Lack of proper organization of the English rule in the American colonies is what brought about the Revolutionary. The improper organization of the British rule involved coming up with the policies and making moves that did not favor the colonists causing them to revolt. The causes of the Revolutionary War were both political issues and economic issues. However, as it is going to be established in this paper; the causes of the Revolutionary War were more economic issues than political ones since the political issues only arose after the economical ones.
The interests of the colonial power in the America were egotistical. The English ruled the colonies by employing the “mercantilist system”. Under this system, all the economic activities are managed by the state (Blum 31). No efforts were being carried out by England to bring about changes that could be beneficial to the colonists. As Miller (9) points out, the changes that were made facilitated limitation of the business activities to domestic trade only. The demands made by the English to the colonies were that the colonies’ level of imports from England be higher than the export to the same country. England engaged in the importation of the raw materials that were produced in the colonies and manufactured these raw materials in to goods that could be exported to the colonies and other parts of the globe. This trend had a negative effect on the colonies in that it prevented the colonies from engaging in the manufacturing of the raw materials they produced and made these colonies to be very much dependent on England. This infuriated the colonies to a great extent resulting in to a revolution.
There was passing of a large number of Acts which negatively affected the colonies. Among these, the one that brought in great controversy were the direct taxes. In the year 1765, there was enactment by parliament of the “stamp Act”. This Act, as pointed out by Higginbotham (34), “forced the colonists to pay for stamps on printed documents” According to Blum (96), there was a feeling among the Americans that the Lord Grenville taxes were an intentional aim to disown the colonists by refusing them the English rights. The initial Acts that were implemented were the “Townshend Acts” enacted in the year 1767. These Acts imposed fresh taxes on glass, paper, lead, tea and paints. The taxes would be utilized to make payment to English officials working in the American colonies. Following the imposition of these taxes, the colonists were enraged since they had a belief that Parliament possessed the right to impose taxes on colonies trade but couldn’t directly impose taxes on the colonies in order to generate revenue.
In general, the British financial position was higher than that of the colonies in regard to triggering a war (North and Barry 817). Because of the strategies laid in position economic wise, the British gained political power over the colonies. The political power was unjust and therefore the colonists had to revolt and this, consequently brought about the revolution.
In conclusion, the causes of the Revolutionary War were more economic issues than political ones, since the political issues only arose after the economical ones. The English ruled the colonies by employing the “mercantilist system”. There was passing of a large number of Acts which negatively affected the colonies. Among these, the one that brought in great controversy were the direct taxes. The colonial power sought to suppress the colonialists so that they could remain under their power. As a consequence, the colonists were not contented with this and therefore engaged in the revolution.
Works Cited
Blum, John. The national experience. Fort Worth: Hartcourt Brace College Publishers, 1993.
Higginbotham, Don. The War of American Independence. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971.
Miller, John. Origins of American Revolution. London: Oxford university Press, 1943.
North, Douglass C., and Barry R. Weingast.. “Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England”. Journal of Economic History 49.4 (1989): 803-32.
