Hi
I’ve just been reading
“Europe The Struggle for Supremacy 1453 to the Present” by Brendan Simms. What struck me was that he briefly mentions Grenville’s Stamp Act and the Townshend duties but doesn’t cite them as “causes”.
I had expected mention of “taxation without representation”, the British government controlling who whom colonists could trade with (Navigation Laws), their taxes (Stamp Act and Townshend Tea Tax), and who stayed in their homes (Quartering Act) as well as a general desire for liberty. Simms focuses on the following:
"British government forbade colonists to expropriate the native population west of the Proclamation Line of 1763 ( ie. west of the Appalachian mountains) American colonists expected to be rewarded the Ohio valley as the fruit of their struggles. No man or ministry ,they felt, should set limits to the march of an empire. an expansionist lobby now began to make its presence felt in the colonial assemblies of North America…
Imperialist aggrandizement was thus part of the American project well before independence.
It was in fact the reason why the Revolution took place"
(Europe The Struggle for Supremacy 1453 to the Present by Brendan Simms)
2. Colonists sensed that the British Empire was collapsing.(Falkland Islands were evacuated partly to save money and partly to appease Spain) p. 127
3. Encirclement by enemy powers (absolutist Catholic France) p. 127
4. Fear of absolutist Catholic France (John Adams gave as his treason “Defense against the French”) p. 127
Is the author closer to the mark in term of the real underlying reasons for the Revolution as opposed to its proximate reasons?
I look forward to your feedback.
davidmich
No answer but it’s certainly an interesting question. It’s always puzzled me as to why the British were so opposed to westward extension of their American possessions. It can hardly have been sensitivity to the feelings of the American Indian tribes. As Britain would soon begin to expand its empire over a third of the world’s surface I can’t think the feelings of native populations would enter into the equation. So why prevent the colonists’ wish for expansion?
Because expansion in almost any
direction would have run into another European colonial power – north was French Canada, south was Spanish Florida, northwest was French fur traders, southwest was Spanish Mexico/California. Britain didn’t want to provoke those powers too much at that time. There had been quite a few wars between them, and those are expensive.
(The American Revolution succeeded eventually, when the French noticed it, and aided the Americans at a critical time, just to harass the British, who they were fighting at the time. It’s common for colonies to try to break away when the controlling country is busy with a war elsewhere. Ireland tried it in 1916, during WWI, but were suppressed by British troops. India agreed not to do so during WWII, with the promise of independence afterwards. But the British reneged, so Gandhi et. al. had to fight for their independence later.)
And directly west was Indian tribes, that the British had treaties with, and didn’t want to fight. (Based on colonial history, this maybe meant “we aren’t ready to break these treaties … just yet”.)
Some far-seeing British might have been able to anticipate the eventual power of the 23 colonies, and wanted to prevent that. They were already several times larger than Great Britain.
[Actually, the American Revolution probably could have been prevented by a deal somewhat like Scotland – limited local control, plus a number of seats in Parliament, elected by the colonists. But such a deal wasn’t politically possible in Britain. The colonies were being heavily exploited, with the money going to rich & powerful interests in British politics – they would have strongly opposed local control & free trade in the colonies. Also, nobody knew how the colonists would vote – those seats in Parliament could have gone to either party. (And next thing you know, all the other colonies would start demanding seats in Parliament, like Australia & India & British Guinea, etc. Unthinkable!)
The French were not a factor in North America after the Seven Years War (called the French & Indian War here). That British victory* did* set the stage for the Revolution. (Alas, the Indigenes lost out when they could no longer play the British against the French.)
The Brits wanted Americans to pay for their defense in that war–but the Empire’s expenses & expanse spread beyond anything that would benefit the 13 Colonies. Why should Massachusetts pay for troops in Canada? The Empire also began to pay closer attention to how the Colonies governed themselves; they’d been profitable as sources of raw materials & markets for manufactured goods but had been left on their own to a great extent. Could they become more profitable & more manageable? But how can such a great expanse of land be governed from far-away London? It was like the tail trying to wag the dog.
The Stamp Act was an effort to make Americans pay taxes directly. The Empire did not gain a cent before the tax was repealed but Americans had organized & united to oppose the Act. The organization remained.
The author is entitled to his opinions, but I’ve never heard that imperialist aggrandizement was a conscious motive of the colonists. The story I’d heard was that the colonists were suspicious that forbidding unsanctioned settlement of the frontier was intended to reserve vast territories as future estates for the nobility; that there would be no more yeoman/ freeholder opportunities and future settlement would be as tenants of landholders.
IANAH, but his list appears to ignore the most obvious and well documented of reasons behind the revolution: taxation without representation. I mean, we have of a founding father (Benjamin Franklin himself) testifying before Parliament in 1766 to speak out against the Stamp Act. We have the Sons of Liberty (the group responsible for the Boston Tea Party) formed exactly for the reason to fight British taxation. To not include this as a reason behind the Revolutionary War makes the list suspect. But then again, Simms’ book is not focused on the American Revolution, and the idea that the colonists revolted over taxation is probably a distraction to his thesis of foreign policy as the main driving force in European history.
The French “owned” the Mississippi up until the conquest of New France (Quebec/Canada). They had what might be described as settlements or forts or fur trading posts scattered across that area. “Des Moines” is a French name, for example; as is “De Troit”; outposts near modern Chicago… and so on.
Afterwards, part of the treaty was reserving the lands to Indians.
If I had to guess, the English were well aware of how much trouble it could be when the natives were disturbed (i.e. forced off their land and massacred) and did not want the headache of having to send troops in to defend white men behaving badly.
Trivia note - Spain got the Louisiana Purchase area in that treaty. France got it back when Napoleon conquered Spain, at which point he quickly sold it off because obviously it was a minor distraction in the European scheme of things and hard to hold anyway… and presumably, helping the USA expand was guaranteed to piss off Britain.
From what I’ve read, from the Canadian perspective - wars were bloody expensive, peace not much cheaper. Hence the other major grievance, where the garrisons in New England were billeted in houses and it was up to the homeowner to feed the soldier guest(s). The British parliament was of the opinion that the colonists should help pay for the recent war, but the colonists logically didn’t see any benefit to themselves from adding Quebec to the American mix.
There’s a whole series of other grievances. The governors of the colonies were appointed by Britain, typically connected nobility, and had a habit of ignoring the common folk much like back home. And, as was normal at the time, they were corrupt.
There appears to have been a growing confrontation between increasingly boisterous and independent elected legislatures and appointed governors used to the British class system and determined to show who was boss. The public was, oddly enough, rarely on the governors’ side.
Taxation without representation was the final straw. I suppose though, the issues were more complex. Do you suppose in 100 or 200 years any of today’s last few presidential campaigns will discussed in terms of all the nuanced issues, or just “arguments over terrorism and illegal immigration”? The same applies to the issues back then. The governors either ignored what was offending the locals or, since taxes came from Britain, had no choice.
Yes, there was a sense of “manifest destiny” in America probably back before the revolution too. For almost 2 centuries, land was pretty much there for the taking at the edge of the settled areas. There was never any reason as far as the locals could see why they could not just move into the forest and start their own farm - or just over the next ridge. The natives did not practice intensive agriculture and had been decimated by diseases, so the land was unoccupied by European standards. It was the British, who would have needed to send military to sort things out, who didn’t want the bother.
Besides, much as it’s convenient to bash the British, they did actually have consideration for the natives. Quite often, they came in and made treaties and attempted to honor them (but, of course, they felt obliged to defend their subjects against any attacks from locals, and greed and racism certainly occurred). It’s more the US government who set the pattern of simply violating or unilaterally amending local treaties (mainly because they became the ones presiding over expansion into prime farmland). When the Indian wars broke out across the west in the late 1800’s, the natives would often seek shelter across the border in Canada protected by the Great Mother, Queen Victoria.
I doubt anyone in North America knew or cared about the Falklands, much like today.
Reasons 1 & 2: Yes, the American colonies did want to expand Westward. But they were hardly thinking about establishing an “empire.” They remained disunited in many ways–through the Revolution & under the Articles of Confederation. Manifest Destiny was a 19th century concept & the great Westward push did not begin until after the Civil War. (Although some British had good relations with the Tribes, the final treaty with the new Republic showed no concern for their property rights.)
No, the Americans did not see the British Empire collapsing. They feared its greater strength after the Seven Years War would lead to more interference with how they governed themselves.
4 & 5) “Absolutist Catholic France” had no power in the New World after the Seven Years War. In fact, that France (& Bourbon Spain) helped in the Revolution–mostlly to get revenge on Britain.
Don’t know about the “Defense Against France” by John Adams referred to in the OP–when did he write it? President Adams was certainly concerned about Revolutionary & Napoleonic France. Napoleon had plans for the West after he reconquered Haiti; the Haitians & disease bearing mosquitoes ended his plan. So he refocused his attentions on Europe & offered the next President a really good deal on some Western land.
For anyone interested, there are many fine books on the American Revolution. The Men Who Lost America by Andrew Jackson O’Shaughassy is a recent one that gives a different viewpoint on the conflict.
Why do you have trouble believing that? Look at the words of the Royal Proclamation itself:
To summarise, the purpose of the Proclamation was to protect the Indians; to provide security for their possession of their own lands; to prevent the “great frauds and abuses” which had previously occurred.
And, it was not an outright ban on future expansion and settlement to the west. The policy was that dealings with the Indians, particularly purchases of land, was a government function, not a matter for private parties. Land could only be purchased from the Indians at a public meeting, under the auspices of the government.
Now, the King wasn’t just doing this out of the goodness of his heart; this policy was designed to keep the Indian allies peaceful and contented under British sovereignty. But, it was a policy that tried to balance the interests of the colonists and the First Nations.
Although the new United States rejected this policy is favour of unrestricted western expansion, the British maintained this policy in Canada, to the point that the Royal Proclamation continues in force today and has constitutional status. The policy of land purchases could only occur at a public meeting between First Nations and a representative of the Crown was followed in subsequent treaties that cover most of Ontario and the Prairie provinces.
So, yes, all indications are that the British government had adopted this policy for the protection of the First Nations.
Despite frequent failures and corruption, there was some sincerity in the desire to let the Indians have what was currently theirs and promised by treaty. The crown did see itself as the guardian of those it saw as too ignorant and naïve to look after their own interests in the international sphere.
Maybe not the term “Manifest Destiny” but certainly the roots of it stretch far back to the early part of the 17th century and empire was absolutely on the minds of the Founding Fathers
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/mandestiny.htm
John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, gave the clearest and most far-reaching statement of the idea that God had charged the English settlers in New England with a special and unique Providential mission. “On Boarde the Arrabella, on the Attlantick Ocean, Anno 1630,” Winthrop delivered the blueprint for what Perry Miller has dubbed an “errand into the wilderness” which set the framework for most of the later versions of the idea that “America had been providentially chosen for a special destiny.”
Quartering today seems a quaint relic and people wonder why the Bill of Rights specifically banned it. It wasn’t just a matter of expense or inconvenience: at the time it was considered a deadly serious matter of separation of powers.
After classical feudalism ended and the reign of knights and private armies was replaced by a national army controlled by the king, the English landowning nobility retained political power by Parliament’s control of the national purse strings- the English monarch could not impose taxes by royal decree. They had the example of France, where the crown had disbanded the estates general and ruled as absolute monarchs, and viewed with suspicion any attempt to infringe on Parliament’s authority. Military force being of course the last argument of kings, Charles II sought ways to independently fund a royal army. One of the methods used was quartering: declaring it a duty of loyal citizens to feed and house the king’s soldiers. Parliament viewed this as askance as Congress today would view the President having secret private funding for the CIA. After the English Civil War and various other upheavals of the 17th century, quartering became so synonymous with military junta that the English Bill of Rights banned it, so not surprisingly the American colonists viewed it with alarm.
I don’t agree with this. It was a balance of power, all right, but one aimed at protecting British Interests. As long as a strong AmerIndian presence existed in the Ohio country, it kept the Colonists out. Not for nothing was London planning to turn it over to Quebec (after it was annexed). London was happy to be for or against AmerIndians, slavery, Catholics and a host of other topics as it suited the situation.
Taxation was the biggest issue however - sort of. Many modern people misunderstand the nature of the Colonists’ anger. Per se, the taxes themselves were objectionable, but it was the nature of the imposition which caused the problem. Neither side understood (then and perhaps now) the government or culture of the other. To the colonists, London was corrupt, oppressive, and filled with the sneering contempt of self-satisfied aristocrats. And that was pretty accurate. To London, the Colonists were anarchic, aggressive, and unwilling to give in to reason. And that was also pretty accurate.
However, the basic issues at play came down to one issue: Were the colonies sovereign in their own territory? Parliament and the colonial legislatures disagreed on that point. It’s often forgotten just how limited Parliamentary representation was in this era. There were very, very few eligible voters for most seats - to the point that often enough, all the voters would be personally wined, dined, and bribed personally by the candidate or his representative. Possibly all at the same dinner! However early, American democracy represented* something way outside of British experience. Hence London, and particularly Lord North’s circle, simply did not understand that it wasn’t merely a few agitators, but a wide-spread sentiment, that propelled the American Colonists toward independence (both in spirit and eventually law).
One related issue was simply that London has very few resources or understanding. The government was fatally reliant on the colonial governments in the first place, and they represented a surprisingly broad cross-section of society. The government wanted to control the colonies, but had hardly anything to do it with. They had abandoned most of their forts, held few troops and could barely afford more than handful of naval patrols. It would be like the current U.S. government attempting to control all of California with a Boy Scout troop. Add in the British laws preventing the Americans from using their education for industry or trading with non-British ports - a particular sore point because the British couldn’t reasonably supply the needs of American in any case. But from London, all the Americas appeared only to be a thin, unimportant spit of land useful for supplying the super islands.
On that note, it’s important to understand that Lord North’s circle in particular had no idea what kind of resources the Colonies even had in the first place. Taking place before Adam Smith’s famous economics work, they not only lacked the knowledge of how damaging Mercantilism was, but even the basic information necessary to run the Empire. Few leading English or Scottish politicians had seen any of the major cities of America, and fewer still visited the backcountry. Today, we know that the Colonies had something greater than a quarter of all British manpower, growing rapidly - and on balance the population of the Caribbean or Ireland wasn’t relevant to the power calculations, or even a net drain on Britain. Today we can see that London’s policies were causing more problems simply by getting in the way of the vital commerce - or even draining the specie necessary for it. London then definitely did not. Further, we today can see that parts of England and Scotland were about to explosively grow in the nascent industrial revolution. At the time, the British were reeling under yet another financial meltdown as the East India Company nearly went the way of the South Seas Company, albeit for different reasons.