# 1301 3c - Aftermath of the French and Indian War - Debt **Channel:** Chad Tomaselli **Source:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nr8xQV7hDw **Transcript page:** https://www.withtranscript.ai/video/8Nr8xQV7hDw ## Chapters - 0:00 — British War Debt and Colonial Taxes - 1:51 — Enforcing Navigation Acts in Colonies - 5:33 — Debating New Taxes and Fairness - 9:44 — Sons of Liberty and Protest - 13:30 — Tarring, Feathering, and Closing Remarks ## Transcript **[0:00]:** The second major issue for the British in the aftermath of the French and Indian War regarding the thirteen colonies was debt. English national debt doubled because of the French and Indian War. So the amount of debt the government held doubled in just these seven, really nine years of fighting between the French and Indian War and the Seven Years War. Remember in the Blue Water Policy, the British government ignored the cost of the war and now Hill had to deal with that decision. We will look to the. **[0:31]:** They will look, sorry, they will look to the colonies to satisfy these debts. As the war started there and they significantly and directly benefited from it, English citizens of Britain were already heavily taxed, close to their limit. Essentially, if they tried to tax them more or put more taxes on them, it would be more than they could afford, right? They would start having negative income balances and they didn't want that. Nobody wanted that. **[0:58]:** So the British government needed a new source of income, a new tax base. Parliament and the Crown will utilize two main ways to satisfy these debts. One, the enforcement of the Navigation Acts and two, the creation of new colonial taxes. So you can see how this makes sense from their perspective. The war started in the colonies. **[1:20]:** French and Indian war started in the colonies. The Seven Years War by extension, started in the colonies. The colonies benefited greatly from this, even though they were ignoring the proclamation as all this is going on, so it's only natural the British government would focus on the colonies to deal with the debt from the war that they started and benefited from. It's really not that unreasonable, especially when their fellow British citizens back in the home island were way more taxed than the colonists were. So we're going to look at those two pieces one by one. **[1:51]:** We're going to start with the enforcement of the Navigation Acts, also known as ending salutary neglect. **[2:00]:** Remember, the Navigation Acts were only lightly enforced for the previous century, previous hundred years. This was the concept of salutary neglect. During the war, Parliament started pushing for stricter enforcement and ramped up even further after the war ended. This led to colonial shippers engaging in smuggling, some even selling to the French during the war, a treasonable offense. **[2:25]:** How are they going to crack down on enforcement and on smuggling in particular? They're going to use something called a writ of assistance or writs of assistance. These are court orders, much like a modern search warrant, except they are completely open. They're allowed to search and seize anything they believe in violation of the Navigation Acts or any of the additions to them. Any ship, wagon, warehouse, home could be searched at any British officials whim if they had one of these writs of assistance and they were open ended. **[3:01]:** There wasn't a time limit on them. A lot of times the smuggling rings in particular were hit very hard. And yes, this was a gross violation of the colonists rights, the British laws and the British constitution such as existed. They don't have a single constitution like the US does. The British constitution even today is just the collection, the sum of their laws. **[3:24]:** It's not one document. **[3:29]:** This was, this was a violation. The. The colonists as British citizens had the right to a legal procedure when it came to searching their property, whether it was the building or the, you know, the things they were selling. Right, both kinds of property. **[3:48]:** There's. Does the US do you American citizens have protection against that kind of thