Kings Fall Apart: Or, It's Not Always Good to be King, Mr Trump

TRUMP has been trying to make himself the first King of the USA since a revolting people gave George III the boot in 1776. Laying aside the argument that the Donald is a much worse leader than the last king, the King of Orange should think twice about being on a throne, however golden. George III, a Far Better Man Than Trump

The history of monarchy in the British Isles, which I know best, should not inspire a desire to play Macbeth and Don a crown. Few kings or queens have been able to enjoy their reigns, short or long. Only one British king has been called "The Merry Monarch," Charles II, and even he faced a sea of troubles, partly of his own making. 

Charles II did manage to last twenty-five years and die in bed with his crown on his head, a fate denied many other monarchs. The last Anglo-Saxon king, Harold, was killed in battle against the 1066 Norman Invasion led by Duke William of Normandy. Tradition holds that an arrow landed in Harold's eye. He had been king for only a few months. 

William I, Harold's Conqueror, did much better time-wise. But he had to deal with an Anglo-Saxon populace which did not welcome being ruled by a king who rewarded his French-speaking warriors with their lands. He dealt with the opposition by killing lots of peasants and destroying their homes. His corpulent body exploded when he was being forced into a too small tomb, emitting a foul smell and showering those nearby with unmentionables.

William II, the Conqueror's eldest son, had a nasty and short reign, cut short by an arrow again. On this occasion, the archer may have been an assassin hired by his brother Henry, who succeeded as king. Henry I he had a fairly lengthy reign. Legend has it that he died from eating a surfeit of lampreys. It is more probable that  a stroke killed him. Or maybe he died of worry about the succession.

Henry had no male successor, only a daughter, Matilda. He named her as his heir, but when he died, the alpha males among his barons decided they could not stomach being ruled by a woman, and chose his nephew Stephen as king. Those familiar with the US election of 2024, when Americans chose Trump over Kamala Harris, will understand. 

The result was nearly twenty years of fighting between the supporters of Stephen and those of Matilda. The Anarchy, as this period is called, was not a good time for anybody, except for some robber barons. Peasants, as always, paid a heavy price. 

In the end, the two sides reached a deal: Stephen would remain king, but on his death, the throne would pass to Matilda's son Henry of Anjou. When Henry II became king in 1154, he started a line of kings known as the Angevins or Plantagenets. Henry also inherited a large part of France, directly, or through his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. He was always moving about to keep control his large and diverse territories. He faced many rebellions among his nobles and vassals. The rebels eventually included his sons and Eleanor. 

Two of his sons became king after him. Richard and John, of Ivanhoe and Robin Hood fame. That's all fantasy, but so is Richard's "Lion-Heart" reputation. He is the only king to have a statue outside of Parliament, for some unfathomable reason. Richard spent a mere six months of his ten year reign in England, and like Trump, treated the country like a cash cow. He massacred thousands of Muslims, Jews, and even Christians while Crusading for Christ in the oddly named Holy Land. He also died when struck by an arrow, while besieging a rebel castle. Gangrene set in, and that did for him.

Richard I had no children. Enter his brother John, the only English king of that name. Let's see why. (NB: This is not John)

End of Part I.

 

The New Declaration of Independence: From Trump

 

This year marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The present  state of the USA demands a new declaration -- against Donald Trump and Trumpism. 

The original declaration of 1776 blamed George III for the conflict. Most of the blame lay with Parliament, but focusing on the king made the argument for independence simple: the people versus a tyrant. The argument is much stronger today than in 1776, because Trump, unlike George III, truly is a tyrant. Ironically, just recently, George III's descendent, Charles III schooled Congress on the importance of the ideals proclaimed in the declaration.   

Charles did not mention that the original Declaration of Independence, in the part few read today, listed a long series of "repeated injuries and usurpations" it ascribed to George III, designed to establish "an absolute Tyranny over these States." 

Today, a New Declaration of Independence from Trump should be drawn up, with a similar list of the injuries and usurpations he and his MAGA toadies have inflicted on the USA. I propose something like the following:

He has repeatedly violated the Constitution and corrupted the system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

He is destroying the fabric of American institutions designed to advance education, health, and the general welfare. 

He has attacked and is attacking freedom of speech, the press, and assembly. 

He has violated the norms of diplomacy and human rights, killing and arresting people without evidence of any crime. 

He has made enemies of traditional allies and friends of the USA.

He is destroying one of the strongest economies on earth.

He has repeatedly violated the norms of human morality.

He has brought the USA into global contempt.

He has praised and assisted the enemies of human freedom, decency, and democracy.

He is a felon guilty of bribery, rape, pedophilia, tax evasion, extortion, and other crimes. 

He is a six times bankrupt who has repeatedly failed to pay his creditors.

He golfs on the taxpayers' money while the country burns.

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!

America's Last King: A Far Better Man than Trump.

The July 4th holiday in the US always produces some reflections on America's last king, George III. Most of them celebrate the overthrow of a tyrant, allegedly a mad tyrant at that. 

In recent years, such denunciations of King George have often been expressed by Americans who desire to get rid of Trump. "We removed the tyrant King George in 1776 and we'll get rid of tyrant Trump as well." Bravo, but comparing Trump to George III is a distortion of history. It is like comparing a slightly tarnished pot to a completely blackened kettle.

Americans succeeded in booting out George III in 1776. They have failed twice to get rid of Trump. Why would a people who  rejected George III 250 years ago accept a virtual tyrant with powers George never had and did not try to get? 

Do the apparent majority of Americans feel comfortable going to bed with a president the Supreme Court has declared immune from prosecution for his acts? Charles I claimed similar powers in 17th century Britain. It cost him his head.

As a historian of Georgian Britain, I reject the claim that George III was a tyrant. In my opinion, the evidence shows that Trump is incomparably worse as a leader and a man than King George was. 

George III had flaws, but an urge to despotism was not one of them. He was sometimes obstinate but he was not a narcissistic sociopath. He remained faithful to Queen Charlotte, his wife of 60 years and mother of his 15 children, poor lady. Unlike most monarchs, he never took a mistress. Maybe it would have been better if he had.

George considered himself a constitutional monarch and took his job seriously. He venerated the (unwritten) British constitution. Unlike Trump, he understood his country's constitution. His father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, ensured he had a solid education in a wide array of subjects, including  politics and constitutional law. As early as age eight George could discuss current politics in speech and writing, in both English and German. He also learned French and Latin. He was the first British monarch to be thoroughly educated in science. 

As king, he was a strong supporter of the sciences and arts. He gave a large portion of his income to charity. He amassed a library of more than 65,000 volumes, and opened the collection to scholars including Samuel Johnson and Joseph Priestley. The collection is now part of the British Library and belongs to everyone.

Frederick, who died before his father George II, prepared his son George to be a "Patriot King," ruling in the interests of his people. Frederick believed, correctly, that the Hanoverian dynasty needed to improve its public image, and he passed that belief on to his son. 

The first two Hanoverian kings were highly unpopular. They preferred their native Hanover to England and spent long periods of time there. Many British people referred to both of them as "German George." 

In contrast, George III was born in Great Britain and considered himself British. At his coronation in 1761, he made much of the fact. "Born and educated in this country, I glory in the name of Britain." He made it clear that Britain and its prosperity would be his first concern. He spent his life of 82 years in the country. [Image: George as Prince of Wales, by Jean Etienne Liotard, 1754]

Initially, George III had little to do with the actions that angered the American colonists. They were devised by the king's ministers and approved by Parliament. The king opposed some of them, notably the Stamp Act of 1765. Part of that was personal. He detested the architect of the Stamp Act, Prime Minister George Grenville. 

In 1766, George was able to push Grenville out. His successor, Lord Rockingham, repealed the Stamp Act with the help of the king and the popular William Pitt. The king's efforts were applauded in the colonies. New York City erected a statue in his honor. 

In the following year, Parliament re-asserted its right to tax the American colonies. The furor the new taxes (Townshend Duties) produced led to all but a tiny tax on tea being repealed. Leaving the tea tax in place was intended to maintain the principle that Parliament could levy taxes on the colonies. (Image: George III by Johan Zoffany, 1771)

The king supported Parliament's right to tax the colonies. But it was Parliament's right, not his. After the Civil War of the 1640s, British monarchs could not levy taxes. That was Parliament's prerogative. 

The Declaration of Independence blames George III rather than Parliament for the conflict that followed, because it was simpler than explaining the bizarre intricacies of the British political system. The result was a distortion of reality that has become a standard meme of American history.

The Declaration listed 27 grievances against the British government. Most of them began with "He has...", personalizing the conflict into one of the people versus an overbearing king. It is worth noting that perhaps as many as half of the colonists were Loyalists who supported the king's government during the war. 

George III was no warmonger. One of his first actions as king had been to bring an end to the Seven Years' War with France and Spain at a time when Britain was winning victories everywhere. 

It is true that once the American war had begun, he was determined that it end in a British victory. He obstinately continued to support the war even after the disastrous British defeat at Yorktown (Oct. 1781), when most of his ministers urged him to give up. A few months later, he agreed and authorized peace negotiations.

Once independence was conceded he accepted, grudgingly, the new relationship with the former colonies. In 1785 he told John Adams, the first American ambassador to Britain, "I was the last to consent to the separation; but the separation having been made ... I have always said, as I say now, I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power." 

George III is often referred to as Mad King George, and people persist in connecting his loss of America to insanity. The problem with this view is that he showed no symptoms of mental illness before 1788, five years after American independence.  

British rule in the colonies was often insensitive and infuriating. The frustrations were increased by the immense distance between Britain and America. But no colonies of the time were as loosely governed by an imperial country as the thirteen who declared independence in 1776. They were also highly prosperous.

 

The timing of the revolution had more to do with the removal of the French threat from North America in 1763 than any actions of George III or the British government. Before then, the colonists felt the need for British protection. After then, they didn't. That emboldened them to push for change in the relationship between mother country and themselves. British actions exacerbated an already difficult situation.

The change to independent status made sense, but explaining it as the result of the tyranny of George III is misplaced. In 1785, an American Quaker, Hannah Griffits, provided an interesting perspective on the results of the revolution: 

The glorious fourth -- again appears 

A day of days -- and year of years 

The sum of sad disasters 

Where all the mighty gains we see 

With all their boasted liberty 

Is only change of masters. 

(Image: George III by Allan Ramsay, 1762)

Further Reading: 

John Brooke, King George III (London: Constable, 1972)

Stanley Ayling, George the Third (London, 1972)

Jeremy Black, America's Last King, George III (New Haven; Yale University Press, 2006)

Andrew Roberts, George III (London: Penguin Books, 2023)

 

The Scottish Conspiracy Against American Liberty: The Case of South Carolina

Did a Scottish conspiracy to crush colonial liberty provoke the American Revolution? Nonsense, you will likely say. But evidence from the 1760s and 1770s shows that colonial anger at the actions of the British government was paralleled by a rise of anti-Scottish sentiment. Some colonial leaders, who called themselves Whigs, claimed that Scots dominated the government in London and were conspiring to undermine the people's liberties, to enslave them in fact. Whigs, who later called  themselves Patriots, used the term "enslave" freely, despite the fact that many of them were themselves slaveowners. "Liberty or Slavery" was a common Whig motto.   

The Scottish conspiracy theory, like so many things political in the colonies, originated in British politics. In the early 1760s, disgruntled English Whig politicians claimed that George III’s former Scottish tutor, John  Stuart, Earl of Bute was the gray eminence behind the alleged conspiracy. 

George selected Bute as his Prime Minister in 1762, two years after he became king. English Whig politicians concocted the conspiracy theory while Bute was in office. He didn't last long in the job. King George discharged him in 1763. Yet Whigs continued to accuse Bute of plotting behind the scenes to “enslave” the English people. They accused him of influencing policy through an affair with the king's mother. 

Bute's critics portrayed him as a boot. The "Boot" became a common and convenient symbol of tyranny in Britain and its empire. American Whigs used it during the Stamp Act Crisis in 1765 and right up to the beginning of the revolution in 1775. 

The Scottish conspiracy theory gained additional traction in America in the early 1770s as a result of a judicial decision in London. The judge who made the decision happened to be a Scot, Lord Mansfield. He was educated in England, trained in law, and became one of the top English judges, Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench. In the widely reported Somerset Case in 1772, Mansfield ruled that slavery had no basis in English law, in either precedent or statute. 

The Somerset decision sent shock waves through the colonies, especially the southern colonies, where the wealth of the elite relied on enslaved African labor. Nowhere was the Somerset ruling more resented than in South Carolina, where enslaved Africans made up a majority of the population. Many planters feared Parliament might extend Mansfield's ruling to the entire empire. The fear had little basis in reality. Mansfield's ruling was narrow and applied only to England. 

Abolition of slavery in the British empire occurred, of course, but not for more than sixty years. In the 1770s, the anti-slavery movement in Britain was still in its infancy. Parliament was filled with MPs and Lords who derived much of their income from the slave trade and colonial plantations. Abolitionism was beginning to have some impact on the British  consciousness, but it did not have enough influence on Parliament to achieve abolition of the slave trade, let alone slavery itself. The sugar planters of the West Indies seem to have understood this, because they did not use it as a reason to defy the home government. 

Slave owning colonists in the American colonies, especially in South Carolina, did not understand the reality of British politics. Or they pretended not to. They panicked at the news of the Somerset decision. Their fear that it might be applied to the colonies led them to embrace a solution that aligned them with northern activists challenging Parliament’s power to tax the colonies. 

The solution had already been articulated by Charleston merchant Christopher Gadsden. Since the late 1750s Gadsden had been arguing that Parliament had no right to legislate for the colonies on any domestic matters. In the northern colonies the rallying cry of those opposing British policies was "No Taxation without Representation.” That cry was adopted in the South as well, but it was not the main issue that united southerners against Britain. The central issue in South Carolina, although never articulated directly, was “No Representation, No Slavery.” The political elite decided that the best way to protect its domestic institutions (read: chattel slavery) was for South Carolina to control its own destiny. That decision was a crucial step in the unification of the thirteen colonies into what became the United States. 

By the early 1770s, antislavery views in the northern colonies were gaining adherents. Some of the men who would sign the Declaration of Independence in July 1776 had previously denounced human bondage. But in the interests of colonial unity, northern antislavery figures muted their criticisms and accommodated southern opinion. John Adams and Benjamin Franklin had both condemned slavery, but in 1775 they argued that slavery, like taxation, was a domestic issue for Americans to deal with. The British Parliament had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the colonies. They must be sovereign, and they must unite to achieve sovereignty. The issue of slavery would have to wait until that was accomplished. 

To salve their consciences, many American Whigs predicted that slavery would be abolished after independence was achieved. That was safely in the future. In 1775, colonists north and south proclaimed that the British government was determined to enslave them, while also threatening the institution of slavery. And the architects of this policy were Bute, Mansfield, and other villains, including ones implanted in the heart of the colonies. The cartoon of 1775 below, Virtual Representation, illustrates the colonial Whig view. The man in tartan pants with the gun is Lord Bute. Next to him is Lord Mansfield in his judicial robes. The gun is pointed at colonists. Britannia, at far right is coming to the rescue, but is about to fall into a pit, presumably dug by the Scots. On the far left are two French Canadians, a soldier and a monk, who are supporting Bute and Mansfield. Why? In 1774, Parliament had passed the Quebec Act giving French Canadian Catholics freedom of religion. Many American colonists viewed this with alarm. They believed it was part of the British strategy to subdue the thirteen colonies, in this case by enlisting French Canadians to fight them. 

In retrospect the view that Bute, Mansfield, and other Scots in Britain and the colonies were engaged in a conspiracy to eliminate American liberty and abolish American slavery -- a disconnect and an oxymoron -- seems preposterous. To many people in the colonies, however, the Scottish conspiracy theory seemed plausible. It was politically useful to American Whigs and they had the claims of English Whigs to support it. 

British Whigs were the political descendants of the parliamentary faction that had opposed royal absolutism in the turbulent seventeenth century. The monarchs in question belonged to the House of Stuart. The Stuarts were a Scottish dynasty. They had ruled Scotland for centuries before James VI & I became king of England on the death of Elizabeth I in 1603. 

American colonists claimed to be defending liberties secured by the seventeenth century struggles against the heirs of James I: Charles I, Charles II, and James II. In the wake of the conflicts, many people in Britain and its colonies associated the Scottish name Stuart with authoritarianism. Lord Bute's given name, John Stuart, surely did little to help his chances of political success.

By the time of the American Revolution, Stuart monarchs no longer ruled Britain and had not for sixty years. Their immediate successors, the Hanoverian kings George I and II, had favored Whig politicians during their reigns, from 1714 to1760, a period often called The Whig Supremacy. The rival Tory Party all but disappeared. 

Things changed when George III ascended the throne in 1760, aged nineteen. He believed that Whig oligarchs had gained too much power and had corrupted British politics. He was eager to reduce their influence and end the successful but hugely expensive war with France and Spain. His current Whig ministers wanted to continue the war. George removed several of them from his government. Among them was the popular William Pitt, who had led Britain to victory in the Seven Years War (French and Indian War in American history). 

Pitt had become a hero in the colonies as well, as the names of numerous towns and streets in the USA attest, from Pittsburgh to Pittsboro to Pittsfield. Charleston, South Carolina named a street after him (I lived on it) and erected a statue of him in gratitude for his efforts to abolish the Stamp Act of 1765. The statue originally stood at the intersection of Broad and Meeting Streets. It is now located in the Charleston County Judicial Center. It is missing his outstretched arm. Ironically, a British cannonball knocked it off during their siege of the city in 1780. 

English Whig claims of “Scots tyranny” merged with growing colonial resentment of Scottish influence and economic competition in British America. Ever since the Act of Union, Scots had been free to settle and trade in England and its colonies. Thousands took advantage of the opportunity and migrated to greener pastures. Scottish merchants and traders descended on London and every corner of the empire. 

Many people in England resented this invasion by their former enemies. English writers and cartoonists portrayed Scots as lean and hungry, a plague of locusts eager to feast on the land of milk and honey. The poet Charles Churchill described Scotland as a land where half-starved spiders fed on half-starved flies. In his dictionary, lexicographer Samuel Johnson defined oats as a grain which in England is fed to horses and in Scotland is fed to the people. Scots were uncouth, uncivilized, impoverished -- and historically traitorous. The last is a reference to the Jacobite Rebellions which were designed to restore the Catholic Stuart monarchs to the throne of Britain. The rebellions broke out in Scotland, and Highland clans provided most of the Jacobite soldiery. The last of the revolts penetrated into central England before being crushed in 1746. Most adults in England could remember the panic and fear it generated, and they told their children.    

[English Anti-Scottish Cartoons: Sawney in the Boghouse and London: A Flight of Scotsman] 

In America, Scots flocked to South Carolina and Georgia in particular, lured by the prospect of quick riches. They became merchants, planters, doctors, and shopkeepers. The Crown also appointed Scots to many colonial offices, a trend that accelerated after the defeat of the last Jacobite Rebellion in 1746 and the accession of George III in 1760. From the perspective of the British government improving opportunities for Scots in the empire was a means of keeping them loyal. Americans were not the only ones struggling to achieve unity in the late eighteenth century. We tend to forget that Great Britain was also a new country, not much older than the United States. “British” was a new and fragile national identity. 

Many Charleston creoles resented the new Scottish ascendancy in trade and government. They accused Scots of favoring one another and benefiting unfairly from British colonial and trade policies. Merchant Christopher Gadsden was one of the most vocal critics of the Scottish invasion. In 1767 Gadsden built a huge wharf in Charleston, one of the largest in any American port. During its construction of his wharf, Gadsden remarked that he was going to "fill the foundation with imported Scotchmen, who are fit for nothing better." The statement reflected Gadsden’s disdain for Scots, in particular Scottish merchants, who he viewed as the undeserving beneficiaries of British trade policies. 

About the same time, Gadsden was developing the area near Boundary Street. He called it Middlesex and named one of the streets after John Wilkes, Whig MP for the county of Middlesex. Gadsden admired Wilkes for his spirited defense of English liberties, which took an anti-Scottish slant. He became famed for his attacks on Lord Bute in his journal The North Briton. Wilkes became a hero to many colonists in the 1760s, despite notoriously rakish behavior and obscenity charges stemming from his satirical poem, An Essay on Woman. 

Gadsden’s hostility toward Scots may have initially developed as a result of his service as a militia officer during the Cherokee War of 1760. At the request of South Carolina, the British government sent a Highland regiment to help quell the Cherokee uprising. Gadsden was angered that the government gave command of the campaigns to Scottish officers. Gadsden believed that a South Carolinian should have been in command. 

Peter Timothy, printer of the South Carolina Gazette, was another prominent Whig who resented the success of recent Scots arrivals. His animosity was directed in particular against a rival Scottish printer, Robert Wells, who had arrived in the early 1750s. Wells printed and imported books, and established a flourishing bookstore. In the late 1750s, he started a rival newspaper. Timothy resented the competition, and claimed that Wells benefited from an unfair advantage. Interestingly, Wells supported the protests against the Stamp Act in 1765, but later became a staunch defender of the British government. He also became known for his belligerent Scottishness. He used to dress his son William Charles in a tartan jacket and Scottish bonnet to demonstrate his national pride. Poor William suffered harassment from other young boys of the town as a result. Robert was also the object of Whig harassment. In 1775, he left for Britain, declaring he could not live under the "Lilliputian" regime in South Carolina. 

When Timothy complained that Wells benefited from an unfair advantage, one of the persons he blamed was another Scot, who like Bute, also happened to to be named John Stuart. He had come to Charleston from Scotland in 1748. After mixed success as a merchant, including some slave trading, he married Sarah Fenwick, daughter of a wealthy planting family. He became a planter and built the house that still bears his name, the Colonel John Stuart House on the western end of Tradd Street. 

During the Cherokee War of 1760 Stuart served in the South Carolina militia. He developed a good relationship with some of the people he was fighting, including Cherokee headman Attakullakulla, the Little Carpenter. In 1762, the British government, eager to prevent war, appointed him as Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Southern Department. In that capacity he tried to keep the peace between the backcountry settlers and the southern Indian nations. 

It was partly at Stuart's instigation that the British government established the Proclamation Line in 1763, which declared the land of the Appalachians and beyond was to be reserved as Indian land. Stuart argued that shady land speculators and white settlers encroaching on Indian land constituted the main danger to peace. He made powerful enemies trying to prevent fraudulent land deals, including one in which planter William Henry Drayton tried to swindle the Catawba nation out of thousands of acres. 

In the spring of 1775, Drayton and his other enemies revenged themselves by charging that Stuart was conspiring with the British government to incite Indian attacks on the colonists. In fact, he was trying to prevent the southern Indian nations from going to war. This fabricated tale enraged many people in the city. Stuart had to flee Charleston with a liberty mob at his heels. He ended up in Florida, where he continued to advise the Indians. In 1776, he tried but failed to prevent a disastrous Cherokee attack on the settlers of the southern backcountry. He died ion Florida in 1779. 

Into this hornet's nest sailed another suspicious Scot, the last royal governor of South Carolina. Lord William Campbell was the 4th son of the Duke of Argyll, Scotland's most powerful aristocrat. In 1763, he had been stationed in Charleston as a navy captain, and had married the daughter of a local planter, Sarah Izard. The Campbells arrived in June 1775 aboard the ship Scorpion. Prior to their arrival, a rumor had spread that the ship was carrying 14,000 stand of arms to be distributed to Loyalists, slaves, and Indians. 

The rumor was baseless, but people were disposed to believe it. The Whigs "uncovered" another conspiracy around the time Campbell arrived. They arrested some "suspicious" slaves who, after "rigorous interrogation" confessed the existence of a plot for a slave revolt to help the British. The alleged organizer was a wealthy free black, Thomas Jeremiah. After a mockery of a trial, the tribunal of five white men found him guilty. He was hanged and his body burned a few days later. Campbell was appalled by the proceeding and attempted to pardon Jeremiah, only to find he was powerless. 

When the Whigs spread the news of Campbell's efforts to save the condemned man, a liberty mob surrounded his  house at 34 Meeting Street and threatened to drag him out into the street and force him to hang Jeremiah himself. Campbell fled Charleston to a British navy ship a few weeks later, bringing an official end to British rule in South Carolina. In fact, it had ended months before. 

Many Scots in the southern colonies became Loyalists once the revolution began. One of the most interesting and insightful explanations of Scottish loyalism was offered by Charles Webb of St. Paul’s Parish, a few miles southwest of Charleston. Webb was himself a Loyalist, but not a Scot. In July 1775, the parish committee reported him to a justice of the peace for “malicious expressions" against the Whigs, who he said were "greater rebels than ever the Scotch were.” This was an obvious reference to the Jacobite rebellions in Scotland. Webb pointed to a key reason why many Scots in America supported the British government: many of them or their families had suffered severe punishments after the crushing of the rebellions. He was not surprised, he said, that the Scots were “such loyal subjects, for a burnt child would dread the fire.” They had learned from experience the folly of fighting the British monarch. This was true, but Whig attacks on Scots in America also contributed to this result. 

Further Reading: 

Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992)

Jim Piecuch, Three Peoples, One King: Loyalists, Indians, and Slaves in the Revolutionary South, 1775-1782. Columbia: University of South Carlina Press, 2008.

Robert G. Parkinson, Thirteen Clocks: How Racism United the Colonies and Made the Declaration of Independence. Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia, and the University of North Carolina Pres, Chapel Hill.

Alfred W. Blumrosen and Ruth G. Blumrosen, Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies & Sparked the American Revolution (Naperville, Illinois: Source Books, 2005)

John Drayton, Memoirs of the American Revolution 2 vols., Charleston, 1821.

The Papers of Henry Laurens. 16 vols., Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1972-2003. Volumes dealing with the 1760s and 1770s.

Stanly Godbold, Jr., and Robert Woody, Christopher Gadsden and the American Revolution. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1983.

Daniel McDonough, Christopher Gadsden and Henry Laurens: The Parallel Lives of Two American Patriots. Susquehanna University Press, 2000.

Kelcey Eldridge. A Forgotten Founder: The Life and Legacy of Christopher Gadsden (MA thesis). Clemson University, 2018.

Richard Walsh, Charleston's Sons of Liberty: A Study of the Artisans, 1763–1789. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1959. 

Peter McCandless, Slavery, Disease, and Suffering in the Southern Lowcountry. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2011, 2014. 

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks! 

British Monarchs Who Ended Badly, Part 13: Parliamentary Monarchy

The long reign of George III (1760-1820) witnessed the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. It also solidified the evolution of the country into a constitutional monarchy dominated by Parliament. The monarch remained titular sovereign but effective sovereignty now resided in Parliament. 

Monarchs had lost most control over the public finances and taxation by the end of the 17th century. They retained their right to veto parliamentary acts, and still do, but the last monarch to use it was Queen Anne (1702-1714). Future monarchs no longer contested the will of Parliament, though they sometimes tried to influence it. 

Queen Anne also was the last monarch to use the royal touch to cure disease. A lot of ordinary people might continue to believe in royal magic, but Britain's elites were embracing the Enlightenment and all that.

During the reigns of the first two Georges (1714-1760), the everyday running of government became the job of prime ministers and their cabinets, who had to have the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons to stay in power. 

Monarchs could help build and maintain a favorable majority for ministers they liked, at least until the early 19th century. But a monarch could no longer keep ministers in power if they lost their majority. They were no longer solely the monarch's ministers. They were Parliament's as well. 

Various reform acts during the 19th century further eroded the monarchy's ability to influence elections. The monarchs also lost much of their ability to reward (bribe) MPs to to support governing ministries. 

The gradual broadening of the suffrage created a more democratic electorate, capped by votes for women [horrors!] in 1918. To win elections it became more important to appeal to the voters than the monarch. 

The role of monarchs became increasingly ceremonial and advisory. They kept their palaces and servants and remained the head of state, but only as a symbolic head, a figurehead. 

Monarchs could no longer interfere in day to day politics or criticize those who governed in their name. His or Her Majesty's Government had morphed into the Prime Minister's Government.* The French Revolution and the fate of Charles I taught them to be content with this situation. 

The sixty year reign of George III was followed by two brief reigns: those of his elderly sons George IV (1820-1830) and William IV (1830-1837). 

George IV had been Prince Regent for ten years prior to becoming king. He was a cultured but extravagant wastrel whose greatest battles were fought with his parents, his wife Caroline, and his waistline. He did leave us the marvelous, exotic Brighton Pavilion. 

George IV was also the first British monarch to visit Scotland since Queen Anne, and he even wore a kilt for the occasion. For good or ill, he made kilts popular again. 

[Images: George IV decked out in Highland garb, by David Wilkie, 1822, and a satirical view by James Gillray, 1792, when George was merely the Prince of "Whales"]

By the late 1820s, due to overeating and drinking, George had become seriously obese. He weighed in at 245 pounds and had a waistline of 50 inches. His health declined rapidly in the late 1820s. He was losing his eyesight, was in constant pain from gout and dropsy, and spent days in a fog from taking laudanum. 

The prestige of the monarchy sank to a new low during his years as regent and king. The great achievement of his reign was Catholic Emancipation, which he opposed. Parliament repealed all the penal laws against Catholics in the United Kingdom, and allowed them to vote and hold public office.  

George IV's ministers and advisors disliked him. They found him lazy, narcissistic and irresponsible. One of his close aides wrote: "A more contemptible, cowardly, selfish, unfeeling dog does not exist ... There have been good and wise kings but not many of them ... and this I believe to be one of the worst." On his death, The Times claimed that no one in the country shed a tear for him.  

George's only child, Princess Charlotte, died in 1817. He had no heir, and his younger brother succeeded him. William IV was a less scandalous figure, although he did live with a mistress, Mrs. Jordan, for many years. 

William IV was the last monarch to choose a prime minister against the will of Parliament: Sir Robert Peel, who had established the first professional police force in 1829. William failed to keep Peel in power, and in other ways acted as a responsible constitutional king. 

William's short reign produced some of the most significant legislation of the 19th century. The Reform Act of 1834 reduced electoral corruption and expanded representation of growing urban areas and the middle classes. It weakened the influence of the aristocracy and reinforced the ascendancy of the House of Commons over the Lords in Parliament. Another act of 1833 abolished slavery in the empire. A third act produced the first effective regulation of child labor in the expanding factories. 

The legislation wasn't all good. A fourth major act reformed the Poor Law. The "New Poor Law" with its dreaded workhouses proved to be the most hated piece of legislation of the 19th century, at least among the working classes. 

William IV had eight illegitimate children with Mrs. Jordan, but failed to produce a legitimate heir. When he died, his 19-year old niece ascended the throne. Victoria reigned for 64 years, the longest reign of any British monarch until that of the late Elizabeth II. [Image: The Young Queen Victoria, by Franz Winterthalter]

Victoria's reign became nearly synonymous with the 19th century: "The Victorian Age." This had less to do with anything Victoria did than her longevity during the period of Britain's greatest international influence. 

Victorian Britain had the largest navy, the largest merchant fleet, and the largest empire, spread across every part of the globe. Thanks to its early lead in industrialization, Britain was, for decades, the greatest economic power in the world as well. 

By the end of Victoria's reign, British power had begun to erode. Other countries industrialized, and some of them possessed far greater resources. The United States and Germany matched or exceeded British production in many manufacturing sectors by the late 19th century. Others were not far behind.

Much like Elizabeth II, Victoria was succeeded by her elderly son Albert, who became king as Edward VII. His reign was short (1901-1910). He was most remembered as a royal playboy. 

Edward's more straight-laced son George V (1910-1935) sought to return the monarchy to a higher level of respectability. Much of the pomp and royal "tradition" that surrounds the monarchy today dates from his reign. 

Unfortunately, George V's heir, Edward VIII proved a disappointment. He insisted on marrying "the woman I love," that American divorcee Mrs. Simpson. He abdicated in favor of his younger brother, who became George VI (1936-1952). That brings us back to Elizabeth II and Charles III. 

For all the pomp and ceremony of royal coronations, marriages, and funerals, the United Kingdom monarchs now reign over is a shadow of its former glory. The British Empire continued to grow into the early 20th century. Victory in World War I brought new colonies in Africa and the Middle East in the form of League of Nations Mandates. 

Yet, beneath the surface, British power was showing signs of weakness. The First World War was enormously costly, and it ended with the UK deeply in debt to the United States. Britain had lost and was losing global markets to the USA, Japan, and other countries.

The first crack in the edifice of empire came at war's end. Between 1918 and 1921 Irish Republicans fought for and won virtual independence from the UK -- for most of the island. 

Ulster, or Northern Ireland, which contained a large Unionist (Loyalist) population, was separated from the rest of Ireland. It remained part of the United Kingdom, bedevilling its politics to this day.

World War II accelerated the decline of Britain's wealth, power, and status in the world. India and Pakistan gained independence in 1947. By the 1960s, most the empire dissolved, to be replaced by a weak association of independent nations, the British Commonwealth. 

Much like the monarchy, the Commonwealth is a symbol of former power and glory. Both survive on image, and the belief or illusion that they provide valuable service. How long that will continue is difficult to predict, given the Royal Family's recent but hardly unprecedented tendency to feud with one another. 

The current infighting within the Windsor family, featuring William and Harry, does indicate one item of historical interest: "The Game of Thrones" is not quite over, even if it is now fought out in the tabloids. The tabloids, mass media, and the "people" would not want it any other way. 

Nowadays, British monarchs no longer end quite so badly. The question is, will the monarchy itself end in the near future? Prince Harry's attack on the "institution" has probably done more for the anti-monarchy cause than all the republicans in British history.   

*Government by prime ministers is not necessarily a big improvement over monarchical government, as the recent run of revolving-door Tory prime ministers has shown. To be sure, elected presidents have not been performing so well either. Democratic governments are only as good as the people who elect them. The main advantage is that they are easier to get rid of than hereditary monarchs.

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks! 

    

Coronation! British Monarchs Who Ended Badly, Part 12: George III

In 1760, the death of George II brought his grandson, an awkward nineteen year old, to the British throne. George III had the longest reign of any British monarch up to that time, sixty years. He was the last king of the colonies that became the United States. 

Every July 4th, Americans celebrate the overthrow of tyrant King George. He is also known as the Mad King, and in some minds, a mad tyrant.  [George III soon after he became king,  by Allan Ramsay, 1762]

He was the third Hanoverian monarch. Unlike the first two Georges,  however, he was born in Britain. He considered himself fully British and cared little for Hanover. At his coronation, he declared "I glory in the name of Britain." He never went to Hanover, or even left England, during his long reign.  

George III considered himself a constitutional or limited monarch. He took his job seriously, maybe too seriously. He venerated the (unwritten) British constitution. His father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, ensured he had a solid education in a wide array of subjects, including  politics and constitutional law. 

At the age of eight George could discuss current politics in speech and writing, in both English and German. He also learned French and Latin. He was also the first British monarch to be thoroughly educated in the science of the day. 

As king, he was a strong supporter of the sciences and arts. He gave a large portion of his income to charity. He amassed a library of more than 65,000 volumes, and opened the collection to renowned scholars such as Samuel Johnson and Joseph Priestley. The collection is now part of the British Library.

Frederick, who died before his father George II, prepared his son George to be a "Patriot King," ruling in the interests of his country and people. Frederick believed rightly that the Hanoverian dynasty needed to improve its image, and he passed that belief on to his son. [Image: George as Prince of Wales, by Jean Etienne Liotard, 1754]

At first, George III had little to do with the actions that angered the American colonists. Most of them were devised by his ministers to help pay the enormous costs of the recent war with France and Spain, the Seven Years War, or French and Indian War in North America. 

They were devised by his ministers and approved by Parliament. The king opposed some of them, notably the Stamp Act of 1765. Part of that was personal. He detested the architect of the Stamp Act, George Grenville. 

In 1766, George was able to push Grenville out. His successor, Lord Rockingham, repealed the Stamp Act with the help of the king and the popular William Pitt the Elder, now Lord Chatham. The king's efforts were applauded in the colonies. New York City erected a statue in his honor. 

In the following year, Parliament re-asserted its right to tax the American colonies. The new taxes, the Townshend Duties, aroused a furor in the colonies. In response, Parliament repealed all the taxes except a tiny tax on tea. Leaving the tea tax in place was intended to maintain the principle that Parliament could levy taxes on the colonies. [Image: George III by Johan Zoffany, 1771]

The king supported Parliament's right to tax the colonies. But it was Parliament's right, not his. After the Civil War of the 1640s, British monarchs could not levy taxes. That was Parliament's prerogative. 

The Declaration of Independence essentially blames George III rather than Parliament for the conflict that followed. It was simpler than explaining the intricacies of the British political system. 

The Declaration listed 27 grievances against the British government. Most of them began with "He has...", personalizing the conflict into one of the people versus a tyrannical king. 

George III was no warmonger. One of his first actions as king had been to bring an end to the Seven Years' War with France and Spain at a time when Britain was winning victories everywhere. He was concerned that if Britain seized too much, it would multiply its enemies. 

If we seek the true causes of the American Revolution, we must admit that it was in large part due to British success in the Seven Years War. One of its effects was to remove France as a threat to the colonies and their expansion west. 

Before the war, France had controlled Canada (Quebec) to the north and claimed the lands between the Appalachians and the Mississippi. In the peace treaty of 1763, the French ceded those territories to Britain. 

Prior to this, the colonists had relied on British soldiers to protect them against attacks by the French and their Indian allies. Now, they felt more secure. They looked forward to settling the trans- Appalachian country. 

They became furious when the British government tried to restrict colonists' movement into what they deemed Indian lands. The view in London was that settler expansion would lead to Indian wars and colonial demands for British protection. The government wanted to reduce expenditure, not increase it. 

It is true that once the American War for Independence began, King George was determined that it end in British victory. He obstinately continued to support the war even after the disastrous British defeat at Yorktown in October 1781, when most of his ministers urged him to give up. A few months later, he agreed and authorized the start of peace negotiations.

Once independence was conceded, he became resigned to the new relationship with the former colonies. In 1785 he told John Adams, the first American ambassador to Britain, "I was the last consent to the separation; but the separation having been made ... I have always said, as I say now, I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power." 

British rule in the colonies was often insensitive and infuriating. The frustrations were increased by the immense distance between Britain and America. But no colonies of the time were as loosely governed by an imperial country as the thirteen who declared independence in 1776. 

The true tranny in the American colonies was the enslavement of a large part of the population. British politicians had helped make that possible. But the power of Parliament over the colonies meant they could also end slavery. One reason many southern leaders supported the revolution was the fear that Parliament might do exactly that, especially after Chief Justice Mansfield ruled slavery in England illegal in 1772. 

George III is often referred to as “Mad King George.” But he did not show any clear signs of mental illness until 1788, 28 years into his reign. This is the event portrayed in Alan Bennett’s play The Madness of George III and the film based upon it, The Madness of King George. 

That episode lasted a few months and produced what historians call the Regency Crisis. It threatened to bring down the government, led by William Pitt the Younger. Many opposition MPs were demanding that the Prince of Wales be installed as regent to rule in his father’s name. 

The contemporary cartoon below shows Tory and Whig leaders "pulling for a King." George III is restrained in a chair in the rear, a pawn in the struggle for power.

Prince George favoured the opposition Whigs, who believed he would help them gain power. George III's recovery ended that prospect. [Image: George, Prince of Wales, later George IV, c. 1789, by Mather Byles Brown]

George suffered more attacks of his illness in 1800 and 1804, but recovered quickly. In 1810, the disease returned and on this occasion he agreed to a regency. by now the Prince of Wales had become disillusioned with the Whigs, some of whom had shown a tendency towards radicalism. The Tories remained in power until 1830.

The king's malady proceeded to dementia, blindness, deafness. He was in great pain from rheumatism. He had become Shelley’s “old, mad, blind, and dying king.” [Image: George III in his last years, sketched by Henry Meyer]

George III clung to life for another ten years, dying at age 82 in 1820. Upon his death, The Prince Regent became king as George IV (1820-1830). His twenty years as Regent and King are still referred to as the Regency Period. 

Biographers and Historians of Psychiatry have long debated the nature of George III’s illness. In the late 1960s, psychiatrists Ida Macalpine and Richard Hunter argued that George suffered from a genetic metabolic disorder called porphyria, which among other things, can cause one’s urine to turn dark red or purple. Bennet’s play and film highlights the king’s dark urine and the bumbling doctors who think it unimportant. 

Other researchers have questioned the porphyria diagnosis. They argue that the king showed symptoms of psychoses such as dementia, mania, and manic-depressive or bipolar disorder. A study of his hair in 2005 revealed that he had consumed large amounts of medicines or cosmetics containing arsenic, a poison that might have precipitated his disease.  

Interestingly, George III was attacked on several occasions by people later declared insane. In 1786, a woman named Margaret Nicholson tried to stab him with a small dessert knife. The king easily fended of the blow and told his attendants to treat her kindly. “The poor creature is mad. Do not hurt her. She has not hurt me.” (Image: Contemporary print showing Nicholson's attack on the king)

In 1790 he reacted with similar sympathy when John Frith, who believed he was St. Paul, threw a rock at the king’s coach. A third assailant, James Hadfield, tried and failed to shoot the king in 1800 at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. The king seems to have been unfazed by the incident. He fell asleep during the interval. 

All three assailants were sent to Bethlem Hospital for the Insane, Hadfield after being declared not guilty due to insanity during his precedent-setting trial for treason. [Image: Contemporary print showing the "Horrid" Hadfield's attempt to shoot the king].

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!