In the 1760's America was facing Civil challenges such as disagreements with the Paxton Boys and the revolt of North Carolina "Regulators." Controversies like these weakened and further disorganized the Colonies, making difficult for them to make coordinated attacks against British authority. In this era of American dispute, divided local governments had less power than they would united, and the British had much more control over a divided 'nation' than a united one. Instead of utilizing this key advantage, the unstable British government did one of the worst things they could possibly do: unite and empower the people of America. By putting in place legislation such as the Sugar and Stamp Acts, the British only further angered the American population. Colonists thought these acts were taxing not only their businesses and property, but their freedom and as a result, were able to put aside their differences and recognize the need to unite and stand up to the current injustice. This anger only led to further outcry against the British government. The strongly voiced disapproval of the Stamp Act forced parliament to repeal it in 1766, but this was only a small, first step in the direction of freedom. From then on, Americans began to challenge and reject the English laws, and eventually English government, which led to the ultimate rebellion: the Declaration of Independence (1776). The poor choices made by leaders such as King George III and George Grenville to unreasonably tax and anger Americans gave the colonists power and desire to rebel against British. It was these decisions that ultimately brought about American Revolution, and the eventual declaration of independence from England.
This all makes sense, but it raises further questions in my mind: what exactly was "poor" about their choices (in mean, in a general sense)? And are there general rules--about how to govern, and about what causes revolutions--that you can pull out of the American experience?
ReplyDeleteI think what was poor about their decisions was the fact that George Grenville and King George III did these things without the consent of the colonists. The colonists had no say in the laws that were being forced upon them. Moreover certain laws like the Stamp Act would have never been passed if the colonists had a representative in Parliament. Do all of you think that if the colonists had representatives in government the colonists would not be as upset with the laws? Or do you think that things like the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act would have never been passed in the first place?
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of your comment Michaela, you stated that the reason the British government's decisions were "poor" is because they enforced them without the colonists' word. This is the main reason for the colonists for getting so angry and fed up with the British. "Taxation without Representation". However, if the colonists did have somebody to represent them in the British government, then their anger would most likely settle. But even with a representative in the Parliament, still I think that some of the laws and taxes would be pressed upon the colonists. I don't think a representative(s) would lead to a cease in British government's laws nor would it stop the colonists's anger with the Brits. Eventually, the colonists would have had enough and revolt. With a representative in the British government, the colonists's rebellion would probably just take a longer while to occur, but either way it would have ultimately happened. However, do you think there is any method that the British could have used to stopped this revolt? I think that under the colonists's circumstances, revolt was inevitable.
ReplyDeleteI forgot, I wanted to post this link on "Taxation without Representation".
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation
While I agree with you CJ that if the colonists had a a representative in parliament, that these representatives would often be outvoted and laws would still be passed without the colonists' consent, I think that colonial representation in parliament would have lessened the severity of American rebellion. I think that if the colonies had a representative, they would have lost most of the ground on which their argument against the British was based, and have little evidence to support their fight for freedom. Without this evidence, I don't think as many colonists would have been willing to turn against their home country, and the American Revolution may not have took place.
ReplyDelete