3 reasons the american revolution was a mistake do/3 reasons the... · his history of black...
TRANSCRIPT
3 reasons the American Revolution wasa mistakeUpdated by Dylan Matthews on July 2, 2015, 12:00 p.m. ET @dylanmatt
[email protected]@vox.com
George Washington crosses the Delaware, makes the world a worse place in the process. Emanuel Leutze
This July 4th, I'm celebrating by taking a plane from the US to the
United Kingdom. The timing wasn't intentional, but I embrace the
symbolism. American independence in 1776 was a monumental
mistake. We should be mourning the fact that we left the United
Kingdom, not cheering it.
Of course, evaluating the wisdom of the American Revolution means
dealing with counterfactuals. As any historian would tell you, this is
messy business. We obviously can't be entirely sure how America
would have fared if it had stayed in the British Empire longer, perhaps
gaining independence a century or so later, along with Canada.
But I'm reasonably confident a world where the revolution never
happened would be better than the one we live in now, for three main
reasons: slavery would've been abolished earlier, American Indians
would've faced rampant persecution but not the outright ethnic
cleansing Andrew Jackson and other American leaders perpetrated,
and America would have a parliamentary system of government that
makes policymaking easier and lessens the risk of democratic
collapse.
Abolition would have come faster without independence
The main reason the revolution was a mistake is that the British
Empire, in all likelihood, would have abolished slavery earlier than the
US did, and with less bloodshed.
Abolition in most of the British Empire occurred in 1834, following the
passage of the Slavery Abolition Act (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833). That left
out India, but slavery was banned there too in 1843 (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Slavery_Act,_1843). In England
itself, slavery was illegal at least going back to 1772 (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart). That's decades
earlier than the United States.
John Singleton Copley depicts a black loyalist soldier in The Death of Major Peirson.
John Singleton Copley (http://preserve.lib.unb.ca/wayback/20141205155437/http://atlanticportal.hil.unb.ca/acva/blackloyalists/en/context/gallery/copley.html)
This alone is enough to make the case against the revolution. Decades
less slavery is a massive humanitarian gain that almost certainly
dominates whatever gains came to the colonists from independence.
The main benefit of the revolution to colonists was that it gave more
political power to America's white male minority. For the vast majority
of the country — its women, slaves, American Indians — the difference
between disenfranchisement in an independent America and
disenfranchisement in a British-controlled colonial America was
negligible. If anything, the latter would've been preferable, since at
least women and minorities wouldn't be singled out for
disenfranchisement. From the vantage point of most of the country,
who cares if white men had to suffer through what everyone else did
for a while longer, especially if them doing so meant slaves gained
decades of free life?
FOR WHITE SLAVEHOLDERS IN THE SOUTH … THEWAR WAS "A REVOLUTION, FIRST ANDFOREMOST, MOBILIZED TO PROTECT SLAVERY"
It's true that, had the US stayed, Britain would have had much more to
gain from the continuance of slavery than it did without America. It
controlled a number of dependencies with slave economies — notably
Jamaica and other islands in the West Indies — but nothing on the
scale of the American South. Adding that into the mix would've made
abolition significantly more costly.
But the South's political influence within the British Empire would
have been vastly smaller than its influence in the early American
Republic. For one thing, the South, like all other British dependencies,
Dunmore's Proclamation.
lacked representation in Parliament. The Southern states were
colonies and their interests were discounted by the British
government accordingly. But the South was also simply smaller as a
chunk of the British Empire's economy at the time than it was as a
portion of America's. The British Crown had less to lose from the
abolition of slavery than white elites in an independent America did.
The revolutionaries understood this. Indeed, a desire to preserve
slavery helped fuel Southern support for the war. In 1775, after the war
Library of Congress ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DunmoresProclamation.jpg)
had begun in Massachusetts, the Earl of Dunmore, then governor of
Virginia, offered the slaves of rebels freedom if they came and fought
for the British cause. Eric Herschthal (
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/american_military_history/2013/11/battle_of_hampton_and_lord_dunmore_s_proclamation_how_fear_of_a_slave_revolt.single.html)
a PhD student in history at Columbia, notes that the proclamation
united white Virginians behind the rebel effort. He quotes Philip
Fithian, who was traveling through Virginia when the proclamation was
made, saying, "The Inhabitants of this Colony are deeply alarmed at
this infernal Scheme. It seems to quicken all in Revolution to
overpower him at any Risk." Anger at Dunmore's emancipation ran so
deep that Thomas Jefferson included it as a grievance (
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/american_military_history/2013/11/battle_of_hampton_and_lord_dunmore_s_proclamation_how_fear_of_a_slave_revolt.html)
in a draft of the Declaration of Independence. That's right: the
Declaration could've included "they're conscripting our slaves" as a
reason for independence.
For white slaveholders in the South, Simon Schama writes in Rough
Crossings (
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060539178/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?
pf_rd_p=1944687522&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-
1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1402206976&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1CHR7A89MV54ZR6QTKZ8)
his history of black loyalism during the Revolution, the war was "a
revolution, first and foremost, mobilized to protect slavery."
Slaves also understood that their odds of liberation were better under
British rule than independence. Over the course of the war, about
100,000 African slaves (
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2narr4.html) escaped, died, or
were killed, and tens of thousands enlisted in the British army, far
more than joined the rebels. "Black Americans' quest for liberty was
mostly tied to fighting for the British — the side in the War for
Independence that offered them freedom," historian Gary Nash writes
in The Forgotten Fifth ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Forgotten-
Fifth-Americans-Revolution/dp/0674021932/ref=pd_sim_14_1?
ie=UTF8&refRID=14WE20TFJGADTCJ8X65H), his history of African
Americans in the revolution. At the end of the war, thousands who
helped the British were evacuated (
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2narr4.html) to freedom in Nova
Scotia, Jamaica, and England.
This is not to say the British were motivated by a desire to help slaves;
of course they weren't. But American slaves chose a side in the
revolution, the side of the Crown. They were no fools. They knew that
independence meant more power for the plantation class that had
enslaved them and that a British victory offered far greater prospects
for freedom.
Independence was bad for Native Americans
Starting with the Proclamation of 1763, the British colonial
government placed firm limits on westward settlement in the United
States. It wasn't motivated by an altruistic desire to keep American
Indians from being subjugated or anything; it just wanted to avoid
border conflicts.
But all the same, the policy enraged American settlers, who were
appalled that the British would seem to side with Indians over white
men. "The British government remained willing to conceive of Native
Americans as subjects of the crown, similar to colonists," Ethan
Schmidt writes in Native Americans in the American Revolution (
https://books.google.com/books?
id=hQhvBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=american+revolution+bad+for+native+americans&source=bl&ots=E8klO5kLBm&sig=25zTWf36EhCYBgUazQMIdRzTiO0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HlWUVY-
LDcOy-
Pro-British Mohawk leader Joseph Brant.
AHI6oDgBQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=american%20revolution%20bad%20for%20native%20americans&f=false)
"American colonists … refused to see Indians as fellow subjects.
Instead, they viewed them as obstacles in the way of their dreams of
land ownership and trading wealth." This view is reflected in the
Declaration of Independence, which attacks King George III for
backing "merciless Indian Savages."
American independence made the Proclamation void here. It's not
void in Canada — indeed, there the 1763 Proclamation is viewed as a
George Romney ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joseph_Brant_painting_by_George_Romney_1776.jpg)
fundamental document providing rights to self-government to First
Nations tribes. It's mentioned explicitly in the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms (Canada's Bill of Rights), which protects "any
rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal
Proclamation of October 7, 1763" for all aboriginal people. Historian
Colin Calloway writes in The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 and the
Transformation of North America (
http://www.amazon.com/Scratch-Pen-Transformation-America-
American/dp/0195331273/) that the Proclamation "still forms the
basis for dealings between Canada's government and Canada's First
Nations."
WHEN A CAUSE IS OPPOSED BY THE TWO MOSTVULNERABLE GROUPS IN A SOCIETY, IT'SPROBABLY A BAD IDEA
And, unsurprisingly, Canada didn't see Indian wars and removals as
large and sweeping as occurred in the US (
http://alterdestiny.blogspot.com/2007/07/was-american-revolution-
bad-for-america.html). They still committed horrible, indefensible
crimes. Canada, under British rule and after, brutally mistreated
aboriginal people, not least through government-inflicted famines (
http://www.amazon.com/Clearing-Plains-Politics-Starvation-
Aboriginal/dp/0889773408) and the state's horrific seizure of children
from their families so they could attend residential schools. But the
country didn't experience a Westward expansion as violent and
deadly as that pursued by the US government and settlers. Absent
the revolution, Britain probably would've moved into Indian lands. But
fewer people would have died.
None of this is to minimize the extent of British and Canadian crimes
against Natives. "It's a hard case to make because even though I do
think Canada's treatment of Natives was better than the United
States, it was still terrible," the Canadian essayist Jeet Heer tells me in
an email (Heer has also written a great case against American
independence (
https://sanseverything.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/the-american-
revolution-a-mistake/)). "On the plus side for Canada: there were no
outright genocides like the Trail of Tears (aside from the Beothuks of
Newfoundland). The population statistics are telling: 1.4 million people
The Trail of TearsRobert Lindneux
of aboriginal descent in Canada as against 5.2 million in the USA. Given
the fact that America is far more hospitable as an environment and
has 10 times the non-aboriginal population, that's telling."
Independence also enabled acquisition of territory in the West
through the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican-American War. That
ensured that America's particularly rapacious brand of colonialism
ensnared yet more native peoples. And while Mexico and France were
no angels, what America brought was worse. Before the war, the
Apache and Comanche were in frequent violent conflict with the
Mexican government. But they were Mexican citizens. The US refused
to make them American citizens (
http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/war/wars_end_guadalupe.html)
for a century. And then, of course, it violently forced them into
reservations, killing many in the process.
American Indians would have still, in all likelihood, faced violence and
oppression absent American independence, just as First Nations
people in Canada did. But American-scale ethnic cleansing wouldn't
have occurred. And like America's slaves, American Indians knew this.
Most tribes sided with the British (
http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/american_indians.html)
or stayed neutral; only a small minority backed the rebels. Generally
speaking, when a cause is opposed by the two most vulnerable
groups in a society, it's probably a bad idea. So it is with the cause of
American independence.
America would have a better system of government ifwe'd stuck with Britain
Honestly, I think earlier abolition alone is enough to make the case
against the revolution, and it combined with less-horrible treatment of
American Indians is more than enough. But it's worth taking a second
to praise a less important but still significant consequence of the US
sticking with Britain: we would've, in all likelihood, become a
parliamentary democracy rather than a presidential one.
And parliamentary democracies are a lot, lot better than presidential
ones. They're significantly less likely to collapse into dictatorship (
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-
Canadian opposition leader Thomas Mulcair at Toronto Pride last weekend.Rick Madonik/Toronto Star via Getty Images
doomed) because they don't lead to irresolvable conflicts between,
say, the president and the legislature. They lead to much less gridlock.
In the US, activists wanting to put a price on carbon emissions spent
years trying to put together a coalition to make it happen, mobilizing
sympathetic businesses and philanthropists and attempting to make
bipartisan coalition — and they still failed to pass cap and trade, after
millions of dollars and man hours. In the UK, the Conservative
government decided it wanted a carbon tax. So there was a carbon
tax ( http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/24/carbon-tax-
electricity-bills-nuclear-windfall). Just like that. Passing big, necessary
legislation — in this case, legislation that's literally necessary to save
the planet — is a whole lot easier with parliaments than presidential
systems.
This is no trivial matter. Efficient passage of legislation has huge
humanitarian consequences. It makes measures of planetary
importance, like carbon taxes, easier to get through; they still face
political pushback, of course — Australia's tax got repealed, after all —
but they can be enacted in the first place, which is far harder in the US
system. And the efficiency of parliamentary systems enables larger
social welfare programs that reduce inequality and improve life for
poor citizens. Government spending in parliamentary countries is
about 5 percent of GDP higher ( http://q-
aps.princeton.edu/files/PresParlRed.pdf), after controlling for other
factors, than in presidential countries. If you believe in redistribution,
that's very good news indeed.
The Westminister system of parliamentary democracy also benefits
from weaker upper houses. The US is saddled with a Senate that gives
Wyoming the same power as California, which has over 66 times as
many people. Worse, the Senate is equal in power to the lower, more
representative house. Most countries following the British system
have upper houses — only New Zealand (
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/23/6831777/new-zealand-electoral-
system-constitution-mixed-member-unicameral) was wise enough to
abolish it — but they're far, far weaker than their lower houses. The
Canadian Senate and the House of Lords affect legislation only in rare
cases. At most, they can hold things up a bit or force minor tweaks.
They aren't capable of obstruction anywhere near the level of the US
Senate.
Michaëlle Jean, Queen Elizabeth II's former representative in Canada, who once ate a raw seal'sSophia Paris/MINUSTAH via Getty Images
Finally, we'd still likely be a monarchy, under the rule of Elizabeth II,
and constitutional monarchy is the best system of government known
to man. Generally speaking, in a parliamentary system, you need a
head of state who is not the prime minister to serve as a disinterested
arbiter when there are disputes about how to form a government —
say, if the largest party should be allowed to form a minority
government or if smaller parties should be allowed to form a coalition,
to name a recent example from Canada (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute)
That head of state is usually a figurehead president elected by the
parliament (Germany, Italy) or the people (Ireland, Finland), or a
monarch. And monarchs are better (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/23/shut-
up-royal-baby-haters-monarchy-is-awesome/).
Monarchs are more effective than presidents precisely because they
lack any semblance of legitimacy. It would be offensive for Queen
Elizabeth or her representatives in Canada, New Zealand, etc. to
meddle in domestic politics. Indeed, when the Governor-General of
Australia did so in 1975 it set off a constitutional crisis (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)
that made it clear such behavior would not be tolerated. But
figurehead presidents have some degree of democratic legitimacy
and are typically former politicians. That enables a greater rate of
shenanigans — like when Italian president Giorgio Napolitano
schemed, successfully, to remove Silvio Berlusconi as prime minister (
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203391104577124480046463576)
due at least in part to German chancellor Angela Merkel's entreaties
to do so.
heart ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/governor-general-applauded-denounced-for-eating-raw-seal/article4292531/). I'm a vegetarian and even I think that's badass.
Was this article helpful?
Napolitano is the rule, rather than the exception. Oxford political
scientists Petra Schleiter and Edward Morgan-Jones have found (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/23/shut-
up-royal-baby-haters-monarchy-is-awesome/) that presidents,
whether elected indirectly by parliament or directly by the people, are
likelier to allow governments to change without new elections than
monarchs are. In other words, they're likelier to change the
government without any democratic input at all. Monarchy is, perhaps
paradoxically, the more democratic option.
Vox Featured Video
In this StoryStream
Dylan's Xanga
Next UpColorado offered free birth control — and teen abortions fell by 42 percent
The case for a United States of Europe
Oregon's Teacher of the Year spoke openly about being gay — and then he was fired
Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media's 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary
Greece's debt crisis: Was the eurozone bluffing?
The case for taking away some people's right to drink
11:46A
The case for a United States of Europe
JUL 2
3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake
JUL 1
Vox Sentences: Greek leader Alexis Tsipras offers lenders a deal he's urging voters to reject
381 updates
Powered by for you
You May Also Like
Learn more
This paragraphshould leave nodoubt that the CivilWar was aboutslavery
3 maps thatexplain America
140 years ofEurope's changingpopulation,mapped
4 Billionaires Say:Big ChangeComing in U.S.AStansberry Research
Sponsored