Sam's been asking me lots of questions about the Civil War and the Revolution, which has been fun. That also compelled me to read some stuff which naturally has ended up becoming a blog post.
The situation: news of defeat at Yorktown reaches England in late 1781, throwing the government into a hizzy.
That brings us to February 22, 1782, when General Henry Seymour Conway made a motion in the House of Commons:
That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, earnestly imploring his Majesty, that, taking into his royal consideration the many and great calamities which have attended the present unfortunate war, and the heavy burthens thereby brought on his loyal and affectionate people, he will be pleased graciously to listen to the humble prayer and advice of his faithful Commons, that the war on the continent of North America may no longer be pursued for the impracticable purpose of reducing the inhabitants of that country to obedience by force; and expressing their hope, that the earnest desire and diligent exertion to restore the public tranquillity, of which we have received his Majesty's gracious assurances, may, by a happy reconciliation with the revolted colonies, be forwarded and made effectual, to which great end his Majesty's faithful Commons will be ready most cheerfully to give their utmost assistance.
The motion was seconded by Lord John Cavendish, who said:
The war with America not having originated in laudable ambition, or in just policy, had been conducted without the dignity that became the British nation. Narrow, low, and selfish in its principle, the conduct had been mean, miserable, and defective. There was neither dignified resentment in the origin nor the progress. It was begun and carried on in pique, disgust, rancour, and narrowness. These low passions had been fed by disappointment ; calamity, instead of making us wise, which was its common effort, had made us foolish; but we ought to consider, that sooner or later we must come to peace.
Oh, but before all that when Conway first introduced his motion, he complained:
We paid for 73,000 men1, now said to be employed in America. This force was only upon paper, though we paid for them: in fact, by the last returns it appeared, that the force under Sir Henry Clinton was 9,200, and that captured in Verginia only 5,400...
LOL, sounds like the same frustrations legislators have today about overspending on $400 toilet seats and the like. And what followed was a debate strikingly similar to what I've seen in the various journals Congress has produced.
One particularly interesting refrain was essentially "nobody wants peace more than I, but..." which seems like another American inheritance. There were also appeals to constitutional powers, and questions about the propriety of the Legislature getting directly involved in the war's prosecution by the Executive. Dangers of a precipitous withdrawal were brought up, as were great hardships the war caused at home.
In the end, they voted at an hour that would make Kremlin Kevin McCarthy so cranky (2AM), defeating the motion 194-193.
After that narrow defeat, the House spent a few days dickering over the military budget, how much relief money to give American refugees, etc. Then on February 27:
The Sheriffs of London presented at the bar a petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, in Common-council assembled, setting forth, that the petitioners, in the present state of public affairs, moved by every sentiment that can impress the human mind with regard for the common welfare of this kingdom and its dependencies, are impelled to implore this honourable House to interpose, in such manner as to their wisdom shall seem most effectual, for preventing the continuance of the unfortunate war with America. The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Alderman Neunham just rose to inform the House that the city had been unanimous in this petition, as they were most heartily tired of the American war.
So General Conway tried again, bolstering his previous argument with "several inducements." That included an observation that many member were not in attendance the last time, as well as this more direct line of attack:
[T]wo members of great weight, and deservedly of great weight in that House [Mr. Rigby and the Lord Advocate] had, in the late debate on the American war, fairly confessed that they were tired of the war; they had declared themselves converts to the opinion of its impracticability ; and they had delivered themselves on that subject in a very manly manner :
all he regretted was, that they had not followed up their manly declaration with a manly vote for the Address.
They were now avowed converts ; the light had shone upon them, they were thrown down from their high horse of starvation and unconditional submission, but, unlike Paul, after his conversion, they had not become the champions of that people and cause of which they had been such violent persecutors.
Their conduct appeared to him perfectly inexplicable : and if he might borrow an image from the sacred text, he might say that they and others had received the gift of tongues ; cloven tongues had fallen upon them; not tongues of truth and sincerity, but double tongues; they had one tongue for Parliament, and another for private companies; with the one they censured and condemned the American war, and with the other, they voted against every proposition that had a tendency to put an end to it:
the world would judge of the consistency of such conduct, and their own honour would tell them how unworthy it was of them.
Conway went on to cite a great deal of precedent to obliterate previous questions raised about the constitutionality of the House's interfering with matters of war. He also adeptly - and not without what appears to be snark - handled objections about his original motion's supposedly vague and confusing wording.
Then Conway changed tacks and made a motion that was "the very same in substance" as his first, but in the form of a resolution (instead an Address to the Crown), while exhorting the members to actually stick around and vote this time:
The fate of the last question was determined by a single vote; and though it might be thought that one vote was not of any great consequence, yet it appeared, by the last division, that a single vote was of the greatest importance, and no one who wished well to his country would be absent on the present occasion; for to be absent would be in substance little short of treachery to the interest of the kingdom.
The motion was seconded, and there was more debate, including some funny backtracking from William Pitt who basically exclaimed, "oh, if you had said it THAT WAY, then the thing would've passed unanimously!" All the while Lord North's cabinet ministers tried to deflect criticism, eventually making a defensive motion to adjourn for 2 weeks.
Their motion failed 234-215. Conway's motion subsequently passed "without a division." A few weeks later, North's government was finished.
It's a difficult thing, waging war so far away from home against people who don't want you around. Costs a lot of blood and treasure for everybody. Nobody seems to learn that lesson.
1 - It appears that all told, the British Army was about 121k troops, with 47k in theater at peak. Not including Hessians and Loyalist militia, I think.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.