Was the American Revolution Inevitable?Was the American Revolution Inevitable?In 1775, war broke out between the British and the American colonists. By 1776, the colonists had declared themselves independent and in 1783, following a prolonged and bloody war, Britain was forced to recognise the independence of the United States. Was American independence inevitable?
Some historians have suggested that the British army mismanaged the American War of Independence and that the war could have been won. On the contrary, the war was lost on its first day, owing not to inevitability but to the nature of the conflict. The fundamental difference between the British and the rebellious Americans concerned political authority. Prior to the Stamp Act crisis British authority, rarely asserted, rested on ties of loyalty, affection and tradition, not force. In the wake of the Stamp Act, Parliament repeatedly asserted its sovereignty and was compelled by American resistance to back down. Each time that this occurred the foundation for British rule in America eroded a little bit more.
The Stamp Act of 1776, like the American system’s, was a response to the weakness of opposition to American expansion. It was made a law in 1776 and was largely aimed at stopping American invasion of the colonies, although it was also introduced when the British found a way out in 1778 on the question of whether the King should be allowed to issue the American pound. It had the effect of weakening many American colonies.
It also came about because of a series of constitutional crises, chiefly between the king and the Americans. King Henry wrote in 1796 that if a rebellion in America could break out, the country would “go wild before it can go home.” Although this statement was made at the time of the Stamp Act’s passage, it was a fairly old form of rhetoric, with the words, “The rebellion of America may be broken in this, or that; let it be.” Henry’s statement did not, to the degree that it did not violate the constitution, alter the fact that English colonists’ rebellions were limited by the king’s own power, or would do anything to slow them down.
To explain this, historian Christopher Wren and his work have attempted to explain the effect of the Stamp Act as a general law to the nation itself (which is rather similar to what the Framers proposed under the Patriot Act). The government’s role is essentially to be the guardian of the law, rather than guide in any way the federal government. At issue is a federal judiciary that serves the people, rather than the government. Since Washington was always the first to sign it, a Supreme Court is responsible for ordering the enforcement of the law. In other words: the federal judiciary acts as a government, rather than as a court—which it is in fact. Wren defines the federal judiciary as the body of federal agents “who will do everything within their power to enforce the laws, order the courts, and administer justice to the people, wherever they may be.” In other words, he defines the federal law as the government acting as the arbiter of law. This does not quite make sense if the Framers understood themselves as judges alone, but it does make sense if the framers saw themselves as having a great deal by their own hand and were to seek to control the law by means of the government’s court of judges. Wren points out that the Framers were not seeking to create a government in which one can act as an independent agency by virtue of the other; the Framers were just seeking to bring what the framers intended they meant in a democratic system. And in fact, with regard to the Framers, the judiciary was the primary force behind their legislation. Wren calls attention to this point because he notes that Washington’s primary responsibility in the federal judiciary was to order federal courts that were subordinate to the governor’s office. The framers, he
The Stamp Act of 1776, like the American system’s, was a response to the weakness of opposition to American expansion. It was made a law in 1776 and was largely aimed at stopping American invasion of the colonies, although it was also introduced when the British found a way out in 1778 on the question of whether the King should be allowed to issue the American pound. It had the effect of weakening many American colonies.
It also came about because of a series of constitutional crises, chiefly between the king and the Americans. King Henry wrote in 1796 that if a rebellion in America could break out, the country would “go wild before it can go home.” Although this statement was made at the time of the Stamp Act’s passage, it was a fairly old form of rhetoric, with the words, “The rebellion of America may be broken in this, or that; let it be.” Henry’s statement did not, to the degree that it did not violate the constitution, alter the fact that English colonists’ rebellions were limited by the king’s own power, or would do anything to slow them down.
To explain this, historian Christopher Wren and his work have attempted to explain the effect of the Stamp Act as a general law to the nation itself (which is rather similar to what the Framers proposed under the Patriot Act). The government’s role is essentially to be the guardian of the law, rather than guide in any way the federal government. At issue is a federal judiciary that serves the people, rather than the government. Since Washington was always the first to sign it, a Supreme Court is responsible for ordering the enforcement of the law. In other words: the federal judiciary acts as a government, rather than as a court—which it is in fact. Wren defines the federal judiciary as the body of federal agents “who will do everything within their power to enforce the laws, order the courts, and administer justice to the people, wherever they may be.” In other words, he defines the federal law as the government acting as the arbiter of law. This does not quite make sense if the Framers understood themselves as judges alone, but it does make sense if the framers saw themselves as having a great deal by their own hand and were to seek to control the law by means of the government’s court of judges. Wren points out that the Framers were not seeking to create a government in which one can act as an independent agency by virtue of the other; the Framers were just seeking to bring what the framers intended they meant in a democratic system. And in fact, with regard to the Framers, the judiciary was the primary force behind their legislation. Wren calls attention to this point because he notes that Washington’s primary responsibility in the federal judiciary was to order federal courts that were subordinate to the governor’s office. The framers, he
The Stamp Act of 1776, like the American system’s, was a response to the weakness of opposition to American expansion. It was made a law in 1776 and was largely aimed at stopping American invasion of the colonies, although it was also introduced when the British found a way out in 1778 on the question of whether the King should be allowed to issue the American pound. It had the effect of weakening many American colonies.
It also came about because of a series of constitutional crises, chiefly between the king and the Americans. King Henry wrote in 1796 that if a rebellion in America could break out, the country would “go wild before it can go home.” Although this statement was made at the time of the Stamp Act’s passage, it was a fairly old form of rhetoric, with the words, “The rebellion of America may be broken in this, or that; let it be.” Henry’s statement did not, to the degree that it did not violate the constitution, alter the fact that English colonists’ rebellions were limited by the king’s own power, or would do anything to slow them down.
To explain this, historian Christopher Wren and his work have attempted to explain the effect of the Stamp Act as a general law to the nation itself (which is rather similar to what the Framers proposed under the Patriot Act). The government’s role is essentially to be the guardian of the law, rather than guide in any way the federal government. At issue is a federal judiciary that serves the people, rather than the government. Since Washington was always the first to sign it, a Supreme Court is responsible for ordering the enforcement of the law. In other words: the federal judiciary acts as a government, rather than as a court—which it is in fact. Wren defines the federal judiciary as the body of federal agents “who will do everything within their power to enforce the laws, order the courts, and administer justice to the people, wherever they may be.” In other words, he defines the federal law as the government acting as the arbiter of law. This does not quite make sense if the Framers understood themselves as judges alone, but it does make sense if the framers saw themselves as having a great deal by their own hand and were to seek to control the law by means of the government’s court of judges. Wren points out that the Framers were not seeking to create a government in which one can act as an independent agency by virtue of the other; the Framers were just seeking to bring what the framers intended they meant in a democratic system. And in fact, with regard to the Framers, the judiciary was the primary force behind their legislation. Wren calls attention to this point because he notes that Washington’s primary responsibility in the federal judiciary was to order federal courts that were subordinate to the governor’s office. The framers, he
When Parliament sought to re-establish its sovereignty by force it undermined the loyalty, affection and tradition upon which that authority had rested. Indeed, between one-fifth and one-third of the colonists remained loyal to the crown once the war broke out. Many of these, however, switched allegiances to the rebels when they experienced or learned of the heavy-handed tactics employed by the British army in America. Had the British managed to win the military conflict they would have had to resort to a degree of force