The Ideological Origins Of The American Revolution

Interpretations of the causes of the American Revolutionary War have changed over time. Contemporaries of the Founding Fathers and many 19th-century historians emphasized the devotion of the colonists to Enlightenment principles and ideology. Early 20th-century historians stressed the economic self-interests of the many upper-class merchants and landowners who were at the forefront of revolutionary activity. The ideological interpretation has also received a powerful impetus in Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967). Recently, New Left historians have added a class dimension to the debate. They see the revolution as not only a war to gain independence but also a means to advance the interest of the lower
Fought and won largely by British regulars, the war had been costly. London now proposed stationing 10,000 British regulars in North America and called on the American colonists to partly subsidize this expense. A variety of money-raising measures followed: the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765, and the Townshend Duties of 1767. The colonists resisted each in turn. The Americans in practice enjoyed a degree of tax exemption within the empire, paying only such taxes as were imposed by their colonial legislatures. American leaders including Patrick Henry, John Dickinson, Samuel Adams, and others argued the theme of "no taxation without representation." London pointed out that the Americans did enjoy representation, that they might come to Britain to stand for the House of Commons like any other Englishman; Parliament represented the interest of all British subjects. For Americans, this concept of political sovereignty—often called virtual representation—was
Patriots saw the Boston Massacre of 5 March 1770 as an unprovoked attack on innocent citizens by royal soldiers, many of whom were "moonlighting" and taking the jobs of colonials. The Tea Act of 1773, while it lowered the price of tea, established a monopoly of the British East Indies Company and harmed a number of colonial tea merchants, such as John Hancock. In retaliation for the Boston Tea Party, the Coercive (Intolerable) Acts of 1774, which closed the port of Boston and substituted martial law for the authority of the Massachusetts legislature, were seen as unjustified intrusions into the internal affairs of a colony. What had been inflicted on Massachusetts could be applied to other colonies. Finally, the Quebec Act of 1774, which recognized the rights of Roman Catholics in an enlarged province of Quebec, raised anti-Catholic fears, particularly in New England; its definition of the boundaries of Canada as extending to the Ohio River conflicted with the western land claims of many of the