The Inevitabilty of rh American Revolution, History


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - History Other

The Inevitabilty of rh American Revolution

The Inevitabilty of rh American Revolution The Inevitability of the American Revolution In the early 1620’s, the New England region was first settled by a group of adventurers. These settlers left England, their native country, by the permission of King Charles the First. At their own expense they transported themselves to America, and, with great risk and difficulty, settled among other peoples native to the land. In a very surprising manner, the settlers formed new colonies in the wilderness and these establishments grew and prospered. Before they had departed England, the colonists’ terms of freedom and their relation to the mother country were fully settled; they were to remain subject to the King and dependent on the kingdom of Great Britain. In return, they were to receive protection. They would also enjoy the rights and privileges of all free-born Englishmen. The British subjects of pre-Revolutionary America should have had, beyond a doubt, equal rights with those in Britain. The first adventurers and their children after them should have had and enjoyed all the freedom and liberty that their counterparts in England enjoyed. The colonists should not have held these rights as privileges granted to them or favors bestowed upon them. Rather, it was their inherent right to possess these liberties, as they and their ancestors were justly and naturally entitled to all the advantages of the British constitution. For a great while, Great Britain was lenient with its direct control over the colonies. With Britain’s loose policy of rule , colony growth and prosperity was encouraged, and the inhabitants of the colonies were, for the most part, satisfied. An increase in urbanism led to a more developed society that was capable of formulating its own principles and ideas. Because of this development, the colonists, guided by there British roots, formed their own unique culture different from that of England. Eventually, the differences between the colonies and Britain became quite distinguishable and apparent. The ancestors of the early adventurers experienced a different sort of liberty and patriotism in America than in its parent state. Suddenly though, this sense of self-rule came to an abrupt end. Britain began challenging the autonomous rule that they had indirectly granted the colonies. John Locke argued that all individuals possessed certain “natural rights” such as life, liberty, and property (Greene, 96). It was the responsibility of the government to protect those inalienable rights. When Britain began imposing sanctions that limited the colonists’ natural rights, it violated its responsibility to its dependents. Therefore, Locke’s theory provided an intellectual justification for resistance to British authority. Furthermore, Locke believed that if the government failed in preserving the natural rights of the individual then rebellion is justified (Greene, 96). Due to the development of powerful colonial cities, the end of salutary neglect of the colonies by Britain, and the increasing tension between Britain and the colonies, the American Revolution was inevitable. What was once considered a territory of rural communities and towns grew to states consisting of large urban cities. As the society of the states became more complex and integrated, dependence upon the parent country began to dwindle. As the states matured, their inhabitants were no longer immigrants of Great Britain, but were born and raised in colonial America. A sense of patriotism was bred, and the younger generations cared less about the roots of their country than the future of it. Many leaders emerged, their thoughts were spread, and opponents of “foreign” rule arose. Stephen Hopkins, the colonial governor of Rhode Island at the time of the Stamp Act controversy, stated that, “those who are governed at the will of another, or of others, and whose property may be taken from them by taxes, or otherwise, without their own consent, and against their will, are in the miserable condition of slaves”(Dudley, 55). The term slave, in this sense, is a man who has no control over his possessions. Rather, he enjoys all at the will of his master. Liberty is the one of the greatest blessings that men relish, and slavery, perhaps, the most degrading act possibly bestowed upon a human being, especially during the pre-Revolutionary period. It would be fallacious to say that absolute liberty is compatible with any kind of government- men have been forced to submit to government and forego some part of their natural liberty by observing any just laws. The fact remains that the colonists were forced to adhere to unequal laws that treated them in a slave-like manner. Throughout the course of world history, many groups have been oppressed, and this oppression often led to revolt. It is human nature to fight persecution; persecution of the colonists ultimately led to rebellious thoughts and feelings. As the American settlements became mature provinces after 1700, they developed a more representative system of politics. Inspired by the Whigs of the Glorious Revolution, American representative assemblies were constructed (Henretta, 95). These assemblies were given the right to levy taxes and they demanded a position of constitutional equality with the royal governor. Although more elitist than democratic, the assemblies stood for the common good of the colonists, and they often disobeyed and overruled the king’s instructions (Henretta, 95). The assemblies aided in the expression of popular opinion which gradually undermined the authority of the British. The representative assemblies grew increasingly immune from British control. Although they were still tied to Britain, the colonies had become self-governed. The mild rule of the colonies grew to be known as “salutary neglect.” Fueled by a mercantilist system, this strategy of control contributed to the colonies’ wealth and population growth. Because Britain was dealing with its own affairs in Europe, it rarely involved itself in the daily operations of the colonies. As the colonies practiced autonomous rule, they were inadvertently separating from Britain. Eventually, the expansion of British commerce that had opened the way to the era of salutary neglect brought it to a close (Henretta, 96). The purpose of the mercantilist system was to indirectly exploit the colonies by stripping them of their raw materials and then producing the end products in Great Britain, a more profitable provision. This economical system was destined to fail. According to Adam Smith, mercantilist regulations subsidized inefficient producers and inhibited personal enterprise (Henretta, 217). Though its purpose was to enrich the mother country through the colonies, mercantilism, at first, benefited the colonists more than the British. But, as America’s economy prospered, it also threatened many British interests. Pressure mounted in England to assert greater authority over colonial commerce, therefore taxes were imposed. This assertion of control forced the colonists to work directly for their parent state, thereby constraining free enterprise and limiting profit potential. The life, liberty, and property of the colonists were jeopardized. The inhibition of colonists’ natural rights, which ended the period of salutary neglect, was the road to the revolution. Tension between the colonies and Great Britain rose. Their relationship with one another deteriorated, and the willingness for compromise had faded. Taxes, such as the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Act of 1767, were billed as unfair, and the Americans felt there should be no taxation without equal representation in the British Parliament. The colonists, feeling as though they were being treated as slaves, concluded that there was not and never would be an intimate and inseparable relation between the electors of Great Britain and themselves. They also noted that not a single elector in England might be immediately affected by a taxation in America (Dudley, 45). The British were blatantly abusing the Americans for their own benefit. The colonists claimed the privileges of British subjects. It was inconsistent with those privileges to tax them without their consent. Any tax imposed by Parliament was, without a doubt, a tax without colonial consent. Perhaps the final straw leading to revolt by the colonies was the British imposition of the Coercive Acts in 1774. In response to the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, King George III declared that there would be no more compromises. “Concessions have made matters worse,” stated George III, “the time has come for compulsion”(Henretta, 157)). The purpose of the Coercive Acts was to force the state of Massachusetts into submission. However, the boycott of the Townshend Act and the escalating public dismay in regard to British authority had created a firm sense of unity among the colonies. George Washington declared the “the cause of Boston now is and ever will be considered as the cause of America”(Henretta, 157)). In response to the new British measures, the colonies formed the Continental Congress. The Congress decided that military preparations would be taken and political union was absolutely essential. The Americans now had a common goal- to secure their natural rights by any means necessary. By the mid-1770’s, revolution could not be avoided. If reconciliation were to occur, the powers of the governing would still lie in the hands of the king. Naturally, the king would have had a negative feeling over the whole legislation of America. His resentment for the colonies would have certainly affected his future decisions regarding the welfare of the states. Also, even the best terms of which the colonies could have expected to obtain would be uncompromising and unsettled. Emigrants would not have chosen to come to country whose form of government was constantly on the brink of destruction. Those inhabitants loyal to America might have fled the land, giving up on the colonial government and searching for independence elsewhere. But the most powerful of all arguments is that nothing but independence could preserve the peace of the Continent. If reconciliation with Britain would have incurred, civil revolt might have erupted, the consequences of which would be far more fatal than any confrontation with Britain. The war for independence was a social revolution, and it forever changed American society (Dudley, 246). This astonishing transformation took place without industrialization or any other great forces we usually conjure up to explain “modernization.” It was the Revolution that was pivotal in this transformation. “It was the Revolution, more than any other single event, that made America into the most liberal, democratic, and modern nation in the world”(Dudley, 256). If we measure the radicalism by the amount of social change that actually took place then the American Revolution was not conservative at all. In fact, it not only altered the character of American society but affected the course of subsequent history. In 1760, America was a collection of disparate colonies concentrated on the Atlantic coast, economically underdeveloped and still taking for granted that society ought to be hierarchical. Roughly fifty years later, these territories had become a nearly continent-wide, world power that had fundamentally altered its society and its social relationships. The Revolution not only radically changed the personal and social relationships of people, but also destroyed aristocracy (Dudley, 258). Ordinary people were now respectable and some even dominant. Most importantly though, the American Revolution made the interests and prosperity of ordinary people the goal of society and government. In conclusion, it is fair to say that an autonomous, colonial government was the Americans' natural and protected right. When reflected upon, it was infinitely safer and wiser for the colonies to form a constitution of their own, guided by their own principles, and constructed by their own hand. Independence was best described by Jacob Green, a Congregationalist minister from New Jersey in 1776: “If we are independent, this land of liberty will be glorious on many accounts: Population will abundantly increase, agriculture will be promoted, trade will flourish, religion unrestrained by human laws, will have free course to run and prevail, and America be an asylum for all noble spirits and sons of liberty from all parts of the world. Hither they may retire from every land of oppression; here they may expand and exult; here they may enjoy all the blessings which this terraqueous globe can afford to fallen men”(146,AR). Independence was viewed as a blessing and reconciliation no more than a fallacious dream. Never could true reconciliation grow where such hate and disparity existed. Had Britain recognized the inhabitants of its colonies as people with the same rights and privileges as its own subjects the Revolution may have possibly been avoided; Britain failed to do so causing the great rebellion of colonial America to be inevitable. Bibliography: Bibliography Henretta J.A., Brownlee, W.E, Brody, D., Ware, S., Johnson, M.S. America’s History: Volume 1 to 1877. New York:Worth Publishers, 1997. Dudley, William. The American Revolution: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1992 Greene, Jack P. The Reinterpretation of the American Revolution 1763-1789. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

Word Count: 2044