Начало » Материали » Чужди езици » Английски език |
Contents
Introduction
………………………………………………………………………………… 1 1. Frontier
situation ………………………………………………………………………… 2 2. British
and French conflict ……………………………………………………….……… 3 3. First
stirrings of unity ……………………………………………………………………. 4 4. Colonial
resistance …………………………………………………………….………… 5 5. Tax
dispute ………………………………………………………………………………. 6 6. Abatement
of tax disputes …………………………………………………….…………. 7 7. The
"Boston tea party” ……………………………………………………………….….. 9 8. The
British repressions …………………………………………………………….….… 10 9. The
congress debates on independence ……………………………………………….… 12 10 .The
stiffening of resolution …………………………………………………………….. 13 11. Declaration of Independence
………………………………………………………….... 14 Conclusion:
the final victory of the colonies ……………………………………………….. 15
This paper is dedicated to the
history of American Revolution and the War for Independence. The primary
purpose of the survey given here is to carry out an analysis of the events of
the late 18th century in the British colonies in North America on
the basis of vast historical material published in the United States. The
process that took place before and during the 1776-1783 period when 13 British
colonies’ aspiration for independence broke out into the so-called War for
Independence is very remarkable for it’s many unique features, on the one hand,
and for many historical parallels that took place a century later when the
world-wide spreaded colonial system began to collapse. John Adams, second President of the
United States, declared that the history of the American Revolution began as
far back as 1620. "The Revolution," he said, "was effected
before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the
people." The principles and passions that led the Americans to rebel
ought, he added, "to be traced back for two hundred years and sought in
the history of the country from the first plantation in America." As a practical matter, however, the
overt parting of the ways between England and America began in 1763, more than
a century and a half after the first permanent settlement had been founded at
Jamestown, Virginia. The colonies had grown vastly in economic strength and
cultural attainment, and virtually all had long years of self-government behind
them. Their combined population now exceeded 1,500,000-a six-fold increase
since 1700. The implications of the physical
growth of the colonies were far greater than mere numerical increase would
indicate. The 18th century brought a steady expansion from the influx of
immigrants from Europe, and since the best land near the seacoast had already
been occupied, new settlers had to push inland beyond the fall line of the
rivers. Traders explored the back country, brought back tales of rich valleys,
and induced farmers to take their families into the wilderness. Although their
hardships were enormous, restless settlers kept coming, and by the 1730s
frontiersmen had already begun to pour into the Shenandoah Valley. Down to 1763, Great Britain had formulated
no consistent policy for her colonial possessions. The guiding principle was
the confirmed mercantilist view that colonies should supply the mother country
with raw materials and not compete in manufacturing. But policy was poorly
enforced, and the colonies had never thought of themselves as subservient.
Rather, they considered themselves chiefly as commonwealths or states, much
like England herself, having only a loose association with authorities in
London. At infrequent intervals, sentiment
in England was aroused and efforts were made by Parliament or the Crown to
subordinate the economic activities and governments of the colonies to
England's will and interest - efforts to which the majority of the colonists
were opposed. The remoteness afforded by a vast ocean allayed fears of reprisal
the colonies might otherwise have had. Added to this remoteness was the
character of life itself in early America. From countries limited in space and
dotted with populous towns, the settlers had come to a land of seemingly
unending reach. On such a continent natural conditions stressed the importance
of the individual. 1. Frontier situation The colonists-inheritors of the
traditions of the Englishman's long struggle for political liberty-incorporated
concepts of freedom into Virginia’s first charter. This provided that English
colonists were to exercise all liberties, franchises, and immunities "as
if they had been abiding and born within this our Realm of England." They
were, then, to enjoy the benefits of the Magna Charta and the common law. In the early days, the colonies
were able to hold fast to their heritage of rights because of the King's
arbitrary assumption that they were not subject to parliamentary control. In
addition, for years afterward, the kings of England were too preoccupied with a
great struggle in England itself - a struggle which culminated in the Puritan
Revolution - to enforce their will. Before Parliament could bring its attention
to the task of molding the American colonies to an imperial policy, they had
grown strong and prosperous in their own right. From the first year after they had
set foot upon the new continent, the colonists had functioned according to the
English law and constitution - with legislative assemblies, a representative
system of government, and a recognition of the common-law guarantees of
personal liberty. But increasingly legislation became American in point of
view, and less and less attention was paid to English practices and precedents.
Nevertheless, colonial freedom from effective English control was not achieved
without conflict, and colonial history abounds in struggles between the
assemblies elected by the people and the governors appointed by the King. Still, the
colonists were often able to render the royal governors powerless, for, as a
rule, governors had "no subsistence but from the Assembly”. Governors were
sometimes instructed to give profitable offices and land grants to influential
colonists to secure their support for royal projects but, as often as not, the
colonial officials, once they had secured these emoluments, espoused the
popular cause as strongly as ever. The recurring clashes between
governor and assembly worked increasingly to awaken the colonists to the
divergence between American and English interests. Gradually, the assemblies
took over the functions of the governors and their councils, which were made up
of colonists selected for their docile support of royal power, and the center
of colonial administration shifted from London to the provincial capitals.
Early in the 1770s, following the final expulsion of the French from the North
American continent, an attempt was made to bring about a drastic change in the
relationship between the colonies and the mother country. 2. British and French conflict While the British had been filling
the Atlantic coastal area with farms, plantations, and towns, the French had
been planting a different kind of dominion in the St. Lawrence Valley in
eastern Canada. Having sent over fewer settlers but more explorers,
missionaries, and fur traders, France had taken possession of the Mississippi
River and, by a line of forts and trading posts, marked out a great
crescent-shaped empire stretching from Quebec in the northeast to New Orleans
in the south. Thus they tended to pin the British to the narrow belt east of
the Appalachian Mountains. The British had long resisted what
they considered "the encroachment of the French." As early as 1613,
local clashes occurred between French and English colonists. Eventually, there
was organized warfare, the American counterpart of the larger conflict between
England and France. Thus, between 1689 and 1697, "King William’s War” was
fought as the American phase of the European "War of the Palatinate."
From 1702 to 1713, "Queen Anne’s War” corresponded to the "War of the
Spanish Succession." And from 1744 to 1748, "King George’s War” paralleled
the "War of the Austrian Succession." Though England secured certain
advantages from these wars, the struggles were generally indecisive, and France
remained in a strong position on the American continent. In the 1750s, the conflict was
brought to a final phase. The French, after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle in
1748, tightened their hold on the Mississippi Valley. At the same time, the
movement of English colonists across the Alleghenies increased in tempo,
stimulating a race for physical possession of the same territory. An armed
clash in 1754, involving Virginia militiamen under the command of 22-year old
George Washington and a band of French regulars, ushered in the "French and
Indian War” - with the English and their Indian allies fighting the French and
their Indian allies. This was destined to determine once and for all French or
English supremacy in North America. Never had there been greater need
for action and unity in the British colonies. The French threatened not only
the British Empire but the American colonists themselves, for in holding the
Mississippi Valley, France could check their westward expansion. The French
government of Canada and Louisiana had not only increased in strength but had
also in prestige with the Indians, even the Iroquois, the traditional allies of
the British. With a new war, every British settler wise in Indian matters knew
that drastic measures would be needed to ward off disaster. 3. First stirrings of unity At this juncture, the British Board
of Trade, hearing reports of deteriorating relations with the Indians, ordered
the governor of New York and commissioners from the other colonies to call a
meeting of the Iroquois chiefs to frame a joint treaty. In June 1754,
representatives of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the New England
colonies met with the Iroquois at Albany. The Indians aired their grievances,
and the delegates recommended appropriate action. The Albany Congress, however,
transcended its original purpose of solving Indian problems. It declared a
union of the American colonies "absolutely necessary for their
preservation," and the colonial representatives present adopted the Albany
Plan of Union. Drafted by Benjamin Franklin, the plan provided that a president
appointed by the King act with a grand council of delegates chosen by the
assemblies, each colony to be represented in proportion to its financial
contributions to the general treasury. The government was to have charge of all
British interests in the west - Indian treaties, trade, defense, and
settlement. But none of the colonies accepted Franklin's plan, for none wished
to surrender either the power of taxation or control over the development of
the west. The colonies offered little support
for the war as a whole, all schemes failing to bring them "to a sense of
their duty to the King."The colonists could see the war only as a struggle
for empire on the part of England and France. They felt no compunction when the
British government was obliged to send large numbers of regular troops to wage
colonial battles. Nor did they regret that the "redcoats," rather
than provincial troops, won the war. Nor did they see any reason for curtailing
commerce that, in effect, constituted trade with the enemy. In spite of this lack of wholehearted
colonial support and in spite of several early military defeats, England's
superior strategic position and her competent leadership ultimately brought
complete victory. After eight years of conflict, Canada and the upper
Mississippi Valley were finally conquered, and the dream of a French empire in
North America faded. Having triumphed over France, not
only in America but in India and throughout the colonial world generally,
Britain was compelled to face a problem that she had hitherto neglected - the
governance of her empire. It was essential that she now organize her vast
possessions to facilitate defense, reconcile the divergent interests of
different areas and peoples, and distribute more evenly the cost of imperial
administration. In North America alone, British
overseas territories had more than doubled. To the narrow strip along the
Atlantic coast had been added the vast expanse of Canada and the territory
between the Mississippi River and the Alleghenies, an empire in itself. A
population that had been predominantly Protestant English and Anglicized
continentals now included Catholic French and large numbers of partly
Christianized Indians. Defense and administration of the new territories, as
well as the old, would require huge sums of money and increased personnel. The
"old colonial system" was obviously inadequate. Even during the
exigencies of a war imperiling the very existence of the colonists themselves,
the system had proved incapable of securing colonial cooperation or support.
What then could be expected in time of peace when no external danger loomed? 4. Colonial resistance
Clear as was the British need for a
new imperial design, the situation in America was anything but favorable to a
change. Long accustomed to a large measure of independence, the colonies were
demanding more, not less, freedom, particularly now that the French menace had
been eliminated. To put a new system into effect, to tighten control, the statesmen
of England had to contend with colonists trained to self-government and
impatient of interference. One of the first things attempted
by the British was to organize the interior. The conquest of Canada and of the
Ohio Valley necessitated policies that would not alienate the French and Indian
inhabitants. But here the Crown came into conflict with the interests of the
colonies, which, fast increasing in population, were bent upon exploiting the
newly won territories themselves. Needing new land, various colonies claimed
the right to extend their boundaries as far west as the Mississippi River. The British government, fearing
that farmers migrating into the new lands would provoke a series of Indian
wars, believed that the restive Indians should be given time to settle down and
that lands should be opened to colonists on a more gradual basis. In 1763, a
royal proclamation reserved all the western territory between the Alleghenies,
the Florida, the Mississippi, and Quebec for the use of the Indians. Thus the
Crown attempted to sweep away every western land claim of the thirteen colonies
and to stop westward expansion. Though never effectively enforced, this
measure, in the eyes of the colonists, constituted a highhanded disregard of
their most elementary right to occupy and utilize western lands as needed. More serious in its repercussions
was the new financial policy of the British government, which needed more money
to support the growing empire. Unless the taxpayer in England was to supply it
all, the colonies would have to contribute. But revenue could be extracted from
the colonies only through a stronger central administration, at the expense of
colonial self-government. The first step in inaugurating the
new system was the passage of the Sugar Act of 1764. This was designed to raise
revenue without regulating trade. In fact, it replaced the Molasses Act of
1733, which had placed a prohibitive duty on the import of rum and molasses
from non-English areas. The amended Sugar Act forbade the importation of
foreign rum; put a modest duty on molasses from all sources; and levied duties
on wines, silks, coffee, and a number of other luxury items. To enforce it,
customs officials were ordered to show more energy and strictness. British
warships in American waters were instructed to seize smugglers, and "writs
of assistance" (blanket warrants) authorized the King's officers to search
suspected premises. 5. Tax dispute
It was not so much the new duties
that caused consternation among New England merchants. It was rather the fact
that steps were being taken to enforce them effectively, an entirely new
development. For over a generation, New Englanders had been accustomed to
importing the larger part of the molasses for their rum distilleries from the
French and Dutch West Indies without paying a duty. They now contended that
payment of even the small duty imposed would be ruinous. As it happened, the preamble to the
Sugar Act gave the colonists an opportunity to rationalize their discontent on
constitutional grounds. The power of Parliament to tax colonial commodities for
the regulation of trade had long been accepted in theory though not always in
practice, but the power to tax "for improving the revenue of this
Kingdom," as stated in the Revenue Act of 1764, was new and hence
debatable. The constitutional issue became an
entering wedge in the great dispute that was finally to wrest the American
colonies from England. "One single act of Parliament," wrote James
Otis, fiery orator from Massachusetts, "has set more people a-thinking in
six months, more than they had done in their whole lives before."
Merchants, legislatures, and town meetings protested against the expediency of
the law, and colonial lawyers like Samuel Adams found in the preamble the first
intimation of "taxation without representation," the catchword that
was to draw many to the cause of the American patriots against the mother
country. Later in the same year, Parliament
enacted a Currency Act "to prevent paper bills of credit hereafter issued
in any of His Majesty's colonies from being made legal tender." Since the
colonies were a deficit trade area and were constantly short of "hard money,"
this added a serious burden to the colonial economy. History of American Money
equally objectionable from the colonial viewpoint was the Billeting Act, passed
in 1765, which required colonies to provide quarters and supplies for royal
troops. Strong as was the opposition to
these acts, it was the last of the measures inaugurating the new colonial
system that sparked organized resistance. Known to history as the "Stamp Act”,
it provided that revenue stamps be affixed to all newspapers, broadsides,
pamphlets, licenses, leases, or other legal documents, the revenue (collected
by American agents) to be used for "defending, protecting, and
securing" the colonies. The burden seemed so evenly and lightly
distributed that the measure passed Parliament with little debate. The violence of the reaction in the
thirteen colonies, however, astonished moderate men everywhere. The act aroused
the hostility of the most powerful and articulate groups in the population,
journalists, lawyers, clergymen, merchants, and businessmen, north and south,
east and west, for it bore equally on all sections of the country. Soon leading
merchants, whose every bill of lading would be taxed, organized for resistance
and formed non-importation associations. Trade with the mother country fell
off sharply in the summer of 1765. Prominent men organized as "Sons of
Liberty," and political opposition soon flared into rebellion. Inflamed
crowds paraded the streets of Boston. From Massachusetts to South Carolina the
act was nullified, and mobs, forcing luckless agents to resign their offices,
destroyed the hated stamps. Spurred by Patrick Henry, the
Virginia Assembly passed a set of resolutions denouncing taxation without
representation as a threat to colonial liberties. A few days later, the
Massachusetts House invited all the colonies to appoint delegates to a Congress
in New York to consider the Stamp Act menace. This Congress, held in October
1765, was the first inter-colonial meeting ever summoned on American
initiative. Twenty-seven men from nine colonies seized the opportunity to
mobilize colonial opinion against parliamentary interference in American
affairs. After much debate, the Congress adopted a set of resolutions asserting
that "no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally imposed on them,
but by their respective legislatures" and that the Stamp Act had a
"manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists." свали целия материал: http://depositfiles.com/files/ankv1ua0u | |
Прегледи: 713
| Тагове: |
Брой коментари: 0 | |