STUDENT RESOURCES
MODULE 1: The Reluctant Revolutionaries
Table of Contents
These questions will help focus your attention during the video. The answers will generate thoughts and feelings that are critical to comprehending this era and what the people thought, felt and did.
The description below is an overview of the video entitled "The Reluctant Revolutionaries". It follows the story in the video, but expands the context and focuses on the general moods and attitudes of the men and women involved in these events.
What caused the American Revolution? This question has yet to be answered with widespread agreement among scholars. George III was not the brute and tyrant that most Americans believe he was. Under his benign rule, Americans were the freest, the most prosperous and the least taxed people on earth. The colonists in 1760 and even in April 1775, the month of the armed conflicts at Lexington and Concord, paid far fewer taxes per person than had they lived in England. Even the new taxes required by Acts of Parliament after 1763 did not increase their taxes enough to equal those paid by people in England.
The cries of "no taxation without representation" made little sense to the king and Parliament because both saw themselves as representing the British Empire and all of its citizens. Such slogans reflected a concern about other underlying issues such as power, authority, control and sovereignty. Many colonists believed that the king or Parliament or both had become tyrants, i.e., people or groups who act in an arbitrary manner to do as they wish by ignoring the law, the Constitution and the rights of citizens. For instance, many colonists did not see how the British Constitution permitted the Parliament or the king to tax them directly inside their colonies or regulate them by strict enforcement of trade and revenue laws when neither had done so from the beginning of the colonies in 1607.
These colonists reasoned that tradition had established the right of the colonies to govern themselves with very little direct supervision and with few restrictions by Parliament and the monarch. They reasoned that tradition had confirmed the practice that Parliament could not levy or enforce internal taxes, those collected inside the colonies. In the British constitutional system, tradition becomes like law, but in 1763 the Crown and Parliament suddenly seemed to have departed from tradition. They insisted that their authority had always extended over the governments established in the colonies. They also contended that their failure to exercise their powers in the past did not mean that they had relinquished any over the colonies.
The colonists believed very strongly that they had the same rights as the citizens of England who were living in England. Beginning in 1763, however, a growing number believed that their rights as citizens were being taken from them or ignored. The resisters reasoned that if the Crown could tax them without representation or their direct approval, then other rights might be taken from them. By the mid-1770s, colonists were less concerned with rights they may have lost than with how far Parliament and the king might go to deprive them of other rights. As the king and Parliament tried to put down the open lawlessness, including destruction of property, looting and physical injury to Loyalists, the colonial resisters' fears of greater threats to their liberty and rights increased. The resisters saw the Intolerable Acts of 1774 as solid evidence that sooner or later all free colonists would be reduced to slaves.
In the first ten years of public opposition to Parliament and the Crown, the majority of colonists fully expected a compromise would occur. After all, over ninety percent of the colonists were British citizens. They continued to view themselves as English citizens who owed allegiance to the king. Even as late as July 1776, many leaders of the colonial opposition toasted the king and their rights as English citizens. They were patriots of Britain, and they also
believed that their opposition was their rightful duty as British citizens. These beliefs explain why the colonists expected a peaceful settlement. They believed that the colonies would remain part of the British Empire. They expected the disagreements between the king and Parliament and the colonies to end quickly and to the benefit of all parties. Moreover, most colonists were not certain where their opposition to the Crown and support for such political principles as liberty and natural rights would take them. However, news of the bloody conflict in Lexington and Concord in April 1775 quickly changed the thinking of millions of people on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
The leaders of the colonial opposition in 1765, and even in 1775, did not see themselves as Founding Fathers or even revolutionaries. Few of these men thought of themselves as rebels or viewed their actions as rebellious. They were simply defending their rights as citizens of the British Empire.
At no time before the middle of the 1780s, a full twenty years after the colonists first openly challenged Parliament's authority to tax, did the early colonial opposition leaders intend to set up a large scale democracy or a republic. From the beginning, John Adams, James Otis, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the other leaders of the Revolution thought democracy was synonymous with anarchy and mob rule. Many of these were the very men who in 1776 supported the ideas that "all men were created equal" and that all men were
"endowed by their Creator" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Many of these same men would attend
the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and draw up the present U.S. Constitution.
Once their independence was secure, the colonists eventually supported one of the most revolutionary ideas
of the modern world: the idea that ordinary people can have a say in their own governance. However, the Founding Fathers had no desire to establish a democratic government in which the majority of people in the nation could vote. These men feared widespread inclusion of commoners in government. They feared popular or direct democracy and sought protections against rule by the majority of the population. They valued an exclusionary--not an inclusionary--democracy, where the interests of the minority would be protected from the often irrational, emotional and whimsical majority. They also valued sovereignty (or being independent to make one's own choices and to take action without restrictions from outside powers or authority). This concern for sovereignty was one reason why the colonies resisted Parliament and the king, went to war and cooperated with one another to keep the war effort going. The leaders of each colony did not fight the war with the expectation the colony would cease to be an independent nation once the war was won. It was this expectation that lead to the formation of the Confederation in 1781.
We must not forget that the vast majority of colonists--especially those who came over from England--viewed themselves as loyal English citizens. This was true even during the most intense period of activity. They were British and they were proud of being British. That fourteen years after 1763 they would vote to sever all political ties with Britain is enormously paradoxical. Independence, indeed the war, did not have to happen. From the view of many leaders, the situation should never have been allowed to go so far as to cause the colonists to seek independence rather than reconciliation. That the revolution and the war happened were unpredicted, and yet they became fact. Why they happened is still not resolved.
Questions:
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, or did the war mark both the beginning and end of the American Revolution? Did the colonists win a rebellion, a civil war or 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 are most appropriate. For some, like John Adams, the Revolution occurred before the first shot in Lexington on April 19, 1775. This shot was fired fourteen months before Congress voted to sever all political ties with Britain. For others, the American Revolution is still going on.
What are acceptable answers to the above questions? Such answers depend on your interpretations of events and selected conditions. Appropriate and defensible answers 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 that of the colonists. One can also construct a version that differs considerably from the Revolution as perceived by those who lived through it.
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) and was 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 through 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 1763 the colonists were intensely loyal to England and its 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.
As the French and Indian War ended, Parliament and its ministers tried to cope with the problems of empire. They needed to reorganize and modernize the administration of their vast new empire. In order to pay for war debts as well as for defending their present empire, they needed money. They needed to increase revenue by better enforcing existing trade and tax laws. 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 to preserve the rights and liberties of all British citizens. In fact, Parliament was very concerned about preserving the colonists' civil rights. What it had overlooked was that for nearly 150 years there had been virtually no direct regulation, law enforcement or authority of Parliament in the internal affairs of the colonies.
Meanwhile, the colonists had gotten used to the way that Parliament governed. Their reactions to the first set of Parliamentary Acts beginning in 1765 were unexpectedly negative, widespread and intense. Most people in every colony did not see any reason why the very lax policy of Parliament should change. From the colonists' view, to suddenly start collecting taxes, enforcing laws and regulating directly some of the internal affairs and many of their external activities were examples of arbitrary use of power. They found these actions tyrannical.
Few people in the colonies from 1763 through 1783 could have avoided the discussions of politics and of civil liberties. There were also discussions of their rights as citizens of England and of loyalty to Britain, to Parliament, to law and order and to the king. Throughout the colonies people wondered what should be done to protect their natural rights from what they viewed was an increasingly oppressive and arbitrary, if not power-hungry, king and Parliament. King George III and Parliament never saw themselves as acting arbitrarily or oppressively--or, as the leaders of the colonial resistance claimed, tyrannically. However, these were not the perceptions of their opponents in the colonies. From 1763 onward, the king and Parliament continually struggled to comprehend and assess why the colonists held these perceptions.
The public statements and actions on both sides of the Atlantic made it quite clear that there were two different world views. These differences became clear in the reactions of the colonists to the Acts of Parliament beginning in 1765. Neither the acts, nor Parliament nor King George III caused the American Revolution. They merely were focal points around which the differences that existed in the views of two populations became more apparent. Almost overnight these views were made public. People were willing to act openly in accordance with their world-view. Once this happened, others had to deal with their actions and their justifications for these actions. For instance, once the colonists reacted negatively to the Stamp Act, Parliament had to decide how it should respond to these actions.
There also were many private 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. With General Cornwallis's surrender in October 1781 and Parliament's decision soon afterwards to discontinue the effort to wage war against the colonies, the matter of home rule was decided.
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. It was also decided within each state and within each community. But in many ways, the matter of who would rule at home continues to affect Americans today.
Between 1765 and 1775 the mood of a large portion of the American population in every colony changed from being proud to be part of Britain to openly defying British laws, Parliament and the king. The protesting colonists questioned the source of the government's authority to rule them and strove to preserve their liberty so that they could exercise their rights as English citizens. The two sides were sharply divided over the extent
to which the royal government was limiting the liberty and rights of the colonists. Over the ten-year period culminating on December 16, 1773, the day of the Boston Tea Party, neither side tried hard to reconcile their differences.
These are but a few of the factors that contributed to the 180-degree shift in the attitudes of many colonists. Eventually hundreds of thousands of them risked their "lives, property and sacred honor" to be independent of King George III. Later, many of these same people found that they had to invent a replacement government that preserved the rights of British citizens yet was independent of Britain itself.
Questions:
One way to interpret the events, decisions and actions of the American Revolution is to use the ideas that seemed to have guided peoples' thinking, feelings and judgments. The important concepts and ideas were invented by the people of the time. For example, people do not terrorize, fight and kill their fellow citizens; tar and feather them; hang them and documents in effigy; declare independence from the most powerful nation in the world; or throw 342 boxes of tea overboard while dressed as Indians for no reason. But, as we see, the colonists did these things because there were concepts and ideas that were very important to them as they interpreted these from their personal perspectives. They used their concepts and ideas to justify their actions; as the bases for major issues and disagreements that sharply divided families, entire communities, colonies and an empire; and as reasons why they risked their lives and property, fought and died--and built an entirely new form of nation.
Liberty is but a word. The meanings that many colonists had of and about liberty were important enough to them that they willingly broke laws, openly and repeatedly resisted the authority of the most powerful empire of the day, declared independence, fought a seven-year war, and framed and reframed a government that they believed was aligned with their meanings. The same can be said for words such as sovereignty, freedom and every other word that was crucial to this period. This is no less true in every war we have fought, every courtroom where the rights of citizens and of non-citizens are considered, and every action that we take in light of liberty in our everyday lives. Words such as authority, tyranny, freedom, rights, representation, enslavement, rebellion and revolution were also frequently and widely used to justify, defend, motivate and shape the actions of men and women on both sides of the Atlantic. In every instance, it was the meanings of these words that ignited the actions and motivated people to continue to act. Because the meanings of liberty and other words were so important to the people on both sides of the Atlantic from the 1750s through the 1790s, no history of the American Revolution can be complete or adequate without viewing the events that took place from their lenses of liberty, tyranny, authority, natural rights and sovereignty.
At the same time no history of the American Revolution can be complete or adequate without accepting how deeply proud the colonists of 1763-1776 were of being British. The colonists realized that being British allowed them the most civil rights and liberty, the most freedom, the lowest taxes, the most representation and the fewest problems with arbitrary authority (which they called tyranny) than any people in any Western nation. The colonists appreciated these while enjoying the most prosperous economic system in the world. The colonists toasted King George III and the British Constitution. They boasted how much better their lives were under the king and Parliament than as citizens of some other nation. People today have forgotten the intensity of the colonists' loyalty and commitment to Britain. They were proud of the political and civil liberty, freedom and rights they had by being British. Nearly all the colonists loved being British. Until very late in the war, most wanted to remain British. Two months after the Continental Congress voted on July 2, 1776, to sever all political ties with Britain, even Thomas Jefferson wanted Americans to reconcile their differences with Britain.
The colonists based many of their protests on their interpretations of the British Constitution and their rights as citizens of Britain. Throughout the period from 1760 to 1776, they claimed they were exercising as well as protecting their rights as British citizens. Some insisted that they were exercising natural rights that were endowed by the Creator. Some insisted there was a higher authority than the British Constitution. Meanwhile, members of Parliament and eventually King George III rejected the colonists' view of the British Constitution. They also challenged the colonists' views of the rights of colonists as citizens in the empire.
One of the strongest points of disagreement concerned authority. They disagreed on what or who had the highest authority in the empire and in the individual colonies to govern the affairs of citizens within the colonies. By 1776, many colonists accepted that there was a higher authority than the king, Parliament and the British Constitution. This higher authority came in the form of natural laws and natural rights. The colonial leaders claimed humans had rights before they formed groups, societies and governments. So while the liberties and rights under Britain's system were the best in the world, to these colonists there existed greater liberties and more rights in the system provided by natural laws. It was to these unalienable rights that Jefferson and Congress appealed in their reasons for voting for independence from Britain.
One should view the events and statements of the American Revolution in terms of what the critical ideas and concepts, such as liberty, freedom, rights, rebellion and revolution, meant to people who lived during this period of time. These meanings also may shed light on the meanings of these concepts in today's society as well as at different moments in our nation's history after the American Revolution. Finally, these meanings are important because they shaped the decisions made by the Founding Fathers in creating a new system of government. They continue to shape our own lives as we make decisions and act in a nation that continually has to negotiate meanings of laws, rights and normative concepts such as liberty, freedom and happiness. Because the ideas that lead to the American Revolution are still alive in our dialogues, the American Revolution has not ended.
Questions:
The position one held on an issue affected how someone was labeled. Assigning appropriate labels to the people at this time is an important job. Everyone who lived in the thirteen colonies was by the 1760s called American. But they were also very much British in that they accepted nearly all of the language, customs and expectations of British citizens of the day. Those who remained aligned with Parliament, the king, royal officials and the British Constitution were usually called Tories or Loyalists. Most called themselves patriots. Those who actively opposed these same things were, at least until July 2, 1776, also very British. More appropriate labels for these latter colonists may be resisters or opposition colonists rather than the traditional labels rebels, revolutionaries or patriots.
In the late 1700s, a rebel was defined 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 since they were the lawful authority. Hence, they would believe Parliament and the king were supportive of the rights of English citizens and the British Constitution. Such 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 were violating people's natural rights, the civil rights of all English citizens, or the British Constitution. 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.
The resisters would become patriots to 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 as Britons who happened to live in the American colonies. In this sense, they were patriots to America. However, casual reference to the resisters as patriots may lead some to claim that the Loyalists, the soldiers in the British army, members of Parliament and even King George III were not patriots.
Another label that was often used at this time was tyrant. Was King George III, for instance, a tyrant? Up to and during the American Revolutionary period on until his death, the vast majority of people in England did not view King George III as being a tyrant. This was opposite of the perception that the leaders of the colonial resistance had of this same king. To people in the British Empire at this time, tyranny--the arbitrary use of power--was linked automatically to the removal or limitation of their liberty and rights as citizens. One key issue in the 1760s was whether or not Parliament's efforts to tax the colonies and enforce imperial tax laws were examples of arbitrary uses of power. The colonists viewed King George III as responsible for the tyranny. Whether or not he was a tyrant is linked to the different conceptions people on both sides of the Atlantic had of the proper use of government authority for governing the internal affairs of the colonies.
Questions:
This exercise provides quotations illustrative of the various moods and feelings prior to the outbreak of the war. You should be able to interpret each quotation in the context of the person and situation within which the words were stated.
Men like Washington, Franklin, John Adams "know that by the standard of England, by the measure of England, they are not respected, they are not looked up to as great men, they are not looked upon as grandees. They are at best men of commercial wealth. And yet they have this pretension themselves, within their society of their own self-importance. And this makes them uncomfortable when they confront England."
"The Stamp Act imposed on the colonies by the Parliament of Great Britain is an ill-judged measure. Parliament has no right to put its hands into our pockets without our consent."
"This [Stamp] tax is going to touch everyone. It's probably one of the dumbest political acts in the history of government."
"You must not deprive the colonies of their right to make laws for themselves. Parliament should only make laws necessary for the empire as a whole."
"We've nothing to fear but slavery. Love your liberty and fight for it like men who know its value. Once lost, it will never, never be regained."
"Everyone will suffer if the peace and order in the community are destroyed. I hope everyone will see how easily the people may be duped, inflamed and carried way with madness."
"The taxes and duties imposed on us by Parliament must be instantly opposed. The only effective opposition is through the concerted efforts of all the provinces. By uniting we stand; by dividing we fall."
"What are we doing with our constant insisting on taxing the Americans? We're not getting any revenue from them. Instead, we're pushing them to disorder and disobedience. You can wade up to your eyes in blood, and you'll still be where you started with no revenue. We make money from trade, not tax. Let the Americans tax themselves."
"The idea that a body of men in England, who know nothing about the colonies, who see nothing of the misery that their taxes will inflict on us, have given themselves the right to command our lives and our property at all times and in all cases whatsoever, this is the logic of robbers and highwaymen. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is going to lead to oppression and tyranny."
"There are these town meetings, which people of wealth and character do not even attend, because they are sure to be out voted by men of the lowest order . . . . So it is government by the mob. This has given the inferior people such a sense of their own importance, that a gentleman does not get from them even common civility anymore."
"Block English goods--starve their trade and manufacturing. Yes . . . . The more I think about this plan [of boycott], the more ardently I wish it success."
"I'm no friend of riots and tumults. But when people are oppressed, when their rights are infringed on, when arbitrary rulers are put over them, when government is secret, the people become alarmed. If they have any spirit of freedom, they'll fight for their liberties, and they're justified in doing so."
"A thirst for liberty seems to be the ruling passion of the present age. This restless spirit can cause anarchy and confusion, unless some external power restrains it. . . . Perhaps there must be an abridgment of our English liberties--for the good of the colony."
"I am very fond of the measures you [members of Parliament] are taking, with the end of bringing the Americans to their duty. I do not, however, want to drive them to despair, only to submission."
"We are all throwing the tea overboard. We catch someone in our party trying to stuff some of the tea in his pockets. He is stripped of his booty and his clothes, and we send him home naked, in disgrace. Then we went home in an orderly fashion. Boston enjoys the most peaceful night that it has had in many a month."
"Now in the province of Massachusetts Bay, you have no government, no governor. You have only the proceedings of a tumultuous and riotous rabble--merchants collecting themselves together to debate political matters. We will put an end to their town meetings and let them return to their shops and not trouble themselves with politics and government, which they do not understand."
"They have begun killing the messengers. What I feel for myself is lost in what I feel for my country. It seems that I am too much of an American."
Student Resource 1-A
Student Resource 1-A
Student Resource 1-B
Student Resource 1-C
Student Resource 1-D
Student Resource 1-E
Student Resource 1-F
Questions to Focus Inquiry: The Reluctant Revolutionaries
Context and Overview: The Reluctant Revolutionaries
Context and Overview of the American Revolutionary Era
Context and Overview of the American Revolution:
The Role of Key Concepts and Their Meanings
Meaning of Words Used to Label Individuals during the American Revolutionary Era
Noteworthy Quotations: The Reluctant Revolutionaries
-- Historian Ron Hoffman, in reference to some of the men who would come to be known as the Founding Fathers
-- George Washington, member of Virginia legislature, in reaction to the Stamp Act, Fall 1765
-- Historian Carol Berkin, 1996
-- Thomas Hutchinson, Crown-appointed chief justice of Massachusetts in reaction to the Stamp Act, fall 1765
-- Man in a colonial tavern reacting to the Stamp Act, fall 1765
-- Thomas Hutchinson responding to the violence and law-breaking of the colonists in reaction to the Stamp Act, Fall 1765
-- Philadelphia lawyer John Dickinson, urging the colonists to unite against the Stamp Act, Fall 1765
-- Edmund Burke, member of Parliament, in response to the colonists' protests of the Stamp Act
-- New England woman's reaction to the increased duties on imported goods from England, 1766
-- Thomas Hutchinson responding to the colonists trying to organize themselves in reaction to the Stamp Act, 1766
-- George Washington on hearing of plans for the colonies to unite in boycotting goods to and from England to protest acts of Parliament after the repeal of the Stamp Act
-- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts merchant, in helping to organize and maintain the boycott of imported goods, 1767
-- Thomas Hutchinson, chief justice of Massachusetts on events in the colony prior to 1770
-- King George III's message to Parliament, circa 1773
-- George Hewes, one of the Mohawk Indians who dumped tea into Boston harbor, December 16, 1773
-- Lord Littleton in response to the dumping of the tea in Boston harbor, 1774
-- Benjamin Franklin, January 1774, in reacting to his treatment in the cockpit