On this day, 261 years ago, George William Frederick ascended to the British throne, becoming King George the Third. In an country that was a constitutional monarchy, he insisted on acting as much as an absolute ruler as he possibly could.
It was his obstinancy, at every step in the way, that led to both the American Revolution and the defeat of the British Empire in the war. Up until the 1760s, England had let its American colonies run their own affairs, taxing their own citizens for internal reasons. Trade was made beneficial to the Empire by tariffs and shipping controls. But that wasn't good enough for King George, he insisted on the right to tax the colonists directly. Tariffs were imposed, not for regulating trade, but as naked taxation. As the disputes with the colonies intensified, King George supported measures to arrest people and try them in either Admiralty courts (denying the defendants the right to a jury) or to transport them to England for trial/conviction.
Once the war began, the King threw up every obstacle he could to reaching a conclusion other than on the battlefield. When his government recognized the futiity of continuing the war after the defeat at Yorktown and the prime minister (Lord North) sought to step down before losing a no-confidence vote, the King told Lord North that he'd abdicate and leave the country before conceding the loss of the American colonies. North had to politely point out to the King that England was not an absolute monarchy, that while the monarch reigned, he didn't rule, and he should shut the fuck up and read the writing on the wall.
Without King George, it's certainly plausible that the American colonies would have continued to govern themselves and grown towards becoming a British dominion. In that regard, it's also plausible that California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico would have remained part of Mexico and that much of what is now known as the upper Midwest would have stayed as Canadian territory.
It took another war to drive the point home to the British that the United States was an independent nation. By the time that the second war rolled around, though, the King was insane.
It would be over another century after that before the Department of War ceased having current war plans against the British and the British stopped planning for war with the U.S. The British government flirted with the idea of intervening in the American Civil War, but thought better of it.[1] While the Brits did allow the Confederacy to build warships in English shipyards, that bit of meddling cost them the equivalent of a over a third of a billion dollars in today's money in order to settle claims against the Empire.
______________________________
[1] For one thing, the British people had turned against slavery. Intervening on the side of a nation whose sole reason for existence was to protect chattel slavery would have been a very hard sell.
(Yes, I know, Southern Apologists keep trying to rewrite history and claim that the Civil War was a "noble cause" and that the war was not about slavery. They are full of shit.)
Fromagilla
56 minutes ago
4 comments:
Except perhaps for Rafael Semmes of the CSS Alabama, who captured 65 loyal Union ships but then couldn't sell most of them as prizes. Commerce raiders of the South were largely an economic bust, costing more precious funds than they brought in.
While the Confederate blockade runners were quite profitable and elusive, slipping in and out of the surviving ports right up until the surrender.
Gonna disagree on the “Second War of Independence” angle. While the impressment of sailors and harassment of shipping was certainly a factor in the War of 1812, there was also the American desire for expansion and, just perhaps, the acquiring of Canada. It was two schoolyard bullies who finally had to face off, and each get their kicks in before they stopped the whole sordid affair. The crowing about the Battle of New Orleans certainly had some influence years later on the British allowing the Confederates to build some ships in their yards…even though the British public was massively anti-slavery.
The antebellum south is a myth. It built to promote the idea of
a genteel southern hospitality and good treatment of the poor
(indentured servants) and slaves and they didn't loose.
Mal (Fillion, Serenity) said it simply: "All this, the lie of it all".
I use that to highlight the front of the house (Gone with the wind)
from the back we know was those not part of the accepted society.
So, its a facade, to present something maybe acceptable to the
northerners. Reality was the slaves were just the machines on
the plantations that are the factory farms of the day.
As to the going on during the British wars... One has to look at
their other colonial holding and their treatment.
Eck,
As some one from Wisconsin, I'd go back home if they were part of Canada. Winter be damned.
Post a Comment