One of the most striking examples of the importance of tact that I can
think of is this: the American Revolution might never have occurred if
the British had used more tact and consideration in dealing with the
Colonies. Diplomacy and a more flexible, conciliatory attitude on the
part of the British might have gone a long way toward preventing a
bloody war and the Colonies' eventual split from the mother country.
"The Long Fuse: How England Lost the American Colonies, 1760-1785 by
Don Cook (1995): Retelling the saga of the American Revolution from
the viewpoint of Mother England, the author portrays the 13 colonies'
breakaway as a succession of blunders and missteps in London that led
to an unnecessary and unwinnable war. His contention is that with a
more conciliatory policy, England might well have reached an
accommodation that would have kept the American colonies in the
British Empire."
Canton Public Library: The American Revolution
http://www.cantonpl.org/specialc/amrcnrev.html
"In 1754... Benjamin Franklin, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Congress
who had long pondered the problem of American union, proposed and his
colonial colleagues debated and approved a Plan of Union. The Albany
Plan of Union was a shrewd, well-meant attempt to secure the empire
and to resolve outstanding ambiguities within the emerging imperial
constitutional system; it posed the ultimate issue in ways that could
not be avoided or glossed over. It proposed that America have a
general colonial legislature, which would tax the colonies for
purposes of defense, thus relieving the mother country of that burden.
A governor-general would represent the Crown, but the colonies still
would acknowledge the monarch of Great Britain as their sovereign.
The Albany Plan failed precisely because it posed the ultimate issues
so clearly, and because its solutions were too unpalatable to
entrenched interests on both sides of the Atlantic. The construction
of a colonial Union with its own legislature, sharing a common
sovereign with Britain, struck the British as too dangerous because it
threatened the power of Parliament (the sovereign). The construction
of a unified, super-colonial legislature overshadowing the colonial
legislatures struck colonial politicians as too dangerous because it
threatened the power of the colonial legislatures. Franklin shelved
his plan, bitterly complaining in later years that its adoption would
have rendered an American Revolution unnecessary. Thus ended the last
real attempt to devise intercolonial union. In the years following the
Treaty of Paris of 1763, rather than grasping and accommodating
themselves to the realities of a farflung imperial system that
required tact and sensitivity to administer, British officials acted
on the basis of unexamined assumptions mingled with a mother country's
arrogant disdain for peripheral colonials."
American Revolution Essays
http://www.americanrevolution.com/AmRevEssays.contro.htm
"The Albany Plan failed precisely because it posed the ultimate issues
so clearly, and because its solutions were too unpalatable to
entrenched interests on both sides of the Atlantic. The construction
of a colonial Union with its own legislature, sharing a common
sovereign with Britain, struck the British as too dangerous because it
threatened the power of Parliament (the sovereign). The construction
of a unified, super-colonial legislature overshadowing the colonial
legislatures struck colonial politicians as too dangerous because it
threatened the power of the colonial legislatures. Franklin shelved
his plan, bitterly complaining in later years that its adoption would
have rendered an American Revolution unnecessary. Thus ended the last
real attempt to devise intercolonial union. In the years following the
Treaty of Paris of 1763, rather than grasping and accommodating
themselves to the realities of a farflung imperial system that
required tact and sensitivity to administer, British officials acted
on the basis of unexamined assumptions mingled with a mother country's
arrogant disdain for peripheral colonials."
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AS A CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSY
http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/essays/contro.html
I hope this is helpful!
Best regards,
pinkfreud |
Clarification of Answer by
pinkfreud-ga
on
26 Jan 2006 12:38 PST
If an apocryphal story would meet your needs, here's a goodie:
It is possible that the French Revolution might have been averted if
King Louis XVI and his Queen, Marie Antoinette, had shown more tact in
their dealings with the common people. An anecdote that is often
reported (even though it is not supported by historical evidence) is
that when Marie Antoinette was informed that the people had no bread,
she replied "Let them eat cake." Similarly, a royal financial advisor
was alleged to have said "Let them eat hay." Although these are almost
certainly not exact quotations from the persons in question, they do
typify the arrogant and tactless manner in which French nobility dealt
with the masses, and it is undoubtedly true that this lack of
compassion and tact was one factor that led to the French Revolution.
"Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989.
NUMBER: 1347
AUTHOR: Author unknown
QUOTATION: Let them eat cake.
ATTRIBUTION: Author unknown. Commonly attributed to Marie Antoinette.
There is a good deal of conflicting evidence, however.
'At length I recollected the thoughtless saying of a great princess,
who, on being informed that the country people had no bread, replied,
?Then let them eat cake.?'Jean Jacques Rousseau, Confessions, book 6,
as cited by The Home Book of Quotations, ed. Burton Stevenson, 9th
ed., p. 1571, which adds this note: 'Usually attributed to Marie
Antoinette, after her arrival in France in 1770, but the sixth book of
the Confessions was written two or three years before that date. It is
difficult to translate ?brioche,? which is not exactly cake, but a bun
or fancy bread something like Scotch scones.'
Rousseau wrote the first six books of his Confessions in 1766-1767,
though the work was not published until 1782-1789. Marie Antoinette
lived 1755-1793...
A similar remark was attributed to Joseph François Foullon, appointed
minister of the king?s household in 1789, 'who was reported, probably
quite without foundation to have said, ?If the people cannot get
bread, let them eat hay.?'Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 10,
p. 738 (1910).
Bartleby
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1347.html
"Joseph François Foullon (1717 - July 22, 1789), French administrator,
was born at Saumur. During the Seven Years' War he was
intendant-general of the armies, and intendant of the army and navy
under Marshal de Belle-Isle. In 1771 he was appointed intendant of
finances. In 1789, when Necker was dismissed, Foullon was appointed
minister of the king's household, and was thought of by the
reactionary party as a substitute.
But he was unpopular on all sides. The farmers-general detested him on
account of his severity, the Parisians on account of his wealth
accumulated in utter indifference to the sufferings of the poor; he
was reported, probably quite without foundation, to have said, 'If the
people cannot get bread, let them eat hay.'
After the taking of the Bastille on July 14, he withdrew to his estate
at Vitry and attempted to spread the news of his death; but he was
recognized, taken to Paris, carried off with a bundle of hay tied to
his back to the Hôtel de Ville, and, in spite of the intervention of
Lafayette, was dragged out by the populace and hanged to a lamp-post
on the 22nd of July 1789."
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fran%C3%A7ois_Foullon
|
Clarification of Answer by
pinkfreud-ga
on
26 Jan 2006 13:02 PST
Sometimes it is wise to use tact even when one is in the right, and
one's adversary is in the wrong. A friend of mine who used to be a
police officer told me this true story:
A man and his wife were walking to their car late at night, after
having left a restaurant. On the way, they were intercepted by a
mugger who threatened them with a gun and demanded the man's wallet,
the woman's purse, and jewelry items from both. Having gotten all the
things he asked for, the mugger turned and started walking away. The
husband, outraged at the way he and his wife had been treated by this
miscreant, blurted out "F**k off, you son of a bitch!"
Upon hearing this, the mugger whirled around and shot him dead.
|
Clarification of Answer by
pinkfreud-ga
on
26 Jan 2006 13:07 PST
The dealings of the Catholic Church and European powers with Ethiopia
provide yet another historical instance that illustrates the need for
tact.
"The despotism, exactingness, and lack of tact of the Portuguese meant
that they could not excite sympathy toward themselves, and we see that
discord began between Emperor Klavdiy and them, and that he expelled
Patriarch Bermudes. But with this expulsion the pretensions of the
Vatican on Ethiopia did not end.
We see a whole series of Catholic patriarchs of Ethiopia, a whole
series of Jesuit missions, which busied themselves more with politics
than faith, and relied more on the strength and prestige of Portugal
than on their strength of persuasion. The results were the same as in
the states of Europe -- hatred of the people, civil war, plots,
discord an finally the expulsion of the Jesuits. This was a
significant period in the history of Abyssinia. Having started
relations with Europe, freed by Europeans from ruin, Abyssinia was
very close to complete unity with Europe, if only the Europeans had
been a little more tactful and not so demanding. But instead of this,
what happened was completely opposite. They had to save themselves
from their saviors. And having learned such a lesson, the Abyssinians
have been prejudiced against whites up until this time, and will be so
even longer."
ETHIOPIA THROUGH RUSSIAN EYES
http://www.samizdat.com/entotto.html
|
