Featured Post

The Day When We Could No Longer Abide King George’s Crimes

I’ve made it an irregular tradition to offer a meditation on the Declaration of Independence every July 4.

The structure of the finalized document shows an argument made in three parts.

It begins with a statement of general political and philosophical principles. These are ideals, and generally I think of them as aspirational rather than descriptive, particularly when I recall that eighteenth-century Colonial America was a land in which slavery and indentured servitude were pervasive facts of life, female suffrage would have been deemed risible, and ownership of land was a prerequisite to having a political voice at all. And people drank beer, wine, and rum all the time, because almost all of the water was like as not to kill you.

The bulk of the document is a list of grievances aimed at King George III. In the past, for instance during the Glorious Revolution, the Wars of the Roses, and the English Civil War, complaints about the government were typically addressed to the King, complaining that his councilors had dispensed poor advice to him, because of course the King, being selected by God to lead the country to its common weal, would not otherwise have done such horrible things of his own accord. Jefferson & Colleagues dispensed with this polite formality and directly accused George of a variety of acts.

It is here that my mind dwells this year. “What did King George do that was so very bad that the Founders preferred treason?” Let’s take a look each of these twenty-seven grievances.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

This is often taken to refer to Royal refusal to assist attempts by certain colonial politicians to abolish the slave trade. But the fact of the matter is, many of the colonies had economies heavily dependent upon agriculture, which even before the invention of the cotton gin relied upon abundant, cheap labor. Jefferson originally proposed more direct language about abolition, but his fellow Virginians at the Continental Congress insisted upon more elliptical language.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

In what may seem a bit ironic to those who remember the rallying cry “no taxation without representation,” this refers to the levying of local taxes to pay for things like militias to protect against Indian raids. We forget that armed Indian tribes, often in collaboration with other European powers, were often a match or even military superiors to the English colonists. The specter of King Philip’s War rested heavily and uneasily on the minds of all the colonists, especially those in the New England area, even a century after it had happened. So the problem here was in large measure that the King in England didn’t seem to care that the colonies had no way to pay for a formal military to defend themselves and wouldn’t allow imposition of a tax to pay for such a force.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

The reference here is to Quebec and Ohio, two geographic regions within Britain’s territorial claims on the North American continent, into which the colonists wished to expand. The British government had entered into pacts with various coalitions of Indians to restrict European settlement west of the Appalachian mountains, so the fertile fields and rich forests were largely unavailable to those who would otherwise have exploited those lands.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

This is not a fair cop against King George, but rather a swipe at the royal governors of Massachusetts and Virginia, who would periodically announce that holding representative assemblies at the customary capitals of their colonies was unsafe and convene them at other, “safer” locations. There may have been some truth to the reasons behind the moves, but it’s quite certain that the alternative locations were selected with an eye towards making it difficult for the governors’ more obstreperous opponents (think Patrick Henry) to attend and gum up the works. On the one hand, this may be “politics as usual,” but it does strike at notions of fairness and full political participation of dissenting or opposition politicians.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

And the reason for the royal governors’ desire to weed opposition legislators out of the colonial assemblies was that those opponents sometimes won. When that happened too often, the King would hear about it and dissolve the assemblies in the same way that he would from time to time dissolve unruly Parliaments at home. Again, it was simultaneously political maneuvers that were hardly unheard-of back home in England, but which were also intrinsically unfair.

Also on the “bullshit” list was, having dissolved a local legislative assembly, to then neglect calling for new elections afterwards. Again, it really wasn’t anything that didn’t have ample precedent with respect to Crown-and-Parliament relations back in England. For a long time during the Tudor, and early Stuart dynasties, the King viewed Parliament as necessary only for the purpose of levying new taxes, and would govern with no Parliament sitting at all. This changed more than a little bit during the Glorious Revolution, when principal governing power shifted from the King to Parliament, but it did take a long time after that for the British to think of the person wearing the Crown as a vessel through which governmental power was transmitted rather than as an independent political actor in his own right.

I continue to be charmed by the Founders describing their opposition to the King, or more specifically the royal governors he appointed for their colonies, as characterized by having “manly firmness.”1

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

For the most part, we’re talking about Quebec and Ohio again. The gripe here is that the colonies cannot expand or use readily-available resources to economically grow and prosper because of a deal the King cut to keep himself in political control. A number of his ministers had probably been paid healthy bribes along the way, too.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

Here, consider the colonies of Pennsylvania and North Carolina, whose colonial assemblies had attempted to create circuit courts to hear local criminal and civil disputes. The King refused to assent to these resolutions, effectively vetoing them, insisting that only the Crown could appoint a judge and that the judges served at the King’s pleasure. Again, these were well-established principles of British law at the time, although the colonists certainly had a point that petitioning the King to appoint some judges and then waiting to see if he would do it, and if so when, and then waiting another two to four months for those judges to make and hopefully survive the transatlantic voyage, was not a good way to deal with the fact that the local courts had substantial dockets of disputes overdue for resolution. And that’s before you get to the issue of whether those judges would apply the law impartially and fairly, or whether they would have an unfairly pro-government bias…

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

…Which, of course, was the problem with the public officials the King did send to the colonies. Rather than select local people who would command the esteem of the colonists themselves, people from England were selected for loyalty to the Crown first and competence second. These officials came generally in military positions, so such courts and assizes as did exist were under military, and particularly Admiralty auspices, and the most important civil governmental officials — customs agents — were also very often foreign to the areas they were assigned to patrol.

Now, read between the lines a little bit here. Customs agents. Admiralty courts. Insensitivity to local preferences. Recall that quite a bit of smuggling was going on — smuggling being the shipment of cargo without the paying of customs and other taxes. It makes me wonder the extent to which rum-runners were the motive force behind this complaint. That said, the issue of having impartial governmental officials selected from the people to be governed is still one worth consideration.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

This, of course, is a reference to the occupation of Boston, which had been under direct military rule since 1768. Among other ills attributed to the regular military serving as the local government was the Boston Massacre, the proliferation of public drunkenness and patronage of prostitutes, and fallout from the frequent desertions which ultimately led to a number of public executions on Boston Common. These executions horrified the public, who ironically still included people within their number who had living memories of the public execution of “witches” in that same space.

Worse, the Quartering Act of 1765 imposed a tax on the colonists to pay for the soldiers’ room and board.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

This sets up a series of complaints that simply could not be laid at the feet of King George alone, because the “others” with whom he combined were Parliament. The basic theory here was that the American colonists did not consent to rule by Parliament, because they had a long custom of electing their own legislative assemblies. There was something to be said for the great desirability of local government, especially given the inherent time limitations of long-distance sea travel, and even to this day there are complaints that a Parliament disproportionally dominated by unevenly-populated English boroughs is not an appropriate vehicle for governing territory beyond England itself.

Anyway, now we get to also ask, what did Parliament do that was so bad?

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

Pretty easy to see why this made people mad: to have the government tell you, “Feed and house this soldier at your expense” would be quite invasive of one’s own home and private life. In fact, officers were generally welcomed, as they tended to be better-educated, willing to contribute financially to the household despite the lack of obligation to do so, and to value their reputations as gentlemen and therefore be relatively well-behaved. For Loyalists, there was even some prestige attached to hosting an officer. Common troops, however, were a rather different story.

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

You may be thinking of the trial following the Boston Massacre, in which John Adams served as principal defense counsel. Adams acquitted himself heroically in that incident, but that’s not what this really refers to. Rather, there were two other incidents. Not far from Annapolis, Maryland in 1768, a dispute between civilian traders and some soldiers resulted in the soldiers shooting the civilians to death; they were tried in a court of admiralty rather than the regular courts of Maryland and acquitted. The locals thought the whole trial had been a sham and took as the real lesson from the affair that they could be shot and killed with impunity by King George’s men. Similarly, in North Carolina, a civil disobedience movement in response to arbitrary enforcement of tax and criminal laws grew to more forceful resistance (for example, in 1768 they interrupted court proceedings while brandishing arms) and organized into a group called the “Regulators” in the late 1760’s. By 1771, tensions between the armed resistors and the royal troops and the very-likely-corrupt royal governor reached a point that a number of these “Regulators” were shot, very likely without any immediate provocation. The trial of those soldiers afterwards was pretty obviously a show trial and there was never any real chance of a murder conviction.

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

Again, we must focus on Boston and the blockade of Boston Harbor, particularly in the wake of 1773’s Boston Tea Party.

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

Examples of this abound, and the description of the grievance is self-evident. Note, though, that as we see above, the imposition of taxes by a local legislative assembly is carefully carved out of this objection.

For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses;

Again with the military courts. Also, it’s worth your time to look into an incident called the Gaspee Affair, in which efforts to break up colonial smuggling resulted in locals burning a British Navy ship that had run aground on a sandbar in Rhode Island, and when those thought responsible were eventually rounded up, they were transported to Nova Scotia, away from the biased jurors and unruly local populace, in order that their convictions might be more easily secured. Which pretty much sucks from a due process perspective, at least the way I see it.

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies;

Here, the objection was to the Quebec Act, which abolished the local civil government of Quebec and replaced it with direct military government and a hybrid of English criminal and French civil law. It also enlarged the boundaries of this territory to include pretty much all of the modern province of Ontario, and areas south of the Great Lakes including land north of the Ohio River, out to the limits of Britain’s claim at the Mississippi River. This was upsetting to the colonists in no small part because they considered that if these territories were allowed a measure of self-government, they too might join with the Atlantic-facing colonies and maybe join up with the Patriot cause. In short, the redrawing of the internal political map and manipulation of the internal political system to disenfranchise pro-Patriot voices and thus limit the political support opponents of the Crown might gather from these areas.

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

By now, you’ll have been well refreshed on these grievances, though note that here Jefferson & Colleagues condemn not just King George’s imposition of martial law, but Parliament giving its blessing to these actions. In any event, the sidebar is done, and at this point the grievances return their focus in particular to the Crown. Massachusetts was the most prominent example of this, as well as the royal governor of Virginia dismissing the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1775, but the Founders also remembered the abolition of the New York Colonial Assembly in 1767 here.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

Oh, my! A king waging actual war against his own people, complete with sackings, plunder, and murder. Sort of. By “abdicated government,” there is reference to the flight of several royal governors from New York, South Carolina, and Virginia, because of prevalent rioting. And because of the rioting, soldiers imposed martial law, in sometimes brutal ways. Charleston, South Carolina was blockaded by the Royal Navy and effectively laid siege to during one of these riots. The references to the burning of towns refers most specifically to the military engagements between Patriots and Redcoats in Lexington, Concord, and Breed’s Hill near Boston, and the follow-up sacking of Falmouth, Massachusetts, and the use of Royal Navy ships to bombard Stonington, Connecticut and Norfolk, Virginia, both of which denied port privileges to the Navy in acts of protest. And while the Continental Congress was meeting, the military opened up again on Charleston, South Carolina, based on a conflict of murky origins. Finally, there were a number of civil seizures of ships by British customs officials based on suspicion (likely often-justified suspicion) of smuggling or tax evasion, from whence the reference to “plundered our seas.”

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun, with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

Odd that this gets buried so far down, though it does not come at the very end. Here is a matter of some urgency, as the Hessian mercenaries referred to here as reinforcements for the British Army were as of the end of June in 1776 known to be in transit and soon to arrive in force up and down the Atlantic Seaboard. This private military force was working under contract to and in conjunction with the regular army to suppress the unrest and resistance to Royal government. Even back in England, the use of these forces was controversial and probably lacked any real claim to popular support, although a Parliament docile to the Crown and under the firm control of a skilled Parliamentary tactician, the Earl of Guilford Frederick North, voted to implement this measure by a convincing majority. As Prime Minister leading a Parliament whose boroughs had been manipulated to produce a majority friendly to his Tories, Lord North was in a position where the popular will was at most a matter of secondary concern — keeping a good working relationship with the King and firm control over his legislative majority allowed him to govern as he saw fit, which included the hiring of the Hessians.

He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

While it seems odd to my ears that hiring the feared and cruel-reputationed Hessians should not come last as the climax of this list, to contemporary ears, this next offense — impressing American sailors and other crew of vessels, under any flag, that made trade in an American port — rang even more shrilly. Perhaps it was the notion that a colonial could be impressed into the Royal Navy and thus forced to fight and kill his own countrymen that made it seem that much worse to the morals of the Founders. Impressment of American merchant sailors into British military service remained a practice of the Royal Navy through our second war with Britain and probably lingered on a for a bit even after that.

He has excited domestic insurrections among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Here is the climax. The particular object of this criticism was John Murray, the Earl of Dunmore and the Royal Governor of Virginia. Dunmore did two things as he found that despite clenching his fist ever-harder on the disobedient Virginians he was tasked with governing, resistance to Royal government escalated all the same. First, after being forced to flee repeated threats of violence and rioting, he offered to manumit slaves who would take up arms and assist him in returning to power. Second, when that failed, he struck a deal with the Six Nations coalition of tribes and the Royal Governor of Quebec to sell arms to the Indians, in exchange for their joining forces with Loyalist forces and Redcoats in re-installing Dumore to his appointed position in Richmond. This second gambit found a measure of success; Cherokee and other coalition tribes made raids throughout Virginia’s western regions with coordination from British commanders in Fort Pitt, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths.

 

If we take the Declaration at face value, we see a regime that restructured its own structure of enfranchisement, so as to create a legislative majority that did not reflect the true wishes of its voters. It had abandoned meaningful democracy as a matter of fact, while still wearing the vestments of that system of government. The political power thus taken was used to protect first and foremost the interests of the powerful elite at the helm of the ship of state, and second to secure the obedience of young men with guns who made their power possible.

As popular resistance to this state of affairs escalated, the rule of law was taken away next, and after that, the ability of the protestors to economically support themselves. Finally, preferring to maintain formal power for itself rather than allow even the possibility of self-government by political opposition, that government took the glove off of its iron first, and used those young men with guns against its own people. Formal political independence is portrayed as a matter of not only basic moral right, but of actual survival in the face of an authoritarian oppressor.

The accuracy of this picture remains the subject of some debate, but it is the picture Jefferson and his colleagues in the Continental Congress paint in the Declaration. Every item described has actual events that really happened to which the Founders could point. These grievances were not fake news, even if they are reported in the Declaration through a partisan lens.

We generally call the Founders noble and high-idealed for then moving to the third rhetorical act of the Declaration, and formally renouncing their political ties to Great Britain. This was treason against King and Country, but treason committed for all of the right reasons, for all of the high aspirations of the Enlightenment, for motives and ideals that we profess to cherish and hold dear in this nation to this day. Close examination suggests that not all of the motives of all of the Founders were quite so pure as this — slave owners protecting their property and rum-runners looking to minimize the power of government to disrupt their businesses are not the most admirable of people; nor were North Carolina’s Regulators that much different from vigilantes. But none of that vindicated King George’s government and in particular Lord North and the crop of colonial governors he instructed to go to America and keep power at all costs, after a while, to keep power simply for the sake of keeping power rather than having to share it with the locals.

The Declaration is an argument that the Royal government had lost any claim to political legitimacy. Totally disconnected from and unresponsive to the governed, the government became an oppressor instead of a guarantor of its citizens’ freedom. It was this state of affairs that had brought about the American Revolution. The resistance to this state of affairs was called “patriotism” by our Founders, and it is what we Americans celebrate today.

Happy Fourth of July, everyone.Notes:

  1. I suggest not using that phrase for a Google Image Search if you’ve disabled the “child-safe” settings on your web browser. []

Editor-in-Chief
Home Page Public Email Twitter Facebook YouTube  

Pseudonymous. Practices Law. Lives in Southern California. Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. Homebrewer. Atheist. No Partisan Preference. Likes: respectful and intelligent dialogue, good wine, and puppies. Dislikes: mass-produced barley pop, magical thinking, and insincere people. Follow him on Twitter at @burtlikko, and on Flipboard at Burt Likko.

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrintFriendlyMore options

23 thoughts on “The Day When We Could No Longer Abide King George’s Crimes

  1. This made me think of a “Well actually…” on the Revolution.

    Which reminded me of this joke…
    Where do mansplainers get their water?
    From a well actually.

    HAPPY 4TH!

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
  2. A former British Ambassador to the USA (apparently) usd to toast “the father of the American Nation”, King George IiI (*)

    (*) whose portrait (apparently) presided over the Embassy’s dining room

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
  3. A specific and a general response: The specific is that I call bullshit on your call of bullshit about dissolving the legislature and leaving it that way. Yes, English monarchs had done that back in the day. Charles I ruled for a decade without benefit of Parliament. How did that work out for him? The English Civil War pretty well established that this was no longer how they ran things. So by stating that George was doing just this, the claim was that he was rolling back hard-won rights of Englishmen.

    Which leads to the general point that the underlying dispute was whether the colonists were free Englishmen with all the rights thereof, or something less? The English constitution wasn’t really equipped to address this. They learned their lesson, and those other and/or later colonies comprised largely of English settlers never felt the need to repeat the American revolution. Which leads to the final point that this is a classic case of English behavior leading up to this being worse than a crime: it was a blunder.

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
    • Yeah, I think the governor (appointed abroad) had more legal powers than the Crown enjoyed following the Glorious Revolution (within their relative sphere of course). The Founders were Whigs, whether their views were consistent with other Englishmen at other times and place is beside the point. Tyler Cowen linked to a piece that claims the reason that the American Revolution was not forestalled with representation in Parliament is that America would throw all of its influence behind the radical Whig faction:

      http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/07/political-economy-american-independence.html

      I’ve never found the idea practical myself given the distance and seasonal weather constrains on the Atlantic Crossing. The representation would look more like Ben Franklin types living there for many years, and probably capable of being influenced.

        Quote  Link

      Report

       
  4. Yeah it’s interesting how often Quebec pops up, directly or obliquely in the colonists lists of grievances. England had seized New France at the end of the Seven Year War and had been faced with somewhat of a conundrum; what to do with this sudden large population of Catholic Europeans who were used to being governed under French styles of law.
    The previous answer: expulsion a la Acadia (Nova Scotia) was not workable for such a large population nor was it desirable. The British opted to cut a deal; the French population was permitted to remain Catholic and French and the laws were bent to allow most of their customary French legal system to be integrated. In exchange their loyalty to the British Crown was expected. New England had viewed New France as their natural enemies for generations and these concessions didn’t go over well. It’s easy to forget how acrimonious religious divisions were between Protestants and Catholics. Where it comes to the subject of Quebec, though, the Revolutionaries grievances were largely that the Crown was being too freedom loving, too liberal and too accommodating rather than less. Ironic really.

    The revolution happened but during the revolution and subsequently during the War of 1812 the French population of Quebec remains stoically pro-British demonstrating the benefits of the British compromise with the French settlers and laying the foundations for Canada. Ultimately, though, I agree with Richard that the American Revolution was the result of English administrative blunders more than anything else. The British demonstrated subsequently that they were eminently capable of good governance of their European descended colonist populations at least. The mind reels at trying to even imagine what the face of North America or the World would have looked like had the British managed to administratively meet the colonists more practical demands and kept the 13 colonies in the Empire.

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
    • I think the pamphleteers in Boston viewed the Crown’s behavior in Canada as part of a multi-front effort to restore Catholicism. Most were religious dissenters that did not see that much difference between the Church of England and the Catholic Church anyway.

      There is always some difference between what the people believe who respond to the militia call, or who tar & feather a British tax collector, and the views smoothed out by intellectual elites at a distance. Perhaps the former views are conspiratorial, but England had given no assurance that the colonists had any political checks on the whims of its government.

        Quote  Link

      Report

       
  5. “We want to tell people how to live AT THE POINT OF A GUN and King George isn’t letting us!” has long been misconstrued as an argument in service of Liberty.

    That said, if this problem could have been fixed by giving the Colonies two guys in the back of the House of Commons and the King refused to give two guys in the House of Commons, he asked for this.

    But, really, given the attitudes of the British toward Henry VIII’s desires to do whatever the hell he wanted without acknowledging the established order, this was inevitable.

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
    • Well technically it was Parliament that refused but yes, the core point is that a lot of the colonists substantive demands could have been redressed relatively easily by the British but for assorted reasons on the home front and due to lack of reason to worry about what would happen if they didn’t they failed to do so.

        Quote  Link

      Report

       
      • It’s somewhat nonlinear but I see some parallels to Japan’s government and associated classes in the couple of years leading up to Pearl Harbor.

        Primarily in the way we look back and see all these cases of actions that would have ratcheted back tensions, and in many cases would have been easier than the actions actually taken. But they never even considered these actions, they were literally invonceivable. Even the people who saw it coming never thought change would be a good thing.

          Quote  Link

        Report

         
      • Well technically it was Parliament that refused but yes, the core point is that a lot of the colonists substantive demands could have been redressed relatively easily by the British but for assorted reasons on the home front and due to lack of reason to worry about what would happen if they didn’t they failed to do so.

        In many ways, the governance of the colonies would have been much easier, too.

        Operating a government at a distance of four to six weeks is completely idiotic. This means the government in England was governing on a two to three month delay, which means when they did stupid things, it took them four to six months to stop doing them.

        England should have let the colonies do whatever the hell they see fit, as long as the colony’s parliaments are willing to make the tax payments England need, which were mostly the money needed to operate the colonies themselves anyway! (Or, rather, previously, during the seven year war, England had accepted soldiers instead of taxes, and had thus funded the colonies to produce those…but the war was now, and England wasn’t going to keep paying for them.)

        It’s not like humanity didn’t already know this…Rome figured it out thousands of years ago.

          Quote  Link

        Report

         
    • There might have been good technical reasons why the colonies could not be represented in Parlisment. Travel and communications were really hard in the 18th century. This would make effective representation in Parlisment hard.

      Another reason was that colonial representation in Parliament would have opened a big can of worms in British politics that no MP or Lord wanted it. These were still the days of rotten boroughs and a very limited proprietory based franchise. The colonies would have had a wider franchise and fairer, more rational representation. People in England, Scotland, and Ireland would have noticed and start to ask some very uncomfortable questions.

        Quote  Link

      Report

       
  6. For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

    #Patriotlivesmatter.

    (Notwithstanding your correct point, Crispus Attucks started a long ignoble traditon of African American men being killed by the police without legal consequence)

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
  7. The Georgian Papers Project opened their portal site earlier this year. The plan is to digitize all 350,000 pages of stuff in the royal archives related to the Georges and make it publicly available. Wonder if there’s anything there that will change historians’ minds about George III?

      Quote  Link

    Report

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *