An answer to Huey Newton from William F. Buckley Jr that might surprise a few people. Notice that he says if King George III had captured General Washington he would have had every right to hang him!
That is a very interesting question 'What side would you side with in the American Revolutionary War'? I also I was a little suprised by the fellows opinion.
I would definetly have fought on the side of the revolutionaries, even though I picture myself as a traditional monarchist.
As a monarchist and a catholic I demand the royal obligation of the ruler to abide by the constitutional laws of the country. King George, wether by his fault or not, failed miserably to comply with his obligations towards the people of the US.
King Felipe IV of Spain (Filipe III of Portugal and Algarves) and his minister, Duke of Olivares, scorned the political traditions of my country and the treaty of Tomar, signed by the first of the Habsburg king of Portugal, Felipe's grandfather with the portugueses popular representatives, nobility and clercs.
I would not hold myself as a monarchist if i wwas to support an illegitimante revolution against my king. But the portuguese revolution of 1640, wich restored the portuguese throne to a native-born king, was not a nationalist revolution, mas a Constitutional Reaction.
I believe the same happened with the american revolution.
Of course Buckley said he would have 'probably' been on the side of General Washington but I count it as a mark of his being such an intellectual conservative that he was not rash about and gave a rather measured answer, pointing out his opposition to most revolutions on principle but that the "American Revolution" was pretty humane as most revolutions go. A fairly accurate statement on the whole, there at best being no bloodbath like the Reign of Terror, no social upheaval and no death or loss of a monarch involved.
That is a very interesting question 'What side would you side with in the American Revolutionary War'? I also I was a little suprised by the fellows opinion.
ReplyDeleteI would definetly have fought on the side of the revolutionaries, even though I picture myself as a traditional monarchist.
ReplyDeleteAs a monarchist and a catholic I demand the royal obligation of the ruler to abide by the constitutional laws of the country.
King George, wether by his fault or not, failed miserably to comply with his obligations towards the people of the US.
King Felipe IV of Spain (Filipe III of Portugal and Algarves) and his minister, Duke of Olivares, scorned the political traditions of my country and the treaty of Tomar, signed by the first of the Habsburg king of Portugal, Felipe's grandfather with the portugueses popular representatives, nobility and clercs.
I would not hold myself as a monarchist if i wwas to support an illegitimante revolution against my king.
But the portuguese revolution of 1640, wich restored the portuguese throne to a native-born king, was not a nationalist revolution, mas a Constitutional Reaction.
I believe the same happened with the american revolution.
Of course Buckley said he would have 'probably' been on the side of General Washington but I count it as a mark of his being such an intellectual conservative that he was not rash about and gave a rather measured answer, pointing out his opposition to most revolutions on principle but that the "American Revolution" was pretty humane as most revolutions go. A fairly accurate statement on the whole, there at best being no bloodbath like the Reign of Terror, no social upheaval and no death or loss of a monarch involved.
ReplyDelete