Transcript The Origins of the American REvolution - fchs

THE ORIGINS OF
THE AMERICAN
REVOLUTION
1763 - 1776
ENGLAND VS. FRANCE
England and France
were competing for
power and influence
in the New World.
Between 1689 and
1748, the two nations
fought three major
wars against one
another. Then, in
1754, conflicting
interests in North
American would
provoke an even
larger conflict – the
French and Indian
War of 1756 – 1763.
THE CHAIN OF FORTS FROM LAKE ONTARIO TO THE OHIO
THE FRENCH PLAN TO UNIFY THEIR HOLDINGS
GEORGE
WASHINGTON
Washington played a
central role in starting the
French and Indian War.
At the time, he was an
English soldier. Twenty
years later, he would lead
Americans against
England (with aid from
the French!)
THE ALBANY CONFERENCE
• Albany was the
capital of New York,
located along the
Hudson River.
• Delegates from the
various English
colonies met with
the Iroquois
Confederation
during the Albany
Conference,
hoping to establish
a mutually
beneficial military
alliance.
A SUPREME COMMANDER FOR THE COLONIES
MAJOR GENERAL EDWARD BRADDOCK
BEN FRANKLIN: “JOIN, OR DIE.”
IN 1754, THE COLONISTS OPTED FOR DEATH!
THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR: THE
PARTICIPANTS AND COMBATANTS
The European View
An American Perspective
From the European
perspective, the conflict
was simple. French colonists
and their allies – the Iroquois
Confederation – were
fighting against the British
and their colonial partners –
the American colonists. The
side with the more cohesive
bond was likely to win the
conflict. But this is a little bit
of an oversimplification as
well.
From the perspective of
Native Americans – and
one might argue that
American Colonists had a
more complicated
understanding of this than
the British – the war was a
conflict between the French
and the English and the
Iroquois Confederation.
And the Indians were the
ones who held the balance
of power at stake.
THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR
At the end of the French
and Indian War, England
is the most powerful
nation on Earth, has full
possession of France’s
North American colonies,
and controls markets in
North America and
Europe. Although thrilled
to have been victorious,
the British were also
overextended, and their
treasury was exhausted.
Good tax policy and
revenue plans would be
required in order to
maintain the empire they
had created and gain
greater prosperity.
FRENCH POSSESSIONS IN NORTH AMERICA
AFTER THE TREATY OF PARIS OF 1763:
A few little offshore fishing islands.
RETIRING THE ENGLISH DEBT
England had, in fact,
poured enormous resources
into winning the battle with
the French. They were
fearful of any more
immediate conflicts, and it
was their intention to collect
taxes from the colonists
themselves – to some
extent. At the very least,
they sought to enforce
existing laws – and to
prevent American
smugglers from avoiding
import duties from trade
with the French. From the
perspective of the English, it
was perfectly reasonable to
demand that the American
colonists pay some share of
the burden for protecting
the empire – after all, they
were the direct
beneficiaries of the military
and commerce England
provided.
THE PROCLAMATION OF 1763
The Proclamation of 1763 was in part a response to
Pontiac’s War. Realizing that the British Empire was
overextended, the British policies discouraged further
encroachment upon Native American lands, which
might risk war.
From the American colonists perspective, though,
there were two major objections.
1. They had helped to fight the French and Indian
War, and were entitled to its spoils.
2. The English policy also happened to restrict
American colonists to areas which were more
readily accessible for the purposes of taxation.
VICE ADMIRALTY COURTS
• George Grenville, Prime Minister and First Lord of the
Treasury of England (Lordly title!) created a law
which stipulated that those accused of smuggling
or similar transgressions would be put on trial before
vice-admiralty courts instead of before juries. The
appointed judges – naval officers, not colonists –
would presumably be far less sympathetic to the
smugglers.
• The Parliament frequently attempted to raise
greater revenues by simply encouraging
compliance with the taxes, rather than attempting
to raise the taxes.
THE SUGAR ACT - 1764
• Like many of the acts proposed during the Colonial
Period in order to raise revenues, the Sugar Act actually
lowered the tax on imported sugar. But it also gave
customs officials greater power to enforce the rules –
authorizing them to gain warrants, or writs of assistance –
to search ships and warehouses throughout the colonies
in order to seize and tax the goods.
• The law also stipulated that those accused of
transgressions would be put on trial before viceadmiralty courts instead of before juries. The appointed
judges would presumably be far less sympathetic to the
smugglers.
• The Parliament frequently attempted to raise greater
revenues by simply encouraging compliance with the
taxes, rather than attempting to raise the taxes.
“TAXATION WITHOUT
REPRESENTATION!”
Marxist historians, or economic determinists, would suggest
that the American objected to paying this tax because it
robbed them of property –and the opportunity to gain
property.
VS.
A more convincing school of thought is that American
objected to the principle of taxation – that in this case, a
tax being collected domestically was not approved by
any representative body. “Taxation Without
Representation” was akin to slavery, in the minds of English
Colonial Americans.
THE STAMP ACT OF 1765
• If the Sugar Act went by without provoking any major
emergencies, the Stamp Act of 1765 did not. It taxed
newspapers, pamphlets, posters, wills, mortgages, deeds,
licenses, diplomas, and even playing cards!
• The major difference, in the mind of the colonists, was that this
was an “internal” tax – one which applied to domestic
activities in the colonies themselves – as a opposed to an
“external” tax governing trade between nations.
• Taxing merchants or import/export specialists was not
considered as invasive – first, that class of individual had more
income to tax; secondly, they could pass taxes on to
consumers without suffering egregious losses.
• The ₤160,000 Parliament believed would be raised by the tax
would not cover even 20% of the taxes needed to support the
army abroad; hence, to Parliament, this tax seemed more
than reasonable.
REACTION TO THE STAMP ACT
The response to the Stamp Act
was enormous. Patrick Henry
delivered the famous “Give me
Liberty, or Give me Death!”
speech in Virginia. The Sons of
Liberty were founded in Boston,
and they hung in effigy tax
collectors who would dare collect
funds from the Parliament issued
stamps. The use of physical
intimidation – literally roughing up
the tax collectors, vandalizing
homes, or threatening anyone
who considered accepting the
position as a tax collector – was
largely successful. Indeed, no
American born colonist would
take the position in Massachusetts
– for fear of what might happen to
them if they attempted to take up
the tax.
THE DEATH OF THE STAMP ACT
Many colonists – especially in merchant centers like New York – decided to agree to nonimportation rules. No English goods would be imported or sold in the Colonies. Those who
violated the rule would be roughed up. Groups like the Sons of Liberty enforced the rules, like
it or not. In the case of the Stamp Act, the non-importation agreements worked!
BOYCOTTS AND NON-IMPORTATION
In protest, the American
colonists refused to buy
English products. Nonimportation treaties and
boycotts against English
goods were enforced strictly
by vigilante groups like the
Sons of Liberty – who
protected smugglers from
customs agents, and
punished those who violated
the boycotts! Merchants
were not permitted to import
goods from England and sell
them. Consumers were
banned from purchasing
English goods – and held to
their commitments by force
when necessary.
DECLARATORY ACT
• The British were forced to repeal the Stamp Act due
to the popular revolt which took place in the
Colonies. Although repealing the Act, the
Parliament also insisted that they had the right to
tax the colonists at any time.
• While Americans celebrated a great victory over
the Parliament, England was shocked by the
suggestion that they could not tax their subjects,
and viewed it as essential to clarify their right!
THE TOWNSHEND ACTS
In an effort to reassert themselves, the Townshend
Acts were passed. After the Declaratory Act was
passed by the Parliament, they quickly attempted to
demonstrate the Empires mastery over the islands by
focusing on new revenue collection techniques:
• Glass, paper, paint, lead, and tea were all
targeted.
• Vice-Admiralty Courts were re-established.
• British troops were deployed.
Editorials were written, and circular letters against the taxes were
distributed; the Virginia Resolves were passed by the House of Burgesses
claiming only their taxes were legitimate; non-importation treaties were
resumed, and ladies began producing homespun clothing.
THE BOSTON
MASSACRE
March 5, 1770,the
Boston Massacre takes
place. Crispus Attucks,
a free black man, was
killed in the shooting.
John Adams would
defend the soldiers.
THE BOSTON MASSACRE
• Ben Franklin had predicted that the landing of so many
troops in Boston would inevitably lead to some similar
mayhem as unfolded on March 5, 1770.
• The occupation of Boston was, of course, an
exceedingly tense time. But even after the Boston
Massacre, there was more effort at reconciliation than
at escalation. American colonists wanted their rights –
as Englishmen – restored.
• John Adams, who had defended the soldiers who were
charged, probably recognized that there was plenty of
blame to go around as the trial wound down. He
remained loyal to the English, though, throughout this
period.