Story of American Independence - II

To summarize the story so far, using words from Barbara Tuchman’s book, The March of Folly:

“The British believed… in imperial terms as governors to the governed. The colonials considered themselves equals, resented interference and sniffed tyranny in every breeze over the Atlantic.”

The Americans soon realized they could hit England where it hurt, without firing a shot: by reducing British imports and start manufacturing themselves. The slide down the slippery slope had started. England’s response was “asserting a right you know you cannot exert”. The “terrible encumbrance” of pride and principle were beginning to trump pragmatism. Of course, some of the thinking was rational: if they let the Americans act this way, would the Irish do the same? And so, from here on, every act on either side was misinterpreted:

“(The Americans) assumed the British were more rational, just as the British government assumed they were more rebellious, than was true in either case.”

And as more acts of American “dissent” went “unpunished”, it added to American belief that Britain was “despotic in nature and ineffectual in execution”.

Next comes the East India Company connection to this story. The company sold tea in America and critically, owed money to the British government. But the Americans were boycotting British products. Ergo, the British government decided to allow the East India Company to bypass customs and sell in America: without customs, it would be cheaper and so it would sell more. Or that was the idea anyway. It was to go horribly wrong.

One of the recipients of this tea were the sons of Boston’s governor. When they decided to accept consignment, it violated the Americans’ boycott of British goods. And since the violators were related to a British appointee, the reaction was strong: protestors boarded the ship, slashed the tea chests and dumped the contents into the sea. An event now famous as the Boston Tea Party.

The British were outraged: breaking and entering a British ship was an act that could not go unpunished. And so they decided to close down the entire port of Boston.

That was the last straw. Unfortunately (for England), domestically, the war against the Americans never got support: many were outraged at the prospect of an Englishman waging war against another Englishman. Many in the army refused to fight saying that “although a soldier owed unquestioning obedience in foreign war, in case of domestic conflict he must satisfy himself that the cause is just”. Others opposed it saying the war was “unjust in its principles, impractical in its means, and ruinous in its consequences”. As a result, Britain hired foreign mercenaries, a move that provoked revulsion both at home and in America: was Britain now hiring foreigners to kill Englishmen?

Little domestic support; the French were soon backing the Americans; and an ocean separating the places: no wonder then that Britain lost the war and America got its independence.