I am primarily thinking about the culture in early 1770s America, where those in the British colonies enjoyed a rather “hands-off” approach by their British Empire masters by 2019 standards for sure. With no income tax, the only recent tax that upset the colonies was the Stamp Act that would result in a 2% tax. What would 2019 Americans give for that level of taxation?
What set the stage for the culture in the 1700s to have a “default” of no or little taxation was the life lived in the Americas from the 1607 Jamestown (Virginia) and 1620 Plymouth (Massachusetts) initial settlements in the New World. From this point forward, with the abundance of unsettled land and distance from the primary mother country (after the Dutch were forced out of New Amsterdam) made the typical feudalistic setup very difficult. Settlers were true owners of the land and saw the value of private property. They were all “self” employed, working to provide value to others in the region to barter and trade with as necessary. Whenever there were attempts to utilize the “state” to impose tyranny, new or higher taxes, monopolies, and restrictions, there was an appropriate response by people shaped by their new-found beliefs and life, Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia (1676), Leisler’s Rebellion in New York (1689), and Morris’ Rebellion in New Jersey (1699).
By 1707 when Great Britain was formed out of a combined England and Scotland, a world power emerged and the American colonies was still just a backwater, out-of-sight, out-of-mind project. There were leaders in the British Empire that realized that possibly the best way for the colonies to grow and prosper (which in turn would benefit the British Empire) was to practice a hands-off approach and let the colonies spontaneously develop. This extremely beneficial policy ended with the French and Indian War (1754–1763), but the expectations had already been set over the past 150 years.
By the way, the culture of 1750 Americas with all these pioneering families, does NOT match the culture of the United States today, no way, no how. This is not something we can revert to with a flip of a switch. The reset towards a life of liberty for families will take generations with a risk of political evils and or genocide at every turn. This is a most difficult road.
Back to 1750, let there be no doubt that the aggressor in the French and Indian War was the English. It turns out that the claims of the “Ohio Company”, directed by the royal governor of the colony of Virginia Dinwiddie, that the other side of the Appalachian Mountains belonged to England. Knowing that another world super power was probably unaware of this claim, Dinwiddie asked for advice from the British Crown and did not act until 1753. At that time, a young British officer was selected to carry the message on this “diplomatic” mission.
Below you will find how the Mount Vernon historical organization describes this event:
In 1753, Lieutenant Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia ordered a young, ambitious 21-year old George Washington on a mission deep into the Ohio Country to confront the French. Washington’s account of his journey to Fort Le Beouf and back made Major Washington a celebrity on both sides of the Atlantic. In 1754 Washington’s surprise attack upon a small French force at Jumonville Glen.
It turns out that the Ohio Company had yet to build anything on their claimed land and so Washington’s off-the-record mission in 1753 involved identifying a location to build a fort. The British were intercepted by the French during this first mission and they were promptly sent back across the mountains with a letter from the French that denied British claims.
The Virginia governor then decides to form a 300 man volunteer force and then promoted the young George Washington from major to Lt. Col. Washington then leaves with 186 of these men to go build a fort quickly.
About 25 miles from the location Washington had in mind for a fort, an Indian ally cautioned him with news of a French force of unknown numbers were in the area. Washington decided to entrench his troops, and then found out that less than 50 French troops were approaching Washington’s 150+ (there has been desertions along the way due to low pay and running out of rum).
Washington’s orders were to act only on the defensive unless their passage through this territory or building of the fort is forcefully resisted. Washington instead decides on a preemptive strike with 40 men, 20 Indian allies against 33 French soldiers who were unarmed eating breakfast. The French obviously did not expect violence since they had no sentries posted. Their mission was with peaceful intentions.
Unfortunately, for the colonists in the Americas, this mistake would launch a war that the British Empire would then attempt to recover their expenses from, in the way of new taxes levied to provide for their “safety”.
Sad, isn’t it, that the empire’s aggression, the political ineptitude of political players and their military leaders leads to war of deaths and debt that is then born by those within the empire’s control. This innovative project where people were able to coexist in a land peacefully and without state coercion were about to see their world turned upside-down.
Stay tuned for “Part 2” where I hope to bring both the ramp-up to revolution over the next 25 years (1750-1775) as well as the end result of the quest for independence into focus, and how the dreams of the 20% of the people that were for independence, liberty and freedom were hijacked resulting in a culture in 1790 that involved the very things they were fighting against:
… tyranny, new or higher taxes, monopolies, and restrictions …
Also in “Part 2”, I hope to offer my own general experiences of where an innovative project’s dreams were hijacked by political and organizational forces bent on expediency and short term gains.
I have a two in mind, one in business and one in ministry, that I have personally participated in. The parallels are very interesting!
Stay tuned
-SF1