Americans love to take quotes out of context rather than look at the whole picture.
Also, the period between 1775 (and maybe earlier) to 1790 is not much of anything since the Articles of Confederation were what was running the show. It also means that the "United States" didn't really exist until the Constitution was ratified. That's another section of ignorance in US history which needs much greater study.
In fact, thinking about it the early republic wasn't in too hot a condition with a low level civil war that finally broke out into a full scale one in the 1860s.
Perhaps, rather than pretend that the war for independence created a country, we should look at what it was actually created by war. The US should look at how its bellicose nature has put it into the current mess it is in.
This is a real case where war is not the answer and the real one needs to be found.
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.
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.
There's a lot of irony here in using a Jacobite song: especially since the movement is pretty much dead. Unless you're a septic or out of touch with the world.
On the other hand, the current King is Charles, which was a poor choice for a name since Kings named Charles haven't had good runs so far.
He should have gone with Arthur.
But, the first Charles did rule during the start of the English Civil War, which is similar to the Civil War that is brewing in the US. One where the Constitutional power will be divided up to put paid to the myth of three equal branches.
Any Parliamentary system needs to have the power in the legislative branch with a weak executive head of state.
Otherwise, it does seem appropriate since Trump isn't very much of a leader. He's the cartoon villain. The heel of World Wrestling Entertainment kayfaybe.
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!
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!
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."
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.
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.
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:
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.
I have to admit this intrigues me. It's also related to another post on that being a Tory didn't mean one was against independence during the War for Independence. After all, Canada became "independent" under the Commonwealth as this points out. Toss in I've joked about this for a long time.
Of course, I feel even less involved in this than Brexit: especially since my first choice would be that the United Kingdon rejoin the European Union. Even if that meant some "unfavourable" terms. I don't trust Britain post-Windrush in regard to citizenship, among other things.
On the other hand, there would be some interesting developments if the US actually did join the comonwealth since two requirements are following the rule of law and transparent ("free and fair") elections. The latter being the more interesting of the two since elections in commonwealth countries are not perpetual. They don't drag on forever.
But the rule of law would mean that the US Supreme Court may no longer be the final word in appellate decisions. The United States comes from the common law tradition and the Privy Council would be a very good final arbiter on the Second Amendment; especially since it doesn't have "skin" in the game.
Scalia was a poor choice to rewrite the constitution since he was biased toward "gun rights" and the Heller decision shows that he made some serious deviations in legal method, which violate the rule of law (e.g., failing to follow precedent, failing to look at the real legislative history, using secondary sources which were biased, etcetera). Add in that US judges are the products of the US legal education system.
An interesting concept, but the US is not a good candidate short of some drastic changes in culture.
