« Revolutionary Characters | Main | It is also Gerard Debreu's birthday »
Would I have supported the American Revolution?
These modal questions are tricky. Which "Tyler" is doing the choosing? (If I were an elephant, would pink be my favorite color? Living in 1773, have I at least still read Jonathan Swift? Would a modern teenage Thomas Jefferson have a crush on Veronica Mars?)
But think about it, wasn't it more than a wee bit whacky? "Let's cut free of the British Empire, the most successful society the world had seen to date, and go it alone against the French, the Spanish, and the Indians." [TC: they all seemed more formidable at the time than subsequently]
Taxes weren't that high, especially by modern standards. The British got rid of slavery before we did. Might I have concluded the revolution was a bunch of rent-seekers trying to capture the governmental surplus for themselves?
Or would I have been swept up by love of liberty and love of ideas and the desire for adventure...?
Or would I have estimated the long-run political equilibrium and tried to calculate when would be the optimal time for a break, in which case 1776 seemed just about right, so as to capture the intellectual Enlightenment at its peak...
Those guys expected a re-flowering of Periclean Athens; few of them were or would have been ready for the subsequent levels of 19th century alcoholism, partisan political bickering, or the later cult of Princess Diana. What would I have expected?
What would James Madison expect today? And would he find a TV show worth watching?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 4, 2006 at 07:13 AM in History | Permalink
Comments
Those of us not indoctrinated about The Founders from childhood might be inclined to think that Geo. Washington was indeed a great man but that the rest were a bunch of scoundrels.
Posted by: dearieme at Jul 4, 2006 9:42:47 AM
dearieme,
As one might guess, despite his faults (including his proclivity towards monarchy), I am rather partial to Alexander Hamilton. Madison isn't half bad, either.
Prof Cowen,
I don't know if I would have chosen, but I would like to believe that I would have. And have been on the side of the early abolitionists. And so on.
hamilton
PS- In recognition of the silly musical:
"We've spawned a new race here, Mr. Dickinson. Rougher, simpler; more violent, more enterprising; less refined. We're a new nationality. We require a new nation."
-Ben Franklin, 1776
Posted by: hamilton at Jul 4, 2006 11:38:59 AM
It has always seemed to me that the it was fantastically unlikely that things would go as well as they did. As such, I tend to condemn their decision to rebel but to be astonished and awed by their ability to pull it off and not screw up afterwords like so many revolutionaries.
Posted by: michael vassar at Jul 4, 2006 11:46:45 AM
About twenty-five years ago I was posted in England. My wife and I had both English friends and American friends. One of our American friends showed us the abstract on the house they owned; it dated well into the early eighteenth century. On one document was a tax paid on the sale of the house; it amounted to some 25% of the value of the sale. When I told an English friend about what I'd been shown he said, "Ah. That was the Stamp Tax. That's what you Americans rebelled over."
Posted by: George at Jul 4, 2006 11:58:33 AM
A quick google finds " In 1766, the British parliament repealed the Stamp Tax".
Posted by: dearieme at Jul 4, 2006 12:48:04 PM
And further "In 1765 a Stamp Tax was enacted." So it lasted ca. one year. Try again, boys.
Posted by: dearieme at Jul 4, 2006 12:49:26 PM
Rather wacky, and a poetic beginning for a nation whose temperament is characterized as
much by cussedness as anything else.
Dearie: Tell me great things about Washington. My impression is that he was a great leader;
the great ideas seem to have come from Jefferson and Madison, though, don't they? (Except,
of course, to the extent that they came from Locke, etc.)
Posted by: Dean at Jul 4, 2006 1:31:53 PM
When you put it that way, I KNOW I wouldn't have supported it. I'm so risk-averse, and want to keep the peace, that those radicals would've scared the crap out of me. It seemed hopeless, you say? Does that mean things aren't so bad in Iraq?
Posted by: Jason Voorhees at Jul 4, 2006 1:37:27 PM
Dearieme,
I would definitely have to disagree with you. I find Jefferson and Madison to be the best of the group.
Posted by: DSC at Jul 4, 2006 2:24:16 PM
I suspect that I would have supported it. And, been surprised when it succeeded. The Defeatist ideology is to care passionately while expecting no good result from the effort.
I also suspect that Periclean Athens wasn't all it was held up to be. There's a lot of devolution involved in progress...
Posted by: Crusader AXE of the Lost Causes at Jul 4, 2006 2:35:23 PM
I would hope I would have been like Patrick Henry: fiercely support 1776, fiercely oppose 1789.
- Josh
Posted by: Wild Pegasus at Jul 4, 2006 2:57:53 PM
Read the Declaration of Independence. It's a compelling document.
Posted by: Fred at Jul 4, 2006 3:16:22 PM
I suspect I would be, with Michael Vassar, astonished at its success, probably expecting something more like what the French came up with 13 years later. I think I either would have opposed it or just tried to keep my head down. It is, as Tyler acknowledges, hard to know.
I'm absolutely certain, though, that a modern young Jefferson would have a crush on Veronica Mars.
Posted by: Steven Jens at Jul 4, 2006 3:44:48 PM
"Scoundrels" is wildly wrong as a description of the other founders, but surely Washington was the one who made it a success, as general and president.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Jul 4, 2006 4:02:39 PM
The advantages of the British Empire weren't that obvious. After all, just 25 years earlier the empire basically consisted of the thirteen colonies,plus Gibraltar and a few islands in the Caribbean.
Posted by: Bill at Jul 4, 2006 4:06:26 PM
What a great question and thanks for this refreshing post! Jefferson and Maddison were terrific leaders and yet I cannot see any place in our history where we have given peace a chance. I am speaking of the kind of active peace plans that require great diplomats and people who are gifted to lead a nation in ways others than war. Great discussion here -- maybe that's the best start....
Posted by: Ellen Weber at Jul 4, 2006 4:13:54 PM
The question I repeatedly find myself asking about the revolution isn't "Would I have supported it?" but "Was it worth it?". The answer I usually come up with is "It wasn't worth it for us, but it was worth it as an example for the rest of the world".
As for whether I would support it, I mostly choose my positions based on finding the worst local scoundrels, and opposing them. Not much gets taught in grade schools about the quality of the Tories in the colonies, and all that gets told about the British boils down to "George the Third was going mad, taxes were kind of high, and they were attempting to keep us mostly agrarian". The last of those is the worst, but I don't know if it would be enough to convince me to rebel.
Posted by: Dave at Jul 4, 2006 4:26:45 PM
I thought the founders were more fond of the Roman Republic than the Athenian democracy.
As for whether I would be in favor, I am pretty much always in favor of secession, and that is what it really was rather than a "revolution" (like the French or Russian) or "civil war" (like the Spanish).
Posted by: TGGP at Jul 4, 2006 4:39:52 PM
I think that, rather than wonder about what we would have thought of Washington and Adams 230 years ago, it might be more useful to consider what they would think of us now.
Posted by: Zathras at Jul 4, 2006 4:45:21 PM
My favorite Washington anecdote: When the British drummer appeared on the parapet at Yorktown with the officer waving the white flag, the Colonial ranks went wild with cheers. Washington rode up and down the Continental lines silencing the men, shouting, "History will huzzah for us!"
The man had style.
And some 225 years later: Huzzah for you, big guy. We owe you more than most of us understand.
Posted by: Don at Jul 4, 2006 4:47:47 PM
Harry Turtledove did an alt-hist novel called "The Two Georges" in which Washington cuts a deal with the British and secures greater, but not total, independence for the American colonies in exchange for remaining part of the empire. The novel is set in the mid 1990s of that alternate world. Interesting stuff.
Posted by: asg at Jul 4, 2006 6:18:27 PM
I actually think that while the founders would have a lot to criticise about us now, they would still be proud. They certainly felt in their hearts that this American experiment would be worth comething, and would change the world, but actually seeing it would bring them great joy. Just think of how many people now enjoy the fruits of liberty, and they're the ones who got the ball rolling.
Posted by: Sameer Parekh at Jul 4, 2006 7:34:49 PM
I think the answer is probably dependent on whether or not you (or I) were victim of the many British mistreatments. The grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence are not theoretical wrongs.
Posted by: Chris at Jul 4, 2006 11:51:08 PM
"Those guys expected a re-flowering of Periclean Athens."
Not true of Franklin, Hamilton, or Adams, who were thoroughly familiar with mobocracy.
The Founders were mostly lawyers, ready to cut a deal if they could. Franklin in particular was a big fan of the British Empire, which proceeded to turn on him. The British were badly led, and refused to make governance adjustments reflecting the colonists' rising power. Washington and many contemporaries felt that British policy forced them into war.
Posted by: Mark Shroder at Jul 5, 2006 10:36:48 AM
"I find Jefferson and Madison to be the best of the group."
Little bitches though they were ....
Posted by: Anderson at Jul 5, 2006 11:05:44 AM
