On the 19th of April 1775, fighting between colonial militiamen and troops marked the outbreak of the revolutionary war, which eventually saw the thirteen colonies gain independence. This essay will assess the importance and relevance of ideology among colonists, the role of government, and economic factors as elements that caused enough strain in the Anglo-American relationship for the surge in military activity. Howard Zinn argues that ideology was a façade for the greed and wealth of upper-class colonists, which is a different and controversial view that ignores the basic understanding of the progressive society that attracted immigrants from across Europe. On the other hand, Bernard Bailyn suggests tyranny allowed for the ideological mass movement of freedom and independence. This view is very consistent from the American perspective, however, it fails to acknowledge the intentions and context behind policies of the government that were often branded tyrannical among some historians but entirely justified by others. Lewis Namier`s exploration of politics during this time period leads to the idea the influential, pro-republic colonists manipulated the interpretation of the actions of settlers to create the impression of tyranny. Moreover, a combination of economic growth in the colonies and the birth of the industrial revolution may have incentivized rich colonists to pursue separation from regulation to have economic freedom tailored to the needs of the colonists rather than the Crown. Short-term factors like intolerable acts may have added the necessary spark to start a revolution. Although economic factors may have influenced both Empire and the thirteen colonies, it is clear that the root and long-term cause for the outbreak of the war was the progressive build-up of republicanism, which was only exacerbated, and allowed for, by the actions of the government.
It is often proposed that the colonists had a common quest for liberty and freedom causing a war against the Empire. This neo-Whig view was presented by Bailyn (1992, p.20), who argued the question of the extent of Parliament`s jurisdiction in the colonies led to an ideological will for the preservation of political liberty threatened by the apparent corruption of the constitution (Bailyn, 1992, p. 51). Bailyn was a Harvard graduate who presented his views on the American revolution using primary sources, and he suggests colonists feared a government with substantial and unjust power and the American reaction to policies ultimately led to a deterioration in the Anglo-American relationship, which would inevitably lead to the outbreak of war as it was the only course of action to meet the aim. Propaganda published throughout the colonies outlines the idea that long and violent abuse of power, is generally the means of calling the right of it in question (Paine, Common Sense, 1776). Thomas Paine was titled the father of the American revolution despite being English-born, and he used `Common Sense` to explore ideas of independence whilst criticizing Empire. By supporting the French Revolution and the `Rights of man`, it is clear Paine`s belief in freedom may be clouding his perception of the events he was experiencing. Although fighting had already broken out, the best-seller may be attempting to encourage more people to join the battle. Simultaneously, it justifies the American response to policies viewed as tyrannical, like the Tea Act of 1773, which suggests ideas of independence from the Empire were significant enough to colonists as a cause of war. However, the ideas explored were not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor (Paine, Common Sense, 1776), suggesting the number of colonists seeking an ideological revolution, and therefore violent conflict against Empire was limited. The omission of not only popularity but also the potential for personal intent of pro-revolution colonists from Bailyn`s argument questions the accuracy of his view and the true influence of ideological factors in instigating the revolutionary war. Alternatively, the driving factor of the American Revolution can be seen as the greed of elitists, who sought to preserve and build upon their superior status by gathering support among people by diverting tensions from class conflict to a mass movement for independence. This view was brought forward by Howard Zinn, who argued the upper class could defeat potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of new, privileged leadership (people`s history chp 4) and found they could take over land, political power, and profits from favorites of Empire.This suggests that the elites had far more to gain than any other singular group who were established in the thirteen colonies and used the idea of independence and liberty to entice support from the same lower classes that opposed their disproportionate accumulation of wealth and power prior to the war. They redirected tensions to Empire, which escalated into war. This is further supported by strong economic growth in pre-revolution times, where wealth would accumulate towards the top, therefore creating a ruling class with inherently less class mobility. Common farmers would lose out on their access to free trade among Empires and most people were not gaining access to the proposed democracy, suggesting war was not within their interests. This heavily points to the outbreak of war being orchestrated by the ruling class to gain popular support despite previous tensions by using ideological arguments. Following the ratification of the constitution, James Madison revealed, in a speech, that the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. (Madison, 1787) Madison inherited wealth from his family and has been dubbed a founding father, yet his publication insinuates that uniting the classes was as significant of a factor as gaining independence from Britain for the revolutionary war. Madison believed in protecting the rights of the minority and the benefits of liberty in economical progression. Zinn`s radical interpretation, however, fails to acknowledge this. It is clear the assertive reaction, by large groups of colonists, to tyrannical policies enabled the necessary mass movement of the ideas to spread among pro-republic colonists. Moreover, it ignores that colonial America was subject to salutary neglect until the end of the Seven years' war and so ideas of self-government were undoubtedly prevalent. Similarly, many of the people that migrated to the colonies shared a republican ideology, although their attempts at revolution in Europe failed. This view is further supported by other prominent historians such as Edmund Morgan, who suggested the divisions between the rich and poor were limited due to land ownership and emphasized the potency of ideology promoting liberty. It also implied that many businessmen and merchants could benefit without intrusive regulation. Regardless, this suggests there was enough support among a variety of colonists to create the tensions necessary against to start the revolutionary war. George Bancroft even suggested that the prosperity America experienced since it was colonized was a sign from God that it was chosen to demonstrate the ideal model for civilization- democracy and self-government. Ultimately, increased governing exacerbated the influence of ideas of liberty, which encouraged colonists to fight.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
It may therefore be suggested that tyrannical rule over the colonies was the outstanding factor in facilitating the outbreak of war. Activists were able to manipulate the intentions of legislation and manufacture anger toward it. Imperial historians, like Osgood, described the empire as not guilty of intentional tyranny toward the colonies (Find quote) implying that Americans overreacted to legislation that was passed within the law. These overreactions were met with more legislation from the government, which was wary and potentially fearful of French influence over the colonies. Initial measures such as the Stamp Act were enforced following a long and expensive war with France, where the colonies benefitted from extensive support and protection. Thomas Whatley proclaimed Britain is not yet recovered from a War undertaken for their Protection. No time was ever so seasonable (appropriate) for claiming their assistance. The distribution is too unequal, of benefits only to the colonies, and of all the Burdens upon the Mother Country. (Whately, 1763) Although Whately is speaking as a member of the crown, over £59 million were spent on protecting the colonies, and only a fraction was reimbursed through taxation, further emphasizing the good intentions of the government. Despite this, Americans boycotted goods and James Otis, who was a lawyer in the 18th century colonial times argued that no taxation without representation is tyranny, which became a popular phrase throughout the colonies and could be viewed as the primary argument among colonists for independence. This further accentuates that the role of government was in hindsight very limited and colonists reacted as they did because many people had already experienced some sort of democracy and power. Colonial America famously had a more democratic system than anywhere in Europe, with a far larger electorate. Essentially, the colonist`s experience of self-government made them irreconcilable to governing. This is contradictory to the Olive Branch Petition, signed by the second continental congress on July 8th, 1775; it suggests the colonists were unwilling to go to war by pledging their allegiance to the crown. The reluctance of the crown to accept their rights as citizens in turn implies that King George III was unwilling to acknowledge their argument for representation, suggesting Britain did intend to oppress the colonists. It can be said the stubbornness of the government forced the colonists into using warfare as a solution to having their demands fulfilled. However, Lewis Namier`s analysis of politics during the age of the American Revolution concludes there was no danger of tyranny in Britain (Jr., 1962). His work suggests that politicians in Britain could not focus on ideology, because of the structure of politics. As the political nation was composed of the narrow elite of society, the dynamics of politics encouraged politicians to pursue influence through (insert a quote from the open tab on the computer) above all else, hence making it impossible for them to intentionally seek to oppress the colonists through legislation and taxation. It similarly links to the idea they viewed colonists as subjects of the crown since they were both taxing and protecting them, rendering the whole idea of the Olive Branch Petition a political ploy to further gain support among people who were neither loyalists nor republicans. Essentially, this argument dovetails into the concept that colonists overreacted to legislation while enhancing Osgood`s argument, clearing the government of the accusation of tyranny. find PS. Analyze it and conclude.
Stuck on your essay?
