Thursday, October 1, 2009
Colonial Resistance
After completing our discussion about colonial dissent today, it's important that you focus on the initial do now question from two days ago: to what extent did social class and geography affect one's feelings towards Britain during the 1760's/70's? If you were to add gender to that question, what would you say? Post two comments, one a good solid answer to the question, and a second that is in response to your classmates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuring and before the French and Indian War the colonists took advantage of the freedom they were given by the British. Although the British did not give them this freedom purposely, they did not establish their authority over the colonies. Instead, they gave the colonies the idea that by protesting and rioting, they would get their way. This being said, during the 1760's/70's, when Great Britain was trying to reel in their power over the colonies, it was not taken gracefully. In terms of social classes, like Dana said, the higher class colonists were the first to realize that their rights were being "violated." This was mostly because they were the ones who were involved in the government, because they were property holders and could vote. Because this number of voters was so much greater in the colonies then it was in Great Britain, they were more powerful and demanded certain rights. This idea of going against the British government started out slowly, and picked up pace as it spread through the classes. It started with speakers such as Patrick Henry, who announced his opinion that the king should be beheaded. Little by little, more colonists realized what was happening and took initiative, whether it be boycotting British goods or destroying tax collectors homes. This would be one of the first times that the colonists of all different social rankings would work together to try to regain their rights.
ReplyDeleteGeographically, it seemed that the New England colonies were more outspoken and "radical" as Dana said. New York and Massachusetts were definitely colonies that protested enough to alarm the British government. In Boston, the colonists organized a boycott of British goods, which caused British soldiers to be placed in the city. Later, the Boston Tea Party and Boston Massacre caused even more tension between the colony and the British, and eventually led to the Intolerable Acts. New York's colonial assembly refused to provide supplies for the troops that were still stationed in the colonies, and therefore was disbanded. Later New York also refused to let tea be unloaded from ships, in an attempt to boycott the Townshend Acts. South Carolina, although much more southern, also refused to sell the tea, and kept it in warehouses. This was also a time when the colonies made a stronger attempt to back each other up. Although they still weren't ready to unite, Massachusetts supported New York when their colonial assembly was dissolved. Additionally, when the colonies became irritated with Britain's imposition of the Stamp Act, nine of them came together to form the Stamp Act Congress to try and get rid of it.
As far as gender was concerned, males were no longer the only people that could protest. While they were primarily the people who were speaking for their rights, because of their positions as male property holders with a vote, women also were given the opportunity to support the rights they believed in. Economically, women played a huge roll in boycotting British tea, which was a huge part of their economy. By refusing to serve it, they decreased Great Britain's profit from it drastically.
I’m going to have to disagree with Dana. I believe that social classes and geography played a minimal role in the shifting attitudes of the colonists. Focusing on social classes, although most of the attacks did seem to be focused on the upper class, it had nothing to do with wealth. Instead, it was just how the unfortunate political system was playing out. The rebelling peasants were out to send a message to Britain. Therefore, they started attacking British officials and tax collectors. It turns out that the British officials all consisted of wealthy upperclassmen. Putting two and two together, it would initially seem that the rioting colonists were angry at the upper class when in reality, they were just attacking the British officials. To further reinforce this point, many of the organizers and sponsors of the rebellions were upper class people, such as John Hancock and Patrick Henry, meaning that the colonists were not targeting just the upper class.
ReplyDeleteIf one considers geography in regards to the actual land mass and distribution of resources, than geography also played a non-vital role in the changing opinions. If anything, geography should have tried to break up the unity that was forming among the colonies during the 1760/70’s. Since the colonies were located across a seaboard instead of in a densely packed area, the long stretches of land should have made communication difficult and impeded the idea that the British were evil in the colonies. However, it was the pure force of will of the political groups in the colonies to overcome that barrier and to exchange ideas and information that would eventually lead them to suspect the British of revoking their rights. Overall, the shifting attitudes in the colonies were due mostly to political and economic effects. Gender may have played a role, but it would be small. Women participated in riots just like men but there were few cases where women played a role by themselves. As we discussed in class, women played a large role in the shifting attitudes regarding to the tea act since they were the primary consumers of tea. However, we cannot say that gender played a major issue in the changing opinions since most of the time, men and women were acting together.
The social classes and geography of the colonists and colonies each played a significant role in the colonials’ feelings towards the British. Going along with what Dana said, the wealthy merchants were very politically active and educated. They were a part of the colonial assemblies, and they read books based on the Enlightenment and from the European philosophes. These men understood the political and economic situations of the colonies. Their respect for Britain changed when the Stamp Act was passed. The educated colonists believed Britain passed the act for the sole purpose of bringing in revenue, and not for the general welfare. Hatred and disdain towards the Brits began to brew, and political organizations like the Sons of Liberty were formed. The same wealthy and educated men controlled these organizations. They were able to convey their ideologies and beliefs about Britain’s policies to the non-educated people (the blacksmiths, artisans, etc.). Their influence spread to many colonists, and soon enough, all the colonists united, supporting the abolishment of these acts. Men weren’t the only activists. Women contributed by protesting the Tea Act. Women drank the most tea in the colonies. When the Tea Act placed taxes on tea, women refused to purchase a single pound. Similar to the men’s relay, wealthier women spread the word about boycotting tea to the rest of the colonies. The higher, wealthier classes controlled the colonists’ opinions regarding Britain. If they weren’t as influential, there might not have been as many feelings of contempt.
ReplyDeleteThe layout of the colonies also had an impact on colonists’ feelings about Britain. Colonies in the north played a bigger role than colonies in central and south North America. The two biggest were New York and Massachusetts. These two were the most radical colonies because they both had port cities and major political activity. Tea was sent to both colonies. The Tea Act affected the colonists the most in these two areas because they had to pay taxes for the tea, unlike colonies further inland. Colonists disliked Britain even more because of this burden. In both areas, colonials protested; NY refused to allow tea to be unloaded, and Bostonians destroyed a vast amount of tea (because they disliked Britain’s jurisdiction) during the Boston Tea Party. This opposition to authority forced Parliament to tighten their control. British troops physically dissolved a NYassembly. In addition, the Intolerable Acts were passed in MA, closing Boston’s ports, abolishing town meetings, and replacing town officials. Once again, these restrictions angered colonists and fueled their resentment towards the Brits. The location of NY and MA triggered all these events. I wonder if these events would have still occurred if other colonies were in the same position (geographically) as NY and MA. Or were these two colonies just rebellious to begin with?
During this time period, social class and geography affected the colonists' feelings towards the British greatly. Those who were in the colonial assemblies or involved in political processes in the colonies in some way were the wealthy. They were also generally the well-educated ones so they could read about the Enlightenment ideas of liberty and natural rights that came from England. Therefore, the higher class citizens felt contempt towards the British first because they immediately felt their rights being infringed upon. They were the first to notice the British taking away the control they had of their affairs prior to the French and Indian War. Initially, the colonists in a high social class felt the most disdain for the British. The lower class citizens were maybe ignorant of the conflict at first or did not fully understand what was going on because they were not as educated or involved as the wealthy. Therefore, they did not have as much repugnance for the British as the higher class did. In time however, the higher class colonists spread their dissent through printing their opinions in pamphlets and newspapers and it eventually reached citizens of all social classes. The lower class colonists chose to go along with the wealthy because they provided them with new inspiring ideas about liberty that Britain had never presented.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of geography, there seemed to be certain colonies that were more radical, more involved, and felt more abhorrence towards the British. I would say that those in Massachusetts and New York seem to have been the most radical because some of the most noteworthy events of the rebellion occurred there. For example, in Massachusetts there was the Boston "Massacre" and the Boston Tea Party. England felt that the colonists in Massachusetts needed to be disciplined after such occurrences so they passed the Massachusetts Government Act, which put the military in charge of the government. New York had its assembly disbanded after refusing to provide supplies for troops. Virginia was also very involved in the conflict because Patrick Henry spread "Virginia's Resolves" - the idea that every time England took away the colonists' right to have a say in taxes, they should rebel. The colonies with the most radical ideas most likely felt the most disdain towards the British because they were willing to do anything necessary to wriggle out of their control. Port cities were probably also very hateful of the English because the merchants there were extremely angered by Britain's decision to not tax tea from the Eat India Company. This caused merchants to have difficulty selling their tea in the colonies because it automatically cost more than East India Company's. Also, initially people in more remote areas might have felt less repugnance towards the English because maybe the happenings of the rebellion did not reach them as efficiently.
In terms of gender, the women and men were both involved in the rebellion in one way or another. The men participated in riots more often while the women took part in boycotts. They were the main consumers of tea, which was taxed by the British. They stopped purchasing it to damage Britain’s economy. I don’t think gender was a hindrance to either sex because both could participate in the movement in some way.
Despite these factors that caused the most abhorrence to be fostered in certain areas by people of a distinct social class, this discontent with Britain eventually spread to all of the colonists who all felt at least some degree of disdain towards the British.
Acting as a catalyst for the American Revolution, the French and Indian War not only dramatically altered the relationship between the colonies and Britain but also created colonial resistance and dissent throughout the 1760’s/70’s. During this time period, social class, geography, and gender affected the colonists’ feelings toward the British in innumerable ways.
ReplyDeleteRegarding social class, the wealthier colonists were often the leaders of dissent. Like Sarah stated, the wealthy were often times the ones that realized that their rights were being “violated” and were the first to take action. Once the wealthy acted out against the British, the rest of the colonists followed suit, believing that because the wealthy were rebelling, they should rebel as well. Furthermore, the wealthy classes were generally the ones that were most educated. Because of their higher education, they were usually knowledgeable in the Enlightenment in Europe, a time period that produced many political ideologies that exist today. For example, John Locke introduced the idea of natural rights. His belief that every human being is entitled to “life, liberty, and property” further established the idea of citizens having the right to rebel against the government if the government is obstructing their basic rights as individuals. This philosophy later influenced the colonists in their resistance of the British. Furthermore, like Chris stated, political organizations like the Sons of Liberty were often led by wealthier, high class men who were connected to one another. Their ideas spread through writing and word of mouth easily and efficiently, influencing the colonists to rebel against the British during each and every opportunity they were given
Geography also affected the colonists’ feelings toward the British. The British Parliament often believed that by imposing acts on one colony, it would influence the other colonies to refrain from rebelling. They were wrong. The Intolerable Acts of 1774 had been a lack of judgment on Parliament’s part, imposing numerous acts that were only applicable to Massachusetts, specifically the Boston area. For example, the Massachusetts Government Act restricted town meetings that prevented the dissenters, many of which were leaders in the rebellions from congregating. Another act aimed specifically at Massachusetts was the Boston Port Act, which closed the Port of Boston until all the tea that had been lost in the Boston Tea Party was compensated. Acts like these that focused on one lone colony soon enraged all thirteen colonies. Anger about these acts were deemed unconstitutional and spread like rapid fire, changing many views of the British.
Gender also took on a role in the colonists’ feelings toward the British. While men were involved in the resistance and rebellion of most acts that the British imposed on the colonies, the women took on a huge role in the rebellion against the Tea Acts. Their involvement in boycotting the tea by refusing to serve it was truly surprising. Both genders lent an important hand in the boycotts of the British.
As a whole, colonial dissent effectively grew into a domino effect that began to bring the colonies closer together. Social class and gender and geography all made a big impact on the actions taken by the colonists that led them along the path to revolution and their independence from Great Britain.
ReplyDeleteAlthough his argument makes sense, I have to disagree with Marco. At times it did seem that much of the violence was between the rich and poor, but in reality, the upper class played an important role. The upper class were the more educated group who understood the ideas and concepts of the Englightenment. The upper class were the ones who spread their knowledge to the lower classes. Events like Patrick Henry's speech led others to realize the rights that were taken away from them, and what they deserved. The influence of the upper class on commoners also helped in boycotts and protests. Commoners often mirror what the upper class are doing, therefore making resistance more effective. This was the case when the colonists were resisting the Tea Act, which also provides an example of all-gender involvement. Women, especially upper class, drank a lot of tea, and when the commoners saw the upper class resisting tea, they began to as well. The upper class acted almost like a role model to the commoners. The upper class people were the ones who truly initiated all the rebellion and resistance with the commoners following in their footsteps. Everyone participated, and the colonies began to unify and work together.
At this point, the colonies still were not one, but influenced one another just as the upper class influenced the common people. Like what Chris said, New York and Massachusetts were the two biggest and most radical colonies. When they were essentially being cornered in by the British government, (dissolving New York's colonial assembly and placing the Intolerable Acts on Massachusetts) the other colonies only furthered their resistance. Rather than stepping back and being intimidated by the "punishments" placed on New York and Massachusetts, they increased their support for one another, and continued engaging in anti-British acts. The colonies influenced one another, and the ideas from all the different colonies spread to each other through the letters, newspapers, and other forms of media. The media played a big role in keeping the colonists going because it was what not only spread ideas, but also acted as propaganda. An example of this was the Boston Massacre, which was not at all a massacre, but because of how it was depicted through word and pieces of art like Paul Revere's etching, the colonists were outraged. An example of how ideas were spread from colony to colony was tea. The colonies all had their ways of resisting tea, whether it was simply not selling it, keeping it in warehouses (South Carolina), refusing it to come through the ports (New York), and of coarse, destroying it (Boston Tea Party.) In fact, the Boston Tea Party was not the only tea party to occur.
Besides the spread of ideas from class to class, and colony to colony, geography and social class made a big impact with each other. The proclamation line set up by the British angered the colonists because the land they fought for was not allowed to be used. They were told by the crown that it was for their own good and protection from the Native Americans, but this soon brought the colonists some confusion. The land they were allowed to no longer use or live on was given to the Canadians. Not only was the land that they owned given to them, but they received religious rights as well. The Canadians, being Catholic, and the colonists being Puritans and Protestants alike were simply outraged by the fact that the land they owned and fought for was given to them. Much of the land was owned by the upper class who were hoping to eventually use it for their plantations and such, but now that was definitely not going to happen.
To wrap it up, everyone came together and participated in the dissent towards the British and their policies. Wealthy merchants, plantation owners, blacksmiths, the guy from around the corner, mothers, sons, husbands, and so on all held their roles and participated. The different social classes and colonies worked together and influenced one another, and ultimately grew into a unified state.
ReplyDeleteIn answering Marco's question about New York and Massachusetts: They may be just rebellious to begin with, and in a sense continue to be that way today, but if it wasn't for their radical movements, and the rate their ideas spread, the other colonies may not have had anything to branch off from to form their own matters of resistance, or gained enough reason to go along with the resistance.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Marco's statement about the social classes. Wealth played a vital role because those that were wealthy were the influential and educated people. The less educated and successful colonists looked up to these figures as leaders; they knew how to handle different situations. Therefore, the upper class was essential in the opinions and views formed about Britain. The upper class informed everyone else what was going on, and others began to follow their lead. If the wealthy colonists kept quiet, it is possible that the level of colonial unity finally achieved would never have been reached, as colonists' views about the British might not have been altered.
ReplyDeleteGeography tremendously affected one’s feelings towards Britain.The vast distance between England and the colonies made the actions of the colonists differ from if they would have lived close by the mother country. Colonists could not go to their country and complain about what was happening to the governemnt. They had no choice but to take radical actions to show England they did not agree with something. Protests, massacres, and beheadings were needed to even catch the attention of England. The distance made the colonists feelings escalade to a whole other level because they were often ignored and never transferred from North America all the way to the governemnt in England. The geography gave them no choice but to take huge measures in order for them to get their ideas out there and for them to be heard. If England was accessible for the colonists I do not think such rebellious actions would have taken place so close to the start of the fight for independence. Geography of the colonies was also something that had an impact of the colonists’ feelings towards Britain . The Northern colonies of New England were far more rebellious than those of the South. These colonies always seemed to be more and more involved in the movement to liberate the colonies from England. Most protests and events occurred in this area and it seemed as though they were the only ones making any sort of effort that would actually change things .For example, The Boston Tea Party, taking place in Massachusetts, was a vital mark in the path of fighting for their freedom. To oppose the heavy taxes on tea colonists duped thousands of dollars worth of tea into the harbor. Another radical event that took place in the Northern colonies was when Patrick Henry proposed the beheading of the king and it was carried out. We even observe that many asseblies were formed such as the NY assembly. These actions were barley seen in the South and therefore the North had more feelings and opinions of the British and took action.
ReplyDeleteSocial classes also played a role and impacted the feelings of the colonists’ toward England. People in the upper class had more power and jobs in government positions. The lower class were mainly farmers and merchants who did not have a say in anything and had no power. If you were in the lower class, much of what you say would not have mattered and therefore you needed someone who was wealthy and powerful to start a protest or assembly. In reality, the people with more money and power are able to get goals accomplished faster and easier than a farmer would be. Upper class were needed to start and rile up society and bring ideas to them. If farmers and merchants were backed up by someone in the government or a successful job they would have confidence to go on and fight and their voices would be heard. An example of this is Patrick Henry. He was an upper class man who developed the idea to behead the king. He preached his ideas to the public, varying in classes, and received a lot of support .The wealthy were the first ones to discover the unjust way they were being treated and the leaders of the movements and actions that they did to get rid of any injustice within the colonies . The feelings of the colonists towards Britain were more expressed if you were wealthy. Even in today’s society, power and money allows for greater and faster success.
Even though society and geography had a huge impact on the feelings colonists’ had towards England, I do not think gender played a huge part. Men and women were equally angry with their unjust treatment from the British and both felt the recompressions of it, and no one could avoid it. Men may have been more involved but that doesn’t mean women didn’t feel the same way.
The social class and location of a colonist did shape his or her feeling on Britain during the 1760’s/ 70’s. Even though different social classes had somewhat different feelings about Britain, there still was a general unified feeling of dislike of Britain among the colonists during this time period. The wealthy people were probably the most vocal at first about their dislike of Britain because they held high positions in the colonies and were being affected by the British actions the most. The upper class held primarily most of the seats in colonial assemblies across the colonies, so that is why they were really first to feel resentment towards Britain. This is because when they tried to repeal acts in a peaceful political manner the British did not care about their input. This causes the upper class to have resentment for the British, so therefore they spread word of the British travesties hoping that all colonists will gain this same resentment. This leads me to the middle and lower class. These classes did not really have any bad feelings at first because most of the acts did not really affect them, but after the wealthy colonists brought up the British travesties in town meetings and such. The middle and lower class gained bad feelings towards Britain. This made these classes join the upper class in the rebelling against the British. The upper class was seen as the leaders for the lower classes.
ReplyDeleteThe geography of where a colonist lived affected that colonist’s feelings toward England. For example if someone were to live in Boston, Massachusetts their feelings would be different from someone who lives in a southern colony like Virginia. Colonists from Boston would have a much deeper resentment for England than colonists from the south because they live in a port city. Living in a port city would make your feelings much stronger because of the fact that the society in port cities were mainly run by trading and manufacturing, so the British taxes on imports would affect these people more. The taxes were hurting port city businesses. These taxes did not really affect the southern colonists that much because southern society was mainly based on farming. Therefore the southern colonists were not so radical like the colonists that lived in port cities because the taxes did not affect southern society that much.
Both genders had mutual feelings of resentment towards the British. Though the men were primarily the ones who took part in active protests and riots the women took part in rebelling too. Their main form of rebelling was boycotting like the men, but there boycott was special. Women were the ones who consumed the most tea in the colonies. Therefore when they boycotted tea the British economy took a major decline. All people, men and women felt the same resent towards the British, and both took part in rebelling.
I agree with Chris in saying that the wealthier people played a more vital role. This is because these people were better educated and could take leading positions in rebelling against the British. Also Chris is right in saying that since the common colonists were not educated that well they followed the wealthier colonists. This relationship led to an organized rebellion rather than just anarchy that would not solve anything but just ruin things for both the British and the colonists.
ReplyDeleteOy. Look at all these paragraphs! Everybody's writing up a storm!
ReplyDeleteSocial class definitely played a role in the colonists' feelings toward Great Britain (I almost wrote Breat Gritain, haha). It was actually the upper class of colonists that started leading gatherings against Britain. They were well educated, literate, and were the most directly receptive to Enlightenment ideas traveling overseas. With new concepts of natural-born rights and liberties, the upper class leaders spread their knowledge to the lower classes, and that was important about the dissent in the colonies. Everybody was involved. From the shopkeeper to the wealthy landowner; every social class was becoming more politically involved and becoming more conscious of the rights they felt they deserved.
The consciousness among ALL social classes of their rights and liberties was what caused them to become angered not by British actions, but by the concepts BEHIND them; for example, Britain passed the Stamp Act in order to bring in revenue, unlike the taxes passed to regulate trade, and it was this concept that the colonists were angry about. They were concerned about paying more money (wouldn't you be concerned?) but it wasn't that much more, and what they really cared about was that it was for no reason but to give Britain money to pay off debt. That made them angry.
As for geography, WELL, it was clear that there were certain colonies that took a much more crazy-active role in colonial protest against the British. How 'bout... New York... and... Massachusetts! Those people in Boston really knew how to stir up some dissent, from the Boston Massacre to the Boston Tea Party. The Boston Massacre itself was hardly a massacre; five people died! But it was blown out of proportion and made into propaganda by a new spread of ideas that became much more popular after the event: newspapers and pamphlets! That really got news out there. And The Boston Tea Party? There were other ones, but Boston's took the cake-slash-kettle for sure! Bringing back the upper class, probably upper class people organized the scandal, but more of the lower class people carried it out.
And then after that, the British cracked down hard on Boston, and made them close up their port until they paid damages. Which, didn't just make Boston mad, it made everybody around them mad too, and even the colonies far away. Suddenly, the colonies had something that was holding them together, and it started with that political awareness and that understanding of underlying concepts. Sure, geography made things a little different in each colony. Boston dumped their tea overboard (sooo smooth). New York refused to unload the cargo. And South Carolina got all smart and decided they'd unload the cargo, but they'd stow it so it couldn't be bought. Now THAT'S good thinking right there.
Throwing in gender, it didn't really matter whether you were male or female, you knew what was going on and you were involved in the anti-British movements. Tea was actually most popular among women; they would serve it, but they also drank it the most themselves! The taxes on tea affected them the most personally, and so they played a huge role by refusing to buy tea or refusing to serve it, as well as refusing to drink it themselves.
Going back to social classes, the upper class women started doing this and set precedents for the lower class women, and the trend spread that way as well as through willing protest. Fun fact; I think I remember reading from some vague time in my youth about Liberty Tea, or something like that?
ReplyDeleteIt was a tea that the colonists made themselves that wasn't tea REALLY, but it was a substitute that they drank in opposition to the British and their tea. Obviously the women cooked that one up; and it kinda shows how inventive the colonists really are. They're eager to be independent and stand on their own and make their OWN TEA, thank you very much Britain!
Social class played a major role in how the colonists viewed Great Britain in the 1760's/70's. The higher the social class, the more educated the colonists were. They were exposed to Enlightenment ideas, books, newspapers, and were more educated. They understood these new ideas that were emerging in Europe and saw how they could implement them into the colonies. When Great Britain started to have a stronger hold on the colonies and began to tax them more and more, the colonists were inclined to resist because of these new ideas of republics, checks and balances, and other new governmental ideas. The upper class also was where new leaders of rebellious organizations emerged, such as the Sons of Liberty. I agree with what Carly said, that the ideas of the upper class was important because their ideas trickled down to the lower class. The lower class carried out more of the rebellious activities, however the ideas were implemented in their minds because of the upper class
ReplyDeleteGeography also played a role in what the colonists thought of Great Britain. The north was more active in rebellions than the south was. I believe that the major trade and port system in Boston and New York especially played a huge role in this. New York and Boston had the ability to harm the British economy. Because of this they were more active in rebelling against Britain. Like Dana said, port cities were where rebellion was most effective and most widespread.
Gender played a small role in the colonists view of Great Britain. Women, especially in the upper class, got involved in the Tea Act through protests and boycotting tea. Women would refuse to both buy and serve tea, which greatly affected the British economy. Great Britain could not make money off of tea that never sold. While the women's protesting may not have made as great of an impact as the Boston Tea Party, women were still getting involved in the opposition to Great Britain.
Marco made his point marvelously! There was a distinction between colonial elite and British elite that was DRASTIC when it came to who the colonists targeted. I mean, Patrick Henry never did end up tarred and feathered, did he? Only the British tax collectors that the colonists harassed; even if the collectors weren't personally supportive of the taxes they were collecting! The colonists didn't care; they had a point to make.
ReplyDeleteAhhh Carly, I completely forgot the Proclamation Line! That's a super important geographical factor; good job for bringing that up. The colonists were angry at the British 'cause the British gave land west of the Proclamation Line to Canada, land that the colonists weren't allowed to have after they fought for it and won it in the French and Indian War beside British troops. What a cruel punishment; and it also revealed something important to the colonists: the British had potentially lied about "protecting them from Indians". What ELSE had the British lied about to make them calm down? That instilled plenty of doubt in British validity.
Chris mentioned political groups being headed by wealthy people and that's a good point to make too. Another role that the upper class had. It really wasn't that the upper class and the lower class were separate; social class became super significant because the classes were working together for once! Upper and lower classes were working for the same cause. A miracle, to be sure! This wasn't an inter-class battle, this involved all the classes and a common enemy. The wealthy and the poor had the same hunger for resistance. Perhaps they went about it in different ways, but the hunger was the same.
