In the first of his series of essays on the Declaration of Independence, George H. Smith began with a review of the case grounds against the Crown: https://www.libertarianism.org/publi...n-independence
I found Thomas Hutchinson's Strictures earlier this year, and Smith provided some further links, which have been helpful in mapping colonial criticism against revolt. So I knew Hutchinson took Philadelphia to task on alleged crimes, but I wasn't aware the legal basis, and not the philosophical, lay at the crux of Revolution. It seems obvious in retrospect, what with the bulk of Jefferson's case devoted to allegations, but Smith surmises right when he says most people today hallow the second paragraph.
I know I was never taught the middle-ground colonists on both sides shared. Sure, we learned the Patriots cracked down on the Tories, but always beginning from the implicit: Patriots loved life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the Tories were pawns in the game of a wicked despot. They had to be silenced, you see, because they stood on the wrong side of history. Well, come to find out, the "Tories" weren't drones, they were skeptics and very reasonable men, with very coherent rebuttals against ascendant Whigism. Their criticisms of rebellion were legal in the mien, but after due investigation of the facts. The truth is, most voices on neither side were arguing from philosophy, but from political realities on the ground.
Frankly, the loyalists were mostly right. I mean, let's not fool ourselves, the Patriots' ringleaders didn't revolt for warm and fuzzies; they naively believed independence would further their economic interests, not that independence was noble in itself. The assemblies general of several colonies stymied government, on several occasions incited revolt, notably in Boston, over petty and selfish causes. Yet these causes gradually flourished in the public discourse surrounding who was to blame for crumbling order in the colonies. Its interesting that Massachusetts, Hutchinson (rightly or wrongly) deduced, was the primary belligerent and disseminator of revolutionary fervor, because their assemblies often broke their colonial Charter, drawing pretty reasonable reactions from the governors.
Again I say the loyalists were mostly right, because unfortunately, while many took up arms for the cause of Liberty, there are no winners when brother fights brother. Revolution seldom profits the people - quite often it kills them. As I research the causes of '76, I'm aware again that history is always the legend of the victorious, and the victors are never truly the people themselves. Not to victimize either camp as complete dupes, but I suspect the colonies were fairly divided over the question of revolution, even favoring the Crown, until the delegates in Philadelphia published their Declaration of Independence, effectively punctuating reasoned debate with a declaration of war. By then, there were still avenues for peace, but after the war faction seized the base, the Crown responded as anybody might guess.
So far from the victims of tyranny and evil, the Patriots just so happened to stand on the right side of history. The American colonies weren't a philosophically bonded and self-aware front, merely factions of men seizing on revolutionary rhetoric and fraternal societies out of self-interest. Although this conclusion may sound familiar, its my point to kindle interest in an honest view of all the events and testimonies of the so-called "Revolutionary Era", as it was by most accounts the culmination of an age of Enlightenment and Liberty, yet the evidence contrarily reveals our Fathers were motivated by basest ambitions, sheer duplicity, and cynical greed the likes of which today make us sick. Maybe I've written a small caution against tossing in with the revolutionary-minded, or maybe I wrote a call for buffs to read through the victors' histories - no matter who they are.
I guess the lesson is, there are no good guys and bad guys, but if you want to do good, at least have the virtus for political realities to inform your philosophy, before you go stirring mass movements and revolutions. That would be my advice for the democracy makers in Washington, as well as for the possible day, when individually we'll have to decide where, if at all, we draw "the line".
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us