Were the French and American Revolutions, and Russian Chaos in Late 1700's Interwined/Related? (influences, colonies)

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by Dave Davis

The myth is the USA is that the Boston Tea Party dumped tea overboard because taxes were rising instigated by the Crown in London. That is not true. Tea prices were about to be lowered, which would impact on their smuggling activities. Hence their acts in dumping tea overboard.

Hmmm. The British imposed a monopoly on British Tea via the East Indian Company. Ok so they were bringing in, i.e smuggling, Dutch tea to circumvent the high price of British tea. A criminal activity, but the act of insurrection itself is a criminal activity. The question itself is if the founding fathers actitivities were altruistic or not, the smuggling thus is more of an act of "civil disobedience". I see no evidence that the Boston Tea Party was done to increase profit from smuggled tea, as the Sons of Liberties were merchants themselves. If you want to provide support for that we can take a look at that.

Regardless, the results, the Declaration if Independence and the US constitution, show that they were not self-serving. Thus I don't label there activities in the same vein as the Mafia. Incidentally also, this instigated the shift from tea consumption in the US to coffee. Why would smugglers destroy the market for the product they are trying to smuggle?

[Dave Davis]

The smugglers benefited from the Crown conforming to mercantilism - like Al Capone benefited from prohibition. Mercantile tariffs prompted the smugglers to smuggle in Dutch tea selling it for less than British traders in Britain and British America. In 1773, the Crown passed the Tea Act. The act would lower the East India Company’s costs, and hence its prices. Smuggler’s profits would be reduced. So in December 1773, several dozen smugglers, stormed aboard the Dartmouth throwing 342 chests of tea overboard. They were more upset about the Crown undercutting their profits, than about any sort of perceived oppression.

Niall Ferguson in Empire:

“…most people assume [the Boston Tea Party] was a protest against a hike in the tax on tea. In fact the price of tea in question was exceptionally low, since the British government had just given the East India Company a rebate of the much higher duty the tea had incurred on entering Britain. In effect, the tea left Britain duty free and had to pay only the much lower American duty on arriving in Boston. Tea had never been cheaper in New England. The ‘Party’ was organized not by irate consumers but by Boston’s wealthy smugglers, who stood to lose out.”

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by Dave Davis

The smugglers benefited from the Crown conforming to mercantilism - like Al Capone benefited from prohibition. Mercantile tariffs prompted the smugglers to smuggle in Dutch tea selling it for less than British traders in Britain and British America. In 1773, the Crown passed the Tea Act. The act would lower the East India Company’s costs, and hence its prices. Smuggler’s profits would be reduced. So in December 1773, several dozen smugglers, stormed aboard the Dartmouth throwing 342 chests of tea overboard. They were more upset about the Crown undercutting their profits, than about any sort of perceived oppression.

Niall Ferguson in Empire:

“…most people assume [the Boston Tea Party] was a protest against a hike in the tax on tea. In fact the price of tea in question was exceptionally low, since the British government had just given the East India Company a rebate of the much higher duty the tea had incurred on entering Britain. In effect, the tea left Britain duty free and had to pay only the much lower American duty on arriving in Boston. Tea had never been cheaper in New England. The ‘Party’ was organized not by irate consumers but by Boston’s wealthy smugglers, who stood to lose out.”

OK so the British gave the East India Company a corporate tax break. But you didn't mention that the tea act tax was still in place. So you still had the issue if a tax without adequate representation as an issue. Why do we know it was an issue? Because it was a moto at the time: "No Taxation without Representation". Does that sound like the moto that smugglers might be using?

You also failed to address the fact that the Sons of Liberty encouraged a shift from tea to coffee, counterproductive as that is to the act of smuggling, and also the ultimate conclusion of the American Revolution and the concept of "we the people....".

This is the common fallacy of revisionist history, you are picking and choosing your facts to arrive at a conclusion, while disregarding more overwhelming facts. I see you doing the same in the JFK conspiracy thread.

[Dave Davis]

What you fail to recognise is what Naill Ferguson wrote...

"Tea had never been cheaper in New England. The ‘Party’ was organized not by irate consumers but by Boston’s wealthy smugglers, who stood to lose out.”

That is basic fact. It was not the start of some romantic people's revolution. Anything but. More like criminality and self interest.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by Avondalist

It's easy to hate the great man theory of history, but sometimes history does turn on the personalities of a small number of people.

I think the Russian disturbances are the odd one out here. The American and French revolutions are clearly linked by a shared intellectual culture, lines of communication, and even notable people.

In fact, the sequence of events goes farther back. During the Seven Years War, the UK almost bankrupted itself capturing France's colonial possessions (among other things). The attempts by the British to refill their treasury after that is the reason taxes were so high in the American colonies. After the revolution started, France saw it as a way to gravely weaken Britain by shearing off her most valuable colonies just as Britain had done to France 25 years earlier. However the success of the American revolution inspired the French people to turn against their own monarchy. So you see there's this tit for that between Britain and France which keeps having blowback every time one power makes a move.

I have heard that the storming of the Bastille would not have happened had the previous winter not been unusually harsh, leading to lower crop yields and hunger. However the writing was on the wall (apres moi, le deluge) that the French monarchy had to change to survive, so I don't see any way a revolution in France could have been avoided. It was just the particular turn of events that made the French Revolution ultimately fail.

Originally Posted by jbgusa

The great thing about the book I referenced in the OP is that it does link the Russian uproar quite successfully to the other two. First of all the Czarina did get involved to a limited extent in the American Revolution. During the mid-1700s she made an effort to import Enlightenment ideas to modernize her country. She did a "u-turn" with the Pugachev Rebellion that began during that period, and even more of one, as did other European monarchies, in dread of the deadly fallout of the French Revolution. While Russia is admittedly a less obvious case to link, the connection is there.

Remember the thread topic is the trio of chaos in the late 1700's, not primarily the Boston Tea Party.

[SunGrins]

Two important things preceded the American Revolution. Of course, the Enlightenment brought new ideas and perspectives to the relationship of the governed to the government. The thinkers that helped fuel the ideas of the American Revolution were steeped in that new perspective. The notion of divine right was no longer holding much weight with this new way of thinking.

The English Civil War (1642–1651) was a solid blow against monarchies. The Puritans of Massachusetts sent some of their people back to England to fight. King Charles I was tried for high treason, found guilty, and beheaded in 1649.

Revolutions like ours and those early revolutions of independence in Latin America almost always took place when a privileged class feels that they are losing their authority, or their power is being diminished. The British Parlaiment was dialing back the power and privilege of the upper class in the American Colonies and reigning in the expectations of the middle and lower classes. After the final defeat of Napoleon, the restored Spanish monarchy tried to reinstate authority and introduce reforms that were not acceptable to the privileged and wealthy landowners. The fact that they were over a thousand miles away also helped in both cases.

That concept can work in an opposite direction. In France the nobility and aristocracy were seeing their authority eroding and the government was in dire economic straits. There was no interest in reforms and there were taxes imposed on everything and basic shortages. Finally, and reluctantly, Louis XVI summoned the Estates General in January 1789 and voices of opposition and common expectations rose. The Bastille was attacked in July, closely followed by the abolition of feudal rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. In May of 1790 the National Assembly abolished the nobility. The French Revolution was essentially over but events spiraled out of control partly due to intervention from outside the country and competing personalities among the leaders of the new government. Thomas Paine, one of the architects of the American Revolution, became fully involved in publicizing and supporting the cause of the French Revolution and there was support from other American leaders.

The situation in Russia was possibly influenced by the Enlightenment but the instability of the situation, Catharine's unpopularity, and timing makes it difficult to link back to the American Revolution. Pugachev's Peasant revolt was put down and he was executed in 1775. The one thing the Russian peasants knew how to do was to stage a revolt, they did it repeatedly before and after the American Revolution.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by SunGrins

Revolutions like ours and those early revolutions of independence in Latin America almost always took place when a privileged class feels that they are losing their authority, or their power is being diminished. The British Parlaiment was dialing back the power and privilege of the upper class in the American Colonies and reigning in the expectations of the middle and lower classes. After the final defeat of Napoleon, the restored Spanish monarchy tried to reinstate authority and introduce reforms that were not acceptable to the privileged and wealthy landowners. The fact that they were over a thousand miles away also helped in both cases.

I don't want to take away from a great post but do you mean in Latin America, or during the brief monarchial restoration, post-Napoleon, in France?

Originally Posted by SunGrins

The situation in Russia was possibly influenced by the Enlightenment but the instability of the situation, Catharine's unpopularity, and timing makes it difficult to link back to the American Revolution. Pugachev's Peasant revolt was put down and he was executed in 1775. The one thing the Russian peasants knew how to do was to stage a revolt, they did it repeatedly before and after the American Revolution.

Russia was complicated, and still is. "Enlightened" despots such as Catherine and Alexander, and more recently democratizers such as Kerensky and Yeltsin tried to introduce liberalizing reforms. Those never engrafted on the largely uneducated, and in earlier eras illiterate peasantry. As you say the peasants knew how to revolt, not how to self-govern. Ditto in France. That was eloquently briefed in Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. de Tocqueville was even "wait and see" as to whether Americans would, in the course of history, "vote themselves" more than the economy could afford in benefits.

[SunGrins]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

I don't want to take away from a great post but do you mean in Latin America, or during the brief monarchial restoration, post-Napoleon, in France?

Mostly those Spanish colonial independence struggles in South America. Mexico, as a possible exception, began its struggle for independence earlier in 1810 after Joseph Bonaparte was made king of Spain and continued to 1821. It was a three-way (or more) tug of war. Ferdinand VII managed to lose almost all of Spain's American colonies.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by SunGrins

Mostly those Spanish colonial independence struggles in South America. Mexico, as a possible exception, began its struggle for independence earlier in 1810 after Joseph Bonaparte was made king of Spain and continued to 1821. It was a three-way (or more) tug of war. Ferdinand VII managed to lose almost all of Spain's American colonies.

When did Ferdinand VII reign? And thanks for the clarification.

[SunGrins]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

When did Ferdinand VII reign? And thanks for the clarification.

Ferd became king in 1808 (March-May) long enough to be replaced by Joseph Bonaparte and he spent years confined in France. He was restored as king of Spain by a treaty with Napoleon in 1813 and remained as king until he died in 1833. He was a cousin to Louis XVIII of France who came to his rescue when he was held prisoner after a revolt in 1820. The Spanish government was a bankrupt basket case see-sawing between absolutism and liberalism for decades.

The country was experiencing political whiplash. There were many players in the intrigue and civil wars that lasted into the later 1800s. The powerful Jesuits were in a revolving door, being expelled and restored various times. During Ferdinand's confinement in France the colonial juntas in South America ruled in his name and claimed his legitimacy while he had no voice in their actions. They had developed a power base in his absence. When he was restored in 1813 he fully intended to be an absolutist king but the 1812 Spanish constitution, written by the "liberals" during his absence, stood in his way so he abolished it. Things went downhill.