510 likes | 651 Views
The Origins of the American Revolution. 1763 - 1776. The Basic Timeline of Events. The narrative of The American Revolution has never been in doubt. There are certain events which took place – and the causes and consequences of these events still resonate in American culture today.
E N D
The Origins of the American Revolution 1763 - 1776
The Basic Timeline of Events • The narrative of The American Revolution has never been in doubt. There are certain events which took place – and the causes and consequences of these events still resonate in American culture today. • How to interpret the separation of the United States from England is the principle point of contention for historians. • Some would argue that economic reasons were most responsible for the parting of ways. Others emphasize political differences. Evidence tends to suggest that although economic differences were at work, American objections to the taxes, duties, and controls placed on their commerce had more to do with principle than with pennies.
The French and Indian War At the end of the French and Indian War, England is the most powerful nation on Earth, has full possession of France’s North American colonies, and controls markets in North America and Europe. Although thrilled to have been victorious, the British were also overextended, and their treasury was exhausted. Good tax policy and revenue plans would be required in order to maintain the empire they had created and gain greater prosperity.
Native Americans retreat Once the French were forced to cede land and leave the area, they found themselves in direct opposition to the English. Without a rival to ally themselves with, many Native American tribes recognized that they were at a disadvantage and abandoned the east for areas which were less disputed. Uprisings such as Pontiac’s Rebellion, in 1763, generally resulted only in losses on the battlefield and retreat. It is at this point in American history that the narrative of the Native American tends to disappear from history textbooks. As tribes withdrew to the West, interaction with Americans was less and less productive.
Retiring the English Debt England had, in fact, poured enormous resources into winning the battle with the French. They were fearful of any more immediate conflicts, and it was their intention to collect taxes from the colonists themselves – to some extent. At the very least, they sought to enforce existing laws – and to prevent American smugglers from avoiding import duties from trade with the French. From the perspective of the English, it was perfectly reasonable to demand that the American colonists pay some share of the burden for protecting the empire – after all, they were the direct beneficiaries of the military and commerce England provided.
American taxpayers • It is important to remember that Americans paid less in taxes than anyone living in England. Some historians estimate that American colonists paid approximately 1/26th that of Englishmen on the island. • Importers who attempted to avoid paying duties were largely successful. When Lord Grenville came to power after the French and Indian War, he discovered that the British were paying officials over ₤7000 to collect around ₤2000 in taxes. This system, obviously, would not do! • Since England seemed to be fighting a losing battle with American colonists when it came to the collection of taxes – after a long period of salutary neglect – a revision of the old system seemed to be in order.
The Sugar Act - 1764 • Like many of the acts proposed during the Colonial Period in order to raise revenues, the Sugar Act actually lowered the tax on imported sugar. But it also gave customs officials greater power to enforce the rules – authorizing them to gain warrants, or writs of assistance – to search ships and warehouses throughout the colonies in order to seize and tax the goods. • The law also stipulated that those accused of transgressions would be put on trial before vice-admiralty courts instead of before juries. The appointed judges would presumably be far less sympathetic to the smugglers. • The Parliament frequently attempted to raise greater revenues by simply encouraging compliance with the taxes, rather than attempting to raise the taxes.
The Stamp Act of 1765 • If the Sugar Act went by without provoking any major emergencies, the Stamp Act of 1765 did not. • The major difference, in the mind of the colonists, was that this was an “internal” tax – one which applied to domestic activities in the colonies themselves – as a opposed to an “external” tax governing trade between nations. • Taxing merchants or import/export specialists was not considered as invasive – first, that class of individual had more income to tax; secondly, they could pass taxes on to consumers without suffering egregious losses. • The ₤160,000 Parliament believed would be raised by the tax would not cover even 20% of the taxes needed to support the army abroad; hence, to Parliament, this tax seemed more than reasonable.
Historical Interpretations Marxist historians, or economic determinists, would suggest that the American objected to paying this tax because it robbed them of property –and the opportunity to gain property. VS. A more convincing school of thought is that American objected to the principle of taxation – that in this case, a tax being collected domestically was not approved by any representative body. “Taxation Without Representation” was akin to slavery, in the minds of English Colonial Americans.
John Locke on Taxation “It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them: for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government: for what property have I in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?”
Virtual Representation Members of Parliament and Englishmen in general, however, did not agree with this interpretation of the events unfolding. They believed the colonists were very much represented. The English answer concerns over “Taxation Without Representation” concerns was that Americans were indeed represented in Parliament. Although no American members were in Parliament, and there were no representatives in the Parliament devoted to the promotion of American-specific demands, all Englishmen were represented by the members of the House of Commons. Virtual Representation – for the good of the commonweal, was a basic tenet of good government in England.
Division of Government This is difficult to understand from a 21st Century Americans perspective because we have a completely different understanding of government. We view the three divisions of government as: • Legislative – Our Congress: The House of Representatives and the United States Senate. • Executive – the President and his Cabinet • Judicial – the Supreme Court and Federal Court System. 18th Century Englishmen, however, did not. They viewed divisions of government in a completely different manner.
Englishmen For the English, their government – which had been perfected in the 17th Century with the rise to power of William and Mary – was supposed to consist of these three branches: • The Monarchy – The Enlightened Despot • The Oligarchy – The House of Lords • Democracy – The House of Commons This division or power consisted of the three types of governments which had worked best over the course of history. Consider any of the great kingdoms or empires of the China, the Greeks, or the Roman Empires – these methods of government had proven track records. And most Americans, they would argue, were represented in the House of Commons – a part of Parliament (bicameral legislature.)
Reaction to the Stamp Act The response to the Stamp Act was enormous. The Sons of Liberty were founded in Boston, and they hung in effigy tax collectors who would dare collect funds from the Parliament issued stamps. The use of physical intimidation – literally roughing up the tax collectors, vandalizing homes, or threatening anyone who considered accepting the position as a tax collector – was largely successful. Indeed, no American born colonist would take the position in Massachusetts – for fear of what might happen to them if they attempted to take up the tax.
The Stamp Act Congress • “That His Majesty's liege subjects in these colonies, are entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great-Britain.” • “That the late Act of Parliament, entitled, An Act for granting and applying certain Stamp Duties, and other Duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, etc., by imposing taxes on the inhabitants of these colonies, and the said Act, and several other Acts, by extending the jurisdiction of the courts of Admiralty beyond its ancient limits, have a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists.”
Declaratory Act • The British were forced to repeal the Stamp Act due to the popular revolt which took place in the Colonies. Although repealing the Act, the Parliament also insisted that they had the right to tax the colonists at any time. • While Americans celebrated a great victory over the Parliament, England was shocked by the suggestion that they could not tax their subjects, and viewed it as essential to clarify their right!
The Townshend Acts In an effort to reassert themselves, the Townshend Acts were passed. After the Declaratory Act was passed by the Parliament, they quickly attempted to demonstrate the Empires mastery over the islands by focusing on new revenue collection techniques: • Glass, paper, paint, lead, and tea were all targeted. • Vice-Admiralty Courts were re-established. • British troops were deployed.
The Quartering Acts In 1766, the Parliament required that Americans provide “candles, firing, beds, utensils, salt, vinegar, beer, cider, and rum” for British Soldiers. This declaration, which forces Americans to pick up the bill for soldiers who they got along with so poorly, is condemned.
Boycotts and Non-importation In protest, the American colonists refused to buy English products. Non-importation treaties and boycotts against English goods were enforced strictly by vigilante groups like the Sons of Liberty – who protected smugglers from customs agents, and punished those who violated the boycotts! Merchants were not permitted to import goods from England and sell them. Consumers were banned from purchasing English goods – and held to their commitments by force when necessary.
John Hancock’s Liberty • When his smuggling vessel, Liberty, was stopped and the customs officials were attacked physically for attempting to board the ship, it provoked outrage in England. Acts of lawlessness were simply impermissible. • Hancock’s roughs, presumably, were also responsible for attacking Governor Bernard’s mansion in retaliation. • This was the last straw, and in 1768, the British sent over 4000 soldiers to Boston to occupy the city. This was one soldier for every four citizens. • In retrospect, the probably made escalation of the conflict inevitable.
The Boston Massacre March 5, 1770,the Boston Massacre takes place. Crispus Attucks, a free black man, was killed in the shooting. John Adams would defend the soldiers.
The Boston Massacre • Ben Franklin had predicted that the landing of so many troops in Boston would inevitably lead to some similar mayhem as unfolded on March 5, 1770. • The occupation of Boston was, of course, an exceedingly tense time. But even after the Boston Massacre, there was more effort at reconciliation than at escalation. American colonists wanted their rights – as Englishmen – restored. • John Adams, who had defended the soldiers who were charged, probably recognized that there was plenty of blame to go around as the trial wound down. He remained loyal to the English, though, throughout this period.
The Repeal of the Townshend Act The revenue acts which Townshend had put into place were largely unsuccessful, and most were repealed . The tea tax remained in effect, largely as a point of pride for the Parliament. (This was a lingering piece of legislation from the former Townshend Act, not the Tea Act of 1773 – which would cause it’s own concerns.) Between 1770 an 1773, the American colonies were, for the most part, less troubled by conflict with England.
Structural Conflicts remain The conflicts which remained persistent: Smugglers vs. Customs Agents Settlers vs. Proclamation Line Colonial vs. Parliament Assemblies Meanwhile, more zealous groups like the Sons of Liberty and the Committees of Correspondence – through their circular letters, attempted to generate greater division.
The Boston Tea Party • A direct response to the Tea Act THE TEA ACT OF 1773: • Lowers the price of tea in the colonies by allowing the East India Tea Company to cut out the middle man and sell directly to the colonists. • Forbid any purchasing of tea from rivals. • Adds a three-penny tax, through Parliament. Although the act actually lowered the cost of tea in the colonies, the principle of “Taxation Without Representation” was not accepted by the colonists.
The Boston Tea Party Dressed as Mohawk Indians, members of the Sons of Liberty threw 342 chests of tea into the Boston Harbor. The total cost of the tea thrown in the harbor was close to ₤10,000. Furious, the Parliament responded with the so-called Intolerable Acts.
The intolerable Acts • Appointed General Thomas Gage of the English Army as the colonial governor of Massachusetts, and gave him enormous powers to make executive decisions. • Closes the Boston Harbor completely. • Established the principle that trials against smugglers or any person in violation of the law could be held in England – a prospect which many viewed as not good for a fair trial. • Military occupation of the city was imminent.
The quebec act • The fact that the Intolerable Acts coincided with the Quebec Act in 1773. This act expanded the size of Quebec, thereby restricting the ability of American colonies to grow in a westward direction. It also gave French citizens greater liberty to practice Catholicism and to speak the French language. • New Englanders viewed this as a threat to their own religious liberty and as a punishment against squatters and speculators in the colonies who had hoped to cash in.
The First Continental Congress • All of the colonies save Georgia were in attendance. • The Continental Congress was dangerously close to being considered treason; many would have viewed it as such. • The Congress demanded the repeal of the Intolerable Acts. • They openly encourage non-importation and boycotts of British goods. • Great fear of an invasion of Boston prevailed during the meeting. • Communiques with the Parliament were nevertheless sent, in hopes of gaining some reconciliation.
Declaration of Rights and Grievances • Penned by John Adams, this was a rather scholarly rebuttal of Parliament’s insistence that it had the right to tax the colonists however they chose. • Adams asserted while the colonists might concede the right of Parliament to regulate trade with England and abroad, they vehemently opposed the raising of taxes for the purposes of collecting revenues.
The Suffolk Resolves • Passed in September of 1774 in Suffolk Co., Massachusetts, these resolutions were just short of a declaration of war. • The resolves insisted on the repeal of the Intolerable Acts and urged disobedience against the royal government. • Most importantly, the resolves declared the Americans should begin to raise a militia for self-defense, fearing an invasion of Massachusetts.
“Blows Must Decide” If the Continental Congress was hopeful that the King would take a more lenient stance against them than Parliament and reconciliation might begin, they were horrified by this response. The King, in light of the posturing of the Suffolk Resolves, opted to take the hardline stance against the colonists. His rejoinder, the “blows must decide” the future of his insubordinate colonies was interpreted as a promise of war.
The Battles of Lexington and Concord: “the Shot heard ‘round the World” The onset of war with England came in April of 1775, when the it was ordered that John Hancock be arrested and the stockpiles of military supplies be seized by the English military. Minutemen waited on a signal from the Old North Church; Paul Revere and William Dawes warned the towns of the soldiers approach. The cache of weapons and ammunition was reapportioned for the day.
Lexington and Concord At Lexington, the British Army had believed they would apprehend both John Hancock and Samuel Adams – they did not. Instead, a skirmish between a few dozen American militiamen and the regular British Army ensued. The British fired “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World” here, and 8 Americans died. Nine more were injured. The battle at Concord was more substantial. The arsenal there had been emptied by minutemen, who were staged at the North Bridge entry of the town. During this battle, Americans using guerrilla tactics were largely successful against their British adversaries.
Bunker hill The Battle of Bunker Hill is perhaps the most famous misnomer in American History, for the fighting actually took place on Breed’s Hill. William Prescott’s untrained Continental Army, holding advantageous ground, was able to rout the British in the initial stages of the battle; however, they quickly ran out of ammunition. The battle ended in disorder – the British took the hills.
The Olive Branch Petition Even as the conflict in the Revolutionary War began in earnest, American colonists continued to seek reconciliation with their British allies. The Olive Branch Petition – offered as a final opportunity to end hostilities between the colonies and Mother Country, was doomed from the outset. The Continental Congress offered to end armed hostilities against the English in exchange for the immediate removal of all British military personnel and the revocation of the Intolerable Acts. Even after bloodshed and discord had begun to characterize the standoff, American colonists still prayed that the King would intervene: “We most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamities of civil war.”
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense Thomas Paine was not in a conciliatory mood, at all, though. His purpose was to radicalize the movement, to vilify the Parliament and especially the King, and to have Americans break ties – completely and finally – with England. His pamphlet – 46 pages of vitriol and logic based argumentation against the Crown – was a best seller almost instantly. It sold over 120,000 copies in the first four months of 1775, and it reached a much wider audience, since books of the sort were almost always read aloud in coffeehouses and taverns across the United States. Paine – who was not American by birth – wanted independence for the United States of America.
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense “These are the times that try men’s souls…” - perhaps Thomas Paine’s most famous line is not in Common Sense. That’s from the sequel to his more famous work, called The Crisis. In Common Sense, Paine made a case for American Independence by force of arms against the King. His epistle, which condemned all hereditary rulers and proposed that it was foolish for an island to rule a continent, was the first open call for hostilities to be circulated so widely. Washington had the pamphlet read to all of his troops.
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense “As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to do this continent justice: The business of it will soon be too weighty, and intricate, to be managed with any tolerable degree of convenience, by a power, so distant from us, and so very ignorant of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us. To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which when obtained requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease. Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems: England to Europe, America to itself.
The Declaration of Independence Thomas Paine’s work, Common Sense in particular, was an indication of the gathering momentum for a Declaration of Independence. Some would say that the pamphlet provided the crucial push forward to make the document a reality. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston were all members of the committee which drafted the Declaration of Independence, but Thomas Jefferson’s prose was judged by all to be superior, and he won the right to compose the original. It was amended by the committee before being signed.
The Declaration of Independence “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
The Declaration of Independence --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
The Declaration of Independence But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
The declaration of Independece – A Long train of abuses • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. • He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. • He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. • He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
The Declaration of Independence – A long Train of Abuses • He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. • He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. • He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. • He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. • He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
The declaration of Independence – A long train of abuses • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: • For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: • For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: • For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: • For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences • For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: • For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: • For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
The Declaration of Independence - A long train of abuses • He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. • He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. • He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. • He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. • He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Declaration of Independence – conclusion • In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. • Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.