What attempts did the disgruntled colonists take prior to resorting to violent revolution?
The “Shot Heard Round the World” occurred at the Lexington Green on April,17, 1775. This was the official beginning of the armed conflict we know as the beginning of the American Revolution. British Regulars, stationed in Boston we ordered to march up to Lexington, and then Concord, in order to seized munitions stored by the colonists. The British Redcoats had been occupying Boston following the Boston Tea Party, December 16, 1773, enforcing martial law, in order to put teeth into the Coercive Acts - laws which required the colony of Massachussetts to pay back damages caused by the dumping of tea into the Boston Harbor, make sure that Massachusetts didn’t practice self-government, allow officials accused of a crime against colonists to stand trial back in England, continue the quartering (housing) of British soldiers in civilian homes, and a closing of the British harbor - restricting trade of any kind. Additionally, the notorious Committees of Correspondence (members of communication groups informing the other colonies of actions the English government was taking) were banned. In other words, Boston was to be isolated, starved, and punished until they submitted. After a year and a half of occupation, King George and Parliament decided to show the colonists that their military might included the ability to to disarm the population at will. At Lexington Green, a standoff occurred, shots were fired, and the fuse was lit which officially marked the beginning of the War.
Events such as these typically have many “dominoes” which lead to what history records as the “beginning.” Did the colonists attempt other means of convincing England to make policy changes? Indeed, they did. Let’s go back to 1763, a full 12 years prior to the first shots.
As covered in an earlier blog, England waged a world war against France, their longtime nemesis. These two countries were rivals in their attempts to expand, control foreign soils, and as far as the “American continent,” assert dominance. France had settled in what is now Canada, but had laid claim to much of what is now the US, by way of French explorer, LaSalle. René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, in 1682 sailed down the Mississippi River which natives serving as his guides. Seeing the immensity of the mighty Mississippi, LaSalle made a clever claim for French king, King Louis XIV. He claimed the waters of the Mississippi, all tributaries which fed this river, and the lands they flowed through, as French territory. Unitil the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1803, nobody really understood the extent of this claim; it was uncharted land. But realize today, since the Rocky Mountain Range serves as one watershed, and the Appalachians serve as another, all waters between these two continental watersheds ultimately feed the Mississippi. Thus, although LaSalle had no way of realizing it at the time, he effectively claimed all lands between the Rockies and the Appalachians. This became known as the Louisiana Territory.
France never enjoyed the large number of colonists willing to emigrate to the wilderness of the American continent. Frenchmen who did were primarily fur trappers. Still, they contended that the claim was legitimate, and the die was cast for future conflict between the Spanish who had laid claim to what is now Mexico, the turf north of there, the French, and the English who had gained a foothold on the Atlantic seaboard. From the early 1600s, English immigrants flooded into this new land, seeking economic opportunity, the promise of actually owning land (an opportunity these newcomers would never realize in England), and for many, an opportunity for religious freedom (membership to the Anglican Church was mandatory - despite many in the church feeling disenfranchised by the liberal directions that church was taking). The first to arrive had the best picks, primarily for agriculture. Latecomers found that the most arable lands were taken, and had to settle for the less agriculturally suitable land of the the Appalachians. And so, eventually, English settlers spilled over the Appalachians into the more fertile regions beyond, most notable, the Ohio River Valley. It was here that clashes between the English and the French ensued.
Consequently, while England’s war with the French involved worldwide arguments, control over shipping on the Atlantic, other colonial conquests on different continents, the focus of American History centers on the North American continent. (European history notes this war as the “Seven Years War” whereas in American History, we name it the “French and Indian War.”) Ultimately, at huge expense, the English won. The treaty that followed is known as the the Treaty of Paris. While this treaty contains several provisions, the bottom line was that the French was, for all intents and purposes, removed from the continent of North America.
This was a costly war which left England in serious debt. Debt is weakness, whereas as prosperity is strength. A rich nation can maintain a strong military presence with many soldiers, adequately equipped with the latest and greatest technological armament. A weak nation cannot, and is therefore vulnerable to future attacks. England was in this weak spot and knew it. Remaining so was not an option. Finding its way out of debt was necessary. But how? As covered earlier, the American colonies were England’s immediate source of fresh revenue.
In 1763, Parliament passed the Stamp Act - a law that placed a direct tax on all paper goods. These paper goods included every thing from all licenses (even marriage licenses), playing cards, newspapers, books, all legal documents, etc. This was the first time the English tried to tax the colonies directly. Colonists were well familiar with taxation. In their local assemblies they taxed themselves regularly for the needs of the colony. But, taxation to an Englishman, meant only taxation through a representative assembly they helped create. Since they weren’t allowed to have representation in Parliament, the colonists rightly reasoned that taxes passed there would not apply to them.
Upon realizing the terms of the Stamp Act, concerned colonists responded in anger. They spoke out, articles were written in local newspapers, and appeals by way of petitions were made. The appeals were ignored. Colonial protestors, in turn, responded by burning the taxable papers. These protests were reported to be disloyal to the Empire. The concerned colonists were getting nowhere, so they upped the ante and intimidated tax collectors with hanging their images in effigy. Again, England ignored the warning signs and threatened with heavy handed retribution against the upstarts. As extreme measures, tax collectors were tarred and feathered - an action that resulted in public humiliation as well as severe physical harm to the victim, and to law abiding colonists? Shock. But these actions, while notable, did not bring about the desired effect of repealing the Stamp Act. What did work? Colonists organized and staged a boycott of goods coming from England.
A point to understand: America was England’s largest buyer. The economic model observed was one of “mercantilism.” In this scheme, the colony finds resources that can be used in production by the mother country and ships those resources home. In turn, the mother country uses the resources to produce finished goods which it will market to other countries, as well as their colonies. The colony, which is not allowed to produce finished goods without permission from the mother country, serves as a captive market - hence, the colony is allowed to buy from the mother country exclusively, even if the goods could be purchased elsewhere for a lower price.
By boycotting, England lost its largest market. The American colonists, in essence, crippled the English commerce. So, it wasn’t due to members of Parliament reasoning that perhaps they were being unfair in not including the American colonies in the decision making process, as the principles Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights dictated. It was the almighty dollar (or pound) pressuring the economy to wake up. Merchants in England were screaming bloody hell to Parliament, “Get rid of this insane Act. We’ve lost our income and without income there are no taxes to be had.” The Act was repealed.
England, not wanting to lose face, overlooked the basic economic lesson. They proceeded in their “right” to tax the Americans, and proceeded to pass The Townshend Acts. Americans again, reacted, and this time, came quickly to the conclusion that the boycott was the most effective means of getting their frustration across. Again, it worked, and Parliament repealed the offensive laws. But as a gesture of ultimate authority, they passed two simultaneous Acts, one being the Tea Act and the other being the Declaratory Act. The first affirmed the right of the British to keep a tax on tea, primarily as a face-saving measure. The second, and more ominous, asserted England’s right to practice sovereignty over the American colonies in any matter. These two Acts ultimately led to the Boston Tea Party, wherein harbors in America refused to receive shipment of the tea carrying tax. When colonial governors ordered the tea unloaded anyway (Boston - Governor Hutchinson), Patriot leaders responded by destroying the cargo.
So, what were the escalatory steps? Local alarm - petitioning local officials - protests - petitioning Parliament and King George - destruction of public property - intimidation of government officials - violent protests - refusal to give up arms and munitions - war.
Where are we along this path today? Has the public become alarmed? Absolutely. While some news organizations who support the current government sweep it under the rug and cover nothing more than the death of Michael Jackson, the traffic and the weather, talk shows and Fox News cover the growing anger at the direction we’re taking. Have concerned citizens petitioned local officials as well as Congress and the President? Yes, through the internet, circulation petitions, contacting both representatives and the White House, attending town hall meetings, and staging Tea Parties. The response from the government? These attempts are belittled as “Astroturf Movements” (not real nor legitimate), and continually arguing that the protestors are “right wing extremists” who spread misinformation. Emails I’ve sent are answered with “Thank you for contacting (senator’s name). Unfortunately, due to the volume of emails, he may not be able to respond directly.” Town Hall meetings are canceled due to representatives not wanting to face their constituents. Phone “town hall meetings” are prescribed with questions allowable. The President encourages citizens to turn in the names and addresses of their neighbors involved in spreading misinformation. In sum, the voices of those concerned are being ignored, or worse, threatened to be silenced.
So far, things have not gotten ugly. The conservatives who are speaking out are law abiding citizens who have it in their nature to maintain a job, follow the law, exercise decorum and respect. These are not the types who have nothing to lose and seek to cause, nor exercise, disrespect for the rule of law, and resort to anarchy. But the same can be said of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, and Joseph Warren. These were men of means who did not advocate a rush to arms. They had everything to lose: wealth, power, prestige, and position. But when push came to shove, they were willing to lose everything, and if necessary, be hung as traitors to England for daring to stand up to tyranny. Fortunately for them (and us) America emerged as an independent nation. Otherwise, those men would be footnotes in English history as dangerous traitors who attempted to incite the public to riot and rebellion.
Will our government listen to the voices of concern before more drastic steps are taken? I don’t know anyone in this current movement of protest against our current administration who hopes for measures involving violence. And within our history, it wasn’t the initial violence which led to the repealing of the offensive laws; it was boycotting and hurting the British economy. (Is a tax revolt in the cards?)
Let us hope and pray that our government comes to its senses, remembering that the purpose of government is to serve the people. However, Declaration of Independence serves as a very clear recipe for the People’s right to oppose their government. And that Document informs us that holding our government accountable is not only our right, it is our DUTY!
No comments:
Post a Comment