You say you want a Revolution.....
Were the Founding Fathers motivated more by their ideals or their wallets? What support can you provide for your opinion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Creator
- Hoover
- Dover, PA, United States
- HS Teacher, specializing in American government & politics, as well as World Religions.
9 comments:
This is a question for the eye of the beholder. Personally, I'd like to think they took a ideal standpoint. While the American Revolution led to the development of things in the United States like the first revenue on imports and the National Bank, the revolution also produced the foundation of a national debt. This was probably one of the most clever 'tricks' Hamilton used in order to make the nation a more centralized government and develop concern from the people over the success of the fledgling state.
If a man like Hamilton, who was thought to be a financial genius, wanted to mildly stunt our economy for a period to strengthen the foundation of the government I can't see how he wasn't driven by ideals.
I don't think it's coincidence most of our founding fathers were wealthy. I think the revolution was a way to protect their money. Britain was imposing taxes that made the working class suffer. If the working class was paying Britain and becoming poorer, who were the rich going to get richer from? Without a bottom there can't be a top. By founding their own country they'd be in charge of their own financial affairs without having to work with, through, or for Britain.
"By founding... they'd be in charge of their own... without... Britain."
Doesn't that sum up the ideals of freedom and independence? Yes, they wanted to dictate their own financial plans, but I think the focus of their efforts was on freedom in general. Perhaps the goal was to help the poor to help themselves, but out of the many founding fathers, name those who prospered by helping in the Revolution. People like Salvador, Hale, and Hamilton who were perceived as learned, prosperous men fell victim to the development of the America we now enjoy.
But the root and motivation of the problem was money. The ideals gave them the justification and went hand-in-hand with what they wanted. The colonists were being oppressed, and the reason for oppression was financial issues. The way to escape that was independence. The ideals were a means to saving their wallets. Sure freedom may have become the focus, but the want of freedom came about due to the money issues.
The colonists were being oppressed in terms of financial issues, but Great Britain often caved in under the pressure of unrest that was common in cases like the Stamp Act. The key boiling point was the lack of representation for these taxes. I don't necessarily think they would have had a problem with paying the taxes if they had been offered 'acceptable' representation.
Once again, I reflect of people like Salvador, who was a key financier of the Revolution, and his death for his contributions. Financial motivations may have been a key point, but considering the threat of execution for treason, the cost of the war (both human and monetary), and the lack of military preparedness (that would become an expense) I keep the the sense it was a battle for the ideals of freedom from tyranny. The government itself went directly into debt after its foundation and relied heavily on its membership to fund the state anyway.
But even if represented, the 'tyranny' of Britain would probably ignore colonists pleas to lower the tax anyway. Yes, most of the taxes failed, but that didn't stop them from making new ones. I agree, the war may have become a fight of ideals against tyranny, but I feel that the origin and the first factor of this conflict came from the desire to obtain or keep wealth. You mentioned that another key factor was Britain's tyranny. The tyranny of Britain seems to be mostly a result of money issues as well; taxes were already high in Britain, they just funded a war with France supplying both the colonists and themselves, deep debt, and such.
I'm not arguing the fact that they would have been ignored, simply the institution of a form of representation would have calmed the situation for a period.
I'm going to reference the Quartering Act. Yes, it required a financial aspect in the housing of troops, but the overall problem colonists felt was the obstruction of their rights. Like today, the only quartering of soldiers is family members. This is acceptable, yet obviously a cost on the resources of the family. The difference was the intrusion of a foreign power into the lives of the people, hence removing their ideal liberty.
To say they were inspired by their pockets from the start pushes me to reflect on the Articles of Confederation, which had nearly nothing pertaining to the financial issues the Americans had with Great Britain. It focused on Freedom in aspects of a government of the States, to move at liberty, and to control their own foreign diplomacy.
Even the Declaration of Independence focuses on the need for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and one of the few financially focused portions of the document is simply this: "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent" - focusing on the 'without our consent' as being the key to that short, yet powerful point of Jefferson.
I agree that the key is the idea of "consent." I've often wondered how long the British could have stalled the breakaway of the colonies if they would have given up a little representation. Regardless, I'm sure the break would have happened within 20 years
Post a Comment