In few other periods of American history does the pace of change compare to the years immediately after the French and Indian War. Within a decade, relationships that had been built up over 160 years between the colonies and the mother country were ruptured. Minor disagreements often escalated into bitter, even violent, confrontations. Towns and villages throughout the colonies were thrown into turmoil. The colonists’ frustration with British sovereignty ultimately led to full-scale war.
In Part II, you will explore how England’s relationship with the colonies changed as the British empire recovered from the French and Indian War. You will see how British colonies in North America responded to increased taxation from the British Parliament. You will also consider how England’s economic dependence on the colonies pitted colonial governments against British leadership.
The real American revolution was the radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people...before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington."
John Adams, 1815
The westward movement of colonists increased tensions with native peoples and led to the French and Indian War. Even though the British emerged as the victors in the Treaty of Paris, Britain was left with war debts of more than 140 million pounds (about 31 billion U.S. dollars in 2016). As Britain searched for ways to prevent future military conflicts in the Americas, the British government also looked to the colonies to help pay for the costs of war and maintain the vast British Empire.
The British Parliament issued the Proclamation of 1763 to slow westward expansion and to avoid further trouble with native peoples. The decree forbade colonists from settling west of the Appalachians, a mountain range spreading across eastern North America. Britain also increased the number of troops stationed along the frontier in order to protect British territory from native threats. The colonists objected to the restrictions drawn up by Parliament and, for the most part, ignored them.
Between 1763 and 1765, Britain passed a series of acts to help pay for the French and Indian War. From the king’s perspective, the colonists had both sparked and benefited from the French and Indian War and therefore deserved to share the financial burden. Furthermore, the colonists paid much less in taxes than their counterparts in Britain.
The colonists did not agree and resented Britain’s interference in the colonies. They resisted the taxes on imported goods. The Stamp Act and Sugar Act, in particular, angered the colonists and eroded the relationship between Parliament and colonial legislatures.
In 1764, Parliament passed the Sugar Act to collect taxes on imported molasses. The colonists relied on molasses as their primary sweetener and as the main ingredient for rum. Even though the Sugar Act made molasses less expensive (it lowered the official tax from six pence a gallon to three pence), the colonists were frustrated because Britain was enforcing a tax it had rarely collected in the colonies prior to the French and Indian War. The colonists were also upset that they had no voice in developing the new tax policy on molasses. They contended that Britain had denied them their basic rights as English subjects by issuing a tax without allowing colonial representatives to participate in Parliament.
Come and see how well we are able to bear additional taxes! See our poor starving! Our liberties expiring! Our trade declining! Our countrymen despairing!"
An anonymous writer in the New York Mercury, October 21, 1765, “The Broken Heart of the Patriot”
The sugar tax and the accompanying increase in inspections of imported goods were supposed to discourage smuggling. But some colonists continued smuggling molasses into New England to avoid paying any tax. To stop the smuggling, Britain used its navy to seize colonial merchant ships. British naval courts, rather than local courts, tried suspected smugglers, ensuring that they were tried without a jury of their peers. British enforcement of the Sugar Act chipped away at colonial loyalty to the British crown. Colonists who opposed the Sugar Act petitioned Parliament to repeal the new trade regulations.
In 1765, the British Parliament passed another tax, called the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act required that all documents bear a stamp that could be purchased only from official tax collectors. Bills of sale, wills, shipping invoices, playing cards, and even newspapers had to carry the tax stamp. The colonists were outraged that Parliament had ignored their opposition to the Sugar Act and instead imposed a new tax on printed goods.
In October 1765, twenty-seven delegates from nine colonies met in New York to convene the Stamp Act Congress. The Stamp Act Congress held that, although Parliament had the right to regulate trade through taxes on imports, Parliament had crossed the line by imposing taxes to raise revenue after the French and Indian War. Colonial merchants vowed that they would not import British products for resale in the colonies until the Stamp Act was repealed. Because the two million colonists represented a substantial market for sales of British goods, British manufacturers were sure to feel the boycott.
Some living in Britain did not understand why the colonists opposed the Stamp Act so strongly. Even though the Stamp Act increased the price of printed goods, including newspapers, not all colonists could afford newspaper subscriptions in the first place.
The occasion of the riotous behavior of the Bostonites is peculiarly remarkable...the tax on newspapers concerns only a very few—the common people don’t purchase newspaper."
An anonymous submission to a London newspaper, January 27, 1766
For many people in the colonies, it did not matter that poor colonists could not afford newspapers. Colonists from every class thought that the Stamp Act would set a standard for more taxation.
Opponents of the Stamp Act and Sugar Act called themselves “patriots.” The patriots argued that the Sugar Act and Stamp Act violated the principles of the British constitution. After the Glorious Revolution, British law made it illegal to tax British subjects without representation in Parliament. The patriots argued that, as English citizens, colonists should participate in Parliament too.
The patriots came from many different parts of colonial society. Some patriots were lawyers like James Otis, who made famous the phrase, “no taxation without representation.” Other patriots were artisans like Paul Revere, a silversmith who publicized news of colonial protests, and Ebenezer Mackintosh, a shoemaker. Others still were activists like Samuel Adams. Some groups of patriots called themselves the “Sons of Liberty.” In Boston, the Sons of Liberty promoted the boycott of British products and also destroyed the home of a wealthy colonist who had been appointed as a stamp tax agent. The patriots carried out their attack under the rally cry “Liberty, Property, and No Stamp.”
British Prime Minister Grenville did not repeal the Stamp Act or the Sugar Act after the colonists’ Stamp Act Congress protested British regulations. He did not repeal the Acts when colonial merchants boycotted British goods either. Only after the patriots resorted to crowd violence did Parliament begin to respond to colonial demands.
The success of the protests encouraged even more resistance from the Sons of Liberty. Whig leaders in Parliament, led by William Pitt, joined the Sons of Liberty in their criticism of Britain’s tax measures. Pitt feared that the new taxes would loosen Britain’s hold over its colonies in America and hurt trade, which amounted to more than two million pounds a year. He believed that the British Parliament should control the laws in the colonies but should not tax them.
As Pitt recommended, the Stamp Act was repealed and the Sugar Act was weakened in 1766. Both sides of the Atlantic celebrated the end of the confrontation, and Pitt won widespread praise for what became known as Pitt’s Compromise.
I stand up for this kingdom. I maintain, that the Parliament has a right to bind, to restrain America....When two countries are connected together, like England and her colonies, the one must necessarily govern, the greater must rule the less; but so rule it as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both."
William Pitt, 1766
Yet, Pitt’s Compromise was a fleeting victory for the Sons of Liberty. In exchange for repealing the Stamp Act and Sugar Act, British legislators passed the Declaratory Act, stating that Parliament had full authority to make laws binding on the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.” Parliament’s Declaratory Act undermined the goodwill established by William Pitt and angered the patriots who had been clear about their demands for representation.
In 1767, the British Parliament, led by Chancellor of the Exchequer (the senior government official in charge of the British economy) Charles Townshend, tried once more to raise revenue from the colonies to help pay for the administration and protection of British North America. The government placed new taxes on the import of glass, lead, paint, paper, and tea. The taxes came to be known as the Townshend Duties.
Unlike the Stamp Act, which affected colonists trying to conduct everyday business, the Townshend Duties affected colonial merchants. Townshend hoped that a narrowly focused tax on fewer people would prevent another controversy. Townshend underestimated the colonists’ resistance to any tax.
News of the Townshend Duties triggered a new round of protests in the colonies. Merchants again staged boycotts of British goods. Patriots distributed pamphlets that asserted that the new taxes denied the colonists their rights as English subjects and reduced them to the status of slavery.
We are taxed without our own consent, expressed by ourselves or our representatives. We are therefore—Slaves.”
Letter from John Dickinson, a Pennsylvania lawyer and legislator, 1768
The protests and pamphlets against the Townshend Duties may have prompted some colonists to consider the unequal status of people living in the colonies. Most colonists worked to protect their right to own enslaved people, but a very small minority began to question the idea of slavery. As colonists voiced their commitment to democracy and freedom, some wondered how they could demand political rights for themselves while denying these rights to enslaved Africans.
For much of the 1700s, Quakers in Pennsylvania held meetings to discuss the moral consequences of slavery. In Boston, James Otis turned slavery from a religious and moral question into a political one. Otis emphasized the importance of freedom and equality for all people, regardless of race.
For the most part, colonists continued to refuse to consider abolishing slavery because the triangular trade and enslaved labor enabled their economy to prosper.
It became clear that it was likely slavery would soon be abolished in Britain. The desire to protect the institution of slavery may have pushed some colonists to pursue independence from Britain.
After Britain passed the Townshend Duties in 1767, patriots attacked customs officers, burned shops, and destroyed the goods of merchants who continued to trade with Britain. To maintain order, the British stationed four regiments of soldiers in Boston, the most unruly of the colonial capitals, and pledged to do away with the Townshend Duties in 1769.
Despite Britain’s concessions, Boston remained tense. In 1770, a street mob challenged British troops guarding Boston’s customs house with verbal taunts, clubs, and snowballs. The troops opened fire, leaving five colonists dead. The victims of the shooting were celebrated as colonial heroes. Among the dead was Crispus Attucks, a sailor of both African and native descent.
And honor to Crispus Attucks, who was leader and voice that day;
The first to defy, and the first to die, with Maverick, Carr, and Gray.
Call it riot or revolution, his hand first clenched at the crown;
His feet were the first in perilous place to pull the king’s flag down;
His breast was the first one rent apart that liberty’s stream might flow;
For our freedom now and forever, his head was the first bid low.”John Boyle O’Reilly (1844–1890), “Crispus Attucks”
Although Paul Revere, a member of the Sons of Liberty, and some other colonists called the killings a “massacre,” a colonial court found the British officer commanding the troops not guilty of a criminal offense and acquitted of all the soldiers. Today, most historians agree that no one knows exactly what happened in Boston that day.
After Townshend’s death in 1767, the colonial minister’s replacement, Lord Frederick North, recognized that the costs of collecting new taxes in the colonies were often greater than the revenue raised. Lord North repealed the Townshend Duties but left a small tax on tea.
In 1773, the Tea Act brought tensions in the colonies to a boiling point. The British East India Company produced tea in British colonies in South Asia. To prevent the company from going bankrupt, the British Parliament granted it permission to sell tea directly to the colonies, bypassing the colonial merchants who acted as middlemen. Without the merchants’ fees, the tea was cheaper for everyday people, so British officials assumed that the new regulations would not meet resistance. They reasoned that colonial consumers would welcome the lower prices.
Patriot leaders interpreted the Tea Act as another means to force the colonists to submit to Parliamentary authority, especially because it included a tax.
[When] did they [the colonists] enter into an express promise to be subject to the control of the parent state? What is there to show that they were in any way bound to obey the acts of the British Parliament...?”
Samuel Adams, 1771
The most dramatic blow against the Tea Act occurred in Boston in December 1773 when patriots boarded three East India Company ships in Boston Harbor. As onlookers cheered, the patriots dumped 342 chests of tea overboard.
The Boston Tea Party, as the event became known, was among the first of various disturbances in colonial port cities. Colonists who acted as sales agents for British tea found themselves the targets of violence, including “tarring and feathering,” in which the victim’s body was smeared with hot tar and then coated with feathers. Tarring and feathering usually resulted in permanent scars and could produce crippling injuries or even death.
The mob actions concerned many of the patriot leaders who had much in common with the persecuted British officials. They were well-educated and prosperous, with views and tastes that were similar to those of wealthy people in Britain. They worried that the movement could increase tensions between wealthy colonists and poorer craftsmen, dock workers, day laborers, and indentured servants.
The British government’s response to the Boston Tea Party was swift and harsh. In May 1774, Parliament closed the port of Boston and suspended the charter of Massachusetts. This was a very dramatic course of action because the port was a vital economic center, and the charter established the rules for governing the colony. Without the charter, colonists could not have town meetings without permission from the royal government and at the meetings, they could only discuss topics that were approved by the royal governor.
