A Brief Note on the External Forces and Serendipitous Birth of a New World
The external pressures that influenced the path to self-governance for the North American colonies
The American Revolution stands out in several notable aspects:
Unlike the French Revolution, the American Revolution did not immediately establish a unified national identity. However, it provided a unique experimental foundation for the political and economic development of “these United States.” It took another century for a distinct nation-state identity to emerge fully.
The American Revolution was an important event in the Age of Democratic Revolutions. It differentiated itself as a revolution fought on legality, emphasizing rights rather than a class-based conflict like many other European revolutions.
Following the revolution, there was a notable emphasis on the individual pursuit of happiness in the private sphere rather than extensive efforts toward societal reconstruction. The American Revolution recognized the importance of individuals as existing before the government, granting individuals a prominent role in shaping the social character of the new nation.
The American Revolution stands apart from other revolutions as its origins can be traced back to Britain, the country it revolted against, rather than originating solely within the territory it aimed to transform.
I want to elaborate on this last point. The American Revolution had complex causes, with various pressure groups involved. The colonies were already prosperous, so rebellion against taxation alone cannot explain the revolutionary war. The independence movement emerged from a combination of external factors, and it was neither a full-blown civil war nor a conventional interstate war but had elements of both.
Despite being wealthy and leading in income per capita compared to Great Britain, they still chose to revolt during the American Revolution. The colonies had achieved economic leadership since as early as 1700, with their purchasing power being significantly higher than Great Britain's, and this gap continued to grow. Surprisingly, even income inequality in the colonies was lower than in England and Wales during the same time. The North American colonists enjoyed better living conditions, with taller stature, longer life expectancy, and lower mortality rate than their England counterparts. However, within a few years, their income per capita declined drastically, dropping by 48% from 1774 to 1790, as they bore the heavy burden of the independence war.
Considering the significant trade and economic ties between the colonies and Great Britain, the British could have agreed to provide North American representation in the British Parliament. By 1773, America accounted for a significant portion of English manufacturing exports, and a considerable share of British imports came from America, indicating a mutually beneficial trading relationship. Lord Chatham and his followers also backed the cause of the North American colonies, questioning why three million settlers lacked representation when small English boroughs had representatives.
The North American settlers demanded the same economic and political rights as property holders in their countries of origin, including the right to be consulted in matters that affected them. Given the positive economic relationship between the colonies and the Empire, these demands were not unreasonable nor revolutionary. The British could have reached a peaceful resolution by allowing representation from the North American colonies in the British Parliament, considering the costs of the global public goods provided by the Empire. However, six external factors prevented this common-sense agreement.
The High Anglican Church favored coercive policies towards the colonies, and the king gained support from groups like the Highlands Scots, Irish Catholics, and old-line Tories who wanted to demonstrate their loyalty after the failed Jacobite rebellion.
The Bill of Rights Society, the first public opinion lobby in British politics, supported London radicals who fought for the political rights of the North American colonies.
The incumbent British government, controlled by the landed gentry, feared that granting representation to the colonies would undermine their power and strengthen democratic movements in the colonies and Great Britain. They resisted reforms that challenged the political system based on land ownership.
The Rockingham Whigs, including Edmund Burke, were torn between supporting concessions for the colonies and opposing the king's attempts to dominate Parliament. They sought to defend the democratic status of Parliament without attacking the institution itself.
Protestant dissenters opposed the Anglican Church's efforts to impose episcopacy in the colonies, viewing it as a threat to their liberties.
The absence of the French threat following the Seven Years War allowed the colonies to rely on French military support if needed during the rebellion.
Given the external pressures and pulls, the American colonies faced a critical decision: to maintain their colonial status without representation or pursue self-governance through armed conflict. Ultimately, the colonies opted for the latter choice, leading to the American Revolution, the consequences of which are the subject of both unbridled praise and criticism.
Lord Rosebery— a British Liberal Party politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from March 1894 to June 1895 — once said that if all the Indians in India spat at the British, they would drown. In a way, this was what happened. The British Empire dissolved amiably, without disastrous wars, to preserve it. This showed that Englishmen eventually realized that the weight of numbers made it impossible to continue with the old system. Studying the complexities and challenges surrounding granting political representation to the North American colonies and its implications for India's independence during the Age of Decolonization offers valuable insights into the decline of the British Empire. It highlights the Empire's transition from a colonial power to a welfare state and the accidental nature of our current world order.
The evolving dynamics of our contemporary world have limited the freedom of action for statesmen while granting ordinary people greater political and economic liberties. It is crucial to acknowledge that these conditions are not immutable, and revolutions such as the American War of Independence have shaped them.
Fascinating, thanks Vishnu.
Currently, I am imaging a world where the four "countries" in the UK are represented in Congress along with the 50 states of the US and the 36 states/territories of India. Wouldn't that be awesome?