Central to American independence was the Revolutionary War of between 1775 and 1783, which saw the English Empire relinquish her control of the Thirteen Colonies in North America. Freedom came with the eradication of all monarchical rules and the formation of the United States of America under a Constitution to protect democracy. In that sense, Britain lost her territories because of the conflicts that emerged between the Empire and the colonists. Evidently, from the fact that the mother country sought to exert direct control over the colonies from its distant location to the notions of liberty that permeated the Americans, it was impossible to have a peaceful coexistence. Thus said, this paper argues that the Seven Year’s War of between 1754 and 1763 removed the French and the Spanish as a common foe among the English and Americans; thus, the American Revolutionary War started because the mother country and her colonists pursued different political, social, and economic goals.
Foremost, about the politics, the essence of the Thirteen Colonies maintaining a connection with the English Crown revolved around the protection that the latter provided for the former. In other words, as long as the Americans occupied territories that the British controlled, they boasted the rights to call on the Monarch when faced with any threats. It is worth mentioning that by the eighteenth century, the primary source of danger was other European nations with colonies in North America, with a particular interest in the French. The Seven Year’s War and the subsequent signing of the Treaty of Paris changed the situation. Extensively, Britain’s victory in the war not only removed French and the Spanish from the borders of her Thirteen Colonies but also encouraged a shift in leadership among the colonists. Howard Zinn concurs as he writes that without the threat of other European powers, the “ambitious colonial leaders were no longer threatened” and were free to pursue self-governance (2005, p.59). Meanwhile, the fact that the “colonists contributed soldiers and economic resources” destroyed the notion of the American being colonists as opposed to citizens of the Mother Country (Foner GML, 2011, p.185). Evidently, by allowing the Americans to fight alongside the British Army in the Seven Year’s War, the English Monarch destroyed the delicate nature of its relations with its colonists. The settlers in the colonies had a taste of equality and were not ready to let go of the same. A perfect illustration of the given claim is evident in Thomas Paine’s 1776 publication of Common Sense where the author captures the sentiments of the Americans perfectly. In Paine’s words, “Great Britain directly involved the “[North America] Continent in European wars and quarrels, and set [the people] at variance with nations who would otherwise” be allies (Foner VOF, 2011, p.97). Hence, rather than be subjects of the Monarch, the colonists considered themselves equal to the Britons and lay the foundations for conflict.
Such conflicting stances on the responsibilities of the American and English societies reflected the political conflicts mentioned above since, among the colonists, the English Monarch was a tyrannical ruler for failing to consider their views. Naturally, the “fears of religious and political tyranny mingled in the minds of many colonists” and established the road towards the Revolutionary War (Foner GML, 2011, p.197). For elaboration purposes, one may consider Paul Revere’s engraving of the Boston Massacre as evidence to the resentments between the British and the Americans. In the engraving, Revere depicted British soldiers opening fire against unarmed colonists; notably, the illustration was misleading as it merely focused on the actual shooting instead of what transpired before (Berkin et al., 2007, p.131). Nonetheless, the politics that created social problems stemmed from the economy where the Monarch considered itself powerful enough and within its rights to impose direct taxes on the colonists. In opposition, the Patriotic colonists insisted such measures were oppressive on their persons and demanded a change. As the Association of the New York Sons of Liberty observed in 1773, “it [was] essential to the freedom and security of [Americans] that no taxes be imposed upon them” without their consent; otherwise, they were under a dictator (Foner VOF, 2011, p.87). The next segment of this paper will reveal, the economy played a significant role in the politics and societies of the Thirteen Colonies and the English Monarch was bound to lose her territories simply because they were diverse.
In its determination to deal with the war debt, the British Parliament endorsed legislations to impose taxes on the colonies much to the chagrin of the colonists. Evidently, the decision highlighted the diverse ideologies that the Crown and settlers in her colonies had about control. Now, already in place was the Currency Act of 1751 that declared gold and silver coins to be the “only legal form of currency” in the colonies; making the “printed paper money,” the colonists used worthless (Foner GML, 2011, p.157). As a result, Britain had a ready and lucrative market in the Thirteen Colonies since merchants from the mother country could trade and sell their goods in the territories. After the Seven Year’s War, the Monarch went on to impose not only the 1765 Stamp Act but also the 1767 Townshend Acts and the Tea Act of 1773 (Ripper, 2008, p.66-69). While the British Parliament imposed other laws on the people, the noted three were perhaps the worst only because they affected the economic infrastructure of the colonies. For example, through the Tea Act of 1773, Britain allowed the East India Company to dominate American tea market by reducing the prices of tea imported by the same (Berkin et al., 2007, p.135). The colonists were not for the idea and in retaliation they destroyed or boycotted British goods. In a 1774 engraving available in Eric Foner’s book dubbed “Give Me Liberty!” the artist portrays Bostonians “pouring tea down the throat of a tax collector” and the Boston Tea Party in the background (2011, p.194). Now, the 1765 Virginia Resolutions on the Stamp Act shows the connections that existed between the Monarch’s decisions to interfere with the colonists' economy and their position within the English Empire. According to the terms of the document, colonists were “entitled to all privileges and immunities of natural born subjects, to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of England” (Foner VOF, 2011, 83). For that reason, their societies were eligible to the same treatment given to the English communities and anything that contradicted the same was oppressive to their persons.
In conclusion, the immediate cause of conflicts between the English Monarch and the settlers in her American colonies stemmed from the fact that the two factions had different understandings about their relationship. In other words, as shown in the third and fourth paragraph, the British considered the colonists as one would an investment and expected unopposed loyalty and benefits from their numbers. Contrastingly, the settlers in British North America territories acknowledged themselves the subjects of the Crown, liable to the same form of administration that existed in the motherland. Naturally, aggressions were certain as the more powers the British exerted, the angrier the colonists became and as long as they retaliated, they made matters worse as the British responded with more legislation. For example, since the Stamp Act of 1765 came before the Tea Act of 1773, it is plausible that the Crown was out to get as many resources as possible from the colonists, and the failure of one method directly paved the way for another. At the same time, the Boston Tea Party and attacks on Loyalists who acted as tax collectors for the Britons show a few ways through which the people showed their displeasure. In that sense, it was impossible to stop the conflicts between the British and the Americans seeing as the people on both sides were adamant to have their ideologies win. For the given reasons, everything that happened to encourage the American Revolutionary War was a matter of diverse goals among the colonists and the mother country.
References
Berkin, C., Miller, C., Cherny, R., & Gormly, J. (2007). Making America: A History of the United States (5th ed., Vol. II). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Foner, E. (2011). Give Me Liberty!: An American History (3rd ed., Vol. I). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Foner, E. (2011). Voices of Freedom: A Documentary History (3rd ed., Vol. I). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Ripper, J. (2008). American Stories: To 1877 (Vol. I). New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Zinn, H. (2005). A People's History of the United States. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
