 |
|
|
AUDIENCE COMMENTS |
|
|
|
|
An opportunity for the audience to have their say on In Our Time. |
|
 |
|
|
|
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
An opportunity for the audience to have their say on In Our Time.
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE
Jim Russell - George Washington
I agree with Simon Middleton regarding the confusion of English for British, etc and recall a Celtic football manager during a successful European Cup run, perhaps the one that made Celtic the first British to win it remark, "We are British now, but just wait till we lose, then we will be Scottish!" I was also interested in his comment that the Virginia planters might have been attempting to recoup their position as an embattled ruling class. In this they would have had Thomas Jefferson as a doughty opponent; at least according to a biography that I came across some time ago by Willard Sterne Randall, which I thought at the time to be rather sympathetic to Jefferson; it stoutly denied that Jefferson could ever have had 'relations' with his slave Sarah Hemmings. It was published in 1993 before DNA evidence made it almost certain that he had had a child by her. Randall asserted that one of Jefferson's aims in life was to break the power of the 'old aristocracy', whichI take to be 'the embattled ruling class of Virginia planters, amongst others. Finally, many thanks for a most stimulating series; I look forward to the next one.
Simon Middleton, CONTRIBUTOR
Apologies to messers Spencer, Russell, and Purser for any inappropriate usage of "Americans," although one doesn't have to look too far to find contemporary references to both America and Great Britain, for example in Thomas Paine's assertion (in Common Sense) that "France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain." Also, concerning cultural integration, I thought that we had stressed the point (as many have) that the colonists were very proud of their membership in the British empire and the rights and liberty it afforded them until the crisis of the 1760s and 70s. If the panel didn't emphasize this, it should have. Insofar as it is possible for a Yorkshireman to relate to such matters, I think I understand the listeners' frustration with the use of English rather than British; I expect we shall hear similar complaints again in the next few weeks when Scottish athletes win medals in Athens, only to hear themselves described as British, while winners from south of the border will doubtless be identified as English. However, while I can't speak for the other panellists, when I used the term "English" in the context of the Revolution it is also to acknowledge that many of the revolutionaries felt that they were fighting to protect their rights as Englishmen and a political heritage that extended far beyond the Act of Union. It was only gradually (as my esteemed colleague John Zvesper points out) that they came to realize that the implication of resistance to parliamentary sovereignty was that natural law, rather than a national tradition, provided the only foundation for the protection of unalienable rights. Of course none of this should not be taken to underestimate the role of the Scots, Irish, and many other non-English participants in the Revolution. As Michael Durey shows in his excellent Transatlantic Radicals, the contribution of Scots was particularly significant during and after the Revolution, and especially in the 1790s when the "excesses" (I guess it depended which side you were on) of the French Revolution led many Americans to take a more conservative view of republican politics and to seek England's favour. As Durey shows it was the transatlantic radicals, and particularly the Scots, who insisted that Americans hold fast to their radical principles. I can't comment on Roderick Williams's query regarding whether or not Mansfield's decision in the Somerset Case could be considered a motive for Virginia planters supporting the Revolution, although it seems likely. The Virginia planters were frustrated by imperial restrictions on trade and shipping and on speculation in western lands and their participation has been interpreted as an attempt to recoup their position as an embattled ruling class. As we tried to stress in the programme the American Revolution was (in Carl Becker's memorable phrase) as much a struggle over who should rule at home as it was over home rule and as recent and forthcoming books by Marjoleine Kars (on the Regulators in North Carolina) and Woody Holton and Mike McDonnel (on Virginia) and Tom Humphreys (on the Hudson Valley) demonstrate, those later proclaimed as leaders of the Revolution were in many ways forced Founders (Holton's title). Thus I have to dissent from Darren Edwards's assertion that the American Revolution "did nothing for liberty that was not already done in Britain 100 years before the Declaration of Independence." Thanks to the In Our Time team for such a jolly time and to you all for your feedback. Best wishes. Simon Middleton
Scott Stoermer: George Washington
I was stunned with the number of plain falsehoods foisted upon BBC Radio 4 listeners. GW was hardly a "failed tobacco farmer," but rather someone who voluntarily shifted his crops to grains as a way to more effectively use his land. He did not "write a book on how to behave," he just copied such a book in his own hand to help his memorization. The Stamp Act Congress was hardly a gathering of all the colonies -- Virginia and a number of other colonies didn't even attend.
Darren Edwards: British North America vs Washingto
The Britaino-Americans during this period were for the most part non-comittatal. As mentioned in the program, it was the minority which attempted to rid the colonies of the adjective 'British' in 'British North America'. These patriots (i.e. renegade Britons) post revolution did nothing for liberty that was not already done in Britain 100 years before the Declaration of Independence. In short, Americans were the beneficiaries of British rule and not the oppressed common to American folklore! The real change came with the French Revolution with its introduction of utopian-romantic politics.
Roderick Williams: American Revolution
I much enjoyed the programme. I was very interested in the items on the participation of freed slaves and the earlier request of the Southern colonies for a restraint in the number of slaves being shipped. On the same subject a suspicion has been troubling me recently and I wonder if there is any evidence to back it up. In 1772 Lord Mansfield in his judgement in the Somerset case held that slavery was incompatible with the law of England and that any slave setting foot in England would automatically become a free man. News of this judgement must surely have reached America and caused some disquiet. Could it be that freedom-loving slave-owners like Washington and Jefferson decided that the time had come to break with Britain before its tyrannical government applied the same law in the colonies and so ruined them? Any evidence?
Scots/English/British and American Revolution
Firstly, I really loved this weeks program and I have really enjoyed the whole series. Secondly-just to muddy the waters even further in the whole "British" contribution to the American revolution debate-a lot of the "Scots" some people have complained about being ignored by the program were in fact Irish. Basically they were Ulster Presbyterians (descendants of Scottish Planters) who left Ireland in large numbers during the 18th Century due to religious persecution. 25 of the Generals in the American Revolutionary Army were of Scots-Irish descent, as was about a third of the whole army. The Declaration of Independence was printed by John Dunlop, from Strabane in Northern Ireland, read in public by Colonel John Nixon (of Scots-Irish descent) and the first signature on it is of another Irish Presbyterian, John Hancock. As stated in the program, a lot of the intellectual driving force behind the revolution came from Enlightenment thinking, but arrived in the American colonies through the Presbyterian religion. To quote George Washington: "If defeated everywhere else I will make my last stand for liberty among the Scots-Irish of my native Virginia".
George Washington & American Revolution
Excellent critique of how the American Revolution started, particulary from the tradition of the American assemblies. However, Page Smith states that the pride in the assemblies actually was the outcome of the English Civil War. At that time, England ignored the colonies (out of necessity) and offered little governance. In response, the colonists had to set up their own home rule (out of necessity). In the 1730's, after England had settled its home problems, it looked to the colonies as a source of income and development, setting up the mercantile system and thus beginning the growth of animosity between the colonists and their governors.
Quentin de la Bedoyere - presentism
My son Guy, who is a well published writer and broadcaster on Romano British history, now uses the term 'chronocentric'rather than presentism. As I understand his use of it, the term looks forward as well as backward. That is, at any given moment, we are tempted to feel that our current attitudes are right and immutable - despite the constant lesson of history that views, values and assumptions always change over time, and not necessarily for the better. It would, as Melvyn Bragg suggests in his newsletter, be a fascinating subject for discussion.
Adlai Spencer, American Revolution
Through no fault of Mr. Bragg, I believe, the commentators did not do enough to emphasize the cultural unity of Britain and her North American colonies, which were primarily populated by British farmers and merchants. Despite attempts to make this clear, one of the commentators repeatedly referred to British colonials such as Jefferson and Washington, as 'Americans'. Though the term existed at the time, it didn't mean what it does today, or even what it did in 1800, and it is useful, if not essential, to refer to colonial protagonists of this era as British colonials or British subjects, depending on the point one strives to make. It was also an innacuracy, in essence, to ignore the role of France; how did revolutionary British colonialists wrest such vast sums from the great purse of Louis XVI, who was a Monarchist? And how you can you introduce Thomas Jefferson without mentioning Rousseau, whose 'The Origin of Civil Society', influenced his crafting of the Declaration of Independance more than 'The Republic' or any other Classical or Enlightenment document? Having griped, let me say that the choice of topic was excellent, and deserves to be revisited by In Our Time, which should ask the question Jacques Barzun asks: 'What has been the value, to the world, of the American Revolution of the 1770s? And of the French Revolution that began in 1789?' The two events should be viewed not as distinct, but as fundamentally concommitant cultural, political and economic phenomena, produced by the leading republics of the west, France and Great Britain. Not a point to be lost on any discussion of the American Revolution.
Bob Baker - the whole thing really
This is not a very meaningful contribution to the debates I fear, but I just wanted to express my enormous appreciation of this series. For me it is probably the best thing on the radio. So thank you Melvyn and Charlie and all the nameless staff who make this happen and of course all the academics who share their enthusiasm with us. Every week the programme is simply a delight. Thanks.
Jim Russell - American Revolution
First, I must second John Purser's comments on the rather insulting, to devout Scots at any rate, use of 'English' for 'British' and the discounting or ignoring of the many contributions made by Scots to British colonial history. But that is not the reason for this contribution, which is to point out that the conflicting loyalties found in the colonists is well illustrated by the experience of Flora MacDonald, who shepherded Bonny Prince Charlie 'Over the Sea to Skye' disguised as her maid Betty Burke. After the Jacobite Rebellion Flora MacDonald married, but she and her husband Alan failed to make a success of farming and eventually emigrated to North Carolina arriving in Wilmington on the Fear River in 1774. Matters came quickly to a head and the newer arrivals were quickly obliged to choose a side. They knew nothing of the earlier colonist's grievances, but they had suffered the consequences of a failed rebellion. Alan was a major in the loyal militia raised by the governor and Flora played her part in helping families of those serving. Alan was captured and they finally met in New York where Alan was exchanged. They eventually returned to Skye by way of Nova Scotia. The Carolinas were a favourite destination of Scots and the community was split. Descendants of the loyalists remain to this day celebrating their heritage with Highland Games.
|
|
|
|
|
