The British Empire gained notoriety for its role as a global power between the late sixteenth and eighteenth century. The Empire’s rule sparked much controversy for the their subjects who felt Britain treated them unfairly. In Benjamin Franklin’s “Rules by Which a Great
Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One”, Franklin promotes the grievances of colonists and exposure to their problems. Furthermore, he promotes this problem implicitly by describing the
British Empire satirically.
Franklin displays the unjust treatment of the colonists very early in the passage. He writes, “whenever the Injured come to the Capital with Complaints of MalAdministration,
Oppression, or Injustice, punish such Suitors with long Delay, enormous Expence, and a final
Judgment
…show more content…
Additionally,
Franklin exhibits the problem subtly by noting Parliament should side with the oppressors.
Franklin in turn, ridicules the British Empire due to the fact Parliament usually sides with the oppressors. Franklin continues to point out the needs of the colonists by mentioning taxes; one of their greatest concerns. In paragraph seven Franklin states “Another Way to make your Tax odious, is to misapply the Produce of it. If it was originally appropriated for the Defence of the
Provinces and the better Support of Government, and the Administration of Justice where it may be necessary, then apply none of it to that Defence, but bestow it where it is not necessary, in augmented Salaries or Pensions to every Governor who has distinguished himself by his Enmity to the People”(Franklin, 7). Franklin mentions that taxes is one of the colonists greatest concern because the [parliament imposes them and does not use them for the purposes. Therefore, the colonists face debt at the so individuals in higher positions can live lavishly. Additionally,
Franklin declaring that the taxes go to governors is satirical of the British government once
Soame Jenyns, a member of the British Parliament from 1741 to 1780, wrote a pamphlet called “The Objections to the taxation consider’d” in 1765 in which he defended the Parliament’s right to tax the American colonies. Jenyns is clearly writing this to the colonists to read, almost seemly in a mocking way, as stated in the very first paragraph, “…who have ears but no understanding…” He then goes on to bring up three key points that the colonists have given as reasons not to be taxed by the
Soame Jenyns, a member of the British Parliament from 1741 to 1780, wrote a pamphlet called “The Objections to the taxation consider’d” in 1765 in which he defended the Parliament’s right to tax the American colonies. Jenyns
Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers to the United States, was not a patriot but a mere loyalist to England before the dissolution between England and the colonies occurred. Sheila L. Skemp's The Making of a Patriot explores how Benjamin Franklin tried to stay loyal to the crown while taking interest in the colonies perception and their own representation in Parliament. While Ms. Skemp alludes to Franklin's loyalty, her main illustration is how the attack by Alexander Wedderburn during the Privy Council led to Franklin's disillusionment with the British crown and the greater interest in making the Thirteen Colonies their own nation. Her analysis of Franklin's history in Parliament and what occurred on the night that the council convened proves the change behind Franklin's beliefs and what lead to his involvement in the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution.
Of the many circumstances that promoted a developing American identity, British mercantilism and their following regulations on it is of the utmost importance. The British government believed that wealth was power and that a country's economic, military, and political wealth could be measured by the amount of gold or silver in its treasury. To amass this wealth, the British passed laws to regulate the mercantilist system. The Navigation Law conceded that all commerce flowing to and from the colonies could be transported only in British vessels. Other events that infuriated the colonists were the insufficient amount of currency in America as well as Britain's right to nullify any legislation passed by the colonial assemblies. One such thing that encouraged a unity amongst the colonists was Benjamin Franklin's cartoon showing the necessity of a unified American government. [Doc A] Although some may say the mercantilist system was excellent for the colonists, it actually burdened the colonists with annoying liabilities. Mercantilism stifled economic initiative and imposed a rankling dependency on British agents and creditors. With the continued efforts of complete control by the British, the colonists became livid and developed a better sense of their identity as Americans; they knew what had to be done!
The conflict between Benjamin Franklin and his only living son is a microcosm of the little-understood clash between those Americans who strived for independence from British occupation and those that felt the country was either not or never would be ready for self-governance. Benjamin Franklin felt strongly enough about his son’s actions to label them betrayal; William Franklin felt strongly enough about the foolhardiness of the Revolution to suffer his father’s wrath. The actions of the loyalists are understood by Americans to constitute treason, but this is a simplification. Many loyalists felt that r...
There were substantial amount of people who despised the actions undertaken by the British government
The imperial tactics of the British Empire were exercised on the colonists through heavy taxes trade restrictions because of their mercantilist economy. The Stamp Act taxed the colonists directly on paper goods ranging from legal documents to newspapers. Colonists were perturbed because they did not receive representation in Parliament to prevent these acts from being passed or to decide where the tax money was spent. The colonists did not support taxation without representation. The Tea Act was also passed by Parliament to help lower the surplus of tea that was created by the financially troubled British East India Company. The colonists responded to this act by executing the Boston Tea Party which tossed all of the tea that was imported into the port of Boston. This precipitated the Boston Port Act which did not permit the colonists to import goods through this port. The colonists protested and refused all of these acts which helped stir the feelings of rebellion among the colonists. The British Mercantilist economy prevented the colonists from coin...
When the French and Indian War had started in 1763, it was assured that Great Britain was deeply in debt. During this battle, England had occupied much of Eastern American colonies. When the British had taken over the colonies it angered the workers, because many of them thought they had to leave their jobs and work for British side. In addition too, many colonists knew they were going to be taxed. This quote is directly from Benjamin Franklin’s Letter on the Stamp Act in July 01, 1765. “Idleness and pride tax with a heavier hand than kings and parliaments. If we can get rid of the former, we may easily bear the latter” (Franklin). If the colonists can get rid of the British Legislative branch, then they will have the freedom to sell, buy, and trade. However, many colonist believed they could do anything more, but not pay any taxes to the Parliament. Throughout the middle 1700s, many farmers faced this issue and were not able to ...
John Locke’s philosophy spoke of the reason why the people choose a legislative – to preserve their property. If the government abuses its power and does not create laws within the interest of its people, the people have a right to replace it immediately after they find an alternate form of government. The Patriots were those who had land and wanted to expand their property. The Proclamation of 1763 had become a problem to them. It prohibited them to go beyond land west of the Appalachian Mountains, the land that they had fought for. Most Patriots were the top 5% of the population that were wealthy and owned land. In British tradition, it was important for wealthy families to have a male successor to inherit the fortune and name. This resulted in the expansion of families in the colonies and the dire need of land. Due to this, many Patriots rebelled and moved west of the Appalachian Mountains, disregarding the act. In preparation to a form of government the First Continental Congress in 1774 was the gathering of fifty-five delegates from twelve colonies to e...
The elite and the upper-class were not unaffected though, with certain men within their ranks even participating in the issue. Benjamin Franklin, a brilliant statesman, created a piece of famous propaganda which depicted a snake severed in many places, reading “Join, or Die” (Document A). Each segment of the serpent’s body has a caption, each representing a colony: “N.E.” being New England in general, “P.” standing for Pennsylvania, and so forth. He suggested that each colony must come together and support the fight against England; moreover, failing to do so, as Franklin puts forth, would result in nothing less than disaster, as no organism can live in so many pieces. Then, still, many acted derisively. Mather Byles, the grandson of influential Puritan minister Cotton Mathers, remarked to a Nathaniel Emmons, “They call me a brainless Tory; but tell me, my young friend, which is better, to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or by three thousand tyrants not a mile away” (Document D). Logically, both arguments seemed rational. These mixed reactions were not because of class differences. Rich and poor alike took up arms against the governing of such an expanse of land by an island already many hundreds of times smaller than it and many miles across the atlantic
These are very strong words from Thomas Jefferson, but they reflect the way these colonists felt. They were angry, and they had every right to be.
The American Revolution was marked by the colonies’ independence from Britain. This separation pronounced a new age marked by a decisive political change in the colonies because of the implementation of the Enlightenment ideals and the continuation of English liberties. However, the American Revolution was considered a conservative movement because it “originated from an effort to preserve the existing liberties of the colonies rather than create new ones” (Strayer, 782). Furthermore, the revolution occurred not on the issue of taxation, but on the issue of representation. The colonists believed autonomy was part of their birthright and as Englishmen along with their economic rights and their “natural rights to life, liberty, and property” (Kramnick, Lockean Liberalism). These two sentiments can be seen in their famous slogan “No taxation without representation”. By challenging their economic interests, their established traditions of local autonomy, and their identity as true Englishmen, the colonists were truly infuriated. Thus the American Revolution didn’t grow out of the social tensions within the colonies but rather from an unexpected effort by the British government to tighten its control over the colonies and ex...
Franklin knew, however, that other taxes placed upon the colonists, like the Sugar Act, affected nearly every coastal and farming community. He felt their annoyance with the reasoning which was given to them and knew that this interview and any other correspondence with the British government could lend an inside look at both sides. The important question here to ask would be a hypothetical one. If popular opinion was still positive and the interview proceeded, would Benjamin Franklin, still have expressed the same answers in effect lying to satisfy his own class? Or would he have answered truthfully and let them know that the colonists were still happy with Parliament? My answer would be affirmative to the latter. Because what sets him apart from some current politicians, is that Benjamin Franklin respected the dependence that colonists rested on him. He wouldn’t belittle that to satisfy his own desires. The evidence that I would use to confirm this would be, from the very document that I am reviewing for this paper. It was asked of him, “What was the temper of America towards Great Britain year 1763?”, his response, with sincerity, “the best in the world”. His response dictates that he is not only mindful of the opinions of the colonists but that he knows that every response after this one will be taken more personally by the House due to their stance in British
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...
It is an undisputable fact that the contribution of such prominent philosophers, writers, political and social activists as Benjamin Franklin and Henry David Thoreau in developing American statehood is tremendous. The literary works of both men can serve as a manifesto of national and personal liberation, a call for building a better society, where each citizen can live and work freely. Indeed, both Henry Thoreau and Benjamin Franklin emphasize the independence and freedom of an individual, but they do so in significantly different ways. These differences can be linked to their different worldview, life positions, philosophies, or interests. Nevertheless, this fact cannot detract from the obvious uniqueness and importance of Thoreau’s and Franklin’s literary heritage.