Readings #1: Discontent in the Colonies, PDF

Discontent in the Colonies In 1763, British...

Discontent in the Colonies In 1763, British power stretched from India to North America and the Caribbean, but the cost of creating the empire was high. Britain was facing an enormous postwar debt and already‐ high taxes as well as the need to finance the administration of its newly acquired lands. The British expected the American colonies, which prospered during the Seven Years' War through lucrative military contracts despite additional taxes, to assume at least part of the financial burden. The colonists had expectations as well: unfettered access to Forts and battles of Pontiac's War (Creative Commons - Kevin Myers) western lands, for example. Although most considered themselves English subjects and were proud to have helped Britain win an empire, a sense of American identity was developing. The colonists had gained greater control over their lives during the war, through their colonial assemblies' exacting concessions from royal governors as the price for raising revenue, and whether the colonists would again meekly accept the role of imperial subject was unknown. The Seven Years' War had begun over control of the Ohio River Valley; affairs in that region became the first issue the British faced in governing their new empire. France's Indian allies certainly knew that the British victory meant more and more settlers would flood onto their lands. In the spring of 1763, Pontiac, an Ottawa leader, formed a coalition of tribes to drive the British off the western lands. Pontiac's Rebellion caused chaos in the Great Lakes region as his forces overran eight British forts and threatened both Detroit and Pittsburgh. The British fought back by giving Indians smallpox‐infected blankets, an early example of biological warfare. Although Pontiac himself did not agree to peace until 1766, Parliament tried to placate the Indians through legislation. The Proclamation of 1763. Intended to keep the colonists and Ohio Valley tribes separated as much as possible, the Proclamation of 1763 established a boundary running along the crest of the Appalachian Mountains. Unlicensed traders and settlers were banned west of the boundary. The colonists considered the proclamation a challenge to their land claims and continued pushing west, rendering its orders ineffective. Within a few years, British Indian agents negotiated treaties with the Iroquois, Cherokee, and other tribes, opening up large areas of western New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia to settlement. The Proclamation of 1763 represented an attempt by Britain to exercise greater control over the colonies. The Sugar Act, passed by Parliament in 1764, had the same goal. For more than a century, the Navigation Acts had loosely regulated colonial trade to protect British commerce and manufacturing from competition; the duties imposed on the imports and exports were not intended to raise revenue. The Sugar Act reversed this policy; indeed, the law was officially called the American Revenue Act. By reducing the tax on molasses from the French West Indies and providing for stricter enforcement against smugglers through British vice‐admiralty courts, Britain hoped to raise enough money to offset the cost of maintaining troops in the colonies. (Fair Use) The Stamp Act. The Stamp Act required the use of specially marked paper or the affixing of stamps on all wills, contracts, other legal documents, newspapers, and even playing cards. Any colonist who bought a newspaper or engaged in any business transaction was required to pay the tax, and violators faced severe penalties. In contrast to the duties charged under the Navigation Acts and even the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act charges represented the first internal tax, falling directly on the goods and services in the colonies. Some British leaders, most notably William Pitt, objected strenuously to the Stamp Act because it raised the question of taxation without representation. Prime Minister George Grenville countered that all British subjects enjoyed virtual representation; that is, the members of Parliament represented not only the constituents of their district but the interests of British citizens everywhere, including those in America. The colonists, of course, sided with Pitt and claimed that if Americans were not sitting in Parliament, there was no way the members could know their concerns and interests. The colonial reaction to the Stamp Act. To the colonists, the Stamp Act was a dangerous departure from previous policies, and they were determined to resist it. The Virginia House of Burgesses, led by Patrick Henry, passed resolutions against the legislation. Violent protests broke out in several of the colonies, led by groups calling themselves the Sons of Liberty. Stamp distributors were hung in effigy and suffered the destruction of their homes. In October 1765, representatives from nine colonies met as the Stamp Act Congress, which agreed that Parliament had the right to enact laws for the colonies but not to impose direct taxes. As the effective date of the Stamp Act approached (November 1, 1765), the colonists simply refused to use the stamps and organized an effective boycott of British goods. To prevent business from coming to a halt, royal officials backed away from requiring stamps on legal documents. While Parliament was surprised by the extent of the colonial reaction, British manufacturers and merchants were distressed. Pointing out that the boycott could have serious economic repercussions at home, they demanded and got the repeal of the Stamp Act in March 1766. The revocation was more expedient than principled, and Parliament made it clear by passing the Declaratory Act on the same day that it still had the right to legislate for the colonies. The policies of Charles Townshend. Charles Townshend became prime minister of Great Britain in 1767. He had opposed the Stamp Act, and the colonies initially hoped he would pursue more reasonable policies for North America. They were quickly disillusioned. Responding to protests in New York over the Quartering (or Mutiny) Act of 1765, which required colonial legislatures to pay for supplies needed  by British troops, Townshend threatened to nullify all laws passed by the colony unless the payments were made. New York backed down but understood that the threat clearly interfered with colonial self‐government. Townshend was just as committed as Grenville to raising revenues from the colonies. The Revenue Act of 1767, better known as the Townshend duties, taxed American imports of glass, lead, paper, paint, and tea. Because the new duties were external taxes unlike those of the Stamp Act, Townshend believed there would be little opposition; the colonists had moved beyond the distinction between internal and external taxes, however. John Dickinson, whose Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania was published in almost every newspaper in the colonies, argued that Parliament could not tax commerce for revenue purposes because that power resided in the colonial assemblies alone. Townshend had also created the American Board of Customs Commissioners to regulate the collection of the duties. Its soon‐hated agents and commissioners used their office to enrich themselves by levying heavy fines for technical violations, to spy on alleged violators, and even to seize property for dubious reasons. The Massachusetts House of Representatives circulated a letter, the Massachusetts Circular Letter, drafted by Samuel Adams, protesting Townshend's policies and again raising the issue of “no taxation without representation.” When the letter was not rescinded, the legislature was dissolved by the royal governor on orders from London. A boycott again proved to be the most effective weapon the colonists wielded in their ongoing confrontation with Parliament. Merchants as well as consumers in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia and then throughout the colonies agreed not to import or use British goods. Colonial women joined the Daughters of Liberty, supporting the boycott by making their own thread and cloth. As a direct result of the boycott, the value of colonial imports from Britain dropped significantly from 1768 to 1769, a loss far exceeding the revenue Charles Townshend (Public Domain) generated by the Townshend duties. Parliament repealed the law for all goods except tea in 1770. The Boston Massacre. Rioting in Boston over the actions of the Board of Customs Commissioners brought British soldiers to the city in October 1768. Over the next few years, animosity toward the soldiers grew and finally boiled over on March 5, 1770, when troops fired on a crowd of rock‐throwing demonstrators, killing five. Although the soldiers had been provoked, and several were later brought to trial, patriots Samuel Adams and Paul Revere tried to use the incident to stir up anti‐British passions. In fact, the “Boston Massacre” did not trigger further resistance, and tensions between the colonies and Britain eased, although temporarily. Drifting toward Revolution Two events in 1772 brought the period of calm to an end. Rhode Island colonists burned the British ship Gaspee, which had run aground while patrolling for smugglers. Although the authorities ultimately found no one to prosecute, colonists learned that the plan had been to send the culprits to London for trial. At about the same time, the British government announced that the salaries of the Massachusetts governor and judges would henceforth be paid by the Crown, not the colonial legislature. Both incidents suggested that Britain was determined to undermine colonial liberties, and together they led to the formation of committees of correspondence. Created in Massachusetts to bring news of British abuses to town meetings, they promoted political education among the colonists and whipped up anti‐British sentiment; by 1773, hundreds were operating nearly throughout the colonies. The Tea Act and Boston Tea Party. In an attempt to rescue the almost bankrupt East India Company, Prime Minister Lord North gave the business a monopoly on the sale and distribution of tea in the colonies. The Tea Act (1773) lowered the price on tea to a point that not even the smugglers could match, and Parliament expected the colonists to welcome the windfall. North miscalculated the reaction to the tea monopoly just as Townshend had misjudged colonial reception of the external taxes. Revenue from the tea tax, despite the low price to consumers, cemented Parliament's right to tax the colonists, which was unacceptable to many Americans. In Boston, colonists insisted that tea shipments be sent back to England without payment of the customs duties. When the governor refused, Bostonians, led by Samuel Adams, took matters into their own hands. Fifty men disguised as Mohawk Indians boarded one of the ships and threw the entire cargo of tea into the harbor. The Boston Tea Party (December 16, 1773) was a crucial turning point. The colonists had moved beyond boycotts to the destruction of property, and as far as Lord North and King George III were concerned, the new issue was whether and how Britain would regain control over the colonies.  Taxes & Smuggling - Prelude to Revolution: Crash Course U… U… The Coercive Acts. In response to the Boston Tea Party, Parliament passed a series of punitive measures against Massachusetts. The Coercive Acts (called the Intolerable Acts in the colonies) closed the port of Boston until the cost of the tea and customs charges were repaid; revoked parts of the Massachusetts charter, letting the king select members for the legislature's upper house and the governor appoint most officials; and allowed British troops and royal officials accused of a capital offense while carrying out their duties to be tried in another colony or in England. A new Quartering Act, which applied to all the colonies, permitted the governors to house soldiers in private houses or buildings. Around the same time, Parliament enacted the Quebec Act, which recognized Catholicism as the official religion of Quebec. The act was an affront to Protestant Anglo‐Americans, particularly in New England. More important, the Ohio River was made the southern boundary of Quebec, taking territory that Massachusetts, Virginia, and Connecticut claimed. Clearly, the Coercive Acts were aimed not just at Massachusetts but all the colonies. Prior loosely coordinated colonial responses to English laws were judged to be inadequate this time, and calls went out for a meeting of representatives to develop a joint plan of action. Twelve of the thirteen colonies (only Georgia did not send a delegation) participated in the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia during September and October 1774. The First Continental Congress. Although the representatives attending the First Continental Congress endorsed the Massachusetts Suffolk Resolves, a set of statements which in addition to condemning the Coercive Acts called on the colonists to form their own militias, the final declaration adopted by the Congress was considerably more moderate. The grievances and resolves were essentially a condemnation of Parliament for denying the colonists the rights and privileges they traditionally enjoyed as English subjects. In matters of taxation and internal policy, the colonies, through their legislatures, were free to chart their own course, subject only to a veto by the king. The declaration sought the repeal of all legislation enacted since 1763 that ran counter to this basic principle, including the Intolerable Acts, and a redress of their grievances by appealing not to Parliament but to the Crown and the British people. The Congress was clearly not prepared to completely break with Britain. To specifically fight the Coercive Acts, the representatives agreed to suspend all economic ties—imports, exports, and consumption—with Great Britain. While several colonies had already approved nonimportation agreements, the economic plan was significant in several respects. First, it included a ban on the importation of slaves, not out any moral concern over the evils of slavery but because of the impact a ban would have on the British slave‐trade monopoly. Second, the boycott was to be enforced through the committees of correspondence operating under rules set by the newly created Continental Association. Start of the American Revolution Some hoped the colonies could put enough economic pressure on Great Britain to prevent the crisis from escalating. Imports dropped by more than ninety percent from 1774 to 1775, and English merchants were appealing to Parliament to compromise with the colonies as early as January 1775. William Pitt in the House of Lords and Edmund Burke in the House of Commons also urged reconciliation, and Lord North was developing his own plan. But events in Massachusetts were moving quickly toward armed conflict. Lexington and Concord. General Thomas Gage, the military governor of Massachusetts, began fortifying Boston in the fall of 1774; colonists meanwhile prepared militias, organizing small, armed groups ready for quick action as Minute Men. In the spring, Gage was ordered to arrest radical leaders and put down what was considered to be an open rebellion in the colony, despite the discussions underway in Parliament. To warn of the impending movement of British troops, William Dawes and Paul Revere rode out to alert the local townspeople and farmers. On April 19, colonials and British soldiers faced each other on the town green at Lexington. Shots were fired, leaving eight colonists dead. The British continued on to Concord, where militia supplies were stored, and confronted another group of Americans, exchanging fire. Colonists continued to harass the British as they marched backed to Boston, killing or wounding 273 by the end of the engagement. Paul Revere's Ride - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (Perform… (Perform… The rebellion quickly spread. The British garrison in Boston was besieged, and the Green Mountain Boys of Vermont, led by Ethan Allen, captured Fort Ticonderoga with the intention of using its cannon in Boston. The Battle of Bunker Hill (June 17, 1775), the first major confrontation of the American Revolution, was a British victory but at the cost of more than a thousand men. The Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia as the fighting raged. The Second Continental Congress. The outbreak of hostilities still did not mean the colonies were prepared to declare their independence. Indeed, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Olive Branch Petition, professing loyalty to the Crown and appealing to George III to end the bloodshed so outstanding issues between the colonies and Great Britain could be worked out. Even the statement justifying the taking up of arms rejected independence as a solution, though it underscored the colonists' commitment to fight for their rights. Nevertheless, circumstances dictated that the Congress assume governmental responsibilities: a letter was sent to Canada asking for its support, or at least neutrality, in the fighting; the troops around Boston were declared a Continental Army, and George Washington was named commander; approval was given for the appointment of commissioners to negotiate treaties with the Indians and for the establishment of a postal service. By the time the Second Continental Congress reopened in September, George III had rejected the Olive Branch Petition, and New England was proclaimed in a state of rebellion. In December, Parliament closed the colonies to all trade. For its part, the Congress created a navy and sounded out the European powers on their position toward the colonies. France, not surprisingly, eventually became a critical ally for the Americans. The balance of forces. At first glance, Great Britain appeared to have enormous advantages over the colonies. The British had a professional army, eventually putting more than one hundred thousand men in the field along with thirty thousand German (Hessian) mercenaries. These troops were well armed, supplied, and trained. Britain could draw on vast economic resources and had the largest navy in the world, but it did face serious problems. Supplying their forces in the colonies and communicating effectively with commanders across an ocean were difficult. The cost of war meant still higher taxes for a country saddled with debts from previous conflicts. It was an open question just how long the British would continue paying to keep the colonies in the empire. The Olive Branch Petition (Fair Use) The Americans were fighting on their soil for their own liberties and, in short order, their independence, all advantages to their side. George Washington, in spite of his limited military experience, proved to be an adept leader. Compromising his ability to lead the more than two hundred thousand men who fought in the war were the poorly trained and undisciplined militias. In addition, food, medicine, and ammunition were often in short supply because the Continental Congress had no power to compel the colonies to provide what was needed. Nor did the colonies fulfill their quotas for troops for the Continental Army. Perhaps the most serious handicap was the significant number of Americans who not only opposed the war but sided with the British. Loyalists versus Patriots. British sympathizers were called Loyalists or Tories; backers of the fight against England were known as Whigs or Patriots. An estimated twenty percent of Americans, unevenly distributed throughout the colonies, supported Great Britain. The Loyalists included government officials whose positions and livelihoods were tied to the empire, merchants who were dependent on British trade (New York City was a Loyalist stronghold), and those who believed that a break with Britain would lead to instability or chaos. Among the last group were people who had actively opposed the Stamp Act and signed nonimportation agreements but felt that revolution was going too far. About twenty‐one thousand Loyalists fought with the British, and five times that number decided to leave the country at the end of hostilities. In a very real sense, the American Revolution was a civil war. Native Americans, including most of the powerful Iroquois nation, supported the British, for obvious reasons. During the longstanding dispute over western lands, it was Great Britain that had issued the protective Proclamation of 1763, while the Americans increasingly moved onto Indian lands. Slaves also joined the British because they were promised their freedom; escaped slaves served in the British army as soldiers and laborers.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Across Down 3. Military Governor of Massachusetts 1. Political group in the colonies who opposed British rule 4. Colonial women who supported a boycott of British goods. Daughters 2. Acts that closed the port at Boston of: 5. Native leader who overran 8 British 6. Tree branch for which an appeal to forts the Crown was made to end the bloodshed of the early revolution 7. Act that reaffirmed Britain's right to legislate for the colonies