Jenna made a great point about how the distance between Great Britain and the colonies also affected how the colonists viewed Britain. The great distance made Great Britain feel almost impersonal, and made it difficult for the colonists to understand reasons behind some of the British actions. I also agree that maybe if Britain made itself more accessible to the colonists then maybe there would have been a greater understanding between them.
ReplyDeleteThe classes did not matter much to affect the feelings towards Britain. If anything the upper class should be angrier or just as angry with the British as the lower class. The higher class people were the wealthier people; they didn’t want extra unneeded taxing as much as the next person. The British were infringing on liberties, trade, and farming.
ReplyDeleteClass may have something to do with information from colonists to England. Because all the intellectuals came from Britain into the colonies, men like Ben Franklin and George Washington.
Geography, I feel, has a lot of importance during history. As mentioned by several of my classmates, port cities were greatly affected such as Massachusetts and New York. The bigger port cities, such as Boston, were more involved with the conflicts between Britain. The Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party were geographically in port cities because of the radical Boston people could do all these forms of protest. The Virginians definitely couldn’t tip a boat, landlocked and all. The Proclamation Line was a geometric border that got ALL the colonists angry. The Proclamation line was there to “protect the colonists from Indians” while they decide to give the land to the Canadians. Just like if Americans were being punished and Canadians were getting rewarded just for American colonies being bad. England was wrong to think that changing the geography would not cause trouble.
I also think that Jenna mentioned a great point about geography that no one else really touched on. Unlike territories that other European countries had conquered, the colonies were miles away from the mother country and were deprived of the opportunity to complain directly to the Parliament, the king, and the prime minister. Rather than being represented in Parliament through representatives from the colonies themselves, they had representatives in England who simply attended the meetings but did not actually express what discontents the colonists had with the new acts that were passed. The reality was that the colonists did take radical actions to grab England’s attention. Their feeling of their opinions and rights being disregarded and ignored was not a feeling well-received by the colonist and Jenna brought up a good argument that the distance did escalate the feelings between Britain and the colonies. In fact, the relationship between Britain and the colonies seen through this scenario is almost like a middle child fighting for attention from the parent. Obviously the colonies are not the only “child” that is being cared for by the “parent” and to achieve the attention they desire, they act out to finally achieve what they want.
ReplyDeleteThe American colonists had a unified feeling of dissent toward the British during the 1760s and the 1770s, and this hatred was affected by the different social classes and the geography of the colonists. After the French and Indian War, the British government taxed heavily on the American colonies. Like what Carly and Emily stated, the wealthier men lead the other colonists into thinking that the actions of the British government were not justified. These privileged men had a higher form of education than the merchants and other ordinary citizens, and so they had a better knowledge about the Enlightenment ideals and the belief of the natural law. The middle and lower class men quickly became involved with the political dispute that ruptured between the colonies and Great Britain through the upper-class men. They joined resistances such as the Sons of Liberty, and these ordinary colonists became the new faces in and replaced the upper class leaders because of their bold acts of going against the law.
ReplyDeleteGeography greatly affected the colonists’ feelings toward Britain as well. For instance, the colonists who settled on the western side of the colonies, near or past the Appalachian mountain had a strong feeling of hatred toward the British when they enforced the Proclamation line in 1763. Colonists felt that it was unfair for the British to restrict where they could and could not own land. Their farms and properties were already set up, and by enforcing this one law, the British expected the colonists to give up everything, their property, their livelihood, and start over somewhere else. Furthermore, like what Chris had mentioned earlier, the colonists’ feelings of dissent were stronger in colonies where revolts were more common. In areas where the British had the more radical colonists, of course, the British government would have to put forth greater efforts to try to regain control over the colonists and have them submit to their will. However, in colonies such as Massachusetts, the number of protests and boycotting increased as the British passed more and more acts to tax the colonists.
Both genders proved to have a strong and active role in revolts against the British. While the male colonists led the violent protests and assemblies against the British government, the women also led boycotts against the taxation of tea.
I completely agree with Carly's point. If New York and Massachusetts hadn't been so radical and extreme, other colonies may not have ever taken that initiative to actively protest the newly imposed taxes. They were by far two of the most proactive colonies, and although that led to them suffering some consequences, such as British troops moving into their colony's and their colonial assemblies being disbanded, they ultimately motivated the other colonies. And although it wasn't a huge improvement, the British provided the colonies with a common issue that needed to be handled. When their is a common interest, it is easier for groups to unite, which is exactly what began to happen in the colonies.
ReplyDeleteJustin makes a great point in saying that the upper class were the ones who first felt violated and disrespected by the British. Their high positions in government exposed them to England's unjust actions first before any other colonists. But to make an impact and voice their opinions, the supposrt of the middle and lower classes were much needed.Nothing would be possible or have been accomplished if the upper class did not win the support of the others. A sort of unity is seen when all the classes come together to attack a common enemy.
ReplyDeleteI really liked Carly and Chris's point about how the two different classes, the middle class and the lower class, came together in their fight against the British. Throughout history, many disagreements occur between the wealthy upper-class and the middle-class people. They bicker about the different values that they share, and in many cases, the upper-class men have a bigger advantage because of the wealth and power they have over the common middle-class. However, in the case of the American colonists, they set aside their differences, the lower classes learning from the higher classes, and they came together to attack the British together, unified as one body of people, the American colonists.
ReplyDeleteWithout the British’s harsh attitude towards the Colonists this wouldn’t have even happened. The British are the ones who initially did not connect or reason with the colonists because they were arrogant. (We can all learn a nice moral lesson) The British started the gap between the colonies and England. Without smart politicians, such as William Pitt, England wouldn’t stand a chance of ruling anybody. The upper class was lucky that they were able to learn about the enlightenment happening in Europe. The Enlightenment was a key factor for the upper class to understand they could actually do something about the British, instead of just moan about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jenna’s point. The upper class really helped band the colonies together. I’m sure if Britain was not taxing the whole of the colonies, none of the other colonies would have cared. Virginia only stepped in once it affected them. New York and Massachusetts together was at a point where the colonies were starting to come together, not just like a wet noodle but actual togetherness. This was soon before the Continental Congress. It would seem that England had created its own enemy.
Geography had everything to do with how the colonists perceived Britain. Simply being so far away from Britain made Britain, well, distant. What Britain did locally did not effect the colonists much, if at all. This is what led to the colonists being annoyed about being taxed by Britain. Also, it was impossible to be fairly governed by Britain in the Americas, during a time when there was no high-speed communication. English colonists had to be self-ruled, because their interests could not be easily shown to the British, who were across the Atlantic Ocean. When Britain tried to govern them, it angered them for this reason, plus others. Social class did not effect one's attitude towards the British as much as it effected how they reacted to the British. for example, many rich sons of liberty could not afford to be in the more violent of protests such as the Boston Tea Party because they could not afford to go to jail and had much to lose. Also, the upper class was the class able to organise people into protesting the British.
ReplyDeleteGender, while being an important factor at that time in how one led their life for the most part, did not affect a person's view of the British. The only possible difference in attitude could be that woman were a main purchaser and consumer of tea, but so were men. Gender did not play too much of a role at the time (but, like class, affected how one could demonstrate their opinion against the British).
In response to other classmates, what I failed to mention included how geography in the colonies affected one's view of the British, which is very important, because the Southern colonies had a different view of the British than the middle colonies, which had a different view from the new England colonies. Also, being in a city allowed a person to be part of various protests, and in a center of organisation and knowledge, which helped in defining one's opinion of the British. Chris Gardner also pointed out that the upper class not only had the ability to organise protests, but also had the ability to gain the knowledge of the Enlightenment, which inspired many of the protests against England. So the access to knowledge is an important distinction between classes which greatly affected how a person viewed the British. It also seems that most say that gender did not have too important a role in one's opinion of the British.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the questions "to what extent did social class and geography affect one's feeling towards the British" my answer is nothing. Those factors didn't change or affect one's feelings toward the British from one another. Wherever you went or whatever social class you were in, popular opinion of British were the same. Gender didnt affect one's feelings; things that women used every day were also taxed, which caused resentment from women as well as men.
ReplyDeleteAmong the colonists, regardless of social class, the colonists were angered by British control. Both the upper and lower class settlers resented the British oppression. Most people say that it was the upper class who realized "first" that their liberties were being violated but that's not necessarily true. One of the reasons why it seemed that way because the wealthy had a voice. The lower class people didn't voice their opinions such as Patrick Henry, but that didn't mean that boundaries of the social class separated their similar opinions of the British. Social classes didnt really change one's feelings toward the British, it was more based on political and economic aspects.
Geography didnt affect one's feelings towards the British either. All of the colonies were taxed regardless of whether or not they participated in the French and Indian War. all colonies resented these taxes. This goes back to what i said before, everyone was treated the same in England's eyes - like poop - one's feelings towards the British were similar to the next. One of the main reasons why the colonies united was because of their mutual dislike for the British. Regardless of social class or even gender
Emily mentions the enlightenment and educated individuals that seemed to dominate the resistance. But I disagree, because a lot of the rebellions were led by ordinary people such as shop keepers and blacksmiths. For example during the Boston Tea Party, wealthy colonists didn’t really participate, on the grounds that they didn’t want to get caught because it would ruin them.
ReplyDeleteThe lower class did look up to the upper class, like the lower class women following the upper class women for boycotting tea, like Carly said. But it didn’t affect women’s feelings toward the British. They both drank tea, so they were both taxed equally anyways. Making them resent the British all the same.
I disagree with Chris’s statement “If the wealthy colonists kept quiet, it is possible that the level of colonial unity finally achieved would never have been reached”. I don’t think that if the wealthy colonists were quiet, it would mean that the peasants would keep quiet either. Oppression didn’t sit well with the lower class. They were prone to revolting and complaining. For example the Paxton boys, were a group of lower class people that practically formed their own militia. Sure, colonial unity was aided by wealthy colonists’ involvement, but their involvement made everything political rather than violent. But this necessarily mean that unity would not have been reached.
Laura makes an interesting point about the Proclamation Line that I had not considered. Those who settled beyond or near the line (The Appalachian Mountains) were particularly angry with the British for taking away their land.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings on what Rebecca has said. I agree that yes, the lower class citizens did dominate the riots, but I still feel that the wealthy dominated general resistance. I think that the upper class were the ones who really got the ball rolling and began spreading the idea that their liberties were being violated to the extent where they really needed to take a stand. This is what gave the lower class colonists the idea to riot and protest in the first place. The lower class colonists realized that something was not fair about the way the British were suddenly treating them and did feel some dissent towards them regardless of what the wealthy told them. However, the wealthy felt disdain towards the English to a greater extent because they really understood that their rights were being violated due to the comprehension of Enlightenment principles. Once they gave the lower class these ideas, the hatred was felt equally across the colonies and they began to come together. Therefore, the resistance was first led and dominated by the wealthy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think initially, social class and geography affected one's attitude towards the British, but over time these factors mattered less and less, as many of the colonists, no matter how wealthy they were or where they lived, eventually felt united against England.
ReplyDeleteSocially, the revolutionary spirit originated in the upper classes. These were the educated, the ones who read all the work that came out of Europe during the Enlightenment. These were the businessman, who felt their trade restricted by the British. These were the people who held political power before the British tightened their grip on the colonies. However, as time went on, their rebellious attitude spread towards the lower classes. It had to, or the revolution would never have enough supporters. It's similar to how the bourgeoisie needed the peasants to join them against the First and Second Estates in the French Revolution. Initially, the revolution started with the wealthy, but it spread everywhere, and made social class less and less important over time.
This happened geographically, too. At first the revolution started more up in the northeast, especially in Massachusetts. There the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and crazy riots against their governors occurred. And in New York, the colonial assembly had to be disassembled because they did not cooperate with the British in providing for English soldiers. But as time went on, the revolutionary spirit couldn't remain contained if it wanted to thrive; it spread to the rest of the colonies, and geography became less and less of a factor. A Congress was called, and the colonies put in a unified effort against Great Britain.
Gender-wise, same thing. Maybe men received more education at the time, and all the major leaders of the revolution were men, but the women joined in the effort as well. Especially with boycotting, as they refused to buy tea.
Socially, geographically, and gender-wise, the rebellious attitude towards Britain all originated from people in specific status or location. But eventually these factors mattered less and less, as the revolutionary spirit, and people everywhere began to join in.
Marco, I'm going to disagree when you say that social classes didn't matter. Maybe they didn't matter in the sense that the revolution wasn't a war between different classes, the way the French Revolution was, but they did matter for where the revolutionary spirit originated and was most concentrated in. You mentioned John Hancock and Patrick Henry. These were leaders of the revolution, like you said. They were the sparks. Most of the instigators of the rebellion were like these two, in the sense that they were wealthy and upper class. If it had been left to the poor to ignite the American Revolution, I'm not sure if it would have happened. They were too busy farming to sustain their lives to read John Locke or other Enlightenment scholars.
ReplyDeleteCarly, mentioning the Proclamation Line was a good idea. That was definitely another place where colonists were sure to have been infuriated with the British. However, I'm not sure how much they influenced the rest of the colonies, compared to the way Massachusetts drove the rest of the colonies to action.
The feelings by the colonies toward the British were contributed by geographical means and also social class. The Colonists really shared the same dislike towards the British because everybody felt the wrath of what Britain was doing, which was unfairly taxing them. The upper class, however, were the first to start the dissent. Guys like Patrick Henry and others started to get the idea that the British were treating them unfairly. Then, they effectively distributed their ideas by newspapers and pamphlets. This was when the lower class started to recognize what Britain was doing. This created groups like the Sons of Liberty, who were mostly made up of artisans and shop keepers, to start protesting. This now created no difference if one was rich or poor. They both shared the common theme. The same could be said for women. Women also participated in the dissent of the British along with men. The women played a large role in refusing to serve tea.
ReplyDeleteGeographically it is the same, in that it played a factor into ones feelings of the British. In the north, Boston and New York pursued more of an active role in protesting the British than the Carolina’s. This was because New York and Boston had bigger ports and consumed more trade. Therefore they felt a more tax burden than southern cities. Also, the Proclamation line was also a key factor because the British gave the Canadians the land west of the line even though the British said to the colonists that no one could settle their. This confused and angered the colonies greatly.
Marco points out a great idea that many of the tax collectors were upper classman and that the lower class was not really angry at the upper class. They were just angry at the tax collectors. I also agree a lot with what Chris said in that the lower class had to follow the lead of the upper class. If it was not for the upper class than the lower class never would have really found out about what the British were doing because they were not as highly educated.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1760/1770s, the colonists' attitude toward Britain depended heavily on social class and location because different areas felt differently towards their sovereignty. Colonists in territories with strong British interaction such as the port cities of New York and Boston developed a stronger sense of dislike for the British. This can be attributed to the port cities being more heavily affected by England's laws, taxes, and control. For example, Boston was singled out by the British government after the Boston Tea Part, and were given specific restrictions that did not apply to any other colonies. The port cities are where the major independence seeking people and groups were formed including the Sons of Liberty and Samuel Adams. Because the cities had such influential and outspoken people, there was more British hatred. Those farther away from the Atlantic Ocean were on the outskirts of English control, therefore suffering less dominance.
ReplyDeleteAlthough differences in the extent of discontent towards the British can be seen, all social classes grew to dislike England for separate but equally valid reasons. No one was satisfied with the ridiculous amount of taxes they had to pay or the soldiers they were forced to house. On top of the unfair laws and taxes, the way Britain looked down on all the colonists during and after the war angered people of all social classes. The aftermath of the war brought conflict when England decided to increase their control and set a proclamation line. Landowners that had purchased land west of the appalachian mountains lost their investment .
The British aggravated people of all areas and social classes in different ways by trying to increase their influence and control over the colonists.
I strongly disagree with Rebecca's response when she states that social class, gender, and geography do not matter in the extent in which colonists dislike the British. Even though she did see the main picture that everyone had a separate reason to oppose England, I believe she did not look deep enough into the topic. Clearly extents can be differentiated because of the amount of British influence within an area or a social class. As I mentioned earlier, port cities suffered more English involvement and punishment. Therefore the port cities had more anger towards them which is why people like Patrick Henry and the Paxton Boys whom Rebecca mentioned went to the city to get their voices heard.
ReplyDeleteEven though everyone was angered by taxes, those who could not put food in their children's mouths were definitely more upset than those who simply could not buy as many lavish things because their income was financing Britain. The middle and Upper classes may have suffered consequences of the increased English involvement, but the lower class was definitely hit hard by the newly imposed taxes and acts.
As historians, we must not overlook the extent of a situation. Grasping only the basics that the British treated colonists poorly and everyone disliked them is not doing history justice. The colonists had different reasons, some more serious than others to dislike the British which resulted in different extents of dislike.
I wrote this 3 times and for some reason it kept deleting, so please don't hate me for grammatical errors, I was getting frustrated. Just be careful and try to actually save your work on something else before you put it on here, unlike me.
ReplyDeleteMY ENTRY WAS TOO LONG so here’s Part 1:
Social class and Geography had a great impact on the relationship between the colonists and the British. Not to offend anybody who believes differently, but it is very hard to avoid the fact that these two factors were critical and played a huge role in the 18th century.
In order to understand the concept of social class in the colonies during the 1760s and 1770s, one can very easily relate them to a situation which we may find ourselves involved within in our very own lives.
Recently we discussed the issue of universal health care and so I want to use this example in order to chain together the problems of the colonists and the problems of our own American people. The situations are similar in the sense that taxation was being heavily distributed upon the middle class of the colonies, just as taxation is heavily distributed upon our middle class of the United States. Surely, the upper class of neither time period gets frustrated and enraged at the idea of insignificant taxes which they are very well capable of handling. However, the middle class which made up majority of the colonies economy and our own economy begins to struggle. They have to work hard in order to stay at the position at which they are maintain themselves, but when unnecessary taxes are placed upon them a heavy burden is placed upon them as well and it was this burden that built up all this angst for the colonists.
It must be recognized that the simple difference between upper and middle class makes a difference today, just as it did back then. It is very important relative in order to tie together the events which we are all undergoing today in order to understand some of the social and political issues which took place in the 18th century, after all the freedom of rights which we enjoy today originated from several of these 18th century issues.
Going on...
It must also be recognized that Geography had a key role in the relationship between the colonists and the British, and this role was just as significant as the issue of social class.
The Revolutionary War, the French and Indian War, and several other battles such as the economic and political ones... were all fought across an entire ocean. The Atlantic Ocean was the massive body of water which divided the colonies from Great Britain. The entire struggle took place across a sea. This is a significant key to understand just how the relationship worked between the colonists and the British.
And here is Part 2:
ReplyDeleteAgain, I would like to relate this issue back to real life. Let us say a man or woman decides to place themselves in a long-distance relationship, one which takes place across an ocean, for example the Atlantic or Pacific. Place this scenario in the time frame of the colonists. No email. No phone calls. No internet. Nothing. These resources were non-existent at the time and were simply no accessible. However, letters were a form of communication, and the only other form of communication was through another person, or one's self. Now let us say the woman symbolizes the colonies, and a man symbolizes Great Britain. Surely communication will grow frustrating for these two and messages will grow inaccurate over time, just like a game of telephone. This mediocre, unreliable, and inaccurate form of communication would soon grow weary. So to make my point... the colonists were having a long-distance relationship with Great Britain, however, they wanted to "break-up" they did not want this relationship, and they wished to live divided from them as their own separate group. For the British to push, and push upon this long-distance relationship, to control the colonies, regulate them, and tax them abusively across an entire ocean was simply demeaning to the colonists. It was these acts that over time came to frustrate them extremely. To push a relationship like this, simply was unhealthy. And so, conclusively, yes, Geography certainly impacted the relationship between the colonists and Great Britain.
Finally, the element of gender must also be considered in this situation. Maybe gender, male or female, did not cause the outbreak of the war, however the roles of each were very significant to understanding the mindset and system of the colonies and the war which they participated in. The colonists created a movement through the riots which they took part in, and many of these riots were filled in majority by men. Women could participate just as men could, however the women of the colonies tended to boycott items such as the British tea which had been shipped over. Boycott grew to be an excellent technique used by several women in order to attack against the British economy. Men, on the other hand, tended to act more physically and they participated in several riots, pushing with both verbal and physical force. But altogether, the combination of men/women colonists created a movement against the over-regulating manners of the British.
I strongly agree with the point Claudia makes in her final post referring to the issue of social class. The working class of the colonies had to push themselves in order to be able to feed themselves, however meanwhile, the upper class and the wealthy colonists just weren't able to buy as lavish of goods as they were previously. Lavish goods were insignificant, and these issues must be recognized as well. The social class of both the colonists and the British affected a lot of the characters which coexisted within them both.
ReplyDeleteAnd now I want to disagree with several people on this blog, respectfuly. It is simply not right to state that the geography and social class of the colonies just wasn't that significant. It was very important! The situations and issues which built up to the Revolutionary War must be accounted for in a realistic manner, one in which we as learners and people of this nation can envision to ourselves. The Revolutionary War simply did not begin with all of the colonies of the entire East Coast just roaring up in outrage at the site of one tax. Some people, many which belonged in the upper class, just did not care as much. That can't be denied, there is a very large economic difference between lower and upper class, or more correctly stated, working and upper class.
I realize that many of the upper class were highly educated and it was these people who lead the rest into a national movement against British regulations, but there were still some upper class who very well fit into the examples which I gave. Some cared, and some didn't. That's undeniable.
Subsequent to our discussion on colonial dissent in class, I felt that social class and geography had a big impact in the colonial’s feelings towards the British. The higher ranking you obtained in social class was probably assumed that you were wealthier than others as well. Therefore, this information led to the fact that they were well-educated too. The wealthy could understand the Enlightenment thoughts about natural rights and liberties. This is why the society of higher social class felt disapproval towards Britain during the 1760’s/70’s. They instantly felt as if their privileges were being violated. They spread their disdain for the British through use of media such as printing newspapers that extended to all social classes. This way, all social classes showed dislike towards Britain by these means of propaganda.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, geography played an important role on colonial feelings towards Britain. For example, Boston, Massachusetts was one of those areas were the majority of the higher class lived in. They were the citizens who were greatly influenced by the substantial taxes enforced by the British. Due to the fact that Boston was a main trading city, the trade regulation hit them hard, along with the closing of the Boston Harbor. Lastly, the dispute regarding the border issues with the Native Americans were affected by geography as well.
In terms of gender, women played an important role in boycotting the taxes upon tea. They were the main gender that truly influenced the outcome of the protest. Since women during that time often drank tea with their society, their decision to not purchase anymore caused a huge gap in Britain’s profit. Men, on the other hand, were more involved with the rebellion of acts and the resistance. Both sexes had proved to make a considerable change in the boycotting history of Britain.
I conpletely agree with the points that Dana had made in terms of gender. The boycott of the Tea Acts gave Britain such a low blow. Due to the high taxes of tea (which effects every social class and not just one) everyone was appalled and angered. Women deciding on not buying tea decreased usual profits and the Boston Tea Party didn't help the British as much either.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the point that Emily made about the social classes. The well-educated felt infringed and people like John Locke contradicted Britain by creating the term natural rights. This concept of life, liberty, and property ensured the colonists that they indeed could stand up to the British and fight for their our individual rights of man.
After the French and Indian War, debt was around in Britain and in the colonies. Many colonists were in poverty yet the British felt it was necessary to tax to help the British Empire. As the Greene Article says, the colonists were very conservative. They didn’t want to give away there money and lose their property. They would soon start forming groups and riots and etc to get the message out.
ReplyDeleteThis is where social class comes in. The upper class and the wealthiest colonists were the ones that would pay for these riots and groups to rebel. For example, Ben Franklin became rich through his original printing job and uses his wealth for political activism. Another example is that the continental congress was initiated by the wealthy. But, really all social classes played a role in this topic. All classes rioted and let there ideas flow around the colonies and all classes would join in boycotting and protesting. But in my opinion, the wealthy colonists were the ones who truly initiated the entire rebellion.
Geography played a big role in the relations as well. The upper colonies like Boston and New York were the ones who really showed the most hatred and dissent. As many people mentioned, the ports in these areas played a role in this. This was the area in where all the tea would come in, any new letters or news involving the British, and many British soldiers came in on these ports. These ports were basically the doorway from the colonies to Britain. For example, The Boston Tea Party occurred in Boston because of the ports. The tea came in from the ports and the citizens of Boston boycotted the tea that night. This is why Britain made regulations only involving Boston because this area was most involved in the dissent.
Gender also plays a role.Men were mainly involved rebellion because they formed many of the groups and were involved in many protests. Women activism was also being shown in this time period. For example, they were involved in boycotting of tea.
I agree with Michelle when she mentioned that most of the high class located in the Northern Area. A lot of people mentioned that the ports were the reason why this area played a much bigger role in the dissent, which is a statement i agree with, but since there was a lot of the upperclassmen in the northern area, a lot of groups and events were able to occur in the North. The continental Congress and Sons of Liberty are examples of this. Because of the advantage of having more wealthy people in these areas, this makes the North much more active in the dissent.
ReplyDelete