American History (Part 2) What Led to Revolution?

Part I provided an overview of why I feel a new to review some of our American History during the Revolutionary period and listed 10 points I would discuss in upcoming  entries. All of these will focus on what led to the American Revolution, as well as attempting to make connections with what is going on in our country today. As mentioned previously, if we don’t learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat it.

What led to the Revolution? Point #1: England allowing colonists to take the risk of failure (often fatal, literally) and then taking credit for their success.

Concerning colonialism, England entered the European expansion into America as a relative latecomer. The early runners were Spain, Portugal, the Dutch, and France. But hesitation was proving to be costly as Queen Elisabeth astutely realized, and living in the shadow of Spain’s increasing wealth and military domination of the Atlantic was no longer an option if England planned on being a world player. Money equals strength. Spain was becoming increasingly wealthy, and unless England took action, they could plan on becoming a byword of European importance.

Consequently, plans were made to colonize the American continent. These ventures were costly, both in terms of financial necessity and human life. How would these be funded and who would be willing to take the risk? Enter capitalism. 

Unsuccessful attempts illustrated the risks: Though given a patent to colonize a territory known as “Virginia,” rugged colonists could not withstand harsh conditions, and in 1583, their leader, Sir Humphrey Gilbert drowned off the coast of Newfoundland. The effort was abandoned. Gilbert’s half brother, Sir Walter Raleigh took up the effort, made two unsuccessful efforts with the second resulting in the infamous disappearance of the entire party (the Lost Colony of Roanoke - circa 1589). Personal fortunes vanished as well as human lives.

Private investment groups, in the first successful attempt, Jamestown, provided the solution for the financial equation. The Virginia Company served as a type of stock investment option for investors willing to participate in the opportunity of realizing great returns while not putting all their fortune at risk. While economic gain was hoped for, shrewd investors realized that putting everything on the line was proving foolish. Using this model, England was able to gain a foothold on the American continent, not risk its own national debt, and look forward to income based on a captive economy known as mercantilism (discussed in an upcoming entry). Okay, so much for the cash flow.

Who would go? The investors were quite comfortable living in England. Unless they had an adventurous streak, why face the fate of Gilbert and those who disappeared at Roanoke? The first successful colony, Jamestown in 1607, witnessed a mixed bag of participants: some gentlemen (gentry who didn’t have as much opportunity among the nobility of England) yet wanted to participate in an adventure, their manservants, some military types, and a few boys. No women.

All-in-all, 150 males - of whom 45 who died on the treacherous crossing of the Atlantic, while 101 adult men and 4 boys landed safely. In a few months time, 51 of these died, mostly due to starvation, exposure, and choosing to settle in the swampy, non-potable waters of the lowland area of the coast of Virginia. Captain John Smith took control of their dire conditions executing the order to the lazy, unskilled gentlemen, “He who doesn’t work, doesn’t eat.” (No welfare, no food stamps.) In the coming years, replacements eventually arrived, including women and men with practical skills, and little by little, Jamestown became a success. But this success was hard to come by; up until 1610, only 60 of the 500 colonists survived what was known as the Starving Period. The point is, America, as we know it today, began due to the efforts of people who took risks and experienced hardship to the tune of a 12% chance of surviving.

Still, it worked. And eventually, both the American colonies and England prospered. Following this success, more colonial attempts ensued - all experiencing hardship and sacrifice. Many failed, some succeeded. But within 150 years, by 1765, England had risen to being the most dominant force in Europe and was considered to be the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. How did they get there? Primarily based upon private investors taking financial risks and colonists who seized opportunity for a better life albeit abandoning the relative security of their native country. And by the way, before romanticizing the colonists’ successes, it is important to realize that most died in the effort due to exposure, starvation, conflicts with natives, dysentery, malaria, typhoid fever, etc. It wasn’t pretty. On the other hand, they must have considered it worth the effort and risk; it was their decision to attempt to realize a better life for their children than what they had in Europe.

What does this have to do with today? America was built on this type of work ethic and risk. Over our relatively short existence, we have become the richest nation on the face of the earth. While critics claim that common people in other countries have better health care and the poor enjoy a better standard of living, let’s be real. Where does foreign royalty go when they want state of the art medical treatment? England? Canada? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Venezuela? I don’t think so. 

How did our technology become so advanced in such a short period of time? Was it a government project to invent the cotton gin, the telegraph, telephone, photography, continental railroad, Panama Canal, airplane, space travel, and personal computers? (Even when the government provided a goal, e.g. put a man on the moon, it was not government jobs that did the work.) The US became advanced and rich because individuals were given the opportunity to seize an opportunity, pursue it, and realize the success or failure of their pursuit. When failure resulted, oh well, they had their chance, but darn, it didn’t work. When success resulted, the individual typically benefitted financially from their efforts, enabling them to continue financing more and more advances, and growing into companies and corporations. Result for America? We became an exporting giant of products that the world demanded. Money poured into America as products rolled off the assembly line. Through trade, our country (and its government) became a dynasty. All built on the risk-taking of individuals, one person at a time.

How does this compare to today? Does our government provide incentives for small businesses to grow and become prosperous? Or does the government look for increasing ways to tax businesses, seeing them as cash cows in a struggling economy? Does our government get out of the way and allow capitalism to take its course - allowing both failure and success based on market demands, or does it increasingly step in and control the course of business - even to the point of bailing out the losers and becoming the majority owner using taxpayers to fund the failure? (GM)

During the 1760s, England found themselves in financial distress, and as a result, in a position of military vulnerability. They had become rich on the backs of American colonists. The solution seemed easy enough: England needed money, America had money. It was time for direct taxation. Despite heated arguments in Parliament between those who realized it was trade with America that benefitted all parties and those who felt the Americans owed England its allegiance and its money, the majority rulers of the day, and King George, determined that they knew best and direct taxation was the solution. American colonists were outraged. They believed in taxation, but only at a local level, determined by members of the colonial assemblies. After all, both the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights guaranteed the policy that Englishmen would be guaranteed the right to be taxed only by those men they elected, and colonists had no representation in Parliament. And yes, this became a rallying point of “no taxation without representation.” Over the next 15 years, colonial protest grew. Because of the taxation level proposed? No, because the colonists realized that to give up their rights as Englishmen on this issue was the first step in relinquishing any right the government determined was called into question for the good of the Empire.

Here’s the key difference between the colonial outrage and our outrage of taxation today: We have representation. (Don’t we?) While the colonists were outraged over the principle and not the exact taxation amount, they were being asked to pay a minimal tax, first on sugar, next paper goods, next on paper, lead, paint, and tea, and finally, as an act of ultimate authority, just on tea. Today, taxes have grown and grown and grown so more. By the time one considers income tax, property tax, inheritance tax, gasoline tax, sales tax, any form of licensing (a tax), ad nauseam, middle Americans pay well over 50% of their income to taxation. Still, we have no room for complaint because we elected our representatives. Right? My assertion is that we’ve become dull to the pain and feel we have no recourse. After all, if you contact your representatives, do they listen, or merely give excuses as to why we must continue passing legislation that carries a price tag which not only can’t be funded by today’s taxpayers but must necessarily be passed on to future generations yet unborn? We give up. Yet, when you stop and think about working from January through June, July, maybe August or September before what you earn actually becomes what you get to keep, it stings.

Our country had a winning formula. Our government, which exists, according to the Declaration of Independence, to protect the rights of the people, has crippled the formula. Because of bad decisions by Republican and Democratic politicians alike, we have become bankrupt. One well-meaning social program after another has been legislated. Unfunded mandates. The government may print the money, but wealth is created through capitalism. Our current move into fascism and socialism assumes that despite having been created as a rich and powerful nation by the risk and work of individuals, the ruling elite know better, and we will now transform into a country wherein the government determines social needs and will control business and industry to pay for our bills. The tail is wagging the dog.

Personally, I don’t care what political party you affiliate with. What we’re discussing here is logic. Look at America’s history to determine how we became the richest and most powerful country. Then, study history some more and find a socialist or fascist country than can match what we’ve become. Finally, ask yourself whether you’re satisfied that today’s political leaders, both in the White House and in Congress, are taking us in the right direction. As for me, the answer is clearly “No.”

Suggested actions: Plan on ousting any members of Congress in 2010 who continue passing legislation that increases our debt load, taxation, and plans of spending our way out of debt (does that method work with your own finances?). Second, contact them regularly with the method that you’re sick of their failure to listen to the American majority expressing “Stop!” (they won’t listen, but do it anyway). Contact National Public Radio, all major network news stations and demand that they start covering the facts and stop soft soaping the distressing reality of our situation and the government’s failure to listen and respond. Finally, if you don’t presently get Fox News, pony up and start watching - particularly Glen Beck and Bill O’Reilly. If you don’t presently watch them, I’m sure you’ve already become biased by critics claim they are right wing extremists who are dangerous (a la President Obama). I challenge you to watch for yourself and listen carefully. Make up your own mind if what they are saying makes sense. 

America - wake up. We’re losing our country fast.