The American Revolution began as a simple dispute over constitutional rights and levels of taxation. As such it was not far removed from the internal politics of Great Britain, where much the same issues were dominant. However the two sides soon found themselves spiralling uncontrollably towards the conflict that broke out in 1775. In understanding why troubled colonial relations nose-dived into rebellion one must look from all angles. Anger at new taxes sits atop a mountain of potentially insidious factors. The impact of the Enlightenment emerging throughout the European world, the increasing confidence and intolerance of colonists, English attitudes to the colonies, and the affects of the Seven Years War on both sides of the Atlantic must all be considered.
It is important to consider the parting of the empire from both perspectives. The American perspective is better documented and will be addressed first. However, more than usual one should be careful about using American evidence. As a defining point in American history the Revolution was far more significant an event west of the Atlantic. As such evidence may have a tendency towards exaggeration and selectivity. One might also expect to find a reasonably heavy element of bias in English evidence and material. However the English sources examined in this analysis, especially secondary evidence, are surprisingly and quite openly critical of the late eighteenth century regime.
The moment the Mayflower moored in Plymouth the wheels were set in motion that would lead to independence. The vast distance between the colonists and their kin alone was an enormous obstacle to maintaining cordial links with Britain. As it was the hurdles were greater still. The nature of America forced a new way of thinking upon the colonists, both about their personal and collective freedoms being so far from traditional authority, and about their dependence upon the Motherland. In such apparent wilderness the sense of responsibility to the local community would develop as immeasurably greater than the responsibility to and the opportunities offered by Britain and Her government. This spirit would have been carried forward as America developed towns and cities of serious proportions, especially with political institutions being formed in the colonies. John Dickinson describes the reality of this situation during his travels in England. 'I don't know how, but I don't seem to have any connections with this country; I think myself only a traveller, and England is but an inn.' Critically the colonists were beginning to think of themselves as a distinct identity, as Americans rather than Englishmen. From the American view the empire was beginning to look less homogenous, unity less necessary.
While the physical and social situation of the colonists can be seen as the main reason for their cultural and political departure from Britain, the role the British played can not be discounted. Despite the difficulties they faced most Americans still considered themselves to be Englishmen or at least loyal subjects at the start of the century. On the other side of the Atlantic it was thought rather insulting to be viewed as equal to the colonists. As Susan Lively of Harvard University writes, 'the British saw the colonists as strange and primitive.' They were certainly not generally regarded as equal citizens of Britain as much as they were colonial subjects of Britain's imperial control. In her essay Rediscovering Britain, Susan Lively uses Dr Samuel Johnson as an example of the derogatory view that the British took. 'At one point Johnson demanded of Ewing, “Sir, what do you know in America? You never read. You have no books there." Although Ewing insisted the colonists did indeed own books, Johnson refused to be convinced of this until Ewing quoted from Johnson's own works.' Such attitudes were common and could be found anywhere from the House of Commons to military barracks. During the French and Indian War it was regularly pointed out that British soldiers had a lack of respect for their American counterparts, and treated those on the land they occupied so badly they effectively pillaged in the style of an enemy power. Their treatment as second-class citizens eroded at one of the last links holding the colonists to their place in the Empire, their pride in being true-born Englishmen. It could also have confirmed to those who had doubts about their true loyalties their alienation from English society. However this pride was not quickly destroyed, as quotes from Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Adams will show. Both, later to be important leaders of the rebel cause, were quick to show their attachment to Britain and their joy at her victory against France. While this could easily be construed as diversionary nonsense it must be considered. Franklin for one fought right until the signing of the Declaration of Independence to reaffirm a union between England and the colonies. Similar assertions from other colonists show that while important the English treatment of the people of America was generally a secondary problem, one that fostered resentment rather than outright rebellion. However, the Americans could only be pushed so far before grudges and complaints became vendettas and contempt for English rule.
Alienation and the growth of a new identity had begun to tear at the restrictive structure of the Empire. Complaints, insults and challenges had been sailing back and forth across the Atlantic, with issues ranging from desperate pleas for protection against Native American attacks to the treatment of British merchants in American harbours. Gradually as the century wore on the range of complaints narrowed, with most people both in Britain and America bringing their frustration into line with the major issues that were developing. This process made the situation far more dangerous, as organised groups began to develop based on these issues. While only a small minority were openly advocating revolution, the structure for upheaval was being laid. Later these roughly aligned factions would form the basis of patriot movements throughout the colonies. Once revolution began it would not take long for the supporters of independence to be mobilised.
While the colonists had numerous complaints against the government one was often prevalent. Resisting taxation was an English tradition that the American English, despite all the other differences that had developed, were true to. Apparently a righteous cause, based as it was on the English political foundation, it was valid in many peoples' minds. It also had a direct connection to the question of British power in America, so paving the way for the discussion of the benefits of independence, perhaps the true central aim for many of the dissidents. The manner in which the British government assumed it had full sovereign rights over the Americans when it began introducing new taxes also exacerbated the already present feeling of second-class treatment amongst the colonists. Taxation had so many links and connotations that soon most dissenters were in some way connected with it.
The rebel movement began to solidify, with disparate groups looking ever more similar with common goals. It is important now to consider the importance of individuals within the movement, and also to how committed the movement as a single entity was to independence. Popular American history often stresses the importance of a key set of characters; Jefferson, Franklin, Adams et al, and it would be impossible to examine the movement without looking at their influence. Those who have come to symbolise the revolution were an eclectic group. Their positions at the outbreak of war range from Benjamin Franklin's determination that Britain and the colonies could be reconciled to Patrick Henry's venomous attacks upon figures of the English establishment, the King and the Anglican Clergy. Most if not all of the obvious figures did not originally pursue revolution immediately. They generally differed in how hard they meant to push Parliament in order to preserve their 'rights' and in how offended they were by the English stance. Those who knew of each other at this time were certainly not always in agreement. Many of a hot-blooded nature goaded Franklin in London for his 'softly, softly' approach and his holding of royal appointments, while more conservative 'patriots' criticised the dangerous tactics of those behind such incidents as the Boston Tea Party.
The most important role of many of these 'patriots' was their role as representatives in Congress. Despite earlier differences they became generally united within the revolutionary government by the time hostilities broke out. As such they were able to carry out the important task of keeping the disparate colonies united behind the rebellion, without which it could not have succeeded. Benjamin Franklin was also important through his effective position as foreign ambassador, as which he was able to gather the international, particularly French, support the colonies needed not only to succeed but also in order to have the confidence to rebel at all. At the same time Thomas Jefferson, representative for Virginia, wrote the document that was to underpin the rebel cause and hold it together. By signing the Declaration of Independence the representatives had signed their death warrants were they to fail, and so a common bond was formed.
The turmoil of the late 18th century stirred the volatile elements now present in American society. The British introduced the Stamp Act and other taxation to deal with their war debt and to tighten imperial control. Meanwhile with the threat of French invasion removed colonists increasingly felt free to protest against what they perceived as the abuse of sovereign power by the crown and the British government. The direct taxation introduced at this time appeared to ignore these complaints entirely, stirring popular resentment. Rebel colonists waved the Magna Carta at those who worked by it in Parliament, pointing to their claim that the government had no right to tax them without their direct representation in Parliament. Samuel Adams raised this issue several times in his now well publicised letters. As a result of the Mayflower Compact, he argued, colonists were entitled to 'all the rights and privileges of natural born subjects of Great Britain.' The right to private property that could not be violated without the owner's permission either directly or by proxy through a representative was the central claim. A popular cry was born, 'No taxation without representation.' The validity of using this argument, however constitutionally correct, based on a document over 400 years old and in the least taxed area of the western world is open to endless discussion. Indeed it was to become the issue of discussion at Westminster for more than a decade. However, whether logical or not it provided an apparently righteous, expedient and popular front both for those who were truly concerned about mounting taxes and especially for those who sought independence for its own sake rather than accepting it as necessary for resolving the problems of the time.
The British perspective of the developing problems was very different, and has often been overlooked by historians. Those that have looked at the situation in Britain, especially American writers such as Don Cook in The Long Fuse, often represent events before 1775 as an uninterrupted series of political blunders. While deeper research hardly acquits the British government of a multitude of miscalculations and even moments of plain stupidity, it brings to light the rationale behind the decisions. From the point of view of a seventeenth century superpower some of these decisions no longer appear as they do from our modern perspective, and with some imagination it is possible to discern that the government could not see where their policies would take them.
From Britain's view problems in American did not begin until the 1760's. At the end of the Seven Years War the empire seemed contented and universally victorious. There was no reason to believe that the colonial situation should be other than Britain had always imagined it to be, benevolent but also complete rule by the Mother Country. From a contemporary perspective it is hard to imagine what a world of certainty the eighteenth century was in comparison. Since the end of the middle ages European superpowers had dominated the world without question. There was nothing strange or remarkable about a relatively small nation such as Britain controlling vast colonies overseas, and for those colonies to be totally subservient to the motherland. Only the fact that America was populated with Englishmen and not a conquered people made it different. As such there were few that at first questioned the wisdom of directly taxing the colonists. After all while Britain struggled with an unheard of level of debt caused by the war, a war that had, in Britain's eyes, also helped the Americans, the colonists contributed a relative pittance to the treasury in comparison to their heavily taxed brethren back home. The idea that the might be any problem with this in practice, let alone in constitutional correctness did not permeate opinion until the debacle had begun. With the Stamp Act and related measures of 1765 a series of crises and blunders was set in motion that may have been avoided had this original view been less pervasive. Instead English politics contrived to place in power men of narrow minds who would force this train to continue, unravelling the bonds of empire in its wake.
An important example of the unsuitable hands power was placed in was the king's third Prime Minister, George Grenville. While George III's appointment of Lord Bute as Prime Minister ahead of more capable men such as William Pitt can be seen to have begun the dominance of the politically mediocre, Grenville's appointment was to be most devastating decision the king made prior to the outbreak of war. The narrow minded and stubborn Grenville was a most unsuitable leader at a time that called for vision and compromise. The uproar which accompanied Grenville's introduction of the Stamp Act should have made any Prime Minister step back and think about the consequences of the action. Instead Grenville proved unable to adjust, more concerned with small matters of finance than of great imperial gains, more concerned with enforcing vague and meaningless constitutional rights he believed Parliament held than in finding common ground with the colonies. The Public Advertiser summed his character up, claiming he believed 'a national saving of two inches of Candle a triumph greater than all Mr. Pitt's victories.' (The Long Fuse, Don Cook). It was Grenville's refusal to compromise and his stubborn belief in the sense and righteousness of his policies that brought the American situation to a critical point. Later governments, while by no means effective, merely failed to grasp what Grenville's administration had done, and so failed to reverse the damage done. That is not to say that they were blameless. Rockingham's inability to form policies and Townshend's blatantly provocative duties were both further nails in the Empire's coffin. The aim of tightening imperial controls that many post-war governments held was a sensible and possibly profitable one. Unfortunately Parliament became burdened with political incompetents and poor leaders at the critical time, turning this sensitive issue into a minefield from which they could not escape unscathed.
As we know, Britain was not only hurt by the dispute, but also lost its most valuable colonial possessions while struggling to survive a world war against both the colonists and the mightiest European empires. If any British politician had thought the quarrel harmless he was proved disastrously wrong. In hindsight it appears near to impossible to make the terrible miscalculation that many in Parliament did. From the American perspective the passage of events is easier to understand. The resulting development of the USA is testament to the benefits independence brought. So what can be concluded from this examination. It is tempting to view the Revolution as a natural step in the maturing of the American nation, as is its context in many US history syllabuses, along with Christopher Columbus, the Mayflower landing and the Civil War. The view that the colonists were, by the 18th century, less and less English certainly supports this, indicating that the Revolution was more the culmination of a slow unstoppable parting than a sudden reversal of the colonies' loyalties. However we must be careful not to view history as a well constructed story, it is not. The physical and emotional separation that had occurred was undoubtedly important but alone was not an excuse for war. Instead it was contemporary events that brought to light the extent of the division that had developed. After the Stamp Act many people began to question for the first time what benefits the union had for themselves, and it was at that point that the nature of the colonies as nations within a nation began to emerge. There were two vital factors behind the transformation from loyal subjects to violent rebels. First was the decreased dependence of the colonies on Britain, both economically and militarily as a result of increasing trade and the removal of the French threat. The realisation of this new strength allowed the colonists to question the imperial union and to contemplate the feasibility of opposing it. Second was the increasing influence of the minority who had been first to seek independence, both in colonial government and as private citizens. This was mainly due to the failure of the British government to placate the colonists, especially their refusal to contemplate a constitutional limit on its power. In conclusion the Revolution could be seen as analogous to a leaking petrol can. The long term effect of increasing independence and emotional separation from Britain, the 'leaking petrol', being unsafe but stable until 'ignited' by the removal of France from Canada, the enormous British war debt and the stubbornness of the government in dealing with the colonies. These new problems and opportunities demonstrated the precarious nature of the imperial link, giving American rebels the opportunity to lead their compatriots to war.