2G - The reaction of the colonists: the attitude of the colonial elites
Learn why colonial elites opposed imperial measures, how they used assemblies, petitions and economic pressure, and why defending colonial rights did not initially mean agreeing on independence or popular protest.
What the elites defended
Colonial elites included leading merchants, wealthy planters, lawyers and holders of public office. They were powerful within colonial society, but lacked direct representatives in Westminster. Imperial reform could therefore challenge people accustomed to exercising considerable local influence.
Their grievances mixed interests and principles. Merchants objected to trade restrictions and customs interference. Planters and land investors resented restrictions on western opportunity and pressure on credit. Lawyers and printers faced Stamp Act costs. Assembly members feared losing control of taxation and officials' salaries. These specific interests gave force to a wider claim that subjects should not be deprived of property without their consent.
The slogan no taxation without representation usually meant that colonial assemblies should approve colonial taxes, rather than a simple demand for a few American MPs in Parliament. Britain's argument for virtual representation held that MPs served all subjects, including those who could not vote. Colonial opponents replied that their own elected representatives understood local circumstances and had a rightful taxing role. UK Parliament presents both positions.
Consent
Agreement regarded as necessary to make an exercise of authority legitimate. Colonial taxation arguments linked consent to representation in elected assemblies.
It would be too simple to call constitutional arguments a disguise for profit, or to ignore material interests altogether. A merchant's financial grievance could convince him that a constitutional precedent was dangerous. An assembly member could sincerely defend representative government while also defending his own institution's power. Evidence about both is needed to weigh motives.
Organising a constitutional response
Elite opponents used institutions and written arguments to turn grievances into public claims. In 1765 Patrick Henry's Virginia Resolves challenged parliamentary taxation through the House of Burgesses. Newspaper circulation spread arguments across colony boundaries, although versions printed elsewhere included more radical resolutions than the assembly had finally retained. Distinguish the legislature's adopted decisions from everything later circulated in its name. Virginia Humanities explains the resolutions and their circulation.
In October 1765, delegates from nine colonies met at the Stamp Act Congress in New York. Its Declaration of Rights and Grievances affirmed allegiance to the Crown and recognised due subordination to Parliament, while insisting that taxation required consent through colonial representatives. It also defended jury trial and complained about the extension of admiralty jurisdiction. The declaration's text is preserved by Yale's Avalon Project.
These positions were carefully connected. By presenting themselves as loyal British subjects, delegates claimed the liberties they believed British membership guaranteed. They sought repeal through petitions to the king and Parliament. Opposition was substantial, but its formal aim was constitutional redress within the empire.
The Congress also mattered organisationally. It brought colonies together around a common measure despite differences in economy and local politics. Its limited participation and petitioning role show that this was not yet a sovereign national government. Cooperation had advanced; independence had not been declared.
Using economic influence
Merchants could act outside the assemblies by refusing to import selected British goods. Non-importation agreements threatened British manufacturers and merchants with lost sales. Their purpose was to create pressure in Britain for a change in policy: colonial economic choices could become a form of indirect political influence.
The Stamp Act crisis showed how this worked. If fewer orders reached Britain, British commercial interests had a reason to lobby Parliament for repeal. Economic pressure reinforced petitions and made enforcement's costs harder to justify. Political change in Britain also mattered, so repeal cannot be credited to one colonial tactic alone. The Library of Congress documents merchants' non-importation and the Stamp Act Congress.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account