Notes from our History Part 2: Risking Enslavement

The Colonists described the status quo and their position in it as "Risking Enslavement." Before you roll your eyes at the colonists for being melodramatic remember this: many of them were slave owners, or, by a different name, engine of wealth owners. Engine of wealth owners made their living by driving their engines of wealth as efficiently as possible and not by making them happy.

The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Towneshend Acts of 1767 really can be seen as what the claimed to be, taxes. Any government is going to need some taxes and anyone who denies this is an idiot. There is debate about how much to tax as well as what to tax but their will be some taxes no matter what. The Tea Act of 1773 however, crossed the line.

The British East India Company wasn't entirely separate from the British government as both drew from the aristocracy for their top positions. Rampant nepotism at the British East India Company led to mismanagement and in 1773 they were hurting bad financially. The solution they came up with was to get rid of a bunch of tea that was sitting rotting in warehouses they couldn't sell on the open market by getting Parliament to bail them out by giving them a monopoly in the American tea market. The tea was to be sold cheap (the quality of the tea is disputed, some say it was better than the tea the colonists were already getting and others say it was crap since it had been rotting in warehouses. Since they couldn't sell it on the open market, even at a discount, I suspect the latter) and no other tea could be imported to satisfy the tea addiction of the colonists.

Although the Crown would get some money from import taxes it was quite clear the purpose of the Act was to separate the colonists from their money for the benefit of one of the world's first corporations. While not quite the same as a highway stick up the distinction between the two is thin at best. We all know that a few radicals threw some tea into Boston Harbor and this is where things start to come together.

The Crown then demanded the tea be paid for by the Colony of Massachusetts and to this end enacted the Coercive Acts (called the Intolerable Acts on this side of the pond) to punish the colony until they paid for the tea. The Acts closed the Port of Boston, (which the colony economy depended on for both business and shipping food so they didn't starve) dissolved the colony legislature and local legislatures and even the right to assemble. It made the Governorship directly appointed by the King and all important positions appointed by the governor. Any British officials accused of a crime would be tried in England to side step the colonial legal system and British troops were quartered in peoples homes (a punitive measure of the day.) In effect, Massachusetts had its democracy striped for the actions of a few individuals. The colonists lost all legal recourse in one fell swoop. Theoretical fears of "risking enslavement" had just become reality.


What this means for us today:
When the Government makes the paradigm shift and sees a populace of engines, political recourse for the people becomes a burden, they start looking for ways to limit or eliminate accountability. Without accountability the Government is free to run on fiat. Look at the healthcare bill, the politicians for it went on and on about how they were nobly giving the American people what they wanted. Only the majority was against it, only 40% of Americans supported the bill while 49% hated it. The majority started screaming at the top of their lunges and got bushed off with a "don't listen to them, they asked for it" mentality.

This is where the present departs from history, because unlike the colonists we still have democracy to rectify the situation. We need to send a strong message to the Government that disregarding us will not be tolerated. Because as long as they think they can get away with it they just keep pushing it, like Parliament did in 1774.

Notes from our History, the mini-series.

America is undergoing a huge transformation. There is no denying this but what the end result will be remains unclear. I can't even say if its going to the right or to the left at this point. Clearly the Democrats in power have switched from the old American Democrat platform to the Social Democrat platform that dominates Europe today. The Social Democrat ideology is to bring sweeping social programs to the populace through legislative reform, (As opposed to its cousins Communism and National Socialism which seek to bring sweeping social change through violent revolution.) As a result we are seeing for the first time mass grassroots mobilization of the normally passive Conservative movement. In the coming years we may see a backlash against the (Social) Democrats so severe as to send America careening to the right. It's just too soon to tell.

In times of uncertainty I look back to history for guidance from a similar situation. While I am a very tiny cog in society (really more like a nanocog) and have no more ability to change the flow of history than a pine needle can alter the tides I want to share with you what I got from my field trip to the past.

From 1765-1775 America stood at a crossroads as well. The new changes didn't begin to solidify really until 1783-1789. Starting in 1765 the British government started reversing their long-stand policy of salutary neglect of the American Colonies by adding taxes and taking more control. Up until that fateful morning of April 19th 1775 all indicators were that the North American colonies (including Canada) were about to be brought under the firm control of the Crown. We all know this was reversed when the colonists started shooting but the lead up is the interesting part.

Next time: Notes from our History Part 1: Engines of Wealth

Napoleon, the Bastile and the Pachyderm Part 3

The colonists revolted when their fears of virtual enslavement came true in Boston in 1774 and 1775. Ironically, the efforts of the Crown to isolate the radicals in Boston from the rest of the colonies and quash rebellious sentiment had the direct effect of uniting the squabbling colonies and igniting the War. Let’s review the main reasons the American subjects felt they were being enslaved.

First, they lost the right to have a say in government. Their petitions for redress of grievances were simply ignored by Parliament and the King. This made it possible for the Government to be abusive and left no way for the colonists to try to fix the situation but violence; hence the Boston Tea Party.

Second, the Government striped several rights in response to the Boston Tea Party via the Intolerable Acts. Essentially the Crown put an end to democracy in Massachusetts with the Massachusetts Government Act. With the Administration of Justice Act they destroyed the rule of law by giving royal officials de facto immunity in all the colonies. The Boston Port Act stopped commerce in Massachusetts and threatened to create a man-made famine in the colony due to its reliance on the Port of Boston for food shipments. The Quartering Act was used as a punitive measure against the population at large, (the French pioneered this tactic against the Huguenots in the 17th century.)

Third, the Government tried to disarm the populace. Men between the ages of 17 and about 45 were required by law to serve in the militia. With their democracy and rights as Englishmen trampled all over by the Crown the colonists started stockpiling munitions in the town of Concord. Disarming a populace is one of the most important criteria to enslaving it-just ask Apartheid South Africa for one.

You can see these concerns clearly in the Bill of Rights. Right to redress grievances with the Government is in the 1st Amendment along with the right to assemble. The Government quartering troops in houses in a time of peace is prohibited under the 3rd Amendment. Right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment and to show its importance to the founders I have a quote from one of them

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the
peoples' liberty's teeth" - George Washington

What all of this has to do with a plaster elephant, I am sure you are wondering, is that it is important to remember why, exactly why, our forefathers uprose, what tyranny was to them. The over quoted “no taxation without representation”-which is on the DC license plates-doesn’t do a very good job of telling the story. It was not for abstract philosophical principals that the founders threw off the Crown but over a long series of abuses and ignited by specific actions to snuff out freedom in America in 1774 and 1775

Napoleon, the Bastile and the Pachyderm Part 2

As the second of my three part series on the American Revolution we will pick up where we left off at the Boston Tea Party. December 16, 1773 the Sons of Liberty thinly disguised as indians stormed the tea baring ships Dartmouth, Beaver and Eleanour and dumped 90,000 pounds of tea in 342 caskets worth £10,000 ($1.87 million in 2007 USD) into Boston Harbor. Already seeing Boston as the home of a few malcontents responsible for the trouble this act led the Crown to take harsh action to isolate the revolt. Believing they could contain the radicals and make an example of them the instituted what was known as the Intolerable Acts. They were as follows:

The Boston Port Act: Port of Boston closed until both the Crown and the East India Company had been repaid for the lost tea.

The Massachusetts Government Act: Made most positions in the Government of the Colony appointees of the Crown or Governor and limited Town meetings to once a year.

The Administration of Justice Act: Allowed the Governor of Massachusetts to move the trials of royal officials he felt would not get a fair trail to other colonies or to Great Britain.

The Quartering Act: Applied to all colonies and allowed the Governor to quarter British troops in homes.

These harsh punishments on the entire colony for the actions of a few radicals alienated the population and galvanised pan-colonial unity. All across the colonies people came together to send aid as they realized that on the whims of the Crown they too could have their democracy abolished, their livelihoods ruined and be occupied in their homes (Boston, population 18,000 had 4,000 redcoats living in people's homes, hence the 3rd Amendment.)

Already they had lost the ability to redress grievances with the Government and taken a first step towards enslavement. Now, with their local democracy gone, the right to assemble gone, their source of income and food supply shut down and agents of the government forcibly living in their homes the people of Boston had gone from risking enslavement to actual enslavement. They had only one right left, one means of maintaining freedom and on the early morning of the 19th of April 1775.

At Lexington and later Concord local militia clashed with British regulars as they tried to seize militia weapons and ammunition and arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams. When the government sought to finally crush the liberty of the colonists they tried to seize their weapons and that, was the last straw. Petitions, non-importation/consumption agreements and rioting finally bloomed into rebellion when the colonists were down to their last option being threatened.

Napoleon, the Bastile and the Pachyderm Part 1

Paris, 1812, Napoleon erected a plaster statue of elephant over the site of Bastile so people would forget the events there on the 14th of July 1789 and keep risk of revolution against his own tyranny low. Originally it was to be plated in bronze and be quite elaborate but because of budget reasons and Napoleon's defeat and surrender in the War of the Sixth Coalition it was left as only plaster.



















We just finished going over the American Revolution in my History 390r class in some detail and would like to share a brief overview in three Parts of the events that led up to the War and, more importantly, why. First I'll talk about the Tea Act, then the Boston Tea Party. Second will be the Intolerable Acts followed by the fighting at Lexington and Concord, MA. Finally I will summarise the why of the revolution, we must not be fooled by a plaster elephant.

The Tea Act of 1773, unlike so many other acts of Parliament that raised the ire of the colonists was not a tax and was not intended to raise money. In fact, it provided significantly cheaper tea to the colonists. The reason behind it was the East India Company, a royally sanctioned monopoly, was in deep trouble financially and had lots of low quality tea rotting in warehouses in England. Colonists were already forbidden to import from non-British sources so forbidding them to import tea from anyone but the East India Company seemed simple enough. Now the colonists would have cheap tea in abundance and would be paying the Townshend Duties on the tea, making good subjects out of the rebellious colonists in the process.

This was repugnant to the Patriots for several reasons. First, it was directly undermining the attempts at non-importation and non-consumption of English goods agreements that they had been trying to put in place to deal with the British Government, since they were ignored when they sent letters to Parliament and the Crown. Which leads me to the next point, no one consulted the colonists as to how they felt about the idea, the Tea Act was simply a fiat as far as the colonies were concerned. Third, it was really bad, rotting tea they couldn’t sell in England, America was simply a dumping ground for what wasn’t good enough for real Englishmen. Fourth, they were being used simply as an engine of wealth for the East India Company.

The above played into the sentiment that, in their own words, they were “risking enslavement” from the Crown. Funny words coming from slave owners but what they were getting at wasn’t being chained up to pick cotton but something more complicated. Slaves are merely engines of wealth to their owners, you don’t argue about vacation days with your slaves, you use them to best maximize profit. Feedback and appeal had already been cut off by the Crown, a first sign of slavery. Next the Government spent its time thinking how best to exploit the colonies and wouldn’t even take complaints! They responded like slaves would, first trying to degrade their value as engines of wealth by these non-importation and non-consumption agreements. Now they were being slapped in the face on several fronts and combine this, the Sons of Liberty, alcohol and Indian garb and you get-The Boston Tea Party.