Who held the moral high ground in the American Revolution?

[Count of Montesano]

So a thread in the political mudpit comparing Iraq to the American Revolution got me thinking: which side in the American Revolution can truly claim the moral high ground?

In my mind it's not actually such a clear-and-cut case of America good, evil British despot bad. Further complicating matters is the fact that you really can't claim one side or the other truly kicked off the war. For example, in the Civil War it's pretty clear the Confederates fired the first shot. But both sides were equally beligerent and spoiling for a fight at The Battle Of Lexington - both the British troops sent to grab rebel supplies and the American minutemen who lined up to oppose them.

So here are some factors I see supporting both sides.

The case for Britain:

1. America was one of the most leniently governed British colonies ever, with the exception of perhaps Canada or Hong Kong
2. American colonists were committing treason against their king, and the colonies had even less legal precedent to declare independence than the Southern Confederacy 100 years later (at least the South could claim a nebulous legal argument about a state's right to secede)
3. The British had to raise taxes on the colonials because of the high cost of the 7-Years War, during which a lot of money was spent protecting the colonies. In other words, the Americans balked at having to pay their way after the war.
4. Considering the many pro-colonial supporters in Parliament, it would only have been a matter of time before America received full representation in English government - thus taking away the rallying cry of "taxation without representation is tyranny."
5. For the most part, the British behaved with incredible leniency for a 18th century occupying force. The Americans on the other hand commited a purging of all loyalists after the war was won.
6. The British had a far more lenient policy to the Native Americans than the Americans, employing them as allies and promising not to expand further Westward. The British also freed thousands of slaves who volunteered to serve their army, something the Americans never did.

The case for America:

1. America still suffered from a great loss of civil and human rights that led to the Revolution, including British soldiers being barracked in private homes and violent crackdowns on political rallies and the press.
2. Although they were traitors by traditional standards, by modern standards the Americans had every right to self-determination as a people.
3. Though there were pro-colonialists in parliament, there were an equal number of MPs who saw the colonies as having no more rights than any other minority group in the Empire. And King George himself was not the model of an enlightened or even sane ruler, constantly pushing for the war in America to continue despite the protest of many top British officials.
4. American rebels felt pushed into a corner by the British occupiers, which is likely why they felt things couldn't be resolved peaceably.
5. The British did allow their Hessian and Iroquios allies to commit atrocities against civilians, and American prisoners were brutally treated.

[Hells Bells]

thing is remaining part of britain would have blocked america's manifest destiny and economic growth. They wouldnt let them colonise past the appalachians and wouldnt let them manufacture certain things. Basically it was an inferior country jealously trying to hold down the potential of one of its bastard sons.

[General_Curtis_LeMay]

I don't want to be Jonny Raincloud on your guyses' picnic, but morality is one of the very few things that is determined by the beholder, for look at it this way, the Moslems here have a differant value system than do the Catholiucs, and differant all the samew is the system of morality that is used by athiests, there is no such thing as morality, it is a matter of oppionion, nothing less, its like my english teacher said it, "Hitler can olny be CONSIDERED evil, he is not evil, because there are people who think he was the greatest guy ever, and thus to say that he is, it is simply a matter of oppionion." You can't tell whether something is moral or not, there is no mathematical measure for morality, and hence it can't be measured.

However, it is my believe that ther Americans had the right to revolt, for "After a long train of abuses and userpations evidences a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is there righ to through off such government and to provide new guards for their future security." We were abused, we were taxed, and we were not represented, and we were treated as inferior to the British citizens because we were from the colonies, we were to the crown nothing more than a tool that was to be used to get "bounties" and to raise money to pay for a war that was the offspring of Britain and France's bid for International power, not over the wilderness of western Pensylvania.

[Kretchfoop]

I don't have much to comment on as I feel morality is some what of a nebulous concept in these matters. I just want to point out that I don't think that British saying they were not going to expand is something you should be counting in their favor. Sure they said it at the time and were actively trying to stop westward expansion but history has shown the British Empire has never had too many qualms about exploiting native peoples and land. They might have gone about it in a "better" way but I highly doubt they would just let all that land go to waste in the long run.

[Bwaho]

Great Britain obviously

[SigniferOne]

Count, a question: have you read the Declaration of Independence? Tom J. already answers your objections there, treason included among them.

[Marcius Lucius 211]

I find it interesting that nobody here has yet taken into account what the revolutionaries were fighting to create: the first true republic since the time of Lucius Brutus and Publicola in 509 BC, and the only constitution whose primary aim was the protection of individual liberty. I do not believe the revolutionaries should be faulted for overthrowing a tyranny so light as King George III but looked at with awe because they had the courage and the self-confidence to say that no degree of usurpation and slavery is tolerable to a free man.

[Your Lame Sister]

the american revolution was basically a rebellion about money, taxes to be precise. it certainly wasn't about democracy (washington didn't convince american farmers to join him by talking about political representation in the parliament, he simply told them that the brits want to rob them). the brits weren't angels either, so both sides were in the moral low-grounds.
and the american politicians talk about the 'democratic values' that stand at the nation's foundations, lol. no wonder america is the center of capitalism.

