http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/WarnerTeach/E172/images/Boston.tea.party.1746.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/images/2cris2378b.jpgThroughout the reading, we have heard the American colonies petitioning for representation in the British Parliament as well as their own power as individual assemblies. The American colonies manage to make it look like they are the oppressed minority, fighting the greater ruling power, England, for their fair share of political representation. Throughout the reading, America is portrayed as a small,innocent, and struggling body, when through their actions prove otherwise.
Samuel Adams, a major voice in the colonies' revolt against British rule, went as far as saying: "England...had become a place of morass of sin and corruption; only in America did public virtue survive". Is this true? Did America obtain such a high degree of moral competence that it could affirm that no other nations, especially Britain, possessed virtue? I think not. Although America had justified cause to try and rid themselves of Britain's ominous monopoly in the colonies, be it because of lack of parliamentary representation, the unfair Townshend Duties of 1767 passed by Charles Townshend that imposed taxes on imported goods such as paper, paint and tea, which were all vital supplies in the colonies, the Mutiny Act of 1765 that forced colonists to shelter and provide for British troops, or the Tea Act of 1773 that exempted Britain's East India Company from paying all the regular taxes that colonial merchants had to pay, which was followed by what the Americans deemed the Intolerable Acts of 1774 which put further constraints on autonomy in the colonies. We read all this information that deemed England to be uncooperative, unrelenting, and worst of all, corrupt, but what we need to realize is that America was not as virtuous as they claimed to be. In fact, on many occasions, Americans became violent as we see in events such as the Boston Massacre, which the Americans failed to accept was their own fault. The Americans were in fact no where near virtuous, they were in fact more morally corrupt than England. The Americans saw physical violence as their means of getting the representation and equality from England that they deserved. They tarred and feathered customs officials and a mob of patriots pillaged and sank English ships and their tea cargo which became known as the Boston Tea Party. The colonies willingness to revert to violence in no way reflects virtuous nature, but rather savage and wild behaviors that could possibly further contribute to Britain's hesitance to allow them representation in Parliament. For the Americans to think that they were the only nation of virtue is completely biased and false. Do you agree or disagree? Was America as virtuous as they claimed to be? Or where they just as or even more uncivil than the English? Was Samuel Adams correct?
Samuel Adams, a major voice in the colonies' revolt against British rule, went as far as saying: "England...had become a place of morass of sin and corruption; only in America did public virtue survive". Is this true? Did America obtain such a high degree of moral competence that it could affirm that no other nations, especially Britain, possessed virtue? I think not. Although America had justified cause to try and rid themselves of Britain's ominous monopoly in the colonies, be it because of lack of parliamentary representation, the unfair Townshend Duties of 1767 passed by Charles Townshend that imposed taxes on imported goods such as paper, paint and tea, which were all vital supplies in the colonies, the Mutiny Act of 1765 that forced colonists to shelter and provide for British troops, or the Tea Act of 1773 that exempted Britain's East India Company from paying all the regular taxes that colonial merchants had to pay, which was followed by what the Americans deemed the Intolerable Acts of 1774 which put further constraints on autonomy in the colonies. We read all this information that deemed England to be uncooperative, unrelenting, and worst of all, corrupt, but what we need to realize is that America was not as virtuous as they claimed to be. In fact, on many occasions, Americans became violent as we see in events such as the Boston Massacre, which the Americans failed to accept was their own fault. The Americans were in fact no where near virtuous, they were in fact more morally corrupt than England. The Americans saw physical violence as their means of getting the representation and equality from England that they deserved. They tarred and feathered customs officials and a mob of patriots pillaged and sank English ships and their tea cargo which became known as the Boston Tea Party. The colonies willingness to revert to violence in no way reflects virtuous nature, but rather savage and wild behaviors that could possibly further contribute to Britain's hesitance to allow them representation in Parliament. For the Americans to think that they were the only nation of virtue is completely biased and false. Do you agree or disagree? Was America as virtuous as they claimed to be? Or where they just as or even more uncivil than the English? Was Samuel Adams correct?
I think that the americans were not virtuous because they did not shot high moral standards, ad you had said their behavior was savage. I do not agree with samuel adams because clearly, america was not a virtuous place at all. but i would not go as far to say that they were more uncivil than the English.
ReplyDeleteWell, I do agree with most of your judgments, as evident in my post. However, I ask you to consider both sides of the spectrum. Place yourself in the shoes of the British, though I am not fully agreeing with their policies, in some way I feel that they had no choice. They needed money from the country the tried to protect from settlers, and as a result they were thrown in debt. Think that just maybe, had the Americans been willing to pay for the security from settlers outside of England, that the British fought for, things could have been different. Instead of putting it in these terms, Americans were forceful. Violence was their weapon of choice in resisting the British. It is sad to think that it was the common goal of violence fashioned at the British was what united the people of America. So think of it as this, a government trying to do their duty and protect their financial welfare for the sake of their entire empire or the Americans whose failure to appreciate and help pay for their added security who only showed their appreciation through revolt. Which seems to have acted more civil? The British or the Americans? I am not on the side of the British, but I ask you to analyze carefully. It was not wrong for an empire as large as that of the British to seek their own financial security. It was the combination of an indebted, frustrated England and a reluctant, violent, and outraged America that caused the American Revolution
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with you, Tola. I think that sometimes in class students forget to look at the American Revolution from England's point of view. England was completely in debt from the war, and it was not wrong for them to tax the colonists in order to raise revenue. In addition, the colonists only had to pay 1/30 (or whatever the exact statistic is) of what the people England had to pay. The colonists were used to getting their way, so when England finally cracked down they revolted. For example, England exhibited salutary neglect after passing the Navigation Acts, so the colonists took advantage of England's inability to execute its laws. The geographical divide between the colonists and the monarchy enabled the colonists to get away with a lot of violence and uprisings, such as the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and the harassment of tax collectors. While I side with England in this part of the conflict, overall I side with the colonies. This is because the the American Revolution was not simply a tax revolt but a clashing of ideology. I (and the colonists) believe in a separation of powers and taxation with representation; these are two major concepts that England completely disagreed with.
ReplyDeleteJust some food for thought:
ReplyDeleteAs Gordon S. Wood, a professor at Brown University, states in his essay called “Radical Possibilities of the American Revolution”:
…growing prosperity contributed to the… sense that people here and now were capable of ordering their own reality…Therefore any possibility of oppression, any threat to the colonists’ heard- earned prosperity, any hint of reducing them to the poverty of other nations, was especially frightening… Indeed, it was the pervasive equality of American society that was causing the problem.
He discusses the fact that people were finally experiencing the unprecedented idea that the people could control their fate. Therefore, when England’s control took away much of the people’s freedom, especially in Massachusetts once the Coercive (Intolerable) Acts were passed, people were very displeased. England also passed numerous tax laws, restrictions on commerce and manufacturing, the Currency Act, the Navigation Acts, and the Mutiny Act which all threatened the people’s freedom. The social and economic equality in the colonies caused the people to become obsessed with independent living which eventually led to the American Revolution.
I know, as i said america was wrong. I think that they were simply whiny. if they had just paid the taxes, which was not much at all (as danielle said, it was maybe 1/30 of what England had to pay) the situation would have been much better and there would have been no violence.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you when you talk about the reading as portraying America and a small, innocent body. I think in this reading an the reading from last week its clear that America was in reality an extremely wealthy place that in a way had just as much influence over Britain as Britain had over America. If anything I felt the reading portrayed North America as a rebellious, immature nation willing to contest any decision of its parental nation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statements above, that from England's side, who was the higher power, and the hub of the British Empire. They had a right to tax the colonies, since the colonies were under England. England was superior to them, and had the right. They were in debt, as mentioned, and thinking of the future of England, they needed to generate more currency to pay off debts of the war that they were in. However, I do believe it was England's fault for the debt, and getting into the war. They had to do it to get the land that the American Indians were occupying, and were doing what was best for themselves, as a virtuous act towards their country. The colonists were not as virtuous, as they were disapproving of the taxes England imposed. If they were virtuous, they would understand England's need to tax them.
ReplyDeleteNicole, Danielle, and Tola, I agree with most things you have said. However, the British were opressive and unfair because they did not offer representation in Parliament to the colonies and still expected the Colonies to remain firm under their iron grip. The colonists certainly acted with barbaric tendencies while tarring and feathering British government officials who were just doing their jobs. In fact, some people would argue that the Boston Massacre was simply a provoked reaction to the colonists that were looking for a fight, and that the British soldiers were innocent and indeed only guilty of manslaughter. Some historical accounts say that a rabble-rousing Bostonian actually yelled "Fire!" to confuse the troops and make them shoot. What does everyone think?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea of the American being far less virtuous then they are portrayed. Their violent ways of fighting for rights were most certainly uncivil. For example, their barbaric characteristics are exemplified during the Boston Tea party when the American's dressed as Mohawk Indians, raided ships, and destroyed property. Not only was this overly aggressive, it was a wasteful way to prove their point. Moreover, I disagree with Samuel Adams quote that virtue existed only in the hearts and minds of Americans. By acting so incredibly rash, the Americans proved that they can not handle themselves in an orderly manner, and therefore require the rule of the British.
ReplyDeleteI think that in order to fully understand the issue, we have to examine it from both the perspective of the British and the Americans. From the British side I think that the actions of the Americans can be viewed as extremely radical and unnecessary. After acquiring the colonies and securing them through the French and Indian War, the British found themselves in debt. I believe that from their perspective, it was entirely necessary to implement the taxes that they chose to. Furthermore, the taxes were far more reasonable for the American Colonies than for the British citizens back in England. Therefore the reaction of the Americans in this manner could easily be seen as unmotivated.
ReplyDeleteHowever, from the American's point of view I believe that it was more the manner in which they were being taxed than the fact the tax itself was not reasonable. The radical reaction of the colonists appears to stem from the key belief of their taxation without representation. Had they actually been represented as opposed to the virtual representation supplied by the parliament, I believe that their actions would not have been nearly so radical.
In closing I find the actions of the Americans in defense of their right to representation just as justifiable as the will of the British to impose the reasonable taxes to begin with. However, I find the need for the Americans to rebel against the taxes themselves at face value as not only unjustified, but shallow and pedantic.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteDoes the lack of representation trump the reasonable desire to impose taxes? In other words, could it be the case that taxes that are "reasonable" (a very Enlightenment word) become unreasonable when imposed without consent? And how would the Americans object to lack of representation without also objecting to the taxes imposed by their "representatives"?
Dr. Korfhage,
ReplyDeleteI know I am not Jeff, but I would like to offer my answers to your questions.
Overall, it is very simple for people to condemn the colonists, because they acted brashly and violently. However, it is important to consider the ideology behind their actions. They fought for a separation of powers and actual representation. Therefore, the taxes did not necessarily bother the colonists, but the fact that they were unjustly executed did. As James Otis once stated, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” So, yes, reasonable taxes become unreasonable if imposed without consent. For example, in MKA’s student government there are representatives of each grade as well as an overall student body president. Even MKA utilizes actual representation. If there is merely an upperclassmen president, then the desires of younger student body could not be voiced.
Virtual representation is not effective or fair. Virtual representation is also comparable to the general will. They are both concepts that dictators use in order to convince their subjects that they are represented when, in fact, the government is created by the rich and for the rich. Therefore, the colonists were not only fighting for actual representation but a democracy. However, if England truly represented them or if the colonial assemblies passed taxes, the people would naturally have been a bit irritated, but it would not be enough to fuel a revolution. In all, the colonists’ main issue with England was their conflicting beliefs on representation.
Virtue is defined in wikipedia as thought/actions based on high morals or values. By that definition, we would consider what the Americans did incredibly amoral. That said, the common morals and values of the time were somewhat different from those commonly held now, and the morals of America were slightly different from those of England. America was, at the time, rough and hard to survive- much of the land was wilderness. Many American commoners needed at least somewhat thick skin to go about their daily lives: life was not too hard, but not as easy as life in England. All that comes together to mean that the Americans were more used to getting what they needed to get however they needed to get it.
ReplyDeleteI think England had plenty of justification to tax America, but that America, as it was at the time, had few other ways to respond.
Unfortunately, I completely disagree with you, Thea.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, living conditions in America and England were quite comparable. Yes, the aristocracy in England was more prevalent and powerful, but the poor in England were not as well off as the Americans. According to Gordon S. Smith in “Radical Possibilities of the American Revolution”, “America was no doubt ‘the best poor Man’s Country in the World’”. In fact, America symbolized new beginnings and opportunity, while the crowded streets of London provided a very substandard quality of life. Therefore, the moral codes in both regions of the world were exactly the same.
Secondly, America’s actions were not amoral. They acted violently and perhaps a bit radically but so did the British. One clear example of both of their violence is the Boston Massacre. The colonists only acted drastically in order to promote their constitutional views; they believed in actual representation and the separation of powers. Their actions were for the greater good; they wanted to free themselves from British rule and defeat tyranny so that future citizens would not have to endure suppression in the colonies. This concept of acting aggressively in order to create a better future relates to an idea that has been discussed in my English 2 Honors class. While reading the scene in which God orders Abraham to sacrifice his son for him (Genesis 22:3), we discussed how Abraham commits to giving up the one part of life that he truly treasures, his son, in order to spread God’s word and help people in the long- run. Therefore, the Bible, a significant piece of literature, explores how violent actions may actually be reasonable if they promote a better life.
Finally, Americans did respond to England’s taxes in responsible ways. One clear example is “The Declaration of Rights and Grievances” by the Stamp Act Congress. The First Constitutional Congress and the Committees of Correspondence also attempted to reason with English. Unfortunately, there is a misconception that all of the colonists were hot- headed extremists when this was clearly not the case.
I have to say that I'm a little confused, Danielle. On your own blog, you seem critical of the Americans (the propaganda post). But here you seem supportive. How do you reconcile those positions?
ReplyDeleteCan we really say "America this" and "America that" when not even the colonies were united? The only way they would act as one, ironically, was if forced to by Britain or by "necessity" against Britain. As talked about the first day of this unit, New England was poor, the Mid-Atlantic was well off and the south was wealthy but had a lot of debt. Each colony had its own agenda and own way of doing things. Therefore to claim one colony is wrong because of another's actions is out of context. To sink any deeper into this, lets take the Sons of Liberty, for example. They are a nice group of torturers. They may be able to represent some of the sentiment of people in Massachusetts, but they are only a small portion of the people in Massachusetts. The whole colony of Massachusetts didn't come down to the Boston harbor to do the Boston Tea Party. And certainly it wasn't a group of people from South Carolina who traveled all the way up to Boston just to sink some tea. Therefore, to say the Colonies, as a whole, were amoral because of the Sons of Liberty would not be accurate. On the other side of the coin, to say that Britain was corrupt, well, that means only part of the parliament and the ministry. To call a legitimately crazy king corrupt is not necessarily fair. What I’m getting at is that groups and people can be amoral and unfair, as is life (or so the motto goes), but to call whole groups of people corrupt or virtuous will be blaming the innocent or calling innocent the guilty.
ReplyDeleteDr. Korfhage,
ReplyDeleteYes, I do appear to contradict myself! I condemn the colonists' use of propaganda and violence in order to win mass support from the people as a whole. However, I do agree with the colonists' points of views and ideology, and I side with them throughout the American Revolution.
Dr. Korfhage
ReplyDeleteIn response to your comment, I do believe that the fact that the colonists are unrepresented has precedence over the reasonable taxes. However, in any other case though, I see it an totally unnecessary to rise up against the taxes themselves. Instead, the protest should be focused solely on the aspect of representation, and not the taxes. I feel that if they had an actual form of representation, there would be no need to actually protest the taxes themselves in the violent manner that they did.
Danielle,
ReplyDeleteCan you have a revolution without propaganda of some sort? Are you presuming that people are rational actors, swayed by ideas not emotions, by reason and not passions?
Jeff,
I'm still not clear how the colonists would protest the taxation without representation without protesting the particular taxes. How would they do that?