Analysis of Edmund Burke’s Speech This essay compares and contrasts Edmund Burke’s speech given to British Parliament. The essay utilizes two different perspectives to see the speech through individuals living in 1775. The speech, itself, took place on March 22, 1775. Edmund Burke delivered the speech to Parliament in the House of Commons, England as a form of resolution to halt American-British conflict. Burke’s speech conveyed the ideas of possible nonviolent, perhaps diplomatic resolutions. The perspectives applied to the speech are that of a colonial farmer and British Parliament member.
Colonial Farmer’s Perspective In order to understand a colonial farmer’s perspective, one must look at how the farmer lived from 1700’s until
…show more content…
The Sugar Act (April 5, 1764) and the Currency Act (September 1, 1764) became the first acts farmers and colonists resented. With the Molasses Act of 1733 soon to expire, the British government emplaced the Sugar Act to produce revenue for costs associated with guarding and protecting the American Colonies. Colonial farmers, however, protected themselves. The British emplaced the Currency Act to shield British investors from depreciation but disregarded Colonial Farmers, other Americans, and their …show more content…
England provided goods, soldiers for defense, and government to Colonial America. The Sugar and Currency Acts, paid by colonists, happened as duties as part of the British Empire. Originally, George Grenville, Parliamentary Member, enacted the Sugar Act so “that they (Americans) should help support the troops provided for their defense; he did not propose that they should bear all of the charges for troops stationed in America, however” (Middlekauff, 2005, p. 62). The ever-upstart colonist remained thoroughly defiant to a providing British Empire and led to the Intolerable
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
During his time as an indentured servant, Moraley would travel to the countryside for jobs and would describe that “ Almost every inhabitant, in the Country, have a plantation … where Gentlemen live on the Labour of the Farmer, to whom he grants a short Lease, which expiring, is raised in his Rent, or discharged him Farm.” 7 Colonial America was known for its plantation economy and as described here the gentlemen Moraley refers to live off of the labor of tenant farms, along with servants and slaves as well. Moraley uses the word “gentlemen” to invoke a tone of elitism that the plantation owner embodies. The plantation owner maybe using farmers as his tenants but he still has overbearing power on them because of the farmer’s predicament. The predicament, in this case, is that the farmer has nowhere else to turn to rather than what is essential in an agriculture-based economy, and therefore has to be willing to be under the supervising control of a landowner. This shows the advantages that many affluent landowners, masters, and elites can get since they have an abundance of what the servant, farmer, or poor laborer desires and therefore can subsequently use it for their own capitalistic
Starting in 1763, policies likes the Grenville program and the Sugar Act united the colonists against the British, despite their own internal conflicts. Numerous acts were placed on the colonies during 1764, such as the Sugar Act and the Currency Act. The Sugar Act lowered the duty on molasses and increased the duty on sugar, even forming new courts to try smugglers. The Currency Act enforced that none of the colonies would be
The British were facing economic difficulties after the French and Indian war; therefore, they passed taxes on the colonies to help repay the debt. Initially, the British introduced the Sugar Act in 1764. The colonists did not approve of the British taking control over them. The colonists opposed the Sugar Act because they had to pay three cent tax on sugar. In addition, the Sugar Act increased the taxes on coffee, indigo, and wine. This act was the start of colonist frustration. Subsequently came the Stamp Act the following year in 1765. The Stamp Act was the mind changer for many colonists known as the Patriots. The Patriots started forming as a result of England enforcing acts. The patriots believed the colonies should go to war and separate
One such thing that American colonists united themselves upon was the misrepresentation across the Atlantic. British Parliament consisted of many members from many areas, but not one of those members was able to convey the message from the colonies because there were no such representatives. Many members of Parliament, such as Edmund Burke, led the rest of Britain and Parliament to believe that the colonists were simply tenants in their land and were to abide by the laws of the British constitution. [Doc B] This mere thought unified the colonists and presented a situation that they could not take their eyes off of.
He does highlight the pros and cons of each side. Britain had two choices, continue treating the Colonists as subjects and fail to recognize them as an ally or allow the relationship to evolve (Burke, 2015). Burke noted that if small concessions were made to the Colonists, then they would be loyal and shine their faces upon the Crown. However, if they did not, the Colonist would revolt and the British Empire would lose a valuable asset to England and the Crown. Burke’s greatest concern was the losing of faith amongst the British population and its potential to degrade the image and effectiveness of the Empire. He felt that England should relish the fact that the Colonist had built their own extension of the British Empire in the Americas. A huge feat that could not have been accomplished without the assistance of King George. This was a fact that England should hold dear and celebrate a huge success worthy of worldly
The eighteenth century, a time of turmoil and chaos in the colonies, brought many opinionated writers to the forefront in support or refutation of the coming American Revolution. This highly controversial war that would ultimately separate the future United States of America from Great Britain became the center of debate. Two writers, both of whom supported the Revolution, now stand to fully illuminate one side of the debate. Thomas Paine, a radical propagandist, wrote many pieces during this time including “The Crisis Number 1” (1776). Through writing, he appealed to the “common man” in order to convince them to gather their arms and fight for their freedom. In this document, he utilizes many of the same rhetorical skills and propaganda techniques as Patrick Henry, a convincing orator, did in his famous speech delivered to the state’s delegates in 1775. Among these techniques are transfer, abstract language, and pathos. In both works, these were used to call the audiences to war. These influential pieces both contained a call to action which, through the use of strong and decisive language, aided the beginning of the American Revolution.
Self-governance was a primary idea of the settlers in North America. Once English settlers began to come to the new world in the 1600s, they knew they needed to have their own freedom for themselves, after all that is why they left Great Britain in many cases. Self-governance is most notable in the earliest form of the Mayflower Compact in 1620 for Virginia. Great Britain began to deteriorate the self-governing nature of the colonies in the mid-1700s through various acts it deemed to be necessary. The enforcement of these acts caused the colonists to be unhappy with the actions Great Britain was taking and so the phrase “taxation without representation is tyranny” came.
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.
“In the first years of peacetime, following the Revolutionary War, the future of both the agrarian and commercial society appeared threatened by a strangling chain of debt which aggravated the depressed economy of the postwar years”.1 This poor economy affected almost everyone in New England especially the farmers. For years these farmers, or yeomen as they were commonly called, had been used to growing just enough for what they needed and grew little in surplus. As one farmer explained “ My farm provides me and my family with a good living. Nothing we wear, eat, or drink was purchased, because my farm provides it all.”2 The only problem with this way of life is that with no surplus there was no way to make enough money to pay excessive debts. For example, since farmer possessed little money the merchants offered the articles they needed on short-term credit and accepted any surplus farm goods on a seasonal basis for payment. However if the farmer experienced a poor crop, shopkeepers usually extended credit and thereby tied the farmer to their businesses on a yearly basis.3 During a credit crisis, the gradual disintegration of the traditional culture became more apparent. During hard times, merchants in need of ready cash withdrew credit from their yeomen customers and called for the repayment of loans in hard cash. Such demands showed the growing power of the commercial elite.4 As one could imagine this brought much social and economic unrest to the farmers of New England. Many of the farmers in debt were dragged into court and in many cases they were put into debtors prison. Many decided to take action: The farmers waited for the legal due process as long as them could. The Legislature, also know as the General Court, took little action to address the farmers complaints. 5 “So without waiting for General Court to come back into session to work on grievances as requested, the People took matters into their own hands.”6 This is when the idea for the Rebellion is decided upon and the need for a leader was eminent.
“Is there a single trait of resemblance between those few towns and a great and growing people spread over a vast quarter of the globe, separated by a mighty ocean?” This question posed by Edmund Burke was in the hearts of nearly every colonist before the colonies gained their independence from Britain. The colonists’ heritage was largely British, as was their outlook on a great array of subjects; however, the position and prejudices they held concerning their independence were comprised entirely from American ingenuity. This identity crisis of these “British Americans” played an enormous role in the colonists’ battle for independence, and paved the road to revolution.
The origin of England's dependence on the colonies began during the French and Indian war, in the 1750s-1760s. In this war, the British were quite inexperienced; their European style of fighting did not work against the guerilla-warfare fighting style of the French. The British wore bright red coats, marched in long lines, often lugging cannons around with them, while the French hid behind trees and picked them off one by one. General Braddock relied on his force of ill-disciplined American militiamen, who used behind-the-tree methods of fighting in order to fight the Indians. After many years of fighting, the British finally came out victorious. Although England emerged from this war as one of the biggest empires in the world, it also possessed the biggest debt. They had poured much money and resources into these colonies in order to keep them as their own, and it was time for the colonies to give something back to the British for protecting them from the Indians. They finally realized what a precious gift the colonies were, and how useful they would be. In this war, the British realized that the colonies were their pawns in a global game of chess. At any time, the British felt that they had the right to impose taxes on the colonies, in order to make up for money that was lost in the French and Indian War to defend them. They had the view that because they had done so much to help the colonies, that the colonies had to repay them.
The British also implemented new taxes. The Sugar act of 1764 sought to reduce smuggling, which occurred partly as a result of the earlier Molasses Act. This gave British possessions in the Caribbean the upper hand in sugar trade, which in the British view helped the empire as a whole, but to Americans, and especially the merchants, this put limits on their opportunities. The Currency Act, passed about this time forbade the printing of colonial currency. British merchants benefited because they didn't have to deal with inflated American currencies. The Americans felt they were at an economic disadvantage as very little sterli...
As proclaimed in the “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms,” we agreed that the British government had left the people with only two options, “unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers or resistance by force.” Thus, in the early months of the dreadfully long year of 1775, we began our resistance. As the war progressed, the Americans, the underdogs, shockingly began winning battles against the greatly superior mother country of England. Actually, as seen in the battle of Bunker Hill, not only were they winning, they were annihilating hundreds of their resilient opponents. Countless questions arose before and during the War of Independence. Problems like: social equality, slavery, women’s rights, and the struggle of land claims against Native Americans were suddenly being presented in new and influencing ways to our pristine leaders. Some historians believe that while the Revolutionary War was crucial for our independence, these causes were not affected; thus, the war was not truly a revolution. Still, being specified in the Background Essay, several see the war as more radical, claiming it produced major changes above and beyond our independence.
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...