THE STIRRINGS OF REBELLION
THE STAGE IS SET FOR TROUBLE. In 1763, serious differences of opinion
separated British officials and American colonists. The British pointed out that they
had saved the colonists from the French and Indian menace. They also pointed out
that the colonists were still being protected by the British army and navy. The British
believed, therefore, that the colonists should help pay the cost of protecting the empire
and themselves.
To this argument many colonists replied that the war was over and now they wanted to
be left alone. Colonial farmers, frontier settlers, merchants, and manufacturers wanted
to pursue their own interests. They felt that the problems faced by the British in
keeping an empire together were no concern of theirs. Settlers in all the colonies,
although many were British, had begun to look upon their problems as being quite
different from those of Great Britain. As to Britain’s charge that the colonies should
help pay the bill for the past few wars, many believed that it had been the businesses
in the British Isles that had benefited the most from those wars. Accordingly, colonists
felt that taxes from the British Isles should continue to pay for such benefits.
Almost immediately after the war ended, the government had to decide what to do about
a major Indian rebellion west of the Allegheny Mountains. In the spring of 1763, Pontiac,
an Ottawa leader, formed an alliance with members of other nations, including Delaware,
Miami, Shawnee, Potawatomi, and Chippewa. They wanted to keep the colonial settlers
from taking more land. In lightning raids, the Indians under Pontiac seized and
destroyed 8 of the 11 forts along the northwestern frontier, killing hundreds of settlers. In
return, a mob of angry colonists—the Paxton Boys—had massacred 20 Conestoga, a
peaceful tribe in western Pennsylvania. Two thousand soldiers and settlers and
uncounted Indians died before the English finally negotiated an end to Pontiac’s
Rebellion.
See MAP on
previous page
page…
The Proclamation Line of 1763
The bloodshed was tragic and costly. To keep Indians and colonists at arm’s length
from each other, in 1763 the English government issued a proclamation limiting
westward movement. The Ohio Valley and all lands west of a demarcation line were
temporarily off-limits to settlers and land speculators.
Solitary adventurers like Daniel Boone simply ignored the Proclamation Line of 1763.
But to families beginning to establish themselves in areas like Kentucky, this policy was
a severe blow. It was equally hard on investors from Virginia and Pennsylvania whose
money had already gone into land companies laying claims in the Ohio Valley.
The Proclamation Line of 1763 angered many colonists. They felt the English
government was cheating them out of the fruits of victory, maybe permanently. The
suspicion that the English government would keep Americans crowded on the seacoast
added to colonial resentment at English interference in people’s lives. The English
government did not notice this warning sign of colonial discontent. Its attention was
elsewhere.
The English government was worrying about finances. What the English saw in the
colonies was a prosperous population of farmers, artisans, merchants, and planters who,
they felt, had not paid a penny for the running of the empire. Until 100 years of war-debt
could be brought under control, and a more permanent Indian policy could be
formulated, Parliament felt that the west would simply have to wait.
The Sugar Act of 1764. While the colonists were still angered by the
Proclamation of 1763, Parliament landed another stinging blow by passing
the Sugar Act of 1764. By this measure Parliament hoped to raise money
to help pay the expenses of “protecting and securing” the colonies against
attack. The Sugar Act placed a duty on molasses, sugar and other
products imported from places outside the British empire. A similar law,
the Molasses Act, had been enacted in 1733, but the duty it set was so
high that the colonists had openly broken the law by smuggling. Local
British officials had made little effort to prevent this smuggling. As a result,
the British were spending far more to maintain the customs officials than
the officials themselves were collecting under the Molasses Act.
Thirty years later, with the new Sugar Act of 1764 Parliament was determined to
collect the revenue the government needed. To make smuggling less profitable,
Parliament set the new duty on molasses at only half – and in 1766 at only one sixth
of what it had been in 1733. Then British officials began to enforce the new law.
British naval patrols inspected ships entering colonial harbors. Royal inspectors
searched warehouses and even private homes, looking for smuggled goods.
The revenue collectors also tried to enlist the aid of the colonists themselves by
offering rewards to citizens who reported that their neighbors were smuggling. Special
courts, having no juries and presided over by navy officers, tried the cases and passed
sentence.
Parliament hoped that the Sugar Act of 1764 would reduce taxes for citizens in Great
Britain. Until now they had borne almost all the defense costs of the entire empire,
including the colonies in North America. Parliament also hoped that the act would help
the sugar planters of the British West Indies by preventing the smuggling of sugar from
other areas.
Despite the lower duty on molasses, the Sugar Act cut sharply into the business of
colonial merchants, ship owners, and rum distillers. These colonists had been earning
profits on duty-free molasses and other goods smuggled in from French, Dutch, and
Spanish islands in the Caribbean. Angry colonial merchants began to organize
committees to discuss means of resistance.
The Currency Act of 1764. Soon after the
Sugar Act, Parliament passed another law
forbidding the colonies to issue paper money.
Since the implementation of the Navigation Acts
around 1750, the trade balance had shifted in
favor of the British Isles, causing more coin to
leave the colonies than was coming in. Thus,
a shortage of official British currency became
constant. Without recognized currency overseen
by the government, citizens have a hard time
selling and purchasing goods. One must resort
to barter, which is very inefficient.
To ease this problem, various county
governments and colonial legislatures authorized
the printing of local paper currencies. A wide
variety of paper currencies surfaced throughout
the 13 Colonies. Due to problems relating to
currency exchange between different colonies as
well as some general confusion when trading
involved several colonial regions, this was an imperfect solution. Yet,
for the individualist outlook of colonial governments, printing their own
currencies appeared to be their only recourse.
When the variety of currencies began reeking havoc with tax
collection and key business interests, Parliament passed the Currency
Act. Where, then, could the colonists find the money to carry on their
business activities and pay their taxes?
THE STAMP ACT
The Pivotal Launch Toward the Revolution
The Stamp Act of 1765. In the midst of the growing colonial agitation,
Parliament adopted the Stamp Act of 1765. The Stamp Act, like the Sugar Act,
attempted to raise revenue to pay for the defense of he colonies, but the Stamp
Act was far more sweeping. It levied taxes on licenses of all kinds, on college
diplomas, playing cards, newspapers, advertisements, and legal documents
such as deeds to land and mortgages on property. All such documents and
materials had to bear a stamp showing that the tax had been paid.
Prime Minister Grenville had announced in 1764 that he wanted Parliament to
impose a stamp tax. Parliament, however, did not pass the act until 1765. Thus
the colonists had a full year to propose a more acceptable form of taxation.
They failed to suggest an alternative. For this reason the British government
was astonished when many colonists greeted the Stamp Act with angry
protests. Several colonies had used such a tax themselves, and the British
people had long been accustomed to it. Also, with taxes on sugar and molasses,
Parliament felt the colonists were used to paying taxes to support the empire.
A stamp imprint.
Used to show a tax has
been paid on the document.
The colonists, however, said that the earlier taxes had been indirect taxes-duties, for example, collected on goods entering colonial ports. These duties
were paid only by those colonists who actually bought the products. Colonists
often did not know that they were paying these duties because they were hidden
in the price of the product. The earlier duties, the colonists insisted, had been
levied to help regulate trade. The colonists argued that the stamp tax was
different. It was a direct tax. Unlike an indirect tax, hidden in the price of the
product, a direct tax had to be paid directly and openly to the government.
The colonists were used to paying direct taxes levied by their own colonial assemblies.
They regarded this power to levy their own taxes as the key to the large measure of
self-government that they had come to take for granted. The stamp tax, however, was
a direct tax levied not by a colonial assembly but by Parliament. The American
colonists had no representatives in Parliament.
The Stamp Act, then, threatened to take money directly
from the colonists without their consent. Settlers buying
land on the frontier would have to pay a special tax on the
deed to their property. Small farmers would have to pay
taxes on warehouse receipts for tobacco or grain. Artisans
in the towns could be required to pay taxes for playing
cards and newspapers. Planters, merchants, lawyers, and
editors would be paying taxes every time they concluded a
transaction. This “vicious” tax, the colonists insisted,
violated their right to tax themselves. It was levied without
the consent of their own representatives. Here, indeed,
was “taxation without representation.” Thus it violated the
great British tradition, which had been won only after
centuries of struggle between kings and Parliaments.
Many colonists refused to listen to the British argument that Parliament
represented all British subjects, including the colonists. British officials admitted
it was true that colonial representatives did not sit in Parliament, but other large
groups of British citizens also were not “directly” represented in Parliament. For
example, many thousands of people living in the new, rapidly growing English
cities of Manchester and Birmingham did not yet vote for a Parliamentary
representative. Therefore, they were not directly represented in Parliament
either. British officials argued that representation for the American colonies in
Parliament was similar to that of these British cities. It was, they said, “virtual
representation.” Parliament, they insisted, represented not only the citizens of
key British cities but the interests of all the people of the empire. To these
arguments the colonists turned deaf ears.
Opposition to the Stamp Act. After the Stamp
Act of 1765 was passed, resolutions condemning
the measure poured into England from the
colonies. Colonial lawyers, merchants, and
publishers met in protest. Colonial assemblies
declared that all taxes were illegal except those
levied by representatives of the people in their
own legislatures.
In October 1765, delegates from nine colonies
met in New York to hold a meeting known as the
Stamp Act Congress. They first asserted their
loyalty to the king and promised “all due
subordination” to Parliament. Then the delegates
vowed to resist all taxes levied without the
consent of their own colonial legislatures.
Many colonial merchants, joined by other leading
citizens, went a step further. They signed
nonimportation agreements, promising not to
buy or import British goods. Within a few months,
products made in Great Britain almost vanished
from colonial stores and warehouses.
Protests -- Here colonists have tarred and feathered a tax
collector and are forcing him to drink scalding hot tea.
Some colonial townspeople took more direct action. Organized in societies called
Sons of Liberty, they rioted in large towns and destroyed the offices of stamp tax
collectors. They burned stamps in the streets, destroyed the houses of royal
officials, and tarred and feathered citizens sympathetic to Great Britain. They
justified their violent actions by claiming that they were battling for their rights as
English subjects.
Repeal of the Stamp Act. The British accepted the news of colonial resistance to the
Stamp Act with mixed feelings. George III exclaimed, “It is undoubtedly the most
serious matter that ever came before Parliament.”
British merchants were shocked. The colonial nonimportation agreements had brought
British-American trade almost to a standstill. Many British merchants faced financial
ruin. To prevent this, they demanded that Parliament repeal the Stamp Act. Powerful
British citizens who sympathized with the colonists joined in the demand for repeal.
Edmund Burke, a British leader and writer, expressed his pride in those who fought
such “illegal” measures. William Pitt, who had led Great Britain to victory in the Seven
Years’ War, declared, “I rejoice that America has resisted.”
Under such heavy pressure, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in March 1766. News of
the repeal brought wild rejoicing in the colonies and sighs of relief from British merchants
and friends of the colonists. In New York City, Sons of Liberty erected ahuge flagpole,
called a “liberty pole.” Colonists gathered around the liberty pole to celebrate the repeal.
There they pledged their devotion to the cause of liberty.
The Townshend Acts
New attempts by Parliament to tax the colonists …and to enforce taxes.
* Import Taxes
* Quartering Act
* Writs of Assistance
In 1767, under the leadership of Charles Townshend, Parliament decided once
again to try to raise revenue in America. However, the members of Parliament still
had painful memories of the Stamp Act. They knew how deeply the colonists
resented direct taxes.
Parliament decided, therefore, to return to the long-accepted method of collecting
duties on goods entering the seaports. Since the colonists had always paid such
indirect import taxes (as was done with sugar and others), Parliament hoped the
new duties would not cause any trouble.
Taxes.
The Townshend Acts levied import duties on articles of everyday use in America, such as
tea, lead, glass, and colors for paint. Had Parliament’s Townshend Acts ended with these
import taxes, the colonists might not have objected. But Parliament went further.
Writs of Assistance.
In an effort to insure that the new tax laws would be enforced, Parliament
legalized writs of assistance, or search warrants. “Writ” is an old word meaning
“written.” Writs of assistance, then, were written statements giving government
officials the legal right to search the colonial businesses, ships, and even colonial
homes for smuggled goods.
Samual Adams, leader of the
most extreme Patriots, was
feared as a mob leader by
those in power. Adams knew
how to move people to action
with his stirring speeches and
writings.
The Writs of Assistance used in colonial times were quite different from presentday search warrants. Today a search warrant must state the exact article sought
and the specific places to be searched. In colonial times, however, a British
customs official, armed with a general search warrant, could enter any vessel or
warehouse or home in America at any time. And the official could ransack the
place in the mere hope of finding smuggled goods.
For many years American colonial merchants had been arguing that similar local
writs of assistance were illegal and an invasion of their rights as English subjects.
Now, in 1767, Parliament had legalized the hated writs.
The Quartering Act of 1765. While colonial tempers were still running high,
Parliament passed another unpopular law in this series—the Quartering Act of
1765. This law required the colonial authorities to provide barracks and
supplies for British troops stationed in America.
When troops moved to outlying areas, as when in route to Indian attacks,
colonists faced temporarily giving churches, schools, barns, and households
to varied numbers of soldiers. For example, a colonist might have had to give
his bed and room to a soldier or two.
Years later, in 1774, as tensions mounted between the 13 Colonies and the
mother country, another Quartering Act was passed. This act ordered the
colonists to house and feed troops that had been sent to enforce British rule.
