Meaning of "occupation"
My second area of focus investigates the meaning behind the term "occupation" and questions whether or not the British military's stay in Philadelphia qualifies. When we think of a 'military occupation', we generally envision something like the German occupation of France in WWII or, more recently, the American occupation of Iraq. We think of foreign armies implementing governance at gunpoint, of "collaborators" who offer support for the invaders, and of insurgents or a 'resistance' which denies the legitimacy of the invasion and strives to reinstate the previous regime. Does the British occupation of Philadelphia (or of the other American cities) fit this model?
Certain similarities are readily apparent. The British army certainly took and held the city only by the use and threat of force. Collaborators and insurgents were obviously present, and they performed their typical roles. But there are also some difficulties in calling this a true "occupation" like that in WWII France or modern Iraq. Was the British military truly "foreign"? In hindsight we know that the American colonies did become a new nation, a nation separate and distinct from the British empire, but we must be cautious about reading future transitions back into the past. At the time, the fate of America was not yet determined, and for many Americans (and most Britons) the colonies were still very much a part of the empire, albeit a part plagued by violent dissension and civil unrest. To the loyal colonists in Philadelphia, and certainly to commanders of the British army, the "occupation" of the city was not the act of a foreign invader but the intervention of lawful power on behalf of peaceful and law-abiding citizens; patriot-Philadelphia was not so much conquered by Britain as British-Philadelphia was liberated from insurgent "patriots."
But developing a loyalist perspective of the royal army's time in Philadelphia is only half the issue. We would also do well to think critically of the months and years immediately surrounding 1777/78. Pennsylvania's government was radically altered in 1776 with the creation and implementation of a new state constitution. This new government is generally held as the most "radical" of the new state governments and often lauded for its widening of democracy and 'Declaration of Rights' which promised citizens rights to expression, to legal council, to speedy trial by jury, to protection against self-incrimination and other high-minded ideals. The text itself is something to be proud of, but serious problems arise when one examines how the new government actually behaved and how it came into existence.
Though many historians support the new state government as one of the few that was truly "of the people," others have strongly criticized it, particularly for its treatment of Quakers, neutrals and loyalists (often with complete disregard for the 'Declaration of Rights'), its use of the militia, and its tacit support for extra-legal actions undertaken by mobs who supported it.
There are, indeed, some similarities between what happened when the British invaded in 1777 and the events related to the change of government in 1776. In both cases, extra-legal forces intervened to significantly alter the government through the use (or threat) of force. Those who had been political insiders were replaced with their former opponents. The new governments both implemented new economic regulations and imposed oaths of loyalty and allegiance (and/or religious belief) of the sort that were anathema to some of the colonies founding principles. Both claimed, at some point, that they came to overthrow an illegitimate government. Both were joyfully celebrated by their supporters and inspired panic and despair in their opponents.
It is, perhaps, too much to say that Philadelphia was ever "occupied" by revolutionary radicals from the western counties just as it was "occupied" by the British army. But for certain elements in the city, particularly Quakers and neutrals who preferred the old pre-1776 constitution to either British military rule or the radical revolutionary government, the two opposing sides my have seemed equally threatening and terribly similar in their demands for loyalty, their intolerance of dissent, and their desire to tightly control life in the city. Investigating these similarities, real and perceived, is the second major theme of my dissertation.
My second area of focus investigates the meaning behind the term "occupation" and questions whether or not the British military's stay in Philadelphia qualifies. When we think of a 'military occupation', we generally envision something like the German occupation of France in WWII or, more recently, the American occupation of Iraq. We think of foreign armies implementing governance at gunpoint, of "collaborators" who offer support for the invaders, and of insurgents or a 'resistance' which denies the legitimacy of the invasion and strives to reinstate the previous regime. Does the British occupation of Philadelphia (or of the other American cities) fit this model?
Certain similarities are readily apparent. The British army certainly took and held the city only by the use and threat of force. Collaborators and insurgents were obviously present, and they performed their typical roles. But there are also some difficulties in calling this a true "occupation" like that in WWII France or modern Iraq. Was the British military truly "foreign"? In hindsight we know that the American colonies did become a new nation, a nation separate and distinct from the British empire, but we must be cautious about reading future transitions back into the past. At the time, the fate of America was not yet determined, and for many Americans (and most Britons) the colonies were still very much a part of the empire, albeit a part plagued by violent dissension and civil unrest. To the loyal colonists in Philadelphia, and certainly to commanders of the British army, the "occupation" of the city was not the act of a foreign invader but the intervention of lawful power on behalf of peaceful and law-abiding citizens; patriot-Philadelphia was not so much conquered by Britain as British-Philadelphia was liberated from insurgent "patriots."
But developing a loyalist perspective of the royal army's time in Philadelphia is only half the issue. We would also do well to think critically of the months and years immediately surrounding 1777/78. Pennsylvania's government was radically altered in 1776 with the creation and implementation of a new state constitution. This new government is generally held as the most "radical" of the new state governments and often lauded for its widening of democracy and 'Declaration of Rights' which promised citizens rights to expression, to legal council, to speedy trial by jury, to protection against self-incrimination and other high-minded ideals. The text itself is something to be proud of, but serious problems arise when one examines how the new government actually behaved and how it came into existence.
Though many historians support the new state government as one of the few that was truly "of the people," others have strongly criticized it, particularly for its treatment of Quakers, neutrals and loyalists (often with complete disregard for the 'Declaration of Rights'), its use of the militia, and its tacit support for extra-legal actions undertaken by mobs who supported it.
There are, indeed, some similarities between what happened when the British invaded in 1777 and the events related to the change of government in 1776. In both cases, extra-legal forces intervened to significantly alter the government through the use (or threat) of force. Those who had been political insiders were replaced with their former opponents. The new governments both implemented new economic regulations and imposed oaths of loyalty and allegiance (and/or religious belief) of the sort that were anathema to some of the colonies founding principles. Both claimed, at some point, that they came to overthrow an illegitimate government. Both were joyfully celebrated by their supporters and inspired panic and despair in their opponents.
It is, perhaps, too much to say that Philadelphia was ever "occupied" by revolutionary radicals from the western counties just as it was "occupied" by the British army. But for certain elements in the city, particularly Quakers and neutrals who preferred the old pre-1776 constitution to either British military rule or the radical revolutionary government, the two opposing sides my have seemed equally threatening and terribly similar in their demands for loyalty, their intolerance of dissent, and their desire to tightly control life in the city. Investigating these similarities, real and perceived, is the second major theme of my dissertation.
No comments:
Post a Comment