Ahh, well. Can't have everything, can we?:

How Lord North messed up
By Jim Smart
07/07/2005

We would not have had an observance of Independence Day on July 4 if the British government in the middle of the 18th century had had any imagination.


If King George III and Lord North and their buddies had handled things right, the United Kingdom today might consist of England, Ireland, Scotland and America.

It is hard today to understand how British leaders perceived the American colonies.

They thought of the population here in the same way they regarded the people of India or Africa, as a people to be exploited commercially and kept in their place as inferiors.

The colonists regarded themselves as British citizens.

Many Englishmen back in England seemed to believe that persons who emigrated to Massachusetts or Pennsylvania or New Jersey were mysteriously transformed into uncouth and inferior aliens, the same bigoted opinion they held of the people of lands with different customs and different complexions.

Article

Err, yes. I'm not sure that article has been written though- its very old news. American Independence triggered a change in the behaviour of Britain in relation to its empire, to move away from mercantalism. Its been known for quite some time :?

What do you mean, you are not sure that the article has been written?

 

Britain's move from mercantilism had not anything to do with America's independence, at least not according to historic and economic accounts. The fact that Britain had access to the raw materials of the New World had more to do with the change.

 

America's Industrial Revolution came after Britain's, and largely followed their model.

Sorry, typo, I meant to say I wasn't sure why the article was written.

I wondered the same. I didn't look into who the guy is, probably should have.

I was thinking of my cousins, aunts and uncles over there because of their proximity to the recent attacks and the article struck me. It was also odd why it was printed after Independence Day rather than on or before.

I guess I am feeling a bit odd about it since I haven't heard from cous yet.

My History is rubbish but, didn't the British come over to the American colonies because the colony had stopped paying their taxes?

The Colonists thought the taxes were rubbish, that's why they didn't want to pay them. Unjust is probably a better characterization, a fact beyond dispute.

 

There was a tax on just about everything at the time; if memory serves correctly, there may have even been a Shit Tax. That's probably about when the Colonists had had enough, and revolted.

It must have cost an absolute fortune to finance a nascent colony, though. Building the new infrastructure from scratch, providing an army and establishing transport links - the government had to recoup that investment somehow. The mother country was incredibly overstretched: Britain is a tiny sovereignty, the logistics of running 2/3 of the Earth with such limited resources aren't to be sniffed at.
From what I remember, and when it came down to it, they had to make a choice between shoring up interests in India, or putting down the troublemakers in the Americas - and they opted for the former since it was the greater money spinner.
If the they hadn't been busy constantly locking horns with the French on every continent, things would probably have been very different because they'd of had the man power available to tackle the problem conclusively, and before it got out-of-hand.

 

The French attitude to contemporary US policy amuses me greatly. If the French hadn't been so bitter about thier eviction from N.America, and "if we can't have it neither can you" attitude, the rebellion wouldn't have had much of the funding and access to arms that sustained it.

It would be a decidedly hard sell to attribute the British handling of her "nascent colony" to be one of financial burden, logistics and recovery. They saw an opportunity to suck vast amounts of taxes out of a people who could ill afford it. The colonists also wanted to be part of the British governmental process via representation.

 

Taxation without representation is one of the[many] reasons the war was fought.

You say that like it's stopped happening, or something.

I think American politicians have proven to be quite adept at sucking taxes out of their electorate...

Indeed. And the prohibition of ex-cons from voting is the very definition of "taxation without representation", which was the main issue in the 18th century, IIRC.

Ex-cons are prohibited from voting in England? I didn't know that. Interesting.

Ex-cons in America have paid their debt to society so are then allowed to vote. Convicted felons do not get the priviledge to vote, all but one who lives in a vacuum knows that pre-felony.

I doubt voting is something a felon does prior anyway. In prison they likely have ample time to bone up on legalities, hence find the lack of voting priviledge to be a bit bothersome.

There may be some learning in that.

The victory of the moneyed men in England, however, had created an entirely different situation. Everywhere, and not only in relation to North America, the leading role of exploration and colonization had been placed in the hands of the newer classes. An English Levant Company, a Muscovy Company, an East India Company, and others, had been formed; they furnished ample witness to the new trends of the times. All of these companies had enormous powers, and it was in the administration of these companies that the capitalists obtained the experience that was to enable them later to take over so easily the English government.

As for the colonists themselves: "The colonists were not conservative, satisfied and prosperous Englishmen; they were as a rule the discontented and restless adventurers, the poor, the vagrant, and even those of the criminal class, or else they were those whose views of government and religion did not accord with the practices which prevailed in England." (*1)

"The deportation to the colonies (especially to Maryland and Virginia) of actual criminals, chiefly non-political too, was so common as to arouse vigorous protests on both sides of the Atlantic. Francis Bacon declared that 'it is a shameful and unblessed thing to take the scum of people and wicked condemned men to be the people with whom you plant' (Essay, Of Plantations); and the Virginia Assembly in 16l7 prohibited the importation of convicts (though the prohibition was overruled by the King). Whatever the total number of criminals foistered thus upon unwilling colonies, it is known that during the period 1717-75 there were sent from one English jail alone (the old Bailey) more than 10,000 convicts. (See Buder's account, American Historical Review, II, 12 ff.)" (*2)

Thus we may conclude that in reality, by the colonizing process, the middle orders of England-landed gentry of the minor rank, merchants and yeomen, with their psychology and social values-were reproduced in a new environment. There is this highly significant difference, however; upon their settlement in the American colonies all these classes were moved upward (and backward) in the scale of property interests and social standing. Here, except for the agents and families of the Crown's direct forces, the Puritan country gentlemen and the upper middle class represented the topmost layer. Winthrop, Endicott, and Easton of Massachusetts, William Penn and Lord Baltimore and many others prominent in American life, were of this landed gentry group, as Cromwell, Hampden, and Pym had been.

You'd like to think(and have others as well) that all colonists were criminals; such is not the case. There were criminals sent to America(The Colonies), but to the protest of the Colonists, even the British. From the excerpt, you can see who the colonists were.

It is interesting to note that the Colonists who may have been of lower social standing were able to excel in the New World because of new opportunity, and some who were of higher standing may have regressed.

In any case it is still wealthy elitists who rule, no matter that their cloak say Democrat, Republican, or Independent; for the most part - monied, propertied whites.

Link

No.

Not everywhere. Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and Wyoming prohibit convicts from voting even after their sentences have been discharged.

Some states have a time limit for disenfranchisement, and others actually require "ex-felons" to reapply for voting rights.

Of course Maine and Vermont allow convicts to vote even when they're still in gaol, which is the opposite stupidity. All because of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, whatever that is.

You could Google it.

I could, but reading a document which makes sense to one court, and has the completely opposite meaning to another court, might not explain much to me.

Anyway, the point was that Rendle was in fact making light of your forefathers' most tenderly held ideals.

Cons rarely, if ever, pay taxes while incarcerated. No income = no taxes.

 

They are still represented in any case. They just do not get many of the benefits of that representation. What they do get is the chance to reflect upon their behavior on my wallet, three hots and a cot.

 

Our forefathers were also your bretheren. Remember? The ideals were fine, but it was soon discovered that everyone's ideals didn't jive. Oh, well. So they all met secretly and pushed through things though ought not to have been, made concessions where a firm stand shoulld have been taken. America's past is as spotty as Britain's.

 

No surprises there or anywhere else.

My forefathers were a mixture of catholics, jews and high anglicans. Your forefathers were humourless puritan sissies.

My forefather were none of that. Besides, how many lies do you think were told in your family.

 

High Anglicans my ass... do you need to tether off your nose, or do you wear weighted shoes?

Thank you. Your religious intolerance is much appreciated.

And if you'd like to get back on thread, I'd like to remind you that over on this side of the pond, we noticed that Lord North messed up in 1782, when Parliament no-confidenced him. What took this journalist so long?

Also, if we had a low opinion of Americans before the war of independence, it was because the only white people living in America were heretics, turncoats and criminals.

For what it is worth, I am rather ashamed of the worst excesses of the British Empire in India, and especially in Africa, which is still damaged today by the experience. Australasia and Canada are on friendly terms with Her Majesty.

The US can fuck off, though. It owes us several thousand pounds of tea.