The American Revolution, 1763-1783 PDF

★ CHAPTER 5 ★ THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 17 6 3 –17 8 3 FOCUS QUESTIONS What were the roots and significance of the Stamp Act controversy? What key events sharpened the divisio...

★ CHAPTER 5 ★ THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 17 6 3 –17 8 3 FOCUS QUESTIONS What were the roots and significance of the Stamp Act controversy? What key events sharpened the divisions between Britain and the colonists in the late 1760s and early 1770s? What key events marked the move toward American independence? How were American forces able to prevail in the Revolutionary War? O n the night of August 26, 1765, a violent crowd of Bostonians assaulted the elegant home of Thomas Hutchinson, chief justice and lieutenant governor of Massachusetts. Hutchinson and his family were eating din- ner when the rioters arrived. They barely had time to escape before the crowd broke down the front door and proceeded to destroy or carry off most of their possessions, including paintings, furniture, silverware, and notes for a history of Massachusetts Hutchinson was writing. By the time they departed, only the outer walls of the home remained standing. The immediate cause of the riot was the Stamp Act, a recently enacted ­British tax that many colonists felt violated their liberty. Critics of the measure had spread a rumor that Hutchinson had written to London encouraging its passage ★ 179 (in fact, he privately opposed it). Only a few days earlier, Hutchinson had helped to disperse a crowd attacking a building owned by his relative Andrew Oliver, a merchant who had been appointed to help administer the new law. Both crowds were led by Ebenezer Mackintosh, a shoemaker who had fought against the French during the Seven Years’ War and enjoyed a wide following among Bos- ton’s working people. Arrested after the destruction of Hutchinson’s home, Mack- intosh was released after the intervention of the Loyal Nine, a group of merchants and craftsmen who had taken the lead in opposing the Stamp Act. The violence had gone far beyond what the Loyal Nine intended, and they promised author- ities that resistance to the Stamp Act would henceforth be peaceful. The riot, nonetheless, convinced Hutchinson that for Britain to rule America effectively, “there must be an abridgement of what are called English liberties.” Whether colonists would accept such an abridgement, however, was very much in doubt. The riot of August 26 was one small episode in a series of events that launched a ­half-​­century of popular protest and political upheaval throughout the Western world. The momentous era that came to be called the Age of Revo- lution began in British North America, spread to Europe and the Caribbean, and culminated in the Latin American wars for independence. In all these struggles, “Liberty” emerged as the foremost rallying cry for popular discontent. Rarely has the idea played so central a role in political debate and social upheaval. If the attack on Hutchinson’s home demonstrated the depths of feeling aroused by Britain’s efforts to impose greater control over its empire, it also revealed that revolution is a dynamic process whose consequences no one can anticipate. The crowd’s fury expressed resentments against the rich and pow- erful quite different from colonial leaders’ objections to Parliament’s attempt to tax the colonies. The Stamp Act crisis inaugurated not only a struggle for colonial liberty in relation to Great Britain but also a multisided battle to define and extend liberty within America. THE CRISIS BEGINS When George III assumed the throne of Great Britain in 1760, no one on either side of the Atlantic imagined that within two decades Britain’s American colonies would separate from the empire. But the Seven Years’ War, which left Britain with an enormous debt and vastly enlarged overseas possessions to defend, led successive governments in London to seek ways to make the colonies share the cost of empire. Having studied the writings of British opposition thinkers who insisted that power inevitably seeks to encroach upon liberty, colonial lead- ers came to see these measures as part of a British design to undermine their 180 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  What were the roots and significance of the Stamp Act controversy? freedom. Only recently they had gloried in their enjoyment of “British liberty,” but they CHRONOLOGY came to conclude that membership in the empire was a threat to freedom, rather than its 1760 George III assumes the foundation. This conviction set the colonies British throne on the road to independence. 1764 Sugar Act 1765 Stamp Act Consolidating the Empire Sons of Liberty organized Stamp Act Congress The Seven Years’ War, to which the colonists 1767 Townshend Acts contributed soldiers and economic resources, 1767– Letters from a Farmer underscored for rulers in London how import- 1768 in Pennsylvania ant the empire was to Britain’s w­ ell-​­being and British troops stationed its status as a great power. Now, they believed, in Boston new regulations were needed to help guar- 1770 Boston Massacre antee the empire’s continued strength and 1773 Tea Act prosperity. Before 1763, Parliament had occa- Boston Tea Party sionally acted to forbid the issuance of paper 1774 Intolerable Acts money in America and to restrict colonial economic activities that competed with busi- Thomas Jefferson’s A ­Summary View of the nesses at home. The Wool Act of 1699, Hat Act Rights of British America of 1732, and Iron Act of 1750 forbade colonial First Continental Congress manufacture of these items. The Molasses Act convenes of 1733 sought to curtail trade between New 1775 Battles at Lexington and England and the French Caribbean by impos- Concord ing a prohibitive tax on F ­rench-​­ produced Lord Dunmore’s molasses used to make rum in American dis- ­proclamation tilleries. And the Navigation Acts, discussed 1776 Thomas Paine’s Common Sense in Chapter 3, sought to channel key American exports like tobacco through British ports. Declaration of ­Independence The colonists frequently ignored all these Battle of Trenton measures. As to internal affairs within the colonies, 1777 Battle of Saratoga the British government frequently seemed 1778 Treaty of Amity and ­Commerce with uninterested. There was no point, one offi- France cial said, in worrying about the behavior of 1781 Cornwallis surrenders at colonists who “plant tobacco and Puritanism Yorktown only, like fools.” Beginning in the late 1740s, 1783 Treaty of Paris the Board of Trade, which was responsible for overseeing colonial affairs, attempted to        strengthen imperial authority. It demanded T he C risis B egins ★ 181 that colonial laws conform to royal instructions and encouraged colonial ­assemblies to grant permanent salaries to royal governors. But the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War suspended this initiative. Having treated the colonists as allies during the war, Britain reverted in the ­mid-​­1760s to seeing them as subordinates whose main role was to enrich the mother country. During this period, the government in London concerned itself with the colonies in unprecedented ways, hoping to make British rule more efficient and systematic and to raise funds to help pay for the war and to finance the empire. Nearly all British political leaders supported the new laws that so enraged the colonists. Americans, Britons felt, should be grateful to the empire. To fight the Seven Years’ War, Britain had borrowed from banks and individual investors more than £150 million (the equivalent of tens of trillions of dollars in today’s money). Interest on the debt absorbed half the government’s annual revenue. The tax burden in Britain had reached unprec- edented heights. It seemed only reasonable that the colonies should help pay this national debt, foot part of the bill for continued British protection, and stop cheating the treasury by violating the Navigation Acts. Nearly all Britons, moreover, believed that Parliament represented the entire empire and had a right to legislate for it. Millions of Britons, including the residents of major cities like Manchester and Birmingham, had no representatives in Parlia- ment. But according to the widely accepted theory of virtual ­representation—​ ­which held that each member represented the entire ­empire, not just his own ­district—​­the interests of all who lived under the British crown were supposedly taken into account. When Americans began to insist that b ­ ecause they were unrepresented in Parliament, the British government could not tax the colonies, they won little support in the mother country. To their surprise, however, succes- sive British governments found that the effective working of the empire required the cooperation of local populations. Time and again, British officials backed down in the face of colonial resistance, only to return with new measures to cen- tralize control of the empire that only stiffened colonial resolve. The British government had already alarmed many colonists by issuing writs of assistance to combat smuggling. These were general search war- rants that ­allowed customs officials to search anywhere they chose for smug- gled goods. In a celebrated court case in Boston in 1761, the lawyer James Otis insisted that the writs were “an instrument of arbitrary power, destructive to ­English liberty, and the fundamental principles of the [British] Constitution,” and that Parliament therefore had no right to authorize them. (“American inde- pendence was then and there born,” John Adams later r­ emarked—​­a consider- able exaggeration.) Many colonists were also outraged by the Proclamation of 1763 ­(mentioned in the previous chapter) barring further settlement on lands west of the Appalachian Mountains. 182 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  What were the roots and significance of the Stamp Act controversy? Taxing the Colonies In 1764, the Sugar Act, introduced by Prime Minister George Grenville, reduced the existing tax on molasses imported into North America from the French West Indies from six pence to three pence per gallon. But the act also estab- lished a new machinery to end widespread smuggling by colonial merchants. And to counteract the tendency of colonial juries to acquit merchants charged with violating trade regulations, it strengthened the admiralty courts, where accused smugglers could be judged without benefit of a jury trial. Thus, colo- nists saw the measure not as a welcome reduction in taxation but as an attempt to get them to pay a levy they would otherwise have evaded. At the same time, a Revenue Act placed goods such as wool and hides, which had previously been traded freely with Holland, France, and southern Europe, on the enumerated list, meaning they had to be shipped through England. Together, these measures threatened the profits of colonial merchants and seemed certain to aggravate an already serious economic recession resulting from the end of the Seven Years’ War. They were accompanied by the Currency Act, which reaffirmed the earlier ban on colonial assemblies issuing paper as “legal tender”—that is, money that individuals are required to accept in pay- ment of debts. The Stamp Act Crisis The Sugar Act was an effort to strengthen the ­long-​­established (and ­long-​ ­evaded) Navigation Acts. The Stamp Act of 1765 represented a new departure in ­imperial policy. For the first time, Parliament attempted to raise money from direct taxes in the colonies rather than through the regulation of trade. The act required that all sorts of printed material produced in the ­colonies—​ ­such as newspapers, books, court documents, commercial papers, land deeds, ­almanacs—​­carry a stamp purchased from authorities. Its purpose was to help finance the operations of the empire, including the cost of stationing British troops in North America, without seeking revenue from colonial assemblies. Whereas the Sugar Act had mainly affected residents of colonial ports, the Stamp Act managed to offend virtually every free c­ olonist—​­rich and poor, farmers, artisans, and merchants. It was especially resented by members of the public sphere who wrote, published, and read books and newspapers and fol- lowed political affairs. The prospect of a British army permanently stationed on American soil also alarmed many colonists. And by imposing the stamp tax without colonial consent, Parliament directly challenged the authority of local elites who, through the assemblies they controlled, had established their power over the raising and spending of money. They were ready to defend this authority in the name of liberty. T he C risis B egins ★ 183 According to the doctrine of “virtual representation,” the House of Commons represented all residents of the British empire, whether or not they could vote for members. In this 1775 cartoon criticizing the idea, a blinded Britannia, on the far right, stumbles into a pit. Next to her, two colonists complain of being robbed by British taxation. In the background, according to an accompanying explanation of the cartoon, stand the “Catholic” city of Quebec and the “Protestant town of Boston,” the latter in flames. Opposition to the Stamp Act was the first great drama of the revolutionary era and the first major split between colonists and Great Britain over the mean- ing of freedom. Nearly all colonial political leaders opposed the act. In voicing their grievances, they invoked the rights of the freeborn Englishman, which, they insisted, colonists should also enjoy. Opponents of the act drew on t­ ime-​ ­honored British principles such as a community’s right not to be taxed except by its elected representatives. Liberty, they insisted, could not be secure where property was “taken away without consent.” Taxation and Representation At stake were clashing ideas of the British empire itself. American leaders viewed the empire as an association of equals in which free inhabitants over- seas enjoyed the same rights as Britons at home. Colonists in other outposts of the empire, such as India, the West Indies, and Canada, echoed this outlook. All, in the name of liberty, claimed the right to govern their own affairs. Brit- ish residents of Calcutta, India, demanded the “rights inherent in Englishmen.” The British government and its appointed representatives in America, by con- trast, saw the empire as a system of unequal parts in which different principles 184 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  What were the roots and significance of the Stamp Act controversy? governed different areas, and all were subject to the authority of Parliament. To surrender the right to tax the colonies would set a dangerous precedent for the empire as a whole. “In an empire, extended and diversified as that of Great Britain,” declared Governor Francis Bernard of Massachusetts in 1765, “there must be a supreme legislature, to which all other powers must be subordinate.” Parliament, Bernard continued, was the “sanctuary of liberty”—a description with which many Americans were beginning to disagree. Some opponents of the Stamp Act distinguished between “internal” taxes like the stamp duty, which they claimed Parliament had no right to impose, and revenue legitimately raised through the regulation of trade. But more and more colonists insisted that Britain had no right to tax them at all, since Americans were unrepresented in the House of Commons. “No taxation without repre- sentation” became their rallying cry. Virginia’s House of Burgesses approved four resolutions offered by the fiery orator Patrick Henry. They insisted that the colonists enjoyed the same “liberties, privileges, franchises, and immunities” as residents of the mother country and that the right to consent to taxation was a cornerstone of “British freedom.” (The House of Burgesses rejected as too radical three other resolutions, including Henry’s call for outright resistance to unlawful taxation, but these were also reprinted in colonial newspapers.) In October 1765, the Stamp Act Congress, with ­twenty-​­seven delegates from nine colonies, including some of the most prominent men in America, met in New York and endorsed Virginia’s position. Its resolutions began by affirming the “allegiance” of all colonists to the “Crown of Great Britain” and their “due subordination” to Parliament. But they went on to insist that the right to consent to taxation was “essential to the freedom of a people.” Soon, merchants throughout the colonies agreed to boycott British goods until Par- liament repealed the Stamp Act. This was the first major cooperative action among Britain’s mainland colonies. In a sense, by seeking to impose uniformity on the colonies rather than dealing with them individually as in the past, Par- liament had inadvertently united America. Liberty and Resistance No word was more frequently invoked by critics of the Stamp Act than “liberty.” Throughout the colonies, opponents of the new tax staged mock funerals in which liberty’s coffin was carried to a burial ground only to have the occupant miraculously revived at the last moment, whereupon the assembled crowd repaired to a tavern to celebrate. As the crisis continued, symbols of liberty pro- liferated. The large elm tree in Boston on which protesters had hanged an effigy of the stamp distributor Andrew Oliver to persuade him to resign his post came T he C risis B egins ★ 185 A British engraving from 1766 marking the repeal of the Stamp Act. A funeral procession on the banks of the River Thames in London includes Prime Minister George Grenville carrying a coffin noting that the act was born in 1765 and died a year later. Two large containers are labeled “Stamps from America”—stamps returned because no longer n ­ eeded—​­and “black cloth from America,” for use at the funeral. In the background, a warehouse contains goods to be “ship’d for America,” now that the boycott of British imports has ended. to be known as the Liberty Tree. Its image soon began to appear in prints and pamphlets throughout the colonies. O ­ pen-​­air meetings were held beneath the tree, and as a result the space came to be called Liberty Hall. In New York City, a pine mast erected in 1766 as a meeting place for opponents of the Stamp Act was called the Liberty Pole. Colonial leaders resolved to prevent the new law’s implementation, and by and large they succeeded. Even before the passage of the Stamp Act, a ­Committee of Correspondence in Boston communicated with other colonies to encourage opposition to the Sugar and Currency Acts. Now, such commit- tees sprang up in other colonies, exchanging ideas and information about resis- tance. Initiated by colonial elites, the movement against the Stamp Act quickly drew in a far broader range of Americans. The act, wrote John Adams, a Boston lawyer who drafted a set of widely reprinted resolutions against the measure, had inspired “the people, even to the lowest ranks,” to become “more attentive to their liberties, more inquisitive about them, and more determined to defend them, than they were ever before known.” Political debate, Adams added, per- vaded the ­colonies—“our presses have groaned, our pulpits have thundered, our legislatures have resolved, our towns have voted.” 