Download Remember: The main cause of French and Indian War was France

During the French and Indian War, the British
government—having decided to end the long-term
struggle with France once and for all—poured
troops, ships, and money into the American
colonies to win the war. The vast scale of fighting
during this period had never before been
witnessed in America. Massive British regular
armies and their provincial counterparts attacked
the French throughout Canada, on land and by
sea. The costs were enormous; the British easily
spent £5 million themselves and sent another £1.4
million to the various colonies to pay them back for
their war expenditures. This caused a huge boom
in the colonial economies of New York and
Philadelphia (much less so in economically
troubled Boston) as shipbuilders, war suppliers,
contractors, and laborers of all kinds took
advantage of the influx of money into the colonies.
Yet, the aftermath of the war, despite its victorious
outcome, was disastrous for British and Americans
alike. The debt Britain incurred during the
worldwide war, added to its prewar debt, caused it
to seriously worry about how to pay its bills,
especially since England had also, with the
conquest of Canada, taken on new, expensive
responsibilities in the world. Many American
colonies, despite the British reimbursement for
some of their war expenditures, were also deeply
in debt by the end of the war, and the prospect for
repayment looked bleak—given the fact that the
end of the war meant the return of an economic
downturn. The cycle of boom and bust of the
American economy during the 18th century was
directly related to the economy of imperial wars,
and for most Americans, the cycle was not a
comforting one. Yet, from 1765 to 1775, the cycle
would shift in a different direction—a direction that
ultimately would lead to American independence.
Remember: The main cause of French and Indian War
was France and Britain’s competing claims over land.
During the war British
troops and colonial militia
fought side by side.
It can be stated that the first British Empire truly reached its pinnacle of size and strength following the British
victory in the French and Indian/Seven Years War with France and the ensuing Treaty of Paris (1763).
As a result of the French and Indian War, France turned Canada over to Britain.
The French and Indian war ultimately led to a weakening of colonial loyalty toward Britain.
In terms of British-American relations after the war, the colonists began to question British authority.
Proclamation Line 1763
•
•
•
Marked an attempt by the British
government to limit westward
expansion until natives in newly
acquired territory could be pacified
and defense/control could be
maintained/strengthened by
10,000 British troops
stationed/assigned to defend it.
Appalachian Mts. line of
demarcation
Colonists already living beyond
Appalachians encouraged to
come back (perceived threat—e.g.
Pontiac’s Rebellion)
Quartering/Billeting Act
•
Augmented the attempts to pacify the Amerindian groups in Indian
territory/stationing of British Regulars along the new frontier by requiring all
colonial assembles to furnish food, supplies and salaries to soldiers
stationed within their respective provincial boundaries.
– Not a direct tax; rather an order for colonial assemblies to, in effect, tax
themselves; thus, this was regarded by colonists as a form of taxation w/o
representation unless colonial assemblies had the right to refuse the order or to
comply in so far as they pleased (e.g. New York Assembly was careful not to
fully comply in an effort to make this point clear).
– The British Government responded to this obstinate behavior by instructing the
NY Governor to veto the New York Assembly’s every act until it fully complied
with the act.
•
Upon becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer (1763), Grenville discovered from the treasury books
that the American Customs Service was costing more to operate than it was bringing in and he
was determined to tighten up the service to prevent smuggling.
•
Prior to this, the British policy of salutary neglect allowed the colonies economic freedom.
•
Changes initiated by Grenville:
•
Stricter enforcement of the Molasses Act (purpose to collect $; a novel idea)
•
Americans at once pointed out that the sixpence duty/tax on foreign molasses was prohibitive and
would ruin those industries (a sixpence was a British coin worth six pennies).
•
Though Grenville, didn’t intend to destroy those industries, he did intend to make it furnish a
revenue; so he kept the duty but cut it in half.
•
Customs system was overhauled (attempt to begin to collect taxes)
•
•
•
Elaborate series of papers were to be filled out by shippers for every cargo.
Violations were to be tried in Admiralty Courts (colonial juries notoriously easy on
smugglers)
Admiralty Courts were independent and had jurisdiction over offenses committed at sea
and in regard to maritime laws (Navigation Acts)
• Amiralty Court at Halifax Nova Scotia used to try navigation violations.
(The court’s jurisdiction/enforcement power was extended to include
new laws passed by Parliament in addition to all laws of trade and
navigation as well as ordinary maritime.
• Admiralty Courts were “prerogative courts,” that is, they were composed
not of juries but of single judges whose posts were “political offices in
the hands of the royal governors, to be bestowed upon deserving
friends and supporters.”
• Colonists stripped of invaluable privilege of trial by jury; a crucial
protection under the British Constitution--colonists felt Parliament could
not curtail the right of trial by jury; it was a check on executive power).
The British navy was instructed to enforce the Navigation Acts.
Stamp Act (1764)
•
•
Proposed by Grenville (Whig Prime Minister) and approved by Parliament
(March, 1765)
– law was to go into effect in the colonies on November 1, 1765.
– designed to defray cost of maintaining troops (Funds accumulated from
this tax were to be earmarked solely for the support of British soldiers
protecting the American colonies).
– Grenville expressed a willingness to substitute another revenue-raising
measure if a more palatable one could be found.
– Almost anything formally written on or printed (lawsuits, diplomas, deeds
and wills, almanacs, advertisements, bills and bonds, customs papers,
newspapers, marriage certificates, playing cards) would have to be on
special “stamped” paper shipped from British Central Stamp Office in
London to agents in colonies who would dispense it only after tax was
paid as proof it was paid.
– Violators of the law were to be tried in vice admiralty courts.
Opposition to the Stamp Act united lawyers, clergymen, journalists and
businessmen (some of the most powerful elements in colonial society)—
aroused 2 particular groups: lawyers and printers (lawyers held a large
number of the seats in colonial assemblies).
Stamp Act
•
The British authorities were not trying to oppress the colonists and regarded
the stamp tax as entirely reasonable—Even though official aim of the act to
raise $, the sums it brought in were quite small.
•
To colonists, herein was the danger:
– Because the sums involved were quite small, “some persons…may be inclined to
acquiesce under it.” (i.e. the smaller the taxes, the more dangerous they were
b/c they would the more easily be found acceptable by the incautious)
– This would establish a precedent by the tacit submission of the colonies; thus, if
this attempt was successful (more likely if the tax was small), Parliament would
pass other laws which would impose further taxes
Despite parliamentary intentions, colonial reaction was adverse and immediate.
Colonial perception:
The plan was not well received in the colonies.
Whereas The Sugar Act of the previous year had been a tax on trade, in effect an indirect
and external tax, the Stamp Tax presented the Americans, for the first time, with a direct,
internal tax.
This distinction was argued effectively in the writings of John Dickinson, in his Letters from a
Pennsylvania Farmer, one of the early leaders of the opposition to British policies. However,
these arguments seemed to be incomprehensible hair-splitting to Parliament and royal
officials.
In Connecticut, the Assembly requested Governor Thomas Fitch to put together a list of
objections to the plan. This he did, but his document, while critical of the proposed tax,
conceded the right of Britain to apply some kind of tax to raise revenue for its colonial
expenses.
In Connecticut, patriots were incensed that he had conceded so much, and Fitch was
defeated for re-election in 1766. On the other side of the Atlantic, the British were incensed
that he had complained at all.
Colonial response(s) to Stamp Act
•
•
•
Opposition came in a variety of forms. Some was •
reasoned and informal, such as James Otis’ The
Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,
a pamphlet that proclaimed the unconstitutionality of
taxation by agencies in which the colonies were not
represented.
John Adams wrote a series of resolutions protesting
the act for the town of Braintree, Massachusetts,
and other Massachusetts towns took similar actions.
The colonists requested with all due humility that
Parliament repeal the tax
Civil disobedience (principle of
nullification and non-compliance);
–
–
–
do nothing that required the stamps
Proceed without using required stamps
Based on the principle that the law was
unjust b/c it taxed the colonists w/o
their consent—remember, the law and
ethics are not always in agreement.
–
Radical response:
•
•
•
Boycott (non-importation agreements)—
Shopkeepers agreed among themselves not to sell
British manufactures and the Sons of Liberty used
strong-armed tactics to ensure they maintained their
resolve—represented an attempt to get British
merchants/manufacturers, a powerful voting bloc in
a country of shopkeepers and traders, to feel the
pinch from the lack of business with the colonies in
the hope they would bear pressure on their
representatives to rescind the tax.
Intimidate stamp distributors by vandalizing their
property or threatening them with mob violence (e.g.
“tarring and feathering”), thus they would do nothing
to execute the act (next slide).
•
•
Some saw it as an attempt to suppress
knowledge of what was happening by
replacing duties and restraints on the
press
Some imagined that Grenville designed
by this act to force the colonies into
rebellion so he can use it as a pretext to
crack down on them with severity and
reduce them to servitude and
dependency
Sons of Liberty: “fight/resist”
“The Bostonians paying the exciseman, or tarring and feathering”
(1774 British political cartoon)
•
Note: It wasn’t the
humiliating/degrading/undignified
manner with which the colonists tarred
and feathered tax collectors; rather,
imagine the possibility of suffocation
if/when hot tar is poured over you—or
better yet, imagine trying to remove
the tar from your skin once it cooled
(hardened), especially, given that it
bonds to the skin.
Patrick Henry opposes Stamp Act before VA House of Burgesses (May 29, 1765)
Peter F. Rothermel painting of Patrick Henry’s “Treason” speech before
the VA House of Burgesses (1851)
Stamp Act Congress
(an inter-colonial effort to orchestrate opposition to the British plan)
•
Stamp Act Congress represented another type of colonial response to the
Stamp Act.
– Originated in VA House of Burgesses, sparked by Patrick Henry, who adopted a
set of resolutions (formal statements of opinion or official positions taken on an
issue) denouncing Parliamentary taxation (other colonial assemblies followed)
– At invitation of Massachusetts, 9 colonies sent delegates to a Congress in New
York (October, 1765)
– Delegates joined together in a set of resolutions and petitions denying the
Authority of Parliament to tax them.
– Though beyond Parliament’s power to tax; resolutions acknowledged colonists
were not beyond Parliament’s power to legislate (colonists made the distinction)
•
Even though theoretically, the colonists’ arguments implied they were wholly
beyond Parliamentary control (i.e. the only thing binding Englishmen and
colonists together was the fact they were subjects of the same king), few
colonists were willing to raise this issue yet.
Stamp Act Resolves
British response to colonial reaction(s) to Stamp Act
•
The arguments posed by the colonists seemed to be incomprehensible hairsplitting to Parliament and royal officials.
•
The British authorities were not trying to oppress the colonists and regarded
the stamp tax as entirely reasonable.
•
An anti-stamp act faction, however, did exist within Parliament:
Merchants/manufacturers (under pressure by boycott)
representatives to rescind the act;
pressured their
these individuals petitioned Parliament for relief from
the negative affects of the act.
Other members in Parliament favored repeal because they
believed the act was based on erroneous principle to begin with (that
Parliament had the authority to tax the colonists: agreed with
colonial view that taxation was not part of the Governing/legislative
power).
Anti-Stamp Act factions led by William Pitt and the Marquis of Rockingham
In an attempt to win votes, Rockingham subjected members of Parliament to a
speech delivered by Ben Franklin (02-13-1766)
–
Franklin, as a matter of political expediency (to win
votes/repeal the act)
–
Succeeded in conveying the false impression that
Americans were objecting to merely to internal taxes,
taxes on trade (he made American demands seem
moderate)
–
Indirect—external tax: imports coming into colonies are
taxed, but tax is part of purchase price (it’s added to the
price of the good and is paid outside the colonies
(purpose: to regulate commerce)
–
Direct—internal tax: imports coming into colonies are
taxed and the tax isn’t added to the price of the good;
it’s added after the purchase, specifically as a tax (i.e.
to raise $)
•
•
•
•
In reality, the cololnists were opposed to all impositions/taxes
equally b/c all taxes equally diminish the estates upon which
they are charged (they didn’t differentiate between or among
taxes)
•
He also conveyed to the members the impression that
Americans were:
Oppressed by Stamp Act
•
•
Most members of Parliament, having never bothered to have
read colonial declarations/petitions, believed him.
To some colonists, passage of the Stamp Act reinforced idea that there was a
conspiracy; what the highest officials professed was not what they in fact
intended and their words masked a malevolent design.
Passage of the Stamp Act was not merely an impolitic and unjust law that
threatened the priceless right of the individual to retain possession of his
property until he or his chosen representative voluntarily gave it up to another;
it was to many also a danger signal indicating that a more general threat
existed.
Though it could be argued, given the swift repeal of the act, that nothing more
was involved than ignorance or confusion on the part of the people in power
who really knew better and who, once warned by the reactions of the colonists,
would not repeat the mistake—there nevertheless appeared to be good reason
to suspect that more was involved. From whom had the false information and
evil advice come that had so misled the English government?
Some (Adams, Oxenbridge Thacher, James Otis, Stephen Hopkins) thought
from officials bent on overthrowing the constituted forms government in order to
satisfy their own lust for power, and not likely to relent in their passion.
To some (John Adams, Josiah Quincy) the key figures were easily identifiable:
Mass. Governor, Thomas Hutchinson.
Joseph Warren (1766):
“If the real and only motive of the minister was to raise money from the colonies, that method should
undoubtedly have been adopted which was least grievous to the people…”
The choice of so blatantly obnoxious a measure as the Stamp Act, consequently, “has induced some
to imagine that the minister designed by this act to force the colonies into a rebellion, and from thence
to take occasion to treat them with severity, and, by military power, to reduce them to servitude…such
a supposition was perhaps excessive: ‘charity forbids us to conclude [the ministry] guilty of so black a
villainy. But…it is known that tyrannical ministers have, at some time, embraced even this hellish
measure to accomplish their cursed designs,’ and speculation based on “admitting this to have been
his aim” seemed well worth pursuing (an extreme view).
John Adams:
it seemed “very manifest” that the ultimate design behind the Stamp Act was an effort to forge the fatal
link between ecclesiastical and civil despotism, the first by stripping the colonists “in a great measure
of the means of knowledge, by loading the press, the colleges, and even an almanac and a news
paper with restraints and duties’ the second by recreating the inequalities and dependencies of
feudalism ‘ by taking from the poorer sort of people all their little subsistence and conferring it on a set
stamp officers, distributors, and their deputies”
Arthur Lee:
“[A]s the influence of money and places generally procures to the minister a majority in Parliament, so
an income from unchecked taxation would lead to a total corruption of free government in America….”
(result: slavery)
Issues of Taxation
Colonists
British
Importance of property:
Source of life (subsistence/food/resources)
Source of liberty (self-reliance, self subsistence,
Independence of other men)
w/o property, people could be starved into submission; if
liberty rested on property, a threat to property was a
threat to liberty
Locke’s theory: property must not be taken w/o people’s
consent given either in person or by their representatives.
Seven Years War against France doubled English
national debt.
British people of the British Isles already saturated with
taxes while colonists taxed very little (colonists were
only paying ¼ taxes the British in the British Isles were
paying during the height of taxation.
(Idea of relieving their own burdens by taxing the
colonists).
During the period of benign/salutary neglect; the
colonies had prospered (bountiful resources &
availability of land)
By 1750’s Avg. American was better off socioeconomically than anywhere in the world.
If the colonists could afford to bribed the customs
agents, surely they could afford to pay the miniscule tax
(i.e. they could afford to pay).
Taxes were a gift, given by the people
through their representatives; taxes were
legitimate only in a representative system;
and even then, they only apply to those
constituents who were actually
represented.
No taxation without representation; they
fact they were not represented in
Parliament should exempt them from “the
burden of ungranted/involuntary taxes
(colonists asserted this as a
privilege/right).
Issues of Taxation
Colonists
British
As a matter of principle, how could property
remain secure if it could be taken away at the
pleasure of another?
Colonists viewed the taxes as a means of collecting
in America $ which would benefit only the
constituents of the Parliament that levied the tax.
The authority to tax was reserved exclusively to
assembly of their own elected representatives;
Parliament had no authority to tax colonists at all.
Colonists pointed out that the British System
obviously reflected this b/c taxes could only
originate in the House of Commons. Theory of
virtual representation only applied to Great
Britain b/c there, even though many people had no
right to vote, they were still bound to the voting
population/ representatives by similar interests; on
the other hand, the interests of the colonists (3,000
miles away) were apt to be the opposite of the
British people in the British Isles and wholly
incapable of expression through virtual
representation.
Also opposed actual (direct) representation as a
matter of principle; even with actual
representation, colonial representatives would be a
minority within Parliament and therefore would
still be out voted on matters where colonial—
British interests came into conflict.
Colonists were not/could not be represented in
the House of Commons
If the colonists were going to benefit from the
protection of the royal navy, they should share in
the burden.
(i.e. they should pay)
Power to tax belonged exclusively to Parliament;
most important feature of its supremacy over the
king and the most important guarantee of English
liberty.
Agreed that English liberty forbade laws/taxation
w/o consent, but asserted that no such thing was
involved in any of the acts (Sugar Act, etc…)
Theory of virtual representation:
British officials pointed out that limited suffrage in
England meant most British subjects in the British
Isles were not actually represented either; both
these home subjects and the colonists were,
however, represented by each and every member
of Parliament which as a collective body
represented the entire empire
(in reality; members of Parliament were generally
provincial)
The general unpopularity of the Grenville program led to the failure (collapse) of
his government in June 1765.
The Marquis of Rockingham replaced Grenville as the Prime Minister and began
the process of finding a way out of the chaos.
After much debate in Parliament, the Stamp Act was repealed on March 17,
1766 due in no small part to the protests of merchants at home who felt the pinch
of the nonimportation programs.
The Stamp Act was repealed out of expediency, not because American
arguments about taxation had been accepted in England.
Rockingham could not bring about repeal until at first he arranged for a
Declaratory Act
The Declaratory Act was intended as a face-saving gesturere and it asserted Parliament’s
power to make laws/statutes binding the colonies in all cases whatever (it didn’t specify
taxation even though it was implied).
It declared that Parliament:
“had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and
statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of
America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever….”