On the Revolutionary War

Recently I have been reading an interesting book called The American and French Revolutions Compared by Friedrich von Gentz. Von Gentz has a good summary of the American Revolution (I have not yet reached the French section yet, but hope to soon). Following are a summary of the things he says (with my comments)

Von Gentz: The American Revolution was far better and more justified than the French Revolution.

My comment: I completely agree. The French Revolution had no reason or sense to it, and went far too far in its push for “reforms”. The American Revolutionaries, in large part, attempted reconciliation before fighting for independence.

Von Gentz (VG): The American Revolution began as a result of multiple factors. The first was the fact that Britain taxed America. Now, this would not be a big deal normally (all the other provinces were taxed), but Britain had a monopoly of trade with America. This restricted trade hindered the growth of businesses in America, which hurt the economy. Second, America had no representation in Congress. If America had representation, then they would be considered as another part of England, thus promoted from colonial status (remember “No taxation without representation”). In addition to these major reasons are many other reasons, such as the decrease in dependability on England after the French-Indian war (which pushed France out of North America, thus securing Britain as the major power in America), the influence of the Sons of Liberty, and the insistence on taxing goods coming into American ports (the British could just as easily tax the same goods LEAVING British ports but stubbornly refused to do so, even though it would be easier and more profitable).

My comment: Nothing to say here, Von Gentz is pretty straightforward.

VG: The British started the war, not the Americans. Here are the following proofs:

1.       The British began to tax the Americans and could have taken away the tax when they saw the huge opposition to it. They stubbornly continued to stir the pot of rebellion.

2.       The Americans attempted reconciliation, even promising to pay the tax if they were considered part of Britain and no longer a territory.

3.       The British attacked first, and the Americans were defending themselves.

My comment: I agree mostly with Von Gentz. I do agree that the British did much to arouse the Americans, but the Americans did much to arouse the British as well (remember the Boston Tea Party?). Of course, British replies to American aggression were extremely harsh and uncalled for, so even when America did not help keep the peace, the British did nothing to reconcile.

VG: America did not do anything unconstitutional (according to the British constitution) because the British in essence dissolved the constitution for America by breaking rules and refusing American attempts at reconciliation, so America creating their own Constitution and government was allowed and did not break any constitutional laws.

My comment: An intriguing thing to say. I would have to take a look at Britain’s old constitution before I made any final position, but I do think it is an interesting point.

Von Gentz says a lot more, but instead of recounting what he says here, why don’t you read it yourself? You can download a free pdf file of The American and French Revolutions Compared...somewhere. I can’t remember where I found it so you’ll have to find it yourself.

Have fun reading it, if you get a chance!

Casey