Was_Losing_the_American_Colonies_a_Failure_of_the_British_Empire_

Was losing the American colonies a failure of the British Empire' This essay will explore whether losing the 13 colonies in America was the failure of the British Empire or not. The essay will argue that it was the fault of the British Empire for losing the colonies but it wasn’t necessarily a failure, but did in fact work out for the best. It will undertake this investigation by exploring first, what the aims of the British government were at the time. Secondly, it will explore the consequences of the policies, particularly looking at how the colonies were run and whether it was a fault of the Empire that caused the rising tensions before 1775 which culminated into what was a global war between not only the Americans and the British, but between the French and British forces. Thirdly, the essay will discuss the arguments that the British were to blame for the loss and fourthly, it will explore whether it was not a fault of the British Empire but whether it was due to other influences and circumstances that caused the war of independence to occur. In considering the War of Independence, and in particular, why the tensions arose due to British governmental policy, one must first look at the economic policies enacted by the British government at the time, particularly those that were hated by the American colonists. The first seeds of discontent towards tax could be seen in the Stamp Duty of 1765 in which the British government asked for there to be a duty for printing on paper in the colonies.1 This tax was introduced by due to the growing costs of stationing a large army to defend the colonies which the British government funded. However, asking the colonies to fund an army in which they were the sole beneficiaries was so unpopular that Grenville got ousted from his position and the tax was repealed one year into its existence.2 More famously, the events in 1773 (The Boston Tea Party) have been symbolised as the point in which relations between the colonies and Britain were going to go downhill. To Jensen, the view was held that such was the extent of the discontent felt by the colonists towards the ‘tea act of 1773’ that ‘any attempt to enforce the tea act’ would ‘end in blood’.3 Perhaps then, the aim of the British Empire was not to gain economic power, but instead to own the colonies for prestige. After the seven years war with France, Britain sought to protect its colonies in North America by deploying a standing army of 10,000 soldiers.4 This not only gave them (or so they thought) the ability to force out any French counter-offensive but gave them ability to deal with the natives that allied with the French during the war. It was understandable then, that after the support given to the British by the colonies during the seven years war that they felt relatively calm and secure in North America, not expecting the revolution that occurred at the end of the century. The consequences of the British policies are best assessed by looking at primary sources. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was the first book that spoke about the end of traditional empires and talked more about global free-trading empires and groups.5 Adam Smith spoke of how protectionist tariffs and taxes would limit industrialisation and development of wealth. This idea is clearly seen in the colonies as they directly opposed any tax imposed upon them by the British government. The consequences were that the levels of discontent towards the government were on the rise which 1 J. Appleby, ‘Defining the public realm: Property, power and urban politics in a new nation’, Reviews in American History, 12, 1984, pp.198-203; p.202 2 N. Ferguson, Empire: How Britain made the modern world, (London: Penguin Books, 2003); p.86 3 M. Jensen, The American Revolution within America, (New York: New York University Press, 1974); p.36 4 N. Ferguson, Empire: How Britain made the modern world, (London: Penguin Books, 2003); p.86 5 A. Smith, The Wealth of Nations: Book 4, (London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell Ltd., 1786); Chapter 1 was not helped in the way that the average American citizen had no political power or representation.6 The British government didn’t help themselves by stating that the American Governors should ‘appoint those of wealth and high social standing’ to positions of power7 while there was such a wide disparity in land ownership that less than 5% of the population owned any land.8 This ‘elite’ created perhaps, quite purposely by the British, gave a common enemy for the typical colonist to revolt against. Furthermore, the policy to appoint an elite was similar to how the British ran her other colonies across the globe it enabled them to keep control politically while also ensuring that they also kept economic control.9 The policies however, according to Ferguson, were not as bad as people made out. Ferguson, therefore argues that it was the ability of the revolutionaries such as Adams that caused the masses to turn against the policies.10 Furthermore, thinkers such as Thomas Paine helped to spread revolutionary (anti-monarchical) ideas in pamphlets such as ‘Common Sense’ published in 1776.11 Whether Britain was to blame for losing the American colonies is another matter entirely. Colin Bonwick argues that the revolution was a foregone conclusion due to the fact that it was embedded in the colonies and that it was ‘unwinnable’ for the British.12 Militarily, this so-called unwinnable war, is clearly false, especially considering the British strategy to take Philadelphia was so successful.13 Additionally, it was clear that it was only due to the loss at Saratoga which ultimately led to the defeat of the British.14 The idea that it was the British that ‘overstretched’ could be considered true but with over a quarter of American’s remaining loyal to the crown during the war, clearly this ‘foregone conclusion’ was actually not as clear cut as first thought.15 The brilliance of John Adams should also not be underestimated as it was through his scheming that the French fought on the side of the United States but as shall be seen later, would eventually mean that the French were the biggest losers of the war.16 It could also be claimed that the revolution in America was very strongly linked to that of the French revolution and thus could have been caused ‘by the social structure itself’.17 Furthermore, Britain was most definitely to blame for the fact that they largely underestimated the American’s power. The blame, in fact may lie on the British due to the fact that America won, not through military might but through its allies and cunning.18 This is clearly illustrated by the so-called ‘turning point of the war’, the Battle of Saratoga in which the British forces wore red coats and the American’s wore everyday clothing yet at the end of it, the ferocity of 6M . Jensen, The American Revolution within America, (New York: New York University Press, 1974); p.5+p.10 7 Ibid; p.4 8 Ibid; p.9 9 M.J. Heale, The American Revolution, (London: Methuen, 1986); p.8-9 10 N. Ferguson, Empire: How Britain made the modern world, (London: Penguin Books, 2003); p.87+p.90-91 11 Ibid; p.93 12 C. Bonwick, The American Revolution, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005); p.2 13 D. Higginbotham, Reconsiderations on the Revolutionary War, (Greenwich, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978); p.26 14 Ibid; p.27 15 N. Ferguson, Empire: How Britain made the modern world, (London: Penguin Books, 2003); p.95 16 M. Jensen, A History of the United States during the Confederation 1781-1789, (New York: Random House Ltd., 1965); p.8 17 J. Godechot, France and the Atlantic Revolution during the Eighteenth century, (London: The Free Press, 1965); p.7 18 D. Higginbotham, Reconsiderations on the Revolutionary War, (Greenwich, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978); p.9 the American assault caused the British defeat and 3,000 troops plus 300 officers captured. 19 Another failure could be seen as the British Empire’s fault of not being able to hold the seas from the ‘allied’ forces.20 In contrast, the War of Independence could be seen to not be a British failure, but rather, an opportunity. To Jensen, dissatisfaction with government could be considered just a ‘temper of the age’21. This view is also be seen by considering that although the British lost the colonies for poor planning not only militarily but by underestimating the pulling power of America into an American-French alliance, considering that they were at war before during the seven years war. It could also be said that the British were not to blame due to the fact they were fighting an unwinnable war “whilst the American’s still fought”. This was due to, Hooker argues, the fact that the war acted like a guerrilla war with over 50% of the population backing them, it was thus impossible to lose without complete British occupation.22 It could also be said, it was the fault of those appointed rather than the British Government. Hooker claims in is text that when, peacefully, the mobs descended on the Governors etc, they refused to back down perhaps, if there was a meeting the crisis could have been avoided.23 This can be seen as true due to the fact that the main cause of the American War of Independence was due to taxation.24 This, the British were not necessarily at fault in as the other colonies of the Empire accepted the Stamp duty with little complaint.25 Moreover, Ferguson argues that instead of ‘destroying’ the British Empire, losing the thirteen colonies gave them the impetus to turn their attention away from North America, to Asia.26. This change of stance contributed to Britain, yet again despite losing one of its biggest colonies being yet again, the world power , although perhaps it was instead, the collapse of the French in the French Revolution that gave Britain the freedom to do so. In conclusion, the essay, through exploring what policies the British tried to impose that the American’s hated, by examining the consequences of these policies and by looking at how the British reacted to them brings about the question was Britain really to blame for losing the 13 colonies' By further assessing the arguments that it was to blame and comparing it with the view that the Empire was not in fact to blame led to the conclusion that largely, it was. However, whether it was a failure was a different matter. To some, the defeat of the British and Saratoga may have marked the end of the American Revolution and the loss of the American Revolution could have led to a chain of events which could have destroyed the Empire. However, it did not and as seen, worked in fact, quite beneficially for the British gaining many Asian and Pacific colonies in the years soon after. Also, Canada, the closest neighbour of the American’s never revolted like many seemed to have thought (and even was probably the most loyal!)27. Therefore, the question, was losing the American colonies 19 D. Porch, Wars of the Empire, (London: Cassell & Co Ltd., 2001); p.27 20 D. Higginbotham, Reconsiderations on the Revolutionary War, (Greenwich, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978); p.42 21 M. Jensen, The American Revolution within America, (New York: New York University Press, 1974); p.3 22 R.J. Hooker, The American Revolution: The Search for Meaning, (New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1970); p.152 23 Ibid.; p.15 24 M.J. Heale, The American Revolution, (London: Methuen, 1986); p.10-11 25 B. Knollenberg, Origin of the American Revolution: 1759-1766, (New York: The Free Press, 1961); p.216 26 N. Ferguson, Empire: How Britain made the modern world, (London: Penguin Books, 2003); p.101 27 Ibid.; p.110 a failure of the British Empire' The answer is probably not, due to the fact that unlike the French, it still worked out beneficially for the British Empire.