American History : American Revolution part I.

Pre-pre war (1754 - 1769)

Forgive the previous time jump. The one where we leaped back to the Magna Carta signing in the 1200s, the movable type printing press in the 1400s, and the Enlightenment beginning in the 1600s. Now we’re to the present. The mid-1700s. 

There’s a bunch of land. That’s why so many Europeans have come to the New World. There’s land. Lots of it. Plenty. Except...the more of them that come over, the more crowded it gets. So the English settlers keep edging their way west…

...which shouldn’t be a big deal, right? Wrong. At this point most of North America is settled by two European countries: the English and the French. There are way more English...but the French dominate the trapping and fur trade. Rich Europeans back home can’t live without their fur coats and beaver hats. So the French have built forts all along the rivers to protect their trade routes. And now those routes, waterways, and lands are being threatened as British settlers continue moving west…

The friend of my friend is...

Are Native Americans excited about helping any Europeans? Hard to say at this point without benefit of a time machine. But they do have a hard decision to make: which side are they going to ally themselves with? The British or the French? In the end, many go with the French, who are smaller in number, bring European treats to trade with, and are slightly less aggressive about taking their lands than the British. 

The colonies - mostly British - aren’t stupid. They’re making their own preparations for war. Guy calling himself Ben Franklin comes up with a plan for the colonies to band together; an alliance where they could pool their resources to train militias and be better organized to fight the French. But the individual colonies don’t want to give up any independence or power...so it’s a no go. They keep on fighting alone. And frequently losing.

George (not George the King).

The super short version is that the 1750s mark the first time history meets a young Virginian in his 20s by the name of George Washington. He gets in fights with some French, builds a fort, attacks a fort, loses a battle, but returns a hero. The legend begins. 

The Seven Years’ War, a.k.a…

Fighting is not only usually stupid, it’s always expensive.

Super expensive. King George III, sitting comfortably in England, is tired of spending money on fighting. Fair enough. So he makes an armchair decision; one from thousands of miles away that makes the colonists unhappy. The decision is this:

“No more settling east of the Appalachian Mountains,” his proclamation says.

Settlers are not pleased. And why not? They’ve paid money for land, and now some guy sitting thousands of miles away tells them they can’t live there? Not fair. They pretty much ignore this proclamation and keep on doing their thing, settling where they want and building farms where they feel like. Including east of the Appalachians. From this standpoint, yep, they’re the protagonists, defying the powerful king - or rather ignoring - and carving their own destiny. Carving, of course, through Native American land and French forts. So the fighting continues. King George III is not cool with this. Again, fighting is expensive. 

These little ongoing battles finally turn into all-out war. It’s often called The French and Indian War, and this is mostly accurate: it’s the British and the British colonists versus the French and their Native American allies. However, The Seven Years’ War is more accurate because the war ended up including other European countries as well and it lasted...seven years. 

It was also a foretaste of the mighty British army and its approach to war. King George sent a general over with some men and told him to take care of things. George Washington tried talking to this general, Ed Braddock, and giving him a little advice:

“You gotta fight ‘em Indian style,” George said. “You don’t wanna march in there all organized and lined up in your red uniforms.”

General Braddock ignored George and did exactly that. Soon he was killed and the British - inexplicably known as redcoats, possibly due to their red jackets - were losing terribly. 

But the British had numbers. They sent more and more troops and the tide began to turn. Finally, they took the last of the French armies down at the Battle of Quebec. The war was over. 

The two countries signed a treaty at which France gave up claim to all their territory east of the Mississippi as well as the Spanish-held territory of Florida. Spain had chosen to back the wrong country and therefore lost what would later become known as the Sunshine State. Sad. For them. Choose your allies well.

Everyone’s happy, let’s get together.

Speaking of allies, let’s remember whose lands we’re talking about. England, France, and Spain are arguing and fighting over which of them should control...whose land? Was there somebody there before any of them?

Oh, right...the Native Americans. They’re in a lose-lose-lose scenario. Some scenarios are worse than others though, and the British winning the Seven Years’ War was not a big break for them. Now they’re dealing with even more seizing of their lands. They keep fighting, but the British presence is growing stronger and stronger and it’s getting more and more difficult to push them back, although they keep trying.

Money money money.

Again, back to this idea of King George III sitting on his safe throne far away, along with Parliament, and making decisions about the Colonies and their future. Who’s got skin in the game? This ‘rule from far away’ is starting to rub some colonists the wrong way. 

We’re the ones doing the hard work. We’re the ones fighting. We’re the ones building, trading, settling, creating new homelands with our sweat and blood, yet these laws and proclamations are passed from across the ocean...and we don’t have a say in what happens.

Not cool. They’re getting hungrier and hungrier to control their own lives and destinies. Or at least to have a voice in the making of laws that affect them. 

Protest (1764 - 1774)

What is the big thing we know about war? It costs money. Lots of money. That money’s gotta come from somewhere. The Seven Years’ War has ended, but King George is leaving an army in the colonies to help keep peace. Those soldiers aren’t volunteering their time. They gotta get paid. But how are they going to get paid and how is the massive - and mounting - war debt going to paid? Bills bills bills. Where to find the money? 

George goes to the solution politicians have gone to for centuries: taxes. The reasoning is this: It’s my army, and they’re protecting you guys, so you guys can help foot the bill. Seems reasonable? 

Sugar Act (1760s).

A catalyst is something that provokes or starts a reaction. The Sugar Act could certainly be thought of as such (or at least a significant one). Basically, it was a mismatch of expectations: the British found the Sugar Act quite reasonable. The colonists did not. So what was it?

The Sugar Act was an effort to help pay for the huge British military presence in North America. Americans would pay about a third of the cost to support the troops. This cost would come from duties on molasses…and funny thing, this act, formally known as the American Revenue Act, actually reduced the duty (tax). But…there were much stiffer penalties for smuggling molasses in, or evading taxes. There was some other stuff too, but they essentially all had to do with telling the colonists what was going to happen without leaving them any voice in the matter.

This did not go over well. The economy was not doing well on either side of the Atlantic after the long war, and people were not interested in forking over more of their revenue to the Crown.

Stamp Act (1765).

There’s a phrase called “doubling down,” which is sort of the idea that if you’re a little bit wrong, then you have two courses of action: you can either:

A) back down and admit you’re wrong and embark on a different course of action, or
B) double down, which is to say
“since my plan isn’t working, I’m going to push it even more aggressively
and go from being a little bit wrong to being a whole lot wrong.”

The British doubled down. British Prime Minister Grenville (the guy behind the updated Sugar Act) blundered into the Stamp Act. It may not sound like a big deal, but “stamp” referred to pretty much anything that involved paper. Newspapers, cards, letters, posters, stamps. Again, it probably seemed reasonable to Britain. Its citizens had been paying a stamp tax for many decades, so why shouldn’t America?

Problem is, they passed the Stamp Act with pretty much no debate. Unlike the Sugar Act, which applied mainly to merchants and was thus indirect to many, the Stamp Act was a direct tax that applied to everyone. Direct hit to the consumer. Not popular.

The poop hits the fan. Talk turns to action. Organizations spring up in defiance and rebellion. Not a good time to be a tax collector for the Crown. Printers are the new rockstars and crank out protest pamphlets like there’s no tomorrow. British products are boycotted. Colonial representatives get together to discuss a plan.

In the end, the Stamp Act is a huge bust. Eventually Britain repeals it and tries to save face. Maybe the colonists will back down now.

But it’s too late.

Townshend Acts (1767).

King George had a finance minister, Charles Townshend, who was smart and funny and had a great plan. Basically, Britain would add duties (e.g. taxes) that would be paid by the importer, not by the consumer (i.e. Americans). Therefore, it wouldn’t seem like such a big deal.

Wrong.

It was a big deal. The Townshend Acts also had some other bits sneaked into law that weren’t popular. Things involving non-specific search warrants and moving jurisdiction for smuggling violations to the British navy, as opposed to a jury. Also, governors would be paid directly by the Crown, meaning they would no longer be subject to “the power of the purse,” whereby colonial governments could set salaries and therefore maintain a balance of power in decision-making.

Again, not a good time to be a Crown revenue fellow in America. Beatings, harassment, tarring and feathering…not fun.

Things aren’t looking good for Britain and America’s relationship. But maybe things will get better. Maybe. One person would never find out. Mr. Townshend died in 1767 and never got to see where things ended up.

So now it’s 1769. It’s been five years. A half decade of conflict, verbal sparring, and aggression. But so far, there’s been a line in the sand.

That line is about to be crossed.

Boston Massacre.

The British have one last card to play. Their military. Maybe what the colonists need to see is a show of strength. So that’s what they do. They send extra troops to Boston. That’ll show the recalcitrant colonists who’s in charge. And finally, the water boils over.

Some boys are throwing snow at British soldiers. Fifty others or so show up. There’s seven soldiers, and who knows exactly what sets things off, but in a matter of minutes, five colonists are dead and six more are wounded.

The governor orders the soldiers jailed and removes soldiers from the streets. Maybe that’ll cool things down.

Good move. It does. For a while. Seven months later, the soldiers go on trial, co-defended by John Adams.

As an aside, this is a pretty cool thing. John Adams was a strong supporter of independence and liberty, yet he defended these British soldiers - and he gave a good defense. So good that most soldiers were acquitted, and the two who weren’t were branded on the hand rather than being hanged.

This does not go over well with the colonists. Newspapers and propaganda go wild, building up and escalating the incident and eventually describing it - as we do today - as a massacre. Colonists continue to organize and things are heated…but stable.

For two more years. And then…

more posts below about American History