In 1931 the Statute of Westminster elevated the so-called Dominions within the British Empire to a status of equality with the United Kingdom itself. These included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Union of South Africa and the Irish Free State. The Empire thus became the Commonwealth of Nations or, more popularly, the British Commonwealth. Each Dominion had its own Parliament and was functionally independent, sharing only a common monarch whose representative, the Governor General, was appointed by the King on the advice of his Dominion government.
Two centuries earlier, however, the American colonists believed that something like the Commonwealth of Nations already existed. This is what contributed to the outbreak of hostilities in 1775. Here is David Hackett Fischer:
These county oligarchies [in colonial Virginia] were not sovereign bodies. Above them sat the Assembly, Council and Royal Governor. The status of these institutions was in dispute until the American War of Independence. The Assembly was understood by Imperial officials as the colonial equivalent of a municipal council in England. They called it the House of Burgesses, a name which brought to mind the Burgesses of Bristol and other British towns. But Virginians had a different idea of their Assembly. In 1687, William Fitzhugh called it “our Parliament here,” a representative body which knew no sovereign except the King himself (p. 407).
Tragically, this difference of opinion had to be settled on the battlefield, with Americans claiming full independence on this day 235 years ago.
July 4th, 2011 | 9:33 am | #1
I think you want to correct the numerical typo in the very last line: America has been around for more than 135 years.
July 4th, 2011 | 9:59 am | #2
Corrected. It’s a sign of the ageing process when you mix up, not only days of the week, but entire centuries. :-)
July 13th, 2011 | 3:44 pm | #3
FWIW, historically, Great Britain learned a lot of lessons from the American crisis.
It’s arguable that what we know of as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand would not exist as we know them, were it not for lessons of 1770 – 1783.
One of George III’s grandsons was instrumental in setting up the Canadian Confederation.
Queen Elizabeth gave a speech in Boston in 1776, which I think is one of the best explanations for the inability of the British political system to handle increasing autonomy for the American colonies (worth noting that 13 colonies rebelled – there were actually 4 others that did not).
In the big scheme of things, George III wasn’t really a great tyrant. He was a beacon of freedom vs. the French Revolution and Napoleon. Just the British system, in the 1770′s was unable to handle the stress of autonomous colonies – no nation could – which is why there were so many colonial wars for the next 50 years or so. The British learned more applicable lessons than any other power, though.
July 18th, 2011 | 4:45 pm | #4
You are quite right, Jason. The British did indeed learn much from the American rebellion, as they did from the rebellions of 1837 in Upper and Lower Canada. Also from the 1926 constitutional crisis in Canada, which contributed to the transition from Empire to Commonwealth of Nations five years later. The British Empire was a remarkably bad idea, but they managed imperial decline with more grace and good will than the other European powers.
You are right about George III as well. The Americans’ beef was not really with the King but with Parliament, which presumed superiority to the colonial legislative bodies.
One minor quibble perhaps: I doubt that the current Queen was around in 1776. I assume you mean 1976?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact