FW: Whose Revolution Was It Anyway?

Sat Aug 5 10:31:05 PDT 2006

From: Calvin Johnson 
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 11:19 AM
To: 'Malla Pollack'
Subject: RE: Whose Revolution Was It Anyway?

It would have been a lot more popular if the Continental Dollar had not stolen from all those who touched it, and the Continental Army had not had to live off the land, stealing from every farmer near camp or along its path.  Plus you should have viable currency to pay suppliers and soldiers.   All you needed was a quite modest tax system to soak up the excess dollars so they would not be destroyed by inflation.  Hamilton did it in 1790 with taxes amounting to 75cents per capita per year, and that was the order of magnitude of what was needed in 1776.  

Calvin H. Johnson 
Andrews & Kurth Centennial Professor of Law 
The University of  Texas  School of Law 
727 E. Dean Keeton (26th) St. 
Austin, TX 78705 
(512) 232-1306 (voice) 
FAX: (512) 232-2399 
Website: http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/cvs/chj7107_cv.pdf 
For reviews, chapters, discounts and news on Johnson, Righteous Anger at the Wicked States: The Meaning of the Founders Constitution (Cambridge University Press 2005) see http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/RighteousAnger/

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Malla Pollack
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 11:18 AM
To: Mark Graber; RJLipkin at aol.com; Sanford Levinson; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Whose Revolution Was It Anyway?

The answer could be that the revolution was far from as popular as USA myth claims. 

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 4:58 PM
To: RJLipkin at aol.com; SLevinson at law.utexas.edu; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Whose Revolution Was It Anyway?

Keith Dougherty has a book published by Cambridge suggesting that there was a collective choice problem here, namely that all states had incentives to underpay rather than overpay.  Hamilton makes a similar point in the Federalist papers.

Mark A. Graber

>>> "Sanford Levinson" <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu> 08/04/06 5:38 PM >>>
I look forward to the answer to Bobby's question.  But I would also point out one of the "secrets" of the Revolution (that contributes to our national neurosis vis-à-vis the French) is that we never would have come close to winning had France, largely for reasons having to do with European politics, but also because of the remarkable efforts of Benjamin Franklin (detailed in a marvelous book by Stacy Shiff), done a lot of the supplying and even some of the fighting for us.  Federalists, for obvious reasons, did not want to recognize our alliance with the French, following 1788 (and, even more, 1789).  If France is sometimes accused of being insufficiently grateful for our intervention World Wars I and II, it started, let me suggest, with American ingratitude following 1783, when most American leaders (though not, of course, Jefferson), couldn't wait to climb back into bed, albeit as a newly independent country, with the British.  

sandy

________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of RJLipkin at aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 4:08 PM
To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Whose Revolution Was It Anyway?

        I simply do not understand why the Continental Army was so poorly supplied (men, clothing, shoes, ammunition, and food) or how the Continental Congress and the States got away with such niggardly--if that good--responses. I understand the fear of centralized (removed) government.  But the War went on for 5-6 years.  Did the Continental Congress and the States want Washington's army to win? If so, how did they expect him to do so? It's an elementary maxim that ends--winning the war for independence--require adopting the appropriate means--supplies so that the soldiers would not be obliged to eat their own shoes or their horses. I realize that economic times were tough and no one likes to be taxed. Nevertheless, ends require means. I must be overlooking some aspect of the Revolutionary War that provides an obvious explanation.  Help!

Bobby

Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.