Download The Proclamation of 1763 - Harlan Independent Schools

The Proclamation of 1763
Historians consider the first step toward American independence to be the French and
Indian War and its aftermath (including the Proclamation of 1763). The French and
British were rivals in North America as their colonial land claims were geographically
close and both were actively competing for resources and prestige. This rivalry
eventually spilled into war, with the French and American Indians versus the British
Empire and its American colonists. The British won, and as a result, kicked the French
out of Canada and any land they (France) claimed west of the Appalachian Mountains.
Great Britain found itself in a bind. The Native Americans living on the land formerly
controlled by France weren’t too thrilled to suddenly be under British sovereignty
(rule/control). In fact, they tried to rebel against British Rule (in the unsuccessful
Pontiac’s Rebellion from 1763-1766). In an attempt to prevent future hostilities
between British colonists and American Indians, Great Britain created the
PROCLAMATION OF 1763 with the goal of warming Native Americans up to British
rule.
The proclamation created a boundary line (also called the “proclamation line”) between
the British colonies on the Atlantic coast and American Indian claimed lands west of the
Appalachian Mountains. The British never intended the proclamation line to be a
permanent border between white and Indian lands, but a temporary boundary that the
British could move westward in an orderly, lawful manner if they so wished. The
Proclamation also contained language that suggested the British Empire would maintain
control over their colonies to make it easier to protect colonists from Indian attack. This
seems relatively one-sided in favor of the British; however, the Proclamation did forbid
British private, individual purchase of land claimed by Native Americans, and that land
could only be purchased by government officials “at some public Meeting or Assembly
of the said Indians.” British colonists were also for bidden to move west of the boundary
line (the Appalachian Mountains) and settle on Indian land, and colonial officials could
not grant land to British colonists without approval from the crown (British government).
Problem was, by 1763, many British colonists had already settled west of the
proclamation line or had land claims west of the line yet to be settled. The Proclamation
also contained text that granted land west of the proclamation line to British soldiers who
had served in another one of Britain’s wars in Europe.
Prominent American colonists joined forces with land speculators (people who make
money buying/selling territory) in England to lobby the British government to move the
boundary line further west.
Oh, and the British had to figure out a way to PAY for the expensive war they’d just won
against the French and Indians. …But more on that later…
The Stamp Act (1765)
When we last left our heroes, the British and their colonists had just won the French and
Indian War and kicked France out. Hooray! Except, guns, ammo, uniforms, horses,
food, and soldiers’ salaries are reeeeally expensive. The British Empire had to figure out
a way to pay its war debt. They had a brilliant idea, or so they thought. Since the British
Army had protected the colonists from the French, the British government decided to
have the colonists shoulder the debt. How does a government generate revenue (income,
cash) to pay its debts? Through levying (collecting) taxes.
Back in England, Parliament passed The Stamp Act. This required colonists to pay a
tax, and, in turn, get a stamp they had to affix on most printed materials such as
newspapers, pamphlets, marriage licenses, and even playing cards. Putting the stamp on
the document was proof that he or she had paid the tax.
The colonists were very angered by the Stamp Act. Their anger was about more than just
having to pay an extra tax. Colonists felt their freedom, as British subjects, was being
threatened because they had no say in making the law. Colonies did not have
representatives in British Parliament to vote on their behalf, and the British government
hadn’t asked the colonists their feedback on the idea before it was made law. In other
words, the colonists resented being taxed without their consent (permission).
Groups of colonists responded in a variety of ways to make their disapproval of the
Stamp Act known:
 activist groups stopped stamped papers from being unloaded from British ships.
 merchants boycotted British goods to put economic pressure on the government
 nine colonies selected representatives and formed the “Stamp Act Congress” which
declared that taxes could not be collected without colonists’ consent, and officially
stated, in an early show of colonial unity, that Parliament must repeal the Act.
 colonists eventually rioted, and some tax collectors were even tarred and feathered
(a way to publicly humiliate someone. See picture.)
Additionally, the British levied taxes on other everyday items used by colonists,
similarly without input or consent. These products included sugar and tea. The tea tax
would really become a sticking point with the colonists. This “taxation without
representation” only caused additional anger.
Because of the economic and social pressure the colonists put on England due to their
disapproval of the Stamp Act, the British government eventually repealed (got rid of)
the Stamp Act. Success! Maybe? Kind of? We’ll see…
The Quartering Act (1765)
“To quarter” means to give soldiers a place to stay.
Lieutenant-General Thomas Gage, commander-in-chief of forces in British North
America, and other British officers who had fought in the French and Indian War, had
found it hard to persuade colonial assemblies to pay for quartering and provisioning
(feeding and supplying) the British troops when they were on the march. Therefore, he
asked Parliament to do something. Most colonies had supplied provisions during the war,
but the issue was disputed after the war ended. The result was the Quartering Act of
1765, which went far beyond what Gage had requested.
The Quartering Act required colonists to put British soldiers up in their homes. In
addition, the colonists had to provide fuel, candles, beer, and transportation for the troops.
As far as Parliament was concerned, it seemed only sensible for the colonists to bear
some of the burden of protecting the Crown’s possessions in America. Parliament had
plans to send an army of 10,000 soldiers to America to keep the peace between the
colonists and the Native Americans on the frontier and enforce the Proclamation of 1763.
Additionally, the French and Indian War had drained the British treasury, and Britain had
emerged from the war with debt exceeding 140 million pounds, about half of which it had
borrowed to defend the American colonies. Taxes had already been raised in Britain so
high that people were rioting in protest. There was simply no money in the treasury to
build barracks in the colonies and fortifying the troops with provisions and other
necessities. From the British perspective, housing and supplying the troops was the least
that the colonists could do.
The Quartering Act angered the colonists. They were suspicious of the troops and
believed that they had been sent to America not to protect the colonists but to control
them. The colonists also felt that the British should have asked for their approval before
passing an act that affected their personal lives and their wallets..
When 1,500 British troops arrived at New York City in 1766 the New York Assembly
refused to comply with the Quartering Act and failed to supply housing for the troops.
The troops had to remain on their ships. For failure to comply with the Quartering Act,
Parliament suspended the New York's governor and legislature in 1767 and 1769. In
1771, the New York Assembly finally allocated funds for the quartering of the British
troops.
The Quartering Act was resisted and not enforced in all of the colonies, except for
Pennsylvania.
The Townshend Acts (1767)
When Parliament repealed the Stamp Act, it insisted that it still had the right to tax the
colonists. According to the British, even though the Americans did not directly elect
representatives to Parliament, they were virtually represented – in other words, those that
did serve in Parliament always considered how its actions would affect the colonists and
their interests. After 150 years of mercantilist policies, though, the Americans had good
reason to not be fond of virtual representation.
Many Britons were quite upset that Parliament caved in to colonial demands and repealed
the Stamp Act. After all, taxes were at an all-time high in Britain to help pay off the debt
generated by the French and Indian War and there was little sympathy for the Americans’
claims of “no taxation without representation.” One of the Britons who felt this way was
Charles Townshend, who became the British Prime Minister in 1766. He immediately
convinced Parliament to impose a small indirect tax on glass, lead, paper, and tea. The
tax was “indirect” because it was collected before the items reached colonial stores. Since
the tax would then be include in the price that the colonists paid at the stores – and not
added onto the price like with the Stamp Act – Townshend hoped that the colonists
would not even notice they were paying a tax.
The colonists, however, were not as easily duped as Townshend hoped and they
recognized that they were paying higher prices because of the tax. They saw the tax as
yet another example of taxation without representation. Similar to their protests of the
Stamp Act, the colonists organized boycotts of British goods.
The Townshend Acts also reintroduced the colonists to writs of assistance, which
Parliament had unsuccessfully attempted to in the colonies in the 1600’s. A writ gave
British customs officers the right to search colonial homes for smuggled goods – without
a search warrant. From the colonist’s perspective, similar to the Quartering Act, these
writs violated the right to privacy in one’s own home, a long-cherished and protected
right in Britain.
The Boston Massacre (1770)
On March 5, 1770, a mob of colonists in Boston began to harass British troops, taunting
them and throwing snowballs. The situation soon got out of hand and the British soldiers
eventually opened fire on the colonists. Five colonists died, including Crispus Attucks,
a man of Wampanoag Indian and African descent, the first African-American killed in
the name of American independence.
A young Boston artist, Henry Pelham, created an illustration of the event. Paul Revere
(yes, that Paul Revere) closely copied Pelham’s image, and got credit for it. The
illustration you see accompanying this placard is the Revere image. Both Pelham and
Revere added some inflammatory details and took some creative liberties when
making this work of art, essentially making it a piece of pro-independence propaganda.
Captain Preston of the British Army is shown ordering his men to fire, and in the
background of the picture, another musket is shown firing out of a window. The building
creatively labeled “Butcher’s Hall” is actually a British customs office. This illustration
was popular in the colonies and was widely circulated.
After reading several eyewitness accounts of the event dubbed “The Boston Massacre,”
most historians now think that the colonists’ taunts and snowball throwing provoked a
British response. At the time, most colonists believed the British soldiers had started the
conflict and were completely at fault. Enraged citizens of Boston called a town meeting
to demand removal of the British troops and argued that the soldiers should stand trial for
murder. British officials agreed to the colonists’ demands.
Since Massachusetts at that time was still part of the British Empire, the soldiers had the
right to a defense lawyer and a trial by jury. It would be difficult to find an impartial jury
and an attorney that was skilled and willing to defend men the colonists assumed were
murderous butchers. It was none other than John Adams (the John Adams who would
become the 2nd president of the United States) who stepped up to defend the soldiers.
Adams argued that if the soldiers were endangered by a mob of angry colonists, they
legally had the right to fight back (self-defense), and were innocent. If the soldiers had
been provoked but not actually endangered, the soldiers were at most, he argued, guilty
of manslaughter (a less serious charge than murder). The jury agreed with Adams. Six
soldiers were acquitted completely, and 2 low-ranking soldiers were found guilty of
manslaughter. Their punishment? Branding on their thumbs.
Samuel Adams was so outraged by the acquittal of the soldiers, that he stopped selling
his tasty beer to them…..not really. In fact, what he did do was introduced the idea of
Committees of Correspondence to spread the news of British injustices from colony to
colony. By communicating with each other, the committees became the basis of a
political network to unify the colonies.
The Boston Tea Party (1770)
As part of the British need to pay war debts incurred during the French and Indian War,
they continued to tax the colonists. The British felt this was fair given the resources used
to defend the colonists. The colonists felt this was unfair because taxes were being levied
without colonial input or consent in Parliament.
John Hancock, an influential Bostonian, was angry the British were still passing taxation
laws in Parliament (back in England) without consulting the colonists. Hancock
organized a boycott of tea imported from China and sold by the British East India
Company. Their sales in the colonies fell from £320,000 to £520. By 1773, the
company was in debt and had huge supplies of tea in its warehouses it was unable to sell.
Plus, smugglers (like Hancock) were sneaking tea in to avoid British-imposed import
taxes.
The British government passed the Tea Act, which gave the British East India
Company permission to sell tea to the colonies directly. The Company could sell their
tea more cheaply than small colonist-owned businesses and smugglers. It gave the East
India Company a complete monopoly. If you wanted tea, you basically had to purchase
it from this one company. No one else could compete.
Interestingly enough, the Tea Act actually lowered the price of tea. The colonists still
opposed it. They saw it as yet another example of England making decisions that
affected the colonists without consulting the colonists.
To protest the Tea Act, American Patriot group Sons of Liberty organized the
“Boston Tea Party.” Disguising themselves as Native Americans, colonists raided three
British ships in Boston Harbor. They smashed open 340 chests of tea (9,000 pounds of
tea worth £10,000) and dumped them into the harbor. A crowd of colonists looked on
with approval. Tea washed up on shores around Boston for weeks. From the colonists’
perspective, this was simply a last resort to protest the British abuse of their rights.
From the British government’s perspective, the Boston Tea Party was an inexcusable and
unnecessary act of mob violence. Parliament responded swiftly and harshly to punish the
colonials, shutting down Boston Harbor, occupying the city, and not budging until the
British East India Company had been repaid for the tea that was dumped. These laws
imposed on colonists were called the “Coercive Acts” (coerce means “to force”), which
became known widely in the colonies as the “Intolerable Acts.”
The First Continental Congress (1774)
Like the Stamp Act Congress which had formed to give an official colonial response to
the unpopular Stamp Act, the First Continental Congress was a response to the
Coercive/Intolerable Acts (the British response to the Boston Tea Party). The Congress
was planned through the Committees of Correspondence, an organized way for
colonies to communicate, and became a way for colonists to organize and unite in the
days leading up to the Revolution. The Committees of Correspondence chose to meet in
Philadelphia because it was a large, influential city, plus it was centrally located.
We know there were many differences among the colonies—different economies, social
structures, religions, etc., but at the First Continental Congress, these differences were put
aside. Colonies agreed, for the first time, to work together to protect their collective
rights. They felt the best way to officially complain about their treatment to the British
government was as one unified group, instead of 13 smaller, distinct colonies.
Representatives from 12 of the 13 colonies met. Distinguished men such as Samuel
Adams, John Adams, George Washington, and Patrick Henry attended. After seven
weeks, the Congress wrote the Declaration of Rights and Grievances, as well as official
appeals to the King and the British people. They hoped the king would listen to their
complaints.
Don’t forget: even though the colonists were angry and held the First Continental
Congress, they still remained loyal subjects of King George III. They were NOT
demanding independence from England and considered themselves British.
The First Continental Congress had three major accomplishments:

Tt called for a complete boycott with all trade from England. There were to be
no imports from or exports to England. Violators would be tarred and feathered.

It formed a force of minutemen, colonial soldiers who would be ready on short
notice to resist a British attack.

It agreed to convene a Second Continental Congress in May 1775 to continue
colonial discussions.
Lexington and Concord (1775)
Parliament rejected all petitions and requests that came from the First Continental
Congress. In April 1775, British troops left Boston and marched to the nearby
communities of Lexington and Concord. They planned to seize stores of colonial
gunpowder and arms (weapons) and to capture “rebel” leaders like Samuel Adams and
John Hancock. The colonists, however, received intelligence weeks before this
expedition and had been warned of an impending (approaching) British search. As a
result, they had moved most of their supplies to other places for safekeeping. They had
also received details about British plans to march the evening before, and this information
was rapidly shared with the local militia (military units).
At Lexington, colonial minutemen—colonists who had joined the militia—were waiting
for the British when they marched into the town square. No one knows who fired the
first shot, but when the smoke cleared, eight colonists were dead and ten were
wounded. The British, known as “Redcoats” for the color of their uniforms, marched
on to Concord where they were met by more minutemen. After a nasty battle in which
the British were caught in an open field, the British retreated. On their march back to
Boston, minutemen fired on the soldiers while hiding behind fences and trees and caught
them by surprise. At day’s end, the British suffered 273 casualties, while the colonists
suffered fewer than 100. These battles became known as the “shot heard ‘round the
world” thanks to a poem written by Ralph Waldo Emerson in 1837 called Concord
Hymn.
After the battles of Lexington and Concord, which proved to be the TRIGGER of the
American Revolutionary War, thousands of minutemen from the area gathered around
Boston in anticipation of the next battle. The Second Continental Congress met and
drafted another appeal to the king for the violence and taxation to stop. They did not
declare independence at the Second Continental Congress. However, sensing that the
violence would not stop immediately, members of the Congress selected a man named
George Washington to lead the army of minutemen gathering near Boston. The
Revolutionary War had begun.