![]() ![]() This success, they believed, resulted partly from Britain’s hands-off approach to the colonies, an approach that has been called salutary neglect. They saw themselves as British subjects “entitled to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights of our fellow subjects in Great-Britain.” The eighteenth century brought significant economic and demographic growth in the colonies. 2Ĭolonists developed their own understanding of how they fit into the empire. There were occasional attempts to reform the administration of the colonies, but debate between the two sides prevented coherent reform. Instead of an authoritarian empire, “patriot Whigs” argued that the colonies should have equal status with the mother country. They argued that economic growth, not raising taxes, would solve the national debt. The radical (or patriot) Whigs based their imperial vision on trade and manufacturing instead of land and resources. ![]() They sought to eliminate Britain’s growing national debt by raising taxes and cutting spending on the colonies. Old Whigs and their Tory supporters envisioned an authoritarian empire, based on conquering territory and extracting resources. Second, competing visions of empire divided British officials. Constant war was politically consuming and economically expensive. ![]() First, Britain was at war from the War of the Spanish Succession at the start of the century through the Seven Years’ War in 1763. Two factors contributed to these failures. In this section, we will look broadly at some of the long-term political, intellectual, cultural, and economic developments in the eighteenth century that set the context for the crisis of the 1760s and 1770s.īetween the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the middle of the eighteenth century, Britain had largely failed to define the colonies’ relationship to the empire and institute a coherent program of imperial reform. The American Revolution had both long-term origins and short-term causes. But once unleashed, these popular forces continued to shape the new nation and indeed the rest of American history. The “founding fathers” instigated and fought a revolution to secure independence from Britain, but they did not fight that revolution to create a “democracy.” To successfully rebel against Britain, however, required more than a few dozen “founding fathers.” Common colonists joined the fight, unleashing popular forces that shaped the Revolution itself, often in ways not welcomed by elite leaders. The revolution created politicians eager to foster republican selflessness and protect the public good but also encouraged individual self-interest and personal gain. Resistance to centralized authority tied disparate colonies ever closer together under new governments. A revolution fought in the name of liberty allowed slavery to persist. Moreover, revolutionaries justified their new nation with radical new ideals that changed the course of history and sparked a global “age of revolution.” But the Revolution was as paradoxical as it was unpredictable. The Revolution built institutions and codified the language and ideas that still define Americans’ image of themselves. Seen from 1763, nothing would have seemed as improbable as the American Revolution. And yet, in a little over a decade, those same colonists would declare their independence and break away from the British Empire. ![]() The British North American colonists had just helped to win a world war and most, like Rush, had never been more proud to be British. Upon seeing the king’s throne in the House of Lords, Rush said he “felt as if he walked on sacred ground” with “emotions that I cannot describe.” 1 Throughout the eighteenth century, colonists had developed significant emotional ties with both the British monarchy and the British constitution. In the 1760s, Benjamin Rush, a native of Philadelphia, recounted a visit to Parliament. The Consequences of the American Revolution ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |