Mercantilist Relationship Between the American Colonies and the British Government Essay Example for Free

Mercantilist Relationship Between the American Colonies and the British Government Essay Mercantilism is an economic policy and theory where the government has complete control of trade, both foreign and inside boundaries. This policy was dominant during the 16th, 17th, and late 18th centuries, it demanded a positive balance of trade between the countries it was involved with. There were many policies that were within the theory based upon mercantilism including, building a network of overseas colonies and forbidding them to trade with other nations, forbidding trade to be carried in foreign ships, export as a trade barrier using domestic goods and services competitive against imports, and restricting domestic consumption with non-tariff barriers to trade. The British government established a mercantilist relationship with the American colonies that was to its benefit until 1763 and then the relationship no longer was of economic benefit to the British crown. Prior to 1763 the colonists had no choice but to go along with Parliaments right to take actions on their behalf and the predominance of Britains economic benefits over their personal ones. Seven Years War was the war that altered the parliaments actions, had been intended to regulate trade and nothing else, Parliaments arrangements began to conflict with the colonists interests. This caused the colonies to grow and thrive, by the time the British realized this Americans had already established lucrative trade with other countries. Britain became more aware of this growing â€Å"problem† and began to keep a close eye on the colonies and implemented regulatory policies, the British instituted a series of laws of trade and navigation known as the Navigation Acts. The purposes of these acts were to limit colonial trade to the British only. For this to be accomplished all trading to be done involving the colonists was to be on either English vessels or colonial-built vessels, therefore, if colonists planned to trade with other nations all of their goods had to first be shipped to England. This gave the British the chance to get a hand on the items being traded and to collect revenue from taxation before the products were traded. Another limitation that was set on the colonies was that in order to trade products such as tobacco, sugar, and cotton it had to be done with the British only. When the British would notice the colonies beginning to make profit they would add the product that was causing the increase in revenue to the list of products only to be traded with them. Although there were many restrictions placed upon the colonies, they did not cause as much damage as Britain may have hoped. Benjamin Franklin answered when asked, â€Å"I have never heard any objection to the right of laying duties to regulate commerce; but a right to lay internal taxes was never supposed to be in Parliament, as we are not represented there†. There were even some benefits even to having these regulations, such as a built in market for raw products that they had and the British did not rigidly enforce the trading regulations that were set. Following Great Britain’s achievement of French territory in North America after the end of the French and Indian War allotted the Proclamation of 1763 in October of 1763. The purpose of the proclamation was to establish Britain’s new North American Empire and to stabilize associations with Native North Americans through regulation of settlement, trade, and land purchases. The proclamation kept certain lands for the Indians and prevented the colonies from settling inland. The colonies wished to expand their territory inlands but with the Proclamation of 1763 they were unable to do so, causing massive amounts of interest conflicts. The British seemed to be enforcing this proclamation more so than any other laws placed on the colonies before. Troops were stationed along the frontier to give the colonists’ no control over attempting to expand their population inland. The colonies feared for overpopulation and crowded cities along the coastline. It appeared that the break down of this mercantilist relationship between the United States colonies and Britain along with the split of America from the British Empire was unavoidable. Before the French and Indian war, Britain was having a hard time keeping up with and maintaining regulations that they had placed upon the colonies. The trade laws were inadequately implemented and the colonies were able to go about their own political and economic systems independently. But, with the close of the war Parliament concluded the time of this neglect of enforcement and became more dominate with the colonies in order to reestablish complete control over their trade. Pervious laws that were established to benefit Britain were enforced harshly and new laws were also applied to further benefit the British. This led to animosity between Britain and the colonies because the colonies experienced economic independence for too long a period causing the colonists to have no desire to return to how things used to be. The aggressive application of the Navigation Act to the colonists subdued their manufacturing operations and increased resentment against the British Parliamentary. The severe enforcement of these laws led to inflation and alienation in the colonies, neither of which benefited the British Empire. During this time of strict enforcement there were many more laws and acts placed upon the colonies to restrict their trade and growth. Parliament passed the Sugar and Molasses Act trying to bring the colonies in line with regard to payment of taxes. The Sugar Act reduced the rate of tax on molasses and listed more foreign goods to be taxed including coffee, wines, sugar, and various other goods. The tax on caused the instantaneous deterioration in the rum industry in the colonies. This interrupted the economy in the colonies because it reduced the markets to which the colonies could sell and the amount of currency available to them for the purchase of British manufactured goods. This act, and the Currency Act, set the stage for the revolt at the imposition of the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act of 1765 was a direct tax on documents and articles, this act directly affected all colonists. The law required a stamp to be placed on all printed materials, including legal documents, almanacs, pamphlets, and newspapers. Although this affected all colonists, lawyers, clergymen, and printers felt the wrath of this act the most. Benjamin Franklin stated â€Å"There is not gold and silver enough in the colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year. The before and after of this act set in stone the perceived idea that the mercantilist benefits of the relationship between the colonies and Britain may have run its course. After debate about the collection of taxes due to the Stamp Act was the Quartering Act of 1765. The Quartering Act was part of the intolerable acts; the purpose of this act was only to take back hold of the colonies. The act violated the Bill of Rights, which forbids taxation without representation and the raising or keeping of a standing army without the consent of Parliament; colonies disputed the legality of this Act. In his first speeches in Parliament, Camden said, â€Å"taxation and representation are inseparable; this position is founded on the laws of nature; it is more, it is itself an eternal law of nature; for whatever is a mans own, is absolutely his own; no man has a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or representative; whoever attempts to do it, attempts an injury; whoever does it, commits a robbery; he throws down and destroys the distinction between liberty and slavery. Taxation and representation are coeval with and essential to the constitution†¦Ã¢â‚¬  If the soldiers outnumbered the housing available the colonies were expected to pay the cost of housing and feeding the troop, after the arrival of the troops New York refused to pay for supplies causing the troops to have to stay aboard their ships. Even after attempts to revise the Stamp Act, New York still resisted which led to the repeal of this act and the Stamp Act. With no doubt it seemed that violent hostility would prevail even with any effort to change the Acts making it almost impossible for Britain to establish any hope for a beneficial relationship with the colonies. The steady resistance to the Stamp Act led to it being repealed, which cost the British, â€Å"Suppose a military force sent into America; they will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man to take stamps who chooses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may indeed make one. † This repeal showed the colonists that their resisting the act worked and would put fire to their future revolts considering this worked for them. The British were losing money now and the colonies did not seem to be hurt as badly as would have been hoped by the British. To down play the win that the colonies had just accomplished Parliament set out another act, the Declaratory Act, to serve as a punishment. The Declaratory Act asserted that Parliament had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America in all cases whatsoever. In the context and the word choice in which this was written shows that the act was intentionally clear-cut and to the point. Parliament had the upper hand and the absolute power to make laws and changes to the colonial government, in all cases whatsoever. Caught up in attempting to strip the colonies of their freedoms in order to prevent them from creating a profit, the British were losing money and quite frankly, running out of it. In one final attempt to gain back control of the colonies and make their relationship work Parliament passed the Townshend Act. A colonist identified as Brutus argued against that assumption, stating, â€Å"Nothing can be more flagrantly wrong than the Assertion of some of our mercantile Dons. John Hancock adds, â€Å"Taxes equally detrimental to the commercial interests of the Parent country and the colonies are imposed upon the People, without their consent; Taxes designed for the Support of the Civil Government in the Colonies, in a Manner clearly unconstitutional, and contrary to that, in which till of late, Government has been supported, by the free Gift of the People in the American Assemblies or Parliaments; as also for the Maintenance of a large Standing Army; not for the Defiance of the newly acquired Territories, but for the old Colonies, and in a Time of Peace. This testimony written in a letter was tremendously effective in the efforts to abolish this act placed upon the colonies; there were also the Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, which had its influence on the topic as well. There were twelve letters that were widely read and reprinted throughout the thirteen colonies, and were a major factor in attempting to unit the colonists against the Townshend Acts. Dickenson, the farmer, acknowledged the great power that the Parliament had in concern for the whole British Empire but argued that the taxes that were given to the colonies were for purpose of their own personal gain in revenue rather then what was stated in the books of the acts being for purpose of trade only. Dickinson foresees the possibility of future conflict between the colonies and Great Britain, but urges against the use of violence, â€Å"If at length it becomes undoubted that an inveterate resolution is formed to annihilate the liberties of the governed, the English history affords frequent examples of resistance by force. What particular circumstances will in any future case justify such resistance can never be ascertained till they happen. Perhaps it may be allowable to say generally, that it never can be justifiable until the people are fully convinced that any further submission will be destructive to their happiness. † The colonies boycotted this idea, their boycott, although it failed, gave them the strength to continue to not follow the acts that the Parliament required of them. The British had no way to enforce the collection of taxes so Britain had no choice but to repeal the Townshend Act. Britain was completely unstable and given this, the mercantilist relationship was coming to an end between the United States colonies and the British; the Tea Act would create the breaking point for this relationship. â€Å"An act to allow a drawback of the duties of customs on the exportation of tea to any of his Majestys colonies or plantations in America; to increase the deposit on bohea tea to be sold at the India Companys sales; and to empower the commissioners of the treasury to grant licenses to the East India Company to export tea duty-free. The Tea Act of 1773 caused in turn the Boston Tea Party, which aggravated the British so greatly that they delivered a punishment act. The punishment acts were called the Coercive Acts and also, along with other acts, became part of the intolerable acts the British had placed upon the colonies. The Boston Port Act, The Massachusetts Government Act, The Administration of Justice Act, The Quartering Act, and the Quebec Act were all placed in order for Britain to again attempt to take control over the colonies. The restrictions placed on the colonies by these acts included the closing of the port of Boston, limited the meetings to one meeting per year, allowed the governor to move trails, and attempted to house the British solders. This out lash of over bearing authority over the colonies became known as the main reason that the mercantilist relationship could not continue. Britain’s attempts of harsh leadership and the lack of economic opportunities became great enough to continuously push the colonies away and gave them reason to revolt and not comply. As years passed the interests of the colonies and British began to not be similar in any ways, causing conflicts. The colonists educated themselves in ways that the British had not expected, giving the colonies the upper hand in knowing what they deserved and what was being taken from them. There were no longer any benefits to having a relationship with Britain and the colonists were well educated on this fact and showed their feelings on this aspect in many ways. The mercantilist relationship was no longer making a profit for the British Crown or bringing benefits to anyone; it was causing them to lose money. This loss was apparent after the downfall of both the economic systems after the French and Indian War in 1763.