The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > Conflict posts > Civil War

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-01-2003, 06:29 AM
Tamaroa's Avatar
Tamaroa Tamaroa is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Lower New York State
Posts: 635
Distinctions
Contributor 
Post Our American Revolution was Rebellion

Mike,

A close look at our American Revolution will reveal that it was nothing more than a rebellion. Our traitorous forbears became patriots solely because they won the struggle. And as always the victor writes the history. Many years ago as a Senior in College, my history professor gave us an exam. the question was"Explain why you think the American Revolution was justified?" Well I didn't think it was and told him so. He said if that's the tact you want to take, back it up. Well I was the only student in the class that went in that direction. I must have done a fairly good job because I wound up with a B+ for the test and an A for the course.

Many of the reasons that are listed in today's text books are excuses for rebellion, NOT reasons for Revolution. It has been 29 years since I took that course but as I recall, some of my reasons were as follows:

The Boston Tea Party:

was supposedly a rebellion against taxes imposed on the colonists. Instead of destroying government stock, they destroyed private property.

The Gaspee Incident:

A British sloop of war was peacefully at anchor in a British colony when it was boarded and burned by rebellious colonists.

The Boston Massacre:

Tired British soldiers were just returning from a long scout when they were accousted by rabble rousers who began throwing rocks, etc at them. If you were one of those British troops, would you just stand there and be attacked?

Taxes:

The American colonies relative to the other British colonies had the least amount of taxes imposed upon them. Therefore they did not have a gripe vis-avis the other British colonies scattered throughout the world.

Wealth of the Colonies:

Charles A. and Mary Beard wrote a book entitled "An Economic Intrepretation of the American Revolution." Their theory was that the wealthy land owners wanted the rebellion to keep their money in the Americas. It is true that some of the colonists such as Paul Revere (a silver smith) were not wealthy landowners. the vast majority of the agitators were southern land owning colonists who had a good thing going.

Did they really want freedom and equality?

We all know that "We the people" mean white land owning males. "All men are created equal" was bunk. It took 625K deaths 80 years later to settle that issue.

No taxation without representation:

While this may have been an issue, it is a fact that the King appointed people to represent the colonists and even they recognized it was not an elected representative. During the Revolution, England tried to set up a meeting to resolve some of these issues. The Colonists disregarded the attempt.

I can't remember them all, Mike, but these were some of the issues, I brought up in my paper. My professor was very strict about backing up assertions with facts. Even though I got only a B+ on the test, I feel I made my point and he commented "good job" on the test.

The difference between revolution and rebellion (Secession?) is a very thin line. Lincoln's oft used quote sanctioning Texas's removal from Mexico is given as an example of revolution because allegedly, the yoke of an old form of tyrannical government was thrown off to introduce a new enlightened form of government. Well again, bunk!! Texicans were upset because the Mexican government expected the Americans to live by the agreements that they had made. In other words to practice the Catholic faith and to develop the land that they were given. The Americans decided not to follow the rules of the game at a later date and thus was born the Republic of Texas.

Was the situation in the south rebellion or revolution? Did the south have to throw off the yoke of a tyrannical government in order to function better. These questions are still open to interpretation. I maintain that comparing the Civil War to the Revolution is a dangerous thing to do because in reality the only thing that turned us from traitors to patriots was victory. What of the tories that remained loyal to the King? What happened to them. They who remained loyal, which in my opinion they should have done, were driven from this land and they lost everything.

Another angle to look at it would be from the U.S. government's view after the Civil War. It is rather interesting that not one person was tried for treason, is it not. Yes, Davis was imprisoned and Lee and Davis were indicted. However, none of them were brought to trial. That was for a simple reason. Suppose they had been found innocent? Then the whole war and the deaths of 625K men would have been invalidated. secession would have triumphed.

So better to let the issues go away and say it was the proper thing to do to aid the healing of the nation. Scholars far better trained than we will be arguing these points for many more decades. I doubt if there will ever be agreement as long a there are those who believe in a strong central government and those who believe that power should reside in the states. To quote the 10th amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

That one sentence will be argued forever and ever as the justification for the war.

Bill
__________________
"Zounds! I was never so bethumped with words."

King John 2.1.466
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 09-01-2003, 07:05 AM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Bill -
I had never once thought of it that way... I confess that at times the heretical idea has come into my mind that had I been a colonial in the mid-1700s, I might just have been considered a "Loyalist" (cripes, I hope some of our more partisan patriots don't see this). So, your expression of our revolution having been actually mmore of a rebellion resonates well with personal inclinations, but what does it then say about the fervor with which that war was fought for high and noble freedoms...

On the other hand, I am today a "Loyalist" too, i.e. faithful as possible to defense of the existing system and very wary of proposals to pitch it out... no matter how poorly it is functioning. I just do not, not, not believe that war, death, carnage, destruction ever solves the thing it set out to change. It seems, forgive me, so useless barbaric when there are so many better alternatives... but then it being also a "business" pretty much puts the method over the top, No?

Such detailed sourcing in your post... I sure wish it was you who were writing our school books. Any chance of that?

Back to my just previous post though, if you can stand it...

Who might have been a more effective and successful first president of the Confederacy?
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-01-2003, 05:51 PM
Tamaroa's Avatar
Tamaroa Tamaroa is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Lower New York State
Posts: 635
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default Hmmmm......

Mike, I would still have to go with Davis. The more prominent southern politicians of the time were John Bell of the 1860 Presidential election along with Breckenridge, Robert Toombs, Alexander Stephans and Davis. One might also include Virginia governor Letcher or possibly James Kemper a Confederate General with political aspirations.

They all were able politicians but the thing that separates Davis from the crowd was his service as Secretary of War in the 1850's. He was also a West Point graduate and a Mexican war hero. Davis in my opinion was the only logical choice. However, he himself wanted to be a general in the army. He was elected President of the provisional government of the Confederate States without even running for the office. In fact, the election stunned him. He was tending his rose garden at his plantation when a rider approached and gave him the news. there is no question that Lincoln was a better president. In today's terms, Lincoln thought outside the box. Davis while knowledgeable and able was also a bit rigid in his thought.

His service as Secretary of war was one of the reasons why the radical republicans wanted to charge him with treason. they reasoned that while he was secretary of war, he was secretly planning for contingencies such as the placement of arms and armories in strategic areas. Simply put, Davis was the best most qualified man for the job in the Confederacy. He probably could have done a better job if he was not so loyal to some of his friends who also turned out to be crappy generals (Bragg comes to mind here); and if he ironically had a stronger central government, he could have twisted the states arms for more men and material.

Regards,

Bill
__________________
"Zounds! I was never so bethumped with words."

King John 2.1.466
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-01-2003, 08:44 PM
Keith_Hixson's Avatar
Keith_Hixson Keith_Hixson is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Washington, the state
Posts: 5,022
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Post That is the irony of the Civil War. . . .

Those against a strong central government were defeated because they didn't have a strong central government.

Great War Machines take a strong Central Government.

Keith
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-02-2003, 05:05 AM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Keith -

Gotta admit there can be NO doubt about that... which is one reason I become nervous when ours appears to fritter away homeland security in favor of nation building...
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Civil War 1CAVCCO15MED Vietnam 4 02-07-2005 09:46 AM
Is that Civil Service or Civil Serve-Us? colmurph General Posts 19 01-27-2004 01:17 AM
Civil War usmcsgt65 Civil War 1 11-02-2003 06:34 PM
Cause of the Civil War bigblackbravo General Posts 34 06-13-2003 10:11 PM
Danny Glover's "Civil War Journal" vs. Ken Burns "Civil War" Tamaroa Civil War 20 10-20-2002 02:31 PM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.