Was the American revolution Morally justified?

[James the Red]

Now, Im not an expert at all of the American revolution, so please don't blast me if I'm a total noob on the subject. But was the American revolution justified? Some other revolutions had the people living in terrible conditions before the rebellion. But the American colonies didn't seem to be THAT oppressed to warrant a bloody and violent war.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't like the British Empire either, but the founding fathers instigated and started a violent war largely for ideological reasons. And I don't agree with that.

Here is a question, how long were people in America planning revolution? And if Britain did give the American colonies representation, would that have seriously ticked the conspirators off because that would have gotten in the way of starting a revolution in the first place?

Its harder to create a republic based on representation (amongst other things) if the monarchy already gives the people representation already, eh?

I was talking to some fellow about this earlier today, he appears to be some sort of tea party/libertarian fellow, and this is the exact quote from him. "In order to make an omelet, you must crack a few eggs"

So I guess the question im asking here is, does ends justify the means?

[HunterKYA]

If the British had given the colonies representation, like you said, among other things, the large majority of the grievances that instigated the Revolution may have been quelled before things ever resulted in open revolt.

The colonies may have been allowed to form their own country, for the purposes of governance of a large population, but remained loyal to the crown until they were granted their sovereignty, much like Canada. Maybe if things had worked out that way, the United States wouldn't be seen as backwards by much of the world, because of our much-maligned educational system and culture. Instead, we gave Britain the middle-finger and told them to get lost.

[The Useless Member]

No war is fully justified in my opinion.

To me, neither side was good. Deciding which was worse? That's really more of an opinion when it comes to wars like this. Sadly, it will probably be determined by which country the repliers of this thread live in.

[Admiral Piett]

Morally, I'd say yes. People came to America to escape the political oppressions of the old World. People in Europe today forget about how absolute monarchies were still in full force in those times. Most of the colonists came to America to either escape political or religious suppression, to make a new life, and to create new economic opportunities without the strain of mercantilism. It was the first time the Enlightenment ideals of liberalism could actually make their way into political administration.

[Armenum]

Morally, I'd say yes. People came to America to escape the political oppressions of the old World. People in Europe today forget about how absolute monarchies were still in full force in those times. Most of the colonists came to America to either escape political or religious suppression, to make a new life, and to create new economic opportunities without the strain of mercantilism. It was the first time the Enlightenment ideals of liberalism could actually make their way into political administration.

Yeah I tend to sympathise with the American Revolutionaries as a genuine war for self-determination that was fully justified. Political representation was indeed lacking, though what could you expect from a Monarch ruling you an ocean away? Such a disconnect was also a large factor that fuelled a disconnected between the people of America and their British overlords. Plus the wealth of the Americas also fuelled people's notion of a self-sustaining governance in the Americas.

[Col. Tartleton]

Yeah I tend to sympathise with the American Revolutionaries as a genuine war for self-determination that was fully justified. Political representation was indeed lacking, though what could you expect from a Monarch ruling you an ocean away? Such a disconnect was also a large factor that fuelled a disconnected between the people of America and their British overlords. Plus the wealth of the Americas also fuelled people's notion of a self-sustaining governance in the Americas.

They also tried pretty hard to make it work. Parliament was full of , telling us we were children talking to adults just because our guys didn't live in Britain proper. Basically the DoI is an ultimatum: Treat us like Englishman or admit we aren't English and let us part ways because you're acting all unconstitutionally.

I mean they offended us to the point we went to France for help...

Americans hate French people. It's in our DNA. Besides they're Papist scoundrels . Should have gone to good king Fritz and got us some proper Prussians and Willem's Dutch Navy. The Dutch wanted to be Neutral though, but that was stupid, they were at War with Britain within 4 years of their own accord.

[Armenum]

They also tried pretty hard to make it work. Parliament was full of , telling us we were children talking to adults just because our guys didn't live in Britain proper. Basically the DoI is an ultimatum: Treat us like Englishman or admit we aren't English and let us part ways because you're acting all unconstitutionally.

Yeah and that's the problem with colonies. They realise this and upon realisation want to sever ties with a government that looks down upon them and doesn't really represent them. I think American Revolution was an inspiration for many similar conflicts of self-determination that took place around the world since then. It's a very elemental desire at the core of the conflict, but also a human right.

I mean they offended us to the point we went to France for help...

Americans hate French people. It's in our DNA. Besides they're Papist scoundrels . Should have gone to good king Fritz and got us some proper Prussians and Willem's Dutch Navy. The Dutch wanted to be Neutral though, but that was stupid, they were at War with Britain within 4 years of their own accord.

Well I know during the birth of the American nation there were people split on which side to be friendly with (France or Britain). I never really understood the US hostility of France, they went through a similar revolution that US went through, they helped America in their revolution, I guess maybe since many Americans had English roots, they had a cultural mistrust of the French?

[athanaric]

I never really understood the US hostility of France, they went through a similar revolution that US went through, they helped America in their revolution, I guess maybe since many Americans had English roots, they had a cultural mistrust of the French?

That and many Americans have German roots as well. Then there's the "French and Indian War" AKA Seven Years War.
Also, the way France asserted herself after WWII. The Americans bailed them out and treated them like a fellow victorious power (which they weren't. They lost the war, after all), even giving them a part of the American zone in Germany to control, and yet French politicians decided to follow their own agenda which collided with American interests in some places. So, Americans tend to see the French as thankless, unreliable surrender monkeys.

[Col. Tartleton]

Yeah and that's the problem with colonies. They realise this and upon realisation want to sever ties with a government that looks down upon them and doesn't really represent them. I think American Revolution was an inspiration for many similar conflicts of self-determination that took place around the world since then. It's a very elemental desire at the core of the conflict, but also a human right.



Well I know during the birth of the American nation there were people split on which side to be friendly with (France or Britain). I never really understood the US hostility of France, they went through a similar revolution that US went through, they helped America in their revolution, I guess maybe since many Americans had English roots, they had a cultural mistrust of the French?

They helped us in our revolution out of self interest, we didn't reciprocate because we didn't have a stake in France's outcome, we fought a cold war with France and drifted back towards Britain under the Federalists, things got screwed up and 1812 happened, but we mended the fence and ever since we've had our special relationship with Britain. De Gaulle's shenanigans killed any chance of a lovefest with France. I mean the Windsors are almost as popular here as in Britain. We've done our best to "Empire Build" in different areas and not fight and we're pretty much Bros.

Most of our relationship with France is because England and France kissed and made up and England brings France to the table. We're still mad about the Hundred Years Wars even if the Brits aren't.

[Thorn777]

But how liberalism has been raped there.

Today American corporatism is the monarchism of back in they days. If I sound like OWS, I dont care.

[JP226]

But how liberalism has been raped there.

Today American corporatism is the monarchism of back in they days. If I sound like OWS, I dont care.

This is a no lemming zone... I thought it was anyway.

[Admiral Piett]

The Cold War kind of ed us over on that. We'll get over it sooner or later.

[Condottiere 40K]

Despite hindsight being perfect, it's hard to say that the rebellion was justified, just opportunistic.

If you listen to the conspiracy nuts, America was a sociological experiment to build a perfect society, free of monarchy or aristocracy, started off by a bunch of English idealists and then guided by the Masons to it's natural conclusion. If the Crown had managed to hold on to the Thirteen colonies, there wouldn't be a Manifest Destiny that pushed the young Republic's borders south and westwards, and the European colonial empires might today still be in tact.

[Enemy of the State]

Here is a question, how long were people in America planning revolution? And if Britain did give the American colonies representation, would that have seriously ticked the conspirators off because that would have gotten in the way of starting a revolution in the first place?

Revolutions are spontaneous. Otherwise they would be coups. The American Revolution was spontaneous, mass action. Of course there were leaders, but they were merely part of it all, they did not design the uprising. The British crown had simply lost the consent of the governed(Or perhaps, speaking as as more radical liberal, the illusion of which was shattered). Revolution under these circumstances is perfectly justified. Furthermore, the conduct of the war was generally in line with the liberal principles the country was founded upon. It was a war against a specific enemy, the British government. Innocents were not harmed.

[IronBrig4]

Furthermore, the conduct of the war was generally in line with the liberal principles the country was founded upon. It was a war against a specific enemy, the British government. Innocents were not harmed.

Not really. The American Revolution saw a lot of atrocities committed. Not by British regulars, but by militia of both sides. A lot of part-time soldiers saw the Revolution as an excuse to settle old scores or to seize their neighbors' property. Militia are a great asset if you want to pillage and torture civilians.

And after the war, American loyalists were brutalized and murdered or driven into Upper Canada. I'm not even gonna get started on how the Americans treated the Mohawks and other tribes that supported the British. Despite the lofty figures you see in 18th and 19th century paintings, the Patriots were consummately vindictive and avaricious. They just had excellent publicists who could spin the story they wanted.

[Azog 150]

It was a war against a specific enemy, the British government. Innocents were not harmed.

Except those Loyalists who were lynched by Patriots.

If you mean to say that the British system was better than the post-revolution conception of our Constitutional Republic, I ask you why, for example, millions of people - many from Britain - flooded into the US in the 1800s-50s instead of to Britain and British colonies, or anywhere else for that matter?

To my knowledge millions of people did flood to Canada, Britain and Australia in that period (although granted a good many of them were Irish which was Britain at the time).

[Lord Thesaurian]

To my knowledge millions of people did flood to Canada, Britain and Australia in that period (although granted a good many of them were Irish which was Britain at the time).

By 1850, some 9.7% of the US population was foreign born. Of that number (2.2 million or so) nearly half, or 1.05 million, were British (England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales). These numbers would continue to skyrocket into the 1920s. Australia was a dumping ground for social dissidents and criminals (no offense), so I wouldn't count that as "immigration." I couldn't readily find numbers on Canada during this time period; I would guess comparatively low to the US since Canada was mostly wilderness apart from the more urban areas. America is the land of immigrants. Kinda hard to match with any comparison.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401801188.html

Obviously the British Empire was more stable and comparatively liberal to the Continent, and as long as one was white, he/she could get along alright. Hence the Commonwealth in general was vastly preferable for many who could afford to escape the turmoil of Europe. I'm not saying Britain was universally tyrannical. The latter was the most liberal society in the world before the US came along. That last piece, however, is key. The OP seemed to infer that Constitutional Monarchy is relatively the same as a Constitutional Republic, more stable, and ultimately preferable to the latter. Rather than launching into a second lengthy philosophical discussion pointing out exactly why such inferences are incorrect, I attempted to roughly address the issue with a simple comparison.

[Squiggle]

To my knowledge millions of people did flood to Canada, Britain and Australia in that period (although granted a good many of them were Irish which was Britain at the time).

IIRC from school the figure is about 100k, which was a huge chunk of the total U.S and loyalist population. They attacked and forced most others to swear loyalty oaths. My family were loyalists.

edit: the overwhelming majority of loyalists didnt stay in Canada however.

[Dr. Croccer]

IIRC from school the figure is about 100k, which was a huge chunk of the total U.S and loyalist population. They attacked and forced most others to swear loyalty oaths. My family were loyalists.

According to Niall Ferguson's Empire it's 100.000. Considering that the free white population of the Thirteen Colonies (so minus the 20% of the total population that were slaves) was around 1.9 million, that's around 5% of the population.

[barbarossa pasha]

There was certainly a very strong economic interest for getting rid of the British. Allowing the East India Company to sell tea into the colonies at rates that would have put the smugglers' out of business was extremely bad form. Trying to get the colonists to pay for the incredibly expensive protection that the Empire had just provided for them against the French and the natives was, again, just bad manners. Unfortunately for the British, they proved not to be tyrannical enough. Their sheer reasonableness turned out to be their undoing.