Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Interim Readings
>
The Declaration of Independence
date
newest »
newest »
How much is known about whether broad swaths of people could be fluently multilingual? If feasible, what might such mean to human dynamics and political systems?
I think multilingualism is pretty common outside the US. Most Swiss are multilingual, I believe (French, German, Italian). Most people in border areas in Europe, like Alsace (French, German). Most people who speak a minority language at home, like Welsh, Irish, Breton, Catalan, or Quebec French. Most educated people in India speak English plus a cradle tongue such as Hindi or Tamil.
Roger wrote: "I think multilingualism is pretty common outside the US. "And many people here speak both English and American.
Other than being able to read literature in its native tongue, is there a benefit to the human race to be multi-lingual, or are the dreams of the Esperanto believers legitimate, that we could eventually have a single language that everyone on the globe could understand and read, so that everybody could communicate with everyone else with no language barrier?
Though we're getting a bit afield of the Declaration of Independence here!
Patrice wrote: "Without a common language I don't see how a nation can stay a nation. "Switzerland has been doing it for quite awhile, but in general, I agree with you.
Everyman wrote: "Though we're getting a bit afield of the Declaration of Independence here! ..."Not certain we are.
But am quite willing to turn to other aspects.
I was strolling through the alleged excesses listed in the Declaration, and while I don't know that much about the period, my junior high school teacher, who was a major league history buff, taught us that at their root all wars are economic, so always look beyond the alleged reasons for a war and seek out the true economic cause or causes.Applying that theory, I'm not convinced that the complaints about not passing needful laws, calling assemblies in inconvenient places (these people had no problem all gathering in Philadelphia, which was probably pretty inconvenient for those from New England or South Carolina), and the like were enough to have caused the revolution. I suspect that buried within the document are the real causes of the turmoil: first and foremost "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world;" and close behind it, imposing taxes on trade.
As I understand the situation, very vaguely I admit, Britain required the Colonies to trade exclusively with Britain or other colonies, and forbade them the chance for much more lucrative trade with France, Spain, Holland, etc. Britain was spending a lot of money administering the colonies, and they wanted to make that back in trade benefits and taxes, while the colonists, understandably, wanted to make the greatest profit on their trade.
Now, my teacher could have been totally wrong, and I could be totally wrong, but my strong suspicion is that the freedoms may have mattered to the firebrands like Patrick Henry, but the real power in almost any society rests with those with money, which in the colonies meant the merchants and ship owners, and they wanted out from under the British restrictions and taxes.
Everyman wrote: "...the real power in almost any society rests with those with money, which in the colonies meant the merchants and ship owners, and they wanted out from under the British restrictions and taxes."All of which, unfortunately, set up conditions for the Civil War some 90 or so years later. Yet, I have never explored why Southerners, rather than Northerners, were some of the key revolutionary leaders. Was there some manipulation going on there to get the South to go along for the ride? What were the relationships between the New England mills and the Southern cotton production and English industry? What were the other key economies at play? Was sugar in there yet? (That was mostly the West Indies, wasn't it?) Foodstuffs? Wool (sheep)? Where was India in the picture yet? Why did France support the colonies? Where was Spain in the picture?
My reading of the situation of the colonies is this: They had gotten used to running their own affairs in the 17th century, when England was preoccupied with her Civil War, the Dutch Wars, the Restoration, the Glorious Revolution, and similar turmoils. They accepted the right of Britain to govern external relations, but not internal affairs. After the Seven Year's War (of which our French and Indian War was a part), Britain needed money, and since the Colonies had profited from British protection she figured they should contribute to paying off the debts from the war. The Colonists, on the other hand, refused to accept the imposition of outside authority on their internal affairs on any pretense whatever. The British (foolishly, said Edmund Burke) attempted to compel the Colonies by force--quartering troops on them and so forth. That was the last straw.I am skeptical of the economic argument. People are always motivated by economic considerations at least in part, of course, but that can't be the main story. Anyone in trade at the time could see that he would lose ships and cargoes to the British Navy. Cities would be attacked and great damage would surely result. Troops would march over the countryside causing much destruction. Surely accommodation with the British would be much more profitable.
Everyman wrote: "but the real power in almost any society rests with those with money, which in the colonies meant the merchants and ship owners, and they wanted out from under the British restrictions and taxes. "As an addition to your point, the Stamp act, which greatly helped agitate the people of America, targeted the lawyers and publishers - people who were persuasive writers and could make their views well known through print. The Revolutionary War was a war fueled by American propaganda, as I think you pointed out in one of your first posts that the "Boston Massacre" wasn't a massacre at all - yet still it is remembered that way.
I suspect that buried within the document are the real causes of the turmoil: first and foremost "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world;" and close behind it, imposing taxes on trade.
I think this was a major factor, but certainly not the only factor. The dissolution of assemblies, the appointing of judges at the monarchs favor, and the trying of Americans in England were a cruel slap to the face of American people. The last two of which are dealt with explicitly by Article 3 of the constitution (though the Sixth Amendment makes it more clear that everyone has a right to a trial of his peers in the district the crime was committed). I think the arbitrary rule of the crown (keeping judges at his pleasure) and the demeaning way in which it treated the colonists (by abolishing their legislatures) had a big impact on the decision to dissolve the bonds with Great Britain.
The following is from the Wikipedia article on "United Empire Loyalists":'Loyalist refugees, later called United Empire Loyalists, began leaving at the end of the war whenever transport was available, with considerable loss of property and transfer of wealth. An estimated 70,000 left the thirteen newly independent states, representing about 3% of the total American population, of which 20-30% had supported the Crown during the American War for Independence.[citation needed] Approximately 62,000 were White (who also had 17,000 black slaves) and 8,000 Black; 46,000 went to Canada, 7,000 to Britain, and 17,000 to the Caribbean.[citation needed] Beginning in the mid-1780s and lasting until the end of the century, some returned to the United States from the Caribbean and Nova Scotia.[citation needed]"
"In 1996, Canadian politicians Peter Milliken (a descendant of American Loyalists) and John Godfrey sponsored the Godfrey-Milliken Bill, which would have entitled Loyalist descendants to reclaim ancestral property in the United States which had been confiscated during the American Revolution. The bill, which did not pass the House of Commons, was intended primarily as a satirical response to the contemporaneous American Helms-Burton Act.[citation needed]"
Patrick Henry was a planter (tobacco) and a slave owner, but ended up focusing on his interests as a lawyer and legislator. He was a strong advocate of states rights, an anti-Federalist, and one of the agitators for the Bill of Rights.
Lily wrote: "Patrick Henry was a planter (tobacco) and a slave owner, but ended up focusing on his interests as a lawyer and legislator. He was a strong advocate of states rights, an anti-Federalist, and one o..."We sometimes forget that virtually all the Founders were only part-time politicians who had other professions and employment. We didn't have the same professional politicians class that we seem to have today. Which in my mind makes their accomplishments even more impressive; these were farmers, printers, silversmiths, plantation owners, merchants, who gave voluntarily of their time and energy in the interests of creating a new nation.
Roger wrote: "...After the Seven Year's War (of which our French and Indian War was a part), Britain needed money, and since the Colonies had profited from British protection she figured they should contribute to paying off the debts from the war...."What I read suggests that how Britain tried to collect for those debts was one of the big pressures that led to rebellion.
A few months ago, I enjoyed a couple of the Great Courses on World and European history. Both of those emphasized that the European colonial powers tried to benefit from the balance of trade, protecting their own industries and obtaining resources that could be used to obtain goods from other parts of the world. Spain, in particular, took metals (gold and silver) from the Americas for trade with the Far East. One world history book I looked at this morning suggested a high percentage of the tobacco imported into Britain was re-exported. I understand from previous readings and lectures that Britain tried to protect its textile manufacturing and the related jobs, which of course could lead to a tussle with New England, even for the cotton from the South. About the balance between the various levels of production (yarn, fabric, finished goods, wool, cotton), I didn't find a quick synopsis, but I've heard it discussed in the past and saw glimmers of the issues in what I skimmed. Sources of power -- water, coal, wood, steam -- are part of the story, too, along with iron production. (I haven't found if the Loyalists tended to be of particular commercial backgrounds, but as I recall, some of them had large land holdings along the Hudson.) I don't see evidence in my searches today that agricultural food products were particularly export/import issues, but rather that improvements in fertilizers and breeding and other practices were occurring in Britain itself. (Probably many foodstuffs were just still too perishable for the distances involved, in those days before refrigeration? I did see evidence of dried fish exports from N.A.) I haven't figured out how big a deal shipbuilding was in the American colonies yet. Who tended to own and capitalize the slave trade vessels? (Over Christmas, I was reading how the Clipper trade, about a century later, was used for low tonnage, high value materials, like tea, Australia wool, spices, and luxury passenger travel, where speed had particular value-add.) Oh, yes, and there was the fur trade, including beaver.
Another factor that we haven't touched upon: the character of the King of England at the time.
Patrice wrote: "I think the mercantilism of the time was the reason that Adam Smith wrote "the Wealth of Nations" (coincidentally? published in 1776) urging governments to allow the markets to function without int..."I think the Declaration does not address Parliament because the signers did not believe that they had ever owed any loyalty to the British Parliament, only to the King of Great Britain. There were no ties to sever with Parliament, only with the King.
That is a good point, and still seems valid today (and maybe even stronger). There are still many people in the country who are strident about enforcing their rights but are much slower to recognize their responsibilities as citizens, or even to deny that there are any other than to comply with the laws they agree with and pay the taxes they are unable to avoid.