Today in class we started learning about the events that led up to the Deceleration of Independence of 1776. Although one of the driving reasons for the revolution was a series "oppressive" laws enacted on the American colonies, was another main influence of the war money? Although it may have been a much safer bet for many to side with the British during the American Revolution, the rewards of a revolution may have been too good to ignore. Winning the war meant riches beyond belief in the form of free trade, land, and no taxation without representation.
Due to the mercantilism economy of Great Britain and the one sided trade that was going on with America, American farmers and plantation owners were not making as much money as they could have been. America was only allowed to trade with Great Britain, which put them at the mercy of British merchants. Although, with certain popular crops only grown in America, such as rice and tobacco, the British markets were at the mercy of Americans. However, the Americans could be trading in other markets, such as France, in order to make even more money and take out the British middle-man. So for plantation owners and manufacturers a successful revolution meant more money.
After the French-Indian War, or the Seven Years War, as it is known in Europe, there was a large expanse of land west of the Appalachians open to whoever could get to it first. However, the British passed the Proclamation of 1763 which created a line on the Appalachians that colonist could not settle passed. But with the depreciating value and size of land in the northern colonies like New England, many farmers and men looking to get rich wanted to start colonizing on the other side of the Proclamation Line. Crossing the line at the time was illegal, but if the American people won their revolution they would be able to squat in the area until they were just given the land. More farm land also meant more exports and different types of crops that could be grown. If the Americans were given the land it would boost the economy of the new born country and it would fill the wallets of the new land owners.
After the French Indian War, Great Britain was in a large amount of debt and started taxing the American colonies for the first time. Not only were the Americans outraged by "taxation without representation", they were also outraged that a colony that used butter as barter had to pay tax using the imperial pound. Even though a large percentage of Great Britain's debt was caused by the American colonies, Parliament didn't have a right to "taxation without representation". In essence, taxing the colonies was wrong on two levels and the colonists were aware of this fact. With a revolution, the American common people would be able to save their minuscule amount of wealth.
The American Revolution may have been about the "crimes" of the English king, parliament, and system in general. But the economic causes of the war could have been just as influential.
One of the main causes of the Boston Tea Party was when Britain gave money to the suffering East India Trading Company, in attempt to save this key British corporation from falling apart. Britain saw it as a huge source of money and power, and they weren't ready to let it fall to pieces. The East India Trading company had lots of tea just sitting in the Boston harbor, because many colonist refused to by this British good. Britain gave money to the East India Trading Company to make the tea cheaper, hoping to colonists would then buy British tea, despite it's tax. Although, this plan backfired, as the colonists felt that this generous donation from the British government to the East India Trading Company was only an attempt to manipulate colonists to buying the, now cheaper, British Tea. The colonists not only continued to boycott the tea, but the Boston Tea Party was triggered.
ReplyDeleteAt this time, we see the colonists buy more expensive tea just to defy the British government. While I agree with you that a portion of the American Revolution was due to economic reasons, I am bringing up a counter-example to view an opposing argument in history.