Gregory Bodenhamer There is little doubt that the Great Awakening contributed to an increase in church membership and the creation of new churches. Congregations often split between the opponents (“Old Lights”) and the supporters (“New Lights”) of the religious revival. Slaves and Indians converted to Christianity in significant numbers for the first time, and the more evangelical sects, such as the Baptist and Methodist, grew. A rough estimate puts the number of religious organizations in the colonies in 1775 at more than three thousand. At the same time, the Great Awakening promoted religious pluralism. As the road to salvation was opened to everyone through personal conversion, doctrinal differences among the Protestant denominations became less important.

There is little doubt that the Great Awakening contributed to an increase in church membership and the creation of new churches. Congregations often split between the opponents (“Old Lights”) and the supporters (“New Lights”) of the religious revival. Slaves and Indians converted to Christianity in significant numbers for the first time, and the more evangelical sects, such as the Baptist and Methodist, grew. A rough estimate puts the number of religious organizations in the colonies in 1775 at more than three thousand. At the same time, the Great Awakening promoted religious pluralism. As the road to salvation was opened to everyone through personal conversion, doctrinal differences among the Protestant denominations became less important.

The religious movement is also often credited with encouraging the creation of new institutions of higher learning. Princeton University, founded as the College of New Jersey in 1746, grew out of the early revivalist William Tennent's Log College. Others established during the Great Awakening include Columbia University (King's College, 1754, Anglican), Brown University (Rhode Island College, 1764, Baptist), Rutgers (Queens College, 1766, Dutch Reformed), and Dartmouth College (1769, Congregationalist).

Rivals for Empire

England was not the only country with territorial claims in North America. While Florida and vast stretches of the southwest from present-day Texas to California were under Spanish control, Spain did not pose a serious threat to English primacy. The only possible area of contention was in the southeast, and Georgia proved to be an effective buffer. France was another matter, however. The French controlled much of the land west of the Appalachians to the Rocky Mountains and south from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. The handful of settlers from the colonies who ventured beyond the Appalachians quickly came into contact with French trappers and their Indian allies.

The expansion of France in North America. From their settlements in Canada (New France), the French expanded throughout the Great Lakes and into the Mississippi Valley in the late seventeenth century. In 1673, the Jesuit priest Jacques Marquette and the fur trader Louis Joliet traveled by land and canoe from what is today Wisconsin down the Mississippi River to its juncture with the Arkansas River. Nine years later, La Salle reached the Illinois River from Lake Michigan, followed it to its confluence with the Mississippi River, and from there explored the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico. He claimed the territory for France, naming the millions of acres that composed the Mississippi River watershed Louisiana in honor of King Louis XIV. French settlement of their newly claimed lands, however, did not begin in earnest until the eighteenth century. New Orleans was founded in 1718 as the capital of a colony that became a royal province in 1732, and French forts were established throughout the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio river valleys.

Marquette and Joliet reflected the principal motives behind French exploration and settlement: bringing Catholicism to the native tribes and expanding the fur trade. Neither motive was intended to bring large numbers of colonists to North America. Royal policy was an inhibiting factor to settlement as well. Louis XIV opened the French territory to only French Catholics; no place was made for French Huguenots, who had helped settle South Carolina, nor were there proprietors like William Penn who throughout Europe actively promoted the colonization of his land grant. As a result, the population of New France and Louisiana was quite small compared to that of the English colonies in the eighteenth century. Another important difference between the two was their relationship with the Indians. In the English colonies, disease, war, and slavery sum up the experience of the native tribes. French trappers, on the other hand, adopted Indian ways and often married Indian women. Although conversion was certainly the ultimate goal, even the Jesuit missionaries respected Indian culture. Most important, the size of the French presence posed no immediate threat to either the Indians' way of life or their lands. The Indians proved to be valuable allies of France in its conflicts with England.

The wars between England and France. Between 1689 and 1763, England and France fought four wars. The causes of each one, with the notable exception of the French and Indian War (the Seven Years' War, 1754–63), lay in European dynastic politics, and North America was a minor theater of operations.

While the outcome of King William's War (War of the League of Augsburg, 1689–97) was inconclusive, England acquired longdisputed territory in Canada through the Treaty of Utrecht, which ended Queen Anne's War (War of the Spanish Succession, 1702–13). Newfoundland, Acadia (which was later renamed Nova Scotia), and the fur-rich Hudson Bay were ceded to Great Britain. (Great Britain became the official name of England, Scotland, and Wales following their union in 1707.) The impact of the wars on the colonies, particularly New England, which supplied the bulk of the troops for the Canadian raids, was significant in loss of life, increased taxes, and debt. The third conflict between England and France, King George's War (War of the Austrian Succession, 1744–48), involved only minor border raids and skirmishes between the two countries and their Indian allies, without any meaningful results.

During the 1740s, fur traders from Pennsylvania and Virginia began to move into the Ohio River Valley; Virginia was also interested in land for its large and growing population, and several land companies received sizable grants from the Crown in 1749. The French responded by building a string of forts in the disputed territory, including Fort Duquesne near Pittsburgh. Hostilities began in 1754. George Washington, then a young officer in the Virginia militia, experienced his first defeat in the Pennsylvania backcountry at the hands of the French. When France and Great Britain decided to commit troops, the conflict on the frontier became a contest for the control of North America that soon had even wider international ramifications.

The French and Indian War. The first few years of the French and Indian War did not go well for the British. Despite their inferior numbers, the French had success relying on their considerable Indian support. The colonists and the British, on the other hand, were unable to persuade the Six Nations—a confederation of the Mohawk, Onandaga, Oneida, Cayuga, Seneca, and Tuscarora tribes—which had fought alongside them in previous conflicts, to end its neutrality. British commanders were ineffective, not understanding that tactics used on European battlefields were not effective in the wilderness. In hope of turning the tide, War Minister William Pitt mobilized the British army and navy for action in the colonies, despite the spread of the war to Europe (1756), and he agreed to reimburse the colonial legislatures for the cost of more American troops. The strategy worked. Fort Duquesne fell and the Iroquois joined the British in a series of successful campaigns along the northern New York frontier. The decisive battle in North America was at Quebec in 1759, where the fighting was so fierce that the opposing generals—Wolfe for the British and Montcalm for the French—were both killed. Montreal, the last important French stronghold in North America, was captured in 1760.

Although the war continued for another three years in the Caribbean and the Pacific, the outcome was never in doubt. Through the Treaty of Paris (1763), Britain acquired all French territory east of the Mississippi River and French Canada, with the exception of a few islands off the coast of Newfoundland. Spain, which had entered the war in 1761 on the side of France and had lost Cuba in the process, ceded Florida to the British to get the island back. France compensated Spain for the loss of Florida by giving up all its lands west of the Mississippi River, known as the Louisiana Territory.

Discontent in the Colonies

In 1763, British power stretched from India to North America and the Caribbean, but the cost of creating the empire was high. Britain was facing an enormous postwar debt and already-high taxes as well as the need to finance the administration of its newly acquired lands. The British expected the American colonies, which prospered during the Seven Years' War through lucrative military contracts despite additional taxes, to assume at least part of the financial burden. The colonists had expectations as well: unfettered access to western lands, for example. Although most considered themselves English subjects and were proud to have helped Britain win an empire, a sense of American identity was developing. The colonists had gained greater control over their lives during the war, through their colonial assemblies' exacting concessions from royal governors as the price for raising revenue, and whether the colonists would again meekly accept the role of imperial subject was unknown.

The Seven Years' War had begun over control of the Ohio River Valley; affairs in that region became the first issue the British faced in governing their new empire. France's Indian allies certainly knew that the British victory meant more and more settlers would flood onto their lands. In the spring of 1763, Pontiac, an Ottawa leader, formed a coalition of tribes to drive the British off the western lands. Pontiac's Rebellion caused chaos in the Great Lakes region as his forces overran eight British forts and threatened both Detroit and Pittsburgh. The British fought back by giving Indians smallpox-infected blankets, an early example of biological warfare. Although Pontiac himself did not agree to peace until 1766, Parliament tried to placate the Indians through legislation.

The Proclamation of 1763. Intended to keep the colonists and Ohio Valley tribes separated as much as possible, the Proclamation of 1763 established a boundary running along the crest of the Appalachian Mountains. Unlicensed traders and settlers were banned west of the boundary. The colonists considered the proclamation a challenge to their land claims and continued pushing west, rendering its orders ineffective. Within a few years, British Indian agents negotiated treaties with the Iroquois, Cherokee, and other tribes, opening up large areas of western New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia to settlement.

The Proclamation of 1763 represented an attempt by Britain to exercise greater control over the colonies. The Sugar Act, passed by Parliament in 1764, had the same goal. For more than a century, the Navigation Acts had loosely regulated colonial trade to protect British commerce and manufacturing from competition; the duties imposed on the imports and exports were not intended to raise revenue. The Sugar Act reversed this policy; indeed, the law was officially called the American Revenue Act. By reducing the tax on molasses from the French West Indies and providing for stricter enforcement against smugglers through British vice-admiralty courts, Britain hoped to raise enough money to offset the cost of maintaining troops in the colonies.

The Stamp Act. The Stamp Act required the use of specially marked paper or the affixing of stamps on all wills, contracts, other legal documents, newspapers, and even playing cards. Any colonist who bought a newspaper or engaged in any business transaction was required to pay the tax, and violators faced severe penalties. In contrast to the duties charged under the Navigation Acts and even the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act charges represented the first internal tax, falling directly on the goods and services in the colonies.

Some British leaders, most notably William Pitt, objected strenuously to the Stamp Act because it raised the question of taxation without representation. Prime Minister George Grenville countered that all British subjects enjoyed virtual representation; that is, the members of Parliament represented not only the constituents of their district but the interests of British citizens everywhere, including those in America. The colonists, of course, sided with Pitt and claimed that if Americans were not sitting in Parliament, there was no way the members could know their concerns and interests.

The colonial reaction to the Stamp Act. To the colonists, the Stamp Act was a dangerous departure from previous policies, and they were determined to resist it. The Virginia House of Burgesses, led by Patrick Henry, passed resolutions against the legislation. Violent protests broke out in several of the colonies, led by groups calling themselves the Sons of Liberty. Stamp distributors were hung in effigy and suffered the destruction of their homes. In October 1765, representatives from nine colonies met as the Stamp Act Congress, which agreed that Parliament had the right to enact laws for the colonies but not to impose direct taxes. As the effective date of the Stamp Act approached (November 1, 1765), the colonists simply refused to use the stamps and organized an effective boycott of British goods. To prevent business from coming to a halt, royal officials backed away from requiring stamps on legal documents.

While Parliament was surprised by the extent of the colonial reaction, British manufacturers and merchants were distressed. Pointing out that the boycott could have serious economic repercussions at home, they demanded and got the repeal of the Stamp Act in March 1766. The revocation was more expedient than principled, and Parliament made it clear by passing the Declaratory Act on the same day that it still had the right to legislate for the colonies.

The policies of Charles Townshend. Charles Townshend became prime minister of Great Britain in 1767. He had opposed the Stamp Act, and the colonies initially hoped he would pursue more reasonable policies for North America. They were quickly disillusioned. Responding to protests in New York over the Quartering (or Mutiny) Act of 1765, which required colonial legislatures to pay for supplies needed by British troops, Townshend threatened to nullify all laws passed by the colony unless the payments were made. New York backed down but understood that the threat clearly interfered with colonial self-government. Townshend was just as committed as Grenville to raising revenues from the colonies. The Revenue Act of 1767, better known as the Townshend duties, taxed American imports of glass, lead, paper, paint, and tea. Because the new duties were external taxes unlike those of the Stamp Act, Townshend believed there would be little opposition; the colonists had moved beyond the distinction between internal and external taxes, however. John Dickinson, whose Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania was published in almost every newspaper in the colonies, argued that Parliament could not tax commerce for revenue purposes because that power resided in the colonial assemblies alone. Townshend had also created the American Board of Customs Commissioners to regulate the collection of the duties. Its soon-hated agents and commissioners used their office to enrich themselves by levying heavy fines for technical violations, to spy on alleged violators, and even to seize property for dubious reasons.

The Massachusetts House of Representatives circulated a letter, the Massachusetts Circular Letter, drafted by Samuel Adams, protesting Townshend's policies and again raising the issue of “no taxation without representation.” When the letter was not rescinded, the legislature was dissolved by the royal governor on orders from London. A boycott again proved to be the most effective weapon the colonists wielded in their ongoing confrontation with Parliament. Merchants as well as consumers in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia and then throughout the colonies agreed not to import or use British goods. Colonial women joined the Daughters of Liberty, supporting the boycott by making their own thread and cloth. As a direct result of the boycott, the value of colonial imports from Britain dropped significantly from 1768 to 1769, a loss far exceeding the revenue generated by the Townshend duties. Parliament repealed the law for all goods except tea in 1770.

The Boston Massacre. Rioting in Boston over the actions of the Board of Customs Commissioners brought British soldiers to the city in October 1768. Over the next few years, animosity toward the soldiers grew and finally boiled over on March 5, 1770, when troops fired on a crowd of rock-throwing demonstrators, killing five. Although the soldiers had been provoked, and several were later brought to trial, patriots Samuel Adams and Paul Revere tried to use the incident to stir up anti-British passions. In fact, the “Boston Massacre” did not trigger further resistance, and tensions between the colonies and Britain eased, although temporarily.

Drifting toward Revolution

Two events in 1772 brought the period of calm to an end. Rhode Island colonists burned the British ship Gaspee, which had run aground while patrolling for smugglers. Although the authorities ultimately found no one to prosecute, colonists learned that the plan had been to send the culprits to London for trial. At about the same time, the British government announced that the salaries of the Massachusetts governor and judges would henceforth be paid by the Crown, not the colonial legislature. Both incidents suggested that Britain was determined to undermine colonial liberties, and together they led to the formation of committees of correspondence. Created in Massachusetts to bring news of British abuses to town meetings, they promoted political education among the colonists and whipped up anti-British sentiment; by 1773, hundreds were operating nearly throughout the colonies.

The Tea Act and Boston Tea Party. In an attempt to rescue the almost bankrupt East India Company, Prime Minister Lord North gave the business a monopoly on the sale and distribution of tea in the colonies. The Tea Act (1773) lowered the price on tea to a point that not even the smugglers could match, and Parliament expected the colonists to welcome the windfall. North miscalculated the reaction to the tea monopoly just as Townshend had misjudged colonial reception of the external taxes. Revenue from the tea tax, despite the low price to consumers, cemented Parliament's right to tax the colonists, which was unacceptable to many Americans.

In Boston, colonists insisted that tea shipments be sent back to England without payment of the customs duties. When the governor refused, Bostonians, led by Samuel Adams, took matters into their own hands. Fifty men disguised as Mohawk Indians boarded one of the ships and threw the entire cargo of tea into the harbor. The Boston Tea Party (December 16, 1773) was a crucial turning point. The colonists had moved beyond boycotts to the destruction of property, and as far as Lord North and King George III were concerned, the new issue was whether and how Britain would regain control over the colonies.

The Coercive Acts. In response to the Boston Tea Party, Parliament passed a series of punitive measures against Massachusetts. The Coercive Acts (called the Intolerable Acts in the colonies) closed the port of Boston until the cost of the tea and customs charges were repaid; revoked parts of the Massachusetts charter, letting the king select members for the legislature's upper house and the governor appoint most officials; and allowed British troops and royal officials accused of a capital offense while carrying out their duties to be tried in another colony or in England. A new Quartering Act, which applied to all the colonies, permitted the governors to house soldiers in private houses or buildings. Around the same time, Parliament enacted the Quebec Act, which recognized Catholicism as the official religion of Quebec. The act was an affront to Protestant Anglo-Americans, particularly in New England. More important, the Ohio River was made the southern boundary of Quebec, taking territory that Massachusetts, Virginia, and Connecticut claimed.

Clearly, the Coercive Acts were aimed not just at Massachusetts but all the colonies. Prior loosely coordinated colonial responses to English laws were judged to be inadequate this time, and calls went out for a meeting of representatives to develop a joint plan of action. Twelve of the thirteen colonies (only Georgia did not send a delegation) participated in the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia during September and October 1774.

The First Continental Congress. Although the representatives attending the First Continental Congress endorsed the Massachusetts Suffolk Resolves, a set of statements which in addition to condemning the Coercive Acts called on the colonists to form their own militias, the final declaration adopted by the Congress was considerably more moderate. The grievances and resolves were essentially a condemnation of Parliament for denying the colonists the rights and privileges they traditionally enjoyed as English subjects. In matters of taxation and internal policy, the colonies, through their legislatures, were free to chart their own course, subject only to a veto by the king. The declaration sought the repeal of all legislation enacted since 1763 that ran counter to this basic principle, including the Intolerable Acts, and a redress of their grievances by appealing not to Parliament but to the Crown and the British people. The Congress was clearly not prepared to completely break with Britain.

To specifically fight the Coercive Acts, the representatives agreed to suspend all economic ties—imports, exports, and consumption—with Great Britain. While several colonies had already approved nonimportation agreements, the economic plan was significant in several respects. First, it included a ban on the importation of slaves, not out any moral concern over the evils of slavery but because of the impact a ban would have on the British slave-trade monopoly. Second, the boycott was to be enforced through the committees of correspondence operating under rules set by the newly created Continental Association.

Start of the American Revolution

Some hoped the colonies could put enough economic pressure on Great Britain to prevent the crisis from escalating. Imports dropped by more than ninety percent from 1774 to 1775, and English merchants were appealing to Parliament to compromise with the colonies as early as January 1775. William Pitt in the House of Lords and Edmund Burke in the House of Commons also urged reconciliation, and Lord North was developing his own plan. But events in Massachusetts were moving quickly toward armed conflict.