The period of 1763 to 1776 was one of the most challenging years for the British policymakers. During this period, the American colonists experienced disagreements with their policymakers. After Britain and other colonial countries signed the Treaty of Paris in 1763, Britain was considered the super power, which earned her respect in America.
Based on this conception, the colonists aimed at exploiting the advantage to gain more wealth and expand their economic stability. In spite of the initial understanding that colonies were regarded as a source of income to the mother government, the American colonies had changed this perception. In this regard, the mother government aimed at recovering the previous war expenses from its colonies.
Therefore, Britain parliament continued to formulate policies that emphasized the need of resources and wealth generation for the empire. This was contrary to the wishes of the colonists who needed to enrich themselves and focus on their own business without any regulation (Appleby et al., 2009).
In the bid to maintain the resources for their vast empire, the British government issued a declaration to limit the control of the territories by the colonial authorities. According to the proclamation act of 1763, the British government was to control all transactions pertaining land lying west of the Appalachian Mountains.
Landowners and the colonialist understood this move, as a ploy to rein their power and ensure that some of the revenue from the land went to the British government.
This elicited negative perception towards the British government by the colonists. In addition, the former supporters of the British government were infuriated since their powers were being undermined. Through this process, the colonial leaders and business people led retaliation towards the mother government. This form of upheaval declined the level of regulation of the colonists on leadership and business processes.
The aftermath of the initial retaliation by the colonial rulers forced the mother government to enforce stringent conditions that would suppress their resistance. In this regard, the relationship between the mother government and the colonialists were severely affected. After the proclamation act had been imposed, the Stamp act was enforced to restrict the transactions that could be facilitated by the colonists.
Moreover, the Stamp act and Sugar act were imposed to generate income to the mother government (Kutler, 2003). The Quartering act also worsened the relationship between colonial rulers and the policy makers. Therefore, the colonial rulers demanded for equal representation during policymaking. In this regard, they called for equal treatment with Englishmen in parliament. Similarly, the disparity that was created by the Englishmen through reduction of consumable products further worsened the differences.
Despite the struggle by colonists to present their grievances to the crown, the mother government neglected their demands and imposed more harsh conditions on them. As a result, the colonial rulers at Virginia while at the House of Burgesses approved their own policies that contravened the mother government policies.
In this case, some of the repudiated policies such as the Stamp act were condemned. Based on this, other states within America, like New York, reciprocated the policies of Virginia. Furthermore, this provoked more retaliation and unity by the various dominoes to disregard the policies from Britain that imposed heavy taxation on them.
To promote their rights, they demanded for initial need of equal representation in the parliament. This hindered the relationship between the colonialist and the policy makers based on their urge for superiority.
Though the differences between the colonialists and the policy makers continued to widen, Britain struggled to harmonize the condition even when it went to being civil. Some of the polices formulated in the mother government ensured that more revenues could be generated in the colonies.
The passing of the Revenue act of 1767 escalated the difference of the two parties since additional import taxes were imposed payable through Township duties. In this case, colonial rulers as well as the civilians considered this as a form of extortion and were force to violate the act (Phillips, 2008).
After the civilians and the colonial rulers had felt the dire repercussions of the British government policies, most leaders initiated ways of contradicting the laws. Through candid individuals publishing magazines and articles, they informed all the civilians of the irrational taxation systems by the British government. As a result, the resisting groups initiated political movements that infuriated the policy makers at Britain.
To counter this uprising, the mother government sent more troops to the region to contain the situation. Through this inconsiderate move by the Britain government, the American resistance grew and steered more violence. During this period, the political vehemence grew and the need for independence by the Americans came to notice. As a result, violence and massacre s were witnessed when countering the Britain government.
At the end of this period, the relationship between the colonialist and the policy makers were terminated. Therefore, the leaders that had contributed immensely and fought for the success of the revolution formed the government of the new nation. In addition, they were able to be independent and avoid influence of the British government. Similarly, the taxation system of the British was nullified and conducive policies formulated.
References
Appleby, J. O., Brinkley, A., & McPherson, J. M. (2009). The American journey (Teacher’s wraparound ed.). New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
Kutler, S. I. (2003). Dictionary of American history (3rd ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Phillips, M. (2008). Conversations in early American history, 1492-1837. New York: A.J. Cornell Publications.