Unit%202%20review.pdf.pdf

This unit begins with studying the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s that divided colonists along religious lines. A new religion, or at least a new way of interpreting an older theology, spread like wildfire. So-called “New Lights,” also known as Arminians, believed in a much more active an...

This unit begins with studying the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s that divided colonists along religious lines. A new religion, or at least a new way of interpreting an older theology, spread like wildfire. So-called “New Lights,” also known as Arminians, believed in a much more active and democratic Protestantism. In sharp contrast with the “Old Lights,” who clung to their Calvinist upbringing, New Lights believed that an individual could be saved by experiencing a religious conversion––especially if it happened at one of the many revivals that were quickly spreading up and down the Atlantic seaboard. Congregationalists who held on to traditional beliefs correctly saw the New Lights’ preaching as an attack on key theological concepts such as predestination. To them, revivals represented a false religion. The New Lights preached in a more emotional style that attracted large audiences at revivals. Converts became passionate about their religion, actively engaging in its practice instead of passively listening to sermons. The old religion remained traditional in its focus on ritual and non-emotional sermons. New Light ministers and their followers promoted the idea that one should feel saved. Equally as important, they evangelized that one could actively save oneself by changing one’s behavior. Emotional sermons and appeals to free will helped to break up the old order and create a more democratic idea of heaven. In this new religion, there were many ways to be saved—not just through the traditional churches. An energized Protestantism that emphasized active and more democratic participation, not surprisingly, attracted women and significant numbers of enslaved people as converts. The Great Awakening attempted to do away with ritual, ceremony, sacramentalism, and hierarchy. In so doing, it radically challenged established authority and the rise of denominations and sects. Simultaneous to the Great Awakening, an intellectual movement known as the American Enlightenment was occurring. This movement began in the seventeenth century in England and spread to the colonies in the eighteenth century. Curious artisans in major seaports, some wealthy merchants, lawyers, and landowners with leisure time and education, read the newest books from Europe and were influenced by the movement’s ideas of logic and rational thinking. It is clear that some clergy educated at American colleges were influenced by the Enlightenment, as well. They muted the Calvinist emphasis of a predestined elite, arguing that God’s greatest gift to humankind was reason and that all human beings could reach salvation. By the mid-eighteenth century, more than half of all White men (and a small percentage of White women) were literate, but most colonials were not equipped to read the writings of Enlightenment philosophers. White men from wealthier families of English ancestry were more likely to earn a college education than those who were from poorer or immigrant households. Therefore, the great majority of colonials still looked for truth in biblical revelation rather than human reason and explained the workings of the world in terms of divine action rather than natural laws of science. The many new churches built by the mid seventeen hundreds strengthened attachment to Christian beliefs. During this period some colonial groups became comfortable running their own lives and making their own decisions. They were, in many respects, self-governing. They developed proto-democratic institutions such as the various colonial assemblies to which they elected their own representatives which made many of the laws governing their conduct and trade. This time, preceding the Revolutionary War, is sometimes called the era of benign or salutary neglect. Essentially, the British on the other side of the Atlantic had better things to do than involve themselves in the mundane—and costly—aspects of day-to-day life in their colonies. With various conflicts over succession and constant worry over the actions of their imperial rivals, particularly France and Spain, the King and Parliament had little interest in the 13 colonies. The neglect allowed the colonies to develop certain attitudes and practices of independence, including the ability to ignore strict trade regulations such as the Navigation Acts. Colonials got used to doing things their way. When the last of the continental wars broke out, however, William Pitt, a very popular member of Parliament, decided that France and England should wage their long, intermittent conflict in the “New World” — France and its Indigenous allies versus Britain and its colonists. It was a great struggle for empire. The colonists fought side by side with the British (because, after all, they were British at the time) and were critical to achieving a British victory that all but vanquished the French from any claims they had to North America. At the war’s end, the King and Parliament regard the colonists as loyal, albeit inferior subjects. In the short term, the French and Indian War united the colonists as they fought side by side but in the long term, the war would be one of the leading causes of revolution. The war was costly, saddling Britain with an enormous debt. When the colonists were informed that they would be helping to pay off this debt, the colonists’ inferior status became clear. Used to the freedoms many had come to expect in the era of salutary neglect, they chafed under the metropole’s sudden interest in colonial affairs. Additionally, this unit will closely examine how social conditions, intellectual causes, diverse backgrounds, and the economic interests of the many groups that inhabited the colonies created a more complex narrative of the historical events leading up to the American Revolutionary War. Most history textbooks continue to describe the events leading up to the war as moments of British authoritarian  rule, unfair taxation, and various military contests. Since the North American colonies were quite diverse and based on the region where one lived, social conditions were different for similar groups. The experiences of life in the colonies varied widely based on race, class, age, and geographic region. Most people living in the colonies were White and Protestant, with a large population having British ancestry. At this time, approximately 20% were enslaved African Americans or Africans, and women were legally blocked from almost all forms of political or even public life. Native Americans who had converted to Christianity or colonial culture lived within the provinces, and many were refugees escaping bloody conflicts on the American frontier or enslaved. The different groups practiced resistance and resilience to hardships in different but daily ways as the idea and potential of independence from Britain started to develop. PART 1: FOCUS QUESTION AND ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS Before you start the unit’s textbook reading assignment, take a look at the unit’s Focus Question (FQ). This question will emphasize a theme related to the unit and guide you to recognize the significance of the history being studied. Each lesson is connected to the unit’s FQ and is part of a network of connections that can be used to answer the question. Each lesson’s Essential Question (EQ) will summarize each day’s lesson. As you read, try to identify information and evidence that can help you answer each question. When you find key passages, note the page numbers and sources, so that you can access this information easily later for studying and assessments. FOCUS QUESTION: What events and issues led to the beginning of colonial groups rejecting colonial rule? ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS: Citation Directions: Review these questions before completing the reading Directions: Note page assigned Before Class. numbers and sources from the textbook Lesson 2.1- According to the assigned chapters in OpenStax U.S. History, what events, movements, people, issues, and/or ideas led to the beginning of colonial groups to desire independence? Lesson 2.2 – Throughout United States History, religion has been a central component of the nation’s culture. How did “New Light” modes of worship challenge the “Old Light” practices and form cultural shifts in colonial America? Lesson 2.3 - How did underlying social conditions and intellectual causes motivate some colonial groups to consider the potential of independence? Lesson 2.4 - How did the French and Indian War impact the relationship between the colonists and Britain? How did the War encourage colonists to see themselves differently in the long-term? Lesson 2.5 - What were the causes of anti-British sentiments during the Colonial American period? How did people in America begin to subscribe and support the idea of a self-governing American nation? PART 2: INTRODUCTORY TERMS AND IDEAS These terms are especially helpful in preparing for your Pre-Unit 2 Quiz so read all assignments for Lesson 2.1. Write the definition, time period and/or date, and historical significance of each term in the space provided and connect each term to a course Big Idea (American Identities, Reform and Renewal, Self and Society, Labor and Technology, America in the World). The time period and dates will help you to construct historical chronologies in Part 4 of this guide. Please note that you may use a printed copy of Part 2 of the study guide while taking the Pre-Unit 2 Quiz. Terms Definition and Significance Course *Include Time Period and/or Date(s) Big Idea Read the OpenStax U.S. History "Chapter 4: Rule Britannia! The English Empire, 1660-1763" Introduction Section 4.2 The Glorious Revolution and the English Empire o Terms to study within the subsection “ENGLISH LIBERTY” The 1689 Bill of Rights was a British law that enshrined civil rights and limited the powers of the monarchy. It established the principle that the monarchy could not rule 1689 Bill of Rights without the consent of Parliament. This law marked a significant shift towards constitutional monarchy and the establishment of individual rights in England. John Locke was a significant English philosopher and political theorist during the Enlightenment known for his influential ideas on natural rights, the social contract, and their impact on modern constitutional government. His John Locke works emphasized the natural rights of individuals, such as life, liberty, and property, and the concept of a social contract between the government and the governed. The Toleration Act of 1689 was an English law that granted limited religious freedom to Protestant nonconformists, allowing them to worship in their own places of worship and freely congregate for religious purposes as long as they Toleration Act of affirmed their allegiance to the king and the established 1689 government.The Toleration Act marked a significant step towards religious toleration and religious freedom within the British Empire. Section 4.4 Great Awakening and Enlightenment o Terms to study within the subsection: “THE FIRST GREAT AWAKENING” The First Great The First Great Awakening is an 18th-century Protestant Awakening revival movement in the British Atlantic colonies. It involved a surge of evangelical fervor and emotional religiosity  among the colonists, challenging traditional religious practices and beliefs. The "Old Lights" were traditionalist ministers and religious figures who adhered to established modes of worship and rejected the evangelical fervor associated with the First “Old Lights” Great Awakening. They believed in formal modes of prayer *explain their beliefs about Christianity and worship and were critical of the emotional religious experiences practices promoted by the New Lights. The "New Lights" were proponents of the evangelical enthusiasm and emotional religiosity that characterized the “New Lights” First Great Awakening. They emphasized personal and *explain their beliefs about Christianity and worship experiential faith over traditional modes of worship and practices doctrine and advocated for a more emotional and vigorous approach to Christianity. Jonathan Edwards was a prominent preacher during the First Great Awakening. He played a significant role in spreading evangelical enthusiasm and is best known for his Jonathan vivid and terrifying sermons, such as "Sinners in the Hands Edwards of an Angry God." Edwards sought to enliven religious practice and was a crucial figure in the spread of evangelical passion in the Connecticut River Valley. George Whitefield was an influential Anglican minister and a significant figure in the First Great Awakening. He was an George Whitefield itinerant preacher known for his powerful oratory, *Include how he was electrifying colonial listeners. While the New Lights revered perceived by Old and New Lights him for his impassioned preaching, the Old Lights perceived him negatively, critiquing the emotional appeal of his sermons. Terms to study within the subsection: “THE ENLIGHTENMENT” The The Enlightenment was an intellectual and cultural Enlightenment movement emphasizing reason, empiricism, and individualism. It promoted innovative ideas about politics, philosophy, and science and encouraged people to question traditional authority and beliefs. Benjamin Franklin Benjamin Franklin was a prominent figure during the Enlightenment. He was a polymath who contributed to science, literature, and politics. Franklin embraced Enlightenment  ideals, advocating for rationality, scientific inquiry, and civic virtue. Deism was a philosophical and religious outlook prevalent during the Enlightenment. It emphasized the existence of a Deism supreme being or creator but rejected traditional religious doctrines and supernatural intervention. Deists believed in a rational and naturalistic interpretation of the universe, viewing God as an impersonal, distant figure. Section 4.5 Wars for Empire o Terms to study within the subsection: “THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR” The French and The French and Indian War, the Seven Years’ War, was the Indian War, also decisive contest between Britain and France in America. It known as the began over rival claims along the frontier in present-day Seven Years’ War western Pennsylvania. Well-connected planters from Virginia faced stagnant tobacco prices and hoped expanding into these western lands would stabilize their wealth and status. Read the OpenStax U.S. History "Chapter 5: Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763-1774" Introduction Section 5.1 Confronting the National Debt: The Aftermath of the French and Indian War o Terms to study within the subsection “PROBLEMS ON THE AMERICAN FRONTIER” The Treaty of Paris, signed on February 10, 1763, marked Treaty of Paris the end of the French and Indian War. It resulted in France ceding Canada and all its territories in mainland North America to Great Britain and Louisiana to Spain, effectively ending French colonial presence in North America. The Pontiac's Rebellion was a major conflict from 1763 to 1766 between certain Native American tribes and the British Empire. It was sparked by Native American resistance to Pontiac’s British expansion into the Ohio Country after the French Rebellion and Indian War. This rebellion led to the Proclamation of 1763, which restricted further colonial expansion west of the Appalachian Mountains. The Paxton Boys were a group of Scots-Irish frontiersmen Paxton Boys from the Pennsylvania backcountry who engaged in a series of violent actions against Native Americans during the Pontiac's Rebellion. Their significance lies in their role in the armed conflict in Pennsylvania and their demand for more  aggressive action by the colonial government against Native American tribes. The Proclamation of 1763 was an official announcement by the British government that prohibited settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains. Its aim was to prevent conflicts Proclamation of between colonists and Native Americans. Its significance lies 1763 in its attempt to stabilize the western frontier and manage relationships with Native American tribes following the French and Indian War. o Terms to study within the subsection “IMPERIAL REFORMS” The Currency Act of 1764 regulated the issue of colonial Currency Act of currency by prohibiting the American colonies from issuing 1764 paper money as legal tender. This act was significant as it aimed to control the flow of colonial currency and maintain British control over colonial trade and economic policies. The Sugar Act of 1764, also known as the American Revenue Act, aimed to raise revenue from the American colonies by increasing duties on sugar imported from the West Indies. It Sugar Act of 1764 is significant as it was one of the first acts that sought to directly raise revenue from the colonies, leading to increased tensions between the colonists and the British government. Vice-admiralty courts were colonial courts where cases Vice-admiralty involving violations of the Sugar Act and other trade laws Courts were heard. They were significant because they were operated by judges appointed by the British government, bypassing colonial juries, and were viewed by the colonists as a threat to their rights and liberties. Section 5.2 The Stamp Act and the Sons and Daughters of Liberty o Terms to study within the subsection “THE STAMP ACT AND THE QUARTERING ACT” The Stamp Act of 1765 was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament on the American colonies. A revenue Stamp Act of stamp was required to be attached to printed materials. 1765 This marked the first instance of the British Parliament imposing a direct tax on the colonies without their consent, leading to substantial colonial opposition and protests. Quartering Act of The Quartering Act of 1765 was passed by the British 1765 Parliament and required the American colonies to provide  housing and provisions for British troops stationed in America. This act was significant as it exacerbated colonial resentment towards British authority and further increased tensions between the colonies and the British government. o Terms to study within the subsection “COLONIAL PROTEST: GENTRY, MERCHANTS, AND THE STAMP ACT CONGRESS” The Right to Representation refers to the belief held by the American colonists that they were entitled to be The Right to represented in the British Parliament if they were to be Representation taxed by the Parliament. This concept is significant because it underpinned the colonists' argument against imposing taxes such as the Stamp Act without their consent. "No Taxation Without Representation" became a rallying cry for the American colonists to protest against the imposition No Taxation of taxes by the British Parliament without their consent. This Without phrase encapsulates the colonists' demand for Representation representation in the legislative body that imposed taxes on them. It reflects the fundamental principle that taxation should only be imposed with the consent of the governed. The Stamp Act Congress gathered representatives from nine Stamp Act American colonies in October 1765. It was the first unified Congress colonial response to the imposition of the Stamp Act. The congress petitioned the British Parliament, arguing against its constitutionality and demonstrating colonial unity and opposition to British policies. o Terms to study within the subsection “MOBILIZATION: POPULAR PROTEST AGAINST THE STAMP ACT The Sons of Liberty was a secret organization formed by American colonists in response to the Stamp Act and other Sons of Liberty forms of British taxation and control. The significance of the Sons of Liberty lies in their role as a driving force behind the colonial resistance movement, organizing protests and boycotts against British policies. The Daughters of Liberty were women who supported the Daughters of colonial resistance movement through various means, such Liberty as producing homespun cloth in defiance of British imports and participating in non-importation agreements. The significance of the Daughters of Liberty lies in their  contribution to the colonial cause and their demonstration of women's involvement in the protest against British policies. PART 3: ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT TERMS Now it’s your turn! Choose your own key terms based on the lesson EQs and as you study the content for Unit 2, add your own definitions, time periods and/or dates, and historical significance. If you need more than the spaces provided, feel free to add more pages to this guide. Think of these terms as evidence you can use to build strong historical arguments, which will help you complete your assignments and exams for this course. At the end of each lesson, write your own summary response to each lesson’s broad question. Lesson 2.2: The First Great Awakening Essential Question: Throughout United States History, religion has been a central component of the nation’s culture. How did “New Light” modes of worship challenge the “Old Light” practices and form cultural shifts in colonial America? Terms Definition and Significance Course Big Idea *Include Time Period and/or Date(s) The rise of new ways of worship and the conflicts with Cultural Shifts traditional practices caused significant changes in colonial America. The First Great Awakening led to differences in how people revered, interacted with each other, and viewed those in charge. This all helped make American culture more diverse and complicated. The evangelical movement focused on personal and Evangelical experiential faith and reacted to what some people saw as problems with traditional religious practices. It greatly Moment impacted colonial society, stirring up a lot of spiritual passion and leading to changes in culture and religion that helped shape what it means to be American. Protestant revivalism brings renewed passion and Protetsant dedication to the Protestant Christian faith. It became a big deal during the First Great Awakening in the 18th Revivalism century. This movement greatly emphasized personal faith, deep emotions in religion, and hands-on religious activities. It had a significant impact on the culture and society of colonial America. Seminary A seminary is a school where people learn how to become religious leaders. During the First Great Awakening, seminaries like the one started by Gilbert Tennent were really important. They helped train  preachers and other religious leaders to spread the new excitement about religion and to be part of the big changes happening in society at the time. Summary Response to Lesson Question: The "New Light" ways of worship from the evangelical movement in the First Great Awakening clashed with the traditional "Old Light" practices. This clash led to significant changes in how people practiced their religion and affected how they interacted and thought about their culture. These changes played a big part in shaping American history and the nation's cultural identity. Lesson 2.3: A Plurality of Experiences Essential Question: How did underlying social conditions and intellectual causes motivate some colonial groups to consider the potential of independence? Terms Definition and Significance Course Big Idea *Include Time Period and/or Date(s) The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behavior or political views. Liberty was a fundamental concept that Liberty motivated colonial groups to seek independence from oppressive authority, leading to the American Revolutionary War and the eventual establishment of the United States of America. The nature of the imperial relationship between the American colonies and Britain influenced colonial groups' Imperial considerations of independence, as it shaped their relationship critique of imperial policies and the role of government in promoting collective happiness.  Intellectual ambitions were instrumental in motivating some colonial groups to consider independence, as they Intellectual sought to challenge traditional notions of authority and ambitions pursue new ideas about the rights and well-being of the populace. Summary Response to Lesson Question: The diversity of social, intellectual, and political factors contributed to the motivations of colonial groups to contemplate the potential of independence, reflecting the complex plurality of experiences leading to the American Revolutionary War and the formation of the United States. Lesson 2.4: The French and Indian War and its Impact Essential Question: How did the French and Indian War impact the relationship between the colonists and Britain? How did the War encourage colonists to see themselves differently in the long-term? Terms Definition and Significance Course Big Idea *Include Time Period and/or Date(s) The aftermath of the French and Indian War created Increased increased tensions between the colonies and Britain, primarily due to disputes over taxation, territorial control, Tensions with and governance. These tensions eventually culminated in Britain the American Revolutionary War and the eventual independence of the United States from British rule. Colonial militias were local military forces composed of Colonial Militias ordinary colonists, often farmers and tradespeople, organized to defend their communities and support British military efforts during the war. Participation in militias fostered a sense of military prowess and solidarity among the colonists, contributing to their growing sense of self-reliance and capability. After the French and Indian War, Britain faced significant British Debt and war debts and sought to increase revenue by imposing taxes on the American colonies, leading to acts such as Taxation the Stamp Act, Sugar Act, and Townshend Acts. The imposition of these taxes without colonial representation in the British Parliament sparked resistance and contributed to the growing rift between the colonies and Britain. Legacy of The French and Indian War left a legacy of resentment Resentment among the American colonists toward the British government due to perceived mistreatment, lack of representation, and policies that restricted their freedom and economic opportunities. This sense of resentment and perceived injustices played a significant role in shaping the colonists' attitudes and motivations leading up to the American Revolutionary War. Summary Response to Lesson Question: The French and Indian War was a pivotal event that not only reshaped the dynamics of power in North America but also contributed to the colonists' changing perceptions and attitudes toward the British government. Lesson 2.5: The Rise of British Anti-Sentiment Essential Question: What were the causes of anti-British sentiments during the Colonial American period? How did people in America begin to subscribe and support the idea of a self-governing American nation? Terms Definition and Significance Course Big Idea *Include Time Period and/or Date(s) Taxation refers to when the British government made the Taxation American colonies pay taxes. The colonists didn't have a say in these decisions, and this made many people in America really mad at the British. This issue was a big reason why the colonists wanted to govern themselves and have a say in the decisions that affected them. Constitutional rights are important fundamental rights and freedoms that are protected by law. When the American Constitutional colonies were under British rule, the British government Rights imposed taxes and made rules without giving the colonists a say in the matter. This angered the colonists and led them to fight for their rights and for their freedom to govern themselves. During the Colonial American period, many enslaved people Liberty from wanted to be free from slavery. This desire for freedom Slavery played a big part in the American Revolution, as they sought to break free from oppressive conditions and gain independence from British rule. Self-governance is about a place or group being able to make Self-Governance its own rules and decisions that match its needs and priorities. This became really important to the early American settlers as they wanted to have more control over their own lives. Wanting to govern themselves was connected to not wanting to be under British rule and to the idea of being a separate and self-ruling American country. Summary Response to Lesson Question: During the Colonial American period, anti-British sentiments grew due to mercantilist policies, taxation without representation, colonial indebtedness, perceived infringements on constitutional rights, liberty from slavery, challenges to gender dynamics, economic independence, and the aspiration for self-governance. People supported the idea of a self-governing American nation through the desire for economic independence, self-governance, liberty, and greater autonomy. By the end of this section, you will be able to: Identify the causes of the Glorious Revolution Explain the outcomes of the Glorious Revolution During the brief rule of King James II, many in England feared the imposition of a Catholic absolute monarchy by the man who modeled his rule on that of his French Catholic cousin, Louis XIV. Opposition to James II, spearheaded by the English Whig party, overthrew the king in the Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689. This paved the way for the Protestant reign of William of Orange and his wife Mary (James’s Protestant daughter). JAMES II AND THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION King James II (Figure 4.7), the second son of Charles I, ascended the English throne in 1685 on the death of his brother, Charles II. James then worked to model his rule on the reign of the French Catholic King Louis XIV, his cousin. This meant centralizing English political strength around the throne, giving the monarchy absolute power. Also like Louis XIV, James II practiced a form of Roman Catholicism after he converted from Protestantism in the late 1660s. He had a Catholic wife, and when they had a son, the potential for a Catholic heir to the English throne became a threat to English Protestants. James also worked to modernize the English army and navy. The fact that the king kept a standing army in times of peace greatly alarmed the English, who believed that such a force would be used to crush their liberty. As James’s strength grew, his opponents feared their king would turn England into a Catholic monarchy with absolute power over her people. Figure 4.7 James II (shown here in a painting ca. 1690) worked to centralize the English government. The Catholic king of France, Louis XIV, provided a template for James’s policies. In 1686, James II applied his concept of a centralized state to the colonies by creating an enormous colony called the Dominion of New England. The Dominion included all the New England colonies (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Plymouth, Connecticut, New Haven, and Rhode Island) and in 1688 was enlarged by the addition of New York and New Jersey. James placed in charge Sir Edmund Andros, a former colonial governor of New York. Loyal to James II and his family, Andros had little sympathy for New Englanders. His regime caused great uneasiness among New England Puritans when it called into question the many land titles that did not acknowledge the king and imposed fees for their reconfirmation. Andros also committed himself to enforcing the Navigation Acts, a move that threatened to disrupt the region’s trade, which was based largely on smuggling. In England, opponents of James II’s efforts to create a centralized Catholic state were known as Whigs. The Whigs worked to depose James, and in late 1688 they succeeded, an event they celebrated as the Glorious Revolution while James fled to the court of Louis XIV in France. William III (William of Orange) and his wife Mary II ascended the throne in 1689. The Glorious Revolution spilled over into the colonies. In 1689, Bostonians overthrew the government of the Dominion of New England and jailed Sir Edmund Andros as well as other leaders of the regime (Figure 4.8). The removal of Andros from power illustrates New England’s animosity toward the English overlord who had, during his tenure, established Church of England worship in Puritan Boston and vigorously enforced the Navigation Acts, to the chagrin of those in port towns. In New York, the same year that Andros fell from power, Jacob Leisler led a group of Protestant New Yorkers against