In 1763, it would seem that the colonist’s reliance on Great Britain had been, if anything, reaffirmed. Together, they had fought the Seven Years' War against France and French-allied Indian tribes. They had won the war, but it had come at a price. That price was not only in the currency of death and destruction that war naturally accumulates, it came in the much less dramatic form of currency itself.
Soldiers needed to be paid. Gunpowder had to be bought. Everything cost; nothing came for free. Britain and the colonies found themselves lacking the financial reserves to pay for the war. So the British began to levy taxes throughout the Empire. That included it’s colonies in North America.
But contrary to popular belief, the colonists were among those in the Empire taxed the LEAST. According to Walter McDougal in his book Freedom Just Around the Corner, six million citizens in England paid six million pounds in taxes in the same time period that 1.6 million colonists in North America paid 150 thousand pounds in taxes. But it wasn’t so much the amount that bothered the colonists as the timing.
The British Empire wasn’t the only one to accumulate costs from the Seven Years' War; the colonists had as well. Farmers who had spent time away from their crops to fight had lost money. Since nearly everyone from the colonies was not a professional soldier, the time they spent away from their true professions cost them. And now the British were having trouble paying them for their service in the war. So instead of being paid for the time they’d spent fighting, the colonists were now having taxes levied against them.
Along with several other factors, including the fluctuating European agricultural market, this created an economic downturn in the colonies. Rich and poor colonists alike bore the brunt. According to McDougal, planters were hit especially hard when the price of tobacco in Europe bottomed out. Already in debt, the planters were unable to sell their crops at a sustainable price because the supply had exceeded demand.
Exacerbating these circumstances, the British Parliament soon passed a law that created an economic barrier that prevented the colonies from trading with anyone but Britain. This allowed the mother country to decide what rates it would allow, further hurting the colonists.
Enter the Sons of Liberty
According to Todd Allen Kreamer, the Sons’ original two chapters were founded in Boston and New York at roughly the same time in 1765. They originated out of the roots of the Committees of Correspondence, a forum in several colonies that discussed political matters, and were formed in response to one of the new British taxes, the Stamp Act.
In 1765, one of the most despised British taxes took effect in the colonies. According to McDougal, the Stamp Act placed a tax on all manner of printed material, “ranging from pamphlets and newspapers to diplomas, licenses to practice a profession or trade, deeds, wills, insurance policies and playing cards.” The tax could be as high as six pounds. The Sons of Liberty pledged, among other things, to stop by any means necessary, including violence, the Stamp Act from being put into effect. The Sons soon began to enjoy tremendous popular support for their resistance of the British.
Meanwhile, the British government was puzzled by the unpopularity of their taxes in North America. The mother country was in debt, and it was only logical for the outlying colonies, including North America, to help pay that debt. And even more of a reason than that was what the war had been fought over. The French menace had been vanquished, and the most immediate threat to the colonists had been eliminated.
Now the colonists were protesting the taxes designed to pay back the cost of performing that service. Also, as they were apt to do, Parliament cited their word as law and dismissed the colonist’s cries for representation, saying that while they didn’t have one single representative, they were virtually represented since every MP represented every British citizen.
What Parliament failed to account for was the colonist’s view of how their tax money was being spent. After the close of the Seven Years' War, the British decided to station army regulars in the colonies as deterrence to both the remaining French and the marauding Indian tribes. The colonists felt their presence was unneeded and didn’t want them there. The belief that Stamp Act revenue was paying for them to be there only added insult to injury.
When the Stamp Act was finally repealed in 1766, the Damage had largely been done
Chapters of the Sons of Liberty had sprung up throughout the colonies. The Sons had actively resisted the Stamp Act by destroying the stamps at every opportunity and encouraging people to simply ignore the tax. So when it was repealed, the Sons were able to claim a great victory, which only served to bring more colonists to them and increasing their power. At this point, the anti-Crown rhetoric of the Sons took on newfound importance.
People across the colonies were now listening, and the Sons didn’t disappoint. Jonathan Mayhew, a preacher who belonged to the Boston Sons Chapter, began preaching liberty in his sermons, and likened the struggle of the colonists to the struggles of Biblical characters. Other preachers and pastors followed his lead, and soon the two ideas of freedom and religion were fused. The British taxes were portrayed as sinful and corrupt, and it was preached that it was the religious duty of the colonists to resist.
When the Stamp Act was repealed, Parliament wished to save face to a degree, and did so by passing a Declaratory Act that said it was empowered to legislate in the colonies. Thus, it was almost inevitable that the Townshend Acts were passed in 1767. According to McDougal, this new legislation levied taxes on “colonial imports of such staples as glass, paper, paint, and tea, and established vice-admiralty courts in Boston, Philadelphia and Charlestown.”
This new act was met with even more vigorous resistance than the Stamp Act. John Dickinson wrote that if Parliament can fix duties on exports, then it can places taxes on all items that can’t be manufactured in the colonies. He believed it was transparent extortion, and believed that not resisting the Act would, in no uncertain terms, make the colonists into slaves. The Sons encouraged and rallied people across the colonies to boycott the taxed goods, as well as British goods overall. Preachers did their part, and soon it was thought immoral and indulgent to purchase British goods.
The Taxes were still light compared to British Citizens
But again, the government missed the point. The acts did a fraction of the economic damage that the British wrought on the colonies. British restrictions on westward expansion, the manufacturing prohibition, and the trade barriers were far more damaging. These acts were simply the most tangible things to rebel against.
Ironically, the Townshend Acts only reinvigorated the biggest enemy the British had in the colonies. The Sons of Liberty had lost much of their influence following the repeal of the Stamp Act, since they no longer had a relevant reason to exist. The passage of the Townshend Act caused the Sons to come roaring back, and the group would remain a force in colonial America all the way up until the coming Revolution.
As the cycle continued to careen and relations continued to worsen, the British only continued to hurt themselves. In a series of heavy handed moves, they began enforcing the Navigation Acts, a more stringent enforcement of that laws that forbade colonial trade with nations other than England. Ships were impounded, colonial assemblies were dissolved, and more and more officials were appointed by Parliament.
This gave the Sons reason to further encourage radicalism and civil disobedience. Also, and probably more damaging, the British actions discredited moderates in the colonies, who would have encouraged more level headed reactions. On top of that, Loyalists, those that still supported the crown, were vilified.
By 1770, Parliament was legitimately worried by events in the colonies. Again failing to be subtle about it, they responded by sending a great deal more army regulars to the colonies, concentrating them at the center of rebellion, Boston. This made things more difficult than ever for the poor in Boston. According to McDougal, the soldiers took advantage of the Quartering Act to a large degree, removing Bostonians from their homes to live there themselves. Even more insulting, these troops often competed with poor Bostonians for odd jobs in their off hours.
This atmosphere culminated in the Boston Massacre, where a squad of British soldiers fired into a hostile but unarmed crowd, killing several. Following the shooting, already an extremely damaging event for Britain, John Adams took on the unenviable task of defending the offending British regulars in court. He argued that they were justified in their actions because the crowd had been raucous and threatening, and then he exonerated the crowd for their actions because they were acting out of frustration with the British taxes. The only group left to accept blame was the British government for levying the taxes that indirectly caused the shooting.
Again, the pattern continued, and eventually the British bowed to colonial pressure and repealed the Townshend Act. But again wanting to save face, Parliament followed up with the Tea Act. This removed all taxes and duties on British tea, and gave the East India Company a virtual monopoly in the sale of tea in the colonies. It was also in response to the company needing government assistance and the discovery of 17M pounds in unsold tea, according to McDougal.
But by now, the Sons and other resistance groups in the mold of the Sons held so much influence that they had no trouble painting the act, which actually reduced the price of tea in the colonies and was intended to benefit consumers, as a hostile takeover and another example of Britain attempting to govern the colonies from across the ocean.
The Sons of Liberty as well as other radical groups often used varying degrees of rhetoric to push their agendas. The fusion of liberty and religion happened early on. Led by Jonathan Mayhew, preachers made it not only religiously acceptable to resist the British, it became morally imperative. War was beginning to look inevitable. Many people, including John and Sam Adams, published pamphlets that derided the British. But oftentimes, Sons operatives would go into a tavern and read particularly inflammatory remarks to the crowd. Taken out of context, they were considered even more damning than they really were.
The most effective rhetorical pamphlet the Sons published was Common Sense, by Thomas Paine
Paine was able to bring everyone together, sometime that the Sons, even in all their mass appeal and popularity, had been unable to do, in resistance against the British. He weaved together arguments that appealed to several different religious groups to prove secular points. He questioned the manhood of people that didn’t whole heartedly support independence and liberty, comparing those who were on the fence to the Roman soldiers at Calvary where Jesus was crucified. He said it was sinful to not support an entirely political movement. So now, fighting for liberty was encouraged by God, necessary to maintain honor and manhood, and failure to resist was a sin. What would you do?
Work Cited
McDougal, Walter. Freedom Just around the Corner. 2005. Harper Collins. 202-239
Kreamer, Todd Allen. Sons of Liberty: Patriots or Terrorists? How a Secret Society of Rebel Americans made its Mark on Early America. Archiving Early America. 1996. http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html
Sons of Liberty. Colonial America, The American Revolution. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h635.html
Cincotta, Howard, Chapter 3: The Road to Independence, An Outline of American History, United States Information Agency, May 1994, http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/history/ch3.htm
Zac Johnson - My name is Zac Johnson. I'm a 22 year old senior at Arizona State University in Tempe, majoring in political science. I'll graduate in ...
Join the Conversation