by William Meyers

Created on: September 18, 2007

Setting aside the "tyranny" label until later, of course there are parallels between King George III and President George W. Bush besides their names. There are a lot of differences as well.

In 1772 a British judge, Lord Manchester, ruled that slavery was not legal on British soil, in the Somerset case. Shortly afterward a group of Virginia slave owners who were also politicians and lawyers formed the Committee of Correspondence. Why? If Virginia was British soil, then its slaves might be freed, and these men would lose valuable property. These men contacted independence activists in New England who had somewhat better reasons to start a rebellion, leading down the road to the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

King George the Third, if he was a tyrant, was a tyrant with very limited power. He had to run almost everything he did past Parliament. He ordered slaves in the possession of the American rebels to be freed. Many were, for a time, but those that had not been able to escape to England or Canada were handed back to their owners. At Yorktown, when the British surrendered, George Washington was able to hand some of Thomas Jefferson's slaves back to him.

I do believe in democracy and the right of people to set up a government of their liking. Eventually the U.S. colonies of Great Britain would have become independent. It is sad that they did not abolish slavery (including the practice of indenturing servants) when they declared Independence.

I think King George was a better King than George W. Bush is a President. But calling W. a tyrant is way out of proportion. He needs the backing of Congress and the Supreme Court to get his way. If a majority of people votes for a bunch of politicians who were willing invade Iraq, despite there being no just cause for the war, all the blame should not be put on the President. Almost every Democrat in Congress voted for the war against Iraq. Just as Parliament supported King George's attempts to keep the American colonies within the British empire. Democracy sometimes creates injustice or does the wrong thing, if perhaps not as often as tyranny.

But the most relevant parallel is that cutting your losses and running is not always a bad thing. What if George III had refused to "cut and run?" We may or may not have won independence, but it would have meant a lot more dead soldiers and hungry civilians on both sides.

Seems to me like we should learn from history and stop the war now.

Learn more about this author, William Meyers.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.