The incentives for the War of Independence initially appeared many years before the war itself broke out. The dissatisfaction of American colonists because of the unfair policy of Great Britain rose from month to month, and the main issue for argument was taxation imposed on Americans without any explanations.
Surely, the reasons were known to everyone – the French war and the Indian war were taking much money from the country’s budget, its debt grew, becoming unable to be handled by Britain alone. Therefore, the government decided to turn to the colonies for additional revenues to close the gaps in the budget. Being an opponent of taxation, it is necessary to consider the Acts that brought about the changes in taxation and to define what was wrong about the policy they pursued together with the way to constitute some changes.
The article relevant to present topic is the one posted by the Parliament of the UK titled “No Taxation without Representation” posted on the materials of legal procedures accompanying the introduction of the Stamp Act. This article tells about the situation in Great Britain of that time after the wars, being unable to pay off the debt; then it describes the way the Act was written, on 13th February 1765, the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented a Bill to the House of Commons at the instigation of the then Prime Minster George Grenville (1712-1770), entitled ‘a Bill for granting certain Stamp Duties, and other Duties, in the British Colonies and Plantations in America; and for applying the Same towards further defraying the Expenses of defending, protecting, and securing such Colonies and Plantations’.
As one can see from the information set further in the article, the change of taxation was accepted well in the Parliament, but caused a great wave of dissatisfaction and even protest in the colonies. The struggle for repealing the Act took nearly a year, so only in 1766 the Act was repealed. However, the disappointment and tension were growing within the minds of Americans, which finally led to the war outburst.
Speaking about taxation, there is a set of points necessary to underline. For example, the Currency Act seems to be unnecessary from the point of view of complications in paying off the debt that would be only worsened with the introduction of the Act. People who have no ability to use paper money cannot pay off the debts they have, thus contributing nothing to the problem solution. The alternative action that may be proposed in the present case is cancelling the prohibition and, more than that, taking the money from colonists in their currency as well. Though the money they use is doubtable, it is always possible to establish a currency rate to be able to make financial operations.
One more measure arousing dissatisfaction of colonists may be the expansion and the Indian war, which is still financed from the pockets of the colonists. The newly introduced debts are targeted at covering the expenses for the war. If no military action were taken, the present tax rates would be enough and there would be no conflict. If the expansion is inevitable and the money is still needed, it would be still appropriate to give the colonists the opportunity to earn the money they may then pay to Great Britain as a tax – by means of letting the colonist sellers conduct trade on a free competition basis, without restraint from the side of monopolists from Great Britain.
If the policy that has been just suggested were pursued, the chance of eliminating the armed conflict and retaining peace in the two countries would be considerably higher.
Reflect
The secret of relations of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings was the subject for discussion since the publication by James T. Callender in the newspaper in 1802. The article was a result of a personal offence of the journalist, so at first there was no attention to the point; more than that, Thomas Jefferson refused to comment the issue during all his life. Thus, the issue was considered by his family who denied the possibility of relationships of Jefferson and his slave Sally.
However, in the context of the present discussion another factor comes to the fore – the President who himself proclaimed freedom and was the icon of liberty for the country at the beginning of its existence did not free his slaves, and Sally in particular. It is possible to judge of this action as a hypocritical one since the fight for freedom was just won, the abolitionist movement has already emerged, so it would be really appropriate for the President propagating freedom to show it on his own example.
George Washington was a wonderful, inspiring example of a leader for the state; his studies of Enlightenment taught him to treat people with respect and equality. His friendly and close relations with the troops he commanded won him respect and love of the soldiers; he was recognized for having “maturity of judgment”, “prudence”, he was “cool in action” and “self-possessed”. For sure these were the qualities necessary for the newly-born nation and this was what he brought to the Presidency becoming the forefather of the United States of America.
Bibliography
Public Broadcasting Service. Rediscovering George Washington: Qualities of Mind and Character, Web.
The UK Parliamentary Archive, No Taxation without Representation, Web.
Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account, Web.
US Department of State, Parliamentary taxation of colonies, international trade, and American Revolution, 1763-1775, Web.