Dissent Built America; Why is it Considered Un-American Now?
The Patriot Act is only the most famous legislative action taken by the Bush regime to restrict civil rights in America. But anyone who openly questions the Patriot Act is accused of being soft on terrorism. After all, is there really any justifiable point at which allowing people the freedom to do certain things trumps protecting us from the onslaught of terrorists who have been making their way into this country since the rise of Islamic terrorism in the early 70’s?
One of the earliest examples of open dissent that ultimately led to the American Revolutionary War the reaction to the Proclamation of 1763. The Proclamation of 1763 ostensibly was instituted in order to restrict further European settlement of all lands that lay east of the Appalachian Mountains. This early attempt at immigration reform was an attempt to avert new conflicts with the Indians on the west side. As an attempt to legislate racial harmony, the Proclamation couldn’t have been a more spectacular failure. That failure, however, pales in comparison to the Proclamation of 1763 as an attempt to maintain British domination over the colonies. It was, in fact, part of a long fuse connected to a powder keg waiting to detonate into freedom and liberty.
Just as many people today see in the Bush regime an attempt to create an American empire, so the colonists saw in their motherland an increasing impatience in its desire to make the Roman empire look like a subdivision. One particular difficulty was that empire building is costly. (Simply take a look at how many billions per month is being spent on Iraq and you’ll see what I mean.) The cost of empire had to be paid for by somebody and as history has shown over and over, the finest way to finance war is through taxation of people who are far enough away that they won’t rise in revolt.
It was ultimately the passage of several legislative acts that finally broke the camel’s back and stiffened the resolve of the colonists enough to revolt. The theory that they American colonists were so far away that the wouldn’t dare revolt was perhaps exactly the thing that rose up to bite King George (the British one, not our current one) in the butt. In fact, it was perhaps the very fact that they were separated by such a great distance from the King that was the incentive to rise against him. The Currency Act, the Sugar Act, the Quartering Act and the Stamp Act were all enacted one after another.
The Currency Act criminalized the use paper money as legal tender for payment of all debts. The result of the Currency Act was a significant restriction of trade. The Sugar Act followed hard upon the Molasses Act of 1733, a piece of legislation which was not exactly enforced with extreme prejudice. One of the provisions of the Sugar Act that sounds eerily contemporary was that it provided that violators could be prosecuted without benefit of local juries. The Stamp Act required colonists to buy and place revenue stamps on all official legal documents, pamphlets, newspapers, etc. Colonists strongly opposed the Stamp Act in part because of the economic costs imposed on them by the reforms, and in part because they didn’t want their monies to be used to further the cause of British empire-building.
The Stamp Act eventually led to the Stamp Act Congress, an expression of dissent that would no doubt draw the paralytic ire of Vice President Dick Cheney if something similar were attempted today. The Stamp Act Congress involved representatives from nine colonies coming together to formally protest the exquisitely unfairness of the Stamp Act. Three different documents came about as a result, each asserting the opposition of the colonists: A Declaration of Rights and Grievances, an address to the king, and a group of petitions to both houses of British Parliament. The result of dissent is undeniable: The Stamp Act was repealed in 1766. The ideals of independence brought forth by the congress, including such things as the right of trial by jury, as well as taxation only with representation were eventually embraced by the writers of the greatest expression of dissent of all time: the Declaration of Independence.
The Townshend Acts mark another sore spot for the colonists. Passed in 1767, the first of the Townshend Acts called for the suspension of the New York Assembly. The Revenue Act imposed customs duties on colonial imports of glass, paints, paper, and tea. A later legislative act instituted commissioners in the colonies to administer the customs services and to make sure the duties were collected. As you might expect, the Townshend Acts didn’t exactly bring the colonists and the British closer together. In fact, it was the reaction to the Townshend Acts that eventually resulted in the dissolution of the Massachusetts legislature in 1768.
England repealed most of the Townshend Acts as a move toward peace with the ascension of Lord Frederick North as Prime Minister. This move toward peace stopped short of any actual withdrawal of British troops. To the contrary, British troops were on the verge of creating a historical incident courtesy of an overhyped massacre in Boston. Troops had been quartered in Boston with the express intent of quashing the protestors of the Townshend Acts. The word massacre carries with it some particular connotations, almost none of which actually fit what happened that night in Boston as citizens harassed the troops and threw something that hit a British soldier. The soldiers fired into the crowd and killed five men. The massacre was exploited by the revolutionary firebrand Samuel Adams to foster anti-British dogma in the colonies.
The propagation of patriotic propaganda-otherwise known as dissent-erupted soon after. Patriotic colonists began to warn fellow colonists of the inherent dangers of the British search for an empire encompassing two continents. Prime Minister North unwittingly help fan the flames of independence by passing yet another unpopular piece of legislation, the Tea Act of 1773. This enacted a customs duty on the East India Company’s tea and permitted its direct export to America. The company’s tea was cheaper than the smuggled Dutch tea that most Americans were drinking at the time, but if the colonists bought it they would be accepting the duty as well as playing a part in American merchants losing a valuable trade since the company planned to sell its tea through its own agents. The result? The most famous act of open dissent of the revolutionary period, the infamous Boston Tea Party.
The fuse that had been lit by the Proclamation of 1763 had been burning steadily toward its powder keg and was dangerously close to the point of no return. England was demanding restitution for all the ruined tea. Needless to say, the colonists rejected that idea outright. This was the state of affairs that brought about the Intolerable Acts, which were nothing more than punitive measures brought against Massachusetts. The Boston Port Act closed the port of Boston to trade. The Massachusetts Government Act enacted a revocation of the colony’s charter while also forbidding town meetings. The Quartering Act required the colonists to provide lodging for British soldiers. The Impartial Administration of Justice Act removed British officials from the jurisdiction of Massachusetts courts. Taken together these acts were now called Intolerable and the remaining colonies united with Massachusetts. Virginia suggested that the colonies meet to devise a method of action against British rule. This proposal led to the calling of the First Continental Congress in September 1774. The rest is history.
It just goes to show what a little dissent can lead to. Freedom, liberty and independence. What the hell happened?
