefiting from their existence. > The Stamp Duty had been imposed >on the English since the 1690s; import taxes had been levied for centuries; >the tax on tea in Britain was 119% (!), but the colonists objected to the 3d >tax. I doubt that there was any tax, with any rationale, that could have been imposed on the colonists without a similar reaction. But then, I am one of those irreverent souls who sees the collection of taxes as infringements upon the rights of New Englanders to smuggle! >It seems that Cogliano thinks that once the war had started, Britain was >"bound" to lose it - but Sam Adams said "In plain truth, we see that the >American Revolution was only saved from being an abortive rebellion by two >factors: one - the character of Washington; the other - the marshalling >against England of European powers." That doesn't smack of inevitability!! I am not sure I'd say that it was inevitable, but those in rebellion (see, I used the R word, but note the positive connotation!) were well attuned to the European balance of power and desire of France to bloody Britain's nose. Any study of the diplomatic corps from the colonies leaves one impressed at how little they brought to any table compared to what they took away. Henry Kissinger could take lessons from them! >Oh dear - it looks as though I've delivered a lecture. Mea culpa!! I'll >try to keep further contributions short... There is no problem with the length of your post. You will eventually come to know Ed St.Germain. I set the maximum post length a couple of years ago to fit Ed's longest post (when he was posting a journal, in parts). Glad to have you. John Robertson

[Marjorie reminded me that I'd never sent this] Marjorie wrote: >It seems to me that Dr. Cogliano presents only A British viewpoint. Mine's >different in places, so - may I chip in with my "two penn'orth" please? Please do--- And while I'm writing, 'Welcome Aboard' from the other side of the pond. -snip- >In all the reading I've done, I don't recall ever seeing an American writer >calling the leaders of the colonists "rebels". We need to fix that. Try "Reluctant Rebels" by Lynn Montross. It is a 1950 book, but in my opinion it is the best account of the Continental Congress from 1776-1787. Its 450 pages are well footnoted except for the 4-5 pages of what I call 'price they paid jingoism'.[referring to the fairy tales about the Congress was singled out for abuse in the Rev-war.] Ignore those and the book is a gem. Montross uses 'rebels' throughout, and anoints Samuel Adams the 'archrebel'. [And though, this was his first major historical work, he was about as American as they come-- about the same time as he published the book, Col. Montross was appointed to a position as a US Marine Corps historian..] > Similarly, I don't think >that the war has been seen as "inevitable". Historians usually don't use >the word - inevitability is only obvious with hindsight. Many of the 'inevitability' historians use the letter from Adams to Jefferson in 1815 as their proof on inevitability; "What do we mean by the Revolution? The War? That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an Effect and Consequence of it. The Revolution was in the Minds of the People, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen Years before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington." But 50 years earlier, Berkely closed "Verses on the Prospect of Planting Arts and Learning in America" in 1726 with; "Westward the course of Empire makes its way The first four acts already past A fifth shall close the drama with the day Times noblest offspring is the last." And Montross writes; "Sir William Keith, a capable royal governor of Pennsylvania, had a Machiavellian idea that the mother country should encourage jealousies between colonies. "For while they continue so, " he asserted, "it is mortally impossible that any dangerous union can be formed between them." [unfortunately this is one of his few unattributed quotes-- anybody know the source? I'm guessing it could be 1750's, but Keith was Gov 1716-1727.] I think Franklin's observations on the size, population and resources of America vs England would have to give anyone pause, and make them wonder 'when will it happen?' instead of 'will it happen?'. Much like the America of 2001, we're a broad-based and generally in 'disagreement over everything' peoples--- but once we get our focus, we *can* unite. -snips- >It always struck me that the colonists wanted their cake and to eat it as >well. As did the King. Human nature. His cake was having a resource as rich as North America. 'Eating it' was his non-recognition of what a resource it would be when it was finished. >They maintained that they were British subjects abroad and so were >entitled to the "liberties" of Englishmen. Fine - but they didn't want to >be subject to the same taxes as Englishmen. I'm curious about the Tax burden of the folks back in England. Did they have taxes imposed by their counties and towns? Were there taxes that would compare to the Colonial & town taxes that the Americans paid? The Colonies were still expanding, and it costs much more to build new towns than to maintain old ones. We maintained a militia in each town, especially those on the frontier. We also paid much higher prices for all the goods that by law we were forbidden from manufacturing here. [English language bibles & cast iron goods for starters-- it seems like there were other things.] We also were forbidden to export Beaver hats. Our tobacco had to be sold to England. We did not enjoy the free trade that England did. The military budget, though the King refunded a pittance of it, was borne by the Colonies. We paid income taxes, inheritance taxes, slave taxes, road and property taxes [both real and personal] to our Colonies and towns. Those taxes far exceeded the taxes & tariffs levied by the King, and I often wonder if folks who claim that Americans paid less taxes than the English take those into account. [I think it would take a genius to try to compare them, as each town in America had a different system of taxing its citizens-- as did each Colony.] -snip- >It seems that Cogliano thinks that once the war had started, Britain was >"bound" to lose it - but Sam Adams said "In plain truth, we see that the >American Revolution was only saved from being an abortive rebellion by two >factors: one - the character of Washington; the other - the marshalling >against England of European powers." That doesn't smack of inevitability!! I agree with Samuel Adams on all counts. But I think he would also have said that the war, if not its outcome was inevitable. If not 1776, then 1786. . . or 1812.<g> > >Oh dear - it looks as though I've delivered a lecture. Mea culpa!! I'll >try to keep further contributions short... I've gotten a bit wordy here, myself. Now for this week's email . . . Jim