The history of American independence is full of confrontations with England. Using its well-known practice of economic pressure by raising export prices, the English Empire wanted to impose its rules of operation on the inhabitants of the future United States. At the same time, influential merchants working in America and being Americans supported English export policies and were willing to cooperate under the Empire’s rules, even after the initial protest. To address this issue, Brutus warns fellow citizens about export problems and urges them not to ‘sell’ independence by buying English tea from merchants.
Firstly, English pressure was a major factor that prompted McDougall to write an appeal to his fellow citizens. Over the years, the English Empire created spheres of influence worldwide through the commodity dependence of countries on its exclusive products. By economically subjugating China and India through the Opium Wars and other similar projects, England wanted to use tea as a major product whose excessive consumption would make Americans more prone to concessions in other areas of activity. However, tea proved not to be a product that would be as addictive as, for example, opium. The Americans could live without tea for a long time, which significantly reduced the possibility for the British to impose their rules in a country that had not yet declared its independence.
Secondly, America’s powerful merchants seemed to Brutus to be a group of mercantile businessmen without any sense of patriotism and desire for an independent nation. From the mere mechanic’s perspective, such people represented perhaps the greatest threat to America’s existence as a forward-looking country where human freedom of speech and action are of the greatest value. In the pursuit of short-term profits, the traffickers had forgotten the limitless opportunities for enrichment in a country with the unparalleled rule of law and freedom of speech. Based on this argument, McDougall attempted to frighten merchants with the terrible prospect of existing in the sphere of influence of an empire with sufficient resources to hold on to power at the time.
Thirdly, the need to unite ordinary people against the exploitation of America as a puppet country compelled McDougall to write such an emotional appeal. Using two main arguments, such as the inequality between merchants and workers at the civilian level and the possibility of embracing the number of human resources against capitalist influence, Brutus has constructed an effective appeal to fellow citizens to continue the non-importation trend. According to Brutus, by ignoring important goods, especially tea, American citizens would accomplish two tasks with simultaneous efficiency (Brutus 1). On the one side of the Atlantic, after buying imported goods from English suppliers, American merchants would not be able to sell even a small fraction of the products that would cover costs. As a result, on the other side of the Atlantic, English suppliers would not find sufficient demand for export goods, so they would have no interest in taking a small shipment of products without the certainty of profit from merchants who would buy the products and resell them.
In fact, the significance of this document for American Independence is often undervalued. Written in 1770s, McDougall addresses the whole background of American society at the end of the 18th century. For example, the reader might learn from the document that only men participated in political life and were divided into workers and entrepreneurs, similar to today’s distinction between wage earners and capitalist entrepreneurs. Moreover, the country had already become virtually free of any other influence except that of the English Empire, so the most important controversy was establishing the right relationship between America and the United Kingdom. Moreover, based on the document’s emotionality, it can be seen that the gulf between workers and entrepreneurs had reached its limit. Thus, McDougall appealed not so much to England’s attempts to impose its export conditions as to the desire of merchants to make money even at the cost of economic freedom.
By adding two secondary sources in the research, the information base became more objective so that it perfectly allows for analyzing the issue from different perspectives. On the one hand, a multidimensional analysis of American society in the 1770s provides insight into what the country represented at the end of the 18th century, just before obtaining independence (Foner 89). The people’s cultural background seeking a new life creates a complete picture for understanding the emotionality of Brutus at the time of writing his address. The book’s author accurately describes related events that are influential factors in American society’s response to McDougall’s manifestation. On the other hand, the comprehensive analysis of the author’s personality given in Alexander McDougall and the American Revolution in New York completes the portrait of the most likely author of the analyzed source (Gerlach 243). Since each person represents some ideas and concepts previously perceived, the reader needs to evaluate the number and magnitude of the influence of the factors driving the author’s feelings.
To conclude, the unilateral manifesto of the common laborer made an extraordinary impact on America in 1770s. Divided between the working and mercantile classes, drawn into the English Empire’s sphere of influence in export tariffs imposing tough economic conditions, American society was at an irrevocable breaking point where the fate of one of the first free democratic nations was decided. Through the primary resource and additional documents, which provide historical and personalized background, the reader will be able to not only feel but also to objectively understand the American Revolution’s context.
Works Cited
Brutus. “To the Free and Loyal Inhabitants of the City and Colony of New-York.”The Library of Congress, 1774.
Foner, Eric. Voices of Freedom. 6th ed., W.W. Norton, 2020.
Gerlach, Larry R. “Alexander McDougall and the American Revolution in New York.” History: Reviews of New Books, vol. 3, no. 9, 1975, p. 243. Crossref, doi:10.1080/03612759.1975.9945101.