Understand the difference in the reasons for these two Quartering Acts: In the
first act, colonists were being inconvenienced to support troops in their area
that were protecting them from hostile Indians. During the time of the second
act, what were the troops were about to clamp down on radical colonists.
Arguments and Resolutions. New Yorkers refused to provide
living quarters for British soldiers sent to enforce the law.
Parliament promptly punished the colony by suspending its
assembly, thus depriving New Yorkers of their right to
representative government.
Colonists poured out their anger in a flood of pamphlets, resolutions,
and petitions. Led by Samuel Adams, the legislature of
Massachusetts drafted a letter to the other colonies urging them to
unite in protest over the closing of any representative assemblies.
The Carolinas and Georgia promptly endorsed the letter. Parliament
replied by forbidding the legislature of these four colonies to meet.
A tax agent, hung and stoned in effigy.
Once again mobs poured into the streets. They boarded and
smashed British ships, attacked British custom officials, and tarred
and feathered anyone who informed on smugglers. British soldiers
sent to protect customs officials and to keep order were sometimes
attacked.
In Boston, crowds taunted the soldiers, calling them “lobsters,” “redcoats,” and “bloody
backs.” At times, citizens within a crowd hurled stones and snowballs at the soldiers.
Friction between the citizens and the soldiers became more intense every month.
Thoughtful colonial leaders and British commanders alike did everything possible to avoid
more serious trouble, but an incident such as they dreaded finally occurred.
The Boston Massacre. Conflicts over taxation prompted Britain to send troops to Boston
to enforce laws and maintain order. Yet, the presence of British soldiers only raised
tensions. Clashes between citizens and soldiers became common in Boston. On the
evening of March 5, 1770, the tensions exploded into violence in an event that came to
be called “the Boston Massacre.”
Accounts of the incident vary, but most agree that
it began when a mob of townspeople taunted a
British sentry on duty. Other British soldiers, led
by Captain Thomas Preston, came to the sentry’s
aid. Tempers flared. The crowd threw snowballs
and rocks at the soldiers. In the confusion, shots
rang out. Some reports say that one soldier’s
musket went off by mistake, and then other
soldiers began to fire. Others say an unidentified
person commanded the soldiers to fire. Three
colonists, including Crispus Attucks, a sailor of
African and Native American ancestry, lay dead.
Two more colonists later died from their wounds.
Captain Preston was put on trial and acquitted.
Two of his men were convicted of manslaughter
and were branded on the hand.
A period of uneasy calm followed the Boston
Massacre. Samuel Adams continued to use the
incident to stir up anti-British feeling, but no
violent protests resulted.
Tea Is Spilled
New trouble began in 1773 when Parliament passed the Tea Act. In essence
the Tea Act was passed to save the East India Company, a British trading
company, from bankruptcy. According to this law, only the East India Company
could sell tea to the colonies. Secondly, a small tax was added upon the sale of
this tea. Parliament saw three plusses to this plan: 1) The troubled East India
Company would have an unhindered market, being the only imported tea in the
colonies. 2) Even with the added tax, the tea would sell for less than any other,
so it was believed that the colonists would willingly buy the tea and not be
bothered by the small tax; 3) In doing so, Colonists would finally get used to
being taxed at Parliament’s direction.
Colonists resented every aspect of this plan. They resented East India
Company’s monopoly on selling tea. It was learned that many members of
Parliament had stock in the East India Company, and this was seen as greedy
Parliamentarians lining their own pockets at Colonial expense. It seemed an
unethical conflict of interest. Finally, the Colonists again resented being taxed
by Parliament, regardless.
To protest the tea tax, on a December night in 1773,
Boston’s “Sons of Liberty” wore clothing, paint, and
feathers in vaguely Indian fashion, and went to the
pier in Boston Harbor. There they tossed 342 chests
of tea into the harbor, valued in thousands of British
pounds.
As punishment for the so-called “Boston Tea Party,”
Parliament ordered the military to close Boston Harbor
(the most prosperous port north of Virginia) to all
shipping until the tea was paid for. Secondly, General
Thomas George Gage, commander of British troops in
North America, followed new orders to take civilian
control of the government away from Massachusetts’ legislature, and became a
military governor of the rebellious colony. He was ordered to restore order to
the colony with speed and firmness. Parliament and the King had had enough
of “bratty Boston.”
The closure of Boston Harbor, the loss of the Massachusetts government, the
Quartering Act, and yet another act called The Administration of Justice Act (in
which certain criminal trials would be taken out of the hands of colonists to be
tried back in England) were all lumped together by Colonial newspapers and
speeches into what they termed The Intolerable Acts. In the eyes of the
colonists, the closure of Boston Harbor meant an end to needed trade for
several colonies, Massachusetts government had been taken over by the British
Military (as had happened earlier in New York), the right to a fair trial by your
peers had become uncertain, and the colonists themselves were supposed to
house the enforcers of all this (as mandated in the Quartering Act). Intolerable
indeed.
Spurred on by the Sons of Liberty and the radical press, citizens throughout the
13 Colonies began to discuss armed resistance. Though more than half of the
colonists did not want a fight, angry and adventurous colonists from Virginia to
Connecticut traveled to Boston to support colonial armed resistance.
The 1st & 2nd Continental Congresses
The First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia’s Carpenters
Hall on September 5, 1774. The idea of such a meeting was advanced a
year earlier by Benjamin Franklin, but failed to gain much support until
after the Port of Boston was closed in response to the Boston Tea Party.
Twelve of the 13 colonies sent delegates. Georgia decided against roiling
the waters; they were facing attacks from the restive Creek on their
borders and desperately needed the support of regular British soldiers.
The Congress, which continued in session until late October, did not
advocate independence; it sought rather to right the wrongs that had
been inflicted on the colonies and hoped that a unified voice would
gain them a hearing in London.
The Congress composed a statement of American complaints. It was
addressed to King George III, to whom the delegates remained loyal,
and pointedly, not to Parliament.
Some of the most prominent figures of the era were among the 55
delegates in attendance, including George Washington, Samuel
Adams, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, John Jay,
and John Dickinson. They were mostly people of social standing and
made their livings from trade, farming and the law. Many were initially
unknown to one another and vast differences existed on some of the
issues, but important friendships flourished. Frequent dinners and
gatherings were held and were attended by all of these now-famous
men.
Finally, the Congress agreed to convene the following spring if
colonial complaints had not been properly addressed. That meeting,
the Second Continental Congress, was indeed called in May 1775 in
the wake of the battles of Lexington and Concord. (See side note…)
The FIRST SHOTS
Confirmation of the British advance
was delivered to Lexington by Paul
Revere and William Dawes. In the
early hours of April 19 the
Minutemen, so-called because of their
pledge to be ready to fight "at a
minute’s notice," began to gather on
the village green. During the night the
size of the force changed constantly as
some men quietly departed for their
homes and others appeared to lend
their support.
As the British advance party
approached shortly after dawn, 77
Minutemen were instructed by
Captain Parker: "Stand your ground;
don't fire unless fired upon, but if they
mean to have a war, let it begin here."
The British commander, who was
pleasantly surprised by the small size
of the American force, ordered the
colonists to throw down their arms
and disperse. Some began to obey the
order to leave, but held on to their
arms. At that point a shot was fired —
its source is unknown. Other shots
quickly followed and when the smoke
cleared, eight Americans lay dead and
10 were wounded; one British soldier
was
slightly
wounded.
The
outmatched Minutemen retreated into
the nearby woods and the redcoats
proceeded westward to their main
objective, Concord.
In April 1775, British General Thomas Gage, followed his orders to
clamp down on the rebellious Massachusetts area. He sent troops to
the nearby town of Lexington to seize radical leaders reported to be
there, and then further to the town of Concord, where a Colonial
weapons cache existed. At Lexington, a small contingent of armed
self-proclaimed rebels met the regiment of Redcoats on the town’s
green. After a shot rang out –from where no one knows to this day—
both sides opened fire. Eight Americans were killed, ten were
wounded and the others fled. The British regiment had no casualties
from the exchange, and marched several hours more to Concord.
After burning the cache of colonial weapons at Concord, the British
were ambushed repeatedly by over 400 angry Americans on their way back to Boston.
The British soldiers suffered horribly, sustaining 73 killed, 174 wounded and 26 missing.
The Americans listed 49 killed, 39 wounded and five as missing.
With this violence and the gathering of a sizable American army outside of Boston, the
Second Continental Congress met at the State House in Philadelphia in May 1775.
Presided over by John Hancock, the same delegates, with the additions of Benjamin
Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, joined representatives from all the thirteen colonies.
From May through July of 1776, the Congress assumed control of the gathering American
army, appointed George Washington as its commander-in-chief, worked to finance a war
effort, and crafted an explanation to the world as to why the 13 American Colonies were
rebelling (The Declaration of Independence). Though the Congress approved another
“Olive Branch Petition” to be sent to the King, various clashes between the evolving forces
of the British and the Americans precluded a peaceful settlement.