Mercantilism In North America

For the colonists living in what was to become the United States of America, representative government was essential to their freedom. Where the limits of freedom meet the rules of law has been debated for centuries. Governments have proven to infringe upon the rights of citizens time and time again. History has also revealed that too much freedom left unchecked in the hands of citizens can also lead to anarchy and injustice. When the settlers first came to the Americas, they took the dangerous journey across the Atlantic Ocean with the hope of developing a land that was free from the war and religious strife of Europe. The settlers came from all over Europe in an effort to improve their lives and to facilitate the start of a new
society that was based on their ideals. The founding fathers of America believed in a system “where the government is kept under control of the people and political power is maintained at the balanced center with enough government to maintain security, justice, and good order, but not enough government to abuse the people”1. It was exactly what colonial Americans living in the eighteenth century expected. The leaders in England had a different perspective on the limitations and role of government in North America. When a government constantly goes against the will of the people, enacting legislation without proper representation, preventing the people from growth, and causing economic stress then they have infringed upon the rights of a free society. The legislative acts of the English Government among the thirteen North American colonies in the eighteenth century unified the colonist to convene a continental congress and eventually declare independence. The thousands of immigrants who made their journey to America came to establish a life that was similar to their lives in the mother country, only with more freedom. They were not naïve, but realized there was a need for some form of government. According to seventeenth century governor John Winthrop, there is the danger of “a liberty to do evil as well as to do good” which is “incompatible and inconsistent with authority, and cannot endure the least restraint of the most just authority”2. Winthrop merely displays that men have the capacity to do evil and need rules to govern them. Winthrop stated that “liberty is the proper end and object of authority, and cannot subsist without it”3. The early colonists of America clearly understood the need for restraint by government in order to maintain a peaceful society. The settlers worked out their differences early on with a government that was limited in its authority, yet representative of the people, unlike the burdensome governments of Europe.
Through the course of time the colonies of the Americas grew to become more important for the world economically.
The rise of tobacco, sugar, and other exports from the colonies of the western hemisphere were valuable to the European nations. As early as 1651, England enacted “navigation laws” that were the beginning of a mercantilist system that “regulated economic activity so as to promote national power”4. Since the colonies of North America were controlled by England, the acts of mercantilism had its effect on the colonies. “Certain ‘enumerated’ goods—essentially the most valuable colonial products, such as tobacco and sugar—had to be transported in English ships and sold initially in English ports”5. Mercantilism helped England gain control of commerce, strengthening its standing in the world. The colonist frequently avoided the navigation laws that England established. The failure on England to enforce the laws that it put in place is worth noting. The colonist had created a society that enjoyed more freedom than those citizens of Europe. The old world rules of Europe and the autonomy of the colonists in the new world would soon
collide.
The lust for power placed the thirteen North American colonies in the middle of the battle for supremacy in the world. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were consumed by war among the European powers. The Seven Years’ War, often called the French and Indian War, pitted France and England against each other, leaving England in greater control of the land in North America. It also left England looking for ways to capture revenue to pay the enormous debt it accrued in the years of war that ravaged Europe. The colonies were looked at as a source of revenue that the English could draw from. They saw the colonies as being part owners in the Seven Years War, and should dutifully pay some of the costs of it. The colonists believed that the cost had already been paid in terms of soldiers and supplies. England felt it had to assert more control over the colonies if it was to maintain control of the colonies and secure peace and prosperity in the land in the future. England also knew that it had to crack down on the navigation laws that the colonists had evaded. “The Proclamation of 1763 was issued by the British (English) Board of Trade…to establish governments for their new territories gained after the war, to encourage peace between colonists and remaining Indians tribes and to keep colonists confined to the coasts for purposes of easier taxation and trade with the mother country”6 This act prevented the colonists from expanding further west, something that they concluded was their right after fighting in the Seven Years’ War. England also began to assert more control over the colonies through the Sugar Act and Revenue Act. The Sugar Act sought to “end widespread smuggling by colonial merchants…an attempt to get them (the colonists) to pay a levy they would otherwise have evaded”7. Collectively, these laws were instituted in an effort by England to reestablish the laws colonists had ignored. England also expanded some of those laws. “A Revenue Act placed goods such as wool and hides…on the enumerated list, meaning they had to be shipped through England”8. The new world that was created by the colonists, distant from the mother country, was now embarking on a new era where freedom was challenged. The colonists felt that England was acting outside its scope of authority because the colonists had no representation regarding these laws and they were preventing them from expanding to new areas of land that they believed they were entitled to. These acts made by English Parliament were the beginning of stricter policies that threatened the livelihood of colonial Americans and limited their freedom. The stamp act was the first attempt by England to directly tax the colonies as opposed to taxing them through the rules of commerce. The goal of this direct tax was to gain revenue for the mother country in an effort to offset the war debt and to pay for the oversight of the colonies. The stamp act required that the colonist pay for a stamp to place on every paper document that was used. Since it required a stamp to be placed on all documents it affected every citizen in the colony in some fashion. The movement of colonists’ against the acts of England was set in motion. Citizens began to gather to discuss what authority England had and how to take action against any laws that they believed limited their freedom. The colonists spoke out against the stamp act arguing again that it violated their rights since it was enacted without their representation. “The taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burdensome taxation”9. It wasn’t that the colonists were against contributing to the cause of a just government, but that it was done without their consent. The colonists knew that failing to renounce any law that did not have their consent would open up the door for England to assert control on the colonies that would harm them. “No taxation without representation” became a popular phrase in American history as a result of the stamp act and others like it. As the political sphere in colonial America was widening, groups like the daughters of liberty and the sons of liberty were forming. According to Historian Ken Hickman, “the Committees of Correspondence, Sons of Liberty, and system of boycotts were to be refined and used later in protests against future British (English) taxes”10. The boycott of imported goods helped to defeat the stamp act, but the right of England to tax the colonies without representation was still not resolved.
England did not give up on its efforts to tax and control the colonies. The next attempt of the English government was the Townshend Acts. The Townshend acts were a group of laws that imposed taxes on imported goods and assert English authority over the colonies. This legislation was not a direct tax like the Stamp Act, but reverted back to the mercantilist ways of gaining revenue through trade. The Townshend acts were another example of taxation without representation that called into question the authority of the English government. These acts were met with the resistance of colonists. Tension between England and the colonists over these acts grew in the colonies. The attempts of England to strengthen its grip in the colonies led to the Boston Massacre, which left five colonists dead when English soldiers fired their weapons into a crowd of angry colonists. The British government paused, but pressed on with an attitude of arrogance, while colonial North America grew to be more resistant of English authority.
The Tea Act would be the next threat to freedom in the colonies. While the object of the Tea act was to erase the debt of the English East India Company, the result for colonists was the creation of a monopoly that threatened the businesses in the colonies11. The colonists viewed this act as another tax on the colonists that did not have their consent. The Tea act gave an unfair advantage to the English East India Company, undermining the sovereignty of the colonies. The rejection of the Tea Act culminated with the Boston Tea Party. The colonist boarded a ship in Boston harbor that was loaded with Tea that was to be sold in the colonies, tossing the tea into the harbor, infuriating England. The situation in colonial America had turned into an angry and ugly mess. The English government regarded the actions of the colonists as a breach of their authority over the colonies. The result of the Boston Tea Party was the Intolerable acts, which continued to move the colonists toward the road of revolution.
The Intolerable acts were a group of acts that collectively closed the port of Boston until restitution was made for lost revenue of the Boston Tea Party; allowed the King to appoint the executive leaders of the colony; gave the right of military leaders to station soldiers in more areas; allowed royal officials the right to move their criminal trials; and strengthened English ties to the Canadian colony through land expansion and expanding religious freedom to Catholics12. On May 19, 1774, the town of Farmington, Connecticut reacted with public statements clearly identifying that the laws were “unjust, illegal, and oppressive”13. Closing the port to Boston would affect the profit of several key cities and impact the economy of all of the colonies. England may have miscalculated how much of an impact it would have on the colonies as a whole. The appointing of leaders over the colony that are not elected is another way of controlling the people without giving them proper representation. Granting special privileges to royal officials further displays the view of English arrogance over the colonists. Although the trend toward control by England had not subsided, there were still many colonists who amazingly wanted reconciliation with the mother country. The public sphere would soon be filled with citizens discussing how to deal with the issues that England had presented them with.
The intolerable acts paved the way for the first Continental Congress. The assembly of the colonial leaders convinced them to develop a strategy that would protect their freedom. The thirteen colonies banded together in agreement like never before. The resolutions that resulted from the gathering of the colonies declared the right to life, liberty, and property. The thirteen colonies demanded the right to be represented by elected officials, the right to assembly, and also listed actions that violated the rights of colonists14. It was at the first continental congress where the thoughts that went into the Declaration of Independence would begin to be developed. The first continental congress was an enormous step for the cause of independence. The colonists had a strong belief in representative government, the central issue of its disagreement with English rule.
Representation gave the citizens a voice in matters that directly affected their lives politically. They believed in fair trade, property rights, and the right to live free of government control. The colonists were convinced that a government that was limited in scope and power, but one that could maintain order in society was there right. In the eyes of England, the colonists were subjects of the empire. They believed they had the authority to tax and control the colony from London. They had no intention of turning away from their conviction of control over the colonies. The Sugar Act, Revenue Act, Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts, the Boston Massacre, the Intolerable Acts, and the Tea Act became a chord of issues that exacerbated the problems between England and the colonists. Restricting the right of free people to plead its case infringed on the right of citizens in the thirteen colonies of North America. The chord that tied the mother country of England to the colonies needed to be cut. The acts of the English government empowered and unified the colonists of North America, unleashing the power of representative government like the world had never seen. The ideals that were eloquently written in the Declaration of Independence were born out of the ashes of English
legislation.

End Notes: