The Making of the American Revolution in Virginia - Research Paper Example

Virginia: The Spring of the American Revolution Introduction Virginia’s struggle for independence was remarkable and unique. It outshined every other American colony with leaders in the military and political arena, such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and many others. These leaders gave several of the most important and memorable statements of the period, such as the decree of Richard Henry Lee that “these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states” (Ransom 2011, 28). However, the people of Virginia were reluctant to sever their ties with Great Britain. Having been governed and influenced by a traditional and affluent group of farmers for much of the 18th century, the people of Virginia viewed their cultural and economic wealth at the mercy of favorable affiliations with the mother country (Middleton 2002). However, with the drastic changes after the Indian and French War, such as unfair British taxes, rapid swelling of multicultural and heterogeneous population, settlement growth in the interior, and the effect of an oppressive labor system, a large number of Virginians became disappointed with the colonial government. According to Woody Holton, the author of Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia (1999), the colonial aristocracy of Virginia, which is the most renowned nobility in America, did not rashly take part in the revolution but was provoked by other groups and individuals. The historical account of Holton (1999) celebrates the Ohio Indians, whose efforts in supporting a wide-ranging confederation forced Britain to implement the 1763 Proclamation Line and abiding by it, thus spoiling the desires of land opportunists like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Holton (1999) puts the slaves of Virginia into the picture, who were persuading Governor John Dunmore to accept their services prior to his release of the well-known 1775 declaration and whose pursuit of independence drew the attention of a vast population throughout the colony, encouraging loyalists like William Byrd to join the patriots’ cause. However, the true champions of this narrative are the underprivileged whites, renters, and smallholders whose choice to hold back the selling of tobacco in 1773 set off the campaign for non-exportation and whose claims for freedom reinforced the ultimate separation from the colonial government. It was the resistance and struggle of these people against the newly developed and unequally organized minuteman—members of squads of chosen individuals during the American Revolution—businesses that presented the first notion of a different political system in the colony and that alongside occupant conflicts and rebellions over poverty and other hardships to generate a grassroots revolution. Holton’s Virginia Holton (1999) discusses how the motives of the affluent Virginian nobility collided with the interests of the British traders and the Indians. The nobility had long aimed to enlarge their land holdings and thereby riches to comprise the region of Kentucky, a source of subsistence for numerous Indian populations. In order to resist the incursion of the White people, the Cherokee, the Delaware, and the Shawnee triumphed over their past conflict and cleverly collaborated to build a union. Great Britain, frightened of a disastrous pan-Indian conflict, initially released the 1763 Proclamation which disallowed every effort toward further colonialism and afterward, ratified in Quebec Act in 1774, giving all contested territories to the region of Quebec. The conflict of the nobility with British traders emanated from the Navigation Acts. This decree obliged Virginians to sell their tobacco only to the mother country. The settlers were deeply indebted to the traders somewhat due to their own extravagance, but they also attributed their huge debts to the decrease in earnings from selling tobacco (Holton 1999). The House of Burgesses proposed a number of policies to aid the debtors in paying their obligations, yet the Privy Council, perhaps with pressures from British traders, rejected them all (Holton 1999). A lot of wealthy farmers also lobbied for a prohibition of the slave trade to raise slave prices and to reduce the number of slaves for their own security, but all were in vain. Holton (1999) puts emphasis on the retribution of Virginians against excessive British taxes through refusal to export and import. In 1769, non-importation was initially put into effect. Besides pressuring the British Parliament to withdraw its exorbitant taxes, the limits on trade promoted local businesses in the colony, and sustained the integrity of Virginia’s aristocracy by providing them a worthy justification for squandering. Non-importation was a failure that time because of the high price of tobacco and the smallholders possess the purchasing ability to trade in from Great Britain. Yet, five years afterward, when the rule was carried on to oppose the Coercive Acts, Virginia was in a decline; the price of tobacco has crashed, and both cultivators and wealthy farmers participated in the movement. At the same time, the House of Burgesses implemented non-exportation (Holton 1999). Although, according to Middleton (2002), it opposed British policies, it had a practical objective too, which is to support the tobacco priced by sweep away the European market. Furthemore, Holton (1999) claims that smallholders and slaves were also involved in the effort to persuade the aristocracy to abandon Great Britain; slaves made up a significant portion of the overall population of Virginia in 1774. At a period when slave collaborations were becoming increasingly recurrent, Lord Dunmore, the governor of Virginia, took possession of an arsenal from Williamsburg. Protests of autonomous enterprises were mobilized to appeal for justice, but swiftly collapsed when Lord Dunmore warned them about the possibility of slave emancipation. This warning was somewhat actualized in 1774 with the declaration of emancipation, which set free strong slaves who served in the British military. This declaration made the Virginians furious that some loyalists and conservatives switched to patriotism. Planters rioted also in the period before self-government (Holton 1999). Due to non-importation, daily provisions like salt were inadequate; this brought about salt uprisings all over the colony. Due to non-exportation, planters were enduring the dearth of market for their goods and were not capable of paying their debts (Middleton 2002). According to Holton (1999), the Loudoun Revolt surprised Virginia’s aristocracy with a consolidated and steadfast band of planters who fiercely declined to settle their obligations. The House of Burgesses came up with a single solution: to acquire salt, earnings from selling to foreign countries and military backing to stop the war with Britain and to crush the civil disorder with an official government, Virginia should be freed. Lastly, Holton (1999) recounts that, inspired by the republican opinion of Common Sense by Thomas Paine and ready for greater political power, the common Virginian whites invited their province representatives to the 1776 Williamsburg assembly to support self-government. From this important event in which ordinary people persuaded aristocracy or otherwise limited the range of its movement there appears another emphasizing the proverbial debt issue. Recognized by Holton as the crucial factor in the disintegrating bond between colony and colonial government, the problem of debt resulted in the ostracizing of British traders, the stated objective of which was to force them to pressure the Parliament to cancel the Townshend taxes and afterward the Intolerable Acts—a label used to refer to a chain of regulations implemented in 1774 by the British government (Holton 1999). The indebtedness of Virginia, as argued by Holton (1999), was by no means a result of excessive consumption but instead the outcome of colonial rules protected in the Navigation Acts, which, restricting the commercial activities of the colony to limited scale, contradicted the economic needs and goals of Virginia. Such constraints were generally resisted by the people of Virginia, as demonstrated by the colony’s later attempts to gain economic freedom. Hence, as reflected in Holton’s narrative, Virginia is a unique case before, during, and after the American Revolution. The Uniqueness of Virginia’s American Revolution Virginia illustrates a fascinating irony as regards to the American Revolution. The colony, as stated earlier, cultivated several of the most remarkable and influential revolutionary authors and speakers, like Thomas Jefferson, yet most Virginians were not as revolutionary as the other colonies. Nevertheless, Virginia was more unified and consolidated than any other colony in the Revolution. Virginia’s leaders had the benefit of nearly absolute agreement concerning the constitutional matters in conflict with the colonial government (Middleton 2002). A prolonged disagreement over ownership of western lands aside, the leaders of Virginia resolutely supported the Continental Congress, primarily because unity in the colony had the power to pressure Great Britain to meet the colony’s demands and, eventually, because unity presented the greatest opportunity toward national triumph (Middleton 2002). However, opinions in the colony toward the highest authority changed significantly after the final encounter. Even though pushing their demands, the leaders of Virginia held firmly to the odds of remaining under the supervision of Great Britain almost immediately prior to the declaration of the final verdict for independence. Afterward, with the declaration of independence, a torrent of enthusiasm over the prospects that sovereignty granted spread throughout the state. Several Virginians embarked excitedly on restructuring their administration to surpass the British structure which they had idolized for so long; some Virginians focused on economic activities that the system of the colonial economy and imperial controls hampered in the past (Holton 1999). The changes in the political arena the Revolutionary leaders attained, building a republic and dismantling imperial power and its Church, had massive implications for subsequent generations (Middleton 2002). Nevertheless, the continued existence of many other colonial systems indicates a fairly high contentment level, at least among groups that were politically involved, with the manner the colony had been governed. At the beginning of the struggle, although most of the other colonies focused on the battle around Boston, the people of Virginia overpowered Lord Dunmore, their imperial administrator, with minimal external assistance (Middleton 2002). Even though the victory is surpassed by the northern fighting, Continental leaders realized completely that, had Lord Dunmore held fast and Great Britain radically supported him, the king’s army might have divided the union and most probably smothered the insurrection. Rather, Virginians overthrew Lord Dunmore and unshackled the labor force and food supply of the biggest and most heavily populated state in the rebellion to help in other areas. Likewise, the tobacco of Chesapeake afforded the sole acclaims the Continent received overseas (Middleton 2002). The conflict in Virginia hosted two groups, the slaves and their owners. At least in this particular facet of Virginia’s diverse radical encounters, thus, Virginia complements the view of Progressive scholars of the Revolution as a twofold clash over self-government and who would lead this independent government. In recent decades, the hypothesis that small planters were obedient and submissive has been questioned. And if slaves in Virginia are classified as a ‘class’ then there definitely was disagreement between classes in Virginia throughout the years leading to the Revolution, and that conflict did contribute to the outbreak of the American Revolution (Holton 1999). Indeed, based from the angered response of the whites to the declaration of Dunmore to build an agreement with the black people of Virginia, it could be that the state was the colony where in disagreement between classes paved the way for campaigns for self-government. The Revolution raged for a long time. The level of organization it demanded surpassed any attempt the people of Virginia had embarked on in the past. In economic and political matters they never had to exert as much effort quite earnestly. They showed their capacity for sporadic outbursts of forceful energy in protection of their territory until the final stage of the conflict. Nevertheless, after the initial period, the effort to build a strong political and economic system failed entirely. According to Middleton (2002), four attacks in the final period of the battle were too much for the system to endure. Numerous scholars thought that the cause of the unsuccessful campaign was moral, and the ensuing accusations perhaps contributed as much to weaken the previous optimism and cripple the cause as the real hardships that consecutive failures, price increases, and shortages brought about. Eventual success stem from a mixture of British incompetence and French involvement (Holton 1999). The role of Virginia rests on their persistence and strength to hold on until they succeeded. The Common Cause The people of the colonies had a strong sense of solidarity and identity as Americans prior to the Revolution; however, colonial solidarity proved more difficult to achieve than a strong sense of identity. The colonies were resentful or apprehensive of each other, which hampered colonial solidarity. These minor hindrances were eliminated when the people of the colonies started defending their rights and afterward started campaigning for their freedom from the British Empire. Colonial solidarity, a persistent challenge, was needed to safeguard independence. It was crucial that the colonists forget their dissimilarities and conflicts and come together even throughout the Indian and French War (Middleton 2002). The power of the British Empire in the Americas, which stemmed from an American and British triumph, provided the colonists the chance to build their own government and enlarge their dominion. According to Middleton, the vast expanse between the American colonies and Great Britain alongside self-government and democracy, immediately afforded the people of the colonies a sentiment of individuality as Americans. The massive stretch of the Atlantic Ocean weighed down on Britain’s task of governing the colonies and the liberty that rose from this reprieve helped form a uniquely American identity (Middleton 2002). The sense of solidarity and identity of the colonists was strengthened when they banded together to resist the British Empire. Great Britain believed that this revolt was unreasonable and that the colonies did not have any justification to oppose the colonial government. The colonies claimed that their commitment and loyalty to the mother country remain intact and did not desire to remove that connection. The colonies were steadfast in protecting their rights, and finally, they understood that they would have to come together and gain independence from the British Empire in order to be truly free (Middleton 2002). Hence, it may be safely assumed that the American colonies had a strong sense of solidarity and identity as Americans prior to the Revolution for they were prepared and eager to build their own nation. Conclusions Numerous aspects resulted in an intense sense of identity and solidarity among the American colonies. Great Britain’s incompetence, oppression, and hostility led primarily in colonial confederation, whereas differences and the wide expanse separating Britain from their American colonies led to a uniquely American individuality. This unique identity and solidarity largely contributed to the formation of an independent state. And Virginia has truly been one of the vital forces that made the American Revolution possible, from its fostering of remarkable leaders to its commitment to independence. Virginia’s case before, during, and after the Revolution is unique due the irony of its approach toward independence: the people of Virginia sought independence from Great Britain but they also wanted to retain its relationship with the mother country. Works Cited Holton, W. Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia. New York: UNC Press, 1999. Print. Middleton, R. Colonial America: A History, 1565-1776. New York: Blackwell, 2002. Print. Ransom, C. What Was the Continental Congress?: And Other Questions about the Declaration of Independence. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications, 2011. Print. Read More