American Revolution: For Status Quo or Against?

The dominant narrative about the American Revolution is one in which people organized
themselves into a rebellion against a government that was both oppressive and tyrannical. In
their simplistic view, the rebellion by colonies quickly led to their independence. In reality,
this was far from the truth. This essay examines whether colonials rebelled against Britain to
keep things the way they were, or not to change them.
After seven years of war, Britain won what was later to be called, the French and Indian
War. The British revered in their win. At the time, the idea of independence would be
unthinkable. However two years after the revered win, attacks on the colonial officials
houses were occurring with increased intensity. At the five year mark, a boycott of British
goods would be called and at seven years, five colonialists would be shot by the British.
The British grew in power after the war but that did not translate to increased financial
fortunes. Britain was broke as a result of maintaining several wars over a number of
continents. To buffer their expenditures during the war, the British attempted to recover such
from the American people. The latter had drawn benefit from Britains protection and
westward expansion. Britain did not want a repeat of the costly wars and as a result issued the
1763 proclamation which prevented colonialists from expanding their settlements to the west
of Appalachian Mountains. This would have resulted in wars with the Indians. The white
settles and the planters were angered by the proclamation as they had started expanding into
Tennessee and Kentucky. The anger was increased when the British introduced new taxes to
help in their efforts to recover war costs.
The levying of taxes was however not a new phenomenon. For a century, Britain had passed
laws that ensured that the mother country benefited from imperial commerce. The laws
forced colonialists in America to only do trading with English ships even if better terms

existed with other non-British ships. Prior to the war, these laws had not been strongly
enforced. The colonialists as a consequence had started tasting the fruits of self
determination. When the British legislators changed the laws from the initial to new ones, it
was not taken lightly. They were taken to be violations of liberty and infringement of rights.
As a consequence, their enforcement led to a protest and an upsurge in the Americans quest
for the protection of their freedoms and rights.
One such duty was introduced by the sugar act. There had been a molasses act that had been
passed in 1733. The sugar act had been billed as unorthodox and new. The sugar act levied
almost half of what the molasses act had sought. Further the new act had put safeguards that
would ensure that the laxity of the previous taxation regime could not recur. To many
merchants who had benefited from the laxity, this meant that they moved from zero taxation
to a new 3 pence tax. The sugar act had courts to try smugglers which eliminated the jury.
The jury had been sympathetic to Americans and as such the British saw it fit to have them
eliminated. The colonialists had their livelihoods threatened by the new taxes and laws.
The stamp act was instituted after the sugar act. It was charged on a wide range of printed
items. The stamps were very important in allowing foods to go through British ports. The
resultant collection was to finance the continued presence of troops in America to ensure
stability and security. The response by the American colonialists was with outrage and
protests. The colonialists were outraged by both the taxes as well as the presence of troops on
their land. In 1765, the outrage became violent with the looting of the stamp agent premises.
The stamp act galvanised the nine colonies to form the Stamp Act Congress. The congress
now had better bargaining power since they were talking as a group rather than individual
colonies. The British ignored the representatives of the colonies since they only recognised
appointed British subjects.

The final straw that broke the camels back came with the Olive Branch Petition. This was a
reconciliatory move aimed at re-establishing the loyalty of the Americans to the British
crown (Continental Congress, 1771). As a condition, the petition gave the repeal of the
various acts as a pre-condition. The congress presented the petition to the reigning King
George III but he declined receipt. This refusal angered the colonialists and his further
declaration that any rebellion must be suppressed was to many colonialists a war cry.
Given the foregoing, it is evident that the American Revolution was both an attempt to keep
the status quo as well as to change it. The colonialists wanted not to be inhibited from
expanding to other lands following the victories of the war, they were thus vouching for the
status quo. The British had wanted the repealing of the various taxes that were being
introduced thereby advocating to changing the status quo.

References
Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty