The Economic Causes for the American Revolution by Gretchen

spoonfedsoprano · The Economic Causes for the American Revolution by Gretchen

There are numerous forces that drove the cause for the American Revolution for many reasons and points of view. Indeed these people came together for contradicting reasons, had many interpretations of events, along with ambiguity and hypocrisy. From analyzing the Revolutionary War period it is difficult to read the biases that the authors may have. Historians will often make their argument and do whatever is necessary to support their thesis. They may brush over vital information or leave it out completely. As scholars it is cautioned that of the primary source documents because they are generally limited, the information can be biased, and that documents from the different class of this time period are limited.
It is often difficult to tell what the driving cause of the American Revolution such as what issues came first, if the issues can be separated at all, or how they interrelate to each other. Economics could not be separated from the American Revolution. These people would do anything to satisfy their rational self interest at any cost. People also need to sustain their own basic and living needs, when these needs are not met they became impoverished and rebelled. These people’s morals, political, and social views are shaped only after economics. Economic interests drove people to make choices and to side with the groups who supported their interests. Economics is the engine that caused the American Revolution and the political and social points follow them. To elaborate in England economics is tied to the aristocracy, Parliament, and the military. This social system of economic importance is carried over to the colonies. In the following chronology the primary economic drive, the social, and the political viewpoints will be conveyed through the causes for the American Revolution.
To convey how important economic ties were to the empire, the events will be shown before the Seven Years Wars even began with the French, the British and the Natives that sought economic ties with each other in their own commerce. The French and the Natives had ties so close that they had a “French Alliance”. Although this is not a direct economic cause it still relates to the events to come. The Natives felt suspicious of the Europeans (when the French and the British) would try to shift the balance of power in their relationship. For example the French and British would claim dominant control in the relationship with the Natives as well as set up forts on the native lands and speculate them.
When the Natives saw this happening they would change their agreements to maintain control and freedom. All of these examples created tension that resulted from their trading relationship and the greed from the French and the British. This conflict initially caused the French and Indian War and the end result was that the Natives sought freedom and respect. After The Seven Years War the British decided to keep ties with the Natives. Continuing the Seven Years War would be costly as well as breaking the trade agreements. This in essence is an economic pressure on the British Empire to comply. The result of the matter was the Proclamation of 1763.
Woody Holton quotes speculator, George Washington who stated that the Proclamation of 1763 was only in place to please the natives and to keep them quiet so the Empire could peacefully engage in commerce with the Natives and prevent more wars with them.
Indeed with this proclamation it angered many “squatters” and land speculators who had already invested in new land which also caused resentment economically for the colonists towards the British Empire. The colonists felt betrayed by their Empire because at first they were allowed to speculate the lands and investing money in the only commerce they could at the time. With the entrance of the Seven Years War the land speculators lost all of their investments. Once the Seven Years War ended the British sided with their “enemies” (the Natives that they were fighting against during the war) rather than their own colonists. The colonists who viewed themselves as equal British subjects were outraged by the empire siding with their previous enemy just so the empire could increase their capital interests. The colonists knew the Empire had economic interests and that is why parliament sided with the Natives and advocated the Proclamation of 1763. Indeed the colonists had westward expansion endeavors too but it is true that both sides had economic interests that contradicted each other. These events caused resentment and initially caused the colonists to resist Parliament and the empire. This would later be a cause that the speculators would remember when they eventually will rebelled.
Woody Holton shows the pain the speculators faced and it becomes clear why the colonist have an economic grievance towards the empire.

"Speculators must be distinguished from settlers as a separate class with very different interests. Speculators could not sell land until they secured clear title to it. Starting back in 1745, the gentry-dominated Executive Council of Virginia gave gentry-owned land companies preliminary grants to millions of acres west of the Appalachian Mountains. Then the land firms’ efforts to acquire and sell this land was interrupted, first by the start of the Seven Years’ War in 1754, and then by the 1758 Treaty of Easton, which reserved the area west of the Appalachian Mountains for the Indians. During this time, the Virginia land firm’s preliminary grants expired, which prevented most of them from securing title to the land they claimed. The companies were barred from renewing their preliminary grants by the Proclamation of 1763."

Another substantial economic issue that oppressed members of the colonies was the prohibition of manufacturing in the colonies and the Navigation Acts (which states finished goods are not to be processed in the colonies and to only be shipped out from England). These two economic issues created a monopoly on the empire. There was tension and frustration on the colonist’s side because they had no choice in commerce through the British monopoly and were taxed on it as well. These people were forced to purchase products from England as the only choice and the tax was also mandatory on these goods. Also with the Proclamation of 1763 it devastated any hope of entrepreneurship that the colonist might have had because it was forbidden. Through these examples the colonists were in an awkward position and had no choices as they were sinking more into debt in the way the Empire was running commerce.
Many of these people could not satisfy their basic living needs and they became angry, rebelled, blamed the government, and thus accused the Empire of being Tyrannical. Again this is another economic tension where the colonists were infuriated and decided to take diplomatic action as a result of their economic need.
In Virginia there were many problems involving debt in all classes as a result of the monopoly and the Navigation Acts. Holton elaborates more on the tobacco farmers and how they sunk into debt.

"By the time of the American Revolution, tobacco grower’s large and small owned huge debts to the British merchants; during the preceding century, Virginian’s per capita debt had nearly doubled. Growers blamed their debts partly on the Navigation Acts, which gave the British merchants a monopoly of their trade. Although by the 1760s free Virginian’s had submitted to the Navigation Acts for more than a century, they deeply resented them, and they resolutely refused to endure any additional burden."

Also in Virginia the gentry was reliant on buying British luxury goods in order to maintain their “upper sort” class reputation in society which led them more into debt. The “upper sort” was used to a certain way of living as well as maintaining their social status that they found it difficult to stop living as they did. A British tradition of credit worthiness was through what these people owned, which would be another reason why the “upper sort” would continue to purchase and uphold these goods. The monopoly and the imposed taxes on imports also made the goods more expensive. This was a heavy pressure for the gentry’s class to maintain their status even though they themselves were sinking even worse into debt. Eventually the Virginian gentry miserably submitted to the boycotts.
The debt in Virginia provided to be so horrible that the Virginian’s committed suicide in all classes from lower sort to the best of the Virginia gentry. This vision is so very ominous because people from all classes were so in debt that some of them found the only way out was through suicide. Because of the monopoly, the Navigation Acts, the issues with luxury for many gentry Virginian’s they have resorted to this and its cause is economical. If the colonists did not resort to suicide because their financial situation they would rebel against Parliament and the King in order to apply political action because they could not keep living as they did.
Another flaw in the monetary system was the fact that most of the hard specie (currency) was in Great Britain and not in the colonies. The colonists found it difficult to make trade without the representation of their currency. At this point to compensate the colonists started printing paper money as representation of specie. This printing of paper money became a problem because more money was printed than actual net worth of specie. Because of this there was tremendous inflation which made the currency worth much less and made debts even worse. The Currency Act completely stopped and forbade the production of currency and the use of it as well.
Between the monopoly imposed by the Empire, the Navigation Acts, the debts, the luxury issues of the Virginia gentry, the suicide of the colonists, the printing of currency, and the Currency Act created a downward spiral of debt among many other economic problems. This indeed all together this was an economic problem imposed by the empire for the colonists. This tension enforced by the Empire pushed the colonists to be in a position that they would eventually refuse and began to rebel.
Another economic issue that is in both Great Britain and the colonies is the class tradition of the upper, middle, and the lower sort people. For example related to economics class was always tied to property, voting ability, military rank, and positions in government. These issues affect the culture in the colonies not only because of they originated from economic causes but they also encourage political power related to them. In addition to these economic rights that the “upper sort” had, the property holding men also were the only people who could vote in colonial society. This issue was not only an issue of economic tension for not only women, slaves, but also many European men who did not hold property. These people who did not hold property were known as the “people out of doors”. These people had a frustrating economic position which also forced them into a difficult political position where they almost had no voice. The only voice they had was in the mob. The mob also viewed them as being “patriotic” by protesting Parliament and laws that they did not agree on economically. Quoting opposing loyalist, Peter Oliver made a statement of the mobs’ true economic vices.

"At the same time, a notorious defaulter who had pocked a large sum of the public monies, in order to screen himself, took it into his head to mouth it for patriotism; and by artful wiles and smooth demeanor he talked the people out of their understandings, and persuaded them to give him discharge from the debt, on account of his patriotism."

Oliver shows in his loyalist position that the people of the mob have highly economic motives and are indeed “selfish provincials”. He provides the information that these “people out of doors” are using “patriotism” as a front to support their economic interests and gain political control to engage those interests. This is again an economic motive used diplomatically and as the events unfolded they turned into a rebellion.
Slavery and the slave trade were economic and political issues that are also to not be forgotten. The slave trade was the economic engine for all the Empire. Slavery was outlawed in England but not in the colonies, the West Indies, or India. Many colonists but not all knew slavery was wrong and for the economic reasons of cheap labor they continued to do it. Without the labor of slavery the colonies would falter economically. There was pressure from the Empire for the colonies to outlaw slavery. The slaves wanted freedom, England wanted the colonies to cease slavery, and therefore the colonists knew this was a sensitive subject and wanted to approach the situation carefully. Many colonists wanted to protect slavery and if the slave owning colonists didn’t approach this carefully they would be in an all out civil war with their own people, the slaves, as well as more problems with Great Britain.
Slavery as cheap labor was economic and therefore those people did not want to give up their good labor they already had and to sink more into debt. An example from Schama’s Rough Crossing is General George Washington’s resistance of using slaves in the war through the Continental Army. Because General Washington was a slave owner he resisted but needed troops, thus he recruitment needs outweighed his economic need to get through the war.

"In Cambridge and Philadelphia, the response to this continuing alarm was to ban all blacks, free and slave, from military service with the Continental Army. That decision would be reversed only in the dire military predicament facing Washington after he had been chased from New York and New Jersey."

Indeed it is true that Washington was resistant of letting slaves fight in American Continental Army because he was trying to protect his economic interests and defiantly was not an abolitionist. Washington had to sacrifice his economic interests to fight the war when the American side was failing miserably to the British Regular Army. The reasons why the slaves were not allowed to fight were highly economic but in order to win the war and gain their own commerce General Washington had to give in.
On the more political side of the situation was British common law was loosely defined and was an oral tradition in Great Britain; but in the colonies the laws were well constructed and clear. In England Parliament was viewed as balanced equal to the King and the colonists were below both of them. In the colonies, the colonists viewed the King at the top and as Parliament and the colonists as equals. The colonists also viewed the local assembly as equal to Parliament. When the colonists found out that they were subordinate to the King, to Parliament, that the assembly had no legislative power and that they were only virtually represented they were outraged. Morgan makes a statement about virtual representation and how it was not widely accepted among the colonists.

"With the rejection of both virtual and actual representation in Parliament, the road lay open to a radical conclusion, namely, that the colonies were wholly beyond the control of Parliament. "

This becomes a cause for war because colonists are angered and were refusing the virtual representation. The colonists would not stop until they felt they had a ligament legislative voice. This reason is not so much economic than political but since Parliament is tied to the aristocracy it could be seen as an economic issue. But because of this the colonists will eventually rebel because of their virtual representation.
After the Seven Years War Parliament decided that the national debt needed to be paid down and all members of the empire needed to contribute. Parliament decided to instate Acts to collect taxes. Some examples are the Stamp Act, the Sugar Act, the Tea Act, and the Townsend duties. When the colonists would refute one act parliament would enact another, this retaliation would continue until there was eventual boycotts and mob action. The British Empire saw these thirteen colonists as “selfish provincials” who sought land and didn’t want to pay their taxes. England believed why the colonists were so resistant of the Acts was purely economic. The British Empire also had economic pressure because they needed to pay down the national debt from the Seven Years War while keeping the colonists subordinate. The empire had the economic need to pay down the national debt and the colonists had a need to get themselves out of a debt and decided to apply force towards Parliament. The Acts and taxation was an economic problem for both the empire and the colonists. The Acts were imposed politically so they were thus fought politically by the colonists even though the reasons were economic on both sides. The colonists fought the Acts politically through boycotts which eventually led to mob action through the “people out of doors”. Through boycotting and mob action the “people out of doors” related to each other and bonded together because they did not fit with the class of the property holding voters in society. Through the mob these people now had a place in society to congregate together.
After the general Acts were passed the Quebec Act was also passed. This enraged colonists for pure economic reasons. The land speculators who sought land, invested in land, and lost all of their investments during the Seven Years War and the Proclamation of 1763 were angered by The Quebec Acts. Through the Quebec Acts the people living in Quebec were not only given a wealth of land that the speculators felt they deserved but the people of Quebec were also allowed to practice their religion as well as their own form of government. This upset the other colonists because they had to be subordinate to Parliament while the colony of Quebec could expand in their own vast land and have their own government. The land speculators who were angered by the Quebec Acts had an economic grievance and it is apparent that it is pure jealousy and resentment from their plight from the Seven Years War and The Proclamation of 1763. The land speculators were even angrier with Parliament and as this is an economic cause it will be carried out politically through rebellion.
Things became more complex after the boycotts turned into mob action especially in the New England port cities. The mob at the Boston Massacre met to apply resistance and as they taunted the British Regular Army through saying things like “shoot me” and “fire” and threw sticks, rocks, snow, and ice the army became very frustrated at the mob. As a result this became a very confusing situation. The British Regular Army claimed they heard commander Preston issue a “fire” which Preston declined but the British Regular Army did indeed fire. After this unfortunate event this was not an economic issue with boycotts and protesting anymore it was now at a turning point of a rebellion.
After the Boston Massacre the Boston Tea Party was the next event. This was another protest action by the mob. Every colony but Boston was actively engaged in the boycotting of tea from England. But Governor Hutchinson allowed it. Angered Bostonians retaliated by spilling of all the tea into the harbor. This rebellion of the Boston Tea Party was an original protest of an Act which indeed was an economic grievance, though protesting it was political, and with force and actions of the Boston Massacre these mob acts were now a rebellion. This was now beyond the original economic cause it came from.
After the Boston Tea Party Parliament responded by closing all courts in Boston, breaking the assembly, and establishing the Cohersive Acts until the Bostonians involved in the Boston Tea Party paid for the tea. Morgan also makes a statement of what Parliament did in order to punish these Bostonians for their awful actions.

"With the Boston Tea Party…an angry Parliament enacted a series of laws, known as the Coercive Acts, to bring the bumptious Bostonians to their knees. The first act closed the port to all commerce. The second altered the Massachusetts government by giving the King, instead of the assembly, the power of appointing the Governor’s Council. It also forbade town meetings except for the election of town officials. The third provided that any magistrate, customs officer, or soldier indicted for a capital offense within the colony could be brought to England or Nova Scotia for trial, where he would not have to face a hostile jury."

The original reason for the mob acting politically and throwing the tea into the harbor was economic because colonists were boycotting the tea. When Parliament decided to punish Bostonians through the Coercive Acts it only made them more hostile. Parliament was trying to apply autocratic force to make Bostonians subordinate and to obey but it only made them resist more. The rebellion would only get worse.
The literature of the time period was also important for the ideas that the colonists had on their economic position and how they felt they were being treated or should be treated. From John Locke many colonists interpreted his works as an example of what fair government should be. John Locke wrote about British government during the Glorious Revolution and his intended audience was well educated people of that time period and not the average colonists a century later. The colonists interpreted the works of Locke that the government was supposed to provide the “common good” for all people through government and by not providing personal or economic interests. In the following Morgan elaborates on how the colonists interpreted the text by Locke.

"Men, Locke said, are by nature free, equal, and independent of each other. In a “state of nature” each man began with the possession of his own body.” And that “it was this principle that John Locke, the philosopher, had insisted upon in justifying that revolution: property must not be taken from the owners without consent, given either in person or by their representatives. For the colonists, as for the rest of the English, property was not merely a possession to be hoarded and admired; it was rather the source of life and liberty."
Following this Thomas Paine wrote a popular propaganda piece, Common Sense on January 10, 1776. This radical piece was a shock to the colonial public despite their previous frustration. Many feared the words he used and were not ready for what he was about to suggest, independence. Some colonists were dazzled by his words and this force changed the tone of some colonial view points. The impoverished colonists led themselves to rebellion through boycotts and mob action that takes another turn toward independence and inevitably war. Thomas Paine showed his view point as progressive movement of independence was now inevitable in the colonies.

"A temporary stoppage of trade, was an inconvenience, which would have sufficiently ballanced the repeal of all the acts complained of, had such repeals been obtained; but if the whole continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry only...As I have always considered the independency of this continent, as an event, which sooner or later must arrive, so from the late rapid progress of the continent to maturity, the event could not be far off."

Paine suggests that boycotts and economic reasons led the people of the colonies to a greater cause and would inevitably turn the cause into independence or a war. Thomas Paine was advocating the colonists to appear strong and resistant to more than just the petty Acts, the colonists need to stand for independence. This is in Paine’s perspective the shift of economic boycotts and resistance to a greater independence as a result of those original diplomatic actions.
Following Common Sense another important document was written on six months later on July 4, 1776 , The Declaration of Independence composed by five delegates of the continental congress that would use concepts from Common Sense as well as the philosophies from John Locke as a direct order to King George the III. This document clearly stated that a government should be in place for the “common good” of the people and if the government does not provide this another government should be put in place, a list of all the grievances the colonist had towards Parliament and the King, and what power and rights the colonist were claiming to have. In the following quote The Declaration of Independence makes the statement about what the rights the colonists claimed to have.

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good… WE THEREFORE, the REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,…solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and Independent States, they have the full power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

This quote from The Declaration of Independence is an economic statement because the colonists were claiming their own independence as a result of their boycotts and original economic cause. The colonists decided to take it a step further and suggested to apply their own government rather than Parliament which was very aristocratic and their own free market commerce. This statement is about applying force to the King in order for the colonists to be free of England and practice their own commerce. These are the reasons why the thirteen colonies boycotted, rebelled, and the cause progressed to rebellion and independence.
It is often difficult to propose an argument when many of the answers have been lost through time. But through these events economics is the primary cause that led to the American Revolution.
The American Revolution had a core of economic causes and the morals are shaped around people’s interests and their positions were tailored to that. Based on people’s position their social and political views were shaped by their economic position. Often times these people come together for contradicting reasons to support their interests. These people also were infuriated by the Acts and actions from parliament and refused to take this treatment. People then fought for what they believed in through mobs and other various groups. Even thought their motives were primarily economic; followed by political views they fought for a cause, refusing to take anymore of the treatment by Parliament and the King. These events with economic aspirations, social dreams, political beliefs and promise will shape the coming years going into the American Revolution.

Work Cited:

Holton, Woody. Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves & the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, 1999. Pages: XIX, 8, 9, 43, 62, 77, 84.

Morgan, Edmund S. The Birth of the Republic: 1763-89. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1956. Pages: 17, 25, 59, 73.

Morgan, Edmund S. The Birth of the Republic: 1763-89. (The Declaration of Independence) Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1956. Pages: 159-162.

Oliver, Peter (edited by Adair, Douglass and Schutz, John A.) Peter Oliver’s Origins & Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View. Sanford University Press, 1961. Page: 164.

Paine, Thomas (edited by Slaughter, Thomas P.) Common Sense and Related Writings. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. Pages: 72, 93.

Schama, Simon. Rough Crossing: the Slaves, the British, and the American Revolution. (Simon Schama, 2006). Pages 83.