Transcript The American Revolution

The American Revolution
Battle Over Who Will Govern
The Long View
Colonization under James I (r. 1603-1625) &
Charles I (1625-1649), the first Stuarts of England
Vis-à-vis the Puritans
The View of James I
James was
impatient
with Puritan
theology; he
threatened to
"harry them
[the Puritans]
out of the
land."
In January 1649, King Charles I lost his head—a
change that diminished incentive for Puritans to
emigrate
Immigration during the
Interregnum—1649-1660
Oliver Cromwell's
Protectorate prompted a
conspicuous decline of
immigration to the New
World. Potential
immigrants were
motivated to remain at
home by a renewed hope
for religious change or at
least tolerance in Britain.
Immigration under Charles II and
James II
• Population in 1660:
• Population in 1754:
200,000
1.5 million
There was a seven-fold increase in less than a
century
Ethnic make-up of **13 colonies by
1775—at 3.2 million
•
•
•
•
1.7 million—English
450,000—Scotch-Irish
400,000—Black slaves
200,000—German
Georgian England
George II, r.
1727-1760
George I, r.
1714-1727
George III,
r. 17601820
English Colonial Policy
Sir Robert Walpole, PM—17211742
**Walpole's motto: "Let
sleeping dogs lie."—RQ1
Salutary or Benevolent Neglect:
Walpole made no serious effort to
control the colonies or establish a
centralized, uniform government.
In such a setting, there evolved a
drift toward democratic self-rule
and a strong sense of selfsufficiency.
**George III was determined
to rule as well as reign—i.e.,
reestablish a pattern that went
into atrophy under the rule of
the first two Hanoverian
Georges.
"The new monarch was
determined to play an
aggressive role in government. .
. . George was trying to turn
back the clock, to reestablish a
personal Stuart monarchy free
from traditional constitutional
restraints. . . . His actions threw
customary political practices
into doubt. . . . [George III]
gradually drove a wedge
between the colonists and the
mother country [but members
of Parliament] must share the
blame for they failed to provide
innovative answers to the
explosive constitutional issues of
the day"
Lord North, PM from 1770-1782
**North's ministry was the first under George III that
endured for any length of time. Previous to him, the
ministerial administration suffered from chronic
instability and absence of long-range policy. North was:
• short-sighted
• disliked his job
• passionately and uncritically devoted to the
policies of the king.
• had the ability to build and maintain a
Parliamentary majority
• congenial
• well-meaning
• lacking in talent
Unfolding of Events—The
The Norman Conquest—
Long View
“1066 and All of That”
Roots of the Anglo-French Colonial Rivalry
**The Norman Conquest initiated 500 years of conflicting
Anglo-French claims to territory on the Continent of
Europe.
**Mary I (1516-1558) and the Loss
of Calais (1558)
The loss of England’s last holding on the Continent
seemed, at the time, a disaster. In fact, it set the stage
for English domination of the 19th century. It forced
the English to look seaward and develop a powerful
navy—the most important modern-day prerequisite
to world domination and the construction of the
British Empire.
**Why the French Presence in
North America?
Exploration—
Jacques Cartier
(1491-1557)
discovered the mouth
of the St. Lawrence
River in 1535
Settlement—
Samuel de
Champlain (15671635) founded
Quebec in 1608
The French sought profit from the
fur trade and fishing. They also
hoped to convert the native Indian
population to Christianity.
French
Motivation
French and Indian War, 1754-1763
Pontiac's Conspiracy
Pontiac (1720-1769) was an
Ottawa warrior who
coordinated an Indian
uprising comprised
essentially of western
Indians formerly allied to
the French and who hated
the British. He had a plan
of concerted Indian action
Boundaries Proclamation of 1763
"The colonists fully
intended to settle the
fertile region west of
the Appalachian
Mountains [right] . . . .
Disappointed
Americans viewed the
[English] army as an
obstruction to
legitimate economic
development, a
domestic police force
that cost too much
money"
Impact of the Proclamation
• The proclamation attempted to quell the stirring
up of Indian trouble that would precipitate the
need for costly British military intervention.
• It sought to stop the influx of settlers might
destabilize the profitable fur trade beyond the
Alleghenies.
• British feared that westward expansion might
stimulate local manufacturing and a domestic
industry to compete (in an age of strident
mercantilist philosophy) with the imports from
the mother country.
• Finally, the act intended to divert flow of settlers
into Canada
Colonial Smuggling
Navigation Act of 1651—This Act required all goods
shipped to or from the colonies to be carried on English
or colonial ships with the majority of sailors being
English- or colonial-born.
• To circumvent the act, colonials smuggled in
goods from other exporting nations.
• England responded by passing taxes
designed to recover profits that were lost
due to smuggling.
John Hancock
Enterprising
businessmen like
John Hancock (left)
became rich through
their smuggling
operations
“Taxation Without
Representation“—the American
tradition of self-government
• Mayflower Compact
• Salutary Neglect
• Impulse toward religions individualism
"Migrants to America found voyages to their homeland arduous if
not perilous. All these factors gave survival value to qualities that
Americans later claimed as particularly their own: ingenuity,
adaptability, self-reliance, and a certain sense of social freedom,
almost egalitarianism. . . . In this vast, largely unexplored and
promising new land many traditional guideposts lost their
meaning. Social boundaries were more porous, social mobility was
easier, sheer ability counted for more than it had at home, in the
‘old country.’”
The British
Perspective
"The American call for representation was
confronted with the British doctrine of 'virtual
representation'—members of Parliament were
held to represent not this district or that, but all
of Britain's great empire. The interests of
colonials were safeguarded by members of
Parliament in the same way as were those of
English subjects who did not have the right to
vote. The Americans were not impressed"
Before 1763, Parliament had never
tried to tax the colonies.
**The taxes imposed in
1763 were only 1/25th those
paid by native Englishmen
• British public debt averaged £18 per person
• American public debt averaged 1/20th of
that, or 18 schillings
Stamp Act of 1765
This Act "transformed conversation among gentlemen into a mass political
movement"
The Stamp Act of 1765
Britain hoped to generate £60,000 a year from this
tax. It touched the lives of ordinary men and
women, and as such, it generated a storm of protest
among people incensed by Parliament's seeming
insensitivity and the prospect of increased
unemployment and poverty. Patrick Henry, in the
Virginia House of Burgesses, argued for the right
of the colonists to tax themselves by their own
lights, casting his evangelical-style rhetoric in
terms of "liberty." Henry's "Virginia Resolves"
against the tax made it appear that Virginians had
"taken an extremely radical position on the issue of
the supremacy of Parliament
The Stamp Act Congress was a
seminal step forward in welding the
colonies together for common
planning and action. It passed a
resolution of protest affirming that
taxes could not be imposed without
the consent of those taxed. Its tone,
however, was restrained if not
conciliatory, avoiding any mention
of independence or disloyalty to the
Crown.
"Sons of Liberty"
In Boston, the Sons of Liberty
stirred up protest and used
violence, hoping to intimidate
royal officials. In a masterful
political innovation, the Sons
of Liberty persuaded and/or
coerced colonial merchants to
boycott British goods until the
tax was repealed.
Colonial Sympathizers
Respite of 1770-1773: "For a short while,
American colonists and British officials put
aside their recent animosities. Like England's
rulers, some colonial gentry were beginning to
pull back from protest, especially violent
confrontation with established authority, in
fear that the lower orders were becoming too
assertive." It was a "period of apparent
reconciliation . . . but appearances were
deceiving. The bonds of imperial loyalty
remained fragile
John Wilkes, 1725-1797
Wilkes agitated for liberty both at home
and in the colonies.
Champion of
freedom of speech
and liberty.
"Wilkes and
liberty" became a
popular slogan of
the period.
Edmund Burke, 1729-1797
Burke was the exponent
of an argument of
expediency—retention of
the colonies was worth
far more than imposition
of rightful but alienating
taxation.
William Pitt, the Elder (Earl of
Chatham), 1708-1778
Architect of Empire—an
inveterate opponent of
American independence,
he was intensely eager to
preserve his imperial
legacy. As such, he
advocated moderate
colonial policies.
Treaty of Paris, 1763
Pitt was the most gifted Parliamentary orator of the day and
the man most likely able to rescue the deteriorating
situation; ironically, Pitt went mad from the spring of 1775
through the spring of 1777, a most critical period in Englishcolonial relations. On April 7, 1778, Pitt was stricken on the
floor of Parliament, with the stroke that eventually killed
him, while delivering a speech against granting independence
to the colonies. He died on May 11, 1778 denying England a
valiant advocate of preserving Britain’s North American
Empire.