Santiago Gallego
June 2016
Jean Louis said:” for
someone to possibly enjoy freedom, it requires that everyone can express their
thoughts; the same is needed to conserve it: a citizen, in this state, would
say and would write whatever the laws have not expressly forbidden to say or
write.” By the point you finish reading this essay, you will end up having a
clear idea about the influence that the taxation on the colonists and the idea
of representation on the British Parliament, had on the American Revolution and
War of Independence.
But first of all, you
need to have a clear idea of what was happening before and at that time: the
fact that the British Empire had been in conflict against France and India,
making war among themselves for almost a hundred years, and the fact that
thousands and thousands of miles of water separated the thirteen colonies from
their Motherland, contributed to the fact that the colonists began forging a
strong idea and mentality of self-government: America was a place recently
discovered, which vast extensions of
land full of dangers. It was a place in which no law existed, obliging
the colonists to become survivals and to try to live by themselves. Also, even
though each colony had a governor representing the king and they couldn’t trade
their goods with other countries but the Crown of Britain, they began to govern
themselves by their own laws. They made their own assemblies and only paid
tributes to their own colony, creating a sense of liberty that at the end would
be questioned by the king George III himself.
You have also to keep
in mind that the power of the British Empire was divided into two: the British
Parliament and the King. Following this come the Whigs and the Tories: they
were two types of parties, which each one followed a different “legislative power”.
The Whig party was loyal to the British Parliament power, being a “liberal
party”; on the other side, the Tory party was more loyal to the King’s power
being a “conservative party”. It’s crucial to understand this, because these
parties were the same ones that travelled to America, and later on they had to
do with the American Revolution, as we will see later.
Another factor to
consider is the multiple religious ideas and beliefs. The majority of the
English people that move to America were puritans, being mostly dissenters and
nonconformists, and the fact that they had so many different beliefs and ideas
in mind, at the end, made them create a basic religion approved by all: seeing
how Europe had been in war because of religious beliefs for so long, probably
made them react this way. Around this time there was the theological and
philosophical position called deism, which defended the idea that there exists
a god, which, even though it has created the world, it eventually leaves it
apart, denying the divine providence.
Also bear in mind that
this was somehow related to the Age of Enlightenment, which was present in
Europe at that time, been brought to America with them. This philosophical,
cultural and politic movement defended reason, knowledge and education as a
base of the social progress, but to understand it better and more clearly, you
have to read I. Kant: “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred
immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without
the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not
lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the
guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have
courage to use your own understanding!” [1]
This has much to do
with what the colonists had on their minds, because the ideas the enlightenment
brought, talked a lot about freedom:”For enlightenment of this kind, all that
is needed is freedom. And the freedom in question is the most innocuous form of
all: the freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters.”[2] Seeing
what was going through their minds, when it comes to the point in which they
feel and see they aren’t represented in the Parliament, not having their rightful
freedom to share their opinion, its normal that they start to rebel and even
act violently. An example that reflects this type of reaction is the secret
society of American colonists called, the Sons of Liberty, which became the
main group involved in the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party. This same
organization sometimes seemed as a mob, was formed particularly for several
reasons: to fight taxation from the British government, and to defend and
protect the rights of the colonists.
Also, around this time,
there was the theological and philosophical position called deism, which
defended the idea that there exists a god, which, even though it has created
the world, it eventually leaves it apart, denying the divine providence.
Against the taxes they
were being given by England, the colonists tried to use The Petition of Right
(1628):” it is declared and enacted by a statue made in the time of the reign
of King Edward I, commonly called Stratutum de Tellagio non Concedendo, that no
tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by the king or his heirs in this realm,
without the good will and assent of the archbishops, bishops, earls, barons,
knights, burgesses and other the freemen of the commonalty of this realm;” [3]This
clearly shows that, supposedly, the English Parliament couldn’t demand the
colonist to pay taxes, even if it was for the sake of the Crown. More clearly,
this Petition continues saying that “no person should be compelled to make any
loans to the king against his will, because such loans were against reason and
the franchise of the land;” [4]
The problem was that,
even though there were loyalists in the colonies and those in Britain who
continued to sympathize with the Americans, there needed to be a debate between
both the colonies and Britain. Although the colonists refused to pay taxes
because they weren’t represented in the British Parliament, the Englishmen
continued adding taxes, with the “excuse”, that indeed, the thirteen colonies
were been indirectly represented and kept in mind at the hour of imposing
taxes.
