Download
1 / 20
200 likes | 305 Views
A series of new taxes and enforcement procedures further demonstrated that the British were going to change the rules on the colonies and further alienated colonists.
E N D
A series of new taxes and enforcement procedures further demonstrated that the British were going to change the rules on the colonies and further alienated colonists. Sugar Act, 1764; (a.k.a. Revenue Act): First in a series of laws enacted to force colonists to pay a portion of their defense. It actually reduced the tax on molasses, but now the tariff would be enforced. The Act also levied taxes on textiles, wine, coffee, indigo, and sugar. Currency Act, 1764: A chronic shortage of hard currency (specie) plagued the colonies. To overcome it, many colonies began printing paper money. British creditors feared payment in paper because of inflation. They wanted to be paid in gold or silver. The Currency Act prohibited colonies from paying debts with paper money. Paper money throughout the colonies lost value because no one would accept it. The combination of new taxes and the requirement to pay debts and taxes in specie sent shock waves through the colonial economy.
Developments in 1765 made many colonists even more nervous about Parliament’s authority. Stamp Act, 1765: Enacted in February and to take effect in November, the law imposed a tax on all printed materials and legal documents: deeds, leases, licenses, wills, newspapers, pamphlets, etc. What made the tax even more troubling to colonists was that it was a direct tax: a tax added and paid directly rather than hidden in the cost like a tariff. Many colonial leaders were hit hard by the tax and sought a way to challenge Parliament’s authority. They latched on to political theories offered by British Whigs, in the tradition of John Locke. Among the most important opponents of the tax was James Otis. By no means a radical, nor wanting colonial independence, Otis had developed an argument against the taxes in 1764, in The Rights of the British Colonists Asserted and Proved.
“The colonists will have an equitable right . . . to be represented in Parliament, or to have some new subordinate legislature among themselves. It would be best if they had both. . . . Besides the equity of an American representation in Parliament, a thousand advantages would result. . . . It would be the most effectual means of giving those of both countries a thorough knowledge of each others interests.” James Otis The key issue for the colonists was representation and governing with the consent of the people. Otis offered an argument in favor of “direct representation.” Delegates from each community would meet in an assembly, acting as agents for their constituents; they would debate, wheel-and-deal, and compromise their way to a policy satisfactory to a majority. Britain responded, arguing a concept called “virtual representation.” As Britain progressed into a more modern nation-state, regional differences diminished and were replaced by general or national interests. Thus, representation in Parliament gradually changed from local to national. Members of the House of Commons represented the interests not just of their particular constituents, but of all of the “commons.” The House of Lords, represented the interests of the gentry. Several issues made virtual representation inadequate in the colonies: (1) a more fluid social organization than Britain; (2) a more diverse population than Britain; and (3) the fundamentally different interests involved in governing a frontier settlement from governing Britain. Of course sheer distant made direct representation inadequate, as well.
“It is inseparably essential to the freedom of the people, and the undoubted rights of Englishmen, that no taxes should be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives.” Patrick Henry In May 1765, Virginia led the attack on the Stamp Act. In the House of Burgesses, Patrick Henry pushed five resolutions through despite catcalls of “treason” by his opponents. The most significant were that colonials enjoyed all the “Rights of Englishmen” and that Virginians were exempt from any tax that did not derive from their own assembly. In June 1765, Massachusetts sent invitations to each of the colonial assemblies to meet in New York to discuss a unified colonial response to the Stamp Act.
In the interim, resistance to the Stamp Act had begun. Bostonians hung an effigy of the stamp distributor from what would soon be called the “Liberty Tree” or “Liberty Pole.” Over the next month, mobs, often calling themselves the “Sons of Liberty,” attacked the homes of tax collectors and stamp distributors, and even that of the Governor. The protests had the desired effect, as stamp distributors abandoned their posts. Soon just the threat of violence was enough for colonials to get their way.
Nine colonial delegations met in the Stamp Act Congress in New York, beginning on October 7th. Georgia and New Hampshire could not afford to send delegates; Virginia and North Carolina did not send delegates because their assemblies were out of session. The Congress deliberated for three weeks and issued the “Declaration of Rights and Grievances and a petition to King George III for relief. That the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America,by the immutable laws of nature, theprinciples of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following Rights: 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property. 2. That [those] who first settled these colonies, were . . . entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural born subjects within the realm of England. 3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights. * * * 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers. 6. That they are entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes [that] they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several local and other circumstances. 7. That these, his majesty's colonies, are likewise entitled to all the immunities and privileges granted and confirmed to them by royal charters, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws. 8. That they have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the King. 9. That the keeping a Standing army in these colonies, in times of peace, without the consent of the legislature of that colony in which such army is kept, is against law. 10. It is indispensably necessary to good government . . . that the constituent branches of the legislature be independent of each other; that, therefore, the exercise of legislative power in several colonies, by a council appointed . . . by the crown is unconstitutional. . . and destructive to the freedom of American legislation.
The key point, beyond basic legal rights, in the Declaration is Part 4. wherein the Congress discusses representation. 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British parliament, as are bona fide restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members excluding every idea of taxation, internal or external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America without their consent. The Declaration warned of the actions colonies intended to take to make Parliament back down to “restore us to that state in which both countries found happiness and prosperity, we have for the present only resolved to pursue the following peaceable measures: 1. To enter into a non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement or association. 2. To prepare an address to the people of Great Britain, and a memorial to the inhabitants of British America, and 3. To prepare a loyal address to his Majesty, agreeable to resolutions already entered into.”
Parliament: What used to be the pride of the Americans? Franklin: “To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great Britain.“ Parliament: “What is now their pride?“ Franklin: “To wear their old clothes over again till they can make new ones.” Many colonies enacted “Non-importation Agreements,” establishing boycotts of all British goods. One result of the boycotts was that colonials could no longer buy British cloth or clothing. They began wearing homespun instead. This gave the revolutionary era a drab fashion, as homespun was a coarser fabric than British textiles and lacking in the variety of dye colors.
“Parliament has a right to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever.” Declaratory Act, 1766 The boycotts), lobbying by Franklin in Parliament, and support from Whigs in Parliament (notably Edmund Burke) combined to force Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act. The repeal was a victory for the colonists, but Parliament moved to reassert its authority. It drew a distinction between “external” taxes on trade (what colonials meant by indirect taxes) and “internal” taxes within the colonies (direct taxes). This left an opening to raise tariffs. Parliament also passed the Declaratory Act, which asserted Parliament’s right to enact taxes and any other laws on the colonies. Upon hearing of the Declaratory Act, John Adams wondered “whether they will lay a tax in consequence of [the] resolution.”
In 1767, Adams’ query was answered. Charles Townshend became new Chancellor of the Exchequer and sought a “painless” way to get money out of the colonies. The Revenue Act of 1767, better known as the Townshend Duties, placed tariffs (“external” taxes) on glass, lead, paper, paint, and tea. The law also set up a Board of Customs in Boston to collect the tax. Additionally, Townshend suspended all laws enacted by the New York Assembly until New Yorkers began obeying the Quartering Act of 1765. That law required colonials to provide provisions and housing to British troops stationed there. It hit New York hardest because New York was the headquarters of the British force in the colonies.
Having been caught in a trap of their own making, the colonials changed tack. They drew distinctions between tariffs for revenue and tariffs to regulate trade. The latter were acceptable; the former were not. Since the Townshend Duties were for revenue, colonists rose up against them. They rekindled the Non-Importation movement, and colonial shippers and merchants, such as John Hancock, stepped up their smuggling activities.
The new taxes also caused opponents of the laws to split over tactics. The moderate view was represented by John Dickinson in his Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer. Dickinson was a wealthy planter and a true patriot of the colonies, but he feared British power and did not want to make matters worse by resorting to mobism. He repeated the arguments of the Declaration of Rights in a clearer and more plain-spoken manner. But he stopped short of advocating violence. “The cause of Liberty,” he exclaimed, “is a cause of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult.”
Outraged by the new taxes, many colonials again called for boycotts. Among the most aggressive were the Sons of Liberty in Massachusetts, led by Samuel Adams. A young Harvard graduate, Adams inherited his family’s brewery and soon ran it into the ground. He found his calling in rebel (rabble) rousing. In 1768, in the Massachusetts Assembly, Adams and James Otis wrote the Massachusetts Circular Letter (open letter) attacking Parliament’s taxing and calling on other colonies to join Massachusetts in opposition. Meanwhile, the Royal Governor of Massachusetts dissolved the assembly. But soon the answers to the letter started arriving: the colonies supported Massachusetts.
In June 1768, tensions grew as the British tried to make an example of John Hancock. Hancock’s ship, Liberty, arrived at port with a cargo of Madeira wine. Hancock, as was his habit, declared just a part of the cargo for customs officers. The Royal Navy seized the ship for non-payment of taxes. That night, a mob collected protesting the seizure; it threw rocks at customs officers and burned a customs boat. In September, 4,000 British Regulars arrived to maintain order in Boston. According to Parliament, Massachusetts was in rebellion.
Boston Massacre “We have entertained a great variety of phrases to avoid calling this sort of people a mob. Some call them shavers, some call them geniuses. The plain English is, gentlemen, [it was] most probably a motley rabble of saucy boys, Negroes and mulattoes, Irish teagues and outlandish jackers. And why should we scruple to call such a people a mob, I can’t conceive, unless the name is too respectable for them.” John Adams The issue festered until the winter of 1770. On the cold, moonlit evening of March 5th, a group of young men began taunting a sentry with snowballs at the Customs House in Boston. Soon the snowballs turned to ice, rocks, and coal lumps. The group became a mob as several hundred converged on the Customs House. Eight soldiers reinforced the lone sentry when he called and as the mob bashed sticks together and threw whatever was at hand, the platoon fired into the crowd. By the time the dust cleared, five colonials lay dead, including an African American dockworker named Crispus Attucks, often considered the first casualty of the Revolution.
Samuel Adams called the killings “bloody butchery” and asked Paul Revere to create an illustration of the event. “Unhappy Boston! See thy sons deplore Thy hallowed walks besmear’d with guiltless gore. While faithless Preston and his savage bands, With murderous rancor stretch their bloody hands; Like fierce barbarians grinning o’er their prey, Approve the carnage and enjoy the day. If scalding drops, from rage, from anguish wrung, If speechless sorrows lab’ring for a tongue, Or if a weeping world can aught appease The plaintiff ghosts of victims such as these; The patriot’s copious tears for each are shed, A glorious tribute which enbalms the dead. But now, Fate summons to that awful goal, Where justice strips the murderer from his soul Should venal C____ts, the scandal of the land, Snatch the relentless villain from her hand, Keen execrations on this plate enscrib’d Shall reach a judge who never can be bribed.”
The Boston Massacre scared both sides. Samuels Adams and Joseph Warren continued to organize resistance, reviving the Committee of Correspondence. And in Virginia, Patrick Henry and others, including Thomas Jefferson, created a Committee of Correspondence. But as a matter, tensions and conditions eased between 1770 and 1773. Britain assisted in easing tensions by repealing the duties on all goods, except tea. The taxes on tea caused Bostonians to boycott tea, causing debt for the British East India Company. The company lobbied Parliament for assistance. The Tea Act of 1773 eliminated the duty on the company’s tea, enabling the company to sell tea at a lower price than Hancock. Hancock and his protégé, Samuel Adams, were upset by the new arrangement.
The Boston Tea Party On December 16th, 1773, the issue came to a head. Three ships carrying cargoes of tea were to land at Griffin’s Wharf. That night, Adams’ Sons of Liberty met to organize. Some dressed as Mohawk Indians others as women, they sneaked down to the wharf. They boarded the ships and tossed 45 tons of tea into the harbor. The tea washed up on the shores of Boston Harbor for weeks afterward.
The British response was quick and severe. Parliament enacted a series of laws, known as the Coercive Acts because they meant to coerce better behavior from Massachusetts, or as the Intolerable Acts because the colonials found they could not tolerate them. • Boston Port Act: closed the port of Boston to all traffic and trade. • Act for the Impartial Administration of Justice: moved all trials to Admiralty Courts in Halifax. • Massachusetts Government Act: the Royal Governor appoints the colonial council and law enforcement officers. • Quartering Act of 1774, which expanded the requirement to provide room and board for British soldiers, including in private homes, if necessary. Not officially one of the Coercive Acts, but still intolerable to colonists, Parliament also passed the Quebec Act. It set up unrepresentative government in Quebec; gave a privileged position to the Roman Catholic Church in the province; and expanded the boundary of the province to the Ohio River, encircling the Colonies. Throughout the Colonies, the Quebec Act was seen as the thin edge of a wedge whereby Britain would take representative government and the Reformed Protestant religion away from colonials.
