Arrogance and ignorance may be called the twin causes of the American Revolution. Trace and discuss the ways in which the British lost their American colonies. Why were the British unable to retain the colonists’ loyalty in the period leading up to the Revolutionary War?
The rapid economic growth of the colonies encouraged them to free themselves from the constraints posed by England in the fields of trade, industry and land use. Colonies wanted to get rid of the taxes imposed by the British government. Despite all this, in the 60’s of the 18th century colonial oppression increased. The Seven Years' War in Europe 1756 - 1763 exhausted the financial resources of the United Kingdom. National debt has increased from 53 thousand up to 140 thousand pounds (Wood 165). The King and the ministers wanted to improve their financial position at the expense of the colonies. The capture of Canada, Florida and the lands to the west of the Allegheny Mountains facilitated new violent measures of the English against the 13 colonies.
At the end of the Seven Years' War, approximately ten thousand British troops were left in the colonies. In 1765, the British Parliament has passed the so-called housing act, which allowed to send more troops to the colony and place officers and soldiers as quartered among the population. These measures meant to ensure the collection of new taxes and submission of the colonies to new prohibitions (The American Revolution 26).
In the 17th and at the beginning of the 18th centuries there were a lot of restrictions on the opening of factories, production and export of woolen products and all sorts of tools. Colonial trade with other countries, bypassing the intermediaries in the face of the English merchants, has long been prohibited, however it was still present as contraband, which grew to a significant size. In fact, many bans were poorly observed, and not much attention has been paid to them (Allison 78). But in 1761 the British government began to demand strict compliance with all of them and passed a law obliging the courts and the population of the colonies to facilitate customs collectors in the search and confiscation of goods which were considered as contraband (Wood 174).
English merchants openly called for the prohibition of manufactories in the colonies. Beginning of the industrial revolution in England has increased the possibility of sales of British industrial products overseas and the growth of manufactures in the colonies (Wood 177). One of the anonymous pamphlets published in England at the beginning of the War of Independence described the concern of the British capitalists about the rapid growth of the production of fabrics, hats and hardware in the colonies and demanded "to suppress the development of manufactures there," (The American Revolution 31).
However it is important not to exaggerate the role of industry in the economy of the colonies, as they at the time were occupied mainly in agriculture and trade. Prohibitive measures of the British government in relation to land use, new taxes and sales taxes in the colonies caused even more discontent than restrictions in the field of industry. British rule infringed upon the interests of the population of the colonies. Starting from 1767 a chain of isolated uprisings and riots appear, which later escalated into a fully-fledged war (Allison 82).
What issues led to the war between Britain and the United States in 1812? How did each issue contribute to the outbreak of war? Finally, why do some historians refer to the War of 1812 as the "second war for American Independence?" What events after the war give proof that this war for independence was successful?
England in every way hampered the development of industry and trade of the colonies, treating them as a source of raw materials and free market. After the Seven Years War, 1756-63 English government increased pressure on the colony.
In 1763 the English banned the colonization of the lands west of the Alleghenies. This measure deprived the slave owners of the opportunity to seize western lands and transfer there the plantations from the already depleted areas in the southern colonies. Large land speculators also lost the ability to enrich through the capture of new land. The Royal decree has also influenced the interests of small tenants, who wanted to leave for the West, and become independent farmers there. Tenants were forced to stay on the land owned by predominantly English owners, and had to continue to pay the so-called solid rents. The decree of 1763 mainly patronized the agricultural aristocracy and fur traders who purchased furs from the Indians from across the Allegany and feared that mass migration of colonists on these lands will undermine Indian fur trade and deprive large landowners of the workforce in the eastern regions (Allison 82).
In 1765, the English Parliament had implemented the so-called stamp duty on each trade transaction of documents, newspapers and advertisements. The resistance of the population forced the British government to abolish stamp duty, but the policy of imposing taxes on the colonies without their consent continued (Hickey and Clark 136). New duties on imports in the colonies from Britain were introduced in 1767 at the initiative of the British Finance Minister Townshend. The strengthening of the colonial grip of England and the domination of the English aristocracy in the dealings with land became the main obstacles to an independent capitalist development of the colonies (The American Revolution 33).
Dissatisfaction with stamp duty has given a strong impetus to a broad democratic movement against the British colonialists in New York and New England (Hickey and Clark 138). In many towns and villages there were rallies, people smashed the house of the new tax collector. Revenue stamps were burned at the stake, collectors were smeared in tar and dumped in the feathers (Middlekauff 93). It all began with a boycott of British goods (Hickey and Clark 145). Radical democratic societies have been established and in a number of cities boycott and fight for the abolition of stamp duty were organized. The structure of these societies were artisans – printers, carpenters, joiners, boat builders, engravers, tanners and many others, farmers and sailors. In New York and Connecticut, the members of such societies called themselves the "sons of liberty". In one of the proclamations against the Stamp Act it was stated that the British will soon introduce taxes on "the sunshine, the air we breathe, and the earth on which we go to bed," (Allison 96).
These actions have led to the already known war for Independence. However another war between the same parties ensued in 1812. The Anglo-American War in the United States itself, soon after its completion became known as the Second War of Independence (Hickey and Clark 150). Americans united once more to fight the most powerful at the time in the face of the British Empire and with it one of the most powerful fleets in the world, the resources from the largest colonies, with the intention if not to destroy it, at least, to reduce the influence of Great Britain in North America. This war gave the Americans their own war anthem and flag, which are still the symbols of US statehood (The American Revolution 34).
The war itself for a number of reasons - both political and economic, drew into its orbit almost all nationalities in North America. The millstones of the war, in addition to the Americans and the British, pulled in the Canadian colonists who, in spite of the fact that they were subjects of the British Crown, did not always share the official policy of London, but regularly supplied their military compound with new volunteers (Middlekauff 94). The Native Americans also participated. Many Indian tribes fought on the side of the US, others - on the side of the British. Still others, initially declaring neutrality, have not been able to observe it – veering from side to side, being the cause that often found their villages were burned by their former allies (DuVal 135).
Hamilton and Jefferson represented differing views of revolutionary ideas and ideology. Compare their views. Include a discussion of their influence today.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was a prominent American politician and educator. From the perspective of social contract theory and natural rights Jefferson criticized the monarchical form of government, but supported the popular idea of sovereignty. Based on the theory of the contractual origin of the state, Jefferson believed royal power was derived from the power of the people (Ellis 64). None of the people, in his opinion, can be denied the right to participate in the creation of the state power and control over it. If the power is devouring people's rights, the latter has the right to change the government and replace it so that it would serve their interests in the best way possible. Thus, Jefferson justified the people's right to revolt against tyranny, and supported the idea of popular sovereignty (DuVal 140).
Natural rights are innate and unchangeable, while civil rights are acquired by man in the course of his life in society (Ellis 66). As a fundamental natural rights of man, he has the right to life, liberty, equality, the right to revolt. Man is also entitled to use at his discretion, their physical and spiritual strength, the fruits of their labors; the right to personal integrity; the right to freedom of thought and expression, freedom of correspondence and exchange of ideas, views and information between citizens on the basis of common interests; the right to freedom of conscience and religion; the right to elect the form of social life, which is more likely to help a person to be happy and eliminate the one that makes him unhappy (DuVal 142).
The political ideal of Jefferson was the Democratic Republic of the farmers. The form of government - a republic with separation of powers. Its social basis - private property (Society of farmers). The political regime - democracy. Legislative power is vested in a bicameral parliament (Chamber of Deputies, Senate), in which the Council would be responsible for verification laws. Central executive power would be exercised by the president, who is elected by no more than two times for a period of 4 years. The executive power in the field is executed by the governors and the Council of States. The judiciary consists of the Court of Admiralty; General Court of the common law; Stationary High Court; Court of Appeal. Jefferson was a proponent of class division of society. Among the classes his attention was drawn only to the aristocracy. But at the same time, Jefferson an avid protester against slavery (Ellis 72).
Alexander Hamilton (1754-1804) was one of the most prominent political figures of the US, whose theoretical views and practical activities have had a decisive influence on the creation of the US Constitution in 1787 (Langguth 182). He sought to destroy the autonomy of local authorities and to bring individual states to the status of parishes. The town meetings and legislatures, where the majority belonged to the farmers, Hamilton treated with undisguised contempt. He did not know and did not understand the farmer of America (Langguth 184). He represented the interests of large owners: planters, landowners, wealthy merchants, the industrial bourgeoisie, namely every anti agrarian class. In the federation he saw the barrier to the internal strife and uprisings of the population (Hamilton and Jefferson 3).
Political system
Hamilton’s idea were formed under the influence of Montesquieu: his theory of separation of powers and the idealization of the constitutional structure of the English monarchy. This structure is considered by Hamilton a necessity and was put in the foundation of the US Constitution (Hamilton and Jefferson 4). More so, Hamilton was a staunch supporter of the English sample of the "mixed government" in which legislative power is shared between the three political forms - monarchical in the person of the king, aristocratic in the face of the House of Lords, and democratic in the face of the House of Commons (Langguth 186).
In some of his principles Hamilton was also a follower of Hobbes. His philosophy logically leads to the state with highly centralized, coercive and efficient power (Hamilton and Jefferson 4). But Hamilton was not an idealist and did not consider the state a repository of divine authority, the eternal essence, independent of the citizen and standing over him. He knew that in a state based on coercion rather than on the good will, the eternal unrest among those who used coercion is a serious threat and eventually can turn back on its exploiters. Therefore, in such states selfish interests demand that social unrest is indulged in shame and repressed by police forces (Langguth 186).
Hamilton's idea that the president was to appoint ministers and make them almost irresponsible to the Parliament. The parliament itself was conceived by him as bicameral, created on the basis of the electoral law with a high property qualification. State Union and the capital, according to Hamilton, is the foundation of economic revolution that would have transformed America from an agrarian country into a highly developed industrial country (Langguth 186). Unlike Jefferson Hamilton believed that the main purpose of government is not the welfare of individual citizens, but the achievement of tangible power of the state and the protection of private property interests. Hamilton was convinced that the only effective way to curb the democratic factionalism is to create a body of judicial review - the Supreme Court, which has broad powers. According to him, appointed for life, independent and well-paid members of the court were to be provided with full responsibility (Langguth 192).
The Republican Party, led by Jefferson, which at the time represented the progressive elements of the bourgeoisie, demanded in the 90s that the US proclaim war against England on the side of revolutionary France. Federalists - large landowners and traders were connected with the British capital, and led by Hamilton, insisted, on the contrary, to proclaim war against France on the side of England (Hamilton and Jefferson 4).
Trace the development of political parties in the U.S. from Washington's to Jefferson's election.
The approval of the Federal Constitution has laid the foundation for the American nation-state. It has found life after the first national elections and the start of operation in 1789 of the federal executive, legislative and judicial branches.
For the formation of the national political system of fundamental importance also was the formation of national political parties, which immediately followed after the emergence of the nation-state. These two institutions - the nation-state and national political parties formed the basis of the American political system and ensured its ability to survive. Participants of the two-party system throughout US history have changed several times, but some of the fundamental principles initially established remained for the next centuries (Scherger 118).
Formation of political groups began shortly after George Washington made the presidential oath and the House of Representatives and the Senate have started to work. Ironically, Washington, an ardent opponent of factional demarcations, has appointed for the two key posts in the government – the Minister of Finance and Secretary of State – to the creators of the future opposing political parties a 34-year-old Alexander Hamilton and 46-year-old Jefferson (Scherger 119).
The origin of the first political parties took place in spite of the sharp rejection of parties and party struggle of virtually all American political leaders. Consistently negative attitude to the division of political parties came from federalists, who were in power from 1789 to 1801. In respect of their opponents, the Jeffersonian Republicans, they most often used to determine as the fraction to which the Anglo-American political tradition invested a negative sense. Washington before his resignation from the post of president in the "Farewell Address" to the nation, announced the "spirit of party" system was the worst enemy of the American unity. Finally, during his stay in office D. Adams (1797-1801), imposing laws on foreigners and rebellions, attempted to use them to prevent or at least limit the opposition. Republicans were represented by them as "foreign agents", "French faction" (Republicans, in contrast to the Federalists, were guided in foreign policy not by the United Kingdom, but France) (Scherger 119).
Negative was the attitude of the parties and the party confrontation among the Jeffersonian Republicans. One of their outstanding ideological and political leaders, D. Taylor, argued that the existence of rival political parties is contrary to the nature of the republican system, and even offered, if necessary, to amend the Federal Constitution to prevent dangerous party demarcations. F. Frenot a leading Republican publisher, even in 1799 believed that the elimination of ignorance and error, the persevering educational activities exclude the party disengagement (Scherger 124).
Works Cited
The American Revolution: a visual history. New York, New York: DK Publishing, 2016. Print.
Allison, Robert J. The American Revolution: a concise history. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
DuVal, Kathleen. Independence lost: lives on the edge of the American Revolution. New York: Random House, 2016. Print.
Ellis, Joseph J. American sphinx: the character of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Vintage Books, 1998. Print.
Hickey, Donald R., and Connie D. Clark. The Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. Print.
Langguth, A. J. Patriots: the men who started the American Revolution. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988. Print.
Middlekauff, Robert. The glorious cause: the American Revolution, 1763-1789. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.
No author. Hamilton and Jefferson – The men and their philosophies. Digital History. Retrieved from http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/teachers/lesson_plans/pdfs/unit3_2.pdf
Scherger, George L. The evolution of modern liberty an insightful study of the birth of American freedom and how it spread overseas. New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2014. Print.
Wood, Gordon S. The American Revolution: a history. New York: Modern Library, 2002. Print.
