Hubris

Serious studies of the causes of both the American Revolution and the later “Civil War” (sic) must produce the conclusion among scholars that one cannot truly understand the second “civil war” that took place in the middle of the 19^th Century without an in-depth understanding of the causes of the first civil war that took place at the end of the 18^th. Without an appreciation of the nuances as well as the better known and understood origins of the American Revolution all conclusions about the second revolution – the so-called “Civil War” – lack the necessary insight required to produce a true understanding of the origins of that war. For there are simple but little considered and/or understood circumstances that may easily escape even the most knowledgeable and discerning historian, circumstances that should influence the conclusions reached by scholars and, thus, like King Richard III’s lost horseshoe, provide grounds for a reassessment of former conclusions. Below is one such well-known but virtually unaddressed matter that, in my opinion, set the stage for all that came after in both centuries.

The origins of the United States of America appear both obvious and settled. After the Seven Years/French and Indian War (1756 – 1763), the significantly enlarged British Empire, in an attempt to regain a healthy economy and receive recompense for the costs of supporting its American colonies during that war, moved to directly tax those colonies.[1] Now, at first glance, this does not seem problematic or “unfair.” After all, Great Britain had – at great expense – sent men, ships, materials and money to the colonies to combat the French and their Indian allies and those colonies had profited from that assistance both financially and strategically!

However, one of the major issues that arose – at least in the colonies – was that of “the wilderness” – an immense expanse of “virgin” lands located west of recognized colonial boundaries, stretching from West Florida in the south to Lake Erie in the north. Americans hungered for those western lands as they offered opportunities outside the settled coastal regions. Of course, the difficulties arising from the Indians inhabiting those regions remained a matter of concern in the colonies as they were manifested during the war and after. On the other hand, the British response to the matter was to forbid their colonists to move west, thus ceding what they saw as “useless wilderness” beyond the Alleghanies to the native inhabitants while still claiming that territory for the King.[2] Thus did the Parliament reason: end westward colonial migration, end “the Indian problem!” As well, it was also considered wise to maintain those same colonists close to the coast where, should the need arise, Britain could respond with both alacrity and military might via its great navy.

But Americans had a very different understanding of land and especially its ownership! Remember, the concept of “private property” for ordinary people was rather unique at that time. In Europe, only the “landed gentry” owned “land” and while there were those not of the aristocracy who did hold property, ordinary people rented the land on which they lived and worked, thus all unwillingly sharing their lives and wealth with the owners of that land. Jefferson’s original wording in the Declaration, “. . . life, liberty and property . . .” was amended to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” supposedly for inspirational purposes. Yet the ownership of property was a vital part of that “pursuit” as one of the only recognized manifestations of wealth and therefore “happiness.”

Additionally, campaigns in America’s great wilderness had made the British military uncharacteristically apprehensive, thus manifestly decreasing the strength of the Empire at least in the colonies! The result of this situation was that politicians in the comfortable environs of the Houses of Parliament cared little about developing what they saw as an inhospitable and ungovernable wasteland and were therefore more than happy to leave it to the red savages whose home they considered it to be! Americans on the other hand, saw restrictions of their westward migration as insufferable interference with their natural rights as free-born Englishmen to go and live where they pleased.

Also problematic was the end of Parliament’s policy of “salutary neglect.”[3] Any attempt by Britain at what is today called “micromanaging” from three and a half thousand miles away was ridiculous upon its face! Of course, there were already “royal overseers” in the colonies, but no reasonable man thus chosen wanted to ruin a good thing by attempting to force overstrict compliance with excessive and often contradictory rules and regulations many of which had little direct bearing on existing situations. As a result, the policy of salutary neglect allowed the colonies to quietly avoid compliance with the many (and often confusing) rules and regulations found most specifically in the Acts of Trade and Navigation![4] In return, this benign neglect permitted those same colonists to run their own lives absent intrusive and (possibly) intolerable “oversight” – that is, interference – by the Mother Country. On the other hand, this unacknowledged “freedom” for the colonists also encouraged their loyalty to the King while allowing British politicians to concentrate on affairs in Europe as the Empire expanded. The situation had developed over the years into an understood and accepted norm there being sufficient common sense and amity between the two parties to maintain this mutually beneficial “status quo.” Those in charge in Great Britain were able to tacitly acknowledge that any “violations” by the colonies of such regulations were the lesser – and certainly the cheaper – of two evils.

But the economic “pinch” Britain and her citizens felt at the end of the Seven Years War required that Parliament seek a means of acquiring not just some of what had been spent, but what would have to be spent maintaining the greatest empire in the world! When efforts to tax the colonies began, few in Parliament saw any real problem. Yet, these efforts led to situations that Americans had never before experienced. In 1764, the Sugar Act was passed.[5] More than half of the articles in the Act dealt with its enforcement within the colonies such as requiring customs collectors to man their posts instead of appointing colonial underlings who might be open to bribery. As well, masters of ships had to post a bond and carry affidavits attesting to the legality of their cargo. At every stop in their voyage officials examined both paperwork and cargo, assisted by the Royal Navy. Captains caught with illegal cargo were tried by a newly established vice-admiralty court in Halifax, not local colonial courts often willing to look the other way in these matters. Thus, the “self-government” routinely practiced by the colonies prior to the Act was challenged and the consequences of failure to comply were severe. The matter worsened when, on January 14^th, 1765, the Boston Evening Post carried a letter from London, dated October 20^th, 1764, stating: ” . . . every cargo of the American product (that is, goods manufactured in the colonies) is deemed prohibited goods…. if, therefore, this traffic is prohibited, the colonies must be (financially) ruined….”[6] These were matters that simply could not be ignored in the name of fraternal good will!

But while the Sugar Act was a duty limited to foreign goods, the Stamp Act affected goods within the colonies. This Act, passed in 1765 – also known as the Duties in American Colonies Act – was passed soon after Parliament passed the Currency Act, a law forbidding the colonies from issuing paper money.[7] This matter arose when British merchants demanded that Americans pay for British imports in pounds sterling. Of course, this new arrangement made it even more difficult for colonists to pay their debts – including taxes. As for the Stamp Act, previously only colonial assemblies had levied internal taxes. As might be imagined, this new assault on “salutary neglect” produced a great public outcry. The Act required colonists to purchase a government-issued stamp for legal documents and miscellaneous paper goods ranging from newspapers to playing cards. Prime Minister George Grenville submitted the bill to Parliament, with only one member, William Pitt, raising objections to that body’s right to directly tax the colonies!

At this point, we must identify who in Britain could be taxed without Parliamentary representation! This is essential in understanding the great outcry of “No taxation without representation!” Those British citizens who could be thus taxed were of three classes: women, underage children and servants. None of these groups could legally demand political representation albeit for different reasons.[8] Of course, neither woman nor underaged children had any standing under the law at that time; this was understood. Servants, on the other hand, were often denied the vote because they resided with the families they served – and thus, even if taxed, had no representation in Parliament because of the different franchise arrangements existing at that time in Britain. Is it any wonder that men like Richard Henry Lee, George Mason and George Washington looked askance at a government that could tax them while denying them a voice in that same government? What did that make of these men in the eyes of their British counterparts if, by law, they were considered unworthy of the rights of free-born Englishmen something they all, with good reason, considered themselves to be?

Another link in the chain leading to revolution was Great Britain’s economic system, “mercantilism.”[9] Mercantilism represents a relationship between commerce and government arising from the belief that there are no “new” sources of money. This meant that an economy depended upon the movement of existing money, that is, upon trade. And the income from trade depended not only on a nation’s goods being purchased abroad but also on the tariffs used to raise money from the importation of another nation’s goods. As income was influenced by tariffs, the government became directly involved in the economic process. Of course, government is always involved in any nation’s economy, but not as directly as under mercantilism. To have a stake in what business prospers is sure to benefit those in which the government is most deeply and directly invested. Thus, tariffs and taxes could be raised or lowered depending upon what company the government wanted to prosper and, of course, such partnerships are exceedingly beneficial for all concerned – a not inconsequential consideration in legislative initiatives!

But of most vital importance in this entire scenario was the fact that these ongoing and numerous conflicts – large and small! – between Britain and her colonies left few Americans unaware that they were held in the utmost contempt by their British overlords. And while this attitude didn’t greatly affect ordinary Americans, for those higher on the social scale, this situation could be neither tacitly accepted nor blithely ignored. For instance, George Washington had personally experienced this contempt during the French and Indian War while serving in the militia in his interactions with the British military and colonial officials as well as in his commercial dealings with his British agents during and after the war. As the outcry against ongoing British interference in the daily lives of Americans continued, men of reputation and importance elected to the various colonial offices frequently found themselves locked out of their legislative caucuses by the “royal governors” and forced to meet in taverns to continue their resistance to the growing tyranny that was destroying the relationship between the “Mother Country” and her increasingly hostile and defiant “children.”

After news of the Stamp Act reached the colonies, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed resolutions denying Parliament’s authority to tax them. In Boston, colonists rioted and destroyed the house of the stamp distributor. These protests inspired similar activities in other colonies making of the Stamp Act an important common cause for the first time uniting all thirteen colonies in opposition to these acts of Parliament. In October of 1765, delegates from nine of the colonies met to issue petitions denying Britain’s authority to directly tax them. Meanwhile, the boycott of British goods, coupled with an ongoing post-war recession in Britain, led British merchants to lobby for the act’s repeal on economic grounds – the same “grounds” that had originally facilitated the policy of salutary neglect! Under pressure from American colonists and British merchants, Parliament decided it was easier – and wiser – to repeal the Act than make attempts to enforce it.

The repeal of the Stamp Act temporarily quieted colonial protests, but, of course, there was renewed resistance to new taxes instituted in 1767 under the Townshend Acts. Matters continued to deteriorate and in 1773, the colonists staged vocal and widespread protests against Parliament’s decision to grant the East India Company a monopoly on the tax-free transport of tea – a perfect example of mercantilism! Again, it wasn’t so much the issue itself, but that the issue represented another blow in the ongoing effort to force men who had lived in economic and political freedom into what was seen as economic and political servitude, a matter that few Americans at any level of society were willing to endure. Colonists began to look at Ireland as an example of where these British efforts were leading – and they didn’t like what they saw! As a result, angry Americans responded by again encouraging a general boycott of British goods. In a further act of defiance, on December 16^th, 1773, Bostonians disguised as Indians boarded the three East India Company ships in Boston harbor and thus was held that famous Boston Tea Party!

When news of this event reached England, British officials moved to install “discipline and order” in the wayward colony, closing the port of Boston until the East India Company was compensated for the ruined tea. Parliament also attempted to place Massachusetts under direct British control by withdrawing its original charter. In the colonies, the responses of Parliament were referred to as the Intolerable Acts.[10] British control was further solidified by the appointment of General Thomas Gage as military governor of that colony, but Massachusetts was only a symptom, for when Virginia spoke up against the treatment of Boston, on November 7^th, 1775, the Royal Governor, John Murray, Fourth Earl of Dunmore declared martial law and offered freedom to slaves who abandoned their legal masters – an actual crime in that colony! – and joined the forces of the King making of them armed enemies of the people of Virginia! This act greatly exacerbated that colony’s ongoing concerns about possible slave uprisings! Indeed, it is difficult to imagine anything worse under the circumstances that the governor could have done! Any legal retribution for forbidden behavior was far removed from the deadly violence threatened by such uprisings! And as such fears provoke far stronger responses from those being threatened, the Governor’s actions turned what was already a serious problem into a crisis!

Yet opinion among the colonists remained mixed. Some Bostonians felt that the time had come to ease the tensions and sent London a written offer to pay for the destroyed tea. But a decidedly larger group put out a colony-wide call for a boycott though many merchants were reluctant to participate considering the threatening responses of the British as the situation deteriorated. Given this range of opinions (and fears), colonial leaders agreed to a meeting to discuss an appropriate collective response, their legislatures sending representatives to Philadelphia for that purpose. Thus, the First Continental Congress convened in September of 1774, agreeing to the Articles of Association on October 20^th of that year.[11] These Articles listed colonial grievances and called for a locally enforced boycott in all the colonies to take effect on December 1^st. The delegates also drafted a petition to the King, laying out their grievances though most doubted that at this point, any such effort would be successful.

Meanwhile in Boston, General Gage realizing that continued strong coercive efforts might lead to open hostilities, recommended to Parliament the suspension of the Intolerable Acts. Gage hoped that by so doing he would be able to appease many Bostonians and, furthermore, to split those considered “moderates” from the “radicals” not only in Massachusetts but throughout the colonies. Had he been successful, it might have slowed or even stopped the growing spirit of revolution.[12] However, Gage also pointed out that if London refused his petition, he was going to need significant reinforcements to crush what was becoming a real insurrection – and not only in Massachusetts! Parliament’s response was a move to recall Gage as well as to seek further punitive measures, passing additional trade restrictions on all of New England! It was at this point that London declared in the American Prohibitory Act that the colonies were in open rebellion![13] Gage, in his attempts to secure his position, was rapidly being brought into open conflict with an increasingly hostile populace and the ever present – and growing! – local militias. When he moved to capture a small cache of arms and munitions in the Massachusetts countryside and arrest two leaders of the “resistance,” Samuel Adams and John Hancock, those famous “shots heard round the world” were fired in Concord and Lexington on April 19^th, 1775 – and the rest, as they say, is history.

Upon first reading, it would seem that “all of the above” directly represents the consequences of efforts by Great Britain to tax their American colonies! And indeed, taxation was a part – but only a part – of the eventual consequences! To really understand what happened, we must consider the meaning of the word “hubris.” The word is Greek in its origin and means excessive pride or self-confidence. Originally in Greek tragedy, the result of hubris in defiance of the gods, led to the arising of “Nemesis,” the “inescapable agent of someone’s downfall.” This crucial word best represents the mindset of the British upper class relative to their American colonial minions! Men like William Pitt and Edmund Burke, commoners both, were sympathetic to the Americans as were a great many other “ordinary Englishmen.” But the deep disdain with which the British upper class held Americans was by far the greatest contributor to the eventual break between these two peoples.

Consider the case of Benjamin Franklin! Franklin adored England, traveling to London in hopes of being received among its leading citizens not as a “colonial,” but as an Englishman, something he considered himself by birth. He was by that time a well-known man of science and possessing of a preeminent reputation in Europe as well as America. But, alas, Franklin was also a commoner whose personal achievements were in no way sufficient to open to him the doors of British society – at least according to that society. To them, he was a mere low bred curiosity worthy of only slight interest on their part!

On the other hand, Colonel George Washington did come from the ranks of the British aristocracy, giving him a slightly better “pedigree” than Franklin. But the Washingtons were minor members of that class having left Britain to make their fortunes in “the colonies.” It is claimed that Washington was promised a commission in the British “regulars” by General Edward Braddock who liked and admired the young Virginian. But even his widely acknowledged heroics in Braddock’s failed campaign were later contemptuously dismissed when he sought to gain that commission, thus denying his life-long ambition to serve as a soldier of the King![14] That contemptuous response to a brave and talented man assured that when the crisis arose, the tall Virginian aligned himself with the patriots and not the “loyalists.” Washington saw no reason to be “loyal” to a nation that looked with scorn and disdain upon men who, believing themselves to be fellow citizens of the Empire, had served the King with fidelity and courage!

Now, consideration of the possibilities had this matter been different, would make an excellent tale of what is termed “alternative history!” And yet, is it all that difficult to believe that the revolution might never have happened had this mindset not existed among the British ruling classes – that is, the aristocracy and the Empire’s political and commercial leaders? Certainly, whatever the existing difficulties, these would probably not have led to revolution and independence – at least so rapidly in historical terms! This was articulated by William Pitt in a speech given on January 14^th, 1766, rejecting the use of the Stamp Act as a tax on the colonies: [15]

“I have been charged with giving birth to sedition in America. They have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy act, and that freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty of speech in this House, imputed as a crime. No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is a liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might have profited, by which he ought to have profited. He ought to have desisted from this project. The gentleman tells us, America is obstinate; America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three million of people so dead to all feelings of liberty, as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest…”

Though Pitt does point out that the treatment of Americans by the British led directly to the problems suffered by both parties, he did not stress the utter contempt in which Parliament, the aristocracy – and even the King himself! – held those same colonists, an attitude also exhibited by the behavior of the British troops sent to chastise their perceived inferiors! Neither did Pitt call, except in the most general of terms, for a very different attitude by his countrymen, as a requirement to address the ongoing crisis! Yet, in truth, even had he done so, those he addressed had no intention of changing their attitude, being assured of possessing sufficient military might to crush their wayward American vassals and, in effect making of America another Ireland subject to both economic and political subjugation. This attitude had already been strongly voiced in Parliament by British General James Grant, a man familiar with the colonies. In that body, Grant became a strident anti-American voice famously arguing that Americans “could not fight…” and that he, as a British soldier, could go from one end of America to the other with a small force, castrating all the men – with or without their consent![16] Indeed, this was the attitude – steeped in hubris! – that made of Benjamin Franklin an enemy of the Britain he formerly loved and a resolute foe of George Washington, the man who eventually vanquished that “all-powerful military” when, under different circumstances, he might well have served within its ranks! For the great sin of hubris destroys both men and nations while respect of one’s fellow man is essential for the maintenance of amity and peace.

Post Scriptum: For historians of the “Civil War” in the next century, the contempt with which Southern Americans were held by the rest of the “Union” is well known and does not require the same exposition as does the contempt of the British for colonial Americans, a matter seldom raised when “causes” of that war are discussed. However, it is interesting to note that envy of the South – and especially Virginia – began in colonial times. Perhaps the most impressive example of this is seen in the writings of Northern Founding Father John Adams during his efforts with Benjamin Franklin in France to convince that nation to help America in her struggle against Britain. Adams, a man with a great deal of his own “hubris,” found himself insulted by the prominence given first to Franklin, but also to Washington as the war went on. It must be remembered that it was Adams who put Washington forth to be Commander in Chief not only because the man was well known and respected but because he was a prominent Virginian and Virginia was the premiere colony! Without Virginia and the South, Massachusetts and the rest of the colonies had no chance at all of achieving anything but subjugation under Britain – and Adams knew it! In his writings of the time, Adams ridiculed both men, concluding that Washington’s “fame and admiration” arose not for anything he did but because he was a superb horseman – and a Virginian! Later, Adams was able to work with Washington in the new nation, serving as the first Vice President and then becoming the second President after Washington, but he was never able to completely forgive the greatness of his Southern compatriot!

However, this same attitude did not hold forth – at least in the same degree! – in the South! When British General Clinton determined to move British forces to the South in the belief that there were more loyalists in that section and that it would be easier to force the Americans to come to terms ending the war as the result of British victories in that place, he sent newly commissioned Benedict Arnold to Virginia as an opening gambit. Arnold was very successful, almost capturing Virginia’s governor, Thomas Jefferson. Things became so dangerous in that colony that messengers were sent to Washington demanding that he bring the Continental army to Virginia and abandon his efforts in New Jersey and New York! But Washington refused – although he did send forces under Gen. LaFayette to assist in the struggle. When fellow Virginians chastised him for his failure to protect his “home,” Washington replied that he did not want to abandon the other States but, rather, he was attempting to create an “American” army where the soldiers gave their loyalty to “the United States” rather than to individual States based upon their residence. Had he abandoned all to succor Virginia, he would have proven himself just another narrow-minded proponent of “states’ rights” at the expense of the Republic! Here was a man who saw “the big picture” focusing on matters that benefitted the whole rather than his State and himself.

The contempt in which the South was held by the rest of the “union” is manifested most clearly by the fact that when the federal government called for troops to invade the States of the South that had constitutionally seceded from that federal Union, those States remaining in that Union willingly stepped forward to make war upon a people whose ancestors had brought the United States into being! Many “Civil War” historians speak as if the federal government waged that war, but in fact that government alone as it existed could not have done so! The necessary money and manpower to prosecute that bloody, unjust and treasonous war could only be found within the remaining “States!” If those States had refused to raise their sword against their (former) fellow countrymen who had never done them harm, there would have been no war! Indeed, it might also be said that had the contempt of the rest of the Union for the South and its people not existed in the first place, the war never would have come to pass whatever problems existed within the nation! But, alas, hubris once again appeared – and once again prevailed, destroying the glory that had formerl been achieved by the courage of the Founders and the blood of Patriots, North and South.

“Pride cometh before the fall.” ~ Proverbs 16:18.

The views expressed at AbbevilleInstitute.org are not necessarily the views of the Abbeville Institute.

End Notes:

[1]        BBC: How Britain lost an empire; Impact of the Seven Years’ War on Britain’s Empire; tax struggles and the War of the American Revolution: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zyh9ycw/revision/2

[2]        American History Central: Salutary Neglect: https://www.americanhistorycentral.com/entries/salutary-neglect/

[3]        U.S. History.org: The Royal Proclamation of 1763: https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/lessonplan/royalproc.html#google_vignette

[4]        Britannica: Navigation Acts, United Kingdom: https://www.britannica.com/event/Navigation-Acts

[5]        Britannica: Sugar Act – Great Britain (1764): https://www.britannica.com/event/Sugar-Act

[6]        Massachusetts Historical Society: Annotated Newspapers of Harbottle Dorr, Jr., Volume 1, Newspapers 7 January to 26 December 1767: https://www.masshist.org/dorr/volume/1/sequence/15

[7]        US History.org: The Currency Act: https://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/currencyact.html#google_vignette

[8]        Voters, Patrons and Parties (Chapter 4): Frank O’Gorman

[9]        Sage American History: The British Imperial Economic System – Mercantilism or “State Capitalism:” http://sageamericanhistory.net/colonies_empire/topics/mercantilism.html

[10]      Brittanica: Intolerable Acts Great Britain (1764):https://www.britannica.com/event/Intolerable-Acts

[11]      Republic of the United States of America.org: Articles of Association (1774): https://republicfortheunitedstatesofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Articles-of-Association-1774.pdf

[12]      Emerging Revolutionary War Era: Actions of General Gage: https://emergingrevolutionarywar.org/2018/04/03/acts-of-a-rude-rabble-general-gage-lord-dartmouth-and-ignorant-orders/

[13]      U.S. History.com: American Prohibitory Act: https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1272.html

[14]      We Are The Mighty: George Washington Desperately Wanted to Be a British Officer: https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/washington-french-indian-war-commission/

[15]      American Revolution.org: William Pitt’s Stamp Act Speech (1766): https://www.americanrevolution.org/william-pitts-stamp-act-speech/

Alpha History.com: William Pitt Opposes the Stamp Act (1766): https://alphahistory.com/americanrevolution/william-pitt-opposes-stamp-act-1766/\

[16]      RevWarTalk ~ American Revolutionary War History: British General James Grant and his opinion ofAmerican soldiers: https://www.revwartalk.com/james-grant/

---