Chapter 5 | Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763-1774
Need Help Writing an Essay?
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper
Write My Essay For Me125
CHAPTER 5
Imperial Reforms and Colonial
Protests, 1763-1774
Figure 5.1 The Bostonians Paying the Excise-man, or Tarring and Feathering (1774),
attributed to Philip Dawe,
depicts the most publicized tarring and feathering incident of the American
Revolution. The victim is John Malcolm, a
customs official loyal to the British crown.
Chapter Outline
5.1 Confronting the National Debt: The Aftermath of the French and Indian War
5.2 The Stamp Act and the Sons and Daughters of Liberty
5.3 The Townshend Acts and Colonial Protest
5.4 The Destruction of the Tea and the Coercive Acts
5.5 Disaffection: The First Continental Congress and American Identity
Introduction
The Bostonians Paying the Excise-man, or Tarring and Feathering (Figure 5.1), shows
five Patriots tarring and
feathering the Commissioner of Customs, John Malcolm, a sea captain, army officer,
and staunch Loyalist.
The print shows the Boston Tea Party, a protest against the Tea Act of 1773, and
the Liberty Tree, an elm
tree near Boston Common that became a rallying point against the Stamp Act of 1765.
When the crowd
threatened to hang Malcolm if he did not renounce his position as a royal customs
officer, he reluctantly
agreed and the protestors allowed him to go home. The scene represents the
animosity toward those who
supported royal authority and illustrates the high tide of unrest in the colonies
after the British government
imposed a series of imperial reform measures during the years 1763–1774.
The government’s formerly lax oversight of the colonies ended as the architects of
the British Empire put
these new reforms in place. The British hoped to gain greater control over colonial
trade and frontier
settlement as well as to reduce the administrative cost of the colonies and the
enormous debt left by the
French and Indian War. Each step the British took, however, generated a backlash.
Over time, imperial
reforms pushed many colonists toward separation from the British Empire.
126
Chapter 5 | Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763-1774
5.1 Confronting the National Debt: The Aftermath of the French and
Indian War
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Discuss the status of Great Britain’s North American colonies in the years
directly
following the French and Indian War
• Describe the size and scope of the British debt at the end of the French
and Indian War
• Explain how the British Parliament responded to the debt crisis
• Outline the purpose of the Proclamation Line, the Sugar Act, and the
Currency Act
Great Britain had much to celebrate in 1763. The long and costly war with France
had finally ended, and
Great Britain had emerged victorious. British subjects on both sides of the
Atlantic celebrated the strength
of the British Empire. Colonial pride ran high; to live under the British
Constitution and to have defeated
the hated French Catholic menace brought great joy to British Protestants
everywhere in the Empire. From
Maine to Georgia, British colonists joyously celebrated the victory and sang the
refrain of “Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves! Britons never, never, never shall be slaves!”
Despite the celebratory mood, the victory over France also produced major problems
within the British
Empire, problems that would have serious consequences for British colonists in the
Americas. During the
war, many Indian tribes had sided with the French, who supplied them with guns.
After the 1763 Treaty
of Paris that ended the French and Indian War (or the Seven Years’ War), British
colonists had to defend
the frontier, where French colonists and their tribal allies remained a powerful
force. The most organized
resistance, Pontiac’s Rebellion, highlighted tensions the settlers increasingly
interpreted in racial terms.
The massive debt the war generated at home, however, proved to be the most serious
issue facing Great
Britain. The frontier had to be secure in order to prevent another costly war.
Greater enforcement of
imperial trade laws had to be put into place. Parliament had to find ways to raise
revenue to pay off the
crippling debt from the war. Everyone would have to contribute their expected
share, including the British
subjects across the Atlantic.
Figure 5.2 (credit “1765”: modification of work by the United Kingdom Government)
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 5 | Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763-1774
127
PROBLEMS ON THE AMERICAN FRONTIER
With the end of the French and Indian War, Great Britain claimed a vast new expanse
of territory, at least
on paper. Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris, the French territory known as New
France had ceased to
exist. British territorial holdings now extended from Canada to Florida, and
British military focus shifted to
maintaining peace in the king’s newly enlarged lands. However, much of the land in
the American British
Empire remained under the control of powerful native confederacies, which made any
claims of British
mastery beyond the Atlantic coastal settlements hollow. Great Britain maintained
ten thousand troops in
North America after the war ended in 1763 to defend the borders and repel any
attack by their imperial
rivals.
British colonists, eager for fresh land, poured over the Appalachian Mountains to
stake claims. The
western frontier had long been a “middle ground” where different imperial powers
(British, French,
Spanish) had interacted and compromised with native peoples. That era of
accommodation in the “middle
ground” came to an end after the French and Indian War. Virginians (including
George Washington) and
other land-hungry colonists had already raised tensions in the 1740s with their
quest for land. Virginia
landowners in particular eagerly looked to diversify their holdings beyond tobacco,
which had stagnated
in price and exhausted the fertility of the lands along the Chesapeake Bay. They
invested heavily in the
newly available land. This westward movement brought the settlers into conflict as
never before with
Indian tribes, such as the Shawnee, Seneca-Cayuga, Wyandot, and Delaware, who
increasingly held their
ground against any further intrusion by white settlers.
The treaty that ended the war between France and Great Britain proved to be a
significant blow to native
peoples, who had viewed the conflict as an opportunity to gain additional trade
goods from both sides.
With the French defeat, many Indians who had sided with France lost a valued
trading partner as well
as bargaining power over the British. Settlers’ encroachment on their land, as well
as the increased British
military presence, changed the situation on the frontier dramatically. After the
war, British troops took
over the former French forts but failed to court favor with the local tribes by
distributing ample gifts, as the
French had done. They also significantly reduced the amount of gunpowder and
ammunition they sold to
the Indians, worsening relationships further.
Indians’ resistance to colonists drew upon the teachings of Delaware (Lenni Lenape)
prophet Neolin and
the leadership of Ottawa war chief Pontiac. Neolin was a spiritual leader who
preached a doctrine of
shunning European culture and expelling Europeans from native lands. Neolin’s
beliefs united Indians
from many villages. In a broad-based alliance that came to be known as Pontiac’s
Rebellion, Pontiac led a
loose coalition of these native tribes against the colonists and the British army.
Pontiac started bringing his coalition together as early as 1761, urging Indians to
“drive [the Europeans]
out and make war upon them.” The conflict began in earnest in 1763, when Pontiac
and several hundred
Ojibwas, Potawatomis, and Hurons laid siege to Fort Detroit. At the same time,
Senecas, Shawnees, and
Delawares laid siege to Fort Pitt. Over the next year, the war spread along the
backcountry from Virginia to
Pennsylvania. Pontiac’s Rebellion (also known as Pontiac’s War) triggered horrific
violence on both sides.
Firsthand reports of Indian attacks tell of murder, scalping, dismemberment, and
burning at the stake.
These stories incited a deep racial hatred among colonists against all Indians.
The actions of a group of Scots-Irish settlers from Paxton (or Paxtang),
Pennsylvania, in December 1763,
illustrates the deadly situation on the frontier. Forming a mob known as the Paxton
Boys, these
frontiersmen attacked a nearby group of Conestoga of the Susquehannock tribe. The
Conestoga had
lived peacefully with local settlers, but the Paxton Boys viewed all Indians as
savages and they brutally
murdered the six Conestoga they found at home and burned their houses. When
Governor John Penn put
the remaining fourteen Conestoga in protective custody in Lancaster, Pennsylvania,
the Paxton Boys broke
into the building and killed and scalped the Conestoga they found there (Figure
5.3). Although Governor
Penn offered a reward for the capture of any Paxton Boys involved in the murders,
no one ever identified
the attackers. Some colonists reacted to the incident with outrage. Benjamin
Franklin described the Paxton
Boys as “the barbarous Men who committed the atrocious act, in Defiance of
Government, of all Laws
128
Chapter 5 | Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763-1774
human and divine, and to the eternal Disgrace of their Country and Colour,” stating
that “the Wickedness
cannot be covered, the Guilt will lie on the whole Land, till Justice is done on
the Murderers. The blood
of the innocent will cry to heaven for vengeance.” Yet, as the inability to bring
the perpetrators to justice
clearly indicates, the Paxton Boys had many more supporters than critics.
Figure 5.3 This nineteenth-century lithograph depicts the massacre of Conestoga in
1763 at Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, where they had been placed in protective custody. None of the
attackers, members of the Paxton
Boys, were ever identified.
Click and Explore
Visit Explore PAhistory.com
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/paxton) to read the full
text of Benjamin Franklin’s “Benjamin Franklin,
An Account of the Paxton Boys’ Murder
of the Conestoga Indians, 1764.”
Pontiac’s Rebellion and the Paxton Boys’ actions were examples of early American
race wars, in which
both sides saw themselves as inherently different from the other and believed the
other needed to be
eradicated. The prophet Neolin’s message, which he said he received in a vision
from the Master of Life,
was: “Wherefore do you suffer the whites to dwell upon your lands? Drive them away;
wage war against
them.” Pontiac echoed this idea in a meeting, exhorting tribes to join together
against the British: “It is
important for us, my brothers, that we exterminate from our lands this nation which
seeks only to destroy
us.” In his letter suggesting “gifts” to the natives of smallpox-infected blankets,
Field Marshal Jeffrey
Amherst said, “You will do well to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as
well as every other
method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.” Pontiac’s Rebellion came
to an end in 1766, when it
became clear that the French, whom Pontiac had hoped would side with his forces,
would not be returning.
The repercussions, however, would last much longer. Race relations between Indians
and whites remained
poisoned on the frontier.
Well aware of the problems on the frontier, the British government took steps to
try to prevent bloodshed
and another costly war. At the beginning of Pontiac’s uprising, the British issued
the Proclamation of 1763,
which forbade white settlement west of the Proclamation Line, a borderline running
along the spine of
the Appalachian Mountains (Figure 5.4). The Proclamation Line aimed to forestall
further conflict on the
frontier, the clear flashpoint of tension in British North America. British
colonists who had hoped to move
west after the war chafed at this restriction, believing the war had been fought
and won to ensure the right
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 5 | Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763-1774
129
to settle west. The Proclamation Line therefore came as a setback to their vision
of westward expansion.
Figure 5.4 This map shows the status of the American colonies in 1763, after the
end of the French and Indian War.
Although Great Britain won control of the territory east of the Mississippi, the
Proclamation Line of 1763 prohibited
British colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains. (credit:
modification of work by the National Atlas of
the United States)
THE BRITISH NATIONAL DEBT
Great Britain’s newly enlarged empire meant a greater financial burden, and the
mushrooming debt from
the war was a major cause of concern. The war nearly doubled the British national
debt, from £75 million
in 1756 to £133 million in 1763. Interest payments alone consumed over half the
national budget, and the
continuing military presence in North America was a constant drain. The Empire
needed more revenue to
replenish its dwindling coffers. Those in Great Britain believed that British
subjects in North America, as
the major beneficiaries of Great Britain’s war for global supremacy, should
certainly shoulder their share
of the financial burden.
The British government began increasing revenues by raising taxes at home, even as
various interest
groups lobbied to keep their taxes low. Powerful members of the aristocracy, well
represented in
Parliament, successfully convinced Prime Minister John Stuart, third earl of Bute,
to refrain from raising
taxes on land. The greater tax burden, therefore, fell on the lower classes in the
form of increased import
duties, which raised the prices of imported goods such as sugar and tobacco. George
Grenville succeeded
Bute as prime minister in 1763. Grenville determined to curtail government spending
and make sure that,
as subjects of the British Empire, the American colonists did their part to pay
down the massive debt.
IMPERIAL REFORMS
The new era of greater British interest in the American colonies through imperial
reforms picked up in
pace in the mid-1760s. In 1764, Prime Minister Grenville introduced the Currency
Act of 1764, prohibiting
the colonies from printing additional paper money and requiring colonists to pay
British merchants in
130
Chapter 5 | Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763-1774
gold and silver instead of the colonial paper money already in circulation. The
Currency Act aimed to
standardize the currency used in Atlantic trade, a logical reform designed to help
stabilize the Empire’s
economy. This rule brought American economic activity under greater British
control. Colonists relied on
their own paper currency to conduct trade and, with gold and silver in short
supply, they found their
finances tight. Not surprisingly, they grumbled about the new imperial currency
regulations.
Grenville also pushed Parliament to pass the Sugar Act of 1764, which actually
lowered duties on British
molasses by half, from six pence per gallon to three. Grenville designed this
measure to address the
problem of rampant colonial smuggling with the French sugar islands in the West
Indies. The act
attempted to make it easier for colonial traders, especially New England mariners
who routinely engaged
in illegal trade, to comply with the imperial law.
To give teeth to the 1764 Sugar Act, the law intensified enforcement provisions.
Prior to the 1764 act,
colonial violations of the Navigation Acts had been tried in local courts, where
sympathetic colonial juries
refused to convict merchants on trial. However, the Sugar Act required violators to
be tried in vice-
admiralty courts. These crown-sanctioned tribunals, which settled disputes that
occurred at sea, operated
without juries. Some colonists saw this feature of the 1764 act as dangerous. They
argued that trial by
jury had long been honored as a basic right of Englishmen under the British
Constitution. To deprive
defendants of a jury, they contended, meant reducing liberty-loving British
subjects to political slavery. In
the British Atlantic world, some colonists perceived this loss of liberty as
parallel to the enslavement of
Africans.
As loyal British subjects, colonists in America cherished their Constitution, an
unwritten system of
government that they celebrated as the best political system in the world. The
British Constitution
prescribed the roles of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.
Each entity provided a
check and balance against the worst tendencies of the others. If the King had too
much power, the result
would be tyranny. If the Lords had too much power, the result would be oligarchy.
If the Commons
had the balance of power, democracy or mob rule would prevail. The British
Constitution promised
representation of the will of British subjects, and without such representation,
even the indirect tax of the
Sugar Act was considered a threat to the settlers’ rights as British subjects.
Furthermore, some American
colonists felt the colonies were on equal political footing with Great Britain. The
Sugar Act meant they
were secondary, mere adjuncts to the Empire. All subjects of the British crown knew
they had liberties
under the constitution. The Sugar Act suggested that some in Parliament labored to
deprive them of what
made them uniquely British.
5.2 The Stamp Act and the Sons and Daughters of Liberty
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Explain the purpose of the 1765 Stamp Act
• Describe the colonial responses to the Stamp Act
In 1765, the British Parliament moved beyond the efforts during the previous two
years to better regulate
westward expansion and trade by putting in place the Stamp Act. As a direct tax on
the colonists, the
Stamp Act imposed an internal tax on almost every type of printed paper colonists
used, including
newspapers, legal documents, and playing cards. While the architects of the Stamp
Act saw the measure
as a way to defray the costs of the British Empire, it nonetheless gave rise to the
first major colonial protest
against British imperial control as expressed in the famous slogan “no taxation
without representation.”
The Stamp Act reinforced the sense among some colonists that Parliament was not
treating them as equals
of their peers across the Atlantic.
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 5 | Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763-1774
131
THE STAMP ACT AND THE QUARTERING ACT
Prime Minister Grenville, author of the Sugar Act of 1764, introduced the Stamp Act
in the early spring
of 1765. Under this act, anyone who used or purchased anything printed on paper had
to buy a revenue
stamp (Figure 5.5) for it. In the same year, 1765, Parliament also passed the
Quartering Act, a law that
attempted to solve the problems of stationing troops in North America. The
Parliament understood the
Stamp Act and the Quartering Act as an assertion of their power to control colonial
policy.
Figure 5.5 Under the Stamp Act, anyone who used or purchased anything printed on
paper had to buy a revenue
stamp for it. Image (a) shows a partial proof sheet of one-penny stamps. Image (b)
provides a close-up of a one-
penny stamp. (credit a: modification of work by the United Kingdom Government;
credit b: modification of work by the
United Kingdom Government)
The Stamp Act signaled a shift in British policy after the French and Indian War.
Before the Stamp Act,
the colonists had paid taxes to their colonial governments or indirectly through
higher prices, not directly
to the Crown’s appointed governors. This was a time-honored liberty of
representative legislatures of the
colonial governments. The passage of the Stamp Act meant that starting on November
1, 1765, the colonists
would contribute £60,000 per year—17 percent of the total cost—to the upkeep of the
ten thousand British
soldiers in North America (Figure 5.6). Because the Stamp Act raised constitutional
issues, it triggered the
first serious protest against British imperial policy.
132
Chapter 5 | Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763-1774
Figure 5.6 The announcement of the Stamp Act, seen in this newspaper publication
(a), raised numerous concerns
among colonists in America. Protests against British imperial policy took many
forms, such as this mock stamp (b)
whose text reads “An Emblem of the Effects of the STAMP. O! the Fatal STAMP.”
Parliament also asserted its prerogative in 1765 with the Quartering Act. The
Quartering Act of 1765
addressed the problem of housing British soldiers stationed in the American
colonies. It required that they
be provided with barracks or places to stay in public houses, and that if extra
housing were necessary,
then troops could be stationed in barns and other uninhabited private buildings. In
addition, the costs
of the troops’ food and lodging fell to the colonists. Since the time of James II,
who ruled from 1685 to
1688, many British subjects had mistrusted the presence of a standing army during
peacetime, and having
to pay for the soldiers’ lodging and food was especially burdensome. Widespread
evasion and disregard
for the law occurred in almost all the colonies, but the issue was especially
contentious in New York, the
headquarters of British forces. When fifteen hundred troops arrived in New York in
1766, the New York
Assembly refused to follow the Quartering Act.
COLONIAL PROTEST: GENTRY, MERCHANTS, AND THE STAMP ACT CONGRESS
For many British colonists living in America, the Stamp Act raised many concerns.
As a direct tax, it
appeared to be an unconstitutional measure, one that deprived freeborn British
subjects of their liberty,
a concept they defined broadly to include various rights and privileges they
enjoyed as British subjects,
including the right to representation. According to the unwritten British
Constitution, only representatives
for whom British subjects voted could tax them. Parliament was in charge of
taxation, and although it was
a representative body, the colonies did not have “actual” (or direct)
representation in it. Parliamentary
members who supported the Stamp Act argued that the colonists had virtual
representation, because
the architects of the British Empire knew best how to maximize returns from its
possessions overseas.
However, this argument did not satisfy the protesters, who viewed themselves as
having the same right
as all British subjects to avoid taxation without their consent. With no
representation in the House of
Commons, where bills of taxation originated, they felt themselves deprived of this
inherent right.
The British government knew the colonists might object to the Stamp Act’s expansion
of parliamentary
power, but Parliament believed the relationship of the colonies to the Empire was
one of dependence,
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
Chapter 5 | Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763-1774
133
<
Let our team of professional writers take care of your essay for you! We provide quality and plagiarism free academic papers written from scratch. Sit back, relax, and leave the writing to us! Meet some of our best research paper writing experts. We obey strict privacy policies to secure every byte of information between you and us.
ORDER ORIGINAL ANSWERS WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH