I read somewhere, many years ago, that it was considered revolution because each colony had independently rebelled against their royal governors, and then united to fight the war of secession. It sounded more like a lawyerly quibble than any real reason, but at least plausible.
The decision NOT to put a new king in the place of George III was an unusual, perhaps even extraordinary one, at least by the standards of modern history up till then, though I expect the Founders saw the establishment of the Roman republic as a precedent.
Yes, and that was absolutely the main precedent they were looking to.
There were a few more recent precedents I can think of. There were some small republics in Italy, but I don't think anyone cited them in the War for Independence. There was also the English Commonwealth; Patrick Henry famously said that King George should learn from King Charles's example, but I don't remember anyone praising the actual Commonwealth itself. Also, there was the Dutch Republic - I think that was cited, as it definitely should have been, though not as often as Rome.
In 1849 Lajos Kossuth gave a speech in the British parliament, claiming what happened last year in Hungary was not a revolution, it was the Habsburg king-emperor who made a revolution. That's because back then a revolution was considered a bad thing, a lawless, violent coup. He wanted his people to be seen as law-abiding.
The reality was that it was an extremely complicated legal case.
They wrote a new constitution, abolished the Diet, established the Parliament. And forgot to think about what happens when the king abdicates. In the old law, the Diet had to approve it to make it valid, otherwise he stays on. I mean he can not govern, but someone else cannot govern either. The new law was silent on the question. So they just assumed Parliament has to approve it, having sort of inherited this right. And it did not. That in their eyes made FJ an usuper. Of course he had a very different idea about it. No one can be forced to work against his will, like a slave. And if you want to do this to a king, at least you gotta write an explicit law about it and not just assume it? So FJ considered himself legal king.
In the modern world, "revolution" is filled with good karma, a good thing. Back then it was seen as a very bad thing, Marcia su Roma kind of thing, lawless, violent, coup.
Anyhow back then everybody tried to look like a law-abiding, totally not revolutionary person. But the reality was often more complex.
A great comparison, yes. And the Hungarian "revolution" of 1848 is a fascinating bitter story! I was just reading about it, actually, and I do agree with that evaluation.
I read somewhere, many years ago, that it was considered revolution because each colony had independently rebelled against their royal governors, and then united to fight the war of secession. It sounded more like a lawyerly quibble than any real reason, but at least plausible.
The decision NOT to put a new king in the place of George III was an unusual, perhaps even extraordinary one, at least by the standards of modern history up till then, though I expect the Founders saw the establishment of the Roman republic as a precedent.
Yes, and that was absolutely the main precedent they were looking to.
There were a few more recent precedents I can think of. There were some small republics in Italy, but I don't think anyone cited them in the War for Independence. There was also the English Commonwealth; Patrick Henry famously said that King George should learn from King Charles's example, but I don't remember anyone praising the actual Commonwealth itself. Also, there was the Dutch Republic - I think that was cited, as it definitely should have been, though not as often as Rome.
In 1849 Lajos Kossuth gave a speech in the British parliament, claiming what happened last year in Hungary was not a revolution, it was the Habsburg king-emperor who made a revolution. That's because back then a revolution was considered a bad thing, a lawless, violent coup. He wanted his people to be seen as law-abiding.
The reality was that it was an extremely complicated legal case.
They wrote a new constitution, abolished the Diet, established the Parliament. And forgot to think about what happens when the king abdicates. In the old law, the Diet had to approve it to make it valid, otherwise he stays on. I mean he can not govern, but someone else cannot govern either. The new law was silent on the question. So they just assumed Parliament has to approve it, having sort of inherited this right. And it did not. That in their eyes made FJ an usuper. Of course he had a very different idea about it. No one can be forced to work against his will, like a slave. And if you want to do this to a king, at least you gotta write an explicit law about it and not just assume it? So FJ considered himself legal king.
In the modern world, "revolution" is filled with good karma, a good thing. Back then it was seen as a very bad thing, Marcia su Roma kind of thing, lawless, violent, coup.
Anyhow back then everybody tried to look like a law-abiding, totally not revolutionary person. But the reality was often more complex.
A great comparison, yes. And the Hungarian "revolution" of 1848 is a fascinating bitter story! I was just reading about it, actually, and I do agree with that evaluation.