Colonials regarded themselves as “Englishmen”, not as “Americans” before 1776. What caused the split between “Mother England” and the 13 colonies?
Before 1776, colonials regarded themselves as citizens of Great Britain since they maintained their loyalty to King George III of England. Further, trade and governance tied the colonials to Britain. Britain had restricted trade so the colonies could rely on Britain for imported supplies and goods. The colonials wanted to create a little England in America, which saw them regard themselves as Englishmen, to trade with Great Britain and to spread their religion. They also insisted that they deserved to be protected by the British Constitution, although such rights were never granted. The colonials, when they regarded themselves as Englishmen, they supported such assertion by pointing to the charters that defined their rights and responsibilities, for example, the First Virginia Charter, which had been signed in 1606 by King James. As such, by referring to themselves as Englishmen, they wanted to continue enjoying the immunities, franchises, and liberties from England.
A split between Mother England and the 13 colonies took place because the colonials started having different concerns than the people in Britain. They had a different way of life too and never wanted anyone else telling them how they should govern themselves. Further, they were treated differently from the British citizens at home, for example, they were forced to pay unfair taxes, were ordered to feed British troops and allow them to live in their houses, something that the colonials did not want, thus causing a split between England and the colonies. Britain failed to grant the colonials the protections of the British Constitution, which saw the colonials start talking about the existence of a separate and powerful American identity. Additionally, the British wanted to impose new restrictions and laws, which the 13 colonies saw as limiting their freedoms. The split was occasioned by such things as the stamp act, the Boston massacre and the intolerable acts.
(a) What tension(s) was/were there before 1760s? After 1763, what was the basic disagreement between London and the colonials over the place of the colonies in the empire?
Tensions before 1760s emanated from the search for justice since the colonies felt that the Virginia colonial legislature did not represent their interests. Further, Governor Berkeley had failed to protect the colonials from Indian raids. Additionally, Virginia felt excluded from the eastern seaboard riches. The colonials who had settled in America more than 100 years before had started to change their ideas, which led to tensions. They believed their smaller legislatures should have same powers as the British Parliament. After the French and Indian war, Britain wanted to control how the colonials expanded their territory to the west, which the colonials resisted, hence, producing further rift between the British government and the colonials.
This was occasioned by the Proclamation of 1763 by the King which prohibited settlements beyond the Appalachian Mountains. The colonials in those areas were ordered to return east of the mountains. The Treaty of Paris had granted the Great Britain a large swath of land, which they dissuaded the colonials from settling in it. However, the British faced difficulties administering the settled areas in the east of Appalachians. By moving west, the colonials would deplete the British administration’s resources. At the time, the French were gone, which meant that the colonials did not require the protection of the British military.
Different disagreements arose after 1763 over the place of the colonies in the empire. The colonials felt highly and unfairly taxed, ignored when it came to addressing their grievances, and watched over like children. The basic disagreement involved the payment of punitive taxes, which had to be paid for the administration of the Empire. By demanding more taxes, the British government wanted to show the colonials that it was in charge. However, the British government had money problems due to the foreign wars it was fighting, which left the country in huge debts. The British wanted the colonials to help pay some of the debts, especially those that emanated from the French and Indian War. The colonials wanted to, however, have a say on the issue of taxation. They wanted to be granted the right to vote about their taxes, like the people living in Great Britain. As such, they protested about taxation without representation.
In 1764, the British Parliament passed the Sugar Act, which set taxes on coffee, sugar, some wines, and other products that America imported in large quantities. The British government, further, approved other measures to enforce the trade laws, for example, it restricted the making of paper money in its colonies. The colonials saw the move as punitive and opposed it immediately. Business lobby groups started boycotting the goods, albeit unsuccessfully. The parliament further passed the Stamp Act, which angered the colonials as they were forced to by a British stamp for every printed money they utilized. As a result, they were taxed for newspapers, documents, and playing cards too. The colonials refused to pay too leading up to attacks on stamp agents. The Stamp Act was considered as the worst violation of the rights of the colonials.
Besides refusing to pay the stamp tax, the colonials signed non-importation agreements, which cost the British businessmen dearly, that they sought the revocation of the Act. When the British Parliament repealed the Stamp Act, it passed the Declaratory Act, which stated that the colonies existed to serve Britain, and Britain could approve any law it deemed fit. As such, the colonials felt that such statement was illegal. Such punitive laws indicate how the colonies had become separated from Britain. The colonial assemblies demanded the authority to approve their own laws since they considered their assemblies as self-rule. Another oppressive law set by the British Parliament was the Townshend Acts, which led the colonials to boycott British imports.
Further, the Boston Massacre of 1770 further widened the disagreements between the colonials and the British government. Every action by either the British government or the colonials an equally strong response was witnessed from the other. Sharp divisions continued to exist with the geographic distance being more evident. The colonials started questioning how an island nation like Britain could control and rule the expansive American continent, thereby leading to a point of no return.
The British government repealed the Townshend laws but enacted the Tea Act to raise funds for the struggling British East India Company. The Act provided the company with favourable tax regulations to help it sell tea at a price that undercut the American sellers who made imports from Dutch traders. Americans did not like the idea since they did not want Britain to dictate on how they traded on tea. The American merchants wanted to have freedom to do business with people from any country of their choice. As such, the Sons of Liberty sought to confront the British government by disguising themselves as Mohawks and destroyed over 92,000 pounds of British tea which they dumped into the harbour. They did not harm any of the crew to pass a point to the British government that they were rebels rather than vandals.
(b) What problems did London have after 1763? How did London try to resolve those problems? Were London’s policies and acts originally intended to be oppressive? How and why did colonials see those actions by London? How did London respond to colonial resistance?
The problems London faced after 1763 included the western lands, trade regulations, finances. Chief Pontiac in the Ohio River Valley realized that the defeat of the French who were his allies meant that British settlers would take his lands. As such Pontiac got the tribes on his area to fight against the British forts in the west. Within no time, the English outposts were under attack with hundreds of pioneers being killed and other forced to abandon their homesteads. Although British redcoats were sent to fight the Pontiac’s warriors, whom they defeated, London noticed that the colonials were not able to defend themselves.
The failure of the colonials to send men, revenues, and supplies to help the British wing the French and Indian War showed that the colonials were unreliable. The English policy makers saw the need to develop the Ohio Valley and other territories on the west. However, they faced conflicting claims over the area between Virginia and Pennsylvania while at the same time grappling with the decision on what lads to sale, farm, or use for hunting and trapping. There was also the need to resolve the competing claims of colonial speculators and British land agents.
Regarding trade regulations, the colonials were required to abide by the mercantile laws on trade with England, they, however, ignored them causing problems for London. American merchants became smugglers of goods, which deprived the British government of the much-needed income to its affairs in other colonies and at home. Colonial fortunes were made at the expense of the British trade regulations, which collected less than 2,000 pounds annually although it cost over four times to run the British customs service. The colonials were illegally importing goods worth over 700,000 pounds each year, which led to massive tax evasion. As such, London saw that it was being denied the major benefits of her colonies if such practice continued. Corruption was a problem London was forced to make do with.
Finances were another problem as officials in London estimated that it cost 300,000 pounds per year to maintain an army of 10,000 British soldiers to defend the American colonials from Native Americans and the French. The French and Indian War had cost the British over 70 million pounds and doubled the national debt. The colonials, on the other hand, paid only a fraction of the taxes. When Britain attempted to raise taxes, cider riots erupted. Further, the British government had reimbursed the colonials the costs of the French Indian War and expected the same from the colonials, who failed to honor their word. The colonials did not want to pay England to fight a war to maintain them in the British Empire. They saw no need to pay for a war that did not start.
London resulted to resolving the problems by stationing various regiments of British troops in the colonies to defend the West against the Native Americans and French. Further, it temporarily closed the Western lands to come up with a fix for the future in addition to allowing settlers to move west without offering defense against the Native tribes. The British government, further, passed strong laws to enforce the existing trade regulation, for example, doing away with jury trial for smugglers and eliminated the need for search warrants. The British government repealed all trade regulations and allowed smuggling to continue as a way of resolving the trade problems. London also increased taxes on the people living in England and put taxes on articles daily use on those living in the colonies. The British government required colonials pay the same taxes as the British citizens.
The London policies and acts were not intended to be oppressive, although the colonials saw the actions of the British government as such. The colonials chose not to obey what the British government had imposed on them. The British needed money to pay for the war debts and so they had to look at their colonies for help. The King and the Parliament saw themselves as having a right to tax the colonies. However, the colonials boycotted or failed to buy British goods. The laws included:
- The 1763 Proclamation
The Proclamation was unpopular with the colonials since it sought to shelf their desire to expand to and explore the western territories of North America. The colonials saw the proclamation as aimed to control them, and thus rebelled against such law. To the British, the Proclamation of 1763 was meant to stabilize the relationship between the Native tribes and the colonials since the British did not want another war.
- The Grenville Acts of 1764-1766
The Grenville Acts sought to have the colonials pay taxes for their defence in addition to duty on sugar. The British wanted to control trade and come up with regulations to settle problems in North America and strengthen enforcement of tax collection to clear the debts the government had accrued due to the wars. The British government, further, wanted to address the issue of smuggling which had led to revenue losses.
- The Townshend Acts of 1767
These laws sought to regulate the taxation on the goods the colonials imported from Britain. They were further meant to stop corruption, which had become endemic. However, the colonials were not pleased with the move and started a resistance. In protest, the patriots vandalized stores that were selling British goods.
- The 1770 Boston Massacre
The massacre took place on March 5, 1770 due to skirmishes between Americans and the British troops, which saw five colonials get killed. The cause was a protest on strict provisions for revenue collection. Boycotts on the goods that had been unfairly taxed had preceded the massacre. The colonials started harassing the British troops and British Private Hugh White.
- The Tea Act of 1773
The Tea Act was imposed to help the British government pay its debts from the wars it was fighting. The legislation’s main aim to bail out the struggling East India Company, which was key pillar in the British economy. However, the colonials thought the law was punitive and organized boycotts.
- The Coercive or Intolerable Acts of 1774
The Acts were meant to tame to rebellious colonists and sought to close the Boston Harbor until restitution was paid for the destroyed tea. However, these laws demanded the British military be accommodated in unoccupied building rather than stay upcountry. The laws did not force the colonials to keep the troops in their homes, they however, had to pay for the housing and feeding expenses for the troops.
As such, London responded to colonial resistance by repealing several laws, for example, the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts of 1767, although they did not stop demanding taxes. The British government deemed it fair for the colonials to pay their fair share of the costs of their own defense. Further, revenue could only be realized from stricter control of trade. London chose to not tax the colonials if they assumed the defense costs.
(c) The colonies declared war against England in 1775, but it was for “rights recovery” rather than “independence”. What is the difference between the two? What did this imply about the colonial attitude toward independence in 1775? What caused more support for independence during 1775-1776?
The rights recovery involved the repeal of the harsh, unbearable, and punitive legislation by the British Empire on the colonials while independence involved gaining sovereignty from Britain. This implies that the colonials had changed a lot and were not like their forefathers who had settled in America 100 years before. They possessed ideas and considered colonial legislatures as smaller and could rule themselves. They felt that their administrative units should have powers just like the British Parliament. The Americans wanted to gain their rights to liberty, life, and pursuit of happiness. This changed the colonial attitude toward independence in 1775 when they met in Philadelphia to discuss the British laws that they thought were unfair. The colonials saw their ineffectiveness in the lack of power to make own laws and had to pay higher taxes to the King.
More support for independence during 1775 and 1776 came from the king’s decision to create unreasonable taxes to fund the debts accrued during the French and Indian War. Britain felt that since the war had taken place in American soil, the colonials were supposed to pay for it. However, the colonials did not think they had a say in the British Parliament, therefore, the began to rebel and support independence. Further, the colonials lacked the same rights as people living in England, they were not allowed to send representatives to Parliament, and could not vote on taxes and issues affecting them.
Leave a Reply