Could the Revolution Have Been Avoided?

I’m not going to bother linking to the Vox.com article in which one of the juice-boxers has a clickbait post arguing that the colonies would have been better off if they hadn’t rebelled against England. I knew what his reasons were without reading it: the abolition of slavery, the treatment of the natives, and the joys of a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary system. I’m also not going to bother linking to any of the several refutations of the original article. I’ll just add my own observation that Canada is Canada because the Thirteen Colonies became the United States. Who knows what the history of the Commonwealth would have been like without the Revolution?

The question I will pose is much, much simpler. Could the Revolution have been avoided? Let’s quote from an authoritative source on the subject:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
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 constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
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.

The “he” in question was the king. Nova Scotia did not, apparently, experience any of the above or if it did its citizens were more tolerant of them.

It sounds very much to me as though revolution was not begun frivolously but because there was no other alternative. If there was no alternative, I don’t see much reason to moon about how nice it would have been if the revolution had never happened.

In conclusion I’ll just mention that, had the Thirteen Colonies remained British colonies there is no way that Napoleon would have sold Louisiana and in all likelihood I’d be speaking French right now.

5 comments… add one
  • TastyBits Link

    The problem with positing an alternate history line is not having a deep and broad understanding of the applicable history. Usually, the person will just project the trends into the future with no changes or disruptions.

    Without British troops tied down in the colonies, history begins to change in myriad ways.

    Then, there is always power. Men will always strive to accumulate as much as possible, and this is not accomplished according to parlor rules.

  • ... Link

    Razing Khan pointed out the big problem with the piece is the belief that British history would have been the same had there been no independence.

  • ... Link

    Razib.

  • steve Link

    Idle speculation, but I actually enjoy alternate history fiction. I don’t take it too seriously, but it is kind of fun to wonder what happens if the South won the War, or the Khan lives and the Mongols keep going West or Germany wins, etc.

    Steve

  • I think it’s more than simple idle speculation because, at least in this particular case, it illustrates differing patterns of thought. I tend to see things as interconnected and that events unfold for reasons. I suspect that the author of the article does not.

    Additionally, although I do not think that the unfolding of events is strictly deterministic I don’t think they’re random and arbitrary, either. How you think about these things affects one’s political views and policy preferences.

Leave a Comment