The British Empire gained notoriety for its role as a global power between the late
sixteenth and eighteenth century. The Empire’s rule sparked much controversy for the their
subjects who felt Britain treated them unfairly. In Benjamin Franklin’s “Rules by Which a Great
Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One”, Franklin promotes the grievances of colonists and
exposure to their problems. Furthermore, he promotes this problem implicitly by describing the
British Empire satirically.
Franklin displays the unjust treatment of the colonists very early in the passage. He
writes, “whenever the Injured come to the Capital with Complaints of MalAdministration,
Oppression, or Injustice, punish such Suitors with long Delay, enormous Expence, and a final
Judgment
…show more content…
in Favour of the Oppressor. This will have an admirable Effect every Way. The Trouble of future Complaints will be prevented”(Franklin, 6). Franklin’s claim has a dual purpose of bringing to the forefront the oppression the colonists experience and mocking Britain. As a result, Franklin’s audience become exposed to the reality of the colonists.
Additionally,
Franklin exhibits the problem subtly by noting Parliament should side with the oppressors.
Franklin in turn, ridicules the British Empire due to the fact Parliament usually sides with the
oppressors. Franklin continues to point out the needs of the colonists by mentioning taxes; one of
their greatest concerns. In paragraph seven Franklin states “Another Way to make your Tax
odious, is to misapply the Produce of it. If it was originally appropriated for the Defence of the
Provinces and the better Support of Government, and the Administration of Justice where it may
be necessary, then apply none of it to that Defence, but bestow it where it is not necessary, in
augmented Salaries or Pensions to every Governor who has distinguished himself by his Enmity
to the People”(Franklin, 7). Franklin mentions that taxes is one of the colonists greatest concern
because the [parliament imposes them and does not use them for the purposes. Therefore, the
colonists face debt at the so individuals in higher positions can live lavishly. Additionally,
Franklin declaring that the taxes go to governors is satirical of the British government once
more because although he is saying that the taxes should be administered to them in a mocking tone, it is a reality he is exposing. Proponents of the argument may claim that since Franklin is not explicitly saying any of those problems pertain to the colonists that he is not promoting their grievances. However, he points out real actions Britian perform at the expense of the colonists. Therefore, the reader and his audience is aware of the problems the colonists face by saying Parliament should do the opposite to help them since they already do. Overall, Franklin promotes the grievances of the colonists implicitly by describing the way the British Empire runs satirically.
...take, at least in my view. As Kemp states,”If anything, Franklin’s fundamental error was the direct result of his emotional attachment to the Empire and of his naive assumption that men more sympathetic to the colonies might yet rise to positions of power in England.” (Kemp, 94)
Soame Jenyns, a member of the British Parliament from 1741 to 1780, wrote a pamphlet called “The Objections to the taxation consider’d” in 1765 in which he defended the Parliament’s right to tax the American colonies. Jenyns
Soame Jenyns, a member of the British Parliament from 1741 to 1780, wrote a pamphlet called “The Objections to the taxation consider’d” in 1765 in which he defended the Parliament’s right to tax the American colonies. Jenyns is clearly writing this to the colonists to read, almost seemly in a mocking way, as stated in the very first paragraph, “…who have ears but no understanding…” He then goes on to bring up three key points that the colonists have given as reasons not to be taxed by the
...no loyalty to the Crown now, in future conflicts, the colonists may turn against us and become our enemy. Radical action must be taken in order to regulate their behavior. They must recognize the royal authority.
Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers to the United States, was not a patriot but a mere loyalist to England before the dissolution between England and the colonies occurred. Sheila L. Skemp's The Making of a Patriot explores how Benjamin Franklin tried to stay loyal to the crown while taking interest in the colonies perception and their own representation in Parliament. While Ms. Skemp alludes to Franklin's loyalty, her main illustration is how the attack by Alexander Wedderburn during the Privy Council led to Franklin's disillusionment with the British crown and the greater interest in making the Thirteen Colonies their own nation. Her analysis of Franklin's history in Parliament and what occurred on the night that the council convened proves the change behind Franklin's beliefs and what lead to his involvement in the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution.
Of the many circumstances that promoted a developing American identity, British mercantilism and their following regulations on it is of the utmost importance. The British government believed that wealth was power and that a country's economic, military, and political wealth could be measured by the amount of gold or silver in its treasury. To amass this wealth, the British passed laws to regulate the mercantilist system. The Navigation Law conceded that all commerce flowing to and from the colonies could be transported only in British vessels. Other events that infuriated the colonists were the insufficient amount of currency in America as well as Britain's right to nullify any legislation passed by the colonial assemblies. One such thing that encouraged a unity amongst the colonists was Benjamin Franklin's cartoon showing the necessity of a unified American government. [Doc A] Although some may say the mercantilist system was excellent for the colonists, it actually burdened the colonists with annoying liabilities. Mercantilism stifled economic initiative and imposed a rankling dependency on British agents and creditors. With the continued efforts of complete control by the British, the colonists became livid and developed a better sense of their identity as Americans; they knew what had to be done!