186 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  What were the roots and significance of the Stamp Act controversy? Politics in the Streets Opponents of the Stamp Act, however, did not rely solely on debate. Even before the law went into effect, crowds forced those chosen to administer it to resign and destroyed shipments of stamps. In New York City, processions involving hundreds of residents shouting “Liberty” paraded through the streets nearly every night in late 1765. They were organized by the newly created Sons of Liberty. While they enjoyed no standing among the colony’s wealthy elite and carried little weight in municipal affairs, the Sons’ leaders enjoyed a broad following among the city’s craftsmen, laborers, and sailors. The Sons posted notices reading “Liberty, Property, and No Stamps” and took the lead in enforcing the boycott of British imports. Their actions were viewed with increasing alarm by the aristocratic Livingston and De Lancey families, who dominated New York politics. As the assault on Thomas Hutchinson’s house in Boston demonstrated, crowds could easily get out of hand. In Novem- ber 1765, a New York crowd reportedly composed of sailors, blacks, laborers, and youths hurled stones at Fort George at the tip of Manhattan Island. They then proceeded to destroy the home of Major Thomas James, a British officer who was said to have boasted that he would force the stamps down New York- ers’ throats. Stunned by the ferocity of American resistance and pressured by London merchants and manufacturers who did not wish to lose their American mar- kets, the British government retreated. In 1766, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act. But this concession was accompanied by the Declaratory Act, which rejected Americans’ claims that only their elected representatives could levy taxes. Parliament, proclaimed this measure, possessed the power to pass laws for “the colonies and people of America... ​in all cases whatsoever.” Since the ­debt-​­ridden British government continued to need money raised in the colo- nies, passage of the Declaratory Act promised further conflict. The Regulators The Stamp Act crisis was not the only example of violent social turmoil during the 1760s. Many colonies experienced contentious internal divisions as well. As population moved westward, the conflicting land claims of settlers, speculators, colonial governments, and Indians sparked fierce disputes. Rural areas had a long tradition of resistance by settlers and small farmers against the claims of land speculators and large proprietors. As in the Stamp Act cri- sis, “Liberty” was their rallying cry, but in this case liberty had less to do with imperial policy than with secure possession of land. Beginning in the m ­ id-​­ 1760s, a group of wealthy residents of the South Carolina backcountry calling themselves Regulators protested the T he C risis B egins ★ 187 under-­­representation of western settlements in the colony’s assembly and the legislators’ failure to establish local governments that could regularize land titles and suppress bands of outlaws. The lack of courts in the area, they claimed, had led to a breakdown of law and order, allowing “an infernal gang of villains” to commit “shocking outrages” on persons and property. They added: “We are ­­Free-​­men—​­British ­subjects—​­Not Born Slaves.” A parallel movement in North Carolina mobilized small farmers, who refused to pay taxes, kidnapped local officials, assaulted the homes of land speculators, merchants, and lawyers, and disrupted court proceedings. Here, the complaint was not a lack of government, but corrupt county authorities. These local officials, the Regulators claimed, threatened inexpensive access to land and the prosperity of ordinary settlers through high taxes and court fees. ­Demanding the democratization of local government, the Regulators con- demned the “rich and powerful” (the colony’s elite) who used their political authority to prosper at the expense of “poor industrious” farmers. At their peak, the Regulators numbered around 8,000 armed farmers. The region remained in turmoil until 1771, when, in the “battle of Alamance,” the farmers were sup- pressed by the colony’s militia. The Tenant Uprising Also in the ­mid-​­1760s, tenants on the Livingston, Philipse, and Cortland man- ors along the Hudson River north of New York City stopped paying rent and began seizing land. Like opponents of the Stamp Act, they called themselves the Sons of Liberty. The original Sons, however, opposed their uprising, and it was soon suppressed by British and colonial troops. Meanwhile, small farmers in the Green Mountains took up arms to protect their holdings against intru- sions by New York landlords. The legal situation there was complex. The area was part of New York, but during the 1750s the governor of New Hampshire had issued land grants to New England families, pocketing a fortune in fees. When New Yorkers tried to enforce their own title to the area, the settlers’ leader, Ethan Allen, insisted that land should belong to the person who worked it. Outsiders, he claimed, were trying to “enslave a free people.” In the ­mid-​ ­1770s, Allen and his Green Mountain Boys gained control of the region, which later became the state of Vermont. The emerging rift between Britain and America eventually superimposed itself on conflicts within the colonies. But the social divisions revealed in the Stamp Act riots and backcountry uprisings made some members of the colonial elite fear that opposition to British measures might unleash turmoil at home. As a result, they were more reluctant to challenge British authority when the next imperial crisis arose. 188 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  What key events sharpened the divisions between Britain and the colonists in the late 1760s and early 1770s? THE ROAD TO REVOLUTION The Townshend Crisis In 1767, the government in London decided to impose a new set of taxes on Americans, known as the Townshend Acts. They were devised by the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer (the cabinet’s chief financial minister), Charles Town- shend. In opposing the Stamp Act, some colonists had seemed to suggest that they would not object if Britain raised revenue by regulating trade. Taking them at their word, Townshend persuaded Parliament to impose new taxes on goods imported into the colonies and to create a new board of customs commission- ers to collect them and suppress smuggling. He intended to use the new reve- nues to pay the salaries of American governors and judges, thus freeing them from dependence on colonial assemblies. Although many merchants objected to the new enforcement procedures, opposition to the Townshend duties devel- oped more slowly than in the case of the Stamp Act. Leaders in several colonies nonetheless decided in 1768 to reimpose the ban on importing British goods. The Townshend crisis led to the writing of one of the most important state- ments of the American position, Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania by John Dickinson (a lawyer, not a farmer, although he grew up on his family’s tobacco plantation in Maryland). First published in a Philadelphia newspaper in 1767 and 1768 and then widely circulated in pamphlet form, the essays argued for reconciliation with the mother country, with the colonists enjoying all the tra- ditional rights of Englishmen. Dickinson’s learned ­presentation—​­he offered quotations from writers ranging from Shakespeare to such ­eighteenth-​­century figures as David Hume, William Blackstone, and M ­ ontesquieu—​­demonstrated that Enlightenment ideas were by now familiar in the colonies. It also showed that at this point, many American leaders still assumed that political debate should take place among the educated elite. Homespun Virtue The boycott began in Boston and soon spread to the southern colonies. Reliance on American rather than British goods, on homespun clothing rather than imported finery, became a symbol of American resistance. It also reflected, as the colonists saw it, a virtuous spirit of ­self-​­sacrifice as compared with the ­self-​ ­indulgence and luxury many Americans were coming to associate with Britain. Women who spun and wove at home so as not to purchase British goods were hailed as Daughters of Liberty. The idea of using homemade rather than imported goods especially appealed to Chesapeake planters, who found themselves owing increas- ­ ing amounts of money to British merchants. Nonimportation, wrote George The Road to R evolution ★ 189 ­ ashington, reflecting Virginia planters’ concern about their growing burden W of debt, gave “the extravagant man” an opportunity to “retrench his expenses” by reducing the purchase of British luxuries, without having to advertise to his neighbors that he might be in financial distress. In this way, Washington con- tinued, Virginians could “maintain the liberty which we have derived from our ancestors,” while reducing their “considerable” debts. Virginia’s leaders also announced a temporary ban on the importation of slaves, but smaller planters in the Piedmont region away from the coast, where the institution was expand- ing, ignored this restriction. Urban artisans, who welcomed an end to competition from imported British manufactured goods, strongly supported the boycott. Philadelphia and New York merchants at first were reluctant to take part, although they eventually agreed to go along. Nonimportation threatened their livelihoods and raised the prospect of unleashing further l­ ower-​­class turmoil. As had happened during the Stamp Act cri- sis, the streets of American cities filled with popular protests against the new duties. Extralegal local committees attempted to enforce the boycott of British goods. The Boston Massacre Boston once again became the focal point of conflict. Royal troops had been stationed in the city in 1768 after rioting that followed the British seizure of the ship Liberty for violating trade regulations. The sloop belonged to John Hancock, one of the city’s most prominent merchants. The soldiers, who com- peted for jobs on Boston’s waterfront with the city’s laborers, became more and more unpopular. On March 5, 1770, a fight between a ­snowball-​­throwing crowd of Bostonians and British troops escalated into an armed confrontation that left five Bostonians dead. One of those who fell in what came to be called the Boston Massacre was Crispus Attucks, a sailor of mixed I­ ndian-​­African-​ ­white ancestry. Attucks would later be remembered as the “first martyr of the American Revolution.” The commanding officer and eight soldiers were put on trial in Massachusetts. Ably defended by John Adams, who viewed l­ ower-​­class crowd actions as a dangerous method of opposing British policies, seven were found not guilty, while two were convicted of manslaughter. But Paul Revere, a member of the Boston Sons of Liberty and a silversmith and engraver, helped to stir up indignation against the British army by producing a widely circulated (and quite inaccurate) print of the Boston Massacre depicting a line of British soldiers firing into an unarmed crowd. By 1770, as merchants’ profits shriveled and many members of the colonial elite found they could not do without British goods, the nonimportation move- ment was collapsing. The value of British imports to the colonies declined by about ­one-​­third during 1769, but then rebounded to its former level. British 190 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  What key events sharpened the divisions between Britain and the colonists in the late 1760s and early 1770s? The Boston Massacre. Less than a month after the Boston Massacre of 1770, in which five colonists died, Paul Revere produced this engraving of the event. Although it inaccurately depicts what was actually a disorganized brawl between residents of Boston and British soldiers, this image became one of the most influential pieces of political propaganda of the revolutionary era. merchants, who wished to remove a possible source of future interruption of trade, pressed for repeal of the Townshend duties. When the British ministry agreed, leaving in place only a tax on tea, and agreed to remove troops from Boston, American merchants quickly abandoned the boycott. Wilkes and Liberty Once again, an immediate crisis had been resolved. Nonetheless, many Amer- icans concluded that Britain was succumbing to the same pattern of political corruption and decline of liberty that afflicted other countries. The overlap of the Townshend crisis with a controversy in Britain over the treatment of John The Road to R evolution ★ 191 Wilkes reinforced this sentiment. A radical journalist known for scandalous writings about the king and ministry, Wilkes had been elected to Parliament from London but was expelled from his seat. “Wilkes and Liberty” became a popular rallying cry on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition, rumors circu- lated in the colonies that the Anglican Church in England planned to send bishops to America. Among members of other Protestant denominations, the ­rumors—​­strongly denied in ­London—​­sparked fears that bishops would estab- lish religious courts like those that had once persecuted Dissenters. The convic- tion that the British government had set itself on a course dangerous to liberty underpinned colonial resistance when the next crisis arose. The Tea Act The next crisis underscored how powerfully events in other parts of Britain’s global empire affected the American colonies. The East India Company, a giant trading monopoly, effectively governed recently acquired British possessions in India. Numerous British merchants, bankers, and other individuals had invested heavily in its stock. A classic speculative bubble ensued, with the price of stock in the company rising sharply and then collapsing. To rescue the company and its investors, the British government decided to help it market its enormous holdings of Chinese tea in North America. Tea, once a preserve of the wealthy, had become a drink consumed by all social classes in England and the colonies. To further stimulate its sales and bail out the East India Company, the British government, now headed by Frederick Lord North, offered the company a series of rebates and tax exemptions. These enabled it to dump ­low-​­priced tea on the American market, undercutting both established merchants and smugglers. Money raised through the taxation of imported tea would be used to help defray the costs of colonial government, thus threatening, once again, the assemblies’ control over finance. The tax on tea was not new. But many colonists insisted that to pay it on this large new body of imports would acknowledge Britain’s right to tax the colonies. As tea shipments arrived, resistance developed in the major ports. On Decem- ber 16, 1773, a group of colonists disguised as Indians boarded three ships at anchor in Boston Harbor and threw more than 300 chests of tea into the water. The event became known as the Boston Tea Party. The loss to the East India Company was around £10,000 (the equivalent of more than $4 million today). The Intolerable Acts The British government, declared Lord North, must now demonstrate “whether we have, or have not, any authority in that country.” Its response to the Boston Tea Party was swift and decisive. Parliament closed the port of Boston to all 192 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  What key events marked the move toward American independence? trade until the tea was paid for. It radically altered the Massachusetts Charter of 1691 by curtailing town meetings and authorizing the governor to appoint members to the ­council—​­positions previously filled by election. Parliament also empowered military commanders to lodge soldiers in private homes. These measures, called the Coercive or Intolerable Acts by Americans, united the colonies in opposition to what was widely seen as a direct threat to their political freedom. At almost the same time, Parliament passed the Quebec Act. This extended the southern boundary of that Canadian province to the Ohio River and granted legal toleration to the Roman Catholic Church in Canada. With an eye to the growing tensions in colonies to the south, the act sought to secure the alle- giance of Quebec’s Catholics by offering rights denied to their coreligionists in Britain, including practicing their faith freely and holding positions in the civil service. The act not only threw into question land claims in the Ohio country but persuaded many colonists that the government in London was conspiring to strengthen ­Catholicism—​­dreaded by most ­Protestants—​­in its American empire. Fears of religious and political tyranny mingled in the minds of many colonists. Especially in New England, the cause of liberty became the cause of God. A gathering of 1,000 residents of Farmington, Connecticut, in May 1774 adopted resolutions proclaiming that, as “the sons of freedom,” they would resist every attempt “to take away our liberties and properties and to enslave us forever.” They accused the British ministry of being “instigated by the devil.” THE COMING OF INDEPENDENCE The Continental Congress Opposition to the Intolerable Acts now spread to small towns and rural areas that had not participated actively in previous resistance. In September 1774, in the town of Worcester, Massachusetts, 4,600 militiamen from t­ hirty-​­seven towns (half the adult male population of the entire county) lined both sides of Main Street as the B­ ritish-​­appointed officials walked the gauntlet between them. In the same month, a convention of delegates from Massachusetts towns approved a series of resolutions (called the Suffolk Resolves for the county in which Boston is located) that urged Americans to refuse obedience to the new laws, withhold taxes, and prepare for war. To coordinate resistance to the Intolerable Acts, a Continental Congress con- vened in Philadelphia that month, bringing together the most prominent ­political leaders of twelve mainland colonies (Georgia did not take part). From Massachu- setts came the “brace of Adamses”—John and his more radical cousin Samuel. The Coming of I ndependence ★ 193 Virginia’s seven delegates included George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, and the renowned orator Patrick Henry. Henry’s power as a speaker came from a unique style that combined moral appeals with blunt directness. “The distinctions ­between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders,” Henry declared, “are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American.” In March 1775, Henry concluded a speech urging a Virginia convention to begin military prepa- rations with a legendary credo: “Give me liberty, or give me death!” The Continental Association Before it adjourned at the end of October 1774 with an agreement to reconvene the following May if colonial demands had not been met, the Congress endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and adopted the Continental Association, which called for an almost complete halt to trade with Great Britain and the West Indies (at South Carolina’s insistence, exports of rice to Europe were exempted). The Association also encouraged domestic manufacturing and denounced “every species of extravagance and dissipation.” Congress authorized local Commit- tees of Safety to oversee its mandates and to take action against “enemies of American liberty,” including businessmen who tried to profit from the sudden scarcity of goods. The Committees of Safety began the process of transferring effective political power from established governments whose authority derived from Great Britain to extralegal grassroots bodies reflecting the will of the people. By early 1775, some 7,000 men were serving on local committees throughout the colonies, a vast expansion of the “political nation.” The committees became training grounds where small farmers, city artisans, propertyless laborers, and others who had heretofore had little role in government discussed political issues and exercised political power. In Philadelphia, the extralegal commit- tees of the 1760s that oversaw the boycott of British goods had been composed almost entirely of prominent lawyers and merchants. But younger merchants, shopkeepers, and artisans dominated the committee elected in November 1774 to enforce the Continental Association. They were determined that resistance to British measures not be dropped as it had been in 1770. When the New York assembly refused to endorse the association, local committees continued to enforce it anyway. The Sweets of Liberty By 1775, talk of liberty pervaded the colonies. The past few years had witnessed an endless parade of pamphlets with titles like A Chariot of Liberty and Ora- tion on the Beauties of Liberty (the latter, a sermon delivered in Boston by Joseph 194 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  What key events marked the move toward American independence? Allen in 1772, became the most popular public address of the years before inde- pendence). Sober men spoke longingly of the “sweets of liberty.” While sleep- ing, Americans dreamed of liberty. One anonymous essayist reported a “night vision” of the word written in the sun’s rays. Commented a British emigrant who arrived in Maryland early in 1775: “They are all liberty mad.” The right to resist oppressive authority and the identification of liberty with the cause of God, so deeply ingrained by the imperial struggles of the eighteenth century, were now invoked against Britain itself, by colonists of all backgrounds. The first mass meeting in the history of Northampton County, Pennsylvania, whose population was overwhelmingly of German ancestry, gathered in 1774. By the following year, a majority of the county’s adult popu- lation had joined militia associations. Many German settlers, whose c­ lose-​­knit communities had earlier viewed with some suspicion “the famous English liberty” as a byword for selfish individualism, now claimed all the “rights and privileges of n­ atural-​­born subjects of his majesty.” As the crisis deepened, Americans increasingly based their claims not simply on the historical rights of Englishmen but on the more abstract lan- guage of natural rights and universal freedom. The First Continental Congress defended its actions by appealing to the “principles of the English constitution,” the “liberties of free and n ­ atural-​­born subjects within the realm of England,” and the “immutable law of nature.” John Locke’s theory of natural rights that existed prior to the establishment of government offered a powerful justifica- tion for colonial resistance. Americans, declared Thomas Jefferson in A Sum- mary View of the Rights of British America (written in 1774 to instruct Virginia’s ­delegates to the Continental Congress), were “a free people claiming their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief mag- istrate.” Americans, Jefferson insisted, still revered the king. But he demanded that empire henceforth be seen as a collection of equal parts held together by loyalty to a constitutional monarch, not a system in which one part ruled over the others. The Outbreak of War By the time the Second Continental Congress convened in May 1775, war had broken out between British soldiers and armed citizens of Massachusetts. On April 19, a force of British soldiers marched from Boston toward the nearby town of Concord seeking to seize arms being stockpiled there. Riders from Boston, among them Paul Revere, warned local leaders of the troops’ approach. Militiamen took up arms and tried to resist the British advance. Skirmishes between Americans and British soldiers took place at Lexington and again The Coming of I ndependence ★ 195 In March 1776, James Pike, a soldier in the Massachusetts militia, carved this scene on his powder horn to commemorate the battles of Lexington and Concord. At the center stands the Liberty Tree. at Concord, known as the Battles of Lexington and Concord. By the time the British retreated to the safety of Boston, some f­orty-​­nine ­Americans and ­seventy-​­three members of the Royal Army lay dead. What the philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson would later call “the shot heard ’round the world” began the American War of Independence. It reverber- ated throughout the colonies. When news of the skirmish reached Lemuel Rob- erts, a poor New York farmer, he felt his “bosom glow” with the “call of liberty.” Roberts set off for Massachusetts to enlist in the army. In May 1775, Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys, together with militiamen from Connecticut led by Benedict Arnold, surrounded Fort Ticonderoga in New York and forced it to surrender. The following winter, Henry Knox, George Washington’s com- mander of artillery, arranged for some of the Ticonderoga cannon to be dragged hundreds of miles to the east to ­reinforce the siege of Boston, where British forces were ensconced. On June 17, 1775, two months after Lexington and Con- cord, the British had dislodged colonial militiamen from Breed’s Hill, although only at a heavy cost in casualties. (The battle came to be named the Battle of Bunker Hill, after the nearby Bunker Hill.) But the arrival of American cannon in March 1776 and their entrenchment above the city made the British posi- tion in Boston untenable. The British army under the command of Sir William Howe was forced to abandon the city. Before leaving, Howe’s forces cut down the original Liberty Tree. Meanwhile, the Second Continental Congress authorized the raising of a Continental army, printed money to pay for it, and appointed George 196 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  What key events marked the move toward American independence? Washington its commander. Washington, who had gained considerable fighting experience during the Seven Years’ War, was not only the colonies’ ­best-​­known military officer but also a prominent Virginian. John Adams, who proposed his name, recognized that having a southerner lead American forces would reinforce colonial unity. In response, Britain declared the colonies in a state of rebellion, dispatched thousands of troops, and ordered the closing of all colonial ports. Independence? By the end of 1775, the breach with Britain seemed irreparable. But many col- onists shied away from the idea of independence. Pride in membership in the British empire was still strong, and many political leaders, especially in colo- nies that had experienced internal turmoil, feared that a complete break with the mother country might unleash further conflict. Anarchy from below, in their view, was as much a danger as tyranny from above. Many advocates of independence, one opponent warned, would find it “very agreeable” to divide the property of the rich among the poor. Such fears affected how colonial leaders responded to the idea of indepen- dence. The elites of Massachusetts and Virginia, who felt supremely confident of their ability to retain authority at home, tended to support a break with Britain. Massachusetts had borne the brunt of the Intolerable Acts. Southern leaders not only were highly protective of their political liberty but also were outraged by a proclamation issued in November 1775 by the earl of Dunmore, the British governor and military commander in Virginia. Lord Dunmore’s proclamation offered freedom to any slave who escaped to his lines and bore arms for the king. In New York and Pennsylvania, however, the diversity of the population made it difficult to work out a consensus on how far to go in resisting British measures. Here opposition to previous British laws had unleashed demands by small farm- ers and urban artisans for a greater voice in political affairs. As a result, many established leaders drew back from further resistance. Joseph Galloway, a Penn- sylvania leader and delegate to the Second Continental Congress who worked to devise a compromise between British and colonial positions, warned that inde- pendence would be accompanied by constant disputes within America. He even predicted a war between the northern and southern colonies. Americans, Gallo- way declared, could only enjoy “true liberty”—­self-​­government and security for their persons and ­property—​­by remaining within the empire. Common Sense As 1776 dawned, America presented the unusual spectacle of colonists at war against the British empire but still pleading for their rights within it. Even as The Coming of I ndependence ★ 197 fighting raged, Congress in July 1775 had addressed the Olive Branch Petition to George III, reaffirming Americans’ loyalty to the crown and hoping for a “permanent reconciliation.” Ironically, it was a recent emigrant from England, not a colonist from a family long established on American soil, who grasped the inner logic of the situation and offered a vision of the broad significance of American ­independence. An English craftsman and minor government official, Thomas Paine had emigrated to Philadelphia late in 1774. He quickly became associated with a group of advocates of the American cause, including John Adams and Dr. Benjamin Rush, a leading Philadelphia physician. It was Rush who suggested to Paine that he write a pamphlet supporting American independence. Its author listed only as “an Englishman,” Common Sense appeared in Jan- uary 1776. The pamphlet began not with a recital of colonial grievances but with an attack on the “so much boasted Constitution of England” and the principles of hereditary rule and monarchical government. Rather than being the most perfect system of government in the world, Paine wrote, the English ­monarchy was headed by “the royal brute of England,” and the English con- stitution was composed in large part of “the base remains of two ancient tyr- annies... ​monarchical tyranny in the person of the king [and] aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers.” “Of more worth is one honest man to ­society, and in the sight of God,” he continued, “than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.” Far preferable than monarchy would be a democratic sys- tem based on frequent elections, with citizens’ rights protected by a written constitution. Turning to independence, Paine drew on the colonists’ experiences to make his case. “There is something absurd,” he wrote, “in supposing a Continent to be perpetually governed by an island.” Within the British empire, America’s pros- pects were limited; liberated from the Navigation Acts and trading freely with the entire world, its “material eminence” was certain. Paine tied the economic hopes of the new nation to the idea of commercial freedom. With indepen- dence, moreover, the colonies could for the first time insulate themselves from involvement in the endless imperial wars of Europe. Britain had “dragged” its American colonies into conflicts with countries like Spain and France, which “never were... ​our ­enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain.” Membership in the British empire, Paine insisted, was a burden to the colonies, not a benefit. Toward the close of the pamphlet, Paine moved beyond practical consid- erations to outline a breathtaking vision of the historical importance of the American Revolution. “The cause of America,” he proclaimed in stirring lan- guage, “is in great measure, the cause of all mankind.” The new nation would become the home of freedom, “an asylum for mankind.” 198 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  What key events marked the move toward American independence? Paine’s Impact Few of Paine’s ideas were original. What made Common Sense unique was his mode of expressing them and the audience he addressed. Previous political writings had generally been directed toward the educated elite. “When I men- tion the public,” declared John Randolph of Virginia in 1774, “I mean to include the rational part of it. The ignorant vulgar are unfit... ​to manage the reins of government.” Just as evangelical ministers had shattered the trained clergy’s monopoly on religious preaching, Paine pioneered a new style of political writ- ing, one designed to expand dramatically the public sphere where political dis- cussion took place. He wrote clearly and directly, and he avoided the complex language and Latin phrases common in pamphlets aimed at educated readers. His style stood in marked contrast to previous political pamphlets, such as John Dickinson’s Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania. Common Sense quickly became one of the most successful and influential pamphlets in the history of political writing, selling, by Paine’s estimate, some 150,000 copies. Paine directed that his share of the profits be used to buy supplies for the Continental army. In February 1776, the Massachusetts political leader Joseph Hawley read Common Sense and remarked, “Every sentiment has sunk into my well pre- pared heart.” The hearts of Hawley and thousands of other Americans had been ­ prepared for Paine’s arguments by the extended conflict over Brit- ain’s right to tax the colonies, the outbreak of war in 1775, and the growing ­conviction that Britain was a corrupt society where liberty was diminish- ing. The intensification of fighting in the winter of 1775–1776, when Ameri- cans unsuccessfully invaded Canada while the British burned Falmouth (now Portland), Maine, and bombarded Norfolk, Virginia, gave added weight to the movement for independence. In the spring of 1776, scores of American com- munities adopted resolutions calling for a separation from Britain. Only six months elapsed between the appearance of Common Sense and the decision by the Second Continental Congress to sever the colonies’ ties with Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence On July 2, 1776, the Congress formally declared the United States an indepen- dent nation. Two days later, it approved the Declaration of Independence, writ- ten by Thomas Jefferson and revised by the Congress before approval. (See the Appendix for the full text.) Most of the Declaration consists of a lengthy list of grievances directed against King George III, ranging from quartering troops in colonial homes to imposing taxes without the colonists’ consent. Britain’s aim, it declared, was to establish “absolute tyranny” over the colonies. One clause in Jefferson’s draft, which condemned the inhumanity of the slave trade The Coming of I ndependence ★ 199  and criticized the king for overturning colonial laws that sought to restrict the importation of slaves, was deleted by the Congress at the insistence of Geor- gia and South Carolina. The Declaration’s enduring impact came not from the complaints against George III but from Jefferson’s preamble, especially the second paragraph, which begins, “We hold these truths to be s­ elf-​ ­evident, that all men are created equal, America as a Symbol of Liberty, a 1775 engrav- ing from the cover of the Pennsylvania Magazine, that they are endowed by their Creator edited by Thomas Paine soon after his arrival in with certain unalienable Rights, that America. The shield displays the colony’s coat of among these are Life, Liberty, and the arms. The female figure holding a liberty cap is pursuit of Happiness.” By “unalienable surrounded by weaponry of the patriotic struggle, including a cartridge box marked “liberty,” hang- rights,” Jefferson meant rights so basic, ing from a tree (right). so rooted in human nature itself (or in what John Locke had called the state of nature), that no government could take them away. Jefferson then went on to justify the breach with Britain. Government, he wrote, derives its powers from “the consent of the governed.” When a govern- ment threatens its subjects’ natural rights, the people have the authority “to alter or to abolish it.” The Declaration of Independence is ultimately an asser- tion of the right of revolution. The Declaration and American Freedom The Declaration of Independence changed forever the meaning of American freedom. It completed the shift from the rights of Englishmen to the rights of mankind as the object of American independence. In Jefferson’s language, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” not the British constitution or the heritage of the freeborn Englishman, justified independence. No longer a set of specific rights, no longer a privilege to be enjoyed by a corporate body or people in certain social circumstances, liberty had become a universal entitlement. Jefferson’s argument (natural rights, the right to resist arbitrary authority, etc.) drew on the writings of John Locke, who, as explained in the ­previous ­chapter, saw government as resting on a “social contract,” violation of which destroyed the legitimacy of authority. But when Jefferson substituted the “pur- suit of happiness” for property in the familiar Lockean triad that opens the Declaration, he tied the new nation’s star to an ­open-​­ended, democratic pro- cess whereby individuals d ­ evelop their own potential and seek to realize their 200 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  What key events marked the move toward American independence? own life goals. Individual ­self-​­fulfillment, unimpeded by government, would become a central element of American freedom. Tradition would no longer rule the present, and Americans could shape their society as they saw fit. An Asylum for Mankind A distinctive definition of nationality resting on American freedom was born in the Revolution. From the beginning, the idea of “American exceptional- ism”—the belief that the United States has a special mission to serve as a refuge from tyranny, a symbol of freedom, and a model for the rest of the ­world—​­has occupied a central place in American nationalism. The new nation declared itself, in the words of Virginia leader James Madison, the “workshop of liberty to the Civilized World.” Paine’s remark in Common Sense, “we have it in our power to begin the world over again,” and his description of the new nation as an “asylum for mankind” expressed a sense that the Revolution was an event of global historical importance. Countless sermons, political tracts, and news- paper articles of the time repeated this idea. Unburdened by the ­institutions—​ ­monarchy, aristocracy, hereditary ­privilege—​­that oppressed the peoples of the Old World, America and America alone was the place where the principle of universal freedom could take root. This was why Jefferson addressed the Decla- ration to “the opinions of mankind,” not just the colonists themselves or Great Britain. First to add his name to the Declaration of Independence was the Massachu- setts merchant John Hancock, president of the Second Continental Congress, with a signature so large, he declared, according to legend, that King George III could read it without his spectacles. The Global Declaration of Independence Even apart from the Declaration of Independence, 1776 was a momentous year in North America. Spain established Mission Dolores, the first Euro- pean settlement at San Francisco, in an effort to block Russian advances on the Pacific coast. In San Diego, local Indians rebelled, unsuccessfully, against Spanish rule. The Lakota Sioux, migrating westward from Minnesota, settled in the Black Hills of North Dakota, their homeland for the next century. All these places and peoples would eventually become part of the United States, but, of course, no one knew this in 1776. Meanwhile, the struggle for independence reverberated around the globe. The American colonists were less concerned with securing human rights for all mankind than with winning international recognition in their struggle for inde- pendence from Britain. But Jefferson hoped that this rebellion would become The Coming of I ndependence ★ 201  VOICES OF FREEDOM From Samuel Seabury, an Alarm to the Legislature of the Province in ­New-​­York (1775) An Anglican minister and graduate of Yale College, Samuel Seabury was a devoted loyalist, who in 1774 and 1775 published several pam­phlets opposing the revolution- ary movement. He remained in the United States after the War of Independence and became the new nation’s first Episcopal bishop. The unhappy contention we have entered into with our parent state, would inevita- bly be attended with many disagreeable circumstances, with many and great inconve- niences to us, even were it conducted on our part, with propriety and moderation. What then must be the case, when all proper and moderate measures are rejected?... When every scheme that tends to peace, is branded with ignominy; as being the machination of slavery! When nothing is called FREEDOM but SEDITION! Nothing LIBERTY but REBELLION! I will not presume to encroach so far upon your time, as to attempt to point out the causes of our unnatural contention with Great Britain.... Nor will I attempt to trace out the progress of that infatuation, which hath so deeply, so miserably, infected the ­Colonies.... Most, if not all the measures that have been adopted, have been illegal in their beginning, tyrannical in their operation.... A Committee, chosen in a tumultuous, illegal manner, usurped the most despotic authority over the province. They entered into contracts, compacts, combinations, treaties of alliance, with the other colonies, without any power from the legislature of the province. They agreed with the other Colonies to send Delegates to meet in convention at Philadelphia, to determine upon the rights and liberties of the good people of this province, unsupported by any Law.... The state to which the Grand Congress, and the subordinate Committees, have reduced the colonies, is really deplorable. They have introduced a system of the most oppressive tyranny that can possibly be imagined;—a tyranny, not only over the actions, but over the words, thoughts, and minds, of the good people of this province. People have been threatened with the vengeance of a mob, for speaking in support of order and good government.... Behold, Gentlemen, behold the wretched state to which we are reduced! A foreign power is brought in to govern this province. Laws made at Philadelphia, by factious men from ­New-​­England, ­New-​­Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas, are imposed upon us by the most imperious menaces. Money is levied upon us without the consent of our representatives.... Mobs and riots are encouraged, in order to force submission to the tyranny of the Congress. 202 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  From Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776) A recent emigrant from England, Thomas Paine in January 1776 published Common Sense, a highly influential pamphlet that in stirring language made the case for American independence. In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and com- mon sense.... Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distin- guished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.... ​One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so fre- quently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ass for a lion.... The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. ’Tis not the affair of a city, a coun- try, a province, or a kingdom, but of a ­continent—​­of at least one eighth part of the habit- able globe. ’Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the context, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceed- ings now. Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honor.... I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show a single advantage that this continent can reap by being connected with Great Britain.... ​But the injuries and dis- advantages which we ­sustain by that connection, are without number.... ​Any submission to, or dependence on, Great Britain, tends directly to involve this Continent in European wars and quarrels, and set us at variance with nations who would otherwise seek our friendship, and against whom we have neither anger nor complaint. O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but QU E STIONS the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of 1. Why does Seabury believe the Continental the old world is overrun with oppres- Congress and local committees are under- sion. Freedom hath been hunted round mining Americans’ liberties? the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a 2. What does Paine see as the global signifi- stranger, and England hath given her cance of the American struggle for indepen- warning to depart. O! Receive the fugi- dence? tive, and prepare in time an asylum for 3. How do the two writers differ in their view mankind. of the main threats to American freedom? V O I C E S O F F R E E D O M ★ 203 “the signal of arousing men to burst the chains... ​and to assume the blessings and security of ­self-​­government.” And for more than two centuries, the Declara- tion has remained an inspiration not only to generations of Americans denied the enjoyment of their natural rights, but to colonial peoples around the world seeking independence. The Declaration quickly appeared in French and German translations, although not, at first, in Spanish, since the government feared it would inspire dangerous ideas among the peoples of Spain’s American empire. In the years since 1776, numerous anticolonial movements have modeled their own declarations of independence on America’s. The first came in Flan- ders (part of today’s Belgium, then part of the Austrian empire), where rebels in 1790 echoed Jefferson’s words by declaring that their province “is and of rights ought to be, a Free and Independent State.” Today, more than half the countries in the world, in places as f­ ar-​­flung as China (issued after the revo- lution of 1911) and Vietnam (1945), have such declarations. Many of these documents, like Jefferson’s, listed grievances against an imperial power to jus- tify revolution. Few of these documents, however, have affirmed the natural ­rights—​­life, liberty, and the pursuit of ­happiness—​­Jefferson invoked. Over time, the Declaration in a global context has become an assertion of the right of various groups to form independent states, rather than a list of the rights of citizens that their governments could not abridge. But even more than the specific language of the Declaration, the principle that legitimate political authority rests on the will of “the people” has been adopted around the world. In 1780, even as the American War of Independence raged, a ­Jesuit-​­educated Indian of Peru took the name of the last Inca ruler, Túpac Amaru, and led an uprising against Spanish rule. By the time it was sup- pressed in 1783, some 10,000 Spanish and 100,000 Indians had perished. In the Dutch, French, and Spanish empires, where European governments had been trying to tighten their control much as the British had done in North America, local elites demanded greater autonomy, often drawing on the constitutional arguments of American patriots. The idea that “the people” possess rights was quickly internationalized. Slaves in the Caribbean, colonial subjects in India, and indigenous inhabitants of Latin America could all speak this language, to the dismay of those who exercised power over them. SECURING INDEPENDENCE The Balance of Power Declaring Americans independent was one thing; winning independence another. The newly created American army confronted the greatest military power on earth. Viewing the Americans as traitors, Britain resolved to crush 204 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  How were American forces able to prevail in the Revolutionary War? the rebellion. On the surface, the balance of power seemed heavily weighted in Britain’s favor. It had a ­well-​­trained army (supplemented by hired soldiers from German states like Hesse), the world’s most powerful navy, and experienced military commanders. The Americans had to rely on local militias and an inad- equately equipped Continental army. Washington himself felt that militiamen were too “accustomed to unbounded freedom” to accept the “proper degree of subordination” necessary in soldiers. Moreover, many Americans were not enthusiastic about independence, and some actively supported the British. On the other hand, many American soldiers did not lack military experience, having fought in the Seven Years’ War or undergone intensive militia training in the early 1770s. They were fighting on their own soil for a cause that inspired devotion and sacrifice. During the eight years of war from 1775 to 1783, some 200,000 men bore arms in the American army (whose soldiers were volunteers) and militias (where service was required of every ­able-​­bodied man unless he pro- vided a substitute). As the war progressed, enlistment waned among propertied Americans and the Continental army increasingly drew on young men with lim- ited economic ­prospects—​­landless sons of farmers, indentured servants, laborers, and ­African-​­Americans. The patriots suffered dearly for the cause. Of the colonies’ free white male population aged sixteen to f­orty-​­five, one in twenty died in the War of Independence, the equivalent of nearly 3 million deaths in today’s popu- lation. But so long as the Americans maintained an army in the field, the idea of independence remained alive no matter how much territory the British occupied. Despite British power, to conquer the thirteen colonies would be an enor- mous and expensive task, and it was not at all certain that the public at home wished to pay the additional taxes that a lengthy war would require. The ­British, moreover, made a string of serious mistakes. From the outset the British misjudged the degree of support for independence among the American pop- ulation, as well as the capacity of American c­ itizen-​­soldiers. “These people,” admitted the British general Thomas Gage, “show a spirit and conduct against us that they never showed against the French [in the Seven Years’ War], and everybody has judged them from their former appearance and behavior, which has led many into great mistakes.” Moreover, European rivals, notably France, welcomed the prospect of a British defeat. If the Americans could forge an alli- ance with France, a world power second only to Britain, it would go a long way toward equalizing the balance of forces. Blacks in the Revolution At the war’s outset, George Washington refused to accept black recruits. But he changed his mind after Lord Dunmore’s 1775 proclamation, which offered freedom to slaves who joined the British cause. Some 5,000 blacks enlisted in Securing I ndependence ★ 205 The Yankee Doodle Intrenchments near Boston, a 1776 British cartoon depicting the ­American revolutionaries as unimposing citizen soldiers egged o ­ n—​­according to the ­accompanying ­text—​­by a thieving commander and a reckless Puritan minister. The British greatly underestimated Americans’ fighting ability in the War of Independence. One member of Parliament in 1775 claimed the colonists “were neither soldiers, nor could be made so,” as they were naturally cowardly and “incapable of any sort of order or discipline.” state militias and the Continental army and navy. Since individuals drafted into the militia were allowed to provide a substitute, slaves suddenly gained consid- erable bargaining power. Not a few acquired their freedom by agreeing to serve in place of an owner or his son. In 1778, Rhode Island, with a higher propor- tion of slaves in its population than any other New England state, formed a black regiment and promised freedom to slaves who enlisted, while compen- sating the owners for their loss of property. Blacks who fought under George Washington and in other state militias did so in racially integrated companies (although invariably under white officers). They were the last black American soldiers to do so officially until the Korean War (except for the few black and white soldiers who fought alongside each other in irregular units at the end of World War II). 