As Montesquieu says,
“in the colonies themselves there were two debates; first between the colonial
governors, the representatives of the imperial authority, and the spokesmen for
the colonial elites; and the second between divergent groups within the
colonial elites as to the point at which to abandon attempts to find a solution
through a recasting of the imperial relationship and those who increasingly saw
no alternative to total independence.” While, through time, the majority was in
favor of a revolution, there was a minority of people who kept being loyal to
the crown. For example, Daniel Dulany, a man who, maybe because he had been
educated in England, “never wavered in his belief that, although the British
parliament had no right to tax the colonies internally, it had the right of
external taxation for the benefit of the empire as a whole.”[5] It was this sentiment which eventually
brought him into the loyalist camp.
There is a point in
which the colonists are true, and this is that not a single actual elector in
England might be immediately affected by taxation in America, imposed by a
statue which would have a general operation and effect on the properties of the
people of the colonies… “Wherefore a relation between the British Americans and
the English electors is a knot too infirm to be relied on…”[6] Also, as Sir Edward Coke says, the power and
jurisdiction of Parliament is so transcendent and absolute, that it cannot be
confined, either for causes or persons within any bounds.
On the contrary, the
debate continues, having people like Willliam Oitt, which, defending the
argument of the right of the colonists, tries to convince the British of his
opinion: “They are the subjects of this kingdom, equally entitled with yourselves
to all the natural rights of mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen.
Equally bounded by its laws, and equally participating of the constitution of
this free country, the Americans are the sons, not the bastards of England.
Taxation is no part of the governing or legislative power. The taxes are the
voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone.”[7]
There is also the
“question” of what is the limitation of what the Parliament can do: can the
British impose them any taxation they want? It is said that the limitation or
“deadline” of the real authority, was the first and essential principle of all
the gothic systems of government that were established in Europe. Max Beloff
himself made himself questions which we are sometimes asking nowadays: “Why do
men obey government? What are the limitations to such obedience? Can
sovereignty be divided? Is self-determination compatible with a wider
allegiance?” [8]
Going back to
Montesquieu “England was, after all, perhaps the only country in the universe,
in which political or civil liberty is the very end and scope of the
constitution”. This clearly means that, after what the British had done,
imposing taxes like The Sugar Act and The Stamp Act, it was creating a big
contradiction to the foundations of their own Constitution on which it was
based on.
When it comes to the
“violent” reaction the colonists began to have at one point, making boycotts
and revolts against British soldiers and supplies, the commentaries on the Laws
of England talk for themselves: “The fifth and last auxiliary right of the
subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their
defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by
law.”[9] The Commentaries continue saying:”These
rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of
personal liberty, and of private property.” [10]
This clears many
doubts, because there is the question of if the colonists had the right to
revolt against its own Mother Land. For the colonists its clear, but for the
British Parliament, some say it is a well-earned act for an imprudent and
inexperienced change from the Parliament. The Americans had the right to
petition the king to reject the problems caused, but because the king and the
Parliament didn’t change their minds, the colonists had no other option but to
raise in arms. “And lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated
or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the
regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to
the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and
lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.
For all of us have it in our choice to do everything that a good man would
desire to do; and are restrained from nothing, but what would be pernicious
either to ourselves or to our fellow citizens.”[11]
It is outstanding the
fact that the colonists decided to confront against the greatest army that
existed at that time in the whole world. It was probably the idea of losing
their freedom, the one that kept them going forward, but it all began when they
saw their rights in danger: it was the crisis first originated by the Stamp
Act, the one that “woke” and united the different thirteen colonies, in a way
that no other act had done ever before.
I think that the motto “No taxation without
representation” is the center of all the problems: the reason why the Americans
began the revolution was because they weren’t directly represented on the
Parliament, therefore, the British could not have obliged them to pay the
taxes, but in the contrary, the Parliament had the absolute value to change and
make external taxes for the benefit of the empire. So the question is, which
comes first, the absolute power of the Parliament, or the freedom of the people
it’s supposedly representing? In my opinion, the colonists were right to fight
for their freedom, because it is of their freedom the British Constitution its
made of. And also, if they would had let the British crown impose them those
taxes, what was the limitation of Englishmen on imposing them more taxes. If
they wouldn’t had revolt against them at that time; one, they didn’t care much
of their freedom; or two, with the pass of time, they would have realize that
it had all gone to far, and clearly they would had done the same with the only
difference of the pass of time: “For all of us have it in our choice to do
everything that a good man would desire to do; and are restrained from nothing,
but what would be pernicious either to ourselves or to our fellow citizens. So
that this review of our situation may fully justify the observation of a
learned French author, who indeed generally both thought and wrote with the
spirit of genuine freedom.” [12]
In conclusion, the
American Revolution had not only been the legal origin of the young nation, but
of the moral values and hopes of the Americans.
Sources and books used for the Extended Essay.
1. Gallego
García, Elio A. Common law. El
pensamiento político y jurídico de Sir Edward Coke. Madrid: Ediciones
Encuentro, 2011.
2.
The
Petition of Right (The Petition Exhibited to His Majestie by the Lordes
Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in this present Parliament assembled concerning
divers Rightes and Liberties of the Subjectes: with the Kinges Majesties Royall
Aunswere thereunto in full Parliament.)
3. De
Lolme, Jean Louis. Constitución de Inglaterra. Madrid: Centro de Estudios
Constitucionales, 1992.
4.
Max, Beloff (Ed).
The debate on the American Revolution. Dobbs Ferry, New York: Sheridan House,
1989.
5. Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of
England. The University of Chicago Press, 1979. (A Facsimile of the First Edition
of 1765-1769).
6. Wood,
Gordon S. La revolución norteamericana
(Original title: The American Revolution). Mandadori, 2002.
7. Walter Davis
Studio. The Founders Constitution. Online Library of Liberty. Last modified April 10, 2014.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/vol-1-major-themes
[1] Immanuel Kant. An Answer to a
Question: “What is enlightenment?” Konigsberg, Prussia, 30th September, 1784.
[2] Immanuel Kant. An Answer to a
Question: “What is enlightenment?” Konigsberg, Prussia, 30th September, 1784.
[3] Gallego García, Elio A. Common law.
El pensamiento político y jurídico de Sir Edward Coke. Madrid: Ediciones
Encuentro, 2011. (The Petition of Right).
[4] Gallego García, Elio A. Common
law. El pensamiento político y jurídico de Sir Edward Coke. Madrid:
Ediciones Encuentro, 2011. (The Petition of Right).
[5] Considerations on the
Property of imposing Taxes in the British colonies for the purpose of raising a
Revenue, By Act of Parliament.
[6] Considerations on the
Property of imposing Taxes in the British colonies for the purpose of raising a
Revenue, By Act of Parliament.
[7] Speech on the debate on the
Address, House of Commons.
[8] Questions from Max Beloff. London,
March 1989.
[9] Blackstone, William. Commentaries
on the Laws of England. The University of Chicago Press, 1979. (A facsimile of
the first edition of 1756-1769).
[10] Blackstone, William. Commentaries
on the Laws of England. The University of Chicago Press, 1979. (A facsimile of
the first edition of 1756-1769).
[11] Blackstone, William. Commentaries
on the Laws of England. The University of Chicago Press, 1979. (A facsimile of
the first edition of 1756-1769).
[12] Blackstone, William. Commentaries
on the Laws of England. The University of Chicago Press, 1979. (A facsimile of
the first edition of 1756-1769).
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario