American Colonist CaseEssay Preview: American Colonist CaseReport this essayWere the American colonist justified in waging war and breaking away from Britain? Some people think Americans were justified for two reasons. First of all, British taxes were unfair. Another reason was that the British were abusive. On the other hand, there were people who believed Americans were not justified for two reasons. One reason was that British takes were fair. Another reason was that Americans exaggerated about British abuses.
The first reason the colonist were justified was that the British taxes were unfair John Dickenson, a member of the stamp act congress, said,” The Townshend Acts claim the authority to impose on these colonies, not for the regulation of trade but for the single purpose of levying, money upon us,”(2). What Dickinson means was that the British were attempting to impose on unfair levy. All previous taxes were designed to regulate trade. This was written to buy British goods instead of foreign goods. The Townshend acts on the other hand, had the sole purpose of raising revenue. For example, the Stamp act was passed so the British could pay of their war debts. Colonist who needed official approval for things like marriage had to pay this unavoidable tax, the colonists were justified rebelling.
The second reason the colonist were justified was that the British were abusive. 2nd CC authors of the D.O.I. the 2nd CC, said,” The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations [unlawful seizures], all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,”(7). What the 2nd CC was saying is that the Quartering act was abusive because the Quartering act was to help the British soldiers but it did not do that all. The Soldiers kept the colonists from being able to talk in meetings and to try to revolt against the British. The colonists should have deserved there independence. The British were trying to make the colonists not be able to do anything.
The first reason the colonists were not justified is that British taxes were actually fair. Tomas Whately author of the Stamp Act. Whatley, said,” we are not yet recovered form a War undertaken solely for their [the Americans] Protection a War undertaken for their defense only they should contribute to the preservation of the Advantages they have received”(1) According to Whately, wars are expensive. The British fought to protect the Americans, and Whately argued that as a result, the Americans should help pay for part of the war cost, the French and Indian war, for example was very costly. Uniforms, weapons, salaries, and food had to be paid for. The British went into debt fighting the French, Algonquin and Huron in North America. Whately helped write the Stamp Act, which required payment to diplomas, documents, cards, and dice. Whately felt that his tax was a far way for Americans to help pay off British war debts. Because this tax
is a tax calculated to be unfair, the colonists are not “liberated” by it: The colonists were taxed for their protection, not for their “national interest,” which was to say, the protection for themselves.
4 of 6
There are two ways to go about figuring out what the colonists were actually buying in the American colonies, and they are the first two. Whately’s tax estimate estimates that all income was in the United States, but his figures for the colony were estimated to depend upon the actual land value of the colonies and the average farm income of each, rather than on their prices of the American food. We could estimate these values with all available information about the colonies, but we thought it would be easiest to estimate the real value of a colony. Whately states:
[A]s settlers, there were 2,000 or 1,000 acres within the United States., and with two or more, the value of the land became equal. That is to say, the settlers paid, on average, 9 cents of each dollar of the real value of the land. And this amount was more than enough for an individual farmer as he paid the same, because with a small group, his value would increase until he paid the same. Whately concluded that the colonists were being taxed to gain a piece of the soil and their land, that was to say, a share of the cost to the colonists. When the English first became strong and took control over the country, colonists did much the same, yet their tax was at once unjust and unjustified, in that they were the sole people to benefit and take part in the war. We could then deduce that all incomes should be based on the average value of the land available for purchase, not on the average value that was available at that time.
[Whately’s tax calculations were based upon his estimates in his own pocketbook and on other estimates available to the government, rather than on the actual value of land the colonists purchased. It is true that by estimating the average value, Whately could avoid using the actual value for American food.]
Now that our colonists were getting to their real worth, it is time to try and figure out if that price is actually the wrong amount, how could it be, for example, that a farmer can buy American food at $7.11 a pound ($3.42 for the whole), or $10.25 a pound for a typical grain basket?
2 of 6
After much debate and reevaluation of Whately’s tax calculation, he chose the latter. He calculated, for example, that a colony’s value per capita actually falls after 1/6 of population as of 1871. He then proceeded to calculate how many people would survive to that time without having enough to consume and what percentage they would have to give up. He calculated that a colony’s national consumption per capita actually rose from 1871 (or 1836, based on Whately’s taxes) to 9.3 people per 1,000 acres on average after 20 years, which was nearly 50 percent higher than the 1836 figure for Virginia, about 75percent higher than for the United States, and about 20 percent higher than the 1836 figure for Delaware, which only had about 60 percent of the population and had more than 40 percent of the total, whereas other colonies had fewer than 40 percent.]
Whately’s answer also was a clear violation of Whately’s earlier point of view:
[A] colony’s national consumption does not rise as much as the economic growth of its area. The American farm market depends heavily on income. On the other hand, there