From: "Dave Coull" <dave.coull-AT-organise.ezesurf.co.uk> Subject: Re: Punk Ass Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:52:39 +0100 Carpo wrote >The "cynical" reasons had nothing to do with >an opposition to slavery in principle, but was rather >an attempt to remove "property" from the rebellious colonials. Yes, of course that was the primary _tactical_ reason for the British government's actions. But there was also a secondary propoganda reason. They knew that there was growing opposition to slavery amongst the British public and amongst "progressive" opinion internationally, an opposition which would lead to abolition of the slave trade throughout the British Empire early in the Nineteenth Century, and to abolition of slavery itself long before this happened in the USA. >Slavery was completely accptable to a great many monarchists >but republican democracy was a complete anathema to them It really wasn't as black-and-white an issue as you make out. During the Eighteenth Century it was quite common in England to refer to the country as a "republic", meaning a "democracy". Of course it wasn't really a democracy as we would understand the word today, but then, neither was the USA. Certainly, countries like France and Spain and most of the countries on the continent of Europe regarded Britain, a country in which power had already been largely transferred from the monarch to the parliament, as having a "republican" constitution. No, they didn't use the term "republic" as we use it either. When the thirteen American colonies broke away, that was not a "revolution", for the simple reason that the same regime continued in power in all thirteen states. The House of Burgesses continued to rule in Virginia, for instance. All that happened was that the largely ceremonial top tier of government, the Royal Governor, was deposed. So even though the British army could win battles, in such a big country winning battles wasn't enough. As soon as the British army moved on, the status quo, rule by the Assembly or House of Burgesses or whatever they called it in that state, just re-asserted itself. In France, by 1789, intellectuals had been talking about the possibility of Revolution for 30 years or more. So when the news came that a mob had stormed the Bastille, there was no doubt in anybody's mind what had happened : it was The Revolution. When King Louis the Sixteenth heard about the storming of the Bastille, he said "C'est un revolte" (meaning, it's a rebellion) to which the courtier who had brought him the news replied " Non, sire, c'est une revolution ". But there was nothing like that in the USA. There was no storming of palaces by the great unwashed. Civil government continued, taxes were collected, lawbreakers were punished. Aristocratic families like the Washingtons continued to hold power in Virginia, and (if I remember correctly) the first seven Presidents of the USA were all from Virginia. Now, I accept that it is possible to be "radical" and be completely wrong. But I was commenting on what Punk Ass had written to the anarchy-list. and if you look at what he wrote, there is no question that he intended the term "radical" to be complimentary. Punk Ass wrote >>this country was formed by a group of Radicals And, in the complimentary sense in which Punk Ass was clearly using the term, I commented "No it wasn't". Dave
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005