During last night’s reading the book talks about the Coercive acts of 1774 and how the actual intention of these acts was to make an example out of Boston for the incident known as the Tea party. The true irony is that these acts actually provoked rebellion and revolution rather than subdue the threatening concepts. This unfortunate result for British authority brings up the argument of being loved in power and being feared in power and in turn, this argument brings around the idea that perhaps the fall of the British control of the colonies was inevitable.
First the Coercive acts of 1774, established by Parliament, they were; the closing of the port of Boston, drastically reducing the powers of self government in Massachusetts, permitting royal officers in America to be tried in other colonies or in England and providing for the quartering of troops by the colonists. The pure intention of these acts were to make an example out of Boston for it’s little act of rebellion. Parliament clearly thought that no more acts would follow if they demonstrated how powerful and dominant they could be. However, instead of the colonists being subdued, they were actually inspired and looked at Boston as a martyr for revolution. As a result colonial legislatures passed a series of resolves that supported Boston, so the acts completely backfired on the British. Basically any act of punishment upon a part of the colonies was looked at not in fear, but rather served as inspiration, fuel for the fire of revolution. Clearly Brittan could not punish the entire colonies otherwise it would eventually hurt their own commerce, so what exactly could they do?
What if Brittan had tried to reason with America, what if they had tried to explain their situation. What if they tried to make the colonies love them as authority instead of fear and despise them? My personal belief is that America would have seen it as a sign of weakness, a complete shift in the way Brittan tried to treat America. I think it would have built upon the already present ideas of rebellion and served as a real opportunity for revolution.
So in the grand scheme of things, was the fall of British control of the colonies inevitable, was there anything Brittan could do to keep the mutual relationship between the two powers? It is my personal belief that they could not, if they tried to enforce harsh laws they simply fueled rebellion and if they tried reason, they would be perceived as weak, there was simply nothing they could do.
I think that, boring as it may sound, a compromise between 'ruling by fear'and 'ruling for love' is the only option in order to prevent rebellion. In order to maintain control and prevent the perception of "being weak", Britain had to have established laws that at the very least, reminded the colonies that they were, in fact, "colonies" (a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country). Otherwise, independence is inevitable because without laws, the colonies are basically an entirely separate state, and the realization of this fact is unavoidable. However, in my opinion, the colonies rebelled because they felt that their freedom was restricted, and concepts such as government without representation contradicted new and popular mindsets such as 'general will' and popular sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I think that there had to have been a mixture of Colonial government, and British Government in order to maintain order. Does anyone have any ideas as to how this mixture would transpire?
In my opinion, as a direct result of the constant politically instability in Britain, the colonies politically grew apart from Britain and thus formed their own ways of governing. Their new methods were unparallel to those of Britain, thus causing many altercations between them. Whenever Britain tried to regain power in the colonies through fear, the colonies were strong, experienced, and united enough to rebel against Britain. In other cases when Britain was kind toward the colonies, they became skeptical and unsure, worried that the kindness would only be temporary. I believe because Britain was a melting pot of political chaos it caused mistrust in the colonies, and therefore the colonies were forced to grow confident through “fending for themselves”. Furthermore, once the colonies saw that Britain’s way of governing wasn’t working out for Britain, they realized that their methods could be more effective. In order for Britain to regain control they would have had to compromise their ways of governing to more closely resemble those of the colonies. Also, Britain would have had to seriously take into consideration the voice of the colonies, in order to show respect toward them.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Edward's question, "was the fall of British control of the colonies inevitable, was there anything Brittan could do to keep the mutual relationship between the two powers?" is a one-sided answer. Caused by two different things, the colonies and Britain could not stay under one empire, meaning that revolution was almost inevitable. First, the distance between the two entities was very large, creating a cultural and societal divide that differentiated the two groups of people. The cultural divide included not only the way of life of the Americans (which was vastly different from the English lifestyle), but also the ideology of the major American thinkers. The American style of government vehemently opposed the concepts of virtual representation and most of all, a monarch. Also, during the time between the first settlements and the American Revolution, the American colonies changed from a distant English project to enhance commerce to individual self-sustaining societies in and of themselves. The colonies were big and very productive, and needed less and less assistance from the mother country in order to survive. These two forces working in conjunction with one another created an instability that no repressive government could solve. Such disparity between the two groups of people caused the repressed people (the Americans) to desire to rebel against what they saw as a unfair and tyrannical authority.
ReplyDeleteDavid, are you saying that the concept of a colony is inherently dysfunctional?
