Q for Brits: Subjects or Citizens? (1 Viewer)

[Eric Scott]

(Magna Carta)

Actually, I was referring to the Monarchies loss and/or diminished power beginning with King George and the gains in more equal representation in Parliament of more British citizens from that time forward. Do you think the American Revolution and Tom Paine’s book "Rights of Man" influenced those changes?

 

[CharlesD]

Actually, I was referring to the Monarchies loss and/or diminished power beginning with King George and the gains in more equal representation in Parliament of more British citizens from that time forward. Do you think the American Revolution and Tom Paine’s book "Rights of Man" influenced those changes?

The gradual shift of power from Monarch to Parliament started way before the American Revolution. As noted above the Magna Carta was an early step in that process. The most significant event in this regard is the English Civil War (1642-1649). This war was fought between the King and the Parliament, and resulted, among other things, with the King getting his head cut off.
Since the Civil War, the Monarch was unable to levy taxes, only Parliament could (hence the "no taxes without representation" grievance of the American Colonies, they could not put member in parliament, but were subject to its taxes, a situation that was abused by Parliament)
Also Parliaments since that time have had a maximum duration, and elections have been held on a regular basis.
in 1760 George III did relinquish the right of the King to appoint judges and ambassadors (he also had to pay for them out his pocket) He gave a the state a portion of his lands ("The Crown Estate")(landownership being the primary source of wealth in those days) to pay for the upkeep of the appointees and those posts were subsequently appointed by the Government.
By this time the balance of power had long since tipped in favor of Parliament, the King still had some power, or at least influence, but the real power lay with Parliament.
------------------
-- Will Work for Five Million Dollars

 

[andrew markworthy]

I think it is fair to say that the War of Independence wasn't particularly anti-monarchichal, especially since the leaders of the Revolution seriously thought about inviting a minor member of a European dynasty to become King of America a few years later. The issue was much more about simple geography. America was several weeks travel away from Britain, government by a remote power seemed very silly, and given the treatment America was getting from the Brits (i.e. demands but no recompense)the point was reached where people decided enough was enough. This was essentially a pragmatic decision. Later generations, primarily through what's called the 'Whig view of history' (seeing history as a gradual development of more liberal values), chose to latch on to the philosophers of the revolutionary movement and see it as fuelled by a desire for liberty for all. In fact, it was very much a middle class revolution, and those at the bottom (i.e. the slaves and impoverished whites) were not catered for at all. Arguably, the works of Payne, Franklin et al provided the words for the speeches (and very fine words they were in many cases, before anyone flames me), but arguably if they hadn't been around, the Revolution would still have happened. However, I doubt if the future of America (and by extension the rest of the world) would have been the same if Payne, etc, and the high-flown expressions of liberty hadn't been around. The Declaration of Independence was at the time of writing a pretty hollow claim, since little of it was universally practised at the time. However, as the West gradually became more liberal, this became a document with ideals to live up to; e.g. Brit politicians weren't above drawing comparisons with it in justifying advances in legislation within the UK.

 

[Eric Scott]

especially since the leaders of the Revolution seriously thought about inviting a minor member of a European dynasty to become King of America a few years later.

I'm not trying to argue, but I have the impression that two sides of the same history is being taught or told on each end of the Atlantic.
The fact is, only one leading member of the Revolution was seriously interested in having a Monarch as a leader of the United States (with certain Constitutional powers, in conjunction with the powers of the Congress.) He was Alexander Hamilton, and his views were at odds with most of the other leaders of the Revolution, including George Washington. He was known for having a big mouth, which eventually got him shot to death in a duel with Vice-President Aaron Burr in 1804.

 

[TheoGB]

Err, actually Eric the American Revolution is never taught in our schools. You would probably have to go to University to find this out. Andrew and I are going solely on reading material. You should read Bill Bryson's Made In America. He is a U.S. citizen so he's not out to rubbish you guys or anything.
In England we are mostly taught pretty old history - 1066, etc. and then it usually moves way forwards and they like to go through 20th century stuff in the hope of stopping us making the same mistakes again. Doesn't seem to have worked!

 

[andrew markworthy]

Theo is absolutely right. If you asked the average Brit about the American Revolution, at best they might know the date 1776, that America used to be a British colony, there was a Boston Tea Party and a war of independence. This isn't meant to sound patronising, but Britain has a lot more written history than the USA, and accordingly, it's hard enough to cram in what kids to know about Britain's past without looking at other countries! Generally, as Theo said, Brit kids taught a very glossed over view of British (and largely just English) history from 1066 to World War II, and they will know a little bit about major events in European history. E.g. America and the Orient are almost totally ignored (though recent changes in the curriculum mean that this is slightly changing). You can study American history as a specialist option in some schools, but it's rare.
I think it's fair to say that Brit historians do have a slightly different view of the American Revolution, but not in any negative way. I think that maybe 'losing' the colonies would have been seen as a much bigger deal had it not been for a couple of events which distracted people's attention. First, Britain soon had other things on its mind through fighting a major European war v. the French (first as Revolutionary France and then led by Napoleon). Second, India came to prominence, which gave Britain much greater riches than the US colonies had ever provided (yes, I know these riches were ill-gotten and colonialism is an evil, before anyone says this).
Yes, I knew about Hamilton being one of the supporters of the monarchy idea. I was merely raising this point to demonstrate that the revolution wasn't quite the 'liberty for all' idealist movement it is often portrayed as being. However, this doesn't alter the main argument (which was a compliment, damnit!) that because such high ideals were enshrined in the constitution, they gave all democratic nations something to live up to.

 

[Eric Scott]

Theo, I did read about Bill Bryson and a few reviews of his book ,(the full title) of this book is: Made in America : An Informal History of the English Language in the U. S.
He is/was what we call an expatriate living in England for 20 years. He was a newspaper columnists and is mainly known for his entertaining style of writing about his travels. He is not known as a historian at all and is known for attributing statements to individuals in his books that are disputable.
When I get a chance I’ll thumb through the book, you’ve got my curiosity up about this passage about an American Monarchy.
[Edited last by Eric Scott on September 27, 2001 at 10:34 AM]

 

[TheoGB]

Yeah, I know he lived in England for a long time. After all Notes from a Small Island is all about that. All historical stuff is disputable. You can only believe so much secondary and tertiary evidence.
Do you have other books that you would recommend as a good primer on the history of this time?
Incidentally as well as his travel novels Bryson also wrote the rather fantastic 'Troublesome Words', formerly 'The Dictionary of..' - very funny and also useful in writing, if you can be arsed to be that picky!

 

[andrew markworthy]

Eric, I think that Bryson deliberately revised 'Made in America' for the American market so that there wasn't as much laborious explanation of stuff which would be obscure to Brits but well known in the USA (certainly I can recall distinct US and Brit editions being for sale on Amazon).
Theo, for a general history of the USA, try Hugh Brogan's 'The Penguin History of the United States of America'. It's pretty readable.

 

[TheoGB]

Cheers but (and while this will sound snide I don't mean it to be) as Eric doesn't trust Bryson I'd be interested to know if he has sources he does trust.

 

[Eric Scott]

quote: (which was a compliment, damnit!) that because such high ideals were enshrined in the constitution, they gave all democratic nations something to live up to.[/quote]I appreciate your statement, (I didn't mean to get you "too" worked up.) Please don't make me feel too high minded, I had nothing to do with the constitution, I was just born here!

But since you guys brought this subject up, and I've had a chance to read and refresh my memory, a few thoughts come to mind. First, at this very moment the strength, principles and promise of the U.S. Constitution are being tested. (Due to new security initiatives in the America.) All of the Constitutions wisdom invoked by the founders of this country, praised by every politician and nearly every citizen as a masterful document for both governing and living will likely be suspended at least in part (because of fear.) Fear is not cognizant of wisdom. I find it peculiar that when Kennedy was President during the Cuban missile crisis, and the county stood to lose …who knows (maybe the entire population) the Constitution was not suspended. I’m reminded of Roosevelt’s words...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
That quote reminds me of this one by John F. Kennedy: "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
It makes me think, that it takes more than great words of principle, to abide by principles, it takes people and leaders of unwavering principle.
Enough of that, before make myself puke!
Theo, Some books:
The Emancipation of Massachusetts by Brooks Adams
Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History by Fawn Brodie
Aaron Burr Vol. 1 & 2 by James Parton
Patriotic Gore by Edmond Wilson
[Edited last by Eric Scott on September 27, 2001 at 08:30 PM]