Friday, September 26, 2008

Radicalism: Getting Rid of the Oppressors

   In the late 1700s, especially after the French and Indian War, the British established a much firmer grip on their colonies in the New World.  Even before the French and Indian war, they passed several acts that severely limited what colonists could and could not produce on their own land.  Following the War, they passed the 'Intolerable Acts,' thoroughly enraging Colonies all across the New World.  The colonists met twice in the mid 1770s, in conventions that would later be known as the First and Second Continental Congresses.  Here, the colonists were split into three groups of people; Radicals, Moderates and Conservatives, each with their own opinions of how the Colonies should respond to English oppression.  The Moderates believed that relations with the colonies' mother country could still be repaired, and that the recent events did not call for a revolution.  The Conservatives wanted to establish a plan with the English that would restore their relations exactly as they were before the French and Indian War, including the Intolerable Acts.  The Radicals, heavily outnumbered, held that the Colonies should act immediately against the English, whether by force or strong diplomacy.  The Radicals eventually had the right idea in history, and did prove to be the right choice in the end.  While severely outnumbered in the Continental Congresses, the Radicals were the most persuasive in their ideas through events that happened in history.
   The Moderates in the Continental Congress, including important figures such as George Washington, believed that the oppression of the English on the Colonists had not yet necessitated a forceful American revolution.  They still retained hope in their mother country, and still thought that they would listen to their subjects halfway across the globe.  They didn't believe that the Intolerable Acts and other Acts of oppression were permanent, so long as they argued and complained to the government that effectively gave the colonists the food on their plates.  Moderates were also opposed and possibly even fearful of a revolution by force to the English Empire, as they were at the time the largest and strongest military power in Europe.  To any logical mind, an assault against the British from their own colonies would be effective suicide.  However, the Moderates did not take into consideration the fact that the colonists were being crushed by all the oppression and pressure that the English were enforcing, nor the fact that they could align with the French and/or Spanish in a revolution against England.  The Moderates had a flawed argument in the end.
   The Conservatives perhaps held an even more absurd opinion of what could happen between the Colonies and the British; they believed that relations could be restored to the way they were prior to the French and Indian War.  Even before that war, the English imposed Acts that limited what the colonists could and could not do with the resources that they extracted and harvested.  Even before the War, the English already had plans to fully utilize the colonists to do their bidding, effectively practicing mercantilism to its highest extent.  The War itself was a great catalyst in enforcing English prosperity on the colonists even more, as they practically depended on the English for all their necessary supplies.  After the War, the English fully expected the colonists to be eternally grateful for their 'savior.'  However, they saw right through their tactics, and it became clear that relations could not be repaired, no matter how hard certain people such as the Conservatives argued for it.
   The Radicals were the only ones in the Continental Congresses who really saw that the tactics of the British Empire were only harming the colonists.  They held that relations could not be repaired, certainly could not be brought back to the state they were in more than 30 years ago, and were doomed to consume and crush the colonists.  The Radicals believed, rightly so, that force, violent or nonviolent, should be used to push back the English oppressors.  They called for an immediate, strong and forceful response, or else the colonies would surely be swallowed up completely by the taxes, the polices and the moderation of the iron English hand.  And a Revolution is exactly what started rolling less than 2 years after the Second Continental Congress was dismissed.
   The British rule over their colonies was simply intolerable by 1774, and all the colonies knew it.  However, most of them were too driven by fear to even suggest a revolution, or any sort of opposition to their mother country, save the Radicals.  After all, such ideas as a revolution would surely be severely punished by the ones who ruled the colonies, despite the fact that British rule was already being resisted by colonists across America.  Outnumbered by 2 to 1, the Radicals held their ideas, and eventually got the ball rolling for the American Revolution, which was in the end a complete success.  The 'dangerous' idea of full revolution against an oppressor turned was proven by history to be the exact right decision.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Why did the Radicals believe that their relationship with Britain was beyond repair? That is the arguement I wanted you to dissect.

C

MB