Non-fiction and essays
University essays
American Studies
First Year
Introduction 101
Were the American Colonists genuinely oppressed? If not, why did they rebel against the mother country?
(AMST 101, Autumn 2001)

There were several Acts introduced to the colonies by British lawmakers that created tension at the
conclusion of the Seven Years’ War in 1763. The series of British governmental actions that followed the war
seemed to drag the colonies toward resentment and eventually revolution. However, whether these
measures were genuinely oppressive is open to debate, and it could also be argued that the colonists were
on their way to independence prior to this. The term ‘oppressed’ gives rise to images of people with little or
no freedom, their lives threatened by an overbearing regime. It therefore seems inappropriate to suggest the
colonists were ‘oppressed’ when they enjoyed widespread ownership of property and other liberties. Indeed,
all the colonies had elective assemblies, with the right to ‘initiate legislation, levy taxes, and make
appropriations.’# However, the introduction of the Sugar Act of 1764, followed by the far more controversial
Stamp Act in 1765 would threaten colonists’ property, and in the words of E.S. Morgan, they held the view that
‘property and liberty were inseparable’.# It could therefore be argued that the colonists saw themselves as
being oppressed, and could help in the explanation of their eventual rebellion.  
The end of the war saw British troops remaining in the colonies, ostensibly for the purposes of security, but
which the Americans came to see increasingly as a threat to their liberty. Some Americans thought ‘England
was sending the army not to protect them but to hold them quiet while she extracted their liberties’.# This
action was swiftly followed by the Proclamation of 1763, which restricted Westward expansion, although
resented; the colonists generally ignored it. Again, it is questionable as to whether either of these measures
was genuinely oppressive. The presence of a standing army over which the colonists had no control could
provide the means of oppression if those controlling it wished to. The war had increased Britain’s national
debt considerably, so Parliament sought a means to regain some of the deficit. Taxing the trade of the
colonies was seen as a logical answer, after all the war had been fought for their benefit.
The Sugar Act subjected American trade to direct British supervision, another irritation for the colonists, but it
was the Stamp Act that produced action. Not only was there a large financial impact, but also part of the
revenue was used to fund the already disliked British troops.# It also seemed to be the catalyst for political
awakenings and resistance movements to be organised, such as the Sons of Liberty. The Stamp Act by its
very nature affected newspapers, and they would play a more influential role in political life afterwards. Some
historians have regarded the effect of the Stamp Act as a ‘political “Great Awakening” which stirred America
as nothing before in their history.’# Even if the influence was not this profound, it definitely highlights the trend
towards a greater interest and belief in the ideals of liberty and a national identity. It even involved the
formation of a Stamp Act Congress, which prepared several resolutions concerning the colonists’ objections
to the Act. Among these was a declaration that they should be entitled to the same rights as ‘natural born
subjects within the Kingdom of Great Britain.’ They furthered this statement by declaring that the ‘increase,
prosperity and happiness of these colonies depends on the full and free enjoyments of their rights and
liberties.’# The question of whether this event alone could have triggered an armed rebellion was avoided
when the Stamp Act was repealed. The furore died down somewhat, the Sons of Liberty were disbanded and
it seemed as if the situation had been defused. However, the Townshend Duties were introduced soon
afterwards, the problems resurfaced with a theme that would prevail in colonial arguments for independence:
taxation without representation. The Stamp Act allowed the colonists to put forth any hostile feelings they may
have harboured towards Britain, allowing them to legitimise ‘aggressive action against the metropolitan
government.’#
This representation issue provides another possible explanation for the revolution: the growing idea amongst
the colonists that they were being subjected to tyrannical overseers that should be rightly opposed. In the
Declaratory Act of 1766, Parliament asserted its absolute sovereignty over the empire in ‘all areas
whatsoever.’ This subsequently allowed it to pass the Revenue Act of 1767, which was seen as producing
more political interference in the colonies than ever before. # Again it was a case of the actions of the British
government producing greater resentment among the colonists. As they were not entitled to true
representation in Parliament (they were said to have ‘virtual representation’), they could be justified in
protesting the unfairness of this declaration. The colonists asserted that taxation was the exclusive right of
their own representatives.#
In order to establish why the colonists did finally rebel against Britain, it is useful to examine why they were
held back from revolution in the first place. There were definitely fears that the colonies were not capable of
governing themselves collectively if the British Authority were removed; the colonies were very different from
each other, and a collective national identity took time to emerge. Linked to this was the lack of political
institutions that could support resistance movements. One of the most powerful influences was the power of
‘habitual ties of allegiance and affection felt for Britain.’# This, together with the fact that the colonies
depended on Britain for its trade and therefore their economic viability made independence seem a
possibility for generations in the future. Even in the early years following the Seven Years’ War, the colonists
were not much closer to armed rebellion. The British inclination for compromise made the colonists think
their situation was not too bad.
These deterrents to the idea of rebellion were slowly eroded in the years preceding the revolution. The
successful colonial defiance of the Stamp Act and Townshend measures led to the deflation of British power
in the colonies. During these periods of resentment, the organisation of groups such as the Sons of Liberty
led to the increasing politicisation of the colonies around opposition towards British policy. However, while
these processes undermined the deterrents, it would take further crises and the colonial response to them to
create a revolutionary situation.#
Boston would prove to be an important focus of the tensions gradually building in the colonies. It was a centre
for trade and commerce, so it had experienced rioting during the Stamp Act crisis, and these troubles would
resurface with the stationing of two regiments of British troops in the city in 1770. When a group of
Bostonians started throwing snowballs at a detachment of British troops, they opened fire, leaving several of
the colonists dead. The news spread quickly to the other colonies, and Americans realised that Boston’s
cause was now theirs as well. In this case, the presence of the British troops had no real justification, it just
seemed to further aggravate hostility towards Parliament: this seems like a case for oppression.
The city of Boston would again come to the forefront of the situation with the Boston Tea Party of 1773. All of
the duties and taxes on the colonies had been repealed with the exception of the Tea Act. When a group of
radicals threw a large quantity of tea into the Boston harbour, in protest over the continued exertion of taxation
over the colonies, Britain responded with the most oppressive actions of the period leading to the revolution.
The Coercive Acts closed the port to all commerce, the rights of the Massachusetts government were
restricted and more British troops were quartered in the city. This was a key moment for the colonists’
collective consciousness. They saw Boston as being ‘martyred’, and this would lead to the First Continental
Congress in 1774. At this meeting of representatives from the colonies, they debated whether Parliament had
any authority in the colonies at all, and they arrived at the conclusion that they did not. Their justification, and
therefore the justification for the rebellion was summed up by E.S. Morgan:
Parliament, they believed from the beginning, had no authority to tax them, because they were unrepresented.
By the same token, if legislation and taxation were indivisible, Parliament had no right to legislate, and so no
authority at all over them.#
Armed conflict seemed to be a formality after this declaration, and within a year, the first shots were fired and
the battle for independence had begun.
This brings the argument back to whether the colonists were genuinely oppressed or not. It seems apparent
that although they often declared the British oppressed them, at least in the beginning they were merely the
recipients of some unfair legislation. It is possible to say they only became agitated with the British
government when the actions of Parliament affected their economic prosperity, when they were financially
buoyant, they were not as interested in talk of rebellion. I would suggest a fundamental reason behind the
revolution, especially it occurring when it did, was the increasing politicisation of the colonists and the
awakening of a national sentiment towards unity. However, this process was definitely accelerated by the
actions of Parliament, followed by the colonists’ reactions to these events. There is little doubt that one day
the colonies would have outgrown the need to be governed by the British. They already had established their
own representative bodies, it just required the extra pressure from the Acts and taxes put on them by
Parliament to galvanise these bodies to take action, and use force when it became necessary. Bernard
Bailyn characterises American resistance in the 1760s and 1770s as ‘a response to acts of power deemed
arbitrary, degrading and uncontrollable’.# Even if the actions of Parliament were not genuinely oppressive,
they were seen by the colonists as being just that, and provided the necessary impetus to propel them
towards a rebellion they were eventually bound to undertake. In the words of the First Continental Congress
of 1774:
‘We, His Majesty’s most loyal subjects…affected with the deepest anxiety and most alarming apprehensions,
at those grievances and distresses, with which his Majesty’s American subjects are oppressed.’#
Real or imagined, the oppression the colonists evidently felt was in the end enough to make them take the
bold step of declaring their independence from Britain.


Bibliography
B. Bailyn, The Central Themes of the American Revolution: An Interpretation in S. Kurtz & J. Hutson (eds.)
Essays on the American Revolution, (1972).
Boyer et al, The Enduring Vision, (2000).
J.P. Greene (ed.) Understanding the American Revolution, (1995).
J. Henretta, The Evolution of American Society 1700-1815, (1973).
M. Jensen, The Founding of a Nation, (1968).
J.J. Lorence, Enduring Voices, Volume One: To 1877, (2000).
E.S. Morgan, The Birth of the Republic 1763-1787, (1956).
E. Wright, Fabric of Freedom 1763-1800, (1965).
Non-fiction


Hom-UHT Publishing