206 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  How were American forces able to prevail in the Revolutionary War? American Foot Soldiers, Yorktown Campaign, a 1781 watercolor by a French officer, includes a black soldier from the First Rhode Island Regiment, an a ­ ll-​­black unit of 250 men. Except for South Carolina and Georgia, the southern colonies also enrolled free blacks and slaves to fight. They were not explicitly promised freedom, but many received it individually after the war ended. And in 1783, the Virginia leg- islature emancipated slaves who had “contributed towards the establishment of American liberty and independence” by serving in the army. Fighting on the side of the British also offered opportunities for freedom. Before his forces were expelled from Virginia, 800 or more slaves had escaped from their owners to join Lord Dunmore’s Ethiopian Regiment, wearing, accord- ing to legend, uniforms that bore the motto “Liberty to Slaves.” During the war, blacks fought with the British in campaigns in New York, New Jersey, and South Carolina. Other escaped slaves served the Royal Army as spies, guided their troops through swamps, and worked as military cooks, laundresses, and con- struction workers. George Washington himself saw seventeen of his slaves flee to the British, some of whom signed up to fight the colonists. “There is not a man of them, but would leave us, if they believed they could make their escape,” his cousin Lund Washington reported. “Liberty is sweet.” The First Years of the War Had the British commander, Sir William Howe, prosecuted the war more vigor- ously at the outset, he might have nipped the rebellion in the bud by destroying Washington’s army. But while Washington suffered numerous defeats in the Securing I ndependence ★ 207 first years of the war, he generally avoided direct confrontations with the British and managed to keep his army intact. Having abandoned Boston, Howe attacked New York City in the summer of 1776. Washington’s army had likewise moved from Massachusetts to Brooklyn to defend the city. Howe pushed American forces back and almost cut off Washington’s retreat across the East River. Wash- ington managed to escape to Manhattan and then north to Peekskill, where he crossed the Hudson River to New Jersey. But the 3,000 men he had left behind at Fort Washington on Manhattan Island were captured by Howe. Howe pursued the American army but never managed to inflict a decisive defeat. Demoralized by successive failures, however, many American soldiers simply went home. Once 28,000 men, Washington’s army dwindled to fewer than 3,000. Indeed, Washington feared that without a decisive victory, it would melt away entirely. To restore morale and regain the initiative, he launched suc- cessful surprise attacks on Hessian soldiers at Trenton, New Jersey, on Decem- ber 26, 1776, and on a British force at Princeton on January 3, 1777. Shortly before crossing the Delaware River to attack the Hessians, Washington had Thomas Paine’s inspiring essay The American Crisis read to his troops. “These are the times that try men’s souls,” Paine wrote. “The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” The Battle of Saratoga In the summer of 1777, a second British army, led by General John Burgoyne, advanced south from Canada hoping to link up with Howe and isolate New England. But in July, Howe instead moved his forces from New York City to attack Philadelphia. In September, the Continental Congress fled to Lancaster, in central Pennsylvania, and Howe occupied the City of Brotherly Love. Not having been informed of Burgoyne’s plans, Howe had unintentionally aban- doned him. American forces blocked Burgoyne’s way, surrounded his army, and on October 17, 1777, forced him to surrender at the Battle of Saratoga. The victory provided a significant boost to American morale. During the winter of 1777–1778, the British army, now commanded by Sir Henry Clinton, was quartered in Philadelphia. (In the Revolution, as in most ­eighteenth-​­century wars, fighting came to a halt during the winter.) British officers took part in an elegant social life complete with balls and parties. Most notable was the great Meschianza, an extravaganza that included a regatta, a procession of medieval knights, and a jousting tournament. Meanwhile, Wash- ington’s army remained encamped at Valley Forge, where they suffered terribly from the frigid weather. Men who had other options simply went home. By the end of that difficult winter, recent immigrants and ­African-​­Americans made up 208 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  How were American forces able to prevail in the Revolutionary War? T H E R E V O L U T I O N A R Y WA R I N T H E N O R T H , 1 7 7 5 – 1 7 8 1 BRITISH R. NORTH AMERICA ce ren (CANADA). L aw St MAINE Halifax (part of Massachusetts) La Burgoyne ke Fort Ticonderoga H u ro n July 1777 NEW HAMPSHIRE Lake Ontario Concord Bennington April 1775 Saratoga Aug. 1777 e Oct. 1777 Lexington How April 1775 Fort Detroit Albany Boston ie NEW YORK MA e Er Bunker Hill Lak June 1775 we CT RI Ho Washington PENNSYLVANIA New York City Morristown Sep. 1776 Trenton New York Dec. 1776 Valley Forge Princeton on Jan. 1777 Cli nt York R Philadelphia io. MARYLAND NEW JERSEY Oh DELAWARE At lant ic Oc ean VIRGINIA NORTH CAROLINA British victories American victories Forts British troop movements SOUTH 0 100 200 miles American troop movements CAROLINA 0 100 200 kilometers Proclamation Line of 1763 Key battles in the North during the War of Independence included Lexington and Concord, which began the armed conflict; the campaign in New York and New Jersey; and Saratoga, sometimes called the turning point of the war. half the soldiers at Valley Forge and most of the rest were landless or unskilled laborers. But Saratoga helped to persuade the French that American victory was possible. In 1778, American diplomats led by Benjamin Franklin concluded a Treaty of Amity and Commerce in which France recognized the United States and agreed to supply military assistance. Still smarting from their defeat in the Securing I ndependence ★ 209 Seven Years’ War, the French hoped to weaken Britain, their main European rival, and perhaps regain some of their lost influence and territory in the West- ern Hemisphere. Soon afterward, Spain also joined the war on the American side. French assistance would play a decisive part in the war’s end. At the out- set, however, the French fleet showed more interest in attacking British out- posts in the West Indies than in directly aiding the Americans. And the Spanish confined themselves to regaining control of Florida, which they had lost to the British in the Seven Years’ War. Nonetheless, French and Spanish entry trans- formed the War of Independence into a global conflict. By putting the British on the defensive in places ranging from Gibraltar to the West Indies, it greatly complicated their military prospects. The War in the South In 1778, the focus of the war shifted to the South. Here the British hoped to exploit the social tensions between backcountry farmers and wealthy plant- ers that had surfaced in the Regulator movements, to enlist the support of the numerous colonists in the region who remained loyal to the crown, and to dis- rupt the economy by encouraging slaves to escape. In December 1778, British forces occupied Savannah, Georgia. In May 1780, Clinton captured Charleston, South Carolina, and with it an American army of 5,000 men. The year 1780 was arguably the low point of the struggle for independence. Congress was essentially bankrupt, and the army went months without being paid. The British seemed successful in playing upon social conflicts within the colonies, as thousands of southern Loyalists joined up with British forces (four- teen regiments from Savannah alone) and tens of thousands of slaves sought freedom by fleeing to British lines. In August, Lord Charles Cornwallis routed an American army at Camden, South Carolina. The following month one of Washington’s ablest commanders, Benedict Arnold, defected and almost suc- ceeded in turning over to the British the important fort at West Point on the Hudson River. On January 1, 1781, 1,500 disgruntled Pennsylvania soldiers sta- tioned near Morristown, New Jersey, killed three officers and marched toward Philadelphia, where Congress was meeting. Their mutiny ended when the soldiers were promised discharges or bounties for reenlistment. Harsher treat- ment awaited a group of New Jersey soldiers who also mutinied. On Washing- ton’s orders, two of their leaders were executed. But the British failed to turn these advantages into victory. British com- manders were unable to consolidate their hold on the South. Wherever their forces went, American militias harassed them. H ­ it-​­and-​­run attacks by militia- men under Francis Marion, called the “swamp fox” because his men emerged from hiding places in swamps to strike swiftly and then disappear, eroded the 210 ★ CHAPTER 5 The A m er i c an Revol uti on  How were American forces able to prevail in the Revolutionary War? T H E R E V O L U T I O N A R Y WA R I N T H E S O U T H , 1 7 7 5 – 1 7 8 1 Lake Erie nd la g Is New York Lo n NEW PENNSYLVANIA JERSEY 81) beau. 17ocham Sus qu Philadelphia eh d R York an ug ton (A an na g hin R. s Po tom MARYLAND Wa ac. io R R. Oh DELAWARE R. Mt. Vernon h oa nd Shena Lafayette VIRGINIA Kanaw R. ha es Richmond R. Jam Chesapeake Yorktown Bay Aug. 30–Oct. 19, 1781 Roan 1 ) 78 eR ok. ( 1 ne Gree Guilford Court House March 15, 1781 Hillsborough NORTH 8 1) CAROLINA 1) (17 Greensboro pril 178 e ne r e Greene (1781) Co dG r nwa llis (A llis an gan nwa (17 Mor Charlotte 81) Cor Cowpens Sou th rk) Jan. 17, 1781 R Yo. w Ne Wilmington Pee m ro Camden Dee