The British American Empire

Murray 66, one of the great commentators on this blog, asked the following question, wondering what the British Empire would have looked like if America had never separated and remained a part of it:

‘With your knowledge of history and skill for writing books on it, have you ever done historical fiction? I thought it would be interesting to do a book based on the British colonies not gaining independence. You would still have us and India and Hong Kong, etc. How different would that world be? I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts.’

I’m afraid I’ve never written a historical novel, though I do know a number of people who’ve found the fictional treatment of various past events and periods actually far better history than many factual accounts. A good novelist can bring a period to life, and explain the way the people involved acted and events progressed, and the results of the actions of various historical figures, indeed, what it was like to live in the time depicted, in a more immediate way than some, more academic accounts. Generally, however, historians tend to avoid counterfactual history – speculating on what may have happened if events had turned out differently, because there are so many different factors working in history that it’s impossible to know how things would have turned out if things had been different, for example, if Napoleon had won the Battle of Waterloo, or the Nazis the Second World War. Probably for this reason, such alternative histories have been generally left to Science Fiction. Nevertheless, some historians have speculated on what history would have been like if events had been slightly different. I’ve got a feeling that the British historian and Times columnist Niall Ferguson published just such a book of alternative history, discussing what would have happened if particular events had ended differently, a few years ago.
In the case of America, the British Empire would have been very different. Depending on how Britain managed to retain the colonies in the New World, the political and economic centre of the Empire may have been not London, but America.

Fifty years before the Revolution occurred, some British politicians considered that the immense size and growing wealth of the American colonies would mean that eventually the American colonies would become dissatisfied with their subjection to the imperial government in Britain, and would demand greater freedom and autonomy. I’ve got a feeling they were also aware that the more democratic forms of government that had developed in the British colonies in the New World meant that Americans would also increasing resent the aristocratic nature of British politics and government. Some British politicians did attempt to produce plans for constitutional change, which they hoped would satisfy the American colonists by granting them increasing participation in imperial government. Edmund Burke proposed that as the American economy and society developed and progressed, so parliament and the court should be moved gradually across the Atlantic and relocated in America. If this had occurred, then the centre of British imperial power would not be in Britain, but in America, and Britain itself would have been merely an imperial province. It’s hard to see how this plan would have been accepted by the majority of British people to be practicable. Nevertheless, it was made.

Probably a much more acceptable plan would have been for parliament to have been reformed to include MPs from the colonies, though this would have meant a massive expansion of the number of MPs, or the alteration of electoral districts to keep the number at a manageable size. Before the Great Reform Act of 1832, each British county sent two MPs to parliament, while the various British towns that had been granted a charter also sent two MPs. However, not all British towns had been granted a charter, so that by the time of the Great Reform Act in 1832 there were a number of towns sending MPs that were little more than villages, and whose MPs were nominated by the local landlord, while large, industrial centres such as Birmingham, weren’t represented at all. Moreover, very few British people themselves had the vote, though this varied considerably from borough to borough. There were boroughs that had an extremely restricted franchise, with hardly anyone possessing the necessary property qualifications to vote. There were others, however, where most of the male population had the vote. The unrepresentative nature of the British constitution was recognised, and there were a number of radical MPs during the 18th century who demanded constitutional reform in order to make it more democratic. These radical strongly sympathised with the American colonists and their demands for constitutional reform and representation. The followers of the British radical politician, Wilkes, deliberately called themselves ‘Patriots’ after the American Revolutionaries. If the British constitution and parliament had been reformed to give greater representation to the American colonies, and so succeeded in regaining their loyalty, it would probably have made Britain more democratic, and the process of reform that began in 1832 that eventually ended with most of the male population possessing the vote by 1872 would probably have begun earlier. American politics, on the other hand, may have become rather more aristocratic, as the British House of Lords would still have retained its power despite the considerable reforms to the House of Commons.

However, one of the objections of the colonists to British rule was the established position of the Anglican Church, when the majority of the people in the colonies were members of other churches. It was because of this that the American Constitution established the separation of church and state. It’s therefore possible that, if the American colonies had remained part of the British Empire through constitutional change, the privileged position of the Anglican Church would have been reduced, at least in America.

If, however, the colonies had been retained through military force – if the British had won the War of Independence, then the situation would have been very different. Parliament in London would have been the centre of government, though some constitutional reforms may have been granted to the colonies to retain their loyalties. The immediate result, however, would have been repression. Dangerously independent or subversive members of the state legislatures would have been removed and prosecuted for treason, and local government altered to govern according to the demands of British imperial rule. If this had occurred, then I suspect that American history would have been more like that of Ireland before the creation of the Irish Free State in 1920. America would have been part of the British Empire, but there would have been widespread disaffection and demands for self-government. As time progressed, this may well have resulted in local rebellions and assassination attempts of British governors, imperial administrators and soldiers. It may also have been similar to South Africa in the 19th century, when a number of Afrikaaners, dissatisfied by British government and control, migrated inland to establish the independent Afrikaaner republics of the Orange Free State and Natal. The British then seized control of these colonies on the grounds that their inhabitants were already British citizens, resulting in conflict between the British and Afrikaaners in the Anglo-South African, or Boer War. Something similar may have happened in America, if the British had succeeded in suppressing the Revolution. It’s possible that those Americans who were resolved not to submit to British rule would have, like the Afrikaaners, trekked into the interior – in this case the Mid-West, and the British government would probably have attempted to follow them and force the new states they founded into the British Empire.

On the other hand, it’s possible that if the British had retained the American colonies, then the US would be confined to the original 13 colonies. Another of the major causes of resentment was British refusal to allow the colonies to expand into the Ohio River valley, as they wished to honour the treated they had made with the Iroquois in return for their aid against the French. Many of the senior British officers and governors in America had married into the families of Native American chiefs. If the British had managed to suppress the American Revolution, then America would probably have been confined to the eastern coast. On the other hand, if the America had remained part of the British Empire through constitutional reform, then it’s possible some expansion into Native American land would have occurred through a parliament which contained American MPs, or which represented their interests.

I also suspect that the abolition of the slave trade and slavery itself in the British Empire would have occurred much later. It has been argued that Britain was able to abolish the slave trade in 1807 and then slavery in 1838, despite opposition from supporters of the slave trade and slavery in the British colonies in the Caribbean, as Britain had lost the American states whose economy depended on slavery. American abolitionists were certainly encouraged in their views that slavery could be abolished without damaging the country or the economy through the success of the British in abolishing slavery in the British Empire. It’s possible that if Britain had retained America, slavery would have been abolished much later. On the other hand, the Founding Fathers had assumed that as the American economy developed, slavery itself would gradually decline without the disruption of government intervention. Furthermore, a number of southern states had also petitioned parliament before the outbreak of the Revolution against the importation of more slaves. I believe that Georgia did so three times, but was overturned by George III. However, many of the leading anti-slavery activists during the 18th century were American, or had personal links to America and the Caribbean, and in the 19th century anti-slavery activists in Britain and America also had strong links.

Before the abolition of the slave trade in 1807, parliament, under pressure from Granville Sharpe, William Wilberforce and others, had passed legislation regulating the trade and improving conditions for the slaves transported on British ships, and it did appear that parliament was prepared to abolish the slave trade itself. However, this was rejected with the outbreak of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, when the British authorities feared radical change to society and the possible disruption to the imperial economy through the loss of the slave labour on which the extremely profitable sugar industry depended. In this case, the major obstacle to the abolition of the slave trade was not the American slave states, but concern for the safety of the British imperial economy during the Napoleonic Wars. In this case, it’s possible that even if America had remained part of the British Empire, the abolition of the slave trade and then slavery itself would still have occurred when they did, or not much later. With the development of the cotton economy in the American South, however, it’s still possible that the southern states would still have been dependent on slavery and so would have rebelled against attempts to abolish it by the British. In this case, the Civil War would have been experienced not just as an American conflict, but as a war in an integral part of the British Empire, a conflict which would have caused conflict and controversy in Britain itself as politicians, industrialists, abolitionists and ordinary people debated it and the methods by which it could be brought to an end.

