Patrick Henry- http://www.familyfoundationblog.com/2009/12/30/we-leave-you-with-patrick-henry/
When we were younger, we learned that the American Revolution was a huge and unequivocal triumph. The process of breaking away from the oppressive rule of Britain to become independent was viewed as a courageous act that allowed the colonies to eventually evolve into the great nation that we live in today. Now, with a more mature point of view, we are able to examine the revolution in a more objective way, understanding the intentions of both the colonists and the British. As we discussed in class, it was interesting to hear that some students agreed with the actions of the colonies, while other students were more sympathetic to the endeavors of the British government. The opinion that the colonies were “whiny” and “immature” was also presented. As we continue to explore the reasons behind the American Revolution, we should consider the innumerable other paths that history could have taken.
Patrick Henry, one of the founding fathers and a strong advocate of the revolution, made a famous speech in 1776. In this speech, he speaks of the revolt, saying, “In vain, after all these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation? There is no longer any room for hope.” (MP, 99). Patrick Henry reveals that he is of the belief that the rebellion has already been set in motion and that it is unstoppable. His viewpoint makes it seem like revolution is inevitable, but was it really? Radical Possibilities of American Revolution states that, “There was little evidence of those social conditions we often associate with revolution.” For example, Gordon S. Wood cites that the colonies did not have “mass poverty…seething social discontent…[or] grinding oppression”, which were often conditions necessary to ignite revolution (MP, 110). In fact, he says, “For most white Americans there was greater prosperity than anywhere else in the world.” In comparison to most other pre-revolutionary societies, white colonial settlers enjoyed relative prosperity, access to resources, and social freedoms. So, what caused various colonial discontents to transform into a large-scale revolution?
No one can say exactly when the American Revolution began. Certainly a series of smaller events helped to initiate it, such as Britain’s announcement of various taxes on the colonies, and the colonists’ rebellious Boston Tea Party. Was there a specific moment of no return? Perhaps if the “shots heard around the world” hadn’t been fired, we would still be English. At this stage in our education, we are better prepared to formulate a more informed and impartial opinion of the revolution. There are three key questions for us to consider after tonight’s reading. First, at what point in time was it too late for either party to turn back from war? Second, did the colonists and/or the British have any other, less violent, alternatives to the revolution? Lastly, what would have happened if Britain and the colonies had been able to negotiate reconciliation, and the British government had continued to rule the colonies?
As for the first question, I don't believe that there was a specific point in time where war was definite and there was no chance of reaching a peaceful entreaty, but rather I believe there was a period. This period was between the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party, around the time when British attitudes towards the colonies began to sour even more. With the Americans resisting all forms of British influence, whether it have a positive or negative influence, like the Tea Act which lowered the price of tea, Britain was becoming fed up. I believe it was this point because this must have been the climax of British tension and resentment towards the colonies because of the property damages and downright bullying of officials that the Americans were responsible for. At this point, if the Americans didn't initiate war, sooner or later the British would so as to put an end to the Americans reign of terror. The Americans had many non-violent resolutions, but as Patrick Henry stated in the reading, those were void attempts. The monarchy did not listen or even acknowledge the American requests. With that being said, I still believe they had the option of organized boycotts. In fact, I believe that boycotts were their most successful method seeing as Britain was most afraid of losing the revenue they generated in the colonies. Moving on to the British, I understand that they were harsh with the taxes, but the Americans left them no choice because they were reluctant top pay. With that being said, the British also had no choice in choosing whether or not peaceful methods could be used to reach a favorable outcome with the colonies. The Americans took that right away from them with violent acts such as the tarring and feathering of officials, the setting afire of ships like the Gaspee, the Boston Tea Party, and the Boston Massacre. With America's unrelenting violence and Britain's fear of appearing weak, which was proved by the Declaratory Act,violence was expected. As for question three, I don't think that Britain and America would have been able to have even reached a peaceful reconciliation.Both groups were staunch and unyielding in their policies. They did not want to compromise their policies for the will of the other. Both America and Britain wanted it solely their way and with that in mind, I think that there could have been no peaceful resolve.
ReplyDeleteKira and Tola you had a lot of good points here! I think that Patrick Henry's speech was the final straw for most Americans. The colonists had tried to reconcile with the British, by petitioning for peace and sending delegates, but their efforts for peace were unregarded. Therefore, since the British had ignored everything, there was no choice except revolution if the colonists wanted their wishes to be recognized.
ReplyDelete