After the disillusionment following the 1832 Reform Act, British radicals were determined to make their voice heard in the next decade. As a matter of fact, the limited extension of franchise greatly disappointed the people in favour of reforms, and the protectionist attitude of the government was considered as a threat to both the British economy and the well-being of the working-class. In 1815, the Corn Laws had been implemented to regulate the prices of corn and protect the domestic production from the cheaper products of the continent. However, these measures were widely contested in the mid-nineteenth century because they stood for the old conservative England and were thought to be harmful to the development of the country. In a time of popular mobilisation and radical agitation, movements claiming the repeal of the …show more content…
This unrest linked to a particular economic and political context led to Richard Peel’s final decision as the Prime Minister in 1846 to repeal this piece of legislation, though not without facing controversy. Then, what are the factors that led to the birth of the Anti-Corn Law League and eventually convinced Peel to repeal the Corn Laws? Economic concerns and political demands were part of the rhetoric of the League and liberals, and it is possible to assume that the repeal was accepted because of a context of intense instability.
The most frequent argument given by citizens in favour of the repeal of the Corn Laws was related to economic matters. Indeed, the Corn Laws were considered as a protectionist measure penalising the poorest and hindering the emergence of free trade.
In the early nineteenth century, the Corn Laws were generally targeted by the most disadvantage people as a source of their suffering. They became a subject of growing controversy from the 1820s onwards because this piece of legislation was the
Gary B. Nash argues that the American Revolution portrayed “radicalism” in the sense on how the American colonies and its protesters wanted to accommodate their own government. Generally what Gary B. Nash is trying to inform the reader is to discuss the different conditions made by the real people who were actually fighting for their freedom. In his argument he makes it clear that throughout the revolution people showed “radicalism” in the result of extreme riots against the Stamp Act merchants, but as well against the British policies that were implemented. He discusses the urgency of the Americans when it came to declaring their issues against the British on how many slaves became militants and went up against their masters in the fight for a proclamation to free themselves from slavery. But he slowly emerges into the argument on how colonists felt under the
...ke George Washington especially had veritable fortunes personally vested in the outcome. His work makes it apparent also that this was not a localized protest comprised of a mere handful of ardent participants from what was then the extreme fringe of American civilization, but rather the dissent was in fact a wide-spread crisis, which very much had the potential to be the undoing of the new nation. Slaughter reveals the extreme sectionalism which plagued the nation throughout its first century of existence was well established prior to the dawn of the nineteenth century. He asserts also that the precedent was set regarding the question of national versus state or local authority, which has continued in effect since.
with the public opinion in the North to one of abolition. In the platform for
At the time of the convention, farmers were the debtor class and were prone to revolt. Farmers, who lived all across the United States, sought debt relief and tax relief (Beard, 28). The weight of the debt at the time was crushing small American farmers who were being forced to pay their debts by selling their property for less than its value (Holton, 90). These debtors sought relief in many legal forms. For example, they asked for the “abolition of imprisonment, paper money, laws delaying the collection of debts, propositions requiring debtors to accept land in lieu of specie at a valuation fixed by a board of arbitration” (Beard, 28). However, they also sought relief through revolt (ex. Shays’ Rebellion) (Beard 28). Their desires contrast those of the creditors, stockholders, manufacturers, and shippers of their time (Beard, 29).
(140) It was during this time period that “the government in London concerned itself with the colonies in unprecedented ways…to help raise funds to pay for the war and finance the empire.” (Forner 141) The British government was heavily in debt after fighting the Seven Years War on several fronts. The need to raise funds was paramount and the colonies were a ready source. The British government started imposing taxes on the colonies as a means of income. This was a change in the relationship between America and the mother country. Many Americans opposed these taxes. (Forner 142- 143) According to Forner, “Opposition to the Stamp Act was the first great Drama of the revolutionary era and the first major split between the colonist and Great Britain over the meaning of freedom.” (142) This act was eventually repealed by Parliament in 1766 after great opposition by Americans. (Forner 144) The Stamp Act was just the beginning of several events and taxes on the colonist leading up the Boston Tea
(http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/History.htm) However, the British government quickly enacted other laws designed to solve monetary problems. Each act was met with resistance. The Boston Tea Party was the final act of focused rage against a Parliamentary law.
Throughout the 1830-1840’s the opposing governmental parties, the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs, undertook many issues. The Whigs were a party born out of their hatred for President Andrew Jackson, and dubbed his harsh military ways as “executive usurpation,” and generally detested everything he did while he was in office. This party was one that attracted many other groups alienated by President Jackson, and was mainly popular among urban industrial aristocrats in the North. On the other hand, the Jacksonian Democrats were a party born out of President Andrew Jackson’s anti-federalistic ideals that was extremely popular among southern agrarians. A major economic issue that the two parties disagreed on was whether or not the United States should have a National Bank. Along with the National Bank, the two parties also disagreed on the issue of the Protective tariff that was enforced to grow Northern industry. Politically, the two parties disagreed on the issues of Manifest Destiny, or expansion, and ultimately Slavery. While the two parties essentially disagreed on most issues, there are also similarities within these issues that the two parties somewhat agree on.
Without colonial consent, the British started their bid to raise revenue with the Sugar Act of 1764 which increased duties colonists would have to pay on imports into America. When the Sugar Act failed, the Stamp Act of 1765 which required a stamp to be purchased with colonial products was enacted. This act angered the colonists to no limit and with these acts, the British Empire poked at the up to now very civil colonists. The passing of the oppressive Intolerable Acts that took away the colonists’ right to elected officials and Townshend Acts which taxed imports and allowed British troops without warrants to search colonist ships received a more aggravated response from the colonist that would end in a Revolution.
Perhaps two of the most notable injustices, as perceived by the colonists, were the Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts. The Stamp Act was passed by the British Parliament to raise money for repaying its war debt from the French and Indian War. The Act levied a tax on printed matter of all kinds including newspapers, advertisements, playing cards, and legal documents. The British government was expecting protest as result of the tax but the level of outcry they received.
The American colonists’ disagreements with British policymakers lead to the colonist’s belief that the policies imposed on them violated of their constitutional rights and their colonial charters. These policies that were imposed on the colonist came with outcome like established new boundaries, new internal and external taxes, unnecessary and cruel punishment, and taxation without representation. British policymakers enforcing Acts of Parliament, or policies, that ultimately lead in the colonist civil unrest, outbreak of hostilities, and the colonist prepared to declare their independence.
Overall, the imperial policy of the British Empire urged the colonists into a state of total rebellion. The colonial economy, geography, and politics had all been subjected to unfair consequences. The acts that were passed served as a way for England to push the responsibility its debt and issues on the colonists. If the colonists’ grievances were appealed to, the colonists may have never rebelled against their mother country.
One of the British actions that angered the colonists was the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act was passed in response to colonist's complaints about the Sugar Act. The Stamp Act, according to the chart in document one, forced colonists to buy a stamp and place it on all of their paper products. Colonists boycotted the Stamp Act and and formed the Committees of Correspondence and the Sons of Liberty. The Sons of Liberty, according to document two, tarred and feathered British officials and tax collectors to protest the Stamp A...
During the mid 1840’s, blight in the potato crops in Ireland caused widespread starvation and migration of Irish citizens to the United States. Yet, the massive loss of life and massive exodus could have been avoided if British taxation upon the working class of Ireland was nullified. Though the struggle for liberation was already taking place, the potato famine furthered the cause and helped spread awareness. Furthermore, the potato famine made the average Irish family more reliant upon the government for subsidies and supports to get by.
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when they introduced alcohol prohibition and its subsequent enforcement in law was a very debated issue. Prohibition supporters also called drys, presented it as a win for public health and morals. Anti-prohibitionists, were also...
In concern to the American Revolution, there are two sides debating its primary cause. One set of historians believe the cause to be ideals and principles. The other set of historians and scholars credit economic and social interests as the primary cause of the Revolutionary War. Historians Jesse Lemisch and Dirk Hoerder used the mobs in colonial cities as evidence of the social concerns of Americans at that time. Another Historian, Arthur M. Schlesinger argued in a 1917 study “that it was the colonial merchants who were chiefly responsible for arousing American resistance to the British; and that although they spoke of principles and ideals, their real motives were economic self-interest: freedom from the restrictive policies of British mercantilism.” This argument is very concrete and is supported by the different legislation that the British Parliament passed after the Seven Years’ War. In fact, an act was passed in 1764 by the Parliament that was instrumental in specifically angering the merchants that played a major role in leading the Americans to independence. That piece of legislation was the Sugar Act which placed a tax on sugar being brought into the colonies. This tax was a significantly less than the one that was logged in the book previously; however, that tax had been ignored for years. The initial response of the merchants to this piece of legislation was anger because this new law cut off their highly profitable smuggling organizations which greatly affected their earnings. Soon after tha...