It’s also possible that the abolitionists would have urged the consumption of Indian cotton, rather than cotton from the American south, as a way of attacking slavery. In the early 19th century British abolitionists launched an ‘anti-saccharist campaign’ attacking the Caribbean sugar industry based on slavery. Rather than purchasing slave produced Caribbean sugar, they instead urged people to buy Indian sugar, which they believed had been grown and produced through free labour. India was one of the major sources for the British cotton industry in the 19th century. It’s therefore possible that if Britain had retained the American colonies, British abolitionists would have recommended that people should stop using southern American cotton, as well as Caribbean sugar, in order to encourage its cultivation by free workers, or damage the corrupt economy that kept people in chains.

After the abolition of slavery in 1838, the British turned instead to using indentured labourers from Asia for work on the plantations. This was the infamous ‘coolie trade’, as the labourers were transported and employed on the plantations in appalling conditions little different from those of the Black African slaves. The British government acted to reform the trade, and passed legislation intended to improve travelling and employment and living conditions for the immigrant workers, providing for them to send money home, and bring along their wives and families, rather than break them up. The British were also concerned about the kidnapping of Asian labourers for use as indentured labourers. To prevent this, it passed a series of acts and engaged in diplomatic negotiations with the imperial Chinese authorities and Portuguese authorities in Macao to gain their co-operation in suppressing the trade, while raiding and prosecuting suspected kidnappers in India and China. The British also negotiated with America and were in contact with American anti-slavery groups to gain their co-operation in suppressing the kidnapping of Chinese labours for work in California. If America had remained part of the British Empire, then, if America had not expanded beyond the eastern coast, California would have remained a Spanish and then a Mexican territory. In this case, Britain would have negotiated with the Spanish and Mexican authorities. If, however, America had expanded across the continent to the west coast, then the British government would have negotiated with the American authorities for California as a British colonial government, rather than as the government of an independent nation. It’s doubtful whether that would have been any easier, as the legislatures of many of the British colonies firmly refused to pass legislation abolishing slavery until forced to do so by the imperial authorities themselves through the promulgation of orders in council.

With the development of coolie trade in the 19th century, it’s possible that America would have had more citizens of Indian descent. During the 19th century many Indians attempted to find work by emigrating to Canada, and it was partly resentment at the treatment of Indian labourers in the coolie trade and attempts to restrict Indian and Asian immigration to Canada in favour of White Europeans that stimulated the development of Indian nationalism. They considered that only if India itself was an independent nation would Indians be able to insist on their better treatment across the world as labourers, and as immigrants to British territories such as Canada. If America had remained part of the British Empire, then it’s possible that Indians would also have emigrated there, as they did to Canada, in search of work and that this would also have resulted in racial friction and been a factor in the rise of the Indian independence movement.

Britain’s continuing possession of the American colonies may also have affected the French Revolution. Although radical resentment of the monarchy and feudalism had been steadily increasing throughout the 18th century, along with demands for constitutional reform, some of the generals and politicians involved in the French Revolution had served aiding the Americans during the American Revolution, and been inspired by its ideals. It could be argued that if the American Revolution had not occurred, or had been suppressed, then the French Revolution would not have broken out. On the other hand, as there were radical and revolutionary movements in France, which had developed from resentment at the French monarchy and influenced by the general Enlightenment philosophical ideas of which the American Revolution was a part, the French Revolution may have occurred anyway. Furthermore, while the French Revolutionaries respected the leaders of the American Revolution, such as Thomas Jefferson, they found their ideas too moderate. The French Revolution would have developed as it did regardless of the American Revolution. It is possible, however, that the French Revolution may have resulted in the further development and encouragement of revolutionary ideas and activity in America. In this case, the American Revolution may have broken out after the French Revolution in the 19th century, and may have taken a more extreme form.

It’s also possible that without the American Revolution, American society may have been much less religious. Historians have noted the vast increase in church membership and attendance in America during the American Revolution, a situation that undoubtedly contributed to the very religious nature of American society compared to European. If the Revolution had been prevented from occurring through constitutional change, then possibly America would have been less religious. On the other hand, if the Americans had lost the War of Independence, then Americans would have remained very religious, and religion would have formed a major part of American national identity. In this respect it may have been similar to the links between the various movements for Irish independence based in Roman Catholicism, and the Catholic democracy that developed in Irish Roman Catholic society. Unlike the Roman Catholic movements for Irish independence, it would not have been based in any single denomination.

Finally, depending on how America remained part of the British Empire, American attitudes towards the rest of the world may have been very different. Although America became active globally after World War II attempting to prevent the spread of Communism, fighting wars in Korea and Vietnam, throughout much of its history America was opposed to interfering in other nations’ internal politics and to imperialist attempts to conquer and subject other, sovereign nations. F.D. Roosevelt, for example, wished that Britain would gradually loosen its control of its colonies, so that they could also benefit from trade with America and eventually gain their independence. He believed that Indo-China should be granted its independence from the French. If America had remained part of the British Empire, and especially if it became the centre of British imperial government, then America would have become much less opposed to imperialism, or involvement in international affairs. On the other hand, if Britain had retained America through force, then the anti-imperial attitude in American politics would have remained, and possibly strengthened, as Americans, resenting their subjection to an imperial power, would object in turn to participating in the conquest and subjection of other peoples and countries.

Thus, it’s impossible to know how history would have progressed if Britain had managed to retain the American colonies. It is possible, however, that there were two, alternative ways in which history would have been different, according to the methods used by the British to deal with American demands for independence and representation in imperial government. If Britain had retained the colonies through constitutional reform, then America would have been a fully integral part of the British Empire. American industry and agriculture would eventually develop to become the dominant, or one of the major economic forces in the Empire. If Americans had succeeded in attacking the mercantilist system, which regulated imperial trade by limiting the goods exported by the colonies in favour of the British economy, then America would have had full access to British ports and markets across the world. American troops, along with English, Irish, Scots and West Indian soldiers would have served in India and Africa, and American politicians and soldiers served along with their British counterparts as governors and administrators of the British colonies across the globe. If Burke’s plan had been adopted, and court and parliament moved across the Atlantic to America, then the British Empire would effectively have become an American Empire, though one in which Americans still considered themselves British citizens. American expansion beyond the initial British colonies would have been limited, however, though its possible that this would have occurred through the British authorities responding to popular demand and in competition with French and Spanish attempts to colonise the continent.

If Britain had, however, succeeded in retaining the American colonies through military force, rather than reform, and had won the War of Independence, many of the constitutional freedoms Americans had developed before Independence would have been abolished or reduced. America would then have been more like Ireland or South Africa in that it formed a part of the British Empire, but there would have been widespread discontent, occasionally erupting into violence. As in South Africa, there may have been independent American republics established in the interior, outside of British rule. It’s possible that Texas would have been founded as one of these.

However, in both of these situations, the British and American political traditions would either not have diverged, or not have diverged quite so much. If America had remained part of the Empire through constitutional reform, then the debate over the American constitution and the development of American politics would have been part of general British politics and constitutional developments. If the British had defeated the Americans during the War of Independence, then America would have been very much a subordinate part of the British Empire with far more limited powers of self-government. However, there would still have been links between American and British radicals demanding constitutional reform and more representative, democratic government.

As for how the world would be today, I suspect that if Britain had retained America simply by military force, then growing pressure for independence from Britain would eventually have resulted in America, like Ireland, eventually rebelling and gaining its independence some time in the 1920s, after the First World War. If America had remained part of the Empire through constitutional reform, then I suspect that America, like Britain, would have suffered economically after the Second World War. The result would have been that many former British colonies across the world would be granted their independence, and America would probably, like Britain, have been forced to fight various nationalist movements. With the expansion of the Communist bloc after the Second World War, it’s possible that as part of the British Empire America would have attempted to prevent its further spread. The Vietnam War may still have happened. However, American politicians may have found such global engagements increasingly difficult to justify to a population that had suffered much more during the Second World War, and who may have wished to see a concentration on domestic economic growth, rather than in maintenance of America’s position as a global superpower. On the other hand, it may be that as Britain became exhausted after World War II, so America would have become the dominant force in British imperial politics through its immense economic and military resources. Eventually, the British Empire would have ended and been replaced by the modern Commonwealth, in which America would have been a major part. The world would have been different, but probably America would eventually have gained self-government and been a major force in global politics, though possibly as a member of the Commonwealth, like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, rather than a separate state outside British imperial politics.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “The British American Empire”

  1. Murray66 Says:

    This is fascinating Beast. Do you think that North America would have a more European makeup? Would Britain have been likely to have allowed the Spanish to retain California and would the French have agreed to a Louisiana purchase with Britain or simply retained that area as a colony of their own.

  2. Wakefield Tolbert Says:

    Interesting, to say the least, BR.

    There is much commentary and speculation about the “whats” of British retention of the American colonies. Would there have been a rebellion had the Founders like Jefferson and Franklin–who was considered avante guarde and secular for their time, had not gotten their desires seen.

    Would silencing a few prominent men done the deed and stanched rebellion. Certainly the British knew and and followed the words and the actions and even the travel whereabouts of Franklin and knew what he was up to—were they merely adopting a “wait and see” attitude in this regard to his meetings with the French, for example?

    Or if Washington, originally an officer in the British army, had not turned, etc. The what ifs factors are numerous because the success of the rebellion hinged on several things in addition to the flamboyant personalities of the American writers and thinkers, their sheer will, and even the weather surrounding the battles.

    The British were of course berated for their taxation politics and politics and dictates from the King. History makes monsters even where very plain spoken edicts were all that were around.

    A review of a book I am reading very slowly, David McCullugh’s 1776. By no means do we diminish the American sides zeal by saying that contra the tall tales, King George was actually highly intelligent and thoughtful on these matters and neither he nor most of his countrymen, Court, and military were known for brutality and vengeance. It is well known that while exhilerating to watch, for example, movies starring Mel Gibson as Benjamin Martin, based on our own South Carolinian colony’s “Swamp Fox” Francis Marion, showing an evil Colonel Tavington, having to have had to be kept on short leash by Gen. Cornwallis–is a little over the top.

    The King did not suffer his dementias until years later before he started conversing with trees in the courtyards. And British operations in America were certainly calm compared to later campaigns, it has been argued.

    George’s mother had warned him, so it is said, “George, be the KING.”
    He felt a sense of duty higher than himself in such matters, and higher, apparently, than personal opinions about the Colonies’ striving for a freer say in matters. His responses were neither insane nor quip and actually maintained a sophisticated level of input, according to McCullough. Being well-aware of the difficulties and finances and logistics of the war, he went ahead for sense of nation as much as an strategic justification.

    That’s just for starters on history. As to the other what ifs.

    What would have been the treatment for the charges of treason? Would there have been some kind of compromise?

    Would America have followed a course similar to Canada. Would the Louisiana purchase made sense to British land speculators? What about Alaska’s purchase from Russia, that even at the time was labeled “Seward’s Icebox”?

    Murray brings up Louisiana and war with Spain. How would Brit influence deal with what were American notions of “Manifest Destiny”, which looks very similar to imperialist desires?

    On a similar note, one British Christian a while back had a blog on skepticism where he actually took the skeptic line on many things, and made mockery of contemporary evangelical Christians by asking how they felt living in a nation that came into existence from an act of stubborn disobedience. What about Paul’s prescription for secular justice as seen in Romans 12? And that God ordains the Kings to rule whether we like their rule or not, and agree on piddling issues like taxation or not. (not to say that all forms of taxation are piddling), and that of all the Imperial dominions, the British were the mildest of all possible.

    It could have been worse. Much worse, than under the King’s dominions at that time.

  3. beastrabban Says:

    Thanks for the comments, Wakefield and Murray.

    Regarding the Louisiana Purchase and the Spanish possession of California, they’re good questions. I’m certainly not an expert on American history, but looking at them I’ve revised my opinion about the USA remaining the original 13 colonies if Britain had retained them. From what I understand, the US took over Louisiana for two reasons.

    The first was that New Orleans was the main port for the American mid-west. The Americans had an agreement with the Spanish authorities who possessed Louisiana to allow them access to New Orleans to export their products. However, a year or two before New Orleans was transferred to France, the Spanish blocked access to it, thus precipitating American military action against them to gain it for America.

    The second is that Napoleon sold Louisiana to America after losing the French colonies in the Caribbean through a series of slave rebellions. Before then the French had hoped to use Louisiana to supply goods and produce for their Caribbean possessions. This plan effectively ended when the colonies rebelled. Furthermore, Napoleon was preparing for renewed conflict with the British, and wanted to sell Louisiana to raise funds for the forthcoming war.

    Now much of the impetus for the expansion of the British Empire was competition with the other major European powers, such as Spain and France. For example, the European powers rapidly claimed and colonised Africa during the ‘Scramble for Africa’ in the late 19th century after Germany, Italy and Belgium established colonies there. Previously Africa was considered to be too remote, and the climate too unhealthy for European colonisation. However, Britain, France and the other European powers feared that with the emergence of Germany as a colonial power in Africa, the other nations would expand into the continent, and so all of them attempted to gain territory there before the other nations could conquer it.

    Furthermore, the US took over Florida because the Spanish had been using it to raid the southern American states. It therefore seems to me that with the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars and then the threat of Napoleon, Britain would have attempted to combat the threat Lousiana posed to its British colonies by annexing it. I suspect that rather than purchasing Lousiana, it would have been taken by force. I also believe that the British would similarly have done exactly what the US army did and annex Florida as a response to Spanish raiding.

    As for California, Britain, as well as Russia, also had interests there, and Britain was afraid that its interests in the region were threatened by Spain. Thus Britain actually encouraged the US to take it over in order to prevent Spain becoming too powerful. As Britain in this instance acted in favour of the US against the Spanish possession of California, it seems to me that if Britain had retained the American colonies the British would also have attempted to annex California as well. In which case, the US certainly would not have been confined behind the Appalachians, but would have reached the Pacific. Possibly America’s boundary would have been exactly the same if the British had retained it as they are today.

  4. beastrabban Says:

    As for Alaska, that’s also an extremely good question. During the 19th century both Britain and Russia were rivals in attempting to extend their influence in Asia. Britain unsuccessfully attempted to occupy Afghanistan to prevent it falling into the hands of the Russians. I suspect that if Britain had retained America, the imperial authorities would have been suspicious of the Russian possession of Alaska as a threat to it possessions in the US and Canada. However, rather than occupying Alaska by force, the British would probably have fortified the frontier. On the other hand, it’s possible that Britain would also have attempted to negotiate directly with Russia for possession of Alaska in order to protect Canada and the western US.

    As for the problems caused by the various situations you suggested, Wakefield, such as the arrest by the British of the Revolutionary leaders, or if George Washington had remained a British officer, or the weather during some of the battles been different, as I said, it’s impossible to know for sure. However, it is part of the debate amongst historians over whether historical change is created through the actions of great individuals – such as George III, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and so on, or whether its the result of broader changes in society. Marxist historians consider that although history is made by people, it’s formed through economic forces acting through society, and in fact individuals are largely unable to alter history, or can only do so to a very small extent. My own feeling is that while economic and societal forces certainly affect the course of history, it’s also formed and affected by the actions of powerful and influential figures. So much would have depended on the individual actions of the British commanders and the Founding Fathers. It’s possible that even if the Founding Fathers had been arrested by the British, popular resentment against British rule would have been so great that the British would have been unable to govern the colonies effectively, even if no other leaders of their stature had come forward. On the other hand, if some of them were distrusted because they were considered radical and extreme for their time, then possibly the British could have got round them and counteracted their influence by negotiating and granting some concessions to the more conservative elements in the revolutionary movement.

  5. beastrabban Says:

    As for George III himself, I’ve got a feeling you’re right. Despite losing the American colonies, he was widely respected in England because he reflected the morality of the emerging middle classes. He took his coronation vows extremely seriously, and, unlike the many of the dissolute politicians of the day, and his own son, the Prince Regent, he was always faithful to his wife. He also took a keen interest in agriculture. This worked to bridge the gap between the classes, the 18th century saw some of the major improvements in agriculture that made the industrial revolution in Britain possible, and all classes in the British countryside, from the aristocracy to tenant farmers and their labourers benefited by these improvements. He also genuinely hated war. During the 18th century it was the practice for the king to write the king’s speech, which was then edited by the Prime Minister. I can remember being told at College that George III actually fell out with his Prime Minister, Pitt, during one of the wars with France. George had included in his speech a reference to the war as ‘costly and bloody’. Pitt edited that so that instead it read, ‘this costly but necessary war’.

    As for his madness, historians and doctors now believe that the poor fellow suffered from porphyria. It’s a metabolic disease in which waste products gradually build up in the human body. It’s so called because the urine of those suffering from it is purple. As for the treatments given to him by his physicians as an attempt to cure – looking at them now, they seem almost as bad, if not worse, than the actual disease.

    As for the Mel Gibson movie you mentioned, The Patriot , I can remember how the press on both sides of the Atlantic criticised it for its portrayal of the British as war criminals. There were atrocities, unfortunately, but generally they were avoided. When they were committed, they were often done by Americans against other Americans. Unfortunately, this probably isn’t surprising, as civil wars are generally fiercer and more cruel than wars between nations as people react more violently towards their own people who they feel are acting against their country.

  6. beastrabban Says:

    However, unlike many other revolutions, the American Revolution did not result in a terror, nor the creation of an authoritarian state or military dictatorship, like the French Revolution. The Founding Fathers were very careful to avoid that, despite pressure from some conservative forces to establish a monarchy or install Washington as a military dictator. Instead the Revolution started a process that led to the emergence of America as a democratic nation.

    Regarding the British Christian who remarked on his blog that America was formed from an act of defiance against established authority, in contradiction to St. Paul’s commandments, I’m not actually sure who you mean, but I can think of one blogger who posted something like that. If it’s the person I’m thinking of – and it may well not be – then I know him, and actually he’s a great bloke. The fellow I’m thinking about here actually isn’t anti-American by any means, but he is aware of some of the ironies of history. I’m sure he meant it purely as a joke, rather than trying to cause offence or seriously upset anyone. He also certainly doesn’t dislike Evangelical Christianity. He has recommended to me some evangelical preachers on God TV who he’s got a lot of respect for.

    Of course, we might be talking about two different people here, but we are talking about the same person, then I’m sure that he meant it purely as a joke, rather than trying to be offensive, and if you give him a jokey comment in reply when answering his comment, he’d be delighted.

  7. hgkgul Says:

    wierd

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: