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?
