I never understood the reaction of King George III. All he had to do was allow a few colonists to serve in Parliament where they could be seated in the back row and ignored. Problem solved.....
The other commenters are right that it was more Parliament than the King George, but IMHO you're right that they could have solved this problem very cheaply early on by granting the colonies a few seats. Pretty big historic blunder!
In fairness, the refusal to grant the thirteen colonies parliamentary representation was a Parliamentary problem, not a George III problem. (And there were some significant logistical hurdles--it was a two-month voyage from America to Britain. One wonders what might have happened had the Brits come up with the idea of Dominion status a century earlier.)
And it's also a depressingly common pattern--most of the time, all you have to do to avoid a revolution is grant a few concessions and most of the grumbling will quit. But people in power tend to be penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to this sort of thing.
For a modern-day parallel of what this can look like in a liberal democracy, see the RNC and DNC during late 2015 and early 2016.
You're misunderstanding King Jorge III as an absolute monarch - he wasn't. The Americans' problems were caused by the prime minister Lord North and the Tory party (the opposition Whigs were mostly pro-American). George did make things worse though.
This is very true-but-Parliament, as it was constituted in those days, was not comprised of individuals from specific geographic areas representing the same specific geographic areas. The political parties got the rich dudes from London or Birmingham to run and assigned them a district to “represent”, but they often never even set foot there or cared about local issues. The British attitude/practice was that Parliament represented everyone in the general political sense, not the literal sense. If someone back then made your point, the Parliamentarians would have said “the Parliament represents Boston or NYC or Baltimore just like it represents Norfolk or Newcastle”-ie-in the general sense, not the literal, geographic sense.
I was expecting a piece about Graham Platner's latest round of SA allegations, not a repost of something about stamps, but the two recommended articles are about Platner. I'm confused...
I'm taking some time off this week (which actually just means that I'm writing pieces for other publications). But I'll have something about Platner up tomorrow.
I very much look forward to Jeff's eventual "I was SO right about Platner" piece. Taking a 'victory' lap can be tricky for a writer but I have no doubt he'll turn out a gem on that disaster...I wonder what that vocal-fry guy from the WSJ interview is thinking right now.
The vocal fry guy should be thinking "I'm TERRIBLE at vetting candidates." Maybe when Platner was asked if there were any skeletons in his closet, he couldn't remember any since he's a blackout drunk.
I was thinking (hoping for my own amusement) that Jeff was going to address it by adapting the piece he just did about the DSA always saying "we just want healthcare." But it looks like now the Democratic party is actually trying to dump Platner from the ticket so now Platner has bigger problems than pushing for single-payer.
Dillon: I always suffer withdrawal when Jeff takes time off. Sundays are wretched for me! But he needs his rest. I want to keep enjoying the golden eggs and for that the 🪿 goose must have an occasional day off. But only occasional please!!!
RE: "A revolution over paper products is, indeed, silly..."
I don't know, Jeff. If the toilet paper makers hadn't finally gotten their shit together back during Covid, we might have put that premise to the test.
You say the American Revolution lacked "sky-high body count produced by a complete disintegration of social order", which is true, but it did kill considerably more people per-capita (in the US) than WW II.
1. The British empire had practiced what Robert Walpole called "salutary neglect"--i.e., not committing a lot of resources to the Thirteen colonies, but also ruling with a very light hand--before the French And Indian/Seven Years' War, and this while France held Canada and the area west of the Appalachians and Spain held Florida. Then, after the war was over and the threat to the colonies had significantly lessened, suddenly London decided to provide troops and tax the colonies more. This, naturally, aroused suspicions.
2. One of the interesting things about the British war effort in North America is that the colonies were usually pretty good about providing men, supplies, and money when the request came in the form of a question rather than a demand--that is, "Could you provide us with x, y, and z please" rather than "Give us x, y, and z or suffer the consequences!"
Had Parliament said, "Hey guys, this war was ruinously expensive, you benefited from it, we need money, could you send us some," the colonists probably would have ponied up.
I've heard it said that national policy reflecting the will of the people is only the third most important benefit of democracy. The second is what you describe: that the government is afraid of the people, instead of vice versa. And the most important is that it provides a system for peaceful transition of power that doesn't fall apart as soon as someone accuses the incoming ruler of being a bastard (in the Game of Thrones sense, not the Piers Morgan sense).
There are two other little-discussed factors that contributed not just to the American Revolution's onset, but to its ultimate success.
First, the Navigation Acts ensured that the colonies could only sell the highly-valued goods they produced, chiefly cotton and tobacco, to the Mother Country, with the prices set at artificially low rates. This remained true even if the colonies produced a surplus -- they couldn't sell it elsewhere at market rates. England maintained a trade monopoly on both the raw materials and the manufactured goods produced from them. This naturally led to a brisk colonial smuggling trade and a merchant class that clearly understood how much more money they might make in a post-colonial system. It's one thing for an empire to kick the Poors in the teeth, but the British Empire made enemies of subjects who had the finances to purchase artillery.
Second, the circumstances of warfare at that time were uniquely favorable to the type of guerilla campaign mounted by the colonists -- there wasn't the kind of wild asymmetry that characterizes modern warfare, where the Empire has bombers and ICBMs and the rebels have rifles and sidearms, or even earlier warfare where mounted nobles had plate mail and lances and the poor had brooms and rakes. England had to pack troops and artillery onto wooden boats and send them to the colonies in order to quell a rebellion, as was the case with all their imperial holdings. Maintaining supply lines across oceans in the age of sailing vessels was always going to be a problem with an empire on which the sun never sets. The Empire's resources were stretched too thin, and the richest colony with the roughest terrain and the orneriest inhabitants was the first to throw them off.
(harrumph)... ACTUALLY, postage stamps were not invented until 1840.
Recently, to follow a couple of political issues over there I've been reading two British newspapers - the Guardian (liberal) and the Telegraph (conservative) - and they both refer to 'stamp duty' a lot. Took me awhile to figure out they're just talking about TAXES, usually property taxes. Two major politicians who 'forgot' to pay their 'stamp duty' are Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Former Checker (Ex-Checker) who seems to be some sort of Treasury Secretary and should know better, and Zack Polanski, dentally-challenged leader of the Green Party who used to work as a professional hypnotist and claimed to enlarge women's breasts via hypnosis. (If Jeff ever drags his wife to the UK to watch soccer, we'll get some funny stuff!) The Brits are used to these cads and bounders avoiding their Stamp Duty, but they still don't like it!
Ragdolled is a good description for last nights loss. I'm still a new fan, still don't know the rules or what I'm seeing, but even my virgin eyes saw a team (sigh) face plant. I'm still going to watch more games.....
Had Folarin Balogun personally decided not to participate, due to his own righteous ethics, I’m willing to believe that Team US might have played a more inspired match and possibly won on emotion and good play. The team looked as if they were doomed from the start just by being placed in a position they could not win, even if they outplayed Belgium. It was nice of Belgium not to run up the score.
However, when Nero the Dull decided to step in and bring his insidious demeanor and foul smelling lack of honesty and fair play, the team, and game, was doomed. Anything that self absorbed orange headed gasbag involves itself in usually ends up looking like a mold culture in a lab. The Dutch Royal Family should petition the World Court to make him change his whatever you call it on the top and sides of his cranium to a more neutral color, say…..concrete.
Edited for what appeared to be a (auto-correct) homophobic slur directed at Mr Balogun. Not how I roll.
It's not Balogun's (why did you call him a slur???) call whether to participate in the match, and he's behaved with grace throughout this whole shitshow.
Fat fingers Nate, sorry. If you read all of my post you might have been able to understand the context in which it was written. Balogan was in a no win situation.
There were *such* good vibes around the team for the whole tournament until FIFA and Trump f*cked it all up. Such a disappointing way to end, but I'm trying to hang on to the good memories...
I never understood the reaction of King George III. All he had to do was allow a few colonists to serve in Parliament where they could be seated in the back row and ignored. Problem solved.....
The other commenters are right that it was more Parliament than the King George, but IMHO you're right that they could have solved this problem very cheaply early on by granting the colonies a few seats. Pretty big historic blunder!
In fairness, the refusal to grant the thirteen colonies parliamentary representation was a Parliamentary problem, not a George III problem. (And there were some significant logistical hurdles--it was a two-month voyage from America to Britain. One wonders what might have happened had the Brits come up with the idea of Dominion status a century earlier.)
And it's also a depressingly common pattern--most of the time, all you have to do to avoid a revolution is grant a few concessions and most of the grumbling will quit. But people in power tend to be penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to this sort of thing.
For a modern-day parallel of what this can look like in a liberal democracy, see the RNC and DNC during late 2015 and early 2016.
You're misunderstanding King Jorge III as an absolute monarch - he wasn't. The Americans' problems were caused by the prime minister Lord North and the Tory party (the opposition Whigs were mostly pro-American). George did make things worse though.
Brad: Thanks!
King George’s problem was the fact he was a few bricks short of a full load and listened to voices only he could hear.
This is very true-but-Parliament, as it was constituted in those days, was not comprised of individuals from specific geographic areas representing the same specific geographic areas. The political parties got the rich dudes from London or Birmingham to run and assigned them a district to “represent”, but they often never even set foot there or cared about local issues. The British attitude/practice was that Parliament represented everyone in the general political sense, not the literal sense. If someone back then made your point, the Parliamentarians would have said “the Parliament represents Boston or NYC or Baltimore just like it represents Norfolk or Newcastle”-ie-in the general sense, not the literal, geographic sense.
Matt: Interesting! I love history. Thanks!
I was expecting a piece about Graham Platner's latest round of SA allegations, not a repost of something about stamps, but the two recommended articles are about Platner. I'm confused...
I'm taking some time off this week (which actually just means that I'm writing pieces for other publications). But I'll have something about Platner up tomorrow.
I very much look forward to Jeff's eventual "I was SO right about Platner" piece. Taking a 'victory' lap can be tricky for a writer but I have no doubt he'll turn out a gem on that disaster...I wonder what that vocal-fry guy from the WSJ interview is thinking right now.
Tomorrow.
The vocal fry guy should be thinking "I'm TERRIBLE at vetting candidates." Maybe when Platner was asked if there were any skeletons in his closet, he couldn't remember any since he's a blackout drunk.
He was looking forward to serving with Hegseth.
Dillon: He's taking some time off for July 4th (after July 4th?) so reposts.
I'm sure Plattner will make more news soon.....
I was thinking (hoping for my own amusement) that Jeff was going to address it by adapting the piece he just did about the DSA always saying "we just want healthcare." But it looks like now the Democratic party is actually trying to dump Platner from the ticket so now Platner has bigger problems than pushing for single-payer.
Dillon: I always suffer withdrawal when Jeff takes time off. Sundays are wretched for me! But he needs his rest. I want to keep enjoying the golden eggs and for that the 🪿 goose must have an occasional day off. But only occasional please!!!
RE: "A revolution over paper products is, indeed, silly..."
I don't know, Jeff. If the toilet paper makers hadn't finally gotten their shit together back during Covid, we might have put that premise to the test.
It wasn't really a revolution; it was a colonial uprising. That's one big reason it looks different from the French and Russian (etc) revolutions.
Even though I know you made it up, I still want to read "The Ribald Undertakings of Goodwife Jellybosom’”. For purely scholarly reasons, of course.
You say the American Revolution lacked "sky-high body count produced by a complete disintegration of social order", which is true, but it did kill considerably more people per-capita (in the US) than WW II.
The American Revolution was led by precise, analytical men of common sense, not mobs of illiterates rioting over bread or voodoo dolls.
There were a couple of other issues too:
1. The British empire had practiced what Robert Walpole called "salutary neglect"--i.e., not committing a lot of resources to the Thirteen colonies, but also ruling with a very light hand--before the French And Indian/Seven Years' War, and this while France held Canada and the area west of the Appalachians and Spain held Florida. Then, after the war was over and the threat to the colonies had significantly lessened, suddenly London decided to provide troops and tax the colonies more. This, naturally, aroused suspicions.
2. One of the interesting things about the British war effort in North America is that the colonies were usually pretty good about providing men, supplies, and money when the request came in the form of a question rather than a demand--that is, "Could you provide us with x, y, and z please" rather than "Give us x, y, and z or suffer the consequences!"
Had Parliament said, "Hey guys, this war was ruinously expensive, you benefited from it, we need money, could you send us some," the colonists probably would have ponied up.
I've heard it said that national policy reflecting the will of the people is only the third most important benefit of democracy. The second is what you describe: that the government is afraid of the people, instead of vice versa. And the most important is that it provides a system for peaceful transition of power that doesn't fall apart as soon as someone accuses the incoming ruler of being a bastard (in the Game of Thrones sense, not the Piers Morgan sense).
peaceful transition of power seems like more a function of republics rather than democracy.
Not sure what you mean?
The AI voice reads his name as “Fuck-you-ima” and it’s goddamn hilarious.
There are two other little-discussed factors that contributed not just to the American Revolution's onset, but to its ultimate success.
First, the Navigation Acts ensured that the colonies could only sell the highly-valued goods they produced, chiefly cotton and tobacco, to the Mother Country, with the prices set at artificially low rates. This remained true even if the colonies produced a surplus -- they couldn't sell it elsewhere at market rates. England maintained a trade monopoly on both the raw materials and the manufactured goods produced from them. This naturally led to a brisk colonial smuggling trade and a merchant class that clearly understood how much more money they might make in a post-colonial system. It's one thing for an empire to kick the Poors in the teeth, but the British Empire made enemies of subjects who had the finances to purchase artillery.
Second, the circumstances of warfare at that time were uniquely favorable to the type of guerilla campaign mounted by the colonists -- there wasn't the kind of wild asymmetry that characterizes modern warfare, where the Empire has bombers and ICBMs and the rebels have rifles and sidearms, or even earlier warfare where mounted nobles had plate mail and lances and the poor had brooms and rakes. England had to pack troops and artillery onto wooden boats and send them to the colonies in order to quell a rebellion, as was the case with all their imperial holdings. Maintaining supply lines across oceans in the age of sailing vessels was always going to be a problem with an empire on which the sun never sets. The Empire's resources were stretched too thin, and the richest colony with the roughest terrain and the orneriest inhabitants was the first to throw them off.
(harrumph)... ACTUALLY, postage stamps were not invented until 1840.
Recently, to follow a couple of political issues over there I've been reading two British newspapers - the Guardian (liberal) and the Telegraph (conservative) - and they both refer to 'stamp duty' a lot. Took me awhile to figure out they're just talking about TAXES, usually property taxes. Two major politicians who 'forgot' to pay their 'stamp duty' are Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Former Checker (Ex-Checker) who seems to be some sort of Treasury Secretary and should know better, and Zack Polanski, dentally-challenged leader of the Green Party who used to work as a professional hypnotist and claimed to enlarge women's breasts via hypnosis. (If Jeff ever drags his wife to the UK to watch soccer, we'll get some funny stuff!) The Brits are used to these cads and bounders avoiding their Stamp Duty, but they still don't like it!
Ragdolled is a good description for last nights loss. I'm still a new fan, still don't know the rules or what I'm seeing, but even my virgin eyes saw a team (sigh) face plant. I'm still going to watch more games.....
It was incredibly disappointing -- they just laid an egg. Which happens; too bad it happened in that context.
Jeff: 😪
Had Folarin Balogun personally decided not to participate, due to his own righteous ethics, I’m willing to believe that Team US might have played a more inspired match and possibly won on emotion and good play. The team looked as if they were doomed from the start just by being placed in a position they could not win, even if they outplayed Belgium. It was nice of Belgium not to run up the score.
However, when Nero the Dull decided to step in and bring his insidious demeanor and foul smelling lack of honesty and fair play, the team, and game, was doomed. Anything that self absorbed orange headed gasbag involves itself in usually ends up looking like a mold culture in a lab. The Dutch Royal Family should petition the World Court to make him change his whatever you call it on the top and sides of his cranium to a more neutral color, say…..concrete.
Edited for what appeared to be a (auto-correct) homophobic slur directed at Mr Balogun. Not how I roll.
I'm going to assume that was a typo and give you a chance to correct. We don't talk like that around here (especially about goal-scorers).
It's not Balogun's (why did you call him a slur???) call whether to participate in the match, and he's behaved with grace throughout this whole shitshow.
Fat fingers Nate, sorry. If you read all of my post you might have been able to understand the context in which it was written. Balogan was in a no win situation.
Nero the Dull put him there.
Along with Infantino! Someone got “bought”
There were *such* good vibes around the team for the whole tournament until FIFA and Trump f*cked it all up. Such a disappointing way to end, but I'm trying to hang on to the good memories...