In my 8th grade daughter's history class this Friday they're having a formal debate between pro-revolution perspectives and the loyalists. She's been assigned to be King George III (she volunteered...she loves the perceived contrarian side of arguments) and is working through some of the highlights and talking points from the British side of things.

Assuming you were in her position, what are some key points or little know perspectives and facts that you might want to highlight in the defense of your choices? If you were trying to Peacefully convince the colonists to stay a part of the empire what issues would you focus on?

(I'm not all that adept at the revolutionary period/war and I'm learning while she does)

Well George Washington kicked off the late unpleasantness with the French and we had to bail his butt out at a steep price. Aren't a contribution to the cost of that a little cheaper than becoming French citizens?

you might try to grab a copy of 1776 from the library. The first several pages actually lay out George's perspective. I am the monarch, you are the subjects. Honestly, there was really no reason for him to consider any other position (from his perspective).

Basically it comes down to

George was a Hobbes guy: the "social contract" is I provide protection and prosperity, you do as you're told

Jefferson, et al. were Locke guys. SC= YOU represent and serve US. We hold sway over your seat of power.

The Hobbes v. Locke thing might be a little much for 8th grade, but it's pretty much the back story.

but if she is "contrarian," as you put it, the Hobbes v. Locke thing might be right up her alley.

There's lots of stuff out there on the British perspective: For Example

George tended to be a bit bat**** crazy sometimes. So much so that his son, The Prince of Wales, pushed to be declared Regent. You may not want to let the opponents know that.

His stance was pretty much as described above: "Its my house dammit !"

This is an interesting thought experiment and it's an important one if you're looking to cultivate a serious appreciation of history, whether as a discipline or just a guide to thinking critically and small-l liberally.

While she's doing this, it will be important to have her try to step into the position of someone alive at the time, without the benefit (and handicap) of 250 years of history.

George III is a fairly indefensible figure as a personality but maybe you can get around this by having "him" present his arguments to different audiences than the Patriots, who are not persuadable anyway.

One fun idea: George III, via messengers, persuading American Indian leaders that they should heavily involve themselves on his side. After all, the British Empire had forbade settlement west of the Appalachians and in doing so heavily angered many Colonials. If the Patriots win, that agreement is off and the Colonists have made their aims quite clear.

If she's contrarian, this has the benefit of staying within the spirit of the exercise but short-circuiting the rules. "I am not here to debate the so-called 'patriots', who are really just traitors. They have made up their mind, and will pay the price accordingly. I am here to appeal to the rest of you who have everything to lose if they win and help you realize that your fortune depends on preserving my continued rule."

Then just ignore the Patriot arguments. This is how politics and diplomacy really works anyway.

There were many, many people in North America who were opposed or neutral to the Revolution and they were not stupid, irrational, or evil. They had sound, self-interests, and frequently morally defensible reasons for doing so. The trick is to step into their world for a bit and see if George III can't turn tepid supporters into zealots, fence-sitters into tepid supporters, and finally convince Patriots that their cause is unobtainable by force and bring them to the table to negotiate.

74OA said:

---

Rabid Cougar said:

---

George tended to be a bit bat**** crazy sometimes. So much so that his son, The Prince of Wales, pushed to be declared Regent. You may not want to let the opponents know that.

His stance was pretty much as described above: "Its my house dammit !"

---

That was long after the American Revolution.

---

true

well stated

One possible line or argument to pursue is that the Separatists in the Colonies are trying to have it both ways: they want the land west of the Appalachians, but they also want the British Army troops, and the associated expenses (and thus taxes) to go away.

But the Colonials trespassing on Indian lands is what makes the troops presence necessary, because it leads to fighting with the natives. And the troops have to be there to keep the peace.

So, you little ingrates, if you want the troops, and associated taxes, to go away, stop pissing off the f***ing Indians and stay off their land.

If you have the Smithsonian Channel, they have an excellent series called "Lives of the Monarchs."

There's one on George III and the Prince Regent.

It might add a little background to the man himself, though not much help in the overall argument.

Other groups to explore targeting with your Loyalist messaging:

Devout Anglicans
Pacifist or quietist religious groups
Middle classes that are not export dependent (artisans, smaller farmers, shopkeepers, some professionals). Naturally conservative, fearful of change, mob rule, and prosperous in Colonial America.
Settlers on the frontier
Merchants dependent on British trade

Put the Patriots on the defensive and force them to justify to these people that independence and Revolution is the path forward. And don't lean too hard on threats....just paint a world where the current source of stability vanishes and in its place you get (at very best) promises.

While most of texags operates at an 8th grade or below level, this forum is usually at a college or grad school level, so the risk here is that the child may get "called out" by the teacher.
Of course, if she's debating a typical 8th grade boy, he might respond to her well researched and thought provoking statement about the revolution with "king George has boobies!"

let us know how it went!