July Fourth, Kings and Confederates

General John C. Pemberton, CSA

It may surprise some to know, given the current political geography of the United States, that the Fourth of July was not celebrated in the southern states from the time of the American Civil War until World War I. This was because, for the south, not only did it seem hypocritical to celebrate the secession of the American colonies from the British Empire while simultaneously suppressing the secession of the southern states from the American Union but also because it was on July 4, 1863 that the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi surrendered to the U.S. forces. This cut the Confederacy in two and gave the northern states total control of the primary 'artery' of North America. It was also no accident. The Confederate commander, General John C. Pemberton, was a northern native and he believed that he could obtain the best terms if he surrendered on July Fourth rather than any other day. So, for the south, the fourth of July was a sad day and not one that any southerner wished to celebrate. It took many years and some new foreign foes before southerners felt sufficiently "patriotic" to once again join in celebrations marking the American Declaration of Independence from the British Crown.

That the south should not wish to celebrate on a day that marked one of their most pivotal defeats is understandable, however, I would submit that the overriding issue of secession is not so clear cut. It is, occasionally, even today remarked upon that if secession from the British Empire was valid, then secession from the United States must have been as well. An American celebrity (whose name escapes me) actually said as much to President Lincoln himself upon the outbreak of the great crisis in 1861. When asked where he stood, this man said that if secession was just and valid then his sympathies must be with the south but if secession was not just and valid then he must say, "God Save King George". It is certainly a case which has a certain logic to it. However, I cannot quite see it in that way which requires a sort of distance being placed between oneself and the actual events 'on the ground' as it were. If the Confederates were wrong, does that mean that the colonists were too? I do not think so but I would see it, rather, in terms that the Confederates could be right but the colonists still wrong and I think the American War for Independence actually proves rather than disproves such a position which, I confess, must seem contradictory to many.

King George III

For myself, the issue rests on what we might call "founding principles". The southern states, I would argue, had every right to secede (for good reasons, bad reasons or any reasons at all) because of the nature of the union that was forged by the successful secession of the colonies from the British Empire. The southern states voluntarily joined the Union under the current American Constitution. The colonies, on the other hand, never voluntarily joined the British Empire. They were born of it as a child is born of his or her parents. A child does not choose the family he or she is born into, they simply belong together by blood. British colonists were subjects of the British monarch from birth, by the nature of their blood, their ancestry and their nationality. American citizens, on the other hand, were citizens of the United States under the terms of a specific legal contract, namely the Constitution. Moreover, when American independence became real it required King George III to recognize, not the independence of "the United States of America" but rather the independence of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York etc individually. These individual, independent states, formerly colonies, then consented to join together in a union with the other American states, first under the Articles of Confederation and then under the current Constitution. As such, I would argue that they had every right to withdraw from said Union whereas their colonial predecessors had no such right as they had no such legal, contractual relationship with the British Crown.

To put it another way, the southern states had precedent on their side which the rebel colonists did not. There was a time, albeit brief, when they were not part of the Union and so they could revert back to not being part of it again. The colonies, on the hand, had never not been part of the British Empire, had never not been subject to the laws and sovereignty of England (I say England rather than the Crown as, during the Cromwellian dictatorship, there was a period when they were not subject to the Crown but were still subject to the authority of the English government). The United States of America was a product of a new, "Enlightenment" way of political thinking. It was based on a more business-like relationship between two parties. One party consented to be governed under a given code and when the state of South Carolina believed this code to no longer be beneficial, voided the contract and withdrew from membership in the Union. The United Kingdom of Great Britain was not established on such a basis. It was partly for this reason that Britain and America went to war in 1812. The Royal Navy impressed sailors into its service which included, the U.S. argued, American citizens, which is to say British subjects who had taken American citizenship. However, at that time (unlike today), the British did not regard any subject as having the ability to change their allegiance. They were British by blood and subjects of the British Crown by birth and no document from the American government could change that fact.

The U.S. government in 1861 certainly saw things differently. They believed that by cutting ties with the King in London, they had all ceased to be British or Europeans of any sort and had become Americans and so they adopted the British view that Americans in the southern states must be forever united with the Americans of the northern states. However, their system of government had been established in such a way as to be totally different from that of Britain and this is illustrated, I think, by the fact that the U.S. government was obliged to take numerous and repeated draconian measures which were later judged to be completely unconstitutional in order to see the rebellion in the southern states suppressed and the rule of the U.S. government restored to power over the whole country. They were fighting a war which the lofty, liberal ideals of their founders never expected to happen. Would any other prince or potentate have acted differently than Lincoln if a large portion of his country were endeavoring to break away? Perhaps not, but this is the problem with the idealistic liberalism upon which the United States was founded. Whether in the Civil War, World War I, World War II or even the current (and seemingly never-ending) War on Terror, we are shown that the leaders of the United States have found it impossible to maintain the country while strictly adhering to those original liberal values but are forced, again and again, to resort to measures they would, under other circumstances, deem deplorable. Proving, I think, that liberalism and realism have never been companions.

July 4 Reflections on the Revolution

Today Americans celebrate Independence Day but, of course, as is usual with such cases, the ideas that are celebrated are more myth than reality. That independence was achieved is certainly a fact but it is also a fact that what is commonly known as the Revolutionary War or the American Revolution was a war of secession rather than a true revolution. The rebel colonists were not fighting to overthrow King George III of Great Britain and Ireland but to seize control of British North America and break it away from the British Empire. This is highlighted by the fact that independence was not really the ultimate issue of the conflict as, in the course of the war, the British were prepared to concede independence so long as the colonies remained within the British Empire as self-governing dominions. This offer was made in 1778 by the commission led by the Earl of Carlisle which dealt with the Continental Congress and offered them self-rule and representation in the British Parliament. This was rejected by the counter-demand that Britain recognize the total independence of the colonies and withdraw all Crown forces before any agreement was made, which of course was the same as asking the British to surrender before talking peace. Most agree that, had such an offer been made earlier, it likely would have been accepted. However, coming at a time when British forces were withdrawing from Philadelphia, it was seen as a sign of British weakness and the rebel forces let their ambitions run wild.

That there was considerable ambition on display and not simply a desire for the colonies to govern themselves as they were is not disputed but, most often, simply not talked about. The rebel leaders envisioned their new country including not only the thirteen colonies and their territorial claims but the whole of British North America and the West Indies. This was made perfectly evident with the invasion of Canada early in the conflict in 1775 and efforts to seize the Bahamas in 1776 and 1782 by American naval forces. It is also a fact, not often discussed, that one of the acts the Americans most objected to before the war was the 1763 act recognizing the right of Native Americans (Indians) to the land they held which the colonists wanted for themselves. Anger in Puritan New England over the Crown granting civil rights to Catholics in Canada is also not often discussed as it tends to appear quite hypocritical in light of later American claims of being driven by a desire for freedom of religion (which there already was more of in North America than in Great Britain and certainly Ireland). This is one reason why, when the war came to Canada, the Catholic bishops there threatened excommunication for anyone who joined with the rebel colonists.

When the facts are looked at dispassionately, it seems quite odd that anyone in America would have wished to rebel at all. The colonies were not suffering under British rule; quite the contrary, they tended to be better off than the motherland itself. The American standard of living was higher, the social ladder was easier to climb, land was easier to own, the people were even physically larger because they were healthier and had a better diet than most people in Britain. They paid almost nothing in taxes, unlike their fellow subjects in the British Isles and, on the whole, already enjoyed more freedom and prosperity than almost anyone in the whole continent of Europe while under the protection of the British Crown. There were no bread riots, no hordes of starving masses only petulant fits by well-fed people over how much the luxury items they enjoyed would cost them. Even when the British Parliament passed acts they did not approve of, they were almost invariably repealed or never enforced. Likewise, without exception, the most prominent leaders of the War for Independence were the wealthiest men in the whole of North America, men who owned vast estates and hundreds of slaves. The people of America were not suffering and when one ignores the political “spin” of most histories, what the rebel colonists most protested against seems most often unsavory if not illegitimate.

The Boston Tea Party

The colonists could not complain about laws limiting manufacturing in the colonies to protect the jobs of British workers. After all, these laws were regularly circumvented. Smuggling was easy to do and officials were often easy to bribe. In 1764 Parliament passed the Sugar Act but it was never enforced. In 1765 it passed the Stamp Act but Crown officials were assaulted and intimidated into ignoring it and it was repealed the following year amid cries from America that “taxation without representation is tyranny”. That, of course, was a pretty phrase for propaganda purposes but nothing more as is made clear by the fact that when Benjamin Franklin was sent to London as a sort of envoy for the American colonies, he was given strict instructions not to accept any deal that gave the colonies representation in the House of Commons because they knew full well that, if they had such representation, with their much smaller population they would be easily outvoted. So, they would be doomed to democratic defeat while also losing a valuable propaganda tool. In 1763 the act was passed to limit the American colonies to the land east of the Appalachian mountains with that to the west being reserved for the Indians. It hardly seems draconian considering how sparsely populated the colonies were but it angered the land speculators who wanted to take the land from the Indians to obtain an immense fortune for themselves. The Navigation Acts were widely ignored and never fully enforced, the Quartering Act was resented but it makes American rebels seem anything but patriotic to protest so heavily against providing shelter for troops stationed in America to protect them from French and Spanish encroachment. Likewise, the Townshend Acts were quickly repealed, save for the duty on tea which, as we know, led to the famous “Boston Tea Party”.

Nothing better illustrates how ridiculously overblown the fomented outrage of the colonial rebels had become. Consider the fact that, even while paying the miniscule tax on British tea, the American colonists would still have been paying less than they did for Dutch tea smuggled into the colonies illegally. They had become so entrenched in their idealism that they were actually acting illegally, destroying private property in protest to paying *less* for an item than they normally paid. It obviously does not take much intelligence to see that these people were not being driven by practical reality, they were not being oppressed and they were not suffering under the ‘authoritarian’ rule of King George III. If anything, the colonies had done extraordinarily well under the benign neglect of the British government. It was only after they acted out so, again, in order to pay more for foreign tea as opposed to paying less for British tea, that Parliament passed acts intended to punish the port of Boston and force the rebel leaders to pay for the private property they had destroyed in their little tea party. This resulted in the calling of the first Continental Congress which voted to boycott all British goods and which saw Patrick Henry declare, “give me liberty or give me death!” He might have said, “give me liberty and more expensive tea or give me death” but that wouldn’t have sounded so stirring. If more people were able to look at this period dispassionately they might recognize the absurdity of someone boasting of his willingness to sacrifice his own life rather than buy tea at a cheaper price or to make restitution for vandalism.

Battle of Bunker Hill

The result of all this was the passing of the Restraining Act and finally the outbreak of war in 1775 with the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord. It does make one wonder how a country could ever come to be such an economic powerhouse that started out by demanding the freedom to overcharged. Then again, it is also rather amazing that the United States was to become the premier military power of the world when the military record of the colonists in the War for Independence left so much to be desired. They were defeated at Bunker Hill in the first major battle, invaded Canada but were totally defeated at Quebec. They managed to bluff the British into evacuating Boston but when the British army returned for the major campaign, British troops under General Howe bested Washington and his Continental Army time and time again, driving them across Long Island, capturing New York City, then White Plains and then Fort Washington. Only at the end of the year and the beginning of 1777 did Washington manage to win any victories with two skirmishes against small detachments of British troops at Trenton and Princeton, retreating quickly in the aftermath.

The British won the battle of Brandywine, captured the rebel capitol of Philadelphia and then defeated Washington again at Germantown. The only bright spot was the American victory at the battle of Saratoga. British General Burgoyne had gambled and lost but, even then, the Americans credited the wrong man with the victory. Benedict Arnold had been the real hero but all praise was given to General Horatio Gates who, in time, proved beyond all question that he was as cowardly as he was incompetent. In 1778, after intense preparations, the best Washington could manage was a stalemate at Monmouth and at the end of the year the British captured Savannah. 1779 passed with no major, decisive actions though Spain did join in by declaring war on Britain, as France had done in 1778. In 1780 the rebels suffered a major defeat with the British victory at Charleston, South Carolina which was followed in the summer by another stunning British victory against a larger rebel army under General Gates at Camden. The rebel forces were totally routed and ran from the field so fast that the British dubbed the fight the “Camden Races”. There were minor rebel victories, again over small detachments at Kings Mountain and Cowpens but the advance of Cornwallis was not hindered by this. At the battle of Guilford Court House the British under Cornwallis were again victorious, though the victory was a costly one and then there was the siege of Yorktown which ended in victory for Washington only because of the timely arrival of the French and the victory of the French navy at sea.

Ben Franklin before King Louis XVI

In short, there is simply no way to attribute the American victory to any sort of military brilliance on the part of Washington and his subordinate commanders. At best they were able to occasionally capitalize on British mistakes when up against small, isolated detachments but when it came to major battles they were defeated time and time again by forces often smaller than their own. It was only the timely arrival of the French, the widening of the war and British weariness and the drain of blood and treasure that finally compelled Parliament to practically force the King to come to terms and recognize American independence. Also not often pointed out is the fact that this was rather shameful itself on the part of the Americans. They were fighting in alliance with France, Spain and the Netherlands but when the opportunity came to end the war, the American rebels abandoned their allies and made a separate peace, leaving Britain free to concentrate on these European rivals who were deemed the greater threat. Indeed, in the wider war that grew out of the American Revolution, it was Britain that won and Spain and France that lost. Still, it can be amusing sometimes to see how some proud, Yankee-Doodle historians can make George Washington sound like an absolute military genius by describing how brilliantly and cleverly he retreated.

2014 is, of course, the one hundredth anniversary of the start of the First World War (as we have been covering) and it is perhaps not something most would wish to dwell on but is nonetheless true that King Louis XVI of France greatly endangered and overextended himself to aid the Americans in their quest for independence from Great Britain yet these same Americans were nowhere to be found when the unfortunate Bourbon monarch was in his hour of need. Yet, when it was the latest of the many failed French republics that was in danger in 1917 and 1918 the United States came to lend a helping hand, invoking the Revolution by saying, “Lafayette, we are here!” That is something that those in the Old World should consider before giving in to the anti-Americanism that is so popular these days. The United States was an American power and confined itself to American matters for the majority of its history, wanting nothing to do with Europe. In fact, the USA would not exist at all were it not for European assistance. Later, the rise of the USA could have been stopped or at least slowed considerably if the Old World had shown more solidarity. When the USA finally stepped on to the world stage as a major power in World War I it was after considerable pleading and cajoling by European powers that she do so.

Most Americans did not enjoy the experience but many politicians did and soon enough Europe was calling for help a second time and, having tasted a bit of power on the global scale, the government helped change the public mood to get into the war and the USA has been a superpower ever since. Many today are inclined to view America negatively but few are willing to recognize the part played by their own countries in bringing America to this point. By getting involved in the War for Independence and not getting involved on other occasions, the great powers of Europe played a part in the rise of America from the very beginning. As republics go, it has been one of the better ones, partly by simple good fortune, partly by an uncanny ability to believe things they want to be true and partly because, despite claims of being “revolutionary” the American republic bore a very striking resemblance to the British constitutional monarchy they had just broken away from. In any event, today the patriots will prance and preen while those of us of the Tory persuasion will grumble and roll our eyes but, while I cannot resist pointing out the oddities listed in the paragraphs above, I will not be giving any sweeping condemnations of those celebrating the Fourth of July today. It is, after all, only natural for people to do this. They have to believe that the colonists were being oppressed and they have to believe that King George was a tyrant or they cannot justify the existence of their country and to make such a leap is asking too much of most people, regardless of the facts. Instead, as I have done before, I will simply say that while they celebrate their independence day, they should spare a word of thanks and praise for absolute monarchs who made their democratic republic possible; His Catholic Majesty King Carlos III of Spain and His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XVI of France. Without them, the United States would not be here now.

For past reflections on the Fourth of July and a look at numerous events and people of the Revolutionary War, click here.

Monarch Profile: King George III

What better monarch to feature for a July 4th post than His Majesty King George III? He may be the only monarch in the history of the world to be vilified in the founding documents of another country. What is sadly, even criminally unjust, is that King George III was as far from being a cruel, despotic tyrant as any man could be. He was, in fact, an upright, generous man of simple tastes, extremely devoted to his family and could, with relatively little opposition I think, be considered the most able and admirable monarch of the Hanoverian dynasty of Britain. This monarch who came to be so hated in America was very popular in Britain, even beloved. He was the first king of the House of Hannover not to speak with a German accent, who considered himself truly "British" rather than a German who simply tolerated Britain for the brief periods he had to stay on the island. It can honestly be said that George III was the first truly British monarch to reign since the death of Queen Anne. What is more ironic, is that he was quite popular in the American colonies as well, the attachment to the Crown being the only thing which really prevented independence from being declared much sooner.

George William Frederick was born on June 4, 1738 in the same building coincidentally that was used by British and American leaders working together to form the first Allied Force Headquarters by General Dwight D. Eisenhower and where the invasions of North Africa and Western Europe were planned out by the two great English-speaking countries of the world in cooperation against Germany. George was the son of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and succeeded his grandfather King George II in 1760. One year later he married Princess Sophie Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, a marriage which was happy and produced 15 children. Unlike those before him, George III was never unfaithful to his wife and had principles too strong to ever consider taking a mistress.

Once on the throne, King George III broke alot of new ground, but also in many ways returned Britain to a more traditional monarchy rather than the Parliamentary tyranny it had been since the fall of the House of Stuart. King George III was the first monarch to turn over the profits of the crown lands to the government in exchange for an allowance and started the tradition of royal patronage for charity, giving generously from his private finances to a number of causes. These were innovations, but George III also worked to make the British monarchy more traditional. Under previous rulers, the Crown had become mostly symbolic and totally dominated by Parliament; which itself was dominated by the Whigs since the Tories had been so associated with the House of Stuart. George III was determined to make Britain a truly constitutional monarchy again, with power held by commons, lords and the crown.

This trend, and the way George III was determined to choose his own ministers, was used by the American revolutionaries to portray the King as a tyrant, which is extremely unfair. Had it not been for the docile nature of previous monarchs, his actions would not have seemed unusual at all. He never over-stepped his powers, but simply chose to exercise them in the traditional way. This caused the Tories to again become a major political force for the first time since the overthrow of the House of Stuarts. George III was, if nothing, a man of principle and a man who took his responsibilities seriously. However, doing so did not always win him admiration. When the King granted religious tolerance to the Catholics of Canada, many Americans shouted that George III was becoming a "Papist" and would soon restore Catholicism and royal absolutism in the British Empire. Later, when the King refused to grant tolerance to the Catholics in Britain (not because of any prejudice but in obedience to his coronation oath) he was then ridiculed once again for being so harsh. While American revolutionaries attacked him for being a "tyrant" and refusing to respect their rights, they also condemned him for respecting the rights of the Indians in the mid-west whose lands he declared off-limits, but which the colonists were eager to claim for themselves.

The American Revolution was certainly the major event in the reign of King George III, and few others had such a firm grasp on the actual situation, before during and after the conflict as the king did. When an offer to the colonists which granted them full autonomy under the British Crown was spurned, George III was the most determined to fight on until victory was won, threatening to abdicate before he would ever accept the legitimacy of the United States. He was confident that if Britain allowed these 13 colonies to win in such a way would be to instantly invite rebellion in every other colony around the world and the British Empire would collapse. This is often pointed to in an effort to mock George III as being unjustly paranoid about an independent America. However, were it not for the horrific French Revolution and the resulting "rally effect" across the British community and the conservative backlash after the wars, things might have turned out as King George had predicted, though fortunately they did not.

However, considering how steadfastly George III had opposed American independence and the peace treaty which recognized the new nation, once it had happened he showed considerable grace in extending the hand of friendship toward his rebellious former subjects and saw to it that the United States remained a major trading partner of the British Empire. In spite of the fact that the fall of North's government which coincided with the victory of the United States brought about a new trend of reducing the role of the Crown in politics and going back to the tradition of the previous Hanoverians of being little more than figureheads, King George III displayed his brilliant statesmanship by again restoring to a more normal situation the rights and powers of the Crown in British government. The 1780's saw William Pitt the Younger attain and keep the post of Prime Minister mostly through the support of the King. Britain began to rebuild its pride after the American humiliation and an era of unprecedented power and prosperity opened for the British Empire.

King George III became a more relaxed man. His marriage to Queen Charlotte was very happy for both of them, with 15 children the succession was in no danger, and the King had time to do the things he enjoyed most such as dabbling in agriculture and spending time in the country. With the onset of the French Revolution, the King commented that he believed this upheaval was God's punishment on King Louis XVI for supporting the American revolutionaries. He also had typically Hanoverian problems with his son and heir, Prince Frederick, but the worst incident came in 1788 when George III suffered his first attack of the illness which was to eventually take away his sanity, and some time later, his life. He was given brutal treatment by doctors of the day, but was still able to pull out of his insanity for brief periods of relative normalcy, it being on one of these occasions that he stopped the passage of a regency bill.

The French Revolution though, brought on more trouble as it was only a matter of time before at least some traces of the republican disease crept into Britain, and there were several attempts made to assassinate George III. One attempt was made in 1800 while the King was at the theatre. After narrowly avoiding death, the King showed great courage by remaining calm and ordering the show to continue, at which point the crowd broke out singing "God Save the King". Eventually of course, his illness became too severe and with no signs of improvement and in 1812 he was declared unfit to rule and his son was made regent in his place. King George III lived out the rest of his life locked away from public view in Windsor Castle, with the Star of the Order of the Garter pinned to his robe as his only badge of rank. However, the British people honored their king for the care and leadership he had shown in the past. He had seen Great Britain through her most difficult trials as a 'United Kingdom' and always acted as an honest, upright and highly moral man, providing leadership through example as well as state policy.

It is criminal (there can be no other word to describe it) that the United States had to slander and defame King George III in order to justify their own rebellion. He was, in every respect, the picture of an ideal British monarch. His compassion and generosity are well known, his steadfast principles and upright moral character are second to none in the Hanoverian dynasty and his wise political leadership restored to Great Britain, for a time at least, her ancient and marvelous constitutional monarchy where power was actually shared by the lords, commons and crown rather than being held completely by an elite few on the commons' behalf. He certainly deserves a place of honor among the list of the truly great monarchs of the British isles.

Since Britain first at Heaven's command
Arose from out the Azure Main,
Did ever o'er this jarring Land
A monarch with more firmness reign?
Then to the Natal Day we sing,
Of George our sacred friend and King
-from a song by American loyalist in honor of George III's birthday in 1777