tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15447402.post115204471716531348..comments2023-09-18T02:20:14.674-07:00Comments on Pith and Substance: Legitimacy, Revolution and Loyalist Thoughts on the 4th of JulyPithLordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03856231065567376894noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15447402.post-1152137939423372222006-07-05T15:18:00.000-07:002006-07-05T15:18:00.000-07:00No, I haven't read it, but the general idea that o...No, I haven't read it, but the general idea that our side (in my family's case, the Loyalists) were better on slavery, is part of our conventional wisdom. Mind you, Simon Schama's new book shows how shabbily the black loyalists were treated.<BR/><BR/>I have no doubt that the Crown handled the whole crisis and the legitimate aspirations of the colonists very badly. It seems like all the reasonable people in eighteenth cetury Britain were saying so at the time, and it was left to the NRO/Michelle Malkin types to actually support London's reaction. The sheer stupidity necessary to unite New England Puritans and Virginia gentlemen in a common cause was remarkable: no one seems to have managed since, other than Tojo and (for a few months) bin Laden.PithLordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03856231065567376894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15447402.post-1152104729254185172006-07-05T06:05:00.000-07:002006-07-05T06:05:00.000-07:00Have you read Slave Nation? The authors plausibly ...Have you read <A HREF="http://www.slavenation.us" REL="nofollow">Slave Nation</A>? The authors plausibly argue that many revolutionsists were motivated to prevent Lord Mansfield's decision in Somersett v. Stewart, 98 Eng. Rep. 499 (K.B. 1772), from being applied in the colonies.<BR/><BR/>I'm confident, though, that most of my ancestors who participated in the Revolution -- nearly all from Connecticut or Massachusetts -- did so because they felt that their provincial governments/institutions were more legitimate than the royal government. The passage of the Massachusetts Government Act (14 Geo. III c. 45) was a gross overreaction, undermined legitimacy and was, in a word, intolerable.<BR/><BR/>I'm a whole lot less sympathetic to complaints about the Quebec Act and the Proclamation of 1763, using modern standards of morality. Still, if one postulates an alternate future where the Proclamation held, North American and the world look very very different, and not necessarily better (unless one is a Native American . . .)CharleyCarphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14367092598444103753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15447402.post-1152104559655777782006-07-05T06:02:00.000-07:002006-07-05T06:02:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.CharleyCarphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14367092598444103753noreply@blogger.com