George III, king of Great Britain and its colonies on the time of the American Revolution, has been maligned unfairly.
During both the first and now the second term of President Donald Trump, commentators within the U.S. have invoked the king’s misdeeds to criticize Trump. When the president bypassed Congress to create a new government agency, appointed its head and stopped payment of thousands and thousands of {dollars} of allotted federal funds, his critics famous that he assumed the role of Congress, an influence seize that supposedly made him similar to George III. In accordance with this criticism, the president engaged in tyranny, simply because the founders accused George of doing.
As a scholar of early America, I consider, nevertheless, that George III has gotten a foul rap. He was not the omnipotent monarch that Trump allegedly aspires to be.
Within the 1770s, the ability of the British king was restricted by the authority of Parliament. In that system, which Individuals and others praised on the time as balanced, the king and the legislature each had specific duties and powers in order that neither might management the federal government alone.
George III was not an absolutist monarch, to make use of the language of the day for a power-hungry ruler. The English had struggled within the earlier century over the extent of the king’s energy. After fighting two civil wars, executing one king, and, finally, forcing the monarch to agree to rule with Parliament somewhat than on his personal, they believed their liberties had been safeguarded.
This method, referred to as restricted monarchy, was the delight of Nice Britain. It was additionally admired by the American founders. As late as 1774, in his Abstract View of the Rights of British America, Thomas Jefferson praised the “free and historic ideas” of the British structure during which “kings are the servants, not the proprietors of the people.”
Various
No kingly tyranny
Britons, whether or not in Nice Britain or the colonies, did worry a tyrant, a controlling and abusive chief.
Some fears got here from their research of political idea, which taught that authorities labored finest when composed of varied branches that represented the concerns of the different political classes.
As this idea went, an unbalanced authorities would descend into tyranny with a too-powerful monarch; oligarchy below a dominant aristocratic class; or anarchy with the folks uncontrolled. They believed these perils could possibly be prevented solely by sustaining steadiness.
Though the British didn’t worry imbalance or a tyrant king in their very own case, they may see the hazard threatening elsewhere in Europe.
France represented a worst-case situation. Its absolutist kings had dominated with out France’s legislature – the Estates Common – for greater than a century and a half on the time of the American Revolution. British poet Robert Wolseley’s typically reprinted poem declared: “Let France develop proud beneath the tyrant’s lust, Whereas the rackt folks crawl and lick the mud. The mighty Genius of this isle disdains Ambitious slavery and golden chains.”
Inside just a few years, Anglo-American criticism of kingly tyranny in France can be validated: That nation descended right into a violent revolution that resulted in a long time of warfare and political violence, together with the execution of the entire royal family.
This expertise confirmed for the British and Individuals {that a} balanced system was finest and that they need to rely their blessings.
Why revolt?
MPI/Getty Images
If the American revolutionaries admired the British system and sought to repeat it in america, why did they reject the hyperlink to Britain and revolt within the first place?
Individuals didn’t revolt towards the character of British authorities. Fairly they objected to their altering place inside the British Empire. The revolutionary disaster had numerous roots, however most of them arose out of modifications within the administration of the connection between the American Colonies and the imperial heart.
From the 1760s, the British authorities took a extra activist position in its American Colonies, limiting their geographical growth and imposing taxes directly on the inhabitants. Previously, Colonists had been free to maneuver west, challenged solely by the indigenous residents who fought to defend their lands.
Now the British authorities, aiming to place an finish to those wars, blocked expansion. On the identical time, to pay down the debt accrued in current battle with France – and fought partially in North America – the federal government levied taxes not by way of the Colonial legislatures, because it had earlier than, however directly on residents. This transformation sparked revolt and, finally, revolution.
Turning on the king
Corbis via Getty Images
Earlier than 1776, the Colonists believed that George III would come to their rescue and halt these modifications imposed by Parliament. They thought initially that he didn’t understand how the brand new insurance policies affected them.
Solely in 1776 did they settle for that George III supported the coverage modifications and wouldn’t defend their rights. It was in that context that they turned on him and declared him tyrannical, blaming him for the brand new insurance policies and calling for a break with Britain. Because the Declaration of Independence said: “The historical past of the current King of Nice Britain is a historical past of repeated accidents and usurpations, all having in direct object the institution of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”
Though they complained concerning the tyranny of George III, their true objection was that their subordinate place inside the empire gave them little leverage when opposing insurance policies that king and Parliament agreed to impose on them.
As soon as impartial, the founders created a system that imitated the British mannequin of combined governance and created obstacles – the powers of Congress and the oversight of the Supreme Court docket – that they hoped would safeguard their liberties towards the specter of renewed tyranny.