ReplyDeleteNot entirely, my point pertains to the the specific situation of the colonies. Many colonial establishments are purely for monetary gain and thus do not have residents who consider themselves distant and different from the mother country. These establishments can be governed and kept by a mother country more easily. In America, however, the colonists not only lived very far from England, but also they developed their own culture, especially a distinct political atmosphere, that did not allow the colonists and Britain to get along too well.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteWouldn't all colonies be like that?
I agree with Ed that the Coercive Acts of 1774 made the American Revolution inevitable, however, I think that a threat of a revolution was not always present in the colonies. England had allowed the colonies basically run themselves, so when England suddenly decided to tax the colonies, the colonies were naturally upset. England had been treating the colonies as if they were different from England, so the taxes seemed unreasonable to them. Because England let the colonies become independent and self-sufficient, the idea of a revolution became inevitable. As the colonies started to rebel, I believe that a revolution became inevitable because the colonies believed that they were independent and that England was a tyrant, who did not care what they thought.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ed's idea- how the more Britain tried to punish and subdue the colonies, the more it fueled the colonists anger- resulting in rebellion. By giving the colonies an almost autonomous freedom under the Britain Empire, they were not able to take back their power without making the colonies feel as if they were suddenly being oppressed. Giving the colonies a taste of freedom was a mistake for the British Empire, and it backfired when they decided to tax them. If Britain had not given so mush power to begin with to the colonies, the relation between the two powers might have been better understood-as to what the British really wanted of the colonies.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of a colony is inherently dysfunctional. The ruler of the colony is always going to utilize the colony for their own benefit, and for the benefit of the people in their own land. No matter how munificent the monarch, people will always want to have control over themselves, and the right to make their own decisions. In the case of the American Revolution, the people revolted not because they were being abused but only because they wanted free will.
ReplyDeleteI think, in the long run, yes, because now, especially after the conclusion of World War 2, most colonies turned into separate and independent countries.
ReplyDeleteI think that if Britain "ruled with love" over the colonies, a revolution would still be inevitable, however, I also think that the colonies would be more inclined to keep British culture alive in America. If British culture was kept alive in the colonies, they might still be considered an extension of Britain by other cultures, and could eventually go back to it's mother roots as time progresses, and they realize that it is more convenient to be a part of one of the world's superpowers (at the time).
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Coercive Acts, or at least something similar, would have been necessary in order for Britain to maintain control over the colonies. Even though the Coercive Acts ended up "backfiring", or angering colonists even more, if Britain did nothing they would appear to have no authority. If colonists didn't listen to laws enforced by the government, they would not have listened to reason. The colonists' chief concern was their own wellbeing and success, so whatever way the British tried to control the colonists, by law or by reason, the colonists would most likely not have listened.
ReplyDeleteTo Ed's question, "What if they tried to make the colonies love them as authority instead of fear and despise them?" I believe there is a very clear answer. If the British tried to make the colonies love them as authority not only would the colonies find them weak but they would also take advantage. Even if the British were trying to be clever and get on the good side of the colonies, in my opinion, once the tables are turned--even if it is a set up--it is hard to do a complete turn around. It would be extremely hard for the colonies to listen and be respectful to the British authority when they changed their minds and wanted to be cruel and make the colonies fear them.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the separation of the Americans colonies from Great Britain may have been inevitable. Increasingly, the Americans were seeing themselves less as subjects of Great Britain and more as members of their own nationality. The period of "benign neglect" that they had lived under for a long period of time had caused them to become accustomed to a lack of authority from Great Britain, and to expect that they will be able to govern themselves. However, the nature of a colonial system requires that the Empire be able to exert authority over its colonies, in order to gain the profits from it. If the people do not see themselves as the subjects of an empire, then they will inevitably be unable to remain as part of a colonial relationship.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in the long run there was nothing that could have possibly been done to save America as a colony. Short term, yes, if Brittan had asked the American colonies to be more sympathetic with their situation they would have shown that they were weak ultimately leading to revolt, but I do disagree that there was nothing that Brittan could have done to try and save America. First, American Colonists had no representative in Parliament making their taxation unjust. This only caused frustration with the British government to rise among the colonists. I think that the colonists did not want rebel and were forced to do so because of the injustices placed upon them. The Colonists loved their country and the queen, and were not set on founding their own nation. When they wrote to England about how they felt about the treatment Brittan was giving them they did not speak hatefully, but praised the crown and simply asked for the respect back. But even if England had respected the wishes of its colonists instead of continuing to dump heavy taxes on them, their distance was very unpractical for trying to stay a unified country. Time and distance was bound to drive them to revolution.
ReplyDelete