BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT FOR THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
What are acceptable answers to these questions? They depend on your interpretations and the meanings you assign to the events and selected conditions. Appropriate and defensible answers will also depend heavily on the concepts and perspectives that one selects. One uses perspectives, concepts and meanings to make sense of what happened and why a revolution happened when, where and as it did. Depending on the concepts and meanings used, one can construct a version of the American Revolution that approaches what the Revolution was to those who experienced it. One can also construct a version that differs considerably from the Revolution as perceived by those who lived through it.
What factors contributed directly to the sudden, unexpected and severe changes in relationships between colonies and their homeland in just over one decade? In order to generate appropriate answers to this question, one must comprehend the conditions, traditions, expectations, perceptions and concepts that made up the complex and interrelated social, political, economic and religious environments of the time. Glimpses into samples of these environments are provided below.
As the French and Indian War ended, Parliament and its ministers tried to cope with the problems of empire. They needed to reorganize, modernize, streamline and make more consistent and more efficient the administration of their vast new empire. In order to pay for war debts as well as for defense of their present empire, they required money. They had to increase revenue through better enforcement of existing laws. They needed better enforcement of existing trade. They wanted the colonists who would benefit directly from the steps taken to defend the empire to pay at least part of the costs. And they wanted these changes to occur while preserving the rights and liberties of all British citizens. In fact, they were very concerned about preserving the civil rights of the colonists. What they had not anticipated was that since the founding of the first colony in Jamestown in 1607, 155 years before, there had been very little direct regulation, law enforcement or authority of Parliament in the internal affairs of the colonies.
Meanwhile, the colonists had gotten used to this situation. Most people in every colony did not see any reason why this very lax policy should change. From the colonists' view, to suddenly come in and start to collect taxes, to enforce laws and to regulate directly some of the internal affairs and many of their external activities were examples of arbitrary use of power. To people of this era, using power arbitrarily was tyranny. To people in the British Empire at this time, tyranny was linked automatically to the abolishment or limitation of their liberty and rights as citizens of Britain.
Was King George III, for instance, a tyrant? Up to and during the American revolutionary period until his death, the vast majority of people in England did not view him as a tyrant. This perception was opposite that which the leaders of the colonial resistance had of this same king. This was the same king for all citizens of the empire. How could the same person be perceived so differently? The answer again is linked to the different perceptions people on both sides of the Atlantic had of authority, the source of authority and the proper use of government authority for ruling the internal affairs of the colonies. They came to hold many conflicting ideologies--ones that could not easily be reconciled.
The public statements and actions of many made it quite clear that there were two world views that had much in common. The differences between these world views crystallized in the reactions of the colonists to the Acts of Parliament beginning in 1763. These acts did not cause the American Revolution or even the Revolutionary War. Neither Parliament nor King George III caused the American Revolution. They merely were focal points around which the differences that existed in at least two world views became public. Once these views were made public and people were willing to act openly in alignment with their world view, then others had to deal with both their actions and their justifications for these actions.
There also were many not-so-public struggles and desires that contributed to the Revolution and the war. For instance, historian Carl Becker claims that shortly after the close of the French and Indian War, there was a simultaneous struggle concerning home rule (i.e., whether Britain or the colonies would have the highest authority to govern the colonies within the colonies themselves) and who would rule at home (i.e., what individuals and groups within each colony would control the government and economic policies in that colony). For him, the events and positions taken by people clearly show that these were continuous, deep rooted and serious concerns for many years even though no one at the time publicly announced either concern as he does. With General Cornwallis' surrender in October 1781 and Parliament's decision soon afterward to discontinue the effort to wage war against the colonies, the matter of home rule was decided. The American Revolutionary War cost Britain a large part of its empire and led to a new form of government in the new nation of the United States of America. Their victory in the war meant the colonies had earned the right to govern themselves. The other matter, who would rule at home, was partially decided by the Articles of Confederation and later by the U.S. Constitution enacted in 1789. It was also decided within each state and within each community. In many ways, the matter of who rules at home continues to affect Americans today.
These are but a few of the factors that contributed to the 180-degree shift in the attitudes of enough colonists to motivate hundreds of thousands of them to risk their lives, property and sacred honor in an effort to be independent of King George III and his empire. These factors motivated an estimated thirty-five percent of the colonial population to put themselves in a situation where they had to invent a replacement government that preserved the rights of British citizens yet was independent of Britain itself.
The complexity of the issues and the position one held on an issue even affected the labels assigned to individuals by others then and now. Assigning appropriate labels to the Americans is in itself important. All those who lived in the thirteen colonies were by the 1760s called Americans. Those who remained aligned with Parliament, the king, royal officials and the British Constitution as these people viewed it are usually called Tories or Loyalists, even patriots. Those who actively opposed these same things were, at least until July 2, 1776, also very British. More appropriate labels for these colonists may be resisters or opposition colonists (labels frequently used in this Teacher's Guide for the Video Series and many of the student resources) rather than the traditional labels of rebels, revolutionaries or patriots. A rebel was defined then as a person who engaged in unlawful and unjustified actions against lawful authority. A revolutionary was a person who engaged in justified actions against unlawful authority. A patriot was a person who was committed to and vowed allegiance to a nation or the recognized government of that nation.
As these definitions suggest, the correct label hinges on which position one took then or takes now. For instance, colonists might side with Parliament and the king that they were the lawful authority. Hence, they would believe Parliament and the king were acting in ways consistent with the rights of English citizens and the British Constitution. In this case, these colonists would be patriots or Loyalists. From their perspective, colonists who opposed the lawful rule of Parliament or the king would be rebels, perhaps even traitors. Or, one could take the opposing colonists' view that Parliament and King George III were acting with unlawful authority because they violated the natural rights of man, the civil rights of all English citizens, the British Constitution and were in ways consistent with tyranny (i.e., arbitrary use of power and authority). In this case, the colonists who opposed the unlawful rule of Parliament or the king would be revolutionaries. The position on who or what constituted lawful authority could be used to determine the appropriate label for the opposition colonists.
Was the American Revolution a democratic revolution? Perhaps this is true only in the sense that it affected everyone in the colonies at the time. Few people in the colonies and eventually in England could escape thinking about the concepts and ideas that were discussed. The protests and opposition to Crown authority and actions were not begun or continued for the express purpose of establishing an entirely new system of government in which everyone had an equal right to vote and participate. They were not undertaken to further a grand new political theory or promote a particular form of government.
During the period up to and beyond the decision to declare independence, the leaders of the colonial opposition and most colonists were more certain of what they opposed than what they wanted in place of the present governmental system that made citizens of England the freest in the world.
Finally, nearly all of the major ideas and issues that aroused hundreds of thousands of colonists to action are still as important to us today. For instance, today, no less than in 1763, Americans complain about paying taxes, want less government in their daily lives, worry about their rights as citizens and as human beings and actively insist that their government protect their rights when they believe that they are in danger of being taken away or violated. In one sense, the American Revolution will never end. The most important struggles associated with the American revolutionary era concerned ideas and beliefs that men and women on both sides were willing to give up their lives to defend.
What actually was the American Revolution? What was it that allowed some of the people then and nearly all of us now to refer to events of this era as the American Revolution? Was the war itself really the revolution? Did the war mark both the beginning and end of the American Revolution? Did the colonists win a rebellion? a civil war? a revolution? The answers to these questions are linked to the meanings of such terms as revolution, civil war, rebellion and the American Revolution. The challenge is deciding on which meanings in what era are most appropriate. For some, like John Adams, the revolution occurred before the first shot in Lexington, Massachusetts, April 19, 1775. This shot was fired fourteen months before the congress voted to sever all political ties with Britain. For others, the American Revolution is still going on.
There is still debate as to whether the beginning of the American Revolution can be traced back to events prior to 1763. In that year the British concluded the Seven Years War (the French and Indian War to the citizens in the thirteen North American colonies of Britain) as the most powerful nation in the Western world. Its army and navy were the world's best. Britain's North American colonies stretched from Canada in the North down to major islands in the Caribbean Sea. Its people were widely recognized as having more civil rights and freedoms than those in any other nation in the world. In 1763 the colonists were intensely loyal to England and to the king. Yet, in twelve years armed resistance broke out only in thirteen of Britain's colonies over such concepts as liberty, rights, authority and representation and the theoretical relationships between citizens and government within societies.
One key issue then was whether or not Parliament's efforts to tax the colonies and enforce imperial tax and trade laws were examples of arbitrary use of power. For the leaders of the colonial resistance, there was only one interpretation for the actions of Parliament, its ministers and King George III: tyranny.
Few people in the colonies from 1763 through 1783 could have avoided the discussions of politics; civil liberties; rights as English citizens; and loyalty to England, Parliament, law and order, and the king. Throughout the colonies people in every walk of life wondered what should be done to protect their natural rights from what they viewed was an increasingly oppressive, arbitrary, if not power-hungry, king and Parliament. Most individuals then as now knew that King George III and Parliament were not acting with the intent to make themselves more powerful. Indeed, the king and Parliament never intended to act in an oppressive or arbitrary manner. They never saw themselves as acting arbitrarily or oppressively--or, as the leaders of the colonial resistance claimed, tyrannically. However, these were not the perceptions their opponents had in the colonies. In this instance, as in all instances involving human beings, it is the perceptions rather than the intentions and actual actions that count for more. From 1763 onward, the king and Parliament continually struggled to comprehend and assess the merits of the reasons why the colonists held certain perceptions.
The resisters would become patriots to the United Colonies (n.b., not the United States) only after July 2, 1776, when the Continental Congress voted to sever political ties with Britain. One could also claim that the resisters to the Crown and Parliament were patriots to their cause from the moment their cause was first stated, to the British Constitution as they viewed it to be, or to the natural rights on which they based their reasons for protesting. All considered themselves patriots to their particular colony far earlier than they became patriots to a government or political state beyond their colony. Many resisters identified themselves as Americans rather than Britons who happened to live in the American colonies. In this sense, they were patriots to America and what America and being an American meant to them. However, casual reference to the resisters as patriots may lead some to perceive the Loyalists, the soldiers in the British army, members of Parliament and even King George III not as patriots. Surely this is an erroneous conclusion. Clearly the labels employed to refer to a person or group of this era must be selected and used with caution.
Most of these leaders appreciated the English political system's reliance on the upper class to rule on behalf of the entire population. Most leaders of the opposition to the Crown, of the social hierarchy in each colony and in the Continental Congress feared a democracy in which everyone participated. They wanted restraints on democracy. They wanted limitations on who could vote and for whom they could vote. They would not have fought the war to establish a broad-based democratic government without a number of restrictions and checks and balances to limit the influence of the majority of the people. After the conflict in Lexington, the leaders in each state and community eventually had to deal with the problem of forming new governments. What each of these new governments would look like they did not know even then. They also had to consider the best form of government to guide any nation that might be formed by the union of two or more colonies. The Articles of Confederation was the second attempt at self-government involving more than one state; the Continental Congress was the first. The current U.S. Constitution was finally established as an acceptable government for a combination of the newly independent sovereign states.