By Brian Freeman
Scholars have long debated whether the American Revolution was a social or political event. However one argument that can be made is the American reaction and view of the Revolution is well known. The British reaction and view of the American Revolution seems to be lost in history. If one truly wants to understand the American Revolution both sides must be observed. To understand the British reaction to the American Revolution one must look at each individual act and determine the response and consequences of British political leaders of the time. We must further look at each individual and determine the response to it and the consequences of each action. The British reaction to the American Revolution consisted of confusion and consequences. There was confusion among Parliament and the king and consequences that would occur by there leadership.
The Seven Years War with France established Britain as the world’s leading colonial power and left her with vastly increased territories in the New World. However, the victory caused two very serious problems for Britain. The first problem was that the victory made Americans feel they no longer had anything to fear from the French or Indians. Yet because the Seven Years War victory was not overwhelming for the British government, they felt the need to station ten thousand troops in the colonies just in case of French revenge and Indian depredations. Secondly, the British were starting to feel the strain of debt that often follows war. In order to raise money to pay off these costly debts, British leaders began to pass a series of taxes, acts, and other laws which caused a massive uproar from the colonists who were forced to pay and abide by these taxes and laws.
The first tax passed in 1733, was the Molasses Act, which put heavy taxes on imported molasses, except that from the British controlled West Indies. The colonial response was one of a subdued, prospering nation. It was George Grenville Prime Minster at the time that first proposed a new Revenue Act or as the colonists would call it the Sugar Act. In Grenville’s opinion the colonists, “had contributed very little to the war effort” and felt; the tax was fair, after all the Americans were paying for their defense. This act was clearly placed on the colonists for British profit; mercantilism at its best. More money would be pumped into Britain’s economy if the sugar industry, British nobleman, and the investors thrived.
The Sugar Act was very ineffective because of colonial smuggling. The smuggling eventually forced George III and Parliament to pass the Stamp Act, so that the colonist would agree to its fairness. Christopher Hibbert states that, “Since stamp duties had long been imposed in England, the King presumed to agree that there was no reason at all why Parliament, in the proper exercise of its duties as the supreme constitutional authority in the Empire, should not impose such duties in America.” The English public represented by the English newspapers took notice of Parliaments action and, “were quite as satisfied as was the King to its fairness and propriety.” The American colonists failed to see the fairness of new taxes and there were those inside Britain who did not agree with the Acts. There were those in the British Parliament that argued against the acts. The question of American taxation divided the politicians in a similar way. According to Richard Pares, “there were many who thought all general principles of no taxation without representation beside the point.” William Pitt the elder made a very powerful speech in which he protested that, “England should not take money out [of] the American’s pockets without their consent.” Pitts speech would help lead to the eventual reduction in the tax but reduction in the tax would not be enough for the colonist. American complaints about the cost and inconvenience of billeting the soldiers sounded like gross ingratitude to George III and his successive cabinets, and indeed it was but that was hardly the point. These acts, such as the Molasses Act, the Proclamation of 1763, the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, and the Coercive Acts, combined caused the colonists to be disobedient to the Crown and helped plant seeds of independence.
The colonists continued to rebel against the King but the Boston Tea Party was the one key-event of the Revolutionary War. With this act, the colonists started the violent part of the revolution. It was the first try of the colonists to rebel with violence against their own government. On the night of December 16, 1773, bands of disguised Bostonians boarded three ships anchored in their harbor and feverishly dumped 342 crates of British tea into the water. The Boston vandals even rowed boats into the harbor the morning after, and seeing where the tea still floated, beat it "with oars and paddles" to ensure its destruction. The Boston colonists were tired of the taxes and thought they could defend themselves. The colonists wanted the British out so they resisted all the taxes. Though other cities had resisted the landing of the tea, Boston's measures were the most forceful. The Parliament was thrown into shock and anger with the news. One member proclaimed that "the town of Boston ought to be knocked about their ears and annihilated." Parliament’s Tea Act was supposed to solve problems, not inflame them. The Tea Act was passed to help the near-bankrupt East India Company win a monopoly to export tea to the colonies. The Crown would collect a small duty on the transactions, and the colonists would get their tea cheaper than even the smugglers' brew.
In Parliament, the new Prime Minster Lord North, reflecting the king's wishes, laid out a series of acts intended to punish the Americans. Since Boston had been the "ringleader in all riots" with regard to opposing British Acts, North began with the proposal of closing the Boston Harbor. The British responded by passing the Coercive Acts. The acts main duty was closing the port of Boston. It would remain closed, not only until Bostonians paid for the jettisoned tea, which amounted to ten thousand pounds sterling, but until they showed "peace and obedience" in their conduct.
The Boston embargo would be accompanied by new rules for governing Massachusetts. The Crown would run things which would obliterate all self-government. Even town meetings would be subject to written consent from the royal governor. However, some in Parliament suggested the proposed punishment was too harsh. Lord North counter replied stating: "The Americans have tarred and feathered your subjects, plundered your merchants, burnt your ships, denied all obedience to your laws and authority; yet so clement and so long forbearing has our conduct been that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course." Edmund Burke who according to Randolph Adams, “was sincerely sympathetic with the aspirations of the American colonies” made an eyebrow-raising suggestion to repeal the Tea Act. Burke felt that repealing the acts would be "the remedy to bring peace and quietness and restore authority," Though he believed the Americans "cannot resist the force" of England, he thought North's solution would cause "wranglings, scuffling and discontent." The prominent British Whig statesman Charles Fox agreed. "The only method by which the Americans will ever think they are attached to this country will be by laying aside the right of taxing," Fox told the Commons. Fox pleaded with his peers to "consider whether it is more proper to govern by military force or by management." The words of Burke and Fox would not be heard and Lord North continued to punish the American Colonists. Wilfred Prest states that, “in fact Lord North received overwhelming support, from both within and outside Parliament for the coercive measures which he introduced in response to the Boston Tea Party.” However, because Parliament passed Lord North’s Acts it forced the colonists to call the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia. A terrible snow ball effect occurred and war was inevitable.
The Boston Tea Party and the reaction of the British Empire to use force only made the colonies situation worse. George III and Lord North encouraged by strong public opinion and by the mood of a supportive Parliament decided to send combat troops to manage the colony rebellion. Edward Gibbon who just started work on his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, spoke for many when he declared, “I am more and more convinced that we have both the right and the power on our side, and that though the effort may be accompanied with some melancholy circumstances, we are now arrived at the decisive moment of persevering or of losing for ever both our trade and empire.” Gibbon would find much like his fellow Britain’s who supported to combat the rebellion would come to regret their actions.
General Thomas Gage would be the first to land America to combat the rebellion. General Gage suggested that the colonists, “talk of taking up arms would go no further than words.” Gage’s view of the colonist was shared by many in Parliament. It was not long after General Gage landing before he would alarmed by the growing unrest he found. He reported in a letter to Parliament, “I don’t mean in Boston but throughout the country.” He went on to say, “If you think ten thousand men enough send twenty; you will save both blood and treasure in the end.” Parliament did not oblige Gage by sending as many men as he had hoped for; but they did send three generals to assist him. Immediately upon landing, all three generals were disturbed to find thousands of colonists had been assembling in camps around Boston, most of them still wearing the homespun clothes in which they had left their farms. Lord North after hearing the reports was quoted as saying, “I know that they make me tremble.” The Battle of Bunker Hill was one of the first battles of the war. The disorganized and heavily outnumbered Americans suffered over four hundred casualties. The British suffered more than the Americans with a more severe number of casualties reaching over one thousand. Among the large number of casualties, the British also lost sixty-three officers from being wounded and twenty seven from being killed. General Clinton commented: “Officers told me they could not command their men and I never saw so great a want of order.” The British had won the battle of Bunker Hill, but the American’s had shown themselves to be far from being “very unfit for war” as it had been suggested by George III.
When the Second Continental Congress convened in May 1775, the delegates drafted the Olive Branch Petition to the crown as an attempt at reconciliation. The Congress had hoped that the word of the bloodshed at Bunker Hill would inspire the King to at least negotiate with the colonists. King George III refused to receive the Olive Branch Petition by instead issuing the Proclamation of Rebellion which requires action against the "traitors". Solomon Lutnick argues that King George III and Lord North had to reject the Olive Branch Petition, “for it was made by the same session of the Continental Congress that had turned down the North proposal.” The King’s rejection was important to the Colonial radicals because it gave them the opportunity they needed to push for independence. The rejection of the Olive Branch Petition polarized the issue in the minds of colonists. It seemed to show them that they could either submit unconditionally or gain complete independence with no other option. George III had good intentions when he rejected the Olive Branch Petition. George III feared the breakup of his large empire. King George III saw the American rebellion as more than just a political problem but "as a private quarrel between himself and his ungrateful children, the American colonists". He had the broad support of the country and Parliament for the war, but neither he nor his ministers were able to grapple with the problems of controlling a vast overseas empire.
The British would find huge impossibility of controlling a war three thousand miles away. The reports of the battles first arrived as rumors weeks after they had occurred. Instructions from the government took six to ten weeks to get to America, and the ships taking supplies and reinforcements had to sail against prevailing winds often arriving in unintended ports. Most importantly at the beginning of the Revolutionary War there were approximately 48,647 men in the regular British Army. Of this number, 39,294 were infantrymen, 6,869 were cavalrymen, and 2,484 were artillerymen. Within North America only 8,580 in eighteen regiments of infantry covered a distance from Newfoundland to Florida while the overwhelming majority was located in Boston. George F.Scheer and Hugh F. Rankin state:
“The King now recluctantly admitted that a state of rebellion did exist and that a vast army would be required for America. Conscious that Great Britain was not likely to provide sufficient manpower, he considered a scheme for hiring twenty thousand Russian mercenaries, but Catherine of Russia refused to make a deal.”
In order to gain more troops the British government shorted the terms of enlistment, offered bounties to volunteers and pardon to malefactors. It had also been decided to lower the standards of physical fitness which had in any event never been higher and to also impress convicted smugglers as well as all disorderly persons who could not, upon examination, prove themselves to exercise and industriously follow some lawful Trade or Employment. Despite all the changes made in order gain more troops the enlistment number was disappointingly low. The Cabinet decided they would have to look to Germany for the men and in 1775 five regiments of Hanoverians became mercenaries for the British Empire. Opposition soon strongly protested against the use of mercenaries. The Middlesex Journal angrily reported, “that the Government was forced to employ foreigners, if it this were a genuine English war, the hiring of mercenaries would not have been necessary.” Most disturbing of all was the British Navy’s ability to recruit personnel. Sailors were reluctant to go to America, especially when merchant ships paid better wages, offered better living conditions, and held fewer dangers to life and limb. The British Navy was forced to order press gangs which was the act of compelling people to serve in the military, usually by force and without notice.
The real blame for British failure in the American Revolution may have lay higher up in the leadership. Lord North was a hopeless war leader, as he himself was quick to recognize; but his frequent requests to resign were brusquely rejected by George III. North on one occasion wrote to the King stating, “your Majesty service requires a man of great abilities, who can choose decisively, and carry his determination authoritatively into execution. . . I am certainly not such a man.” King George III would not hear any talk of resignation and encouraged North. The King stated to North in a letter, “you must not allow thoughts of resignation to take hold. I love you as a man of worth,” he assured, “and I esteem you as Minster.”
The Battle of Saratoga is considered to be the major turning point of the American Revolution. This battle proved to the world that the fledgling American army was an effective fighting force capable of defeating the highly trained British forces in a major confrontation. As a result of this successful battle, the European powers took interest in the cause of the Americans and began to support them. The unexpected surrender of General Burgoyne and his five thousand men at Saratoga in New York during October of 1777 encouraged France, Spain, and eventually Holland to enter the war on the American side. While the Americans continued to gain support for their war, Britain remained in diplomatic isolation unable to persuade other powers such as Austria and Russia to join. The French involvement posed serious problems for King George III and Lord North as the threat of the renewed war surfaced. The French would certainly try to seize the West Indian sugar islands. Because of the French threat, the British were forced to withdraw troops from continental America to reinforce the sugar producing islands which were considered more valuable. The king had already expressed the sensible opinion that should a war against France become inevitable, “the only means of making it successful” would be to withdraw most of the troops from America and employ them against the French and Spanish settlements. The king went on to say, “if we are to be carrying on a land war against the rebels and against those two powers it must be feeble in all parts and consequently unsuccessful.” Also the new French, Spanish, and American alliance combined naval strength which now more easily outnumbered that of the British Fleet. The British Fleet had already had problems bringing supplies for the war effort.
It was a combination of these factors which forced many who had previously supported the war to change their mind to not supporting the war. Edward Gibbon who earlier supported the war stated, “I shall never give my consent to exhaust still further the finest country in the world in this prosecution of a war from whence no reasonable man entertains any hope of success. It is better to be humbled than ruined.” While surrender of Saratoga changed views some looked to blame. The Gazetteer one of London’s most popular newspapers reported, “The battle at Saratoga was not lost in America, but, as for all other losses, the blame was to be found in London.” Furthermore, it contended that it would be a “national suicide” for England to continue the American War. In the Parliament many fought for the war to end. Lord Chatham, despite his old age and infirmities, stood up and delivered one of the most passionate speeches.
“No man thinks more highly than I of the virtue and valor of British troops; I know they can achieve anything except impossibilities; and the conquest of English America is an impossibility. . . You cannot conquer America. . . You may swell every expense and every effort still more extravagantly. . . traffic and barter with every pitiful prince that sells his subjects to shambles of a foreign power; your efforts are forever vain and impotent, doubly so from this mercenary aid on which you rely, for it irritates to an incurable resentment the minds of your enemies. . . If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I would never lay down my arms, never - never – never!”