the dominion government. Acting on his own authority, Leisler assumed  the role of King William’s governor and organized intercolonial military action independent of British authority. Leisler’s actions usurped the crown’s prerogative and, as a result, he was tried for treason and executed. In 1691, England restored control over the Province of New York. Figure 4.8 This broadside, signed by several citizens, demands the surrender of Sir Edmund (spelled here “Edmond”) Andros, James II’s hand-picked leader of the Dominion of New England. The Glorious Revolution provided a shared experience for those who lived through the tumult of 1688 and 1689. Subsequent generations kept the memory of the Glorious Revolution alive as a heroic defense of English liberty against a would-be tyrant. ENGLISH LIBERTY The Glorious Revolution led to the establishment of an English nation that limited the power of the king and provided protections for English subjects. In October 1689, the same year that William and Mary took the throne, the 1689 Bill of Rights established a constitutional monarchy. It stipulated Parliament’s independence from the monarchy and protected certain of Parliament’s rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, the right to regular elections, and the right to petition the king. The 1689 Bill of Rights also guaranteed certain rights to all English subjects, including trial by jury and habeas corpus (the requirement that authorities bring an imprisoned person before a court to demonstrate the cause of the imprisonment). John Locke (1632–1704), a doctor and educator who had lived in exile in Holland during the reign of James II and returned to England after the Glorious Revolution, published his Two Treatises of Government in 1690. In it, he argued that government was a form of contract between the leaders and the people, and that representative government existed to protect “life, liberty and property.” Locke rejected the divine right of kings and instead advocated for the central role of Parliament with a limited monarchy. Locke’s political philosophy had an enormous impact on future generations of colonists and established the paramount importance of representation in government. CLICK AND EXPLORE Visit the John Locke page of the Online Liberty Project to read more of John Locke’s writings. This digital collection contains a number of sources about and written by John Locke. The Glorious Revolution also led to the English Toleration Act of 1689, a law passed by Parliament that allowed for greater religious diversity in the Empire. This act granted religious tolerance to nonconformist Trinitarian Protestants (those who believed in the Holy Trinity of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), such as Baptists (those who advocated adult baptism) and Congregationalists (those who followed the Puritans’ lead in creating independent churches). While the Church of England remained the official state religious establishment, the Toleration Act gave much greater religious freedom to nonconformists. However, this tolerance did not extend to Catholics, who were routinely excluded from political power. The 1689 Toleration Act extended to the British colonies, where several colonies—Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Delaware, and New Jersey—refused to allow the creation of an established colonial church, a major step toward greater religious diversity. Learning Objectives By the end of this section, you will be able to: Explain the significance of the Great Awakening Describe the genesis, central ideas, and effects of the Enlightenment in British North America Two major cultural movements further strengthened Anglo-American colonists’ connection to Great Britain: the Great Awakening and the Enlightenment. Both movements began in Europe, but they advocated very different ideas: the Great Awakening promoted a fervent, emotional religiosity, while the Enlightenment encouraged the pursuit of reason in all things. On both sides of the Atlantic, British subjects grappled with these new ideas. THE FIRST GREAT AWAKENING During the eighteenth century, the British Atlantic experienced an outburst of Protestant revivalism known as the First Great Awakening. (A Second Great Awakening would take place in the 1800s.) During the First Great Awakening, evangelists came from the ranks of several Protestant denominations: Congregationalists, Anglicans (members of the Church of England), and Presbyterians. They rejected what appeared to be sterile, formal modes of worship in favor of a vigorous emotional religiosity. Whereas Martin Luther and John Calvin had preached a doctrine of predestination and close reading of scripture, new evangelical ministers spread a message of personal and experiential faith that rose above mere book learning. Individuals could bring about their own salvation by accepting Christ, an especially welcome message for those who had felt excluded by traditional Protestantism: women, the young, and people at the lower end of the social spectrum. The Great Awakening caused a split between those who followed the evangelical message (the “New Lights”) and those who rejected it (the “Old Lights”). The elite ministers in British America were firmly Old Lights, and they censured the new revivalism as chaos. Indeed, the revivals did sometimes lead to excess. In one notorious incident in 1743, an influential New Light minister named James Davenport urged his listeners to burn books. The next day, he told them to burn their clothes as a sign of their casting off the sinful trappings of the world. He then took off his own pants and threw them into the fire, but a woman saved them and tossed them back to Davenport, telling him he had gone too far. Another outburst of Protestant revivalism began in New Jersey, led by a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church named Theodorus Frelinghuysen. Frelinghuysen’s example inspired other ministers, including Gilbert Tennent, a Presbyterian. Tennant helped to spark a Presbyterian revival in the Middle Colonies (Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey), in part by founding a seminary to train other evangelical clergyman. New Lights also founded colleges in Rhode Island and New Hampshire that would later become Brown University and Dartmouth College. In Northampton, Massachusetts, Jonathan Edwards led still another explosion of evangelical fervor. Edwards had grown frustrated with lack of religious emotion among practicing Christians within his community. He wanted to enliven religious practice. An important component of his approach involved using vivid depictions of the terrors of hell (Figure 4.13). Edward's best-known sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” perfectly exemplifies this terrifying approach. One passage reads: “The wrath of God burns against them [sinners], their damnation don’t slumber, the pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them, the flames do now rage and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them, and the pit hath opened her mouth under them.” Edwards’s revival spread along the Connecticut River Valley, and news of the event spread rapidly through the frequent reprinting of his famous sermon. Figure 4.13 This image shows the frontispiece of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, A Sermon Preached at Enfield, July 8, 1741 by Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was an evangelical preacher who led a Protestant revival in New England. This was his most famous sermon, the text of which was reprinted often and distributed widely. The foremost evangelical of the Great Awakening was an Anglican minister named George Whitefield. Like many evangelical ministers, Whitefield was itinerant, traveling the countryside instead of having his own church and congregation. Between 1739 and 1740, he electrified colonial listeners with his brilliant oratory. AMERICANA Two Opposing Views of George Whitefield Not everyone embraced George Whitefield and other New Lights. Many established Old Lights decried the way the new evangelical religions appealed to people’s passions, rather than to traditional religious values. The two illustrations below present two very different visions of George Whitefield (Figure 4.14). Figure 4.14 In the 1774 portrait of George Whitefield by engraver Elisha Gallaudet (a), Whitefield appears with a gentle expression on his face. Although his hands are raised in exultation or entreaty, he does not look particularly roused or rousing. In the 1763 British political cartoon to the right, “Dr. Squintum’s Exaltation or the Reformation” (b), Whitefield’s hands are raised in a similar position, but there the similarities end. Compare the two images above. On the left is an illustration for Whitefield’s memoirs, while on the right is a cartoon satirizing the circus-like atmosphere that his preaching seemed to attract (Dr. Squintum was a nickname for Whitefield, who was cross-eyed). How do these two artists portray the same man? What emotions are the illustration for his memoirs intended to evoke? What details can you find in the cartoon that indicate the artist’s distaste for the preacher? The Great Awakening saw the rise of several Protestant denominations, including Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists (who emphasized adult baptism of converted Christians rather than infant baptism). These new churches gained converts and competed with older Protestant groups like Anglicans (members of the Church of England), Congregationalists (the heirs of Puritanism in America), and Quakers. The influence of these older Protestant groups, such as the New England Congregationalists, declined because of the Great Awakening. Nonetheless, the Great Awakening touched the lives of thousands on both sides of the Atlantic and provided a shared experience in the eighteenth-century British Empire. THE ENLIGHTENMENT The Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, was an intellectual and cultural movement in the eighteenth century that emphasized reason over superstition and science over blind faith. Using the power of the press, Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, Isaac Newton, and Voltaire questioned accepted knowledge and spread new ideas about openness, investigation, and religious tolerance throughout Europe and the Americas. Many consider the Enlightenment a major turning point in Western civilization, an age of light replacing an age of darkness. Several ideas dominated Enlightenment thought, including rationalism, empiricism, progressivism, and cosmopolitanism. Rationalism is the idea that humans are capable of using their faculty of reason to gain knowledge. This was a sharp turn away from the prevailing idea that people needed to rely on scripture or church authorities for knowledge. Empiricism promotes the idea that knowledge comes from experience and observation of the world. Progressivism is the belief that through their powers of reason and observation, humans could make unlimited, linear progress over time; this belief was especially important as a response to the carnage and upheaval of the English Civil Wars in the seventeenth century. Finally, cosmopolitanism reflected Enlightenment thinkers’ view of themselves as citizens of the world and actively engaged in it, as opposed to being provincial and close-minded. In all, Enlightenment thinkers endeavored to be ruled by reason, not prejudice. The Freemasons were a fraternal society that advocated Enlightenment principles of inquiry and tolerance. Freemasonry originated in London coffeehouses in the early eighteenth century, and Masonic lodges (local units) soon spread throughout Europe and the British colonies. One prominent Freemason, Benjamin Franklin, stands as the embodiment of the Enlightenment in British America (Figure 4.15). Born in Boston in 1706 to a large Puritan family, Franklin loved to read, although he found little beyond religious publications in his father’s house. In 1718 he was apprenticed to his brother to work in a print shop, where he learned how to be a good writer by copying the style he found in the Spectator, which his brother printed. At the age of seventeen, the independent-minded Franklin ran away, eventually ending up in Quaker Philadelphia. There he began publishing the Pennsylvania Gazette in the late 1720s, and in 1732 he started his annual publication Poor Richard: An Almanack, in which he gave readers much practical advice, such as “Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.” Figure 4.15 In this 1748 portrait by Robert Feke, a forty-year-old Franklin wears a stylish British wig, as befitted a proud and loyal member of the British Empire. Franklin subscribed to deism, an Enlightenment-era belief in a God who created, but has no continuing involvement in, the world and the events within it. Deists also advanced the belief that personal morality—an individual’s moral compass, leading to good works and actions—is more important than strict church doctrines. Franklin’s deism guided his many philanthropic projects. In 1731, he established a reading library that became the Library Company of Philadelphia. In 1743, he founded the American Philosophical Society to encourage the spirit of inquiry. In 1749, he provided the foundation for the University of Pennsylvania, and in 1751, he helped found Pennsylvania Hospital. His career as a printer made Franklin wealthy and well-respected. When he retired in 1748, he devoted himself to politics and scientific experiments. His most famous work, on electricity, exemplified Enlightenment principles. Franklin observed that lightning strikes tended to hit metal objects and reasoned that he could therefore direct lightning through the placement of metal objects during an electrical storm. He used this knowledge to advocate the use of lightning rods: metal poles connected to wires directing lightning’s electrical charge into the ground and saving wooden homes in cities like Philadelphia from catastrophic fires. He published his findings in 1751, in Experiments and Observations on Electricity. Franklin also wrote of his “rags to riches” tale, his Memoir, in the 1770s and 1780s. This story laid the foundation for the American Dream of upward social mobility. CLICK AND EXPLORE Visit the media gallery for PBS’s Ken Burns Franklin documentary to watch excerpts covering some of Franklin's many achievements. THE FOUNDING OF GEORGIA The reach of Enlightenment thought was both broad and deep. In the 1730s, it even prompted the founding of a new colony. Having witnessed the terrible conditions of debtors’ prison, as well as the results of releasing penniless debtors onto the streets of London, James Oglethorpe, a member of Parliament and advocate of social reform, petitioned King George II for a charter to start a new colony. George II, understanding the strategic advantage of a British colony standing as a buffer between South Carolina and Spanish Florida, granted the charter to Oglethorpe and twenty like-minded proprietors in 1732. Oglethorpe led the settlement of the colony, which was called Georgia in honor of the king. In 1733, he and 113 immigrants arrived on the ship Anne. Over the next decade, Parliament funded the migration of twenty-five hundred settlers, making Georgia the only government-funded colonial project. Oglethorpe’s vision for Georgia followed the ideals of the Age of Reason, seeing it as a place for England’s “worthy poor” to start anew. To encourage industry, he gave each male immigrant fifty acres of land, tools, and a year’s worth of supplies. In Savannah, the Oglethorpe Plan provided for a utopia: “an agrarian model of sustenance while sustaining egalitarian values holding all men as equal.” Oglethorpe’s vision called for alcohol and slavery to be banned. However, colonists who relocated from other colonies, especially South Carolina, disregarded these prohibitions. Despite its proprietors’ early vision of a colony guided by Enlightenment ideals and free of slavery, by the 1750s, Georgia was producing quantities of rice grown and harvested by the enslaved. Learning Objectives By the end of this section, you will be able to: Describe the wars for empire Analyze the significance of these conflicts Wars for empire composed a final link connecting the Atlantic sides of the British Empire. Great Britain fought four separate wars against Catholic France from the late 1600s to the mid-1700s. Another war, the War of Jenkins’ Ear, pitted Britain against Spain. These conflicts for control of North America also helped colonists forge important alliances with native peoples, as different tribes aligned themselves with different European powers. GENERATIONS OF WARFARE  Generations of British colonists grew up during a time when much of North America, especially the Northeast, engaged in war. Colonists knew war firsthand. In the eighteenth century, fighting was seasonal. Armies mobilized in the spring, fought in the summer, and retired to winter quarters in the fall. The British army imposed harsh discipline on its soldiers, who were drawn from the poorer classes, to ensure they did not step out of line during engagements. If they did, their officers would kill them. On the battlefield, armies dressed in bright uniforms to advertise their bravery and lack of fear. They stood in tight formation and exchanged volleys with the enemy. They often feared their officers more than the enemy. CLICK AND EXPLORE Read the diary of a provincial soldier who fought in the French and Indian War on the Captain David Perry Web Site hosted by Rootsweb. David Perry’s journal, which includes a description of the 1758 campaign, provides a glimpse of warfare in the eighteenth century. Most imperial conflicts had both American and European fronts, leaving us with two names for each war. For instance, King William’s War (1688–1697) is also known as the War of the League of Augsburg. In America, the bulk of the fighting in this conflict took place between New England and New France. The war proved inconclusive, with no clear victor (Figure 4.16). Figure 4.16 This map shows the French and British armies’ movements during King William’s War, in which there was no clear victor. Queen Anne’s War (1702–1713) is also known as the War of Spanish Succession. England fought against both Spain and France over who would ascend the Spanish throne after the last of the Habsburg rulers died. In North America, fighting took place in Florida, New England, and New France. In Canada, the French prevailed but lost Acadia and Newfoundland; however, the victory was again not decisive because the English failed to take Quebec, which would have given them control of Canada. This conflict is best remembered in the United States for the French and Native raid against Deerfield, Massachusetts, in 1704. A small French force, combined with a native group made up of Catholic Mohawks and Abenaki (Pocumtucs), attacked the frontier outpost of Deerfield, killing scores and taking 112 prisoners. Among the captives was the seven-year-old daughter of Deerfield’s minister John Williams, named Eunice. She was held by the Mohawks for years as her family tried to get her back, and became assimilated into the tribe. To the horror of the Puritan leaders, when she grew up Eunice married a Mohawk and refused to return to New England. In North America, possession of Georgia and trade with the interior was the focus of the War of Jenkins’ Ear (1739–1742), a conflict between Britain and Spain over contested claims to the land occupied by the fledgling colony between South Carolina and Florida. The war got its name from an incident in 1731 in which a Spanish Coast Guard captain severed the ear of British captain Robert Jenkins as punishment for raiding Spanish ships in Panama. Jenkins fueled the growing animosity between England and Spain by presenting his ear to Parliament and stirring up British public outrage. More than anything else, the War of Jenkins’ Ear disrupted the Atlantic trade, a situation that hurt both Spain and Britain and was a major reason the war came to a close in 1742. Georgia, founded six years earlier, remained British and a buffer against Spanish Florida. King George’s War (1744–1748), known in Europe as the War of Austrian Succession (1740–1748), was fought in the northern colonies and New France. In 1745, the British took the massive French fortress at Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia (Figure 4.17). However, three years later, under the terms of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, Britain relinquished control of the fortress to the French. Once again, war resulted in an incomplete victory for both Britain and France. Figure 4.17 In this 1747 painting by J. Stevens, View of the landing of the New England forces in ye expedition against Cape Breton, British forces land on the island of Cape Breton to capture Fort Louisbourg. THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR The final imperial war, the French and Indian War (1754–1763), known as the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) in Europe, proved to be the decisive contest between Britain and France in America. It began over rival claims along the frontier in present-day western Pennsylvania. Well-connected planters from Virginia faced stagnant tobacco prices and hoped expanding into these western lands would stabilize their wealth and status. Some of them established the Ohio Company of Virginia in 1748, and the British crown granted the company half a million acres in 1749. However, the French also claimed the lands of the Ohio Company, and to protect the region they established Fort Duquesne in 1754, where the Ohio, Monongahela, and Allegheny Rivers met. The war began in May 1754 because of these competing claims between Britain and France. Twenty-two-year-old Virginian George Washington, a surveyor whose family helped to found the Ohio Company, gave the command to fire on French soldiers near present-day Uniontown, Pennsylvania. This incident on the Pennsylvania frontier proved to be a decisive event that led to imperial war. For the next decade, fighting took place along the frontier of New France and British America from Virginia to Maine. The war also spread to Europe as France and Britain looked to gain supremacy in the Atlantic World.  The British fared poorly in the first years of the war. In 1754, the French and their native allies forced Washington to surrender at Fort Necessity, a hastily built fort constructed after his attack on the French. In 1755, Britain dispatched General Edward Braddock to the colonies to take Fort Duquesne. The French, aided by the Potawotomis, Ottawas, Shawnees, and Delawares, ambushed the fifteen hundred British soldiers and Virginia militia who marched to the fort. The attack sent panic through the British force, and hundreds of British soldiers and militiamen died, including General Braddock. The campaign of 1755 proved to be a disaster for the British. In fact, the only British victory that year was the capture of Nova Scotia. In 1756 and 1757, Britain suffered further defeats with the fall of Fort Oswego and Fort William Henry (Figure 4.18). Figure 4.18 This schematic map depicts the events of the French and Indian War. Note the scarcity of British victories. The war began to turn in favor of the British in 1758, due in large part to the efforts of William Pitt, a very popular member of Parliament. Pitt pledged huge sums of money and resources to defeating the hated Catholic French, and Great Britain spent part of the money on bounties paid to new young recruits in the colonies, helping invigorate the British forces. In 1758, the Iroquois, Delaware, and Shawnee signed the Treaty of Easton, aligning themselves with the British in return for some contested land around Pennsylvania and Virginia. In 1759, the British took Quebec, and in 1760, Montreal. The French empire in North America had crumbled. The war continued until 1763, when the French signed the Treaty of Paris. This treaty signaled a dramatic reversal of fortune for France. Indeed, New France, which had been founded in the early 1600s, ceased to exist. The British Empire had now gained mastery over North America. The Empire not only gained New France under the treaty; it also acquired French sugar islands in the West Indies, French trading posts in India, and French-held posts on the west coast of Africa. Great Britain’s victory in the French and Indian War meant that it had become a truly global empire. British colonists joyously celebrated, singing the refrain of “Rule, Britannia! / Britannia, rule the waves! / Britons never, never, never shall be slaves!” In the American colonies, ties with Great Britain were closer than ever. Professional British soldiers had fought alongside Anglo-American militiamen, forging a greater sense of shared identity. With Great Britain’s victory, colonial pride ran high as colonists celebrated their identity as British subjects. This last of the wars for empire, however, also sowed the seeds of trouble. The war led Great Britain deeply into debt, and in the 1760s and 1770s, efforts to deal with the debt through imperial reforms would have the unintended consequence of causing stress and strain that threatened to tear the Empire apart. Learning Objectives By the end of this section, you will be able to: Discuss the status of Great Britain’s North American colonies in the years directly following the French and Indian War Describe the size and scope of the British debt at the end of the French and Indian War Explain how the British Parliament responded to the debt crisis Outline the purpose of the Proclamation Line, the Sugar Act, and the Currency Act Figure 5.2 (credit “1765”: modification of work by the United Kingdom Government) Great Britain had much to celebrate in 1763. The long and costly war with France had finally ended, and Great Britain had emerged victorious. British subjects on both sides of the Atlantic celebrated the strength of the British Empire. Colonial pride ran high; to live under the British Constitution and to have defeated the hated French Catholic menace brought great joy to British Protestants everywhere in the Empire. From Maine to Georgia, British colonists joyously celebrated the victory and sang the refrain of “Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves! Britons never, never, never shall be slaves!” Despite the celebratory mood, the victory over France also produced major problems within the British Empire, problems that would have serious consequences for British colonists in the Americas. During the war, many Native American tribes had sided with the French, who supplied them with guns. After the 1763 Treaty of Paris that ended the French and Indian War (or the Seven Years’ War), British colonists had to defend the frontier, where French colonists and their tribal allies remained a powerful force. The most organized resistance, Pontiac’s Rebellion, highlighted tensions the settlers increasingly interpreted in racial terms. The massive debt the war generated at home, however, proved to be the most serious issue facing Great Britain. The frontier had to be secure in order to prevent another costly war. Greater enforcement of imperial trade laws had to be put into place. Parliament had to find ways to raise revenue to pay off the crippling debt from the war. Everyone would have to contribute their expected share, including the British subjects across the Atlantic. PROBLEMS ON THE AMERICAN FRONTIER With the end of the French and Indian War, Great Britain claimed a vast new expanse of territory, at least on paper. Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris, the French territory known as New France had ceased to exist. British territorial holdings now extended from Canada to Florida, and British military focus shifted to maintaining peace in the king’s newly enlarged lands. However, much of the land in the American British Empire remained under the control of powerful native confederacies, which made any claims of British mastery beyond the Atlantic coastal settlements hollow. Great Britain maintained ten thousand troops in North America after the war ended in 1763 to defend the borders and repel any attack by their imperial rivals. British colonists, eager for fresh land, poured over the Appalachian Mountains to stake claims. The western frontier had long been a “middle ground” where different imperial powers (British, French, Spanish) had interacted and compromised with native peoples. That era of accommodation in the “middle ground” came to an end after the French and Indian War. Virginians (including George Washington) and other land-hungry colonists had already raised tensions in the 1740s with their quest for land. Virginia landowners in particular eagerly looked to diversify their holdings beyond tobacco, which had stagnated in price and exhausted the fertility of the lands along the Chesapeake Bay. They invested heavily in the newly available land. This westward movement brought the settlers into conflict as never before with Native American tribes, such as the Shawnee, Seneca-Cayuga, Wyandot, and Delaware, who increasingly held their ground against any further intrusion by White settlers. The treaty that ended the war between France and Great Britain proved to be a significant blow to native peoples, who had viewed the conflict as an opportunity to gain additional trade goods from both sides. With the French defeat, many Native Americans who had sided with France lost a valued trading partner as well as bargaining power over the British. Settlers’ encroachment on their land, as well as the increased British military presence, changed the situation on the frontier dramatically. After the war, British troops took over the former French forts but failed to court favor with the local tribes by distributing ample gifts, as the French had done. They also significantly reduced the amount of gunpowder and ammunition they sold to the Native Americans, worsening relationships further. Native Americans’ resistance to colonists drew upon the teachings of Delaware (Lenni Lenape) prophet Neolin and the leadership of Ottawa war chief Pontiac. Neolin was a spiritual leader who preached a doctrine of shunning European culture and expelling Europeans from native lands. Neolin’s beliefs united Native Americans from many villages. In a broad-based alliance that came to be known as Pontiac’s Rebellion, Pontiac led a loose coalition of these native tribes against the colonists and the British army. Pontiac started bringing his coalition together as early as 1761, urging Native Americans to “drive [the Europeans] out and make war upon them.” The conflict began in earnest in 1763, when Pontiac and several hundred Ojibwas, Potawatomis, and Hurons laid siege to Fort Detroit. At the same time, Senecas, Shawnees, and Delawares laid siege to Fort Pitt. Over the next year, the war spread along the  backcountry from Virginia to Pennsylvania. Pontiac’s Rebellion (also known as Pontiac’s War) triggered horrific violence on both sides. Firsthand reports of Native American attacks tell of murder, scalping, dismemberment, and burning at the stake. These stories incited a deep racial hatred among colonists against all Native Americans. The actions of a group of Scots-Irish settlers from Paxton (or Paxtang), Pennsylvania, in December 1763, illustrates the deadly situation on the frontier. Forming a mob known as the Paxton Boys, these frontiersmen attacked a nearby group of Conestoga of the Susquehannock tribe. The Conestoga had lived peacefully with local settlers, but the Paxton Boys viewed all Native Americans as savages and they brutally murdered the six Conestoga they found at home and burned their houses. When Governor John Penn put the remaining fourteen Conestoga in protective custody in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the Paxton Boys broke into the building and killed and scalped the Conestoga they found there (Figure 5.3). Although Governor Penn offered a reward for the capture of any Paxton Boys involved in the murders, no one ever identified the attackers. Some colonists reacted to the incident with outrage. Benjamin Franklin described the Paxton Boys as “the barbarous Men who committed the atrocious act, in Defiance of Government, of all Laws human and divine, and to the eternal Disgrace of their Country and Colour,” stating that “the Wickedness cannot be covered, the Guilt will lie on the whole Land, till Justice is done on the Murderers. The blood of the innocent will cry to heaven for vengeance.” Yet, as the inability to bring the perpetrators to justice clearly indicates, the Paxton Boys had many more supporters than critics. Figure 5.3 This nineteenth-century lithograph depicts the massacre of Conestoga in 1763 at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where they had been placed in protective custody. None of the attackers, members of the Paxton Boys, were ever identified. CLICK AND EXPLORE Visit Explore PAhistory.com to read the full text of Benjamin Franklin’s “Benjamin Franklin, An Account of the Paxton Boys’ Murder of the Conestoga Indians, 1764.” Pontiac’s Rebellion and the Paxton Boys’ actions were examples of early American race wars, in which both sides saw themselves as inherently different from the other and believed the other needed to be eradicated. The prophet Neolin’s message, which he said he received in a vision from the Master of Life, was: “Wherefore do you suffer the whites to dwell upon your lands? Drive them away; wage war against them.” Pontiac echoed this idea in a meeting, exhorting tribes to join together against the British: “It is important for us, my brothers, that we exterminate from our lands this nation which seeks only to destroy us.” In his letter suggesting “gifts” to the natives of smallpox-infected blankets, Field Marshal Jeffrey Amherst said, “You will do well to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.” Pontiac’s Rebellion came to an end in 1766, when it became clear that the French, whom Pontiac had hoped would side with his forces, would not be returning. The repercussions, however, would last much longer. Race relations between Native Americans and White people remained poisoned on the frontier. Well aware of the problems on the frontier, the British government took steps to try to prevent bloodshed and another costly war. At the beginning of Pontiac’s uprising, the British issued the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade White settlement west of the Proclamation Line, a borderline running along the spine of the Appalachian Mountains (Figure 5.4). The Proclamation Line aimed to forestall further conflict on the frontier, the clear flashpoint of tension in British North America. British colonists who had hoped to move west after the war chafed at this restriction, believing the war had been fought and won to ensure the right to settle west. The Proclamation Line therefore came as a setback to their vision of westward expansion. Figure 5.4 This map shows the status of the American colonies in 1763, after the end of the French and Indian War. Although Great Britain won control of the territory east of the Mississippi, the Proclamation Line of 1763 prohibited British colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains. (credit: modification of work by the National Atlas of the United States) THE BRITISH NATIONAL DEBT Great Britain’s newly enlarged empire meant a greater financial burden, and the mushrooming debt from the war was a major cause of concern. The war nearly doubled the British national debt, from £75 million in 1756 to £133 million in 1763. Interest payments alone consumed over half the national budget, and the continuing military presence in North America was a constant drain. The Empire needed more revenue to replenish its dwindling coffers. Those in Great Britain believed that British subjects in North America, as the major beneficiaries of Great Britain’s war for global supremacy, should certainly shoulder their share of the financial burden. The British government began increasing revenues by raising taxes at home, even as various interest groups lobbied to keep their taxes low. Powerful members of the aristocracy, well represented in Parliament, successfully convinced Prime Minister John Stuart, third earl of Bute, to refrain from raising taxes on land. The greater tax burden, therefore, fell on the lower classes in the form of increased import duties, which raised the prices of imported goods such as sugar and tobacco. George Grenville succeeded Bute as prime minister in 1763. Grenville determined to curtail government spending and make sure that, as subjects of the British Empire, the American colonists did their part to pay down the massive debt. IMPERIAL REFORMS The new era of greater British interest in the American colonies through imperial reforms picked up in pace in the mid-1760s. In 1764, Prime Minister Grenville introduced the Currency Act of 1764, prohibiting the colonies from printing additional paper money and requiring colonists to pay British merchants in gold and silver instead of the colonial paper money already in circulation. The Currency Act aimed to standardize the currency used in Atlantic trade, a logical reform designed to help stabilize the Empire’s economy. This rule brought American economic activity under greater British control. Colonists relied on their own paper currency to conduct trade and, with gold and silver in short supply, they found their finances tight. Not surprisingly, they grumbled about the new imperial currency regulations. Grenville also pushed Parliament to pass the Sugar Act of 1764, which actually lowered duties on British molasses by half, from six pence per gallon to three. Grenville designed this measure to address the problem of rampant colonial smuggling with the French sugar islands in the West Indies. The act attempted to make it easier for colonial traders, especially New England mariners who routinely engaged in illegal trade, to comply with the imperial law. To give teeth to the 1764 Sugar Act, the law intensified enforcement provisions. Prior to the 1764 act, colonial violations of the Navigation Acts had been tried in local courts, where sympathetic colonial juries refused to convict merchants on trial. However, the Sugar Act required violators to be tried in vice-admiralty courts. These crown-sanctioned tribunals, which settled disputes that occurred at sea, operated without juries. Some colonists saw this feature of the 1764 act as dangerous. They argued that trial by jury had long been honored as a basic right of Englishmen under the British Constitution. To deprive defendants of a jury, they contended, meant reducing liberty-loving British subjects to political slavery. In the British Atlantic world, some colonists perceived this loss of liberty as parallel to the enslavement of Africans. As loyal British subjects, colonists in America cherished their Constitution, an unwritten system of government that they celebrated as the best political system in the world. The British Constitution prescribed the roles of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. Each entity provided a check and balance against the worst tendencies of the others. If the King had too much power, the result would be tyranny. If the Lords had too much power, the result would be oligarchy. If the Commons had the balance of power, democracy or mob rule would prevail. The British Constitution promised representation of the will of British subjects, and without such representation, even the indirect tax of the Sugar Act was considered a threat to the settlers’ rights as British subjects. Furthermore, some American colonists felt the colonies were on equal political footing with Great Britain. The Sugar Act meant they were secondary, mere adjuncts to the Empire. All subjects of the British crown knew they had liberties under the constitution. The Sugar Act suggested that some in Parliament labored to deprive them of what made them uniquely British. Learning Objectives By the end of this section, you will be able to: Explain the purpose of the 1765 Stamp Act Describe the colonial responses to the Stamp Act In 1765, the British Parliament moved beyond the efforts during the previous two years to better regulate westward expansion and trade by putting in place the Stamp Act. As a direct tax on the colonists, the Stamp Act imposed an internal tax on almost every type of printed paper colonists used, including newspapers, legal documents, and playing cards. While the architects of the Stamp Act saw the measure as a way to defray the costs of the British Empire, it nonetheless gave rise to the first major colonial protest against British imperial control as expressed in the famous slogan “no taxation without representation.” The Stamp Act reinforced the sense among some colonists that Parliament was not treating them as equals of their peers across the Atlantic. THE STAMP ACT AND THE QUARTERING ACT Prime Minister Grenville, author of the Sugar Act of 1764, introduced the Stamp Act in the early spring of 1765. Under this act, anyone who used or purchased anything printed on paper had to buy a revenue stamp (Figure 5.5) for it. In the same year, 1765, Parliament also passed the Quartering Act, a law that attempted to solve the problems of stationing troops in North America. The Parliament understood the Stamp Act and the Quartering Act as an assertion of their power to control colonial policy. Figure 5.5 Under the Stamp Act, anyone who used or purchased anything printed on paper had to buy a revenue stamp for it. Image (a) shows a partial proof sheet of one-penny stamps. Image (b) provides a close-up of a one-penny stamp. (credit a: modification of work by the United Kingdom Government; credit b: modification of work by the United Kingdom Government) The Stamp Act signaled a shift in British policy after the French and Indian War. Before the Stamp Act, the colonists had paid taxes to their colonial governments or indirectly through higher prices, not directly to the Crown’s appointed governors. This was a time-honored liberty of representative legislatures of the colonial governments. The passage of the Stamp Act meant that starting on November 1, 1765, the colonists would contribute £60,000 per year—17 percent of the total cost—to the upkeep of the ten thousand British soldiers in North America (Figure 5.6). Because the Stamp Act raised constitutional issues, it triggered the first serious protest against British imperial policy. Figure 5.6 The announcement of the Stamp Act, seen in this newspaper publication (a), raised numerous concerns among colonists in America. Protests against British imperial policy took many forms, such as this mock stamp (b) whose text reads “An Emblem of the Effects of the STAMP. O! the Fatal STAMP.” Parliament also asserted its prerogative in 1765 with the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act of 1765 addressed the problem of housing British soldiers stationed in the American colonies. It required that they be provided with barracks or places to stay in public houses, and that if extra housing were necessary, then troops could be stationed in barns and other uninhabited private buildings. In addition, the costs of the troops’ food and lodging fell to the colonists. Since the time of James II, who ruled from 1685 to 1688, many British subjects had mistrusted the presence of a standing army during peacetime, and having to pay for the soldiers’ lodging and food was especially burdensome. Widespread evasion and disregard for the law occurred in almost all the colonies, but the issue was especially contentious in New York, the headquarters of British forces. When fifteen hundred troops arrived in New York in 1766, the New York Assembly refused to follow the Quartering Act. COLONIAL PROTEST: GENTRY, MERCHANTS, AND THE STAMP ACT CONGRESS For many British colonists living in America, the Stamp Act raised many concerns. As a direct tax, it appeared to be an unconstitutional measure, one that deprived freeborn British subjects of their liberty, a concept they defined broadly to include various rights and privileges they enjoyed as British subjects, including the right to representation. According to the unwritten British Constitution, only representatives for whom British subjects voted could tax them. Parliament was in charge of taxation, and although it was a representative body, the colonies did not have “actual” (or direct) representation in it. Parliamentary members who supported the Stamp Act argued that the colonists had virtual representation, because the architects of the British Empire knew best how to maximize returns from its possessions overseas. However, this argument did not satisfy the protesters, who viewed themselves as having the same right as all British subjects to avoid taxation without their consent. With no representation in the House of Commons, where bills of taxation originated, they felt themselves deprived of this inherent right. The British government knew the colonists might object to the Stamp Act’s expansion of parliamentary power, but Parliament believed the relationship of the colonies to the Empire was one of dependence, not equality. However, the Stamp Act had the unintended and ironic consequence of drawing colonists from very different areas and viewpoints together in protest. In Massachusetts, for instance, James Otis, a lawyer and defender of British liberty, became the leading voice for the idea that “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” In the Virginia House of Burgesses, firebrand and slaveholder Patrick Henry introduced the Virginia Stamp Act Resolutions, which denounced the Stamp Act and the British crown in language so strong that some conservative Virginians accused him of treason (Figure 5.7). Henry replied that Virginians were subject only to taxes that they themselves—or their representatives—imposed. In short, there could be no taxation without representation. Figure 5.7 Patrick Henry Before the Virginia House of Burgesses (1851), painted by Peter F. Rothermel, offers a romanticized depiction of Henry’s speech denouncing the Stamp Act of 1765. Supporters and opponents alike debated the stark language of the speech, which quickly became legendary. The colonists had never before formed a unified political front, so Grenville and Parliament did not fear true revolt. However, this was to change in 1765. In response to the Stamp Act, the Massachusetts Assembly sent letters to the other colonies, asking them to attend a meeting, or congress, to discuss how to respond to the act. Many American colonists from very different colonies found common cause in their opposition to the Stamp Act. Representatives from nine colonial legislatures met in New York in the fall of 1765 to reach a consensus. Could Parliament impose taxation without representation? The members of this first congress, known as the Stamp Act Congress, said no. These nine representatives had a vested interest in repealing the tax. Not only did it weaken their businesses and the colonial economy, but it also threatened their liberty under the British Constitution. They drafted a rebuttal to the Stamp Act, making clear that they desired only to protect their liberty as loyal subjects of the Crown. The document, called the Declaration of Rights and Grievances, outlined the unconstitutionality of taxation without representation and trials without juries. Meanwhile, popular protest was also gaining force. CLICK AND EXPLORE Browse the collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society to examine digitized primary sources of the documents that paved the way to the fight for liberty.  MOBILIZATION: POPULAR PROTEST AGAINST THE STAMP ACT The Stamp Act Congress was a gathering of landowning, educated White men who represented the political elite of the colonies and was the colonial equivalent of the British landed aristocracy. While these gentry were drafting their grievances during the Stamp Act Congress, other colonists showed their distaste for the new act by boycotting British goods and protesting in the streets. Two groups, the Sons of Liberty and the Daughters of Liberty, led the popular resistance to the Stamp Act. Both groups considered themselves British patriots defending their liberty, just as their forebears had done in the time of James II. Forming in Boston in the summer of 1765, the Sons of Liberty were artisans, shopkeepers, and small-time merchants willing to adopt extralegal means of protest. Before the act had even gone into effect, the Sons of Liberty began protesting. On August 14, they took aim at Andrew Oliver, who had been named the Massachusetts Distributor of Stamps. After hanging Oliver in effigy—that is, using a crudely made figure as a representation of Oliver—the unruly crowd stoned and ransacked his house, finally beheading the effigy and burning the remains. Such a brutal response shocked the royal governmental officials, who hid until the violence had spent itself. Andrew Oliver resigned the next day. By that time, the mob had moved on to the home of Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson who, because of his support of Parliament’s actions, was considered an enemy of English liberty. The Sons of Liberty barricaded Hutchinson in his home and demanded that he renounce the Stamp Act; he refused, and the protesters looted and burned his house. Furthermore, the Sons (also called “True Sons” or “True-born Sons” to make clear their commitment to liberty and distinguish them from the likes of Hutchinson) continued to lead violent protests with the goal of securing the resignation of all appointed stamp collectors (Figure 5.8). Figure 5.8 With this broadside of December 17, 1765, the Sons of Liberty call for the resignation of Andrew Oliver, the Massachusetts Distributor of Stamps. Starting in early 1766, the Daughters of Liberty protested the Stamp Act by refusing to buy British goods and encouraging others to do the same. They avoided British tea, opting to make their own teas with local herbs and berries. They built a community—and a movement—around creating homespun cloth instead of buying British linen. Well-born women held “spinning bees,” at which they competed to see who could spin the most and the finest linen. An entry in The Boston Chronicle of April 7, 1766, states that on March 12, in Providence, Rhode Island, “18 Daughters of Liberty, young ladies of good reputation, assembled at the house of Doctor Ephraim Bowen, in this town.... There they exhibited a fine example of industry, by spinning from sunrise until dark, and displayed a spirit for saving their sinking country rarely to be found among persons of more age and experience.” At dinner, they “cheerfully agreed to omit tea, to render their conduct consistent. Besides this instance of their patriotism, before they separated, they unanimously resolved that the Stamp Act was unconstitutional, that they would purchase no more British manufactures unless it be repealed, and that they would not even admit the addresses of any gentlemen should they have the opportunity, without they determined to oppose its execution to the last extremity, if the occasion required.” The Daughters’ non-importation movement broadened the protest against the Stamp Act, giving women a new and active role in the political dissent of the time. Women were responsible for purchasing goods for the home, so by exercising the power of the purse, they could wield more power than they had in the past. Although they could not vote, they could mobilize others and make a difference in the political landscape. From a local movement, the protests of the Sons and Daughters of Liberty soon spread until there was a chapter in every colony. The Daughters of Liberty promoted the boycott on British goods while the Sons enforced it, threatening retaliation against anyone who bought imported goods or used stamped paper. In the protest against the Stamp Act, wealthy, lettered political figures like John Adams supported the goals of the Sons and Daughters of Liberty, even if they did not engage in the Sons’ violent actions. These men, who were lawyers, printers, and merchants, ran a propaganda campaign parallel to the Sons’ campaign of violence. In newspapers and pamphlets throughout the colonies, they published article after article outlining the reasons the Stamp Act was unconstitutional and urging peaceful protest. They officially condemned violent actions but did not have the protesters arrested; a degree of cooperation prevailed, despite the groups’ different economic backgrounds. Certainly, all the protesters saw themselves as acting in the best British tradition, standing up against the corruption (especially the extinguishing of their right to representation) that threatened their liberty (Figure 5.9). Figure 5.9 This 1766 illustration shows a funeral procession for the Stamp Act. Reverend William Scott leads the procession of politicians who had supported the act, while a dog urinates on his leg. George Grenville, pictured fourth in line, carries a small coffin. What point do you think this cartoon is trying to make? THE DECLARATORY ACT Back in Great Britain, news of the colonists’ reactions worsened an already volatile political situation. Grenville’s imperial reforms had brought about increased domestic taxes and his unpopularity led to his dismissal by King George III. While many in Parliament still wanted such reforms, British merchants argued strongly for their repeal. These merchants had no interest in the philosophy behind the colonists’ desire for liberty; rather, their motive was that the non-importation of British goods by North American colonists was hurting their business. Many of the British at home were also appalled by the colonists’ violent reaction to the Stamp Act. Other Britons cheered what they saw as the manly defense of liberty by their counterparts in the colonies. In March 1766, the new prime minister, Lord Rockingham, compelled Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act. Colonists celebrated what they saw as a victory for their British liberty; in Boston, merchant John Hancock treated the entire town to drinks. However, to appease opponents of the repeal, who feared that it would weaken parliamentary power over the American colonists, Rockingham also proposed the Declaratory Act. This stated in no uncertain terms that Parliament’s power was supreme and that any laws the colonies may have passed to govern and tax themselves were null and void if they ran counter to parliamentary law.