In concern to the American Revolution, there are two sides debating its primary cause. One set of historians believe the cause to be ideals and principles. The other set of historians and scholars credit economic and social interests as the primary cause of the Revolutionary War. Historians Jesse Lemisch and Dirk Hoerder used the mobs in colonial cities as evidence of the social concerns of Americans at that time. Another Historian, Arthur M. Schlesinger argued in a 1917 study “that it was the colonial merchants who were chiefly responsible for arousing American resistance to the British; and that although they spoke of principles and ideals, their real motives were economic self-interest: freedom from the restrictive policies of British mercantilism.” This argument is very concrete and is supported by the different legislation that the British Parliament passed after the Seven Years’ War. In fact, an act was passed in 1764 by the Parliament that was instrumental in specifically angering the merchants that played a major role in leading the Americans to independence. That piece of legislation was the Sugar Act which placed a tax on sugar being brought into the colonies. This tax was a significantly less than the one that was logged in the book previously; however, that tax had been ignored for years. The initial response of the merchants to this piece of legislation was anger because this new law cut off their highly profitable smuggling organizations which greatly affected their earnings. Soon after tha...
Prime Minister Robert Walpole had this policy towards the American colonies that basically tried to avoid any strict enforcement of laws and he thought that with this, the colonies would be obedient since they had some freedom
After the Great War for Empire, the British parliament began carrying out taxes on the colonists to help pay for the war. It was not long from the war that salutary neglect was brought on the colonies for an amount of time that gave the colonists a sense of independence and identity. A farmer had even wrote once: “Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world” (Doc H). They recognized themselves as different than the British, so when parliament began passing bills to tax without representation there was an outcry of mistreatment. Edmund Burke, a man from parliament, sympathized with the colonists: “Govern America as you govern an English town which happens not to be represented in Parl...
A new era was dawning on the American colonies and its mother country Britain, an era of revolution. The American colonists were subjected to many cruel acts of the British Parliament in order to benefit England itself. These British policies were forcing the Americans to rebellious feelings as their rights were constantly being violated by the British Crown. The colonies wanted to have an independent government and economy so they could create their own laws and stipulations. The British imperial policies affected the colonies economic, political, and geographic situation which intensified colonists’ resistance to British rule and intensified commitment to their republican values.
John Locke’s philosophy spoke of the reason why the people choose a legislative – to preserve their property. If the government abuses its power and does not create laws within the interest of its people, the people have a right to replace it immediately after they find an alternate form of government. The Patriots were those who had land and wanted to expand their property. The Proclamation of 1763 had become a problem to them. It prohibited them to go beyond land west of the Appalachian Mountains, the land that they had fought for. Most Patriots were the top 5% of the population that were wealthy and owned land. In British tradition, it was important for wealthy families to have a male successor to inherit the fortune and name. This resulted in the expansion of families in the colonies and the dire need of land. Due to this, many Patriots rebelled and moved west of the Appalachian Mountains, disregarding the act. In preparation to a form of government the First Continental Congress in 1774 was the gathering of fifty-five delegates from twelve colonies to e...
These are very strong words from Thomas Jefferson, but they reflect the way these colonists felt. They were angry, and they had every right to be.
The American Revolution was marked by the colonies’ independence from Britain. This separation pronounced a new age marked by a decisive political change in the colonies because of the implementation of the Enlightenment ideals and the continuation of English liberties. However, the American Revolution was considered a conservative movement because it “originated from an effort to preserve the existing liberties of the colonies rather than create new ones” (Strayer, 782). Furthermore, the revolution occurred not on the issue of taxation, but on the issue of representation. The colonists believed autonomy was part of their birthright and as Englishmen along with their economic rights and their “natural rights to life, liberty, and property” (Kramnick, Lockean Liberalism). These two sentiments can be seen in their famous slogan “No taxation without representation”. By challenging their economic interests, their established traditions of local autonomy, and their identity as true Englishmen, the colonists were truly infuriated. Thus the American Revolution didn’t grow out of the social tensions within the colonies but rather from an unexpected effort by the British government to tighten its control over the colonies and ex...
The elite and the upper-class were not unaffected though, with certain men within their ranks even participating in the issue. Benjamin Franklin, a brilliant statesman, created a piece of famous propaganda which depicted a snake severed in many places, reading “Join, or Die” (Document A). Each segment of the serpent’s body has a caption, each representing a colony: “N.E.” being New England in general, “P.” standing for Pennsylvania, and so forth. He suggested that each colony must come together and support the fight against England; moreover, failing to do so, as Franklin puts forth, would result in nothing less than disaster, as no organism can live in so many pieces. Then, still, many acted derisively. Mather Byles, the grandson of influential Puritan minister Cotton Mathers, remarked to a Nathaniel Emmons, “They call me a brainless Tory; but tell me, my young friend, which is better, to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or by three thousand tyrants not a mile away” (Document D). Logically, both arguments seemed rational. These mixed reactions were not because of class differences. Rich and poor alike took up arms against the governing of such an expanse of land by an island already many hundreds of times smaller than it and many miles across the atlantic
It is an undisputable fact that the contribution of such prominent philosophers, writers, political and social activists as Benjamin Franklin and Henry David Thoreau in developing American statehood is tremendous. The literary works of both men can serve as a manifesto of national and personal liberation, a call for building a better society, where each citizen can live and work freely. Indeed, both Henry Thoreau and Benjamin Franklin emphasize the independence and freedom of an individual, but they do so in significantly different ways. These differences can be linked to their different worldview, life positions, philosophies, or interests. Nevertheless, this fact cannot detract from the obvious uniqueness and importance of Thoreau’s and Franklin’s literary heritage.