George III with all the pressure of those wanting to end the war would not change his view and is often accused of obstinately trying to keep Great Britain at war with the revolutionaries in America, despite the opinions of his own ministers. George III refused to allow outside mediators or professional politicians to develop exit strategies from the conflict either by recognizing the independence of the colonies or developing terms of disengagement which were advantageous to Britain.
The Battle of Yorktown was the climax of the Revolutionary War. The combined forces of George Washington, Admiral de Grasse, General Rochambeau, and General Lafayette were enough to converge on the largest concentration of British forces, overtake them and force them to surrender. The battle of Yorktown, the last major battle of the American Revolution, was the final colonial victory that gave America the final boost towards the step of independence. The surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia, on the 19th of October, 1781, marks the close of the American Revolution War. Though peace had yet to come, the final treaty was not to be ratified until two tears later; the impact of surrender was recognized by England’s civil and military leaders, but not by the King. George III continued to assure Government speakers in the House of Commons that the unfortunate events at Yorktown had been brought about by the interference of the French. He declared, “A good end may yet be made to this war.” Lord North was not as confident as King George III. Lord George Germain stated when he first brought the news to Lord North that the effect, “was like that of musketball to the breast. He paced up and down the room, exclaiming in mingled horror and relief, ‘O God! It is all over!’” Lord North was right that it was over by the spring of the year 1782. The Commons voted to stop further aggressive operation in America and Lord was forced out of office by a motion of no confidence, resigning on 20 March 1782.
King George III for months after Yorktown spoke bitterly of war. He constantly referred to it with sadness and resentful anger. Casting wide the blame for his country’s humiliation and involving in his condemnation his generals, Lord North and his other Ministers, as well as the inhabitants of that revolted State though never himself.As late as November 1782 he would write to the First Lord of the Treasury:
“I cannot conclude without mentioning how sensibly I feel the dismemberment of America, and that I should be miserable indeed if I did not feel that no blame on that account can be laid at my door, and did I not know that knavery seems to be so much the striking feature of its inhabitants that it may not in the end be an evil that they become aliens to the kingdom.”
The surrender at Yorktown made it very plain that the rebellious colonies would not be brought to heel by military force and with the end of the North Ministry paved the way for peace. It would take more than twelve months to conclude a peace settlement. The peace negotiations were complicated by the involvement of France and other European powers as well as by continued differences between George III and Parliament. The Peace Paris which was what ended the war with France, Spain and the Dutch Republic. The Peace of Paris saw surprisingly little loss of territory for the British Empire other than the loss of the thirteen American colonies. However, France regained Tobago and Senegal while Spain recovered Florida and Minorca. After eight long years of war the Treaty of Paris formally ended the American Revolutionary War between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America. The treaty also finally recognized American Independence. George III may have wished to continue the struggle in America but he was forced to see that the people of Britain had enough of the war. The newspapers of Britain joyful commented on peace and praised American Independence. The William Parker’s General Advertiser found the signing of the treaty a very momentous and huge event in Great Britain’s history. Using type four times larger than normal, Parker’s columns screamed, “PEACE WITH AMERICA!” In double sized type, all capitalized, he joyfully related that the Commons had returned to its senses, ended the American War, “and set England upon her legs again.” The Gazette which had been predominately anti-American reported on the issue of American Independence, “They have fought nobly for it, and have gained it. Long may they preserve it, unviolated by faction or ambition.”
The intransigent King must take as much blame as his ministers for the debacle. King George III refused to end the war because he did not want to lose his empire. The blame for the loss of the American colonies should not rest on the shoulders of King George III. The readers must decide for themselves whether or not with three and a half thousand miles of treacherous sea-journey between London and New York, and a westward-looking America set to grow exponentially over the coming decades, if independence would almost inevitably have come sooner or later. Independence would have came if not under the rule of George III then under the rule of his grand-daughter Queen Victoria. Thanks to the political and physical difficulties of conducting such a huge overseas operation, the world’s greatest power was defeated by a ragged band of revolutionaries.
Primary Bibliography
Adams, Randolph. Political Ideas of the American Revolution. New York: Barnes & Nobles, 1958.
Barkan, Elliott. Edmund Burke on the American Revolution. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966.
Hibbert, Christopher. George III a Personal History. Great Britain: Basic Books, 1998.
Lutnick, Solomon. The American Revolution and the British Press 1775-1783. Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 1967.
Pares, Richard. King George III and the Politicians. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.
Prest, Wilfrid. Albion Ascendant English History 1660-1815. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Scheer, George and Rankin, Hugh. Rebels and Redcoats. New York: World Publishing, 1957.