But even former defenders of the American colonists in Parliament agreed that Boston’s patriots had to be punished. General Gage, the commander of British forces in North America, assumed the position of royal governor in Massachusetts and enforced Parliament’s punishment by sending in more troops to Boston.
The patriots branded the new restrictions as the “Intolerable Acts.” The groundswell of support from other colonies encouraged the patriots not to back down.
If the Port of Boston is to remain shut till the people in that province acknowledge the right of Parliament to impose any taxes or duties whatever...it must remain shut till the very name of a British Parliament is forgotten among them.”
Benjamin Franklin, 1774
Twenty years after Benjamin Franklin had first urged his fellow colonists to form a council to secure themselves against foreign invaders during the French and Indian War, the colonies moved toward common action. In the summer of 1774, twelve colonial legislatures voted to send representatives to Philadelphia for what would be the First Continental Congress.
During the First Continental Congress, delegates from every colony except Georgia drafted a declaration of their grievances to send to London. In a petition to King George III, the colonial representatives affirmed their loyalty to the king, rejected the authority of Parliament, and called for the end of the Intolerable Acts.
The delegates were hesitant to criticize the king openly. Many colonists saw themselves as faithful subjects of the king and hoped that by criticizing Parliament they could win his sympathy.
To resist Parliament’s enforcement of the Intolerable Acts, the First Continental Congress voted to boycott all trade with Britain. The delegates drafted their resolves and made plans to enforce the boycott of British trade. The colonists agreed to meet in Philadelphia the following year if their demands were not met.
Many colonists, including women, helped to build support for the boycott.
America stands armed with resolution and virtue; but she still recoils at the idea of drawing the sword against the nation from whence she derived her origin. Yet Britain, like an unnatural parent, is ready to plunge her dagger into the bosom of her affectionate offspring. But may we not yet hope for more lenient measures?”
Mercy Otis Warren in a letter to Abigail Adams, December 20, 1774. Warren wrote poetry, stories, and plays that both satirized Tory leaders and inspired colonial women to boycott British goods.
General Gage did not attempt to stop public meetings and demonstrations against the British occupation of Boston. He also did not block the militia groups that drilled in small towns throughout New England.
However, reports that the patriots were stockpiling large quantities of weapons and gunpowder did concern the general. Gage planned several expeditions to locate and seize the stockpiles. He scheduled one such mission for April 19, 1775. The plan was for British troops to take a patriot supply center in Concord, Massachusetts, twenty miles west of Boston. Gage also wanted to arrest patriot leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock who were hiding in Lexington, five miles east of Concord.
At dawn, British troops dispatched by Gage reached Lexington. Gage did not know that the patriots had discovered his secret plans. Several colonists (including Paul Revere) had ridden to Lexington and Concord in the middle of the previous night. They had gone to forewarn the members of local militias, especially those known as “minutemen” who had to be ready to fight at a minute’s notice.
So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,
A cry of defiance and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door
And a word that shall echo forevermore!”Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, “Paul Revere’s Ride,” 1860
By morning, around sixty minutemen had assembled on the village green in Lexington. They were severely outnumbered by the British troops. Shortly after the commanding British officer ordered the minutemen to disperse, a gun went off. No one knew who fired the first shot, but the British troops responded by opening fire on the militia. Within minutes, eight minutemen lay dead or dying.
A similar confrontation erupted in Concord, where colonists believed the British soldiers were trying to burn down the town.
In Concord Hymn (an 1837 poem about the fighting in Concord and Lexington), Ralph Waldo Emerson called the first shot fired by the patriots the “shot heard round the world.”
The skirmishes at Lexington and Concord dramatically escalated the struggle between the British government and the colonists. Whether these clashes were isolated incidents or the beginnings of a larger conflict remained to be seen. Even among the militia forces that had fought at Lexington and Concord, most believed that they were defending their rights as British citizens, not striving for independence.