The Conflict Between Great Britain and Her North American Colonies Economic Was Economic in Origin

Joe’s DBQ 1

The conflict between Great Britain and her North American colonies economic was, to a great extent, economic in origin; however, played a role to be reckoned with, indicating it was rooted in political or social controversies and differences was both an orthodox reason that seemed reasonable and more compelling to the people lived in the colonies and a reflection of people’s awareness of the importance of liberty.

First and foremost, the writs, acts, regulations that infuriated Colonial people were mostly related to economic benefits and rights of them, and people in the colonies were fighting against the Britain for their own economic interests. Stated in Document B, the Stamp Act Congress, the meeting of representatives from different colonies, declared that under no circumstance can a tax be imposed to them without their consent or representation of them, meaning that “No Taxation without Representation”. This shows that the colonial people were angry at the Great Britain partially because of the seemingly unfair regulations and taxations over the colonies. Although the flag carried by those advocates was about their natural rights, the underlying reason for the actions were economic: the Great Britain was hurting and limiting the economy of the colonies, hurting people’s economic benefues. In Document D, Gottfreid Achenwall points out that one feature of Colonial Commerce was that foreign trade was generally restricted, and the trade existed at that time was with colonies’ suzerains. Suggesting that the trade was controlled and limited by the colonial powers, this hard and fast fact strongly indicates that colonies were economically oppressed by their suzerains. A limited economy would very likely cause resistance and detestation from colonies towards the suzerains.

 Furthermore, the people who were the most active and radical advocates of the resistance towards the suzerains were people whose rights, mostly related to economic interests, were harmed and people whose careers were highly related to manufacturing. According to Document C, at least 9 out of 22 people who were called “sons of liberty” were merchants, workers, or occupied in jobs that were greatly affected by the general economy. This means that people concerned with economy were a great power of the independence and resistance to Britain. The arguments provided in Document E were from an American farmer who was repressed by the economic regulations and taxes of the Great Britain, saying that Americans were on the verge of being slaves of the Britain, suggesting that the colonies were economically controlled by the Great Britain and needed to change this situation.

Despite the fact that economic concerns were the mainstream of the power that led to the independence of the America, the political and social controversies were also, undoubtedly, played a role in the propaganda of the severe situation Americans were in and the importance of independence. Although, as stated in the previous paragraphs, the main reason was economic interests, Americans needed a better reason that was more orthodox to convince the public that independence was immediately and necessarily needed in that situation. Moreover, the independence was also a reflection of colonial people aspiring the rights that they born to have. In Document A, Commager asserts that the Writs of Assistance was “illegal” since “Everyone with this writ may be a tyrant.” This shows that the Americans was infuriated by the rude laws that allowed officers to violate their liberty and property. The final output of the First Continental Congress, the Declaration of Colonial Rights and Grievances”, announced that colonial people should have the same rights that Englishmen had. This is a sign showing that colonial people were aware that Britain are not equally treating the colonies and the Britain itself.