Resources

Simplified, not to scale map of Philadelphia in 1787 [|Convention Timeline] [|Primary Source Website] [|Adams Family Papers] [|Patriotic Ladies of Edenton]

[] =[]= =British Views of the American Revolution: a Conflict Over Rights of Sovereignty=

Journal Article Excerpt
A CONFLICT OVER RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY** Peter J. Stanlis ROCKFORD COLLEGE From 1763 to 1783 British views of the American Revolution varied and fluctuated constantly. There was no monolithic conviction among Tories, Whigs, or radical eighteenth-century Commonwealth- men, nor among various segments of the British population at large. The central political principles at issue between Britain and her Amer- ican colonies were perceived by only a few men, and even when such men agreed in basic political theory, and held the same conception of empire, they still differed in practical policy. Undoubtedly, the vast range in British views of the American Revolution reflects the usual great differences men always have about complex social, political, reli- gious, and economic problems. In what follows I shall summarize the views of three representative British responses to what was probably the central conflict over first principles of government between Britain and America--the question of sovereignty over America. This differ- ence was manifested in practical politics in conflicts over taxation and representation, revenue and regulation, freedom and subordination, and other related matters. Perhaps no one perceived the central issue of sovereignty more clearly than Francis Bernard, royal governor of Massachusetts Bay from 1760 to 1769. In a letter from Boston, on November 23, 1765, he wrote:
 * ||  || **BRITISH VIEWS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION:

The question [is] whether America shall or shall not be subject to the legislature of Great Britain. . . . All the political evils in America rise from the want of ascertain- ing the relation between Great Britain and the American colonies. Hence it is, that ideas of that relation are formed in Britain and America so very repugnant and con- tradictory to each other. In Britain the American governments are considered as corporations empowered to make bye-laws, existing only during the pleasure of Par- liament; who hath never yet done anything to confirm their establishments, and hath at any time a power to dissolve them. In America they claim. . . to be perfect states, no otherwise dependent upon Great Britain than by having the same King; which, having complete legislatures within themselves, are no way subject to that of Great Britain; which in such instances as it has heretofore exercised a legislative

-191- ||   ||   ||

The Parliament of Great Britain? No, say the Americans. . ., that would be to make them judges in their own cause. Who then? the King? He is bound by charters, or constitutions equal to charters, and cannot declare against his own grants. So. . . there is no superior tribunal to determine upon the rights and principles of the Amer­ ican colonies. . . .1
 * || power over them, has usurped it. In a difference so very wide who shall determine?

Historically, the "superior tribunal" which determined the rights of sovereignty over America was the war of independence. The issue of sovereign rights was precipitated when the Gren­ ville ministry passed the Stamp Act (1765), followed after its repeal by the Townshend Act (1767), both of which the Americans resisted, thus forcing a resolution of sovereignty. British responses to American resistance assumed three possible courses of action: to grant the colo­ nies outright independence; to compel colonial obedience to Parliament through force; or to conciliate the colonies by granting each colonial assembly considerable sovereignty over its internal affairs, including the right of taxation, while maintaining British imperial sovereignty in external affairs. Each of these responses became a basic view of the American Revolution.

During 1774-75, Josiah Tucker, Anglican Dean of Gloucester, preached in favor of granting the American colonies immediate inde­ pendence from Britian. After hostilities began, in a series of pamphlets Tucker argued that it was impossible for Britain to conquer her colo­ nies, that a protracted civil war would be an economic disaster to Brit­ ain, and that since the Americans refused to submit to the jurisdiction of Parliament, it was best "to separate totally from the Colonies." Tucker, a moderate Tory and severe critic of Locke's theory of a re­ vocable social contract, in effect applied Locke's theory by asserting that it was in Britain's economic self-interest to break her contractual relationship with America. //In Four Letters on Important National Subjects// (Gloucester, 1783 ), Tucker expressed satisfaction that America was independent, and lamented that Britain had not "totally cast them off" without war, as it would have "saved both them and us . . . Blood and Treasure." But in 1775 Tucker's scheme was dis­ ... ||
 * I. British Declarations for American Independence**