THE KEY DEBATE

What caused the American Revolution?

In 1763 the vast majority of white colonists considered themselves loyal British
subjects. By 1775-76 most sought to end the relationship with Britain. What had
brought about this change?

How important were econimic factors?

Historians like Charles Beard and Merrill Jenson once emphasised the importance of
economic factors in bringing about the American Revolution. They stressed the irksome
Trade and Navigation Laws, oppressive customs duties and the drain on colonial
finance. But the evidence suggests that commercial issues were not a major cause of the
Revolution. Trade grievances were mentioned only once in the Declaration of
Independence.
Americans were aware that they benefited from the mercantilist system. Indeed, trade
relations were a factor pulling Britain and the colonies together rather than dividing
them. Nor was the Revolution caused by high taxes. Americans were among the most
lightly taxes peoples on earth. The unpopular taxes/duties, proposed by Britain in the
1760s and 1770s, were low and the colonists could easily afford to pay them. Principle,
not economic hardship, was the cause of opposition to the taxes/duties.

How important was the ideology?

Most historias today stress the importance of ideology in bringing about Revolution.
American leaders had developed a political ideology to provide a philosiphic basis for
their actions. This philosophy was derived from many sources – classical ideas, Puritans
and Enlightenment thinking. However, American ideology owed a great deal to English
constitutional thought which emphasised the rights and liberties of free-born
Englishmen and the limitations of royal power.
Repeatedly the colonists insisted they were Englishmen, entitled to all the rights granted
by the English constitution. If Englishmen could not be taxed without their consent, as
given by their representatives in Parliament, the same applied to Americans.
Influenced by early eighteen-century English radical writers, many Americans came to
the (misconceived) conclusion that a small clique of evil British ministers aimed to
destroy American liberties. This view was sufficiently strong among influential
Americans in the decade before 1775 to invest almost every British action with a
sinister intent. The “acts and measures … adopted since the last war”, complained the
first Continantel Congress, “demonstrate a system formed to enslave America”.

Who led the American cause?

The traditional social and political elite led the resistance to Britain. While new men of
relatively humble background (like Sam Adams) did emerge and play important roles,
in general, the elite managed to hold on to leadership.

Why did so many Americans resist British rule?

Leaders need followers. Tens of thousands of ordinary Americans actively resisted
British demands. Why?

 New taxes served to concentrate all American minds on the constitutional status
of the colonies within the British empire.
 Ordinary Americans were politicised by town and country meetings and
commitees which sprang up and by local churches and newspapers which claimed
that British measures were a threat to liberty.
 Peer group pressure played a role.

Ordinary Americans did not simply folow. Their concerns helped persuade public
bodies to act against Britain.

How important was the mob?

Crowd or mob action was central to the way that British power in America came to an
end.
From 1765-75 the main story of the Revolution was acted out in towns. Crowds, often
orchestrated by the Son of Liberty, made it impossible to enforce the British legislation.
But perhaps the significance of urban redicalism should not be exagerated. The great
majority of Americans were farmers who did not take part in mob action. Occasionally
violent action frightened the American elite as well as British officialdom.

To what extend were British policies to blame?

Independence was not inevitable. British policy made it so. After 1763 the French threat
had gone and the old colonial system, with its lax enforcement of the trade laws, was
supplantedby more definite policies. These policies brought Britain into conflict with
the colonies. In the 1760s various short-lived British ministries devised a series of
irritations which propelled the colonies towards independence. In 1764, 1765, 1767 and
1773 British governments forced the issue of Britain`s power over the colonies.
Parliament`s first attempt (1764) was ambiguous and so was the American response.
But on the other three occasions the result was confrontation. Twice Parliament backed
down, first repealing the Stamp Act and then the Townshend duties. By bowing to
American pressure, Parliament undermined its claim to exercise control over the
colonies. With each crisis, colonial resistenace grew in strength and authority. After the
Boston Tea Party, North`s ministry chose to stand firm.

North`s government thought that by defeating the wicked few, the loyal majority would
revert to their traditional respect for be sufficient to subdue the rebellious people of
Massachusetts. But what began as a police operation quickly became a major military
effort. North`s government took too long to appreciate the seriousness of the challenge.
Thus it had too few forces on hand at the start to overawe the rebels. Possibly the
colonists would not have been so headstrong if Gage had had 24,000 troops rather than
4000.

In defence of British policies.

It is possible to blame a blundering generation of British politicians for causing the war.
To historians like Basil Williams British policy made no sense. The Stamp Act was
never expected to bring in more than $100,000 and tea only $30,000. The war was to
cost the British Treasury $128,000.
But in fairness to the politicians:

 It is understandable that Britain failed to anticipate that the colonists, freer than
any other at the time, would rebel against the nation that had nurtured the liberty
they prized so highly.
 In 1765 there was little indication of the anger to be aroused by the Stamp Act.
Even Benjamin Franklin misread the omens.
 Britain came to be demonised by Americans without good cause. The notion that
British ministries were bent on reducing the colonies to a state of slavery was
nonsense. With the possible exception of Townshend, no British minister had any
deliberate wish to diminish American liberty or impose authoritarian rule on the
colonies.
 Successive British ministries acted in a manner consistent with their
understanding of the British constitution, in which Parliament was the supreme
governing body in the empire. If Parliament was sovereign then it must have the
power to tax. Giving up the right to tax was a surrender Parliament`s supremacy –
the equivalent to recognising American independence.
 Britain´s determination to hold on to tthe American colonies was
understandable. If the colonies won independence, other parts of the Empire would
go their own way. Moreover, America was a valuable source of raw materials and a
major market, taking over a third of British exports in 1772-73.
 Although the Americans talked lofty principals, there was a sordid side to what
occurred. Many of the rebel leaders were unsavoury characters, acting ruthlessly to
enforce their control – beating, tarring and feathering and publicly humiliating their
opponents.