What if the American Revolution had failed?

This is one of many instances where the War for Independence could have fizzled out that I mentioned in the post on Canada not joining the War for Independence.

Why Did Canada Refuse to Join the American Revolution?

I like to point out how we already have a British North America: Canada. This points out some of the ways that the War for Independence could have fizzled: besides the ways it also came close to fizzling in on its own.

Independence wasn't as much of a certainty as people would like to think. The Colonies would have lost had it not have gained support from European powers: in particular, France. I would also add that there were some people in England who supported Independence for the Colonies.

Interestingly, most of the Loyalists who left the colonies ended up moving to what would become Canada.

And here's one of the scenarios where the British could have crushed the War for Independence early on.

French Guns, not private arms won the War for Independence

This myth needs to die a quick death.

'America Could Not Have Won The War Without France'

Tant pis pour vous, car ces singes mangeurs de fromage sont la seule véritable raison pour laquelle vous avez votre indépendance. Auriez-vous pu continuer à voler des provisions pour poursuivre votre révolte si les Européens n'étaient pas intervenus ? Pas de tout!

Loyalist Networks and the Coming of the American Revolution in New York ...

As I said in an earlier post: British North America isn't that hard an alternative reality since it's called Canada. The British North America Acts, 1867–1975, are a series of acts of Parliament that were at the core of the Constitution of Canada. Most were enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and some by the Parliament of Canada. So, being a tory didn't mean one was against "independence", it just meant that any change in status had to come through a lawful process. Rebellion is not a lawful means. 

I agree with Christopher Minty that the Loyalist side of the story needs to be told.

After all, this person was a Boston tory who said that he would prefer to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away than three thousand tyrants a mile away.

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter his enemies,
And make them fall!
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!

Would You Have Joined the American Revolution?

You might be surprised! And that's not my tory speaking. 

Britain's Forgotten Riflemen: Deadly Sharpshooters of the Revolution

Another myth about the war for independence bites the dust.

American Independence From the British Perspective

The move for independence wouldn't have happened had the French won in the Seven Years/French and Indian War. That opened up the west and got rid of a threat (the French and Indians). Of course, it opened up a bunch of other problems.

The main one being "who's gonna pay for this?"

But war was definitely not the answer.

Footnote to all this: The colonists weren't too keen on paying taxes anyway as Ben Franklin found out in 1759 with the Albany Plan. Franklin wrote: "The colonial assemblies and most of the people were narrowly provincial in outlook, mutually jealous, and suspicious of any central taxing authority."

American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World

I've been hearing that the War for Independence wasn't a war against a foreign foe, but was a civil war. Toss in how much it messed up the country whether the foe was domestic or foreign. Part of my fascination for this is that the scholars who address this issue point out that Tory meant conservative, as it still does.

Even more interesting to me is that there were many more loyalists out there than most people realise. Particularly in the southern states. I've seen comments where people from the south will say there were battles fought without a British presence during the War for Independence. I would also add the coercive nature of the rebels, particularly in New England.

Toss in that the militia needed to be under some form of civilian control, which is really what the "well-regulated" means. Even if you want to use the "well trained" meaning, there needs to be some form of structure because fighting a war requires a lot more than just being a good shot. There has to be discipline and serious drill, which comes from, well, organised training. Or as the Supreme Court said in Presser, which pretty much dealt with the militia:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

The issue was the common defence and how it would be structured. not personal weaponry.

Unless you can show me those exact words in the constitution, then you're wrong and I am right because it does make it clear if you go a little beyond "we the people"  that the document addresses the common defence.

Myth Busting the American Riflemen of the Revolution Part 2: The Septics were the better troops.

The myth is that the minutemen drove them out at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill. Not at all. 

Myth Busting the American Riflemen of the Revolution

Yet another myth goes down the crapper.


And while we're at it, the guns used by the Rebels were either English Brown Besses or French Charleville. The Navigation Acts pretty much precluded any home made guns by the Americans. BTW, note that the Brown Bess has "Tower", as in Tower of London, which is where the Royal Armoury is located and GR with a crown showing it was property of the British Government. I think there broad arrows as well, which means this was British government property.

In other words, the guns were STOLEN!


And stop calling the French "Cheese eating, surrender monkeys" since the US wouldn't exist without their help. Besides, the Swiss fit the cheese eating description much better if you know Swiss history.

Tory during the American War for Independence didn't mean they were against independence.

 It sort of amuses me that one line of alternative history is the what if the 13 Colonies had remained united with Great Britain. The reason that it amuses me is that alternative played out: in Canada. Anyone familiar with Canadian history knows this, but the short form from Wikipedia:

The term Tory was first used to designate the pre-Confederation British ruling classes of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, known as the Family Compact and the Château Clique, an elite within the governing classes and often members within a section of society known as the United Empire Loyalists (UEL). The United Empire Loyalists were American loyalists from the Thirteen Colonies who resettled elsewhere in British North America during or after the American Revolutionary War.

Interestingly,  The terms "Tory" and "Loyalist" also were used in the American Revolution for those who remained loyal to the British Crown. Surprisingly, about 80% of the Loyalists remained in the United States after the war. The 60,000 or so Loyalists who settled in Nova Scotia, Quebec, the Bahamas, or returned to Great Britain after the American War of Independence are known as United Empire Loyalists. Unlike the UEL, Loyalists in the states didn't make as much of a fuss. In fact, they are incredibly hard to learn about.

 Tory conservativism is the type of conservativism that wants to follow the law and uphold the established social order, which is why Canada worked peacefully toward its "independence" from Britain. Hence, the British loyalty oath is:

I, [Insert full name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles (o whoever the monarch happens to be), his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

The loyalist take on US independence is vastly different with the British not spending much time on it and Canadians dealing with the movement from "la conquête" and a bit beyond. If you're lucky, you will be treated to the chaos which were the early years of the republic. I suggest the two series The War that Made America and Rebels and Redcoats.

The reason I would start the movement for independence starting with the French and Indian War. The easiest way for Britain to have kept the 13 colonies would have been to have said to General Braddock not to leave port until the colonists had come up with money to pay for their defence.

And to bugger off if they didn't.

Fortunately (Unfortunately?), the French weren't as interested in its North American territory as they were with the Caribbean ones. Had the Seven Years War turned out differently, the Colonists might have been incredibly tight with Britain realising that was their best bet for any serious defence.



When the bill arrived for the French and Indian War, the colonists were highly upset. They didn't learn their lesson: that war isn't the answer since it costs a lot of money. That is a lesson which is neglected in US history of the War for Independence.

The taxes weren't illegal, they were the bill for their defence.

But the colonists begged, borrowed, and stole their way through the War for Independence. And Louis XVI lost his head because its support for the colonists helped bankrupt France. 

The newly independent colonists sort of learned their lesson, but that also turned out to be a mess. After all, a few of the complaints from the Declaration of Independence were:

• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

And as the video above pointed out, they colonists weren't interested in paying taxes: even if it came from their own government. 

War was not the answer and the tories have been proven to be correct. The better course of action would have been to have worked peacefully within the legal framework since the War for Independence resulted in a mess which has lingered into modern times.

 

Told ya so!: Why 5 Key UK Industries Are on the Brink After Brexit

What got lost in the Brexit "debate" was that it was all about free movement. Think if one of the largest US states pulled out and suddenly had a border with the other states. 

It's going to be even more fun if Britain decides to rejoin the EU since the EU made all sorts of concessions the first time around. My guess, is that won't be the case this time.

I guess I should be happy that Britain finally uses the Euro. Alas, the return of the real old blue passport was a total fantasy.

And the Passport Standard is set by the Airline Industry, not the EU!

They say Russia almost became Islamic.

 They say Russia almost became Islamic. The story is that Tsar Jaroslav the Wise during the Kievan Rus wanted to give up paganism. So, he called together representatives from all the world's religions.

The Islamic representative told him he could have all the wives he wanted. Jaroslav said, "Yeah, go on". The Islamic rep said, "But you can't drink alcohol". And Jaroslav was all like "get outta here..."

 

 

26+6=32, but it was much less painlful under the EU

Or EU membership as the solution to Irish Unity.

 I would put in that the European Union was the solution to the "Irish problem" in the things I would have pointed out had anyone asked me department. People either didn't realise, or just forgot, that the Good Friday Agreement wouldn't have been possible if both sides hadn't been members of the EU.

What made it possible was the right of free movement, which is the thing I like most about the EU. That means that internal borders within the European Union went away. No hard border between the UK and the Republic during the EU period.

So, the Irish could be happily Irish if thy lived in either set of the 26 or 6 counties that make up Ireland's 32 counties. They could be citizens of the UK, Ireland, or Both.

Which led to some amusing situations once the reality of Brexit set in.

Especially since both sides during the "Troubles" hated the concept of the EU. Maybe because it would make their positions untenable once the borders went away.

So, the Democratic Unionists, the group who were the most glued to the United Kingdom, and Brexit supporters, were the biggest block to Brexit. Mostly because they realised the return of a hard border meant a return to the Troubles. The amusing bit is that Ian Paisley's son told his supporters to apply for an Irish Passport. Trust me, the irony isn't lost on me.

It may be an "EU Document", but it preserves your European Union rights.

So, while the rest of us who supported remaining are scrambling to get EU citizenship, the Ulster Irish can get their Irish Passports. And keep their UK passports. Sadly, Irish Citizenship only goes back to your grandparents (unlike Italy, which will give you citizenship no matter how far back your ancestor emigrated as long as it was post-Unification).

Anyway, I have been laughing my ass off about the current Irish Situation since one of the largest contingencies for Brexit is turning out to be one of the worst problem of leaving the European Union. I only hope it serves as a warning to the other countries who are trying to break out of the EU.

Another issue for the people who pushed for Brexit is that the United Kingdom had a pretty good situation when it was last in the EU (another thing no one asked me about). I hope that any return will not be as accommodating. Again, I want to see Brexit as a lesson that the EU is here to stay.

I just hope that a hard border in Ireland doesn't mean a return to bloodshed, but one of the reasons for the EU was to end wars by removing borders between member states.

Of course, Brexit is a failure

The best way to explain Brexit is to point out that  the European Union had the right of free movement. That is the Union allowed someone from one member state the ability to move from one member state to another. So, if someone was a UK citizen, they could move to any other member state. In addition, they would retain the benefits of their home country (sort of).

The UK retiree who wanted to move to France, Spain, or some other EU member state could do so with a minimum level of BS.  This is the same as someone who lived in Michigan could move to Florida or California.

Brexit removed Britain from the European Union, which took it out of the regime of free movement. In other words, it re-established the pre-EU membership border between the UK and the European Union member states. In terms of the US,(or another Federated State such as Canada or Australia) that would be the same as suddenly setting up a hard border between one state and the rest similar to what exists now between the US and Canada, or the US and Mexico. 

What was once a "quick commute" has returned to being a wait to be processed at the border. And this wait also goes for goods and services. Imagine how it would be if a hard border with customs and immigration bureaucracy appeared between US states. You sort of have the idea if you traveled between the US and Canada after the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), which was introduced in 2004 by the U.S. government to strengthen U.S. border security and standardize travel documentation. Now, one requires a passport to travel between the two nations.

The tyranny of "Brussels", which is silly. Especially if you consider that UKIP leader Nigel Farage was a member of the European Parliament.  Additionally, one of the reason for the European Union "dictation" of laws was to make commerce flow easily by harmonising laws.

Sadly, I am European, not British, if I have to choose. And I will happily put up with any bureaucracy I have to to keep my European Citizenship. I would prefer the minimum level of bureaucracy, but that isn't my choice anymore.

Navigating the disaster that is Brexit

Brexit and Donald Trump have one thing in common: They were intended to be alternatives which were so repugnant that no one would vote for either one.

I should be making a fortune off of this since my legal studies were geared toward the European Union. I was expecting to get hired to help someone navigate the European Union, and now navigating the disaster that is Brexit.

And Brexit is far more of a disaster than Donald Trump since no one expected to really have it happen. I could have told anyone who would have listened that it was going to be a disaster: especially since no one worked out what would happen when it happened.

Take the US Civil War: only make it non-violent with a lot of negotiation.

It was a bad idea to separate a nation which functions: no matter how poorly one may see it functioning. It's even worse when the party that wants to separate has less party than the what they are separating from.  The bad divorce analogy sounds really good.

Only most divorces try to be equitable: this one has no need to be equitable.

This one can have you pay for their education and support them. Then when the person who was supporting decides to leave has to pay twice the amount of support to leave.

Not only that the party separating finds that they can only sleep in the doghouse...

If they take the agreement.

And they are totally fucked if they don't take the agreement.

Unfortunately, there is the "prestige point" factor that says, "we can't go back since we have already gone to far to reconcile." Or so the person thinks.

Yes, Britain could, and should, have a second referendum since now they understand what exactly leaving the European Union means. They have been getting a preview and not liking it since the process began.

But the other thing that Brexit and Trump have in common is that the people have to live with the decision until they decide to elect them out.