January 15, 2006
Colonial Economics
Friedrich, at 2blowhards, ponders the impetus for the American Revolution. He makes a good point that in the global scheme of things, the colonists did not seem to be aggrieved on the order of other oppressed peoples. Okay, Stamp Tax Bad, tariffs, yadda yadda. We have MUCH more oppressive taxation today and my musket is in its case.
He examines a book with economic and biometric data, William Fogel’s “The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death, 1700-2100.” ($65!) and discovers that the colonists were taller, ate better and lived longer.
Given that most Americans of the Revolutionary War period were of British extraction and could hardly have been ignorant of conditions there, it must have been as plain as the nose on their faces that people lived far longer, ate far better and grew up more sturdily in the Colonies than in the Mother Country. So when the British government started tightening the screws on the colonies in the wake of the French and Indian wars, the mental calculation of the colonists must have been pretty simple: “Let me get this straight: you British aristocrats, in your infinite wisdom, want to make us Americans more like the average British working man? In short, you want us to live as poorly as you do? I think not, if I have anything to say about it. Martha, what did you do with my rifle?”In short, it appears that rather than being the work of ultra-touchy libertarians, the American Revolution was one of the most substantively motivated conflicts in history. The colonists had a good thing going, and didn’t intend to give it up lightly. Who wouldn’t go to war, even today, if the disputed prize was a 17-year difference in life expectancy?
Interesting post. Good Comments. Hat-tip: Pajamas Media
America, F*ck Yeah! Posted by jk at January 15, 2006 1:10 PM
This is true, taxation without representation makes a great rallying cry, but compared to their compatriots back home they were in much better shape. Why else would folks pay for a long and risky voyage across the ocean if not to improve their lot in life. It could be said that a lot of the impetus for the war was based on propaganda, coupled with some political chicanery. (Any of this sound familiar?) Samuel Adams was a master at propaganda but given his proclivity for inciting the masses (he not once but twice led/advocated the burning of the Governor's house) could be considered a terrorist leader. John Hancock, who supported/bankrolled him (even had to buy him a suit to attend the first Continental Congress) was a steadfast American patriot, who just happened to make his fortune smuggling some of those taxed British items. Anyone who tells you that politics has become so much more corrupt and coarse than it used to be hasn't read much history.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at January 16, 2006 3:55 PMYeah, they pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to line their own pockets. That makes sense.
Or does it? If Hancock got rich smuggling against British taxation then how does he gain be dismantling the unjust taxes?
Surely Silence wouldn't suggest his namesake fell in this rank of self-interested propagandists as well, especially after reading Chris Hitchens' words above:
"Benjamin Franklin offered to pay the damages of the Boston Tea Party. If the British authorities had not treated him in such an arrogant and underhanded manner, and had not had such a paltry idea of the man with whom they had to deal, he would very probably have negotiated a brilliant settlement of the outstanding disputes between the colonies and the motherland. This was certainly his wish."
I have no delusion that America's founders were pure as the wind driven snow but I can't abide wholesale defamation of their character. Have you no sense of gratitude?
Posted by: johngalt at January 17, 2006 3:27 PMVery interesting link. Based on the information in the blog and the comments (I probably won't shell out $65?? for the book) I note a few points.
It seems likely to me that the 17 year difference in life expectancy could be a result of the differences in freedom. Therefore they were fighting for their freedom knowing its true worth.
An excellent point made in one of the comments was that it is likely that America started out with hardier, healthier people as those are the types that are likely to emigrate. And since there seem to be a lot of book recommendations flying around, I will add this:
This point is raised by Robert H. Heinlein in several of his books. He writes science fiction so he talks about the results when the best and the brightest go off to colonize some new planet but the analogy holds. I additionally recommend his, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,” for a description of a revolution that, although fictional, rings true regarding the motives and methods of revolutionaries.
Posted by: dagny at January 18, 2006 1:37 AM | What do you think? [3]