Essay: The relationship between Great Britain and the British Colonies

The relationship between Great Britain and the British Colonies underwent significant changes in the 18th century. The colonists were no longer completely dependent on Great Britain, and they were coherently able to produce many goods, conduct international relations, settle new lands, and hold political conventions. These tasks are the foundation of a strong independent government. The autonomy demonstrated by the colonists began to signify a divide between the Colonies and the British Empire. Multiple policies were the result of a costly war and a struggle to preserve power. The motives of the Parliament in Great Britain contradicted with the potential for the British Colonies to grow politically and geographically. American independence was inevitable after years of tension and failed attempts to achieve a relationship of compromise with Great Britain. The tensions with Great Britain resulted from unjust high taxes, inequitable representation, and restrictions on autonomy in the colonies.
History has proven that greed for power and money often leads to the abuses of humanitarian rights; the avarice of the British was the motivation behind their exploitation of the colonies. A successful and well-equipped British Army fought with North American Colonists for seven years to prove victorious against the French. The war, fought in North America, required that the British send thousands of troops and resources to help the colonists defeat threatening “challenges from the French and their Indian allies” (Faragher, 6.1). The money needed to fund the joint forces of the British and the colonists resulted in large amounts of debt for the British, who decided that the colonies were successful enough to burden some of the dues through increased taxes (Serving the Bonds of the Empire). A total of six Acts in conjunction with new restrictions on existing policies lead to economical outrage in the colonies.
Previous to the catastrophic effects of the Seven Years War, the Navigation Act of 1660 was used as a means to impose taxes on many of the imported goods that colonists were reliant on. The Navigation Act stated, “no goods or commodities whatsoever shall be imported to or exported out of any lands, islands, plantations or territories…but in such ships or vessels as do truly and without fraud belong only to the people of England” (The Parliament of England, Navigation Act of September 13, 1660). The Navigation Act was reformed many times to accommodate every possible scenario of trade that did not benefit Great Britain. Initially, the colonists accepted the conditions in order to maintain their peaceful reliance on the British, but as they became stricter, the rights of the colonists began to diminish.
The injustices that resulted from Navigation Act and the taxes on imported goods that followed, angered not only extreme Federalists, but also moderates who were failing in their search for compromise. James Otis, a moderate from Massachusetts, argued for the observance of natural rights, all of which were being denied by British rule. Otis asserted that, “The very act of taxing exercised over those who are not represented appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights as freemen, and if continued seems to be in effect an entire disenfranchisement of ever civil right” (James Otis, An American Colonist Opposes New Taxes and Asserts the Rights of the Colonists). Otis’ argument suggests that the colonists were slaves to the British Empire. He continued to plead for the slightest form of compromise but even he, a moderate, saw the need for independence.
The series of acts that were implemented after the Seven Years War lead to the death and destruction of not only soldiers on battlefields, but also of colonial dependence on Britain. Many acts were imposed to diminish the rights and partial autonomy of the colonies; these acts included the imposition of tariffs on many imported goods to the colonies, the right for Parliament to impose new laws and taxes at their digression, and the loss of colonial governmental practices and meetings (Faragher, Table 6.1). Many political demonstrations were held by colonists who saw radical rebellion and boycott of British manufactured goods as the only hope for British reform its colonial policies. When it was evident that the demonstrations were unsuccessful in their pursuit to convince Parliament to consider a compromise, independence became a passionate cause for 40 percent of the colonial population which was enough to incite an error of war and foreign tensions (Serving the Bonds of the Empire).
The chaos and rebellion that resulted from the frustrations of many colonists prompted educated colonists to attempt to repair the bond between the colonies and their mother country. The Patriots consisted of moderates and extremists. The moderates were optimistic of the efforts made such as the Olive Branch Petition. Many of the colonists, with the exception of the radical Patriots, wanted to avoid independence from Britain. Otis remarked, “We love, esteem, and reverence our mother country, and adore our Kind. And could the choice of independency be offered the colonies or subjection to Great Britain upon any terms above absolute slavery, I am convinced they would accept the latter” (James Otis, An American Colonist Opposes New Taxes and Asserts the Rights of the Colonists). Otis represented the beliefs of many conflicted Colonists who were reluctant of absolute independence, but knew that their way of living was no longer feasible. Many moderates were living examples of the inevitability of American independence.
The Stamp Act and the Tea Act lead to the most extreme forms of rebellion by the colonists. Many demonstrations, boycotts, and acts of violence were disregarded by Parliament. Events such as the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party were two of the most outrageous demonstrations held by the colonists. Samuel Adams, an influential leader in American independence exclaimed, “This meeting can do nothing more to save the country” while calling upon colonists to take action on the night of the Boston Tea Party (Faragher, 6.4.2). Britain responded with harsh punishment in the form of policy known as the Intolerable Acts.
The Intolerable Acts included restrictions and limitations on colonial government, foreign trade and importations, and private housing. Colonial self-regulation was no longer a possibility, especially in Massachusetts which underwent the most severe forms of punishment considering many of the demonstrations were held there. Although they covered many different aspects of colonial rights, all of the stipulations included within the Intolerable Acts had one force in common, “With these acts, the British terminated the long history of self-rule by communities in the colony of Massachusetts” (Faragher, 6.4.3). Virtual representation, vice-admiralty courts, and the inability to pay for the services of their fellow colonists were all limitations imposed by the British which denied regard to the colonies as semi-independent and politically autonomous (Serving the Bonds of the Empire).
Meetings of influential colonial men began to draft the documents that the new nation was founded on. Plans of compromise and preparation for independence were both among the topics of conversation that occurred at the meetings. Ultimately, Britain was unwilling to consider the pleas of the colonists who were suffering as servants of the British Empire. Parliament took advantage of the colonists and their resources for wealth and power without regard for colonial rights. Patrick Henry acknowledged the lack of humanitarianism by British rule and challenged those in attendance at the Second Virginia Convention, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” (Patrick Henry, Speech to the Second Virginia Convention). Henry suggested that the colonists had no mobility, politically or socially. The rights of the colonists had been taken away by a frustrated governing force in a response to a plea for change. Henry asserted that death would be more preferable than living a life of restrictions and servitude to an ungrateful and stubborn Parliament.
Henry’s famous appeal to military action incited a passion in many colonists who decided to fight for rights against the most powerful military in the world. Despite the militia’s experience fighting alongside British soldiers in the Seven Years War, they were considered inferior to their opponents. If independence had been inevitable, there would not have been thousands of men willing to take arms with such a high risk of losing their lives and becoming even further indebted to the British Empire. The risk that the militia soldiers took to defend their and their neighbor’s right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (The Declaration of Independence). The Patriots were aware of the challenges that they would face as an independent nation, but they approached their adversities with the same passion that they boycotted, rebelled, and fought with.
The North American Colonists suffered from years of dehumanizing humiliation by the British Empire. Independence was necessary due to inconclusive compromise. All of the efforts that were made by the colonists to seek peaceful dependence and trade were responded to with harsher restrictions. The prosperity of the colonies was being inhibited by British rule and taxation. The colonists were not experiencing the benefits of being a part of such a powerful nation because they were not receiving proper representation. The grievances of the colonists were representative of a population who worked hard and received punishment and dues as repayment. Many of the colonists lost a will to serve the Empire because the reasons for which the first colonists left Britain were no longer respected by Parliament. The tensions between the two separate identities could only be resolved by the independence of a new nation.