British policies and the inevitability of American Revolution

British Actions and the American Revolution

Was the American Revolution inevitable?

In Chapter 6 of the textbook the authors explain that a succession of tax policies handed down from the British King (and Parliament) were being protested by "fervent, enthusiastic crowds" and Thomas Hutchinson ("royal governor" of Massachusetts) was fully aware and knew the "stupidity" of the taxation policies (129). These events were a foreshadowing of the ultimate break with England, the Revolutionary War. Moreover, when the British issued the "Proclamation of 1763," which banned American colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains, and that increased tensions. And the British decision after the French & Indian War -- to keep a standing army of Redcoats in the colonies -- did not go over well with the colonists. Then came the Stamp Act and Patrick Henry's resolutions (Virginia Resolves); also, the Townshend Duties and the Boston Massacre stirred passions against England. Indeed, given the justifiable grievances, revolution was inevitable.

Question Two: How did the British treat the colonies?

This question was partly answered in number one, but the truth is, according to Chapter 6 in the text, the British were arrogant, pushy, and they thought they could punish the colonists with high taxes and with brute force. As to taxes, for example the Molasses Act of 1733, which placed a "stiff tax of six pence per gallon purchased from non-British sources," was designed to force the colonies to only buy from England when in fact other supplies (especially the molasses purchased from the French) were much cheaper. Moreover the British seemed to be doing a number of things to the colonists simply to "…undermine traditional liberties" (146). The British accomplished this anti-democratic approach by: "unjust taxation, military occupation, massacre," and also by the "subversion of justice" (146). By 1773, many colonists were indeed buying tea from the British, albeit it was taxed heavily, but they were also "smuggling large quantities of Dutch tea," which cut into England's revenues. Rebellion was in the air, and it's no wonder why.

FOUR: How did the colonists respond?

Certainly -- as the text reports on page 138 -- the colonists thought they were British subjects, and of course they were. But when the Sugar and Stamp Acts were handed down, many colonists it seemed unfair and "in deep violation of what they perceived to be their rights and liberties" as British subjects. In time, large street protests were helping to build the demand for new policies. One of the colonists' most dramatic responses was to dump "thousands of pounds of tea into the Atlantic Ocean " on December 16, 1773. Moreover, the colonists began communicating their protestations through printed pamphlets and newspapers, and the build-up to the Revolution was in full swing.

FIVE: Could the British have taken a different path that didn't lead to Revolution?

Certainly it would have been possible for the British to be far more cooperative with the colonists. Instead of taxing the colonies, the British could have entered into trade agreements with the colonies; both parties could have benefited when partnering in trade relations with other countries. The British could have been seen as a partner rather than an oppressive autocratic regime on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The British executive establishment apparently could not see any way other than by brute force and punitive taxation policies to interact with the colonies. This shows an embarrassing lack of diplomatic competency on the part of the British; they should have viewed the emergence of America proudly, and been helpful, rather than the path they chose. Exploitation was the name of the game the British played, while the colonists just wanted to be allowed to grow into a nation based on democratic values.