British Antagonism and American Resistance
Among 18th-century Enlightenment political philosophers, “arbitrary” was a dirty
word. An absolute monarch could act arbitrarily as an expression of his will being law,
even his whims. When England most needed to stabilize control, both the Crown and
Parliament lacked consistent policies. Every step the English government took to
manage the colonies after a long period of salutary neglect appeared as an arbitrary abuse
of power. Under these circumstances, every reaction by the colonists appeared rebellious
to George III, who was battling mental illness. The conflict created by all the societal,
economic, and cultural changes would flare up in open resistance on the part of
“Americans” who sought liberty from those quotation marks.
The Proclamation line of 1763 could be the single most arbitrary expression of
power of all. From the standpoint of the land-starved colonists who had fought and died
to acquire access to the Ohio River Valley, the barring of their migration there was a
giant slap in the face of the American Dream. The “main chance” of the continent was
being squandered—on Catholic Frenchmen! The Quebec Act of 1774 actually gave
control of the land between the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to the French who had
remained there after the war. Most Americans dreaded this Roman Catholic presence and
perceived the Quebec Act to be another arbitrary, offensive gesture.
The Sugar Act of 1764 was just a plain trick. England wanted to tighten the old
Navigation Acts regarding this most-sought-after enumerated commodity (do you like tea
plain?). Using (and abusing) writs of assistance, England enforced old customs duties
(taxes) and added new ones. The trick was that the taxes were lower than those of the
Molasses Act of 1733. The tax was reduced, on purpose, to a level where it would be
cheaper to pay the tax than to bribe fat officials. England got more ₤ in the long run.
The Stamp Act was considered patently odious. Since money was still slow to
come in for the huge war debt, the Stamp Act was the first direct tax. Indirect taxes are
meant to make revenue on processes that are going on (like trade) that are assumed by all
to be under the control of the government. A direct tax was called such because it
reached right down into the daily lives of citizens to extract money. The stamps of the
Stamp Act were to be purchased and required to legitimize all official documents.
Stamps were supposed to be affixed to diplomas, wedding licenses, professional licenses,
and on all legal documents. Even more intrusive were the requirements to put stamps on
almanacs, newspapers, playing cards, and just plain paper.
Colonists realized they were now to be taxed with no other goal than revenue, and
they didn’t like it. The cry “No taxation without representation!” originates with the
Stamp Act when colonists now felt keenly their lack of representation in Parliament. The
argument that they had indirect representation via members of Parliament who cared for
them, i.e. Edmund Burke, did not erase the fact that they were used to having direct
representation in their colonial legislatures who could therefore legitimately tax them.
At the very time England attempted to squeeze money from the colonies, a postwar economic boom collapsed. Markets were glutted in 1764. The price of tobacco fell
75%. Bankruptcies abounded. In the midst of this crisis, Parliament responded with the
second Currency Act, 1764. They expanded the 1751 prohibition for New England to all
the colonies to stop the printing of paper money. Combined with the collapse of the
Northern rum industry threatened by the Sugar Act and the outrage over the Stamp Act,
these measures led Americans to stage the first deliberate protests.
Eight colonies sent formal complaints to authorities in England. After the Stamp
Act was announced, boycotts of British goods by colonial importers were sparked. A
flood of newspaper articles and fiery pamphlets gushed forth. Again, Patrick Henry
spoke out as a new member of the Virginia House of Burgesses. His call for nullifying
Parliamentary laws in favor of only the laws of Virginia was rejected, but newspapers
reported it and popularized the idea of treason. Rhode Island did vow to ignore the
Stamp Act.
This boldness sparked the Stamp Act Congress, the first formal continental
assembly. In October of 1765, 37 delegates from 9 colonies met in New York. Unity
was not as distasteful after having shared revivals, war, and alienation. The Congress
passed formal declarations denying Parliament’s right to tax them. Violent protests
ensued specifically directed toward a stamp official in Massachusetts whose home was
attacked. Mobs burnt the home of the Lieutenant Governor. An all-important network
was created by an organization known as the Sons of Liberty. Made up of mostly
middle-class citizens, the group burned royal officials in effigy, forced stamp officials to
resign, and forced judges to conduct court proceedings without stamps affixed to
documents. Most importantly, they formed a network of correspondence across the
colonies. Future patriot Samuel Adams spearheaded this formation of the Committees of
Correspondence in Massachusetts.
Parliament backed down. They repealed the Stamp Act in February of 1766, but
passed the Declaratory Act merely to state the right for Parliament to control the colonies.
Respect for British authority was shattered by the Stamp Act and this whimper of
retaining sovereignty. The Stamp Act crisis was the most unifying colonial experience,
yet.
England still needed money, though, since the direct (or internal) tax was rejected.
Charles Townshend, a new Secretary of Finance, decided to try new indirect (or external)
taxes. He imposed new customs duties on five key commodities: glass, lead, paper,
paint, and tea. All of these staples were needed; none could be manufactured in America.
Still, the Townshend Duties of 1767 did not bring in enough money.
The English bureaucracy tried to save itself. An American Board of Customs was
set up in Boston. Three new Admiralty Courts were established in colonial cities, and the
Royal Navy did not need jury trials. A new Secretary of American Affairs was created
within the Cabinet, and the first one economized by pulling all armies east to coastal
cities. The Quartering Act of 1765 forced colonists to house and supply these troops in
their homes. While this step was a form of taxation, it was also an attempt to limit
popular assembly and monitor the comings and goings of avowed patriots.
The Stamp-Act resistance pattern started again. John Dickinson of Philadelphia
denied Parliament had a right to tax with either internal or external taxes. Boycotts
spread and became more effective from 1768-1770 and cut imports by two thirds.
American women led this resistance by spinning cloth by hand. Wearing “homespun”
thus clearly identified the patriots in mobs who more and more intimidated British
officials. Samuel Adams is said to be the first American to call for independence when
he spoke for Massachusetts in 1768 and called on other colonies to denounce the
Townshend Duties.
In retaliation, the new Secretary of American Affairs, named Hillsborough,
disbanded the Massachusetts legislature. Remember the phrase, “Boston mob?” Boston
ordered its citizens to arm themselves, and mob violence broke out. Boston merchant
John Hancock’s ship, Liberty, was seized by use of a writ of assistance maybe just
because of its name. Of course, Hancock was known as the Prince of Smugglers, but the
seizure sparked riots. Hillsborough sent troops to Boston, the first time they were
necessary to assert British control. The necessity of using the military to enforce the law
was the ultimate symbol of the ineffectiveness of the British government. By 1769,
4,000 redcoats lived among the 15,000 people of Boston.
That winter, a mob threw snowballs, rocks, and icicles at ten soldiers guarding a
supply depot. As the mob surged forward the soldiers fired into the crowd. Ironically,
the first man killed was a black man named Crispus Attucks. Paul Revere’s engraving of
the scene in 1770 referred to the events as the “Boston Massacre” and did not depict the
projectiles of the mob. This propaganda destroyed the last vestige of good will which the
Mother Country/Colonies relationship required even though John Adams, a
Massachusetts lawyer, represented the soldiers to prove American fairness and got them
off from murder charges. Colonial papers began to daily denounce British authority.
In the year 1770, the Townshend Duties brought in ₤21,000, but the boycotts cost
the British economy ₤700,000. Lord North got rid of the Townshend Duties except for
the tax on, you guessed it, tea. This gesture was in the spirit of the Declaratory Act and
meant to convey Parliament’s power. Americans saw England’s power no longer as of
questionable worth. From here on it was perceived merely as a threat.
In 1772, the British patrol ship, Gaspee, was boarded and burned to the waterline
when it grounded at night in possibly the most contentious place in North America,
Rhode Island. Rhode Islanders delighted in this opportunity to protest the enforcement of
the Navigation Acts. The First Colony, Virginia, set up a Committee of Correspondence.
Sam Adams in Massachusetts had kept theirs going. He circulated a pro-independence
letter to 260 Massachusetts towns. More than half responded positively, the largest
opinion voiced, yet.
By 1773, independence was discussed freely in newspapers. Parliament stupidly
responded by trying to save the East India Company from bankruptcy by giving them a
monopoly on shipping tea to America with the Tea Act. Boston harbor colonists would
not let them unload the first shipment. The royal governor would not let the ships leave.
On Dec. 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty dressed as Indians and dumped ₤10,000 worth of
tea in an act of vandalism known as the Boston Tea Party. Lord North and all of Great
Britain were outraged. He said, “We are now to establish our authority or give it up
entirely.”
Parliament made—more laws: They called the effort to punish Boston the
Coercive Acts of 1774. Americans referred to this series of laws as the Intolerable Acts.
First, the Boston harbor was closed until such a time as the tea would be paid for.
Secondly, the Massachusetts government was reorganized to permit more royal control.
This step restricted the citizens’ cherished town meetings. Third, royal officials charged
with crimes were now allowed to be tried in England, away from hostile American juries.
This measure pronounced open season on Americans’ property and persons. Finally, the
laws permitted the Governor to take over private buildings to house troops, even in
churches. Who was the new Governor? He was Thomas Gage, the Commander-in-Chief
of the British army in America. His becoming the royal governor meant martial law for
Massachusetts.
The question being asked was, “Who is sovereign in America?” Colonists
reiterated that they would tolerate no taxation without actual representation. They would
tolerate no legislation other than by colonial legislatures, while they would tolerate
England’s controlling commerce. Britain stood by the ambiguous notion of virtual
representation and by the King as George III slowly (and temporarily) went mad.
Agree or Disagree Statements
1. England communicated a respect for her American colonists and deep gratitude
for their help in expanding the British Empire.
2. The three-thousand mile journey from England to America is a cause of the
American Revolution.
3. Americans began as a simpering, selfish bunch of money-grubbers.
4. The most offensive of all the legislation alienating Americans was the Quartering
Act.
5. Boycotts were an exceptionally effective colonial protest method.
6. England could have prevented the Revolution.