File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2000/anarchy-list.0004, message 233


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005