Was George III a tyrant?

[Uraeli]

George III was not a tyrant. Lord North on the other hand....

[Forsakia]

Nothing quite says "improvement" like vague Democracy to tub thumping "DEMOCRACY" whilst owning slaves huh?

Let's face it, no one came out of that mess smelling of Roses.

Well, yes, actually. The United States, for all its faults, was better than the British model at creating/protecting the rights of its citizens at the time (remember, Britain had slaves as well), and more individual representation in government and rights are generally considered a good thing. So yes. Yes indeed.

Iirc slavery was illegal in Britain by the time of the American Revolution (although not illegal in the colonies) and of course after the various proclamations the British sought for a time to boost their army (and muck up the revolutionaries economcy) by offering freedom to escaping slaves (and generally enlisting them in an army to, from their perspective, fight for their freedom).

[Tmutarakhan]

Shhh. Let them have their illusions.

Honestly, I think that the big reason Americans are often thought of as stupid is because there are more Americans to be stupid. Take a technologically advanced nation, give every citizen a voice, and you'll see quite a few of the dumb loud guys making noise. It's just the way it is. And this doesn't just happen to America. France has a reputation for snottiness, England has the Chav problem...I could go on. But those things are just cultural artifacts that other countries have latched onto, often as a means for unreasonably denigrating their others.

Being an American, I think I can talk about Americans all I want.

I thought you vehemently denied being an American, were an oppressed conquered victim blah blah blah.

George III was not a tyrant. Lord North on the other hand....

Lord North was George's choice. The system by which ministers were chosen by Parliament with the crown playing only a formulaic role is what George III was abolishing.

To us Brits, he's a hero; he brought us through the Napoleonic Wars, whilst you Yanks decided to support France, so we burnt down Washington DC. To you, he may be a tyrant, to us, he's a hero.

George III was confined to an asylum before Napoleon got his start (and it wasn't the Prince Regent, really, who got you through those wars, since he was content to let the monarchy slide back into "figurehead" status). America did not support France in those wars; indeed we had been in "quasi-war" as it was called at the time (undeclared but warfare all the same) with France only a few years earlier, but Napoleon had made truce (not alliance) with us, ceasing the harrassment of our shipping (which Britain continued) and letting us take over Louisiana Territory in exchange for a rather modest payment.

[Betoni]

Being an American, I think I can talk about Americans all I want.

I thought you vehemently denied being an American, were an oppressed conquered victim blah blah blah.

George III was not a tyrant. Lord North on the other hand....

Lord North was George's choice. The system by which ministers were chosen by Parliament with the crown playing only a formulaic role is what George III was abolishing.

To us Brits, he's a hero; he brought us through the Napoleonic Wars, whilst you Yanks decided to support France, so we burnt down Washington DC. To you, he may be a tyrant, to us, he's a hero.

George III was confined to an asylum before Napoleon got his start (and it wasn't the Prince Regent, really, who got you through those wars, since he was content to let the monarchy slide back into "figurehead" status). America did not support France in those wars; indeed we had been in "quasi-war" as it was called at the time (undeclared but warfare all the same) with France only a few years earlier, but Napoleon had made truce (not alliance) with us, ceasing the harrassment of our shipping (which Britain continued) and letting us take over Louisiana Territory in exchange for a rather modest payment.

The divide between the policies is as huge as the divide between how the people get on with living as it is between Finland and Canada at the time, never mind the actually poor countries like Nigeria. Seriously, FUCK ALL YOU PEOPLE... im not a troll, im not a a copycat, im not capsing without a purpose. No matter what one argues this shit has started along time ago and only now the people are reacting to it.

[Staeny]

The divide between the policies is as huge as the divide between how the people get on with living as it is between Finland and Canada at the time, never mind the actually poor countries like Nigeria. Seriously, FUCK ALL YOU PEOPLE... im not a troll, im not a a copycat, im not capsing without a purpose. No matter what one argues this shit has started along time ago and only now the people are reacting to it.

what??

[Disserbia]

The captain always goes down with the ship...

[The Archregimancy]

I was really looking forward to participating in this thread.

Regrettably, moderation duties take precedence.

The divide between the policies is as huge as the divide between how the people get on with living as it is between Finland and Canada at the time, never mind the actually poor countries like Nigeria. Seriously, FUCK ALL YOU PEOPLE... im not a troll, im not a a copycat, im not capsing without a purpose. No matter what one argues this shit has started along time ago and only now the people are reacting to it.

*** Warned for flaming. ***

Note that I'm not entirely clear on the connection of the above post to the post it was quoting; but flaming is flaming.

[Forsher]

The overwhelming American opinion seems to me to be that George III was a tyrant? As a result of the glorious revolution, constitutionally he had no more power than the present Queen Elizabeth II does today? It would seem to me that Parliament, being responsible for the Stamp Tax among others was the real tyranny- if you consider it to have been a tyranny?

He was not a tyrant. Americans have a noted and often extreme bias...

[Angleter]

George III was not a tyrant. Lord North on the other hand....

Similarly, Lord North's chances of getting anything conciliatory towards the colonists through Parliament were close to nought. The only way to remedy that would've been to flood Parliament with placemen, but that most certainly would've been 'tyrannical' and resulted in disaster.

[Staeny]

I was really looking forward to participating in this thread.

Regrettably, moderation duties take precedence.

The divide between the policies is as huge as the divide between how the people get on with living as it is between Finland and Canada at the time, never mind the actually poor countries like Nigeria. Seriously, FUCK ALL YOU PEOPLE... im not a troll, im not a a copycat, im not capsing without a purpose. No matter what one argues this shit has started along time ago and only now the people are reacting to it.

*** Warned for flaming. ***

Note that I'm not entirely clear on the connection of the above post to the post it was quoting; but flaming is flaming.

Moderation takes precedence but you can still participate? I'd like to hear your opinion. Apparently A level politics extremely dumbs down the reason why the Americans wanted to be become independent. Either way I have to write 'the Founding Fathers thought that...' rather than' it was the case that...'

[Aethelstania]

The overwhelming American opinion seems to me to be that George III was a tyrant? As a result of the glorious revolution, constitutionally he had no more power than the present Queen Elizabeth II does today? It would seem to me that Parliament, being responsible for the Stamp Tax among others was the real tyranny- if you consider it to have been a tyranny?

No he was not, its parliament to blame not that they where tyranical either!

[The Archregimancy]

Moderation takes precedence but you can still participate?

While there are occasional exceptions, we usually try not to moderate in threads we're actively participating in (and vice versa). This avoids any conflicts of interest.

If there are no further issues in this thread that require my active moderation involvement, I might choose to participate; but I'd prefer to allow several hours to a day to pass to make sure the person I warned earlier isn't returning.

[Forsakia]

Moderation takes precedence but you can still participate?

While there are occasional exceptions, we usually try not to moderate in threads we're actively participating in (and vice versa). This avoids any conflicts of interest.

If there are no further issues in this thread that require my active moderation involvement, I might choose to participate; but I'd prefer to allow several hours to a day to pass to make sure the person I warned earlier isn't returning.

Arch also likes the rest of us to play at historical debating before wading in to lay down the law history.

[Frisbeeteria]

If there are no further issues in this thread that require my active moderation involvement, I might choose to participate;

Go for it, Arch. I too am curious about your take on this issue. I've got your back on the moderation issues.

[The Archregimancy]

Go for it, Arch. I too am curious about your take on this issue. I've got your back on the moderation issues.

Ah, well...

In that case....

George III wasn't a tyrant.

The 'George III' as tyrant trope is essentially the first case of the nascent United States personalising a complex conflict in a single individual in order to claim that individual was solely responsible for that conflict; which in a way makes George a distant antecedent of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden (I oversimplify for rhetorical effect, but the basic point holds).

If we look at Jefferson's point by point attempt to blame George for the conflict, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence....

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

...we're forced to conclude that this is deliberate propaganda by a highly intelligent and well-trained lawyer deeply versed in the British legal and constitutional tradition, which intentionally misrepresents George's role in both the conflict and the British political system of the late 18th century.

Parliament isn't mentioned once, but anyone familiar with the operation of the British constitution in the late 18th century will be familiar with the delicate informal system of checks and balances that existed between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches that existed at the time. George certainly wasn't powerless, but the actions of Parliament in condemning George's intervention over the collapse of the Duke of Portland's Fox-North coalition - and the fact that George had to appoint governments led by people he personally detested - amply prove he was no tyrant.

The irony is that the leaders of the nascent United States were so convinced of the benefits of the system of checks and balances that existed in late 18th-century Britain that they immediately went on to formally codify a republican version of that system into their own written constitution, eventually lumbering the 21st-century United States with an archaic and inefficient 18th-century system of government.

