As I just mentioned this to Meles meles on another thread, I want to deepen this question..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PEzusNb0Pk
https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/HIST303-2.6.1-HowRevolutionaryWastheRevolution-FINAL.pdf
I have no real source about this site and when I click on "saylor.org" my Norton safety system says: it is dangerous to go further...
But nevertheless it seems coherent about the reasoning and it has the same conclusion as the first link:
The "revolution" lays in the principle of a new system of authority based on the enlightenment and all...and people deciding for themselves...?
I wanted to come with the abolition of the king with Cromwell, but that was rather changing the king with a dictatorship?
I wanted also to give as example of revolution: the Dutch Republic, abolition of the "king's authority" and now the authority comes from the people, or at least from an oligarchy...? I think I discussed it with nordmann and he came, if I recall it well, with the example of Venice...?
And yes as nordmann now defined the difference between authority and power...but I have to look back to the thread to see that I dont make mistakes in all these definitions...nordmann if you want to enlighten us "poor people" again about all that and the questions overhere...

Kind regards from Paul.

Paul wrote:

And yes as nordmann now defined the difference between authority and power...but I have to look back to the thread to see that I dont make mistakes in all these definitions...nordmann if you want to enlighten us "poor people" again about all that and the questions overhere...

I am sorry, Paul, but, with all due respect, comments like that infuriate me. We all know that nordmann is a hugely intelligent man with very interesting views on a wide range of subjects, but he is not the Oslo Oracle who pronounces with absolute authority on all matters for the "enlightenment" of the rest of us "poor people"  here. We come to Res Historica (or I at least did in the past) to discuss and exchange views, not to be given lecture notes.

I know nothing about the American Revolution, but I wonder whether its driving force was economic rather than philosophic? Freedom and all that certainly, but, men being what they are, did this actually mean freedom to make lots of money and keep it? Being born free is all well and good (are any of us actually "born free"?), but the other bit of Rousseau's observation is also interesting - wonder what the offspring of that "revolution", today's American/global plutocrats, would make of it?


"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they are."

Temperance wrote:

I am sorry, Paul, but, with all due respect, comments like that infuriate me. We all know that nordmann is a hugely intelligent man with very interesting views on a wide range of subjects, but he is not the Oslo Oracle who pronounces with absolute authority on all matters for the "enlightenment" of the rest of us "poor people"  here.

Hear, hear! ... and though I hesitate to speak for anyone else, I suspect Nord himself would agree.

But returning to the OP, surely that 'American business' was more a revolt than a revolution.

Remember that overall the people in the American colonies were generally happy with how things were being run (stability and an established rule of law; religious tolerance; protection from the French and native uprisings; a general laissez-faire attitude to business, slave ownership, the appropriation of native people's lands; a property/land ownership requirement for the franchise, etc ... ) and at the start of the conflict a good half of the population professed loyalty to the crown. The rebels were not really for revolution and changing the whole structure of government ... they mostly wanted to maintain the established laws and how the society worked, but just make the control and legislation of it all more local to themselves. They were seeking devolution rather than revolution.

MM - I've edited my original post, removing a rogue comma (the one after "am" in the opening sentence) and I have added "very" before  "interesting views"; but I  can't edit my words and punctuation in your quote above - please would you do it? Ta.

I agree with what you say, and I think I agree with what you say about the American Revolution, too. The Americans were mostly English after all (warts and all). We don't like bloody revolutions very much (1688 and all that) - I wonder if that's why all the turmoil of1 848 was a non-event for us?

I wonder what Burke had to say about the American Revolution - and the taxation business? I bet he said something (in beautiful English prose). As I remember, he was not too keen on all the Romantic/Enlightenment freedom stuff of the next big revolution - the real one in France? Bit of an 18th century Rees-Moggy was Burke - hugely intelligent and erudite, but conservative to the core - the first real Conservative, in fact.

I was actually a little insulted by Paul's remark but not enough to start a huff. Paul uses English very well for a non speaker normally but sometimes it's good to see beyond the odd failure to employ nuance. He's a person interested in history. Which does me.

My knowledge of American history (apart from what I have gleaned over the years from media reports and books etc) comes from my 7th form - year 13 - History course, and that was just tacked on after the Stuart and Tudor history.  But we were, I have realised lately, tracing the course of the British constitutional history, from monarchs wielding power to its devolution to Parliament and democracy.  

I think the American revolution was part of that: my understanding is they resented British rule over them without the input of the settlers.  "No taxes without representation". (I feel a bit resentful of Australia's treatment of NZers settled there; if they don't have citizenship, their rights are restricted.  They pay taxes and all their duties but aren't eligible for student allowances or other benefits. It's something of a bone of contention here.)

Expecting full rights of a citizen when not a citizen? That's an odd expectation and bone of contention.

Does NZ grant full rights, allowances and other benefits to immigrants that don't have NZ citizenship even though they pay taxes? It would be alone if it does considering no country in the world would, at least I've never heard of one that does anyway.

Well, we certainly do to Australians. That's why we are so peeved about Australia's stance, and people often say why don't we reciprocate.  I presume everyone else has the same rights.  My husband doesn't have citizenship (after 63 years in the country!) and I haven't found anything he's not entitled to, except he had to get his passport stamped to allow him back into the country when he leaves. But that only had to be done once.  I think you have to be a number of years (is it five and going to be extended to ten) to be allowed the superannuation pension. 

We do deport people who haven't fulfilled their visa requirements.  And we're a bit fussy about letting people stay who might be a drain on our health resources.

Hi Paul

'I wanted to come with the abolition of the king with Cromwell, but that was rather changing the king with a dictatorship?'

Charles I was executed in 1649, Cromwell did not seize power until 1653.  Before that power lay in theory with the Rump Parliament of which Cromwell was a member.  During 1649, 1650 and 1651 Cromwell was heavily engaged in first the war in Ireland and then the war with Scotland.

regards

Tim

Tim of Aclea wrote:

Hi Paul

'I wanted to come with the abolition of the king with Cromwell, but that was rather changing the king with a dictatorship?'

Charles I was executed in 1649, Cromwell did not seize power until 1653.  Before that power lay in theory with the Rump Parliament of which Cromwell was a member.  During 1649, 1650 and 1651 Cromwell was heavily engaged in first the war in Ireland and then the war with Scotland.

regards

Tim

Tim,

you are right with your Rump Parliament, but that seems, found after some research, considering itself as an interim government preparing for an elected government? But as I found out the Rump Parliament had its merits and was perhaps to compare with the Staten-Generaal of the Dutch Republic. Perhaps the Rump Parliament had the authority, recognized by the people, but the power was in the hand of Cromwell's army?...(nordmann?), Not so in the Dutch Republic, where the recognized authority lay in the hands of the Staten-Generaal and the power was also in their hands...although there was always tension with William of Orange (the later William III of Britain) who wanted a primordial role for the Stadholdership...especially in the period without Stadholder, that came to an end after the "Annus Horribilis"...the rule of the mob and the murder of the brothers de Witt, perhaps on the instigation of William, who wanted to be rid of all those republicans...but the Orangists had to wait till after the defeat of Napoleon to have a king in the Netherlands, and with the goodwill of Britain as it was with the Belgian secession...

But that is too complicated to discuss overhere and I will start a new thread, although it has to do with the authority of the new American States and what its authority was...?

Kind regards from Paul.

PS some entries I read for my new thread:
http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/first-civil-war/long-parliament
http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/the-commonwealth/rump-parliament
http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/the-commonwealth/nominated-assembly
From the nominated assembly I couldn't resist...
"Following the expulsion of the Rump Parliament in April 1653, the Council of Officers was reluctant to authorise free elections because of the possibility that Presbyterians and even Royalist sympathisers might be returned. Two constitutional schemes were discussed to replace the discredited Parliament. Major-General John Lambert proposed a body similar to the Council of State, with powers limited by a written constitution. Lambert's rival, Major-General Thomas Harrison called for a ruling body based upon the Old Testament Sanhedrin of 70 selected "Saints". Harrison's proposal was influenced by his Fifth Monarchist belief that the rule of the Saints would be a prelude to the reign of Christ on Earth."
http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/the-commonwealth/first-anglo-dutch-war

Caro wrote:

Well, we certainly do to Australians. That's why we are so peeved about Australia's stance, and people often say why don't we reciprocate.  I presume everyone else has the same rights.  My husband doesn't have citizenship (after 63 years in the country!) and I haven't found anything he's not entitled to, except he had to get his passport stamped to allow him back into the country when he leaves. But that only had to be done once.  I think you have to be a number of years (is it five and going to be extended to ten) to be allowed the superannuation pension. 

We do deport people who haven't fulfilled their visa requirements.  And we're a bit fussy about letting people stay who might be a drain on our health resources.

Well there is your answer then, reciprocate until a deal with Australia is reached. If enough Australians feel the pinch then the government will come around to negotiating a mutual agreement with the NZ government. Which is usually how it works, not just doing something and expecting others to follow. I know that Greece has negotiated many such deals with Australia because of the amount of Greek and Australian citizens living in both countries so it is not that Australia won't. What does your government do about it?

Your husband is married to a NZ citizen though, his status in the country differs to others who are not.