[caratacus]

I find it interesting that nobody here has yet taken into account what the revolutionaries were fighting to create: the first true republic since the time of Lucius Brutus and Publicola in 509 BC, and the only constitution whose primary aim was the protection of individual liberty. I do not believe the revolutionaries should be faulted for overthrowing a tyranny so light as King George III but looked at with awe because they had the courage and the self-confidence to say that no degree of usurpation and slavery is tolerable to a free man.

Initially I believe the Revolutionaries were just a small but very vocal minority which rapidly gathered support, but even during the close of the conflict, there remained a sizeable proportion of Americans who were either Royalist or indifferent to the war.

As with so many wars the unfairness of taxation is a common cause of conflict. But I think that the argument that taxation without representation is a very valid one and worth fighting for. The objection to the American diplomats paying the "Congestion Charge" in London follows the same principles and one which I support.


However it is a great pity that such a laudable objective did not extend to the freeing of slaves, on which the southern States depended on so very greatly for their economic prosperity, and on this issue Britain has a perhaps a better claim to holding the belated moral high ground, having been initially one of the primary users. Although I am unsure as to what extent its abolition by Britain was influenced by the loss of the American plantations.:hmmm:

[Erebus Pasha]

Initially I believe the Revolutionaries were just a small but very vocal minority which rapidly gathered support, but even during the close of the conflict, there remained a sizeable proportion of Americans who were either Royalist or indifferent to the war.

Yes I agree but the Revolutionaries were skillful in the use of propoganda and in surpressing the loyalist element. This is where the Americans really won the war.

As with so many wars the unfairness of taxation is a common cause of conflict. But I think that the argument that taxation without representation is a very valid one and worth fighting for. The objection to the American diplomats paying the "Congestion Charge" in London follows the same principles and one which I support.

In you are talking about unfair taxation then the Americans got off pretty lightly. It was the taxpayer on the British mainland who paid the most for the French and Indian War and Pontiacs Rebellion. It was they who were paying for the upkeep of the colonies. I don't think it was too out of order for the Americans to pay towards this in some sort of way.

Again like an earlier post explained it was the fact that the British tried to bring her colonies under direct control - a factor which the Americans resented because they had outgrown British rule.

As for the congestion charge in London - why shouldn't American Diplomats pay for it? If I was a diplomat in America then I would expect to pay charges over there.

However it is a great pity that such a laudable objective did not extend to the freeing of slaves, on which the southern States depended on so very greatly for their economic prosperity, and on this issue Britain has a perhaps a better claim to holding the belated moral high ground, having been initially one of the primary users. Although I am unsure as to what extent its abolition by Britain was influenced by the loss of the American plantations.:hmmm:

Yes the constitution didn't stretch to the slaves did it! But I have to say the British only set the slaves free during the war so they would fight alongside the redcoats. And actually it was the freeing of those slaves that persuaded some of indifferent southerners to go over to the revolutionaries. Also there were still substantial plantations in the Caribbean, and those colonies were regarded as more important to Britain than the American South.

[Farnan]

Umm...you guys want to know the real reason for the American Revolution?


So you do? Ok, the reason that there was an American Revolution is due to decades of benevolent negiglance by the British government a distinct American identity seperate from the British identity emerged. As long as the British remained a distant government that rarely impacted American lives they were content to remain British subjects. But once the British decided to govern the Americas directly then they clashed with the American identity and war erupted. America had simply outgrown British control.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

People have the right to rebel against and overthrow thier government, by force is neccesary. That is what the colonial's did, they rebelled against british rule and won thier independence.

While there is no "Good or Evil" side in the American revolution, i do beleive that the American's had the right to break away from Great britain.

[Bokks]

Morality always depends on the eyes of the individual, and is commonly represented by the views of the victor. In this case, Americans say they had a right to rebel. I am a gungho uber-conservative yank whois proud to declare my direct ancestor fought in the revolutionary war, and our family has upheld the American way ever since then. To tell you the truth, though, we did get it easy, and even easier than Canada and Hong Kong. First off, we were already autonomous! Quebec wasn't allowed to govern themselves, there was a law restricting it, which is one of the unsung reason American fought. Quebec didn't care; under French rule they weren't allowed to rule themselves, so for them it softened the transition, but the declaration of such a law made Americans feel Britian could take away that right from us.
Also, "taxation without representation" is perhaps the most ill-cited declarations of the period, I mean, who would want to represent America in parliament? They wanted heavier representation of themselves in their colonies, but since Britian could move away from fearing French attacks they could preoccupy themselves with colonial governance, and so paid more attention than before. The colonists saw this as a threat.
The Revolution is an excellent example of what starts revolutions: not desparity and famine, but expectation of freedom thwarted by reality. The colonists were not ill-treated-- occasionally their criminals, like John Hancock who smuggled for a living-- but the regular person was treated well, just in a way that made them think their rights could be infringed upon, and when they were little by little, brilliant men like Paine and Adams, and good ol' Tommy Jefferson, told them that the time was necessary for a revolution.
The tyranny of the age was librality squandered by reality. You can take whatever moral undertone from that; personally I see both sides as right, and America's independance as vindicated later in time.
That is pretty much notorius middle-ground 101, but it is the truth! (as I see it)

[SigniferOne]

..

Hmm, this is heavy revision of history according to the British side of things. First off, morality does not "always depends on the eyes of the individual". The British constitution, after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, guaranteed to people representatives.

Your point about Quebec I don't really understand (nor is it really formatted as readily-readable English...). Perhaps you could rephrase it a little bit better?

"taxation without representation" is perhaps the most ill-cited declarations of the period, I mean, who would want to represent America in parliament?

I don't understand this either. Surely there would be no shortage of volunteers from the colonies, if invited, to serve in the House of Commons. None were invited.

The Revolution is an excellent example of what starts revolutions: not disparity and famine, but expectation of freedom thwarted by reality. The colonists were not ill-treated-- occasionally their criminals, like John Hancock who smuggled for a living

Excuse me, John Hancock truly a criminal? He was only a businessman, and traded in the transAtlantic trade of goods and commodities. Then the illegal Stamp and Townshend Acts were passed, and Hancock wasn't having this, so he continued operation despite the British restricting his trade. Ultimately he would put the most colorful and flamboyant signature on the Declaration of Independence.

Please stop with all the British revisionism here, even if you are a "yank".

but the regular person was treated well, just in a way that made them think their rights could be infringed upon

Yes, a regular person 'treated well' just like a horse in a stable is 'treated well', given all the food, and never having to get its own food and maybe put its life in danger from all the predators or from hunger. What does being 'treated well' have to do with being free? The best tyrants in history treat their slaves very well. So?

The only reasonable moral argument against the revolution is the charge of treason. Thats why Jefferson explicitly went to address that issue in a section of the Declaration. Everyone talks about the Declaration, it's true, but it doesn't hurt to sometimes read it as well.

[Kretchfoop]

Umm...you guys want to know the real reason for the American Revolution?


So you do? Ok, the reason that there was an American Revolution is due to decades of benevolent negiglance by the British government a distinct American identity seperate from the British identity emerged. As long as the British remained a distant government that rarely impacted American lives they were content to remain British subjects. But once the British decided to govern the Americas directly then they clashed with the American identity and war erupted. America had simply outgrown British control.

That is just about the most accurate and concise summary on the topic I have ever read, good post.

http://www.redcoat.me.uk/

Yikes! I could pour alphabet soup onto my floor and have a more accurate and less biased account than that.

[SigniferOne]

Yikes! I could pour alphabet soup onto my floor and have a more accurate and less biased account than that.

Yeah, that was one funny article.


Nibs,

I disagree, the question itself is not a historical one, morals have no place in the debate. I am not denying that a small portion of Colonials considered themselves as loyal to the crown but culturally there is a clear divergance. I don't suggest that this is the only explanation, rather that it is one I have not considered before and find interesting.

There were cultural differences, sure. Just like, each state in the US has its own culture, values, and way of doing things. Cultural differences, unless they be vast, do not make a revolution. Rather than most Americans already being American, I have to reiterate that most of them were Britons at heart. Only really after publishing of Common Sense did the mindset start to change towards establishing their own country. Check out the influence that Common Sense had on the public.

The basic point is, both were Britons, on either side of the Atlantic, with obviously a little bit of cultural difference because of different continent and climate. It is by no means accurate to say that Revolution was inevitable, or that Americans had so much of a different culture that they couldn't associate themselves with Britons anymore. That's simply not factually accurate. The revolution was so hard for the colonists precisely because of so many vested interests and so much personal attachment for the mother country.

[Templar Knight]

Umm...you guys want to know the real reason for the American Revolution?


So you do? Ok, the reason that there was an American Revolution is due to decades of benevolent negiglance by the British government a distinct American identity seperate from the British identity emerged. As long as the British remained a distant government that rarely impacted American lives they were content to remain British subjects. But once the British decided to govern the Americas directly then they clashed with the American identity and war erupted. America had simply outgrown British control.

i agree 100% my friend in fact i agree so strongly +rep

[TenkiSoratoti]

http://www.redcoat.me.uk/

Would have been granted dominion and then independance regardless.

[Darth Wong]

Imagine a hypothetical sci-fi scenario where the US established a self-sufficient colony on the Moon, at enormous expense. And then the colonists living up there decide that they don't want to pay taxes and that they don't owe you anything. How would you react?

[Last Roman]

Great Britain obviously

it is really that obvious?

Imagine a hypothetical sci-fi scenario where the US established a self-sufficient colony on the Moon, at enormous expense. And then the colonists living up there decide that they don't want to pay taxes and that they don't owe you anything. How would you react?

a bit simplified, no? more like the US set up a colony, let it run basically by itself for a hundred some odd years, then all of a sudden interfered with the colony's politics and starting imposing new extremely heavy taxes.

as to the original question

morals in war are certainly difficult. Had the British over-stepped their boundaries? To the American colonials, yes. Were the British doing what they would do with any other rebellious colony? you betcha. Both were doing what they thought right.