Note that none of the above should be read as suggesting that those colonists who were in favour of independence didn't necessarily have legitimate grievances; I merely argue that Jefferson's personalising the conflict in the form of the 'tyrant' George III was deliberating misleading propaganda - and highly effective deliberately misleading propaganda that still strongly influences how many children in the United States learn about a monarch who, while hardly without flaws, was a very long way from being a tyrant.

George's contemporaries Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick the Great of Prussia, or the Ottoman sultan Abdulhamid I would have found the idea that a monarch so constrained in his power as George III could be described as a 'tyrant' to be risible to the point of being self-evidently false.

[Kirav]

I work as a tour guide at a historic house that belonged to a prominent Loyalist family during the Revolutionary War, and I often have to explain to people that George III was not only sane, but also fairly humble and even a tiny bit progressively-minded for his age. He was concerned about the welfare of the peasantry (Their living conditions, of course, not their political voice), experimented with agriculture in his spare time, and was faithful to his wife, which was unheard of for a monarch of his period.

He was politically incapable of real tyranny. Though he was certainly not a figurehead monarch, he was not an absolute monarch either, as the powers of the English and later British monarchy were first limited by the Magna Carta and gradually weakened over time. George III has some real political power, and certainly an influence on British policy, but not nearly as much as Parliament.

However, one must remember that putting a leader's face on actions that the leader isn't entirely responsible for has been pretty common throughout history and remains today. Exemplorum gratia: Here on, our own forum.

[Staeny]

eventually lumbering the 21st-century United States with an archaic and inefficient 18th-century system of government.

Would it be too far off topic to ask you to explain this? Ok yes, the number of proposed bills that actually pass in congress is less than 10%, but was this not the intention, being that the states were meant to exercise autonomy as well? From all the study I've done, I've come to the conclusion that pork-barrel politics and other financial loopholes are much more harmful to the US than the general system itself, which as of yet hasn't resulted in a universally recognised tyranny in the executive (I say universally, though many libertarians would likely class the majority of Presidents as tyrants).

[The Archregimancy]

eventually lumbering the 21st-century United States with an archaic and inefficient 18th-century system of government.

Would it be too far off topic to ask you to explain this? Ok yes, the number of proposed bills that actually pass in congress is less than 10%, but was this not the intention, being that the states were meant to exercise autonomy as well? From all the study I've done, I've come to the conclusion that pork-barrel politics and other financial loopholes are much more harmful to the US than the general system itself, which as of yet hasn't resulted in a universally recognised tyranny in the executive (I say universally, though many libertarians would likely class the majority of Presidents as tyrants).

It would be too off-topic to go into any real detail.

But I do think you've perhaps misread my intention. It's not the number of bills passing Congress or the balance between the federal and state governments I was referring to, but rather the constitutional formalisation - and thereby eventual ossification - of an 18th-century system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Certainly I wasn't arguing that the system necessarily leads to a 'universally recognised tyranny in the executive' since A) I was strongly arguing that George III wasn't a tyrant and B) in the British system, we've moved towards primacy of the legislature, and the merging of the functional (as opposed to ceremonial) executive into the legislature, while removing most constitutional power from what served as our executive branch in the late 18th century.

But let's please remember that the thread's about George III, not whether the US Constitution is still fit for purpose; to that extent, I perhaps regret making that remark.


On a tangential issue, I'll note that I spent three years back in the 1990s running the archaeology lab at this Jefferson site, so my thoughts on the period - and Jefferson's role in the process - aren't just me making things up.

[Socialist States Owen]

Go for it, Arch. I too am curious about your take on this issue. I've got your back on the moderation issues.

Ah, well...

In that case....

George III wasn't a tyrant.

The 'George III' as tyrant trope is essentially the first case of the nascent United States personalising a complex conflict in a single individual in order to claim that individual was solely responsible for that conflict; which in a way makes George a distant antecedent of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden (I oversimplify for rhetorical effect, but the basic point holds).

If we look at Jefferson's point by point attempt to blame George for the conflict, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence....

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

...we're forced to conclude that this is deliberate propaganda by a highly intelligent and well-trained lawyer deeply versed in the British legal and constitutional tradition, which intentionally misrepresents George's role in both the conflict and the British political system of the late 18th century.

Parliament isn't mentioned once, but anyone familiar with the operation of the British constitution in the late 18th century will be familiar with the delicate informal system of checks and balances that existed between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches that existed at the time. George certainly wasn't powerless, but the actions of Parliament in condemning George's intervention over the collapse of the Duke of Portland's Fox-North coalition - and the fact that George had to appoint governments led by people he personally detested - amply prove he was no tyrant.

The irony is that the leaders of the nascent United States were so convinced of the benefits of the system of checks and balances that existed in late 18th-century Britain that they immediately went on to formally codify a republican version of that system into their own written constitution, eventually lumbering the 21st-century United States with an archaic and inefficient 18th-century system of government.

Note that none of the above should be read as suggesting that those colonists who were in favour of independence didn't necessarily have legitimate grievances; I merely argue that Jefferson's personalising the conflict in the form of the 'tyrant' George III was deliberating misleading propaganda - and highly effective deliberately misleading propaganda that still strongly influences how many children in the United States learn about a monarch who, while hardly without flaws, was a very long way from being a tyrant.

George's contemporaries Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick the Great of Prussia, or the Ottoman sultan Abdulhamid I would have found the idea that a monarch so constrained in his power as George III could be described as a 'tyrant' to be risible to the point of being self-evidently false.

....what he said. George III was possibly a tad incompetent (and went loony), but he was no tyrant.

[Staeny]

Would it be too far off topic to ask you to explain this? Ok yes, the number of proposed bills that actually pass in congress is less than 10%, but was this not the intention, being that the states were meant to exercise autonomy as well? From all the study I've done, I've come to the conclusion that pork-barrel politics and other financial loopholes are much more harmful to the US than the general system itself, which as of yet hasn't resulted in a universally recognised tyranny in the executive (I say universally, though many libertarians would likely class the majority of Presidents as tyrants).

It would be too off-topic to go into any real detail.

But I do think you've perhaps misread my intention. It's not the number of bills passing Congress or the balance between the federal and state governments I was referring to, but rather the constitutional formalisation - and thereby eventual ossification - of an 18th-century system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Certainly I wasn't arguing that the system necessarily leads to a 'universally recognised tyranny in the executive' since A) I was strongly arguing that George III wasn't a tyrant and B) in the British system, we've moved towards primacy of the legislature, and the merging of the functional (as opposed to ceremonial) executive into the legislature, while removing most constitutional power from what served as our executive branch in the late 18th century.

But let's please remember that the thread's about George III, not whether the US Constitution is still fit for purpose; to that extent, I perhaps regret making that remark.


On a tangential issue, I'll note that I spent three years back in the 1990s running the archaeology lab at this Jefferson site, so my thoughts on the period - and Jefferson's role in the process - aren't just me making things up.

Fair enough, though I don't think I ever said you were making things up about Jefferson?

[The Archregimancy]

Fair enough, though I don't think I ever said you were making things up about Jefferson?

Sorry - I didn't mean to suggest that you were, though I can see why it came across that way.

That Jefferson point was only supposed to be a general comment rather than one directed at you specifically. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Seleucas]

No, he wasn't. He didn't even have any power, really, so labeling the Revolution as being against 'the King' was more propaganda than anything else. And considering that his government, in the end, was willing to drop everything but a tax on tea to pay off a war they had fought for Americans (and that said tax hardly mattered considering that the British East India Company was able to provide tea at a very low rate), but the Americans were willing to greatly increase their own taxes after the war (including excise taxes which they had so bitterly protested), I would say it was the Patriots who were tyrannical.

[Aquophia]

Yes. All he wanted to do was put never-ending taxes on the colonies and ignored any possible compromises to make it more reasonable.

If it werent for him, the usa might be british territory right now.

[Seleucas]

Yes. All he wanted to do was put never-ending taxes on the colonies and ignored any possible compromises to make it more reasonable.

Then why did his government repeal the Stamp Act, Sugar Act, and most of the Townshend Acts? Why were the colonies only taxed at 1/7 of what the motherland was made to pay?

[Wirbel]

Yes. All he wanted to do was put never-ending taxes on the colonies and ignored any possible compromises to make it more reasonable.

Then why did his government repeal the Stamp Act, Sugar Act, and most of the Townshend Acts? Why were the colonies only taxed at 1/7 of what the motherland was made to pay?

And then the Americans make a new nation and complain about high taxes (Shays' Rebellion).