NHC+1690+Americans

NHC 1690 (5) AMERICAN

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/becomingamer/american/american.htm

The items on this wiki page are taken from the following website and are only intended for the use of my students:

National Humanities Center Toolbox Library: Primary Resources in U.S. History and Literature Toolbox: Becoming American: The British Atlantic Colonies, 1690-1763 http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/becomingamer/index.htm

American (1) http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/becomingamer/american/text1/text1read.htm

1763

Empire - "The continent is not wide enough for us both": On the European competition for North American territory, 1699-1763 (PDF) - A Letter from Benjamin Jones, on the defense of the Pennsylvania frontier, 1754 - Benjamin Franklin: The Interest of Great Britain Considered, With Regard to Her Colonies, 1760

Rev. George Berkeley, ca. 17281

"Westward the Course of Empire takes its Way." A line that connotes the nineteenth-century vision of America's "manifest destiny" to extend from sea to sea, yet a line written two centuries earlier, in the late 1720s, by an Anglican bishop predicting the transfer of enlightened civilization from Europe to America. And by the 1720s, American colonists were more than pleased to share the bounty of Britain's emergence as the dominant imperial power of Europe. "In the intertwined commercial and military successes, the British and their colonists found the measure of their virtues," writes historian Alan Taylor.2 "Enthusiastic participants in this patriotism of empire, the American colonists felt more strongly tied to the mother country." This "patriotism of empire," however, would be sorely tested during the imperial wars—the four French and Indian Wars—of the late 1600s and 1700s.3

In Theme III: ECONOMIES, we considered the commercial ties between Britain and the colonies in the 1700s. In this Theme, AMERICAN, we follow the political ties—the hot-button issues—that we now deem precursors to the American Revolution. And in this section, Empire, we look at the discord among the colonists, and between the colonists and Britain, over the persistent frontier threat of the French, Spanish, and their Indian allies.

"The continent is not wide enough for us both." So warned Rev. William Shirley in a sermon delivered before the governor and legislature of Massachusetts Bay colony in 1754, predicting another "violent concussion" to come with the French in North America. The strident voices of colonists and officials describing the European competition for North America are presented in this commentary from 1699 to 1763, when the British victory in the French and Indian War solidified its position as the dominant power on the continent. - Commentary by Edward Randolph, Robert Johnson, George Berkeley, Benjamin Doolittle, Robert Sayer, Jonathan Mayhew, Benjamin Franklin, Edmond Aitken, William Clarke, Henry Overton, Cadwallader Colden, Nathaniel Ames, and "your Boy."

A Letter from Benjamin Jones. For each colony, defending its western lands against the French and Indians (and Spanish) presented unique challenges. In Pennsylvania, the challenge was the pacifism of the Quakers, the founding sect and politically dominant group. Because they opposed the use of violence, even in self-defense, the colony had no militia of citizen soldiers to protect the frontier settlers. In a letter to a Pennsylvania relative, a Virginia colonist berates the Pennsylvanians for failing to oppose the Quakers' position and allowing themselves to be "bullied by a Thousand vagabond, dirty, pilfering, rascally Frenchmen and Savages." The recipient soon published the letter as a pamphlet. What influence might the letter have had on Pennsylvanians? - A Letter from Benjamin Jones, in Alexandria in Virginia, to John Jones, in Pennsylvania, 1754.

The Interest of Great Britain Considered, With Regard to Her Colonies. In the midst of the French and Indian War (1754-1763), fought primarily in French Canada and the northern colonies, the question presented itself: When we win, should we take possession of Canada or let the French keep it? Which alternative will provide more security and opportunity for the British colonies? When an anonymous writer published a pamphlet in 1760 supporting France's retention of Canada in a peace treaty, Benjamin Franklin revved up his pen and printing press in firm opposition and only slightly veiled disdain, demolishing each of the writer's arguments.

Discussion questions Overall, what impressions do you get from the readings and the map about the European conflicts for territory in North America? about the consequences of the wars for the colonies, the colonists, and the Indians (friend and foe)? How do the British and colonists view differently the territorial competition and its consequences to the British empire? to the colonies? Why? What illustrations do you find of a "patriotism of empire" among the colonists (even when they oppose specific British policies)? What enhances the colonists' "patriotism of empire"? When? Compare the colonists attitudes before and after the French and Indian War (1754-1963). What diminishes the colonists' "patriotism of empire"? What takes its place? Does Britain care? Summarize the main arguments for and against the British taking possession of French Canada after a victory in the French and Indian War. Why would it become a debated issue? Compare the tone of Benjamin Franklin and of Benjamin Jones in their selections. Why does Jones choose ridicule? Why does Franklin choose a tone of unruffled discourse? What implications underlie the tone in each selection? What is each man trying to achieve? Include other colonists' writings in a similar comparison of content and tone. Include a poem, a sermon, map annotations, etc. What, if any, evidence exists in these selections of the colonies "becoming American"? How are you defining "American" in order to reply to the question?

Framing Questions • How did the political relationship between the colonies and Great Britain change in this period? • How did individual colonies and colonists influence and respond to these changes? • To what extent were the colonies and colonists "becoming American"?

American (2)

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/becomingamer/american/text2/text2read.htm

Power - "Liberty, once lost, is lost forever": a colonist's appeal to preserve colonial autonomy, 1721 (PDF) - "They claim the right of directing themselves": a British official's warning about managing the colonies, 1764 (PDF)

When a parent revokes a privilege from a child, a loud "No fair!" is the likely response, especially if the privilege involves the child's sphere of autonomy, and especially if the child thinks the privilege is a birthright. Think of likely protestations—You promised. I've done nothing wrong. It won't help me grow up. It's not fair. These are precisely the four arguments presented in 1721 by colonist Jeremiah Dummer to oppose Parliament's revoking the original New England charters—the documents that established the colonies' rights and privileges, including self-governance—and imposing closer more imperial authority over the colonies. (His appeal was successful.)

Americans loved "Britannia," their parent, and cheered "God save the King" as loyal Britons. They also bristled and chafed as a child will do when the reins of power are drawn in. Here we consider this tug-of-war over power and autonomy as viewed by two officials who lived and understood colonial politics—one born in America with much experience in England, and other born in England with much experience in America. "Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." This is Jeremiah Dummer's final warning in his 1721 appeal to Parliament, A Defense of the New England Charters, in which he presents the four arguments (above) in precisely formulated and extensively buttressed propositions. A Harvard-educated minister and lawyer who lived for many years in England as the commercial agent for Massachusetts and Connecticut, Dummer understood how much Britain would sabotage her own commercial interests if she restricted the colonies' power. His reasoning proving persuasive (along with other factors), Parliament dropped the bill to revoke the charters. - Jeremiah Dummer, A Defense of the New England Charters, 1721, excerpts.

"They claim the right of directing themselves." Sharing Dummer's conviction that Britain could lose bigtime by autocratically limiting the colonies' long-cherished privileges, Thomas Pownall presented his position quite differently to British ears. Observing the power struggles between the colonies and the Crown during the French and Indian War (1754-1763), he published The Administration of the Colonies as a warning to Britain—implement clear central governance over the colonies or jeopardize Britain's future as a global commercial power. While convinced that the colonies would never revolt for independence, Pownall predicted their resistance to Britain's increased imperial authority and military presence after the war. Don't think of the colonies as "mere appendages to the realm," he counsels, but as loyal partners in "one organized whole, the commercial dominion of Great Britain." What must not happen, he emphasizes, is the colonies becoming unified as an entity in the commercial system. Pownall could have subtitled his work "Keeping the Power." - Thomas Pownall, The Administration of the Colonies, 1st ed., 1764, excerpts.

While you're reading, remember that the issue here is not the colonies' independence from Britain; that comes later. The issue is the colonies' self-governance within the empire. You might include two earlier colonial power struggles in your readings—the 1689 Boston Declaration of Grievances and the 1707-1708 pamphlet war between the power elite of Boston and the royal governor of Massachusetts. What constitutes "winning" and "losing" in these power struggles?

Discussion questions Overall, what impressions do you get from the readings about the causes and resolutions of the power struggles between the colonies and Great Britain before the revolutionary period? To what extent are they "rehearsals" for the American Revolution? (Be careful, here, of over-applying hindsight.) To whom do Jeremiah Dummer and Thomas Pownall address their arguments? How do they structure their arguments for these audiences? What opinions and recommendations do they share? Where do they differ? How does Dummer acknowledge Great Britain's position while appealing for the colonies? How does Pownall acknowledge the colonies' position while promoting a "vast maritime system" of which Great Britain would be the center? What was the outcome of the two appeals? What constitutes "winning" and "losing" in these power struggles? What, if any, evidence exists in these selections of the colonies "becoming American"? How are you defining "American" in order to reply to the question?

Framing Questions • How did the political relationship between the colonies and Great Britain change in this period? • How did individual colonies and colonists influence and respond to these changes? • To what extent were the colonies and colonists "becoming American"?

American (4)

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/becomingamer/american/text4/text4read.htm

Union? - "Not merely improbable, it is impossible": On the unlikely union of the colonies, 1722-1764 (PDF) - "Join, or Die." Illustration and editorial by Benjamin Franklin, 1754 The Confidence of the French in this Undertaking seems well-grounded on the present disunited State of the British Colonies, and the extreme Difficulty of bringing so many different Governments and Assemblies to agree in any speedy and effectual Measures for our common Defence and Security; while our Enemies have the very great Advantage of being under one Direction, with one Council, and one Purse.

Benjamin Franklin, 1754

One downside of the thirteen colonies' relative autonomy within the empire was just that: there were thirteen of them. Thirteen different charters, histories, identities, and decades-long habits of dealing with each other and with Great Britain. If threatened by a common enemy, would they unite? No.

The issue became critical with the fourth imperial war in North America—the French and Indian War. The British, penned in along the Atlantic seacoast by the French and Spanish, eyed western expansion more than ever. The French, committed to protecting its commercial dominance in fish and furs (especially in the Mississippi River valley), had no intention of losing land to the British. Each bolstered its defenses by building new forts and strengthening Indian alliances along their mutual boundaries—the "dotted lines" of territory, as they referred to their mapmakers' demarcations of claims (see the two North America maps in AMERICAN #1). War came in 1754 with early victories by the French, including the defeat of George Washington's troops at Fort Necessity in Pennsylvania (near present-day Pittsburgh). With the urging of the British to form a general colonial defense, Benjamin Franklin formulated the Albany Plan of Union (see Supplemental Sites below), which was ratified at a colonial assembly in July but died a quick death as the colonies refused to ratify it (and as the British troops arrived to man the frontier).

"Not merely improbable, it is impossible." The prospect of colonial unity had been considered before the 1754 crisis, especially as a vehicle to present proposals or grievances to Britain, with little success. Here we look at the certainty, held by colonists and Europeans alike, that the colonies would not ever unite: no, never. "Nothing can exceed the jealousy and emulation which they possess in regard to each other," noted Andrew Burnaby, an English clergyman travelling in the colonies. "Were they left to themselves," he adds, "there would soon be a civil war from one end of the continent to the other." - Statements by Daniel Coxe, Peter Kalm, Benjamin Franklin, William Clarke, Andrew Burnaby, and Thomas Pownall, 1722-1764.

"Join, or Die." One of the most famous images from colonial America is Benjamin Franklin's illustration, "Join, or Die," often called the first political cartoon in American history. Published in his Pennsylvania Gazette on 9 May 1754, a month before the Albany Congress convened to devise a plan of union for the defense of the colonies, it rapidly appeared in other colonial newspapers, north to south. It is often presented without Franklin's accompanying remarks (including the statement that introduces this section). Why did Franklin choose the image of a snake? Why did he adopt such an insistent tone in his remarks? - Benjamin Franklin, "Join, or Die," illustration with editorial in The Pennsylvania Gazette, 9 May 1754.

Pair these readings with those in the next section, Independence?, especially as you enter the pre-revolutionary period of 1763 to 1776, a revolutionary period in itself.

Discussion questions What are the major reasons given to argue that a union of the colonies is "not merely improbable, it is impossible"? What do you see as the core issue blocking a union of the colonies (not just in 1754)? power? economic interests? territory? festering discord? influence with Britain? Are there any opposing arguments? Where might you find statements before 1763 that the colonies could form a union? Contrast the American and European perspectives on the "impossibility" of a union of the colonies. How do they perceive the colonies' situation differently? Trace the change in Franklin's views about colonial unity from the 1740s to the 1760s, including the years after the 1763 British victory in the French and Indian War. How does he balance idealistic and pragmatic aspects of his vision? What are Franklin's reasons against "partial unions," i.e., forming several groups of two to three colonies each instead of a single union of all the colonies? The document (in #2) was left unfinished, or the rest of the pages have been lost. The last truncated sentence is "To which may be added, this: that as the union of the . . ." How would you finish this sentence and conclude the discussion? For the cartoon illustration, why did Franklin choose the image of a snake? What other animals, or objects, could he have chosen that would provide suitable metaphors? Why did he adopt such an insistent tone in his remarks accompanying the "Join, or Die" cartoon? What, if any, evidence exists in these selections of the colonies "becoming American"? How are you defining "American" in order to reply to the question?

Framing Questions • How did the political relationship between the colonies and Great Britain change in this period? • How did individual colonies and colonists influence and respond to these changes? • To what extent were the colonies and colonists "becoming American"?

American (5)

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/becomingamer/american/text5/text5read.htm

Independence? - "It would be the height of madness for them to propose an Independency": on the colonies' rebelling from Great Britain; selections, 1705-1767

- "How far are we obliged to submit?": a clergyman's sermon on "unlimited submission," 1750, excerpts

Published in Boston from 1743-1746, The American Magazine and Historical Chronicle (at right) was the first colonial periodical to use the term "American" in its title. Did it signify a distinctly colonial identity? an emergence of a non-English self-image? Not at all. The monthly was modeled after The London Magazine and its contents were primarily reprints from London periodicals.1 "Americans" still considered themselves proud and loyal citizens of the empire. Despite the power struggles with Great Britain in the 1700s, they did not view rebellion and independence as options. Not only were they too disunited and militarily weak to fight a war for independence, they didn't want to be independent. And in 1763, after Britain's victory in the French and Indian War and its acquisition of all French territory east of the Mississippi River, Americans were thrilled to be Britons. "Instead of national independence," notes historian Alan Taylor, "the colonists had wanted to preserve their privileged position within the empire as virtually untaxed beneficiaries of imperial trade and protection. Until the British began to tighten the empire in the 1760s, the colonists had a very good deal—and they knew it."2 "It would be the height of madness for them to propose an Independency." So wrote Lewis Evans, a geographer and mapmaker, in commentary accompanying his new map of North America in 1755 during the early years of the French and Indian War (when British forces were not the victors). His opinion follows the consensus among observers of the colonial relationship with the mother country, displayed in these selections from 1705 to 1767. - Remarks by Francis Makemie, Jeremiah Dummer, Hugh Jones, Peter Kalm, William Smith, Jonathan Mayhew, Andrew Burnaby, Thomas Barnard, Thomas Pownall, and Benjamin Franklin, 1705-1767.

"How far are we obliged to submit?" In a sermon in 1750, the Boston clergyman Jonathan Mayhew pursued an inquiry into the ethical limits of "unlimited submission" to governmental authority. At the same time he warned against taking his argument to extremes. "If we may innocently disobey and resist in some crises, why not in all? Where shall we stop?" Although he closes with a call to "limited submission"—"Let us all learn to be free, and to be loyal"—he suggests when "limited submission" should become no submission at all. "His sermon contains the language, rhetoric, symbolism, typology, and religious and philosophical arguments," points out scholar Paul Royster, "that would be used extensively in the agitation for American independence twenty-five years later."3 - Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers, 1750, excerpts.

What happened in the years 1763 to 1776 to turn the proud Britons in America into rebellious Patriots? What happened to the "very good deal" the colonists had enjoyed for decades? When did a war for independence no longer seem "the height of madness"?

Discussion questions What major reasons are offered against the likelihood of the colonies' uniting for independence? What do the commentators see as the core factor in the colonies' desire to remain in the empire? Loyalty? Need for security? Habit? Commercial gain? Identity as Englishmen? Military weakness? Disunity? Are there opposing viewpoints? Where might you find statements before 1763 that the colonies could unite and fight for independence? Contrast the American and European perspectives on the likelihood of American rebellion. How do they perceive the colonies' situation differently? What ethical justification does Jonathan Mayhew offer in his sermon for citizens to abandon "unlimited submission" to governmental authority? Why is he so scrupulous in basing his justification in scripture? Pair these readings with those in #5: Union? How linked are the issues of colonial unity, colonial rebellion, and independence from Britain? What, if any, evidence exists in these selections of the colonies "becoming American"? How are you defining "American" in order to reply to the question? What happened in the years 1763 to 1776 to turn the proud Britons in America into rebellious Patriots? What happened to the "very good deal" the colonists had enjoyed for decades? When did a war for independence no longer seem "the height of madness"?

Framing Questions • How did the political relationship between the colonies and Great Britain change in this period? • How did individual colonies and colonists influence and respond to these changes? • To what extent were the colonies and colonists "becoming American"?