TOWARD INDEPENDENCE

Toward Independence
Why was there an American Revolution?

Introduction

An almost full moon cast a pale light over Boston on April 18, 1775. But the night
was anything but quiet. Mounted on a fast horse named Brown Beauty, Paul
Revere woke up the countryside with the alarming news that British troops,
stationed in Boston, had orders to march to the nearby town of Concord and seize
weapons the colonists had stored there!

This was news Patriots had been waiting for. Patriots (also called Whigs) were
Americans who believed the colonies had the right to govern themselves. On
hearing Revere's warning, Patriots around Concord grabbed their muskets and
prepared to meet the advancing British troops.

The same news filled Loyalists (also called Tories) with dread. Loyalists were
colonists who felt a deep loyalty to Great Britain. They saw themselves as faithful
subjects of the king and were horrified by the idea of taking up arms against
British troops. How did colonists come to be so divided in their feelings about the
British? Most Americans were content with British rule in the early 1700s.
However, this relationship between Great Britain and the colonies would quickly
begin to change.

In the 1750s, Great Britain and the colonies fought a war against the French and
their Indian allies that left Great Britain with huge debts and a vast new empire to
protect. To solve these problems, the British government passed new laws that
tightened its control of the colonies. Some of these laws also placed new taxes on
the colonists.

Colonists were stunned when Great Britain suddenly changed the rules. For the
most part, they had been able to make their own laws and determine their own
taxes. Now angry colonists protested. In this lesson, you will see how these
feelings led many colonists to consider rebelling against their government.

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

TOWARD INDEPENDENCE

Social Studies
Vocabulary

boycott

militia

repeal

tyranny

1. Before 1763

By 1750, the American colonies were bursting with growth. In just a century, the

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
population of the colonies had grown from 50,000 to more than a million people.
What brought about this rapid growth? Cheap land? Religious tolerance?
Economic opportunity? While all of these were important in attracting people to
the colonies, there was another important reason.

For more than a century, the British government had, for the most part, left the
colonies alone to solve their own problems. During this time of salutary neglect,
Americans in each colony had learned to govern themselves by electing their own
assemblies. Like the British Parliament, the assemblies had the power to pass laws
and to create and collect taxes. Each assembly also decided how the colony's tax
money should be spent. Americans had more freedom to run their own affairs than
ordinary people in any country in Europe. Self-government also made the colonies
attractive to settlers.

Conflict in the Ohio Valley As the colonies grew, settlers began to dream of
moving across the Appalachian Mountains and into the Ohio Valley—the region
between the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. Both Great Britain and France claimed
this area. In 1754, the French honored their claim by building Fort Duquesne (du-
KANE) where the city of Pittsburgh stands today.

News of the fort alarmed the governor of Virginia. He ordered a small force of
Virginia militia, or a small army of citizens trained to fight in an emergency, to drive
the French out of the Ohio Valley. The head of the militia, the governor decided,
would be a 22-year-old volunteer named George Washington.

Today, Americans remember George Washington as a great Patriot, a military

hero, and the first president of the United States. In 1754, however, he was just an
ambitious young man. Washington wanted to become an officer in the British
army. There was only one problem with his plan—most British officers believed
that colonists made terrible soldiers.

The expedition into the Ohio Valley gave Washington a chance to prove them
wrong. Near Fort Duquesne, Washington came across a French scouting party
that was camped in the woods and ordered his men to open fire, leading to an
easy victory. “I heard the bullets whistle,” he wrote afterward. “And, believe me,
there is something charming in the sound.”

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

TOWARD INDEPENDENCE

The French and Indian War Washington's whistling bullets were the first shots in
a conflict known as the French and Indian War. This war was part of a long
struggle between France and Great Britain over territory and power. Because
many American Indians fought with France in this latest conflict, the colonists
called it the French and Indian War. At the beginning of the war, the colonies met
at Albany, where Benjamin Franklin proposed the Albany Plan of Union, which
called for the British colonies to form an alliance for their own defense. However,
his plan did not win much support because the colonies did not think it was
necessary to work together, and many of them relied on British protection. To
their credit, the British took measures to defend their colonies during the French
and Indian War.

In 1755, Great Britain sent 1,400 British soldiers, led by General Edward
Braddock, to Virginia to finish the job that Washington had started. Hoping to
make a good impression on General Braddock, Washington joined the army as a
volunteer, aiding the soldiers in clearing the French out of the Ohio Valley.

However, Braddock's march into the Ohio Valley was a disaster. The troops were
ambushed by French sharpshooters and their American Indian allies. Two-thirds of
the soldiers were killed in the attack, including General Braddock.

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
Washington himself narrowly escaped death. “I had four bullets through my Coat
and two horses shot under me,” he wrote in a letter. Showing great courage,
Washington led the survivors back to Virginia. There, he was greeted as a hero.

The turning point of the French and Indian War came in 1759, when British troops
captured Canada. As a result, in 1763, Great Britain and France signed a peace
treaty, or agreement, finally ending the seven year war. In this treaty, France
ceded, or gave, its claim of land in Canada to Great Britain.

Americans were thrilled with this victory because Great Britain now controlled a
vastly expanded American empire. However, as the conflict with France drew to a
close, new issues began to emerge between the colonists and Great Britain. A
dramatic new chapter was about to begin for the American colonies.

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

TOWARD INDEPENDENCE

2. Early British Actions in the Colonies

Changes that were taking place in Great Britain soon clouded the colonists' bright
future. In 1760, a new king named George III had begun his reign toward the end
of the French and Indian War. George was a successful British ruler during his 59-
year reign, resisting the Revolutionary and Napoleonic France. However, George
needed help managing his more distant foreign affairs in North America. The
advisors George appointed to help him knew very little about the conditions in
North America and were soon taking actions that enraged the colonists.

The Proclamation of 1763 The British government faced a number of problems

after the French and Indian War. One was how to protect colonists and their land
claims as they pushed westward into areas settled by American Indians. In his
Proclamation of 1763, George said to simply draw a line down the crest of the
Appalachian Mountains and order colonists not to settle past the boundary.

To colonists, the king's order suggested tyranny, or the unjust use of government
power. They argued that white colonists had already claimed most of the land east
of the Appalachians and that farmers had to move west to find land. Besides, the
Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
proclamation was too late. Settlers were already crossing the mountains.

The British government ignored these arguments. To control the frontier, it

decided to expand the British army in America to 7,500 men.

The Stamp Act The British government had other problems besides stopping
colonists from moving westward. One dilemma was how to pay off the large debt
from the French and Indian War.

The solution seemed obvious to Prime Minister George Grenville, the leader of the
British government. People in Great Britain were already paying taxes on
everything from windows to salt. In contrast, American colonists were probably
the most lightly taxed people in the British Empire. It was time, said Grenville, for
them to pay their fair share of the cost of protecting colonists and their interests.

In 1765, Grenville proposed a new act, or law, called the Stamp Act, which
required colonists to buy a stamp for every piece of paper they used. Newspapers,
wills, licenses, and even playing cards had to be printed on stamped paper.

Once again, the colonists sensed tyranny. One newspaper, The Pennsylvania
Journal, said that as soon as "this shocking Act was known, it filled all British
America from one End to the other, with Astonishment and Grief."

It wasn't just the idea of higher taxes that upset the colonists. They were willing to
pay taxes passed by their own assemblies, where their representatives could vote

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
on them. Because the colonists had no representatives in Parliament, they saw the
Stamp Act as a violation of their rights as British subjects. For this reason, they
argued, Parliament had no right to tax them. "No taxation without representation!"
they declared.

Loyalists simply refused to buy stamps, while other colonists protested the Stamp
Act by sending messages to Parliament. Patriots, took more violent action. Mobs
calling themselves Sons of Liberty attacked tax collectors' homes. Protesters in
Connecticut even started to bury one tax collector alive. Only when he heard dirt
being shoveled onto his coffin did the terrified tax collector agree to resign from
his post.

After months of protest, Parliament repealed, or canceled, the Stamp Act.

Americans greeted the news with great celebration. Church bells rang, bands
played, and everyone hoped the troubles with Great Britain were over.

The Quartering Act As anger over the Stamp Act began to fade, Americans
noticed another law passed by Parliament in 1765. Called the Quartering Act, this
law ordered colonial assemblies to provide British troops with quarters, or
housing. The colonists were also told to furnish the soldiers with "candles, firing,
bedding, cooking utensils, salt, vinegar, and … beer or cider."

Of course, providing for the soldiers cost money. New Jersey protested that the
new law was "as much an Act for laying taxes" on the colonists as the Stamp Act.
New Yorkers asked why they should pay to keep troops in their colony. After all,
they said, the soldiers just took up space and did nothing.

In 1767, the New York assembly decided not to approve any funds for "salt,
vinegar and liquor" for the troops. In retaliation, the British government refused to
let the assembly meet until it agreed to obey the Quartering Act. Once again,
tempers began to rise on both sides of the Atlantic.

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE

3. The Townshend Acts

The next British leader to face the challenge of taxing the colonies was Charles
Townshend. Known as “Champagne Charlie” because of his habit of making
speeches in Parliament after drinking champagne, Townshend believed that the
colonists' bad behavior made it even more important to retain an army in the
British colonies. Once he was asked in Parliament whether he would dare to make
the colonists pay for that army. Stamping his foot, Townshend shouted, “I will, I
will!”

Townshend kept his promise, and in 1767, he persuaded Parliament to pass the
Townshend Acts. The new laws placed a duty, or tax, on certain goods the
colonies imported from Great Britain, including such popular items as glass, paint,
paper, and tea.

A Boycott of British Goods To many colonists, the Townshend duties were

unacceptable. Once again, colonists were determined not to pay taxes that their
assemblies had not voted on.

A Boston Patriot named Samuel Adams led the opposition to the Townshend Acts.
Although Adams was a failure at business, he was gifted at stirring up protests
through his speeches and writing. The governor of Massachusetts once
complained, “Every dip of his pen stung like a horned snake.”

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
In a letter protesting the Townshend Act, Adams argued that the new duties
violated the colonists' rights as British citizens. The letter was sent to many of the
other colonies. Soon, the colonies decided to boycott British goods in order to
protect their rights. This was a peaceful form of protest that even Loyalists could
support. One by one, all of the colonies agreed to support the boycott.

Since they did most of the shopping, women were very important in making the
boycott work. The Virginia Gazette wrote that women could “do more for the good
of her country than five hundred noisy sons of liberty, with all their mobs and
riots.” Women found many ways to avoid buying British imports. They sewed
dresses out of homespun cloth, brewed tea from pine needles, and bought only
American-made goods.

Repeal of the Townshend Acts Meanwhile, a new leader named Lord North
became head of the British government. Described by Townshend as a “great,
heavy, booby-looking man,” Lord North embarrassed his supporters by taking naps
in Parliament. However, he was good with numbers, and he could see that the
Townshend duties were a big money-loser because duties didn't begin to make up
for all the money British merchants were losing because of the boycott.

Early in 1770, North persuaded Parliament to repeal all of the Townshend duties,
except for one—the tax on tea. Although, some members of Parliament argued
that the duty on tea would lead to further conflict with the colonies, King George
refused to give up on the idea of taxing Americans. “I am clear that there must
always be one tax to keep up the right,” the king said. “And, as such, I approve the
Tea Duty.”

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE

4. The Boston Massacre

On the same day that Parliament repealed most of the Townshend duties, a fight
broke out between soldiers and colonists in Boston. When the dust cleared, five
Bostonians were dead and others in the crowd were injured.

Patriots called this incident the Boston Massacre. A massacre is the killing of
defenseless people. What really happened was a small riot.

Trouble had been brewing in Boston for months before the riot. To the British,
Boston Patriots were the worst troublemakers in the colonies. In 1768, the British
government had sent four regiments of troops to keep order in Boston.

Bostonians resented the British soldiers and made fun of their red uniforms by
calling them "lobsterbacks." Samuel Adams even taught his dog to nip at soldiers'
heels.

Despite such insults from the colonists, the British troops were forbidden to fire
on citizens, but knowing this only made Bostonians bolder in their attacks.
General Thomas Gage, the commander of the British army in America, wrote that
"the people were as Lawless … after the Troops arrived, as they were before."

Mob Violence Breaks Out On March 5, 1770, a noisy mob began throwing rocks
and ice balls at troops guarding the Boston Customs House. "Come on you
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
Rascals, you bloody-backs," they shouted. "Fire if you dare." Some people tried to
persuade the crowd to go home, as did Captain Thomas Preston, the commander
of the soldiers, but their pleas had no effect.

As the mob pressed forward, the troops, in a panic, opened fire.The bullets hit
several people in the crowd, including Crispus Attucks, a black man at the front of
the crowd. Attucks was the first to die after being struck by two bullets, but more
deaths would soon follow. The now enraged crowd went home only after
receiving a promise that the troops would be tried for murder.

Massacre or Self-Defense? Samuel Adams saw this event as a perfect

opportunity to whip up anti-British feeling among the colonists. He called the riot
in Boston a "horrid massacre" and had Paul Revere, a local silversmith, engrave a
picture of it. Revere's engraving shows soldiers firing at peaceful, unarmed citizens.

Prints of Revere's engraving were distributed throughout the colonies, and Patriots
saw the Boston Massacre as proof that the British should remove all of their
British troops from the colonies. Loyalists, however, saw the tragedy as proof that
British troops were needed more than ever, if only to control the Patriot hotheads.

One hero, a Boston lawyer named John Adams, came out of this sad event.
Although John Adams was a Patriot like his cousin Samuel, he also believed that
every person, even the British soldiers, had the right to a fair trial. Adams agreed to
defend the soldiers, even though he knew that his action would cost him friends
and clients.

At the murder trial, Adams argued that the troops had acted in self-defense.The
jury agreed with Adams and found six of the soldiers not guilty, while the
remaining two of them were found guilty only of manslaughter, or causing death
without meaning to.

Throughout his long life, John Adams remained proud of his defense of the British
soldiers. He said that upholding the law in this case was "one of the best pieces of
service I ever rendered to my country."

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE

5. The Boston Tea Party

Despite the hopes of Patriots like Sam Adams, the Boston Massacre did not spark
larger protests against British rule. Instead, the repeal of the Townshend duties led
to a period of calm. While there was still a small duty on tea, the tax didn't seem to
bother Loyalists very much, and the Patriots knew they could always drink Dutch
tea that had been smuggled into the colonies without paying duties.

However, things did not stay peaceful because in 1773, a new law called the Tea
Act prompted more protests. One of these protests became known as the Boston
Tea Party.

The Tea Act The Tea Act was Lord North's attempt to rescue the British East
India Company. This large trading company controlled all the trade between Great
Britain and Asia. Although it had been a moneymaker for Great Britain for years,
the American boycott of British tea hurt the company badly. By 1773, the tea
company was in danger of going broke unless it could sell off the 17 million
pounds of tea that were sitting in its London warehouses.

The Tea Act lowered the cost of tea that was sold by the British East India
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
Company in the colonies. As a result, even taxed British tea became cheaper than
smuggled Dutch tea. The Tea Act also gave the British East India Company a
monopoly, or complete control, over tea sales in the colonies. From now on, the
only merchants who could sell the bargain-priced tea were those chosen by the
company.

Lord North may have thought he could persuade Americans to buy taxed tea by
making it so cheap, but colonists weren't fooled. They saw the Tea Act as still
another attempt to tax them without their consent.

In addition, many merchants were alarmed by the East India Company's monopoly
over the tea trade. They wondered what the British government might try to
control next. Would their next monopoly be on cloth or on sugar? Nervous
merchants wondered what would happen to their businesses if other goods were
also restricted.

Tea Ships Arrive When the British East India Company's tea ships sailed into
American ports, angry protesters kept them from unloading their cargoes, causing
more than one ship to turn back for England still filled with tea. In Boston,
however, the royal governor ordered the British navy to block the exit from
Boston Harbor, insisting that the three tea ships would not leave until all their tea
was unloaded.

On December 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty decided to unload the tea, but not in
the way the governor had in mind. That night, about 60 men dressed as Mohawk
Indians boarded the three ships. One of them, George Hewes, described what
happened:

We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take
out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard … and we
immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting
the chests with our tomahawks … In about three hours from the time we
went on board, we had thus broken and thrown overboard every tea
chest to be found on the ship … We were surrounded by British armed
ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.

The Sons of Liberty dumped about 90,000 pounds of tea into the sea that night,
leaving everything else aboard the ship untouched. News of the Boston Tea Party
excited Patriots throughout the colonies. “This is the most magnificent moment of
all,” wrote John Adams in his journal the next day. “This destruction of the tea is so
bold, so daring, so firm … it must have … important consequences.” He was right.

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE

6. The Intolerable Acts

The news of the Boston Tea Party stunned Lord North, who believed that he had
helped the colonists by sending them cheap tea. However, instead of being
thankful for his generosity, the colonists had thrown the cheap tea into the sea!
For North, the colonists' actions had gone too far.

King George agreed with Lord North, believing that the issue was no longer about
taxes but about Great Britain's control over the colonies. “We must master them,”
he declared, “or totally leave them alone.” The king wasn't about to leave the
colonies to themselves, however.

In 1774, Great Britain's anger led Parliament to pass a new series of laws that
were so harsh that many colonists called them intolerable, or unacceptable.
Throughout the colonies, they became known as the Intolerable Acts.

Parliament Punishes Massachusetts The Intolerable Acts were designed to

punish Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party. The first law closed Boston
Harbor to all shipping until the ruined tea was paid for. The second law placed the
government of Massachusetts firmly under British control. Colonists in
Massachusetts could not even hold a town meeting without the colonial
governor's permission. The third law said that British soldiers who were accused of
murder would be tried in England, not in the colonies. Finally, more troops were

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
sent to Boston to enforce the new laws.

A few British leaders worried that the Intolerable Acts might push the colonies
into rebellion. But George III was sure they would force the colonists to give in to
British authority.

The Colonies Begin to Unite In fact, the Intolerable Acts did not force the
colonists to give in. Boston Patriots declared they would “abandon their city to
flames” before paying a penny for the lost tea. Colonists in other cities showed
their support by closing their shops, or by sending food and money to Boston so
that its citizens would not starve.

In Virginia, lawmakers drafted a resolution in support of Massachusetts. The

Virginians said that everyone's rights were at stake. “An attack made on one of
our sister colonies,” they declared, “is an attack made on all British America.”

The Virginians also called for a congress, or meeting, of delegates from all the
colonies. The purpose of the congress would be to find a peaceful solution to the
conflicts with Great Britain.

Not all Americans agreed with this plan. In every colony, there were Loyalists who
thought that Bostonians had gone too far and should pay for the tea. If they were
forced to choose, they would side with the king against Sam Adams and his Sons
of Liberty. In their view, it was the misguided Patriots who were causing all the
trouble.

The First Continental Congress In September 1774, some 50 leaders from 12

colonies met in Philadelphia. The meeting brought together delegates from most
of the British colonies on the North American continent, so it was called the First
Continental Congress.

The delegates were used to thinking of themselves as citizens of their own

colonies, but Patrick Henry, a leader from Virginia, urged them to come together
as one people. “I am not a Virginian,” he declared, “but an American.” However,
only strong Patriots like Sam and John Adams were ready to think of themselves
this way, and other delegates were strong Loyalists who still thought of
themselves as British. Still others, like George Washington, were somewhere in
between. Only one thing united the delegates—their love of liberty and hatred of
tyranny.

In spite of their differences, the delegates agreed to send a respectful message to

King George. The message urged the king to consider their complaints and to
recognize their rights.

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
The delegates also called for a new boycott of British goods until Parliament
repealed the Intolerable Acts. Finally, they agreed to meet again the following May
if the boycott didn't work.

The Colonies Form Militias Patriots in towns and cities throughout the colonies
organized boycotts against British goods. They also formed local militias in case
the boycott didn't work. In New England, the volunteers called themselves
Minutemen because they could be ready to fight in 60 seconds.

Across the colonies, militias marched and drilled. In New Hampshire, unknown
persons stole 100 barrels of gunpowder and weapons from a British fort. Similar
thefts occurred in other colonies. Rather than forcing the colonies to give in, the
Intolerable Acts had brought the two sides to the brink of war.

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

TOWARD INDEPENDENCE

7. Lexington and Concord

King George had made many mistakes in his decisions about the colonies, which
the First Continental Congress listed out in their message to the king. However,
rather than consider the colonists' complaints, King George refused to even
answer their message. “The New England governments are in a state of rebellion,”
he said. “Blows must decide whether they are to be subject to this country or
independent.” In Boston, General Gage, the king's commander of British troops in
America, got ready to deliver those blows.

The First Blow at Lexington In April 1775, a spy told General Gage that the
colonists were hiding a large supply of gunpowder and weapons in the nearby
village of Concord. General Gage decided to strike at once.

The general ordered 700 of his best troops to march to Concord and seize the
weapons. To keep the colonists from moving the weapons, the attack had to be a
surprise, so Gage had his troops march the 20 miles to Concord at night.

But the colonists had their own spies, and when Gage's troops slipped out of

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
Boston on April 18, 1775, Patriots were watching their every move. Soon Paul
Revere and others were galloping through the countryside, warning colonists that
the British soldiers were coming.

The news reached Lexington, a town on the road to Concord, in the early hours of
April 19. Led by Captain John Parker, a small band of Minutemen gathered
nervously in the chilly night air.

At dawn, the British troops reached the town green. “Stand your ground,” ordered
Parker. “Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin
here.” As the Minutemen faced the British troops, a shot rang out—from where, no
one knew for certain. Without orders, the soldiers rushed forward, shooting
wildly, and a few Minutemen managed to return fire.

When the firing stopped, eight colonists lay dead or dying, and another ten were
left limping to safety with painful wounds. The British troops gave three cheers for
victory and continued their march to Concord.

The Second Blow at Concord By breakfast time, the British were in Concord,
searching for gunpowder and weapons. However, the colonists had hidden them,
and in frustration, the soldiers piled up gun carriages and set them on fire.

On a ridge outside the city, militiamen from the surrounding countryside watched
the smoke rise. “Will you let them burn the town down?” shouted one man.
Captain Isaac Davis replied, “I haven't a man that's afraid to go.” Davis marched
with his volunteers down the hill, and as they approached Concord's North Bridge,
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
the British troops opened fire. Davis fell dead, a bullet through his heart.

The British expected the Americans to break and run, but to their surprise, the
Minutemen stood their ground and fired back. Soon, it was the redcoats who were
running away in panic.

The retreat back to Boston was a nightmare for the British because thousands of
armed and angry Minutemen lined their route, shooting at every redcoat they saw.
Some accounts show that by the end of the day, 74 British soldiers were dead and
another 200 were wounded or missing while the colonists counted their own
losses at only 49 dead and 41 wounded. A British officer described what it was like
to face the colonists' fury that day. “Whoever looks upon them as an irregular
mob,” the officer said, “will find himself much mistaken.”

Indeed, since the French and Indian War, the British had been mistaken about the
colonists again and again. Their biggest mistake was in thinking that ordinary
people—farmers, merchants, workers, and housewives—would not fight for the
rights that they held dear. At Lexington and Concord, Americans proved they were
not only willing to fight for their rights, they were even willing to die for them.

Lesson Summary

In this lesson, you read about tensions between the colonies and Great Britain in
the mid-1700s.

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
Before 1763 During the French and Indian War (1754–1763), Great Britain and
France fought for territory and power in North America. When the war ended,
France gave up Canada to Great Britain, which now had a much larger American
empire to control.

Early British Actions in the Colonies The French and Indian War left Great Britain
with huge debts. To raise money, Parliament decided to pass along the war costs
to the Americans. To do this Parliament passed the Stamp Act in 1765. Colonists
protested the Stamp Act because it was passed without colonial representation.
Colonists also protested the Quartering Act, which required them to house British
troops at the colonies' expense.

The Townshend Acts and the Boston Massacre The Townshend Acts imposed
more taxes on the colonies, which divided many colonists into opposing camps.
Loyalists urged obedience to Great Britain, but Patriots resisted “taxation without
representation” through protests, boycotts, and riots. Tensions in Boston erupted
into violence in 1770 when British troops fired into a crowd of colonists in what
became known as the Boston Massacre.

The Boston Tea Party and the Intolerable Acts When Patriots protested a new tax
on tea by throwing tea into Boston Harbor in 1773, Great Britain responded by
passing the Intolerable Acts to force the colonies to give in to British authority.
Patriots responded by forming the First Continental Congress and organizing
colonial militias.

Lexington and Concord Fighting between Patriots and British troops at Lexington
and Concord in 1775 showed that colonists would not only fight for their rights,
but were willing to die for them.

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

TOWARD INDEPENDENCE

Reading Further

“I Love the Story of Paul Revere,

Whether He Rode or Not”

So said President Warren G. Harding in 1923. Like most Americans at that time,
Harding probably learned about Revere as a schoolboy when he read a famous
poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Later, when a skeptic claimed the story
of Revere's ride never happened, Harding sprang to the poet's defense. But was
Revere the patriotic hero Longfellow made him out to be?

By 1860, the young nation whose fight for freedom began at Lexington and
Concord was in danger of falling apart. War clouds gathered as Americans debated
the issues of slavery and states' rights. The South, which had grown prosperous
with slave labor, vigorously defended its way of life. The North, which had grown
even more prosperous without slave labor, condemned slavery as morally wrong.
Americans had never been so divided or so close to civil war.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, who was then the nation's most popular poet, was
a Northerner who opposed slavery. As he watched the nation move toward war,
Longfellow began thinking about writing a new poem that would be a call to arms
for all who loved liberty in such a time of peril.

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE

One day in April 1860, as Longfellow took a walk with a friend in Boston, his
companion told him a story that took place on another April day, some 85 years
earlier. It was the tale of a midnight ride made by a silversmith named Paul Revere
to alert the countryside to coming danger. Longfellow was inspired. Like Paul
Revere's ride, the poem he planned would be a cry of alarm to awaken a sleeping
nation.

Longfellow's finished work, titled “Paul Revere's Ride,” was published in 1861.
Over the next century, generations of schoolchildren would read and memorize its
stirring lines. As you read the excerpt that follows, can you see why the poem
captured Americans' imaginations?

Longfellow Creates a Legend: The Lone Hero

Longfellow had set out to create a dramatic tale that would make patriotic hearts
beat faster, and in the process, he transformed Paul Revere from a local folk hero
into a national legend. Even today, millions of Americans know the opening lines
of Longfellow's poem.
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
Listen, my children, and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,

When we think of the events that launched the American Revolution, Longfellow's
words help us picture them clearly. Revere asks a friend to send a signal by
hanging lanterns from Boston's Old North Church when the British troops
quartered there begin to move out.

One, if by land, and two, if by sea;

And I on the opposite shore will be,

The signal is lit and Revere gallops into the night, waking the countryside with the
news that the British are coming.

So through the night rode Paul Revere;

And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm—
A cry of defiance and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo forevermore!

Alerted by our lone hero, the colonists rise up to defend their homes and liberties
against the approaching British troops.

You know the rest. In the books you have read,

How the British Regulars fired and fled—
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farm-yard wall …

The rest, as they say, is history. Or is it?

Skeptics Raise Doubts: Did Revere Really Ride?

Historians were quick to point out many factual inaccuracies in Longfellow's

telling. For example, the poet omitted the fact that Revere was captured by British
troops while raising the alarm. Longfellow also left out the names of other
messengers who participated that night, such as William Dawes and Samuel
Prescott.

As doubts about the poem's truthfulness multiplied through the years, skeptics
began to question the entire story. Some said Revere's ride did not happen at all.
Or if it did, Revere was captured before he could warn many Patriots. These
arguments annoyed President Harding, who defended Longfellow's version of the

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
story. “Somebody made the ride and stirred the minutemen in the colonies to fight
the battle of Lexington,” he said. “I love the story of Paul Revere, whether he rode
or not.”

As time passed, more doubters threw cold water on the idea that Revere was a
hero, with one skeptic saying that Revere “set out with two other guys for
money.” When the three were arrested he “turned stool pigeon and betrayed his
two companions.” But if this is true, wouldn't it mean Revere was a traitor to his
cause?

Historians Weigh In: The Real Meaning of Revere's Ride

While modern historians find no evidence that Revere was paid to ride or that he
became an informer when he was captured, they also remind us that Revere was
not the only hero of that momentous night. Within hours of his ride, 122 colonists
had lost their lives and many more lay wounded. As one historian writes,

Revere's ride was not the major event that day, nor was Revere's
warning so critical in triggering the bloodbath. Patriotic farmers had
been preparing to oppose the British for the better part of a year … His
ride to Lexington … took on meaning only because numerous other
political activists had, like Revere, dedicated themselves to the cause.

—Ray Raphael, Founding Myths: Stories that

Hide Our Patriotic Past, 2004

The real meaning of Revere's ride is what it tells us about these unsung heroes. On
hearing that the British soldiers were coming, those patriotic farmers had a choice.
They could remain safe in their beds or rise up to defend their rights. Looking at
their response, historian David Hackett Fischer writes, “The history of a free
people is the history of hard choices. In that respect, when Paul Revere alarmed
the Massachusetts countryside, he was carrying a message for us.”

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

TOWARD INDEPENDENCE

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE

The Sugar Act 1764

The Sugar Act of 1764 was implemented with the intention of raising revenue for
Great Britain. The act placed a tax on sugar and other goods brought into the
colonies as a way to raise funds to pay for the Seven Years War. An excerpt from
the act is below.

… Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established

for improving the revenue of this kingdom, and for extending and securing the
navigation and commerce between Great Britain and your Majesty's dominions in
America, which, by the peace, have been so happily enlarged: and whereas it is just and
necessary, that a revenue be raised, in your Majesty's said dominions in America, for
defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the same; we, your
Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons of Great Britain, in parliament
assembled, being desirous to make some provision, in this present session of
parliament, towards raising the said revenue in America, have resolved to give and
grant unto your Majesty the several rates and duties herein after-mentioned; and do
most humbly beseech your Majesty that it may be enacted; and be it enacted by the
King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one
thousand seven hundred and sixty four, there shall be raised, levied, collected, and paid,
unto his Majesty, his heirs and successors, for and upon all white or clayed sugars of the
produce or manufacture of any colony or plantation in America, not under the
dominion of his Majesty, his heirs and successors; for and upon indigo, and coffee of
foreign produce or manufacture; for and upon wines (except French wine;) for and upon
all wrought silks, bengals, and stuffs, mixed with silk or herbs of the manufacture of
Persia, China, or East India, and all callico painted, dyed, printed, or stained there; and
for and upon all foreign linen cloth called Cambrick and French Lawns, which shall be
imported or brought into any colony or plantation in America, which now is, or
hereafter may be, under the dominion of his Majesty, his heirs and successors, the
several rates and duties following; that is to say,

For every hundred weight avoirdupois of such foreign white or clayed sugars, one
pound two shillings, over and above all other duties imposed by any former act of
parliament.

For every pound weight avoirdupois of such foreign indigo, six pence.

For every hundred weight avoirdupois of such foreign coffee, which shall be imported
from any place, except Great Britain, two pounds, nineteen shillings, and nine pence.

For every ton of wine of the growth of the Madeiras, or of any other island or place
from whence such wine may be lawfully imported, and which shall be so imported from
such islands or place, the sum of seven pounds.

For every ton of Portugal, Spanish, or any other wine (except French wine) imported
from Great Britain, the sum of ten shillings.

For every pound weight avoirdupois of wrought silks, bengals, and stuffs, mixed silk or
herbs, of the manufacture of Persia, China, or East India, imported from Great Britain,
two shillings.

For every piece of callico painted, dyed, printed, or stained, in Persia, China, or East
India, imported from Great Britain, two shillings and six pence.

For every piece of foreign linen cloth, called Cambrick, imported from Great Britain,
three shillings.

For every piece of French lawn imported from Great Britain, three shillings.

And after those rates for any greater or lesser quantity of such goods respectively.

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
II. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the
said twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, there
shall also be raised, levied, collected, and paid, unto his Majesty, his heirs and
successors, for and upon all coffee and pimento of the growth and produce of any
British colony or plantation in America, which shall be there laden on board any British
ship or vessel, to be carried out from thence to any other place whatsoever, except
Great Britain, the several rates and duties following; that is to say,

III. For every hundred weight avoirdupois of such British coffee, seven shillings.

For every pound weight avoirdupois of such British pimento, one halfpenny.

IV. And whereas an act was made in the sixth year of the reign of his late majesty King
George the Second, intituled, An act for the better securing and encouraging the trade
of his Majesty's sugar colonies in America, which was to continue in force for five years,
to be computed from the twenty fourth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and
thirty three, and to the end of the then next session of parliament, and which, by
several subsequent acts made in the eleventh, the nineteenth, the twenty sixth, and
twenty ninth, and the thirty first years of the reign of his said late Majesty, was, from
time to time, continued; and, by an act made in the first year of the reign of his present
Majesty, was further continued until the end of this present session of parliament; and
although the said act hath been found in some degree useful, yet it is highly expedient
that the same should be altered, enforced, and made more effectual; but, in
consideration of the great distance of several of the said colonies and plantations from
this kingdom, it will be proper further to continue the said act for a short space, before
any alterations and amendments shall take effect, in order that all persons concerned
may have due and proper notice thereof; be it therefore enacted by the authority
aforesaid, That the said act made in the sixth year of the reign of his late majesty King
George the Second, intituled, An act for the better securing and encouraging the trade
of his Majesty's sugar colonies in America, shall be, and the same is hereby further
continued, until the thirtieth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty
four.

V. And it be further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from the twenty ninth day
of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, the said act, subject to such
alterations and amendments as are herein after contained, shall be, and the same is
hereby made perpetual….

XLIV. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after
the said twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, no
person shall be admitted to enter a claim to any ship or goods seized in pursuance of
this or any other act of parliament, and prosecuted in any of the British colonies or
plantations in America, until sufficient security be first given, by persons of known
© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A
TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
ability, in the court where such seizure is prosecuted, in the penalty of sixty pounds, to
answer the costs and charges of prosecution; and, in default of giving such security,
such ship or goods shall be adjudged to be forfeited, and shall be condemned.

XLV. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after
the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, if any
ship or goods shall be seized for any cause of forfeiture, and any dispute shall arise
whether the customs and duties for such goods have been paid, or the same have been
lawfully imported or exported, or concerning the growth, product, or manufacture, of
such goods, or the place from whence such goods were brought, then, and in such
cases, the proof thereof shall lie upon the owner or claimer of such ship or goods, and
not upon the officer who shall seize or stop the same; any law, custom, or usage, any
law, custom, or usage, to the contrary notwithstanding.

XLVI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the
twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, in case any
information shall be commenced and brought to trial in America, on account of any
seizure of any ship or goods as forfeited by this or any other act of parliament relating
to his Majesty's customs, wherein a verdict or sentence shall be given for the claimer
thereof; and it shall appear to the judge or court before whom the same shall be tried,
that there was a probable cause of seizure, the judge or court before whom the same
shall be tried shall certify on the record or other proceedings, that there was a probable
cause for the prosecutors seizing the said ship or goods; and, in such case, the
defendant shall not be intitled to any costs of suit whatsoever; nor shall the person who
seized the said ship or goods, be liable to any action, or other suit or prosecution, on
account of such seizure: and in any case any action, or other suit or prosecution, shall
be commenced and brought to trial against any person or persons whatsoever, on
account of the seizing any such ship or goods, where no information shall be
commenced or brought to trial to condemn the same, and a verdict or sentence shall be
given upon such action or prosecution against the defendant or defendants, if the court
or judge before whom such action or prosecution, shall certify in like manner as
aforesaid that there was a probable cause for such seizure, then the plaintiff besides
his ship or goods so seized, or the value thereof, shall not be intitled to above two pence
damages, nor to any costs of suit; nor shall the defendant in such prosecution be fined
above one shilling.

XLVII. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any action or suit
shall be commenced, either in Great Britain or America, against any person or persons
for any thing done in pursuance of this or any other act of parliament relating to his
Majesty's customs, the defendant or defendants in such action or suit may plead the
general issue, and give the said acts, and the special matter, in evidence at any trial to
be had thereupon, and that the same was done in pursuance and by the authority of

Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute

 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
such act; and if it shall appear so to have been done, the jury shall find for the
defendant or defendants; and if the plaintiff shall be non-suited, or discontinue his
action after the defendant or defendants shall have appeared, or if judgment shall be
given upon verdict or demurrer against the plaintiff, the defendant or defendants shall
recover treble costs, and have the like remedy for the same as defendants have in other
cases by law…

__________________________________________________

Sugar Act 1764 excerpt from The Avalon Project at Yale Law School

Entire Selection: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/sugar_act_1764.asp

Accessed July, 2019

Choosing Sides

The American Revolution divided the colonists and the British into two sides; the
Patriots and Loyalists. The Patriots were Americans who believed that the colonies
had the right to self-govern. The Loyalists, on the other hand, were supporters of
British rule over the colonies. When the war began, the Patriots were poorly
organized with an untrained army. In fighting the war, the Patriots hoped to gain
independent economic and political control, as British taxation and overbearing
rule had frustrated many colonists. The British, meanwhile, maintained a
professional army with hired mercenaries from Germany. The British sought to
maintain control over the colonies, as it was a strong source of revenue for the
monarchy.

The American Revolution played out on many battlefields, but soldiers were not
the only ones to take part. The war had many heroes, and it also had many victims.
Women gave much to the American Revolution. Enslaved Africans and American
Indians were also involved.

Women and the War

During the war, women had a key role in maintaining necessary societal functions
and shaping the future generation. Though the war was a destructive force, many
women carried on and ran family businesses. They planted and harvested crops.
They did their best to take care of their children. Many women served as spies for
the Patriot army, while others nursed the sick and wounded. A nurse had a greater
chance of dying from disease than a soldier had of dying in battle. Some women

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A

TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
used their household skills for the war. For instance, women in Philadelphia led an
effort to raise money and make clothing for the troops.

Women also helped win public support for the war. Writer Mercy Otis Warren
was one example, and so was Mary Katherine Goddard of Maryland, who helped
publish a newspaper. Some women traveled with the troops, cared for them, and,
in a few cases, took part in combat as well. Anna Lane was wounded at the Battle
of Germantown in 1777. Deborah Sampson dressed as a male soldier and fought in
several battles. She hoped that her decisions to enlight would be so that "we
[women] might be permitted and acknowledged to enjoy what we had so nobly
declared we would possess, or lose with our lives – freedom and independence."
Only when she became sick with a fever did an army doctor discover her secret.
Mary Ludwig Hays McCauley, known as Molly Pitcher, took her husband's place as
a gunner when he was hurt at the Battle of Monmouth in 1778.

Most notably, however, was the notion of the "republican mothers." This idea
entailed that the colonies needed intelligent and self-disciplined citizens in order to
form a strong foundation for the new republic following the end of the war. This
duty was passed along to wives and mothers, who were responsible for raising
their sons to be these intelligent and self-sufficient individuals. This desire for
strong political figures for the new government during this time increased the
significance of womens' sphere of influence during the American Revolution.

African American and the War

Five hundred thousand slaves lived in the colonies in 1776. The American
Revolution brought them challenges, choices, and opportunities. The British
offered freedom to slaves who joined their side. Tens of thousands of enslaved
African Americans were motivated to join the war efforts with this offer, and ran
away from their owners. Many slaves gave valuable service to the British by
fighting in battle, serving as spies, and performing many jobs in army camps. Some
slaves did, in fact, win their freedom. However, running away was risky.
Sometimes, the British turned away slaves who wanted to join them, and the
British even forced away many escaped slaves during the battle of Yorktown.
Many of them starved or died from disease, while others were caught and
returned to their owners.

Some African Americans fought for the Patriot cause in hopes of earning their
freedom and proving their worth; it is estimated that at least 5,000 black soldiers
fought against the British. Additionally, 5 percent of American soldiers at the
Battle of Bunker Hill were African American. In 1775, a black soldier named Salem
Poor became a hero after fighting at the Battle of Bunker Hill in Boston. Early in
the American Revolution, African Americans could not join the Patriot ranks. Some
Level: A © 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute
 TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
white colonists did not want to arm slaves, but this worry faded as the war
dragged on. African Americans found ways to help the Patriots off the battlefield,
too. One example is James Armistead who served as a spy and pretended to serve
the British. For his work, Armistead won his freedom. Following the end of the
war, the military service of African Americans helped to end slavery in New
England, whereas the middle states of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey
adopted policies of gradual emancipation for two decades beginning in 1780.
Despite this, however, freed African Americans still experienced constant
discrimination. Soon after, cotton became a major industry in the South, causing
slavery to persist.

American Indians and the War

Another group affected by the American Revolution were American Indians, who
saw both the colonists and the British as a threat as both the colonists. A few
American Indian tribes helped fight on the side of the colonists, while some sided
with the British. These tribes thought that the British were less of a threat to their
way of life than the colonists were. They also hoped that if the British won the
war, they would stop colonial expansion westward into Indian territory. One
Seneca warrior even argued in response to an American request for assistance
with war efforts that, "You say they are all mad, foolish, wicked, and deceitful - I
say you are so and they are wise for you want us to destroy ourselves in your War
and they advise us to live in Peace." Many American Indians, however, tried to
stay out of the war. In fact, they hoped that the two sides would weaken each
other, which in turn would help the American Indians maintain their land and
sovereignty.

However, staying out of the war proved difficult as few tribes could avoid being
caught in the fighting. Neither the British nor the Americans fully trusted the
American Indians, and each side punished tribes harshly for helping the other side.
Furthermore, both the American and British troops often raided American Indian
villages to take food supplies. As a result, hunger among the American Indians was
widespread.

By the war's end, many tribes were struggling to survive. The Patriot victory had
only made things worse. The British had previously tried to slow western
settlement, but now that British rule had ended, white settlers were again pushing
west, moving in large numbers onto American Indian lands. This led to many
American Indian tribes being forcibly removed from their land. Other tribes were
forced to integrate into white American society by white settlers. The culture and
traditions of American Indians were at risk.

© 2024 Teachers' Curriculum Institute Level: A