· Web viewColonists in North America were grateful for Britain’s help during the French and...

Name: ______________________________________ Social Studies Seven/PD: _____Chapter Five/Part One – The Troubles Begin

I. The Troubles Begin

A. Effects of the French and Indian War:

The French and Indian War had been long and difficult for Britain and its colonies. Nine years of fighting left thousands of soldiers and civilians dead. Britain had been forced to spend enormous amounts of money to pay and train soldiers, build ships, and buy the supplies needed for war. For Britain, the fighting took place in Europe, Africa, and India in addition to the fighting in North America. At war’s end, the British Treasury was nearly empty and Britain– the people of Great Britain were already being taxed to their limit.

While it was true that Britain had won the war and had become a powerful empire, it was an empire facing severe financial problems. Members of Parliament and the King (George III) were also well aware that the war had begun in North America and that the 13 Colonies had needed a great amount of British manpower and resources to survive the war. Within the British Government, there was a renewed interest in governing the 13 Colonies directly and British officials fully expected the 13 Colonies to help pay for a war that they had “started.”

Colonists in North America were grateful for Britain’s help during the French and Indian War. Throughout the 13 Colonies, people celebrated the victory over the French and their Indian allies. Feelings of intense pride in being part of the British Empire were common and most families drank a toast to the king at dinner each evening. The British flag could be seen in every town and city in the Colonies.

When Benjamin Franklin visited London after the war, a Member of Parliament asked him whether he thought that the 13 Colonies might someday rebel against Britain. Franklin responded without hesitation – saying that the 13 Colonies loved Britain and the King too much and that if the 13 Colonies could not unite to defend themselves, then how could they ever be expected to unite against their parent nation? Franklin then paused for a moment and said that only the most unjust rule could force the Colonies to unite and rebel against Britain.

EFFECTS: The French and Indian War changed the relationship between Great Britain and the 13 Colonies. Britain had allowed the 13 Colonies to govern themselves for over 100 years. The end of the war marked an end to this policy. Britain intended to closely govern its North American Colonies and also intended to make them help pay for the war. Although Colonists were still happy to be a part of the British Empire, there was a growing sense of unease about Britain’s intentions after the war.

B. The Proclamation of 1763:

Many Native tribes in the Ohio Valley united during the last year of the French and Indian War under a Native leader named Pontiac. The arrival of British settlers in large numbers and the loss of their lands troubled the Natives of the Valley. In addition, the new British official placed in charge of governing the region increased prices on trade goods that the Natives bought from the British. Under Pontiac, the Natives were determined to drive the British from the valley before it was too late to stop their spread.

The Native alliance struck at nearly every British fort and settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains. Caught by surprise, the British were largely driven out of the valley and lost nearly every fort by the late spring months of 1763. The British, however, struck back quickly and turned the tables – recapturing their forts and lost settlements. They also pressured the French (who had already signed a peace treaty ending the war) to put an end to the Native attacks. A disappointed Pontiac listened to his old French allies out of loyalty and stopped the attacks, even though he knew there would never be a better chance to stop the British.

Pontiac’s War convinced British officials that they could not protect settlers who had moved west of the Appalachian Mountains or prevent wars with Natives in this region. In 1763, the British Government passed the Proclamation of 1763. Under the new law, all settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains was forbidden. Any settlers already living west of the mountains were ordered to return to the east. In addition, Britain sent 10,000 soldiers to America to enforce the new law, but many of the soldiers remained in the cities and never left to guard the frontier.

EFFECTS: The Proclamation of 1763 had unexpected effects for Great Britain. The law was very unpopular, especially with Colonists from New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia (including George Washington) who had claimed land in the valley. Settlers who were forced to abandon their farms in the valley were also extremely unhappy with the law. Some believed that Britain planned to ignore Colonial land claims and would give the land to nobles in England.

Finally, Colonists in the cities were angered by the arrival of thousands of soldiers – turning cities such as Boston, New York and Philadelphia into what one Colonist complained as “armed camps.” Many Colonists, such as the famous frontiersman Daniel Boone, ignored the law and led settlers west of the mountains in defiance of British rule.

C. Failed Taxes for the 13 Colonies:

British Prime Minister George Grenville also believed that it was time that the 13 Colonies should pay taxes to help pay for the war. Grenville was a firm believer in Mercantilism – the policy which said that a colony only existed to increase the wealth of a parent country. Besides, thought Grenville, the 13 Colonies surely would not object to paying a small tax designed to help pay for the war that they had started?

In 1764, Grenville convinced Parliament to pass the Sugar Act – a tax that replaced a very high tax on molasses that was driving colonial rum makers and merchants out of business. The new law also made it much easier to place merchants who smuggled goods on trial (many had been smuggling goods into the 13 Colonies without paying taxes). The new tax only affected a small number of merchants in New England and many New Englanders continued to get around the tax by smuggling sugar into the Colonies.

Before 1765, the Molasses Tax (1763) and Sugar Tax (1764) only affected a small number of colonists – merchants and traders in New England. More than anything else, Britain was concerned with putting an end to smuggling or the illegal practice of bringing goods into and out of a Colonies without paying taxes. The taxes on molasses and sugar greatly concerned Colonists involved in the rum business, but had little effect on the Colonies in general.

Proclamation of 1763 Line A young King George III Prime Minister George GrenvilleThe line was drawn along the western King of Great Britain from 1760-1820 Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1763-1765edge of the 13 Colonies.

Review Questions

1. How did the French and Indian War impact Great Britain?

2. How did the war change the way that Great Britain viewed the 13 Colonies?

3. Why did Great Britain pass the Proclamation of 1763?

4. In what way was the Proclamation of 1763 unpopular in the Colonies?

5. What were laws such as the Sugar Act and Molasses Act designed to fight?

Name: ______________________________________ Social Studies Seven/PD: _____Chapter Five/Part Two – The Stamp Act and Organized Resistance

II. The Stamp Act and Organized Resistance

A. The Stamp Act of 1765 Angers the 13 Colonies:

Prime Minister Grenville also convinced Parliament to pass a new tax that was commonly used in European nations – a “stamp” tax. Designed to raise money for Great Britain, the 1765 Stamp Act taxed items such as legal documents (wills, diplomas, and marriage licenses) newspapers, almanacs, playing cards, and dice. When a person bought any of these items, he or she had to pay a tax by purchasing an official stamp that had to be placed on the newly bought items. Unlike the taxes on molasses and sugar, this tax would have to be paid by everyone in the 13 Colonies.

The reaction in the 13 Colonies went beyond anything that Great Britain could have imagined. Colonists were outraged by the tax and violent protests erupted in nearly every major city in the 13 Colonies. British Government property was attacked and destroyed; tax collectors were hit with rocks, assaulted, and even tarred and feathered. Riots broke out in several cities and Colonial newspapers protested against the tax nearly every day.

EFFECTS: The Stamp Act of 1765 created anger in the 13 Colonies for several reasons. First, the tax touched nearly everyone and Colonists resented paying taxes – especially a tax on such common items as marriage licenses. Secondly, the tax had been passed by Parliament and the 13 Colonies had no representatives in Parliament. As British citizens, Colonists believed that they had a legal right to be represented and that they did not have to pay any tax that was created without the approval of Colonial representatives. Within a short time, the cry “no taxation without representation” could be heard throughout the 13 Colonies.

The tax especially offended Colonial merchants, lawyers, and traders. Men in these jobs would be forced to pay the tax again and again to complete the paperwork that the British Government demanded of them. When Britain angered these individuals, it angered some of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the 13 Colonies. Many of these men were already bitter over the “glass ceiling” in British society. All feared that their livelihood and profits would be reduced by the tax.

The Stamp Act did something that had never happened before – angered the 13 Colonies to the point that they united with each other. In October of 1765, nine Colonies sent representatives to a “Stamp Act Congress” in New York City. The Congress created an official petition (formal document) in which they claimed that Parliament had no right to tax the 13 Colonies without representation and that the 13 Colonies refused to recognize the Stamp Act. The Congress also agreed to encourage the 13 Colonies to start a boycott against British goods.

B. The Colonists Discover an Effective Weapon:

The idea of using a boycott to protest against the Stamp Act caught on quickly in the 13 Colonies. A boycott is an organized effort to refuse to buy certain goods and services until a tax or policy is canceled. In this case, many Colonists agreed to refuse to buy British goods and services until the Stamp Act was cancelled. The boycott had a deadly effect on British merchants and businesses. Trade fell off by 14% and British merchants pressured Parliament to cancel the Stamp Act before it drove them out of business.

In 1766, Parliament gave in to the pressure of British merchants and repealed, or cancelled the Stamp Act. Parliament then immediately passed a new law known as the Declaratory Act. The new act did what its name suggested – it “declared” that Great Britain’s Parliament had the right to pass any tax with or without Colonial approval.

EFFECTS:

The 13 Colonies celebrated the repeal of the Stamp Act and ignored the passing of the Declaratory Act. Colonists had learned a very valuable lesson – they could force Great Britain to back down if they acted together to harm British profits. Colonists would turn to the use of boycotts again throughout the 1760’s and 1770’s to protest against British taxes and policies.

Within Great Britain, Government officials were shocked and puzzled by the Colonial reaction to the Stamp Act. Parliament could not understand why the Colonists would object to a tax that was so common in Europe. In addition, Colonists paid only one pound (the British form of money) for every thirteen pounds of taxes that people in Britain paid. The repeal of the Stamp Act hardened Britain’s attitude towards the 13 Colonies and made Britain more determined than ever to control and tax the 13 Colonies. The King and Parliament feared that if things got out of hand in America, other British Colonies might begin to fight British rule.

C. Colonial Leaders Step Forward:

The Stamp Act had an unexpected effect that would come to trouble Great Britain as time passed. The protests in the Colonies led to the rise of Colonial leaders that would fight against British taxes and policies. The greatest number of these new leaders came from Massachusetts, where Colonists were much more independent and outspoken. In addition, Massachusetts had a very heavy concentration or merchants, traders, lawyers, and businessmen who were affected by British taxes.

The most notable of the Anti-British leaders was a failed tax collector and beer brewer from Boston named Sam Adams. When the Stamp Act created so much trouble in the 13 Colonies, Adams was prepared to act. He formed a protest group known as the Sons of Liberty (which also later included the Daughters of Liberty).

The Sons and Daughters of Liberty’s generally were common citizens of Boston and was directed by members of the Middle Class such as silversmith Paul Revere. The organization was used in public protests against the British. While many of their activities were peaceful (protest marches, petitions, songs, poems, newspaper articles), there was also a very dark side to the organization.

The Sons of Liberty, in particular, were not afraid to attack British soldiers, tax collectors, or officials who were caught walking through the streets of Boston alone at night. In addition, the Sons of Liberty used threats and attacks to convince Colonists to go along with boycotts. Merchants who refused to go along with boycotts could be threatened, beaten, tarred and feathered, or have their homes and businesses burned to the ground. Many merchants loyal to Britain left Boston and officials of the British Government often asked to be transferred to other cities. Britain began to have a great deal of trouble finding volunteers to collect taxes.

Aiding Sam Adams was the wealthiest man in all of Massachusetts – merchant and smuggler John Hancock. Hancock used his wealth to help Adams organize protests; pay for advertisements in newspapers, and to provide money to pay leaders within the Sons and Daughters of Liberty. Adams was also helped by Paul Revere – a man widely respected by both Colonials and the British. Revere served as a “go between” for Adams and Hancock and the rough crowds used in protests against the British.

In Virginia, the largest and wealthiest of all the 13 Colonies, some of the richest men in the colony also began to turn against British policies. Virginia was not ready to protest and fight openly like Massachusetts, but public opinion was slowly turning against Britain. By 1775, Virginians such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry would join the fight against Britain.

EFFECTS: The Stamp Act united the 13 Colonies and created a group of Colonial leaders who would make certain that anger against Great Britain would not disappear. From 1765 onwards, a small number of Colonials dedicated themselves to fighting British taxes until the taxes were dropped or until the 13 Colonies were allowed to send representatives to Parliament. A few of these leaders, such as Sam Adams and John Hancock, wanted to push the issue further than mere protests. They wanted complete Colonial independence from Britain.

Images of British Stamps used in the 13 Colonies A Colonial cartoon protesting against the Stamp Act - claiming that it would be the death of newspapers

and free speech

Prime Minister Grenville and members of Parliament at the “funeral” of the Stamp Act

Review Questions

1. Why did people in the 13 Colonies hate the Stamp Act of 1765?

2. What did the Stamp Act do that “had never been done before?”

3. What is a boycott?

4. What “very valuable lesson” did the Colonists learn in defeating the Stamp Act?

5. How did Sam Adams respond to the Stamp Act of 1765?

Name: ____________________________ Social Studies Seven/PD: _____Chapter Five/Part Three – The Stamp Act of 1765 Changes the 13 Colonies

III. The Stamp Act Changes the Colonies

A. The Stamp Act in Detail

History commonly accepts that the Stamp Act of 1765 was proposed by Prime Minister Grenville and passed by Parliament to raise revenue to help offset Great Britain’s staggering debt at the end of the Seven Years War/French and Indian War (estimated by some sources at close to $30 billion in modern terms). While this is true, it does not paint an entirely accurate picture of the Prime Minister’s motivation for creating the tax.

Before leaving office, the previous prime minister decided to keep 10,000 British soldiers in North America. In part, this was a response to the setbacks of Pontiac’s War. This was done both the protect the newly won western territories beyond the Appalachian Mountains and to preserve the jobs of a large number of influential and politically connected British Army officers who did not wish to lose their jobs and chance for advancement within the army. The cost of maintaining this army in the remote forts of the west was estimated at nearly $50 million a year in 2015 values. Grenville needed to find a way to pay for the upkeep of this force and expected the 13 Colonies to contribute to their own “protection.”

The argument, however, feel flat in the opinion of the Colonies. They argued that there no longer was a threat from which they needed the protection of the British Army and they had always defended themselves from Native Americans. None of the Colonial Governments was interested in contributing money to maintaining this large force. Upon first hearing of the proposed tax in 1774, some of the Colonies began to petition Parliament to avoid passing the tax. They also argued that Parliament had no right to tax them as they had no representation in Parliament and this represented a violation of their rights under British law. Parliament ignored their objections and passed the tax – asserting that it had the right to tax the Colonies directly.

The tax was passed in March of 1765 and was scheduled to take effect on November 1, 1765. Colonists would actually be forced to buy paper that was already stamped (and therefore taxed) before it was printed on or to pay and have a stamp placed on documents. A little known fact today is that they would also be required to pay for the stamped items in “hard currency” or coin form as opposed to the much more common paper money of the 13 Colonies. There was a genuine concern that there was not enough hard currency in the Colonies to pay for the tax.

Another seldom mentioned part of the Stamp Act was a decision by the British Government to allow “Admiralty Courts” to try violators of the law. Traditionally, these military courts tried those accused of violating laws on the high seas such as smugglers and pirates. Colonists were confused by this move as the Stamp Act had little to do with sea trade and they were alarmed at the idea of their own Colonial courts being replaced by courts under the direct control of Great Britain.

B. The Colonial Political Response

Colonists were used to being taxed by their Colonial Assemblies, where they did have representation. They had never been taxed directly by Parliament before and there were no Colonial representatives in Parliament. This seemed to violate the commonly held belief that British citizens could only be taxed with their consent and only through assemblies in which they had representation. The majority of the people in the 13 Colonies considered this “taxation without representation” to be a direct attack on their rights. Eleven of 13 Colonial Assemblies sent formal protests to Parliament stating this fact.

In June of 1765 Massachusetts proposed a meeting (which later came to be known as the Stamp Act Congress) to be held in New York City on October 1, 1765. Nine of 13 Colonies eventually sent representatives to this meeting. Most of the men were lawyers, merchants, and wealthy landowners. The Congress created formal petitions explaining why Parliament had no right to tax the Colonies. In addition, it declared that Parliament could not represent the Colonies as the Colonies had no voting rights in Parliament, only the Colonial Assembles could tax the Colonies, and the use of Admiralty Courts was an “abuse of power” by the British Government. All 13 Colonies agreed with the petitions. The petitions were ignored by parliament.

C. The Sons of Liberty and Committees of Correspondence

Within the 13 Colonies secret organizations formed to protest and fight against the Stamp Act. By late 1765 and early 1766, these organizations identified themselves as the “Sons of Liberty.” The most famous of these organizations was the Sons of Liberty formed by Sam Adams and a group of merchants in Boston, Massachusetts originally known as the “Loyal Nine.” They were backed by well-known lawyer and newspaper owner James Otis and wealthy merchant and smuggler John Hancock.

The middle and upper class leadership of the Sons of Liberty concentrated on public protests, petitions, and newspaper articles against the Stamp Act while encouraging Colonial merchants to boycott British imports and for tax collectors to resign. Many of the Sons of Liberty groups in the Colonies created Committees of Correspondence to write letters and communicate anti-British news throughout the Colonies. When they attempted to organize the common people of the Colonies for public protests and demonstrations, however, they often discovered that they had little control over them and violence was often the result.

The more notorious actions of the Sons of Liberty included:

Hanging, burning, and beheading an effigy image of the Massachusetts tax collector Andrew Oliver before burning his stable down and destroying the inside of his home.

Stoning the Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts and Sheriff of Boston for trying to stop the actions against Oliver. Demolishing the interior of the home of Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson (valued at a modern equivalent of $250,000). Street violence in Rhode Island and openly posted threats against tax collectors and their property in New York.

An attack and significant damage to the home of the Governor of New York. Demonstrations in cities throughout the Colonies. Forcing, through threats and violence, the resignation of 12 of 13 Colonial stamp collectors.

D. Economic ActionMerchants in the 13 Colonies created and agreed to follow “non-importation agreements” or boycotts against British imports that seriously

harmed the profits and livelihood of British merchants that depended on Colonial trade. By late 1765 British merchants began to put pressure on members of Parliament to repeal (cancel) the Stamp Act. Under growing opposition from within to the Stamp Act, Parliament passed a motion to repeal it in February of 1766 and the King assented (agreed) in March of 1766.

E. Effects The 13 Colonies learned that united action against Great Britain could be successful. The Stamp Act Congress became a model for

the First and Second Continental Congresses that eventually declared independence from Britain. The use of protests, petitions, newspaper articles, committees of correspondence, boycotts, threats, and violence would all be used against British laws and taxes in the future. The fight against the Stamp Act gave the Colonists a sense of unity and identity that they did not have before the tax was passed.

Within Great Britain, a small group of politicians and members of Parliament opposed the attempts to tax the Colonies and warned against driving the Colonies away from the mother country. A majority of the members of Parliament, however, maintained that Parliament had the right to govern and tax the Colonies directly regardless of their objections. This majority was supported by King George III. In 1766 Parliament passed the Declaratory Act. The new law stated that Parliament "had hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America ... in all cases whatsoever." Parliament, despite the setback of the Stamp Act, fully intended to tax the 13 Colonies.

Review Questions

1. Why did the 13 Colonies object to requests to help maintain Britain’s soldiers in America?

2. What other aspects of the Stamp Act alarmed and angered Colonists? 3. How did the Stamp Act Congress justify its claim that Parliament had no right to tax the Colonies? 4. How did the Sons of Liberty spread anti-British news throughout the Colonies?

5. What did the fight against the Stamp Act give the 13 Colonies?

Name: ____________________________ Social Studies Seven/PD: _____Chapter Five/Part Four – The Townshend Acts and the “Bloody Massacre”

IV. The Townshend Acts and the “Bloody Massacre”

A. A New Tax – The Townshend Acts:

The repeal of the Stamp Act was not the end of British taxes for the 13 Colonies. Although Colonists ignored it, the Declaratory Act (passed in 1766) was a warning to the 13 Colonies – that Britain felt it had the right to tax the Colonies at any time or for any purpose. Within Parliament, debate raged over taxing the 13 Colonies. A small minority of the members or Parliament had sympathies for the 13 Colonies but the majority felt that Britain must show its authority over the 13 Colonies before control was lost altogether.

Former Prime Minister George Grenville (now a Member of Parliament) still believed that the 13 Colonies should be taxed and accused those who opposed taxing the 13 Colonies of being cowards – daring them to tax the Colonies. Britain’s Treasurer, Charles Townshend, accepted the challenge and vowed to tax the Colonies. Within a month, a new tax was passed and named after the Treasurer – the Townshend Acts.

The Townshend Acts taxed items such as paint, lead, glass, paper, and tea. In short, the Townshend Acts taxed items that were popular and in demand in the 13 Colonies. In addition, the new law gave Customs Officials (British officers in charge of trade and tax collection) greater power to arrest Colonists for smuggling. Customs officers were given special legal papers known as writs of assistance that allowed them to search Colonial property without warning or reason.

Townshend hoped that his tax would be able to raise large amounts of money for Britain and also felt that the taxes were low enough to avoid a bad reaction in the Colonies. He also hoped that the acts would cut back on smuggling and prove to the 13 Colonies that Britain had a right to tax and make laws for the Colonies. While he thought that he had struck a nice balance that would be acceptable to all concerned, Townshend could not have been more wrong.

EFFECTS: The Townshend Acts were as disliked by the 13 Colonies as the Stamp Act had been. The principle was the same, argued Colonists – no taxation without representation. Colonists simply refused to accept a tax when they had not had a say in its creation or a voice in Parliament. Many Colonists felt that they could accept a tax passed by their own assemblies, but Great Britain refused to even consider the idea of allowing the Colonial Assemblies to vote on taxes.

The writs of assistance drew even greater anger. Colonists rightly felt that the writs violated both British law and the rights of British citizens. Under the law, the property of British citizens could not be searched without good reason or unless a citizen was suspected of breaking the law. The writs clearly broke British law itself. Many Colonists wondered where it would all end. How many rights would they lose? Were any of their rights safe? Were they not British citizens with equal rights to citizens living in Britain itself?

Sons and Daughters of Liberty organizations throughout all 13 Colonies helped to organize another boycott – called the Nonimportation Agreements. The new boycott would last for one year (from 1769 to 1770) and Colonists were encouraged to avoid buying anything taxed under the Townshend Acts until the new taxes were cancelled. Once more, protests broke out in all of the major cities. Colonists were determined to put an end to taxes passed without representation.

Within the 13 Colonies divisions between the Colonists were forming. Those who opposed British taxes and policies came to be known as “Patriots.” Those who believed that opposing the British Government and its policies was the wrong path to take came to be known as “Loyalists.” In cities such as Boston the names began to represent the disagreements that British citizens in the 13 Colonies had with one another.

C. The Quartering Act and the Dismissal of the New York and Massachusetts Assemblies:

Shortly before the Townshend Acts were passed, Britain passed the Quartering Act. The new law forced cities with British soldiers stationed in them (such as Boston and New York City) to provide funding for food, shelter, and supplies to soldiers. When New York City protested against the Quartering Act, the New York Assembly was dismissed. Protests against the Townshend Acts also led to the dismissal of the Massachusetts Assembly.

EFFECT: The Quartering Act made many colonists feel as if they were being taxed by the British Government (without representation) and bullied by Britain for protesting against taxes (by soldiers within Colonial cities). The dismissal of the New York and Massachusetts Assemblies convinced many that Britain planned to take away the rights of Colonists. The right to assemble was considered one of the most important rights given to British citizens. Citizens in all 13 Colonies were alarmed by these British actions and were deeply concerned about their rights as British citizens.

D. A Turning Point in British-Colonial Relations - The “Boston Massacre” (1770):

On March 5, 1770, a crowd of Bostonians attacked a group of British soldiers guarding the Customs House in Boston. The crowd yelled insults and threw rocks, ice, and snowballs at the soldiers. During the tense moments of the dispute, some reported that a member of the crowd yelled “fire”. Others believed a British soldier slipped and his musket fired. Regardless of the cause, the nervous soldiers fired into the crowd – killing five citizens before their officer could regain control of the situation

Many suspected that Sam Adams and Paul Revere had organized the crowd and encouraged them to taunt the soldiers, but no direct proof of their involvement has ever been found. However, it is true that Sam Adams encouraged members of the Sons of Liberty to become involved in “incidents” with British soldiers. In the event that a soldier harmed a colonist, Adams reasoned, it could be used to show how “brutal” the British were to the citizens of Boston.

The soldiers were put on trial (a Colonial move to show Britain that the Colonies could be just and fair) and were successfully defended by John Adams (Sam Adams cousin) – receiving only minor punishments for the incident. Adams was extremely unpopular for a short while, but he

believed (in this case) that the soldiers had been unfairly attacked by a mob of “the lowest sort” and deserved a fair trial. John Adams’ actions eventually earned him the respect of most Colonists, who realized that he was an honest and fair man.

EFFECT: The “Boston Massacre” reawakened the anger of the Colonists toward Britain that had been slowly dying since the Townshend Acts were passed in 1767. Sam Adams and Paul Revere used the incident to create propaganda pictures, articles, and poems that made the British look like murderers. False accounts of the “massacre” were circulated to all 13 Colonies through another Adams organized group – the Committees of Correspondence. The Committees were dedicated to watching and reporting everything the British did to all 13 Colonies. An incident that happened in one colony would be reported to the committees in all of the colonies.

Early Colonial Leaders in Massachusetts

James Otis Mercy Otis Warren Dr. Joseph WarrenLawyer and defender of Colonial Colonial playwright and poet – she leader of the Massachusetts Merchants and creator of the slogan wrote a hugely successful play designed Committee of Correspondence and“No taxation without representation!” to make fun of the British in Boston organizer of the “midnight ride”

Sam Adams John Hancock Paul RevereMaster organizer and fighter against Wealthy Colonial merchant/smuggler Important member of the SonsBritish taxes and policies who provided Sam Adams with money and of Liberty who worked with Adams

support and Hancock

John Adams – Colonial Lawyer and future President of the United States

Review Questions

1. What is a “writ of assistance?”

2. What “principle” was the heart of the Colonial argument against British taxes?

3. After the Townshend Acts, what did many in the Colonies wonder?

4. How did Adams and Revere use the Boston Massacre?

5. How did the Committees of Correspondence operate?

Name: ________________________________ Social Studies Seven/PD: _____Chapter Five/Part Five – The Road to Rebellion

V. The Road to Rebellion

A. The Committees of Correspondence:

Sam Adams efforts to spread the news of the Boston Massacre to all 13 Colonies was greatly aided by the heavy use of the Committees of Correspondence. Colonists carefully watched British actions (laws, taxes, court cases, the arrival and movement of soldiers, and British officials), recorded what they observed, and spread the news through the committees in each colony. Adams understood that he needed to find ways to maintain Colonial anger against the British. The committees were very helpful in this regard.

EFFECTS: Although the committees were a peaceful organization, they formed the beginnings of a much more valuable and deadly tool that would be used to great effect in the future. They were perfect “spy rings”, or groups of spies. During the Revolutionary War, former members of the committees helped the United States Army gather information on British troop movements. At times, the information gathered was enough to save the Army from defeat or enough to allow the Army to defeat the British in battle.

B. Britain Cancels Taxes:

On the very day that the Boston Massacre took place, Parliament again cancelled taxes on the 13 Colonies. The Nonimportation Agreements (Colonial boycotts) had hurt merchants in Britain again, who once more forced Parliament to cancel taxes. The Quartering Act was cancelled and the majority of the taxes that angered Colonists were also repealed. King George III and his Prime Minister Lord North, however, did ask for one tax to stay in place – the tax on tea. The King, Prime Minister, and Parliament all agreed that Britain still had to show that it had the right to tax the Colonies.

EFFECTS: The cancellation of the Quartering Act and many other British taxes pleased the people of the 13 Colonies. Once again, they had united and forced Great Britain to back down. Colonists, however, still wondered about the future and worried that their rights were threatened. The issue of Britain’s right to tax had not been settled and memories of British actions such as taxes, the dismissal of Colonial Assemblies, the writs of assistance, and the Boston Massacre were still fresh in the minds of Colonists.

Britain still made no offer to allow the Colonial Assemblies to vote on taxes or to give the Colonies representation in Parliament. As a result, little or nothing had been done to resolve the issue that was at the heart of Colonial protests – representation. Britain felt that the cancellation of taxes (both the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts) was more than generous and did not (or could) not understand that the troubles with the Colonists had only been postponed – not solved.

C. An Uneasy Peace:

The timely cancellation of taxes helped to calm the 13 Colonies after the uproar over the Boston Massacre. Britain had come to the decision that the Colonies needed time to settle and the British Government did not want to do anything to create further anger. No new taxes were proposed in Parliament and British officials in the 13 Colonies did not take any threatening actions. Anger remained fairly strong only in New England.

The Middle Colonies were another story, however. Other than New York, where the Colonial Assembly had been dismissed for protesting against the Quartering Act, the people of the Middle Colonies did not feel overly threatened by Britain. A minority of the population of the Middle Colonies was unhappy enough to want independence – mostly people on the frontier. People on the frontier were under threat of Indian attacks and still felt that Britain was not doing enough to protect them.

The mood was entirely different in the Southern Colonies. British taxes had done little to harm Southern cash crop exports and no Southern Colonial Assembly had been dismissed. The wealthiest Southerners (planters) remained very loyal to Britain and few in the colonial governments of the South considered independence from Britain. The only Southern Colony that had a strong anti-British following was Virginia, where men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry remained concerned about British actions.

EFFECTS: As 1770 came to a close (the year of the Boston Massacre), the 13 Colonies were not ready to break free from British control. War and independence was on the minds of only a few Colonists. For the majority of the people in the Colonies, independence from Britain was still unthinkable. Colonists, although concerned, wanted to work out their differences with Britain peacefully and remain a part of the British Empire.

D. Britain Passes The Tea Act in 1773:

The Tea Act of 1773 allowed the British East India Company to export tea from Great Britain to the Colonies “duty free,” or without being taxed by the British Government. This made the company’s tea cheaper in price. In fact, it made it cheaper than the tea that Colonial merchants smuggled into the Colonies while still collecting a tax on tea. Colonists quickly saw what the tax was designed to do and began to boycott British tea. In many Colonial cities and town, Colonists chose a different drink to take the place of tea – coffee.

The Sons of Liberty throughout the Colonies made a strong effort to prevent the unloading of tea in Colonial Harbors. In many cases, the captains of ships carrying tea were threatened with tarring and feathering or with having their ships set afire if they unloaded the tea.

EFFECTS: Britain was shocked once again when the 13 Colonies erupted in protest. Colonists saw the act as a trick to get the Colonies to accept the British tax on tea and a new boycott was created against tea. Colonial merchants, many of whom made a handsome profit from smuggling, threw their full support behind the new boycott and the efforts t stop the unloading and sale of East India tea in the 13 Colonies.

E. The Boston Tea Party:

The boycott on tea lasted through much of 1773 and the situation with Britain’s East India Company grew worse by the day. Tea ships in harbors were reluctant to unload their tea with crowds of angry Colonists on shore and threats from the Sons of Liberty ringing in their ears. In late November of 1773, three tea ships arrived in Boston Harbor and Governor Thomas Hutchinson demanded that they be unloaded. Hutchinson was a well-known Loyalist, or supporter of Great Britain.

The Sons of Liberty and other Patriots (supporters of independence for the 13 Colonies) warned that the cargo should not be unloaded under any circumstances. When it became clear that Hutchinson intended to unload the cargo, Sam Adams organized a meeting in Boston’s Old South Meetinghouse on December 16. Once more, Adams sent a note to the governor demanding that the tea be kept aboard the ships. When word came back to the meeting that the governor intended to unload the tea the following morning, Adams yelled, “This meeting can do no further to save the country.”

Adams’ statement was a preplanned signal that triggered one of the most famous events in American History. Men burst through the doors dressed as Indians, voices from the gallery above the meeting called “Boston Harbor a teapot tonight! The Mohawks are come!” and the lights went out in the meeting hall. Several British Army officers who had arrived to keep an eye on Adams were run over as the “Indians” and other Patriots ran out of the meetinghouse. The crowd, which soon grew to hundreds and then thousands, moved towards the docks and the tea ships.

The “Mohawks” boarded the ships, hacked open the tea chests with tomahawks, and dumped the tea into the harbor to the cheers of the crowd on shore. In the space of an hour, thousands of pounds (dollars) of tea had been destroyed. The Sons of Liberty had sent a message to Britain that could not be ignored. Colonists had no intentions of paying taxes that were passed without their approval and that threatened to ruin their businesses. In fact, they were willing to take drastic actions to prove their point.

EFFECTS: In general, people were shocked by the destruction of tea in Boston. Many in the Colonies thought that the Sons of Liberty had gone too far and that a breakdown in law would follow. Many others were thrilled with the Tea Party and felt that taking greater action against Britain and its taxes was long overdue. The Tea Party helped to win the support of many Colonists to the “patriot cause” (struggle for independence). People sensed that a change had taken place – the 13 Colonies were openly defying Great Britain. In his diary, John Adams wrote down his reaction to the Boston Tea Party:

“This destruction of the tea is so bold, so daring, so firm . . . it must have such important and lasting results that I can’t help considering it a turning point in history.”

In Britain, the reaction was very different. The British were furious with this outright act of defiance against the authority of the King and the Government. The King was personally offended and members of Parliament (as well as ordinary British citizens) who had sympathized with the Colonists in the past were outraged. King George III ordered Parliament to punish Massachusetts for the Tea Party and what he felt that it represented – a loss of British control over the 13 Colonies. No thought was given to backing down and giving the 13 Colonies representation in Parliament or to allowing Colonial Assemblies to vote on taxes.

The famed “Boston Tea Party” Massachusetts Governor Thomas HutchinsonDecember 16, 1773

Flag of the British East India Company – the company that shipped tea to the 13 Colonies

Review Questions

1. In what way were the Committees of Correspondence “very helpful?” 2. What was “unthinkable” for a majority of the people in the 13 Colonies, even after the Boston Massacre?

3. The Tea Party was a message from the Sons of Liberty to Great Britain. What was that message?

4. What did the Boston Tea Party help to win?

5. In Great Britain, what did the King and Parliament believe that the Boston Tea Party represented?

· Web viewColonists in North America were grateful for Britain’s help during the French and...

Documents

Transcript of · Web viewColonists in North America were grateful for Britain’s help during the French and...