The American War of Independence - Research Paper Example

?Introduction The American War of Independence begun in 1775, between Great Britain and its American colonies, and ended in 1783, after the signing of the Paris treaty between the Americans and King George III of Britain, who was represented by British parliamentarian David Hartley (Greene 201). Primarily, this war was triggered by the continuation of the British government to oppress the colonies economically, socially and politically, through imposition of illegitimate taxes and trade barriers. The colonies felt that, since they were not represented in the parliament, they had no responsibility of honoring any decisions or directives the parliament gave. However, the parliament made it clear through the enactment of the Declaratory Act of 1766, that it had the authority to tax the colonies (Bobrick 15). This paper is a critical evaluation of the economic factors, which pushed the colonies to rebel against Great Britain and demand for independence. Economic Factors that Led to the American War of Independence (1775-1783) The War of Independence, or the American Revolutionary War, is a war, which was fought between Great Britain and 13 American colonies between the years 1775 and 1783 (Greene 201). However, it may be important to note that France and Spain were also actively involved in the war as they provided military assistance to the Americans. When the British entered America long before the revolution, they settled in colonies, after which leaders were selected in every one of them as representatives of the British government in England. They were to ensure that the colonies provided sufficient raw materials to the industries abroad as well as market for the manufactured products. They were also supposed to ensure that the colonies remained loyal to the crown by collecting taxes on behalf of the British government (Alden 20). The colonists, as they were called, participated in economic activities such as tea farming and other agricultural activities as well as export and import businesses. For the better part of the British occupation in the colonies, there were no signs of rebellion until after Britain won the Anglo-French war. To begin with, this win saw the neutralization of the French threat to the colonies, a factor, which had acted as a unifying factor between the colonies and the British government. More so because the colonies did not have sufficient machinery and personnel to defend themselves from France and therefore, they needed the protection of their mother country, which was well equipped militarily. Secondly, the Anglo-French war was a highly costly affair and it hurt the British economy deeply (Bailyn 27). It is estimated that in North America, the British government spent approximately 4% of its total spending to protect the colonies from French invasion (Bailyn, 36). The colonials from North America also failed to fulfill their obligations during the war in terms of financial contribution and provision of personnel to engage in the war to defend their territories. Due to this, the British Government decided to come up with a strategy to cover the heavy losses and one way to do this was to increase revenues from the colonies. In 1763, the British government decided to halt the expansion of the colonies by creating borders, with an intention of preserving land belonging to the Indians (Alden 41). This move was meant to gain favor from the Indians so that they could become consumers of British manufactured goods thereby providing market, which was essential in promoting the economy. In order to achieve this objective, British soldiers were posted on the western lands and were charged with the mandate of expelling all the Americans who had settled there as well as prevent new settlement by the American colonials. Ironically, the soldiers were to be paid using taxes collected from the Americans (Bobrick 22). The colonials did not take this lightly as they perceived it as a move to limit their economic interests and this created discontent and hatred towards Britain as it led to the loss of money especially to colonials such as George Washington among others. It is important to note that the colonials and Britain had different agenda concerning the colonies. Whereas Britain’s interest was to exploit raw materials, the colonials saw this as an opportunity to develop the local economy and carve out a habitable environment for themselves as they had already undergone the process of Americanization (Greene 208). These conflicting aims put the two groups at loggerheads and this is one of the reasons why the revolution came to be. As earlier stated, the Anglo-French war left Britain in an economic quagmire. The government incurred heavy debts amounting to approximately ?130,000,000 and the citizens were forced to pay high taxes whereas, those in the colonies paid less taxes thereby acting as a burden on the already crumbling economy (Greene 213). This had to change and since the parliament was based in Britain, a unanimous decision to introduce new taxes in the colonies was passed. In 1764, the Sugar Act was proposed and passed much to the dismay of the Americans. This act was meant to facilitate the collection of revenue from the trade of products such as molasses, rum and sugar (Bailyn 48). According to reports, the colonies during this time were facing an economic downturn and this taxation reduced the profit margins for these products significantly. In addition, the government mandated British warships with an extra role of ensuring that every merchant dealing with these products adhered to the act. This made it extremely difficult for these merchants to evade paying the taxes and this prompted them to repeal against the act through parliament but since they had no representation, they lost the case (Ferling 18). This created bad blood between the two entities thereby laying a strong foundation for the revolution. The introduction of the Stamp Act in the same year, 1764, also acted as a contributing factor to the revolutionary war (Ferling 20). This act made it compulsory for the colonies to use print papers manufactured in Britain, which had to have an official stamp paid for in British currency. Such papers included legal documents, newspapers, and any other papers that the colonies were using. This created a lot of discomfort in the colonies, leading to mass protests, some of which turned out to be violent. Such mass protests were organized and conducted by merchants, who were directly affected by any economic decisions that Britain made. The Sons of Liberty, a political organization in the colonies, also mobilized Americans to rise and liberate themselves from the British rule (Bailyn 54). Also worth noting is the fact that British merchants in London joined hands with the colonies to oppose the act as they felt that the new policies were affecting the economy of the colonies negatively and this was a disadvantage to them as they depended on the colonies to provide market for their products. The feeling in the colonies was that Britain was infringing on their civil liberties as taxes were being imposed on them without their consent. At least, they expected the government in London to consult with the colonial legislatures before making such decisions. Stamp distributors were harassed and intimidated such that they could not perform their duties effectively thereby hampering the effectiveness of the act (Greene 228). One of the major events triggered by the Stamp Act was the October 7, 1765 stamp act congress. This was a public gathering held in New York and which was attended by representatives from 9 colonies, with the common agenda of convincing members to refuse honoring the tax demands (Ferling 33). The congress drafted a petition to the British legislature, which had the following points; that the parliament had no authority to tax the colonies as this was the prerogative of the colonial assemblies; that the colonists had equal rights with citizens living in Britain and that since the colonists were not represented in parliament, then, the parliament had no authority over them. This caused stirs in the British administration as accepting the conditions of the petition meant that the stamp duty was illegal. However, in 1766, the parliament repealed the act but on the same day, it passed the Declaratory Act. This act emphasized on the authority of the parliament to make laws, which were binding both to the American colonies and Britain at equal measure (Bobrick 54). In a wider context, this act implied that though the Stamp Act had been overturned, the parliament had the liberty to legislate more acts of the same nature as and when it felt the need to do so, a factor that the colonists did not realize at first. In 1767, the British parliament, through Charles Townshend, passed the Revenue Act of 1767, in what was seen as a political move to affirm the superiority of the legislature and to enhance Britain’s control over the colonies. Initially, the act was meant to generate revenue for financing military operations in North America. However, the drafter, i.e. Townshend, changed the intention to make it a way of generating funds to pay salaries for the governors (colonists) and judges so as to enhance their loyalty to the British parliament (Alden 71). Before this act was put into place, the governors and judges were paid by the colonial legislature and that is why it made it impossible for British parliament to impose taxes on the colonies as there was no one loyal to enforce the tax laws. The act allowed the taxation of colonial imports such as paint, papers, lead, tea and glass, which were imported directly from Britain as they were not available in North America (Alden 80). In Townshend’s mind, he was thinking that the rejection of the Stamp Act was due to the fact that it was a direct taxation and that the colonies were comfortable with indirect taxation. What he did not know was that the colonies were against any legislation imposed on them by the parliament and this is termed as one of the worst mistakes that the British administration made (Ferling 44). After the passage of this act, the American Board of Customs Commissioners was set up to oversee the collection of taxes in the colonies. This board was constituted by five members, who operated from the headquarters in Boston. It was important for the British administration to set up this board based on the fact that earlier attempts to tax colonies were inhibited by the lack of a professional and loyal team within the colonies to oversee the collection of taxes. However, it is believed that this board later turned out to be a liability to Britain as it only helped to fuel more anger and rejection of British policies in the colonies (Bailyn 61) In order for the Revenue Act to function, Britain facilitated the customs officials with the power to search houses and other premises in order to ensure that no illegal smuggling of the said products was going on in the colonies. A Vice Admiralty Court Act of 1768 was also passed, which led to the formation of numerous district courts which were charged with the powers to prosecute and punish smugglers among other roles (Greene 228). These courts were to play an important role especially due to the fact that the colonial justice system was reluctant to carry out this role. The reason why the revenue act was perceived as being politically motivated was due to the fact that the revenues collected from the taxation of imports was significantly low and when Townshend was challenged to justify it, he asserted that the low taxation was meant to assist in setting a precedence and also make the colonies comfortable with the idea that they were supposed to pay taxes to the government (Bobrick 59). In general, it was a way of actualizing the declaratory act of 1766. However, this attracted the attention of activists such as John Dickinson, who published numerous papers with the intention of opening the eyes of the colonial Americans so that they could understand the hidden agenda behind the low and indirect taxes imposed on them through the Revenue Act (Ferling 67). He explained that whether direct or indirect, any taxation from the parliament was unconstitutional and therefore the Americans should refuse to pay. These letters by Dickinson were circulated throughout the colonies and the Massachusetts legislature became the first to petition the king to repeal the Revenue Act. Other colonies such as Virginia and Pennsylvania followed suit but instead of replying to the petitions, the colonial secretary, based in Britain, ordered the governors, who were favored by the act, to dissolve the colonial legislatures if they opted to give thought to the letters. The first legislature to be dissolved was that of Massachusetts, which refused to comply with the governor’s order to withdraw the petition (Ferling 70). As a result of the British government’s refusal to repeal the act, the merchants and other interested parties such as smugglers decided to take the matter into their own hands. In this context, they agreed to stage a boycott whereby a non-importation policy was adopted by majority of the colonies (Alden 55). This agreement compelled all merchants to halt the importation of goods and services from Britain until the Townshend act was repealed. However, the success of this boycott was thwarted by the lack of unity among the merchants as some continued to smuggle goods from Britain. It is estimated that the boycott only reduced the amounts of import by approximately 30% (Greene 225). However, the entry of a new British prime minister, Lord North, in 1770 paved way for repealing the act. North managed to convince the parliament to repeal the act partially as he wanted the parliament to remain in control of the colonies. For this reason, he scrapped all the taxes with regard to the Townshend act but insisted that the levy on imported tea should remain. The British parliament also passed the Tea Act of 1773, which was a major contributing factor to the American Revolution (Bobrick 61). Apparently, the British East India Company needed sufficient market for its surplus tea. The parliament came to its rescue by passing the act, which gave the company the right to export its tea to the colonies without paying any export taxes not withstanding the fact that taxes on tea were still in force. The colonies reacted by harassing officials working for the company and also hampering the offloading of the imported tea at the ports. Most importantly, the Boston Tea Party emerged as a result of the Tea Act. Members of this organization frustrated the importation of tea in Boston by harassing the off loaders and later destroying the tea (Bailyn 89). Conclusion The American War of Independence refers to a series of rebellions by the American colonies, against Great Britain, which led to the colonies gaining independence in 1783. The major reason for this rebellion by the colonies was the imposition of numerous taxes by the British parliament through legislation, which was seen as an infringement of the civil liberties of the British Americans, as their consent was not sought. They had no representatives in the parliament and therefore, they felt that they had no responsibility towards it. Such legislations included and not limited to; the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1764, the Declaratory Act of 1766, the Revenue Act of 1767 as well as the Tea Act of 1773 among others. These legislations were necessitated by the effects of the Anglo-French war, which had left Britain in an economic quagmire thereby compelling it to raise revenues through the taxation of colonies, which were the major beneficiaries of the war. The decision by Britain to halt the expansion of colonies in 1763 made the colonial governors to lose a lot of wealth and this created bad blood between them and Britain. Works Cited Alden, John. A History of the American Revolution. Da Capo Press, 2000 Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Belknap Press, 2001 Bobrick, Benson. Fight for Freedom: The American Revolutionary War. Atheneum Books, 2004 Ferling, John. Independence: The Struggle to Set America Free. Bloomsbury Press, 2011 Greene, Jack. "The American Revolution." The American Historical Review 105.1 (2000): 200-233 Read More