tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post6876081476186738327..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: Between Reluctance and Revolution Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-91255262217814244132014-12-28T14:28:40.194-05:002014-12-28T14:28:40.194-05:00I'm now reading a new book called The Royalist...I'm now reading a new book called <i>The Royalist Revolution</i> by Eric Nelson. It argues that American Whigs were so opposed to Parliament's new laws in the 1760s and 1770s that they resurrected old arguments about the primacy of the British monarch, and then that those arguments influenced the creation of the American Presidency in the 1780s. J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-22544853517102336622014-12-28T02:38:32.185-05:002014-12-28T02:38:32.185-05:00Interestingly, Greene, in the two aforemention (af...Interestingly, Greene, in the two aforemention (aforereferenced??) books details how the Colonists of the 17th and early 18th Century mostly had problems with and claims of tyranny against the king, having very little to no struggles with Parliament since Parliament virtually left them alone and the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy was still developing even up into the period of the American Revolution. Such doctrine was in no means settled and fixed by the time of George III, as Greene claims in those two aforementioned books. H e shows how the colonists went from claims of tyranny solely against the monarchy throughout the 16th, 17th, and early 18th centuries to claims of tyranny against Parliament almost solely in the 1760s-1770s, while petitioning the monarchy for redress, to seeing them both in cahoots together and claiming tyranny against both of them in the mid 1770s, some earlier than others but most avergaing around the mid 1770s. Definitely check out those two books by Greene I mentioned, particulalry the "Constitutional Origins" book if you only have time for one.Pacificushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12058712719235762139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-9482629994308853872014-12-27T20:10:41.385-05:002014-12-27T20:10:41.385-05:00Akhil Amar Reed is teaching a free class on The Un...Akhil Amar Reed is teaching a free class on The Unwritten Constitution via Coursera in January. https://www.coursera.org/course/auc While these are definitely not college level credits, I find the lectures to be of value.Xathoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05910312481367024828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-66141105696508005102014-12-27T16:10:44.055-05:002014-12-27T16:10:44.055-05:00I wonder how much of the "anti-ministerial&qu...I wonder how much of the "anti-ministerial" language was an expedient to those who were less committed to change?<br /><br />By 1773 people in New England at least were certainly itching for a fight, even if their language was conciliatory. I wonder how much of that language was just smokescreen, to placate those in other colonies who hadn't yet come on board with the idea of revolution, and to placate those in New England who weren't fully committed yet?<br /><br />So even if people were wanting independence by say 1773 (and John Adams was talking about independence that early, even if he was saying that he didn't think it would come in his lifetime--he was still discussing it), political expediency would require that they not directly attack the king, no?<br /><br />So maybe some of the contradiction in philosophy isn't really a contradiction, but merely people using language that wouldn't get them in trouble?<br /><br />John Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15768771014487413321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-91557699929233273142014-12-25T23:00:00.202-05:002014-12-25T23:00:00.202-05:00"That's the great thing about an unwritte..."That's the great thing about an unwritten constitution—it's even easier to argue about than a written one!"<br /><br />I dunno. There's been plenty of argument and confusion over language with our written one, perhaps just as much or even more so than the British's "unwritten" one. It might be easier to argue over an unwritten one based on custom and so many other things, but I wonder if it's not the case that a written constitution might produce more argument than an unwritten one, since Americans (and much of the world) have something specific to point to and argue about while an "unwritten" one doesn't allow such to happen as much.<br /><br />I've long considered judicial review a good barrier against usurpations by the other branches of the fed. gov. and state governments. But, be that as it may, I've also come to the conclusion oer the years that it's idiotic to allow the FEDERAL courts to be the "sole" and/or "final" interpreter of the meanings of the a written constitution like ours. This is because when such federal judges, the ones who interpret the document, owe their appointments to their jobs by the other branches of the same fed. gov. (President [executive] and Senate [legislative]) and the creation of their courts to the legislative branch of the same fed. gov. is naturally going to result in the aggrandizement of power in the fed. gov. at the expense of the state gov.'s or the people, where the federal judges tend to "interpret" a written constitution in favor of their sibling gov. branches committing the actions under review, the same sibling gov. branches that create the federal judges' seats of power and appoint them to those seats. That the Constitution expressly or impliedly allows this judicial review as practiced today in the US is very debatable as anyone who has studied historians' and constitutional law scholars' works on judicial review would already know, as opposed to the more believable idea that the American people have allowed it to develop this way over time as the idea of judicial review took hold in the US, Canada, Britain, and elsewhere. But, if the idea behind a written constitution such as ours with specific, enumerated, and limited powers given to the lesser government forms it creates (the fed. gov.) is to limit government in its power and prevent any or all of its branches from usurping too much power, continuing with judicial review and constitutional interpretation in the hands of the federal courts is antithetical to those ideas of limited government and preventing arbitrary tyrants.Pacificushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12058712719235762139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-46048342580219819192014-12-25T00:18:10.232-05:002014-12-25T00:18:10.232-05:00That's the great thing about an unwritten cons...That's the great thing about an unwritten constitution—it's even easier to argue about than a written one! J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-35610621178117012702014-12-24T23:19:17.057-05:002014-12-24T23:19:17.057-05:00If you haven't already, you might check out Ja...If you haven't already, you might check out Jack P. Greene's "Constitutional Origins of the American Revolution" and "Peripheries and Center," which discusses in length the idea of how both sides had good arguments in favor of how the British Constitution was on their side. Both are fascinating books. Pacificushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12058712719235762139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-22277719485995399982014-12-24T11:08:15.774-05:002014-12-24T11:08:15.774-05:00The cause of the American Revolution is an endurin...The cause of the American Revolution is an enduring question. For me the turning point was the Tea Act of 1773. More than any other measures, that Act united the interests of Boston's radicals and wealthy merchants. The implementation of the Tea Act, in the four tea ports and especially Boston, revealed the systemic corruption of a kleptocracy willing to manipulate the customs laws to sustain its power and prestige. <br /><br />The most significant aspect for the merchant class in Boston was the bestowing the tea contracts on a handful friends and relatives of Governor Hutchinson. Once it became apparent that the international trade of New England could be dominated within a few years by four families (i.e., the Hutchinson, Clarke, Faneuil and Winslow families) all the other wealthy merchants either began to support the radicals, or if they were previously loyalists, grew silent and unwilling to defend the crown's interest. Daniel C. Cornettenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-5750238544666211592014-12-24T10:48:21.942-05:002014-12-24T10:48:21.942-05:00The men like Sam and John Adams wanted a change in...The men like Sam and John Adams wanted a change in government, but not society. Yet, what occurred was a major radical change as Gordon Wood explored in his book The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Revolutions bring change. War brings change. A quick glance at American history shows how war has altered American society on multiple occasions far beyond other catalysts. <br /><br />Based upon the actions of many, but definitely not all of the leading figures of the Revolution, it is pretty easy to see how most did not want major changes, but when you look at it through a bottom up lens you see something else. This reveals the divided and often conflicted reasons many people supported the Revolution over its length. Then of course we have Tom Paine who put it so eloquently,<br /><br /> "We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the events of a few months. The reflection is awful, and in this point of view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little paltry cavilings of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world."<br /><br /> Paine was onto something. This was not going to be just a political change of government. This was going to be a complete and utter change of everything. He really meant what he said about making the world new again. Considering John Adams and his reactions to Paine's Common Sense, one can see a clash of ideas and visions between those who wanted small changes and those who wanted major wholesale changes. Yet, Adams was one who supported independence by 1775. <br /><br />More than anything else, we really have to remember how these men all had differing opinions on a lot of things. I think that is why I love this era so much. Making generalized statements just does not work. These people were often divided more than they were united. Often, external forces played major roles in their decision making processes which resulted in some of the ways things occurred. The changes in American society stem from that as well.<br />Xathoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05910312481367024828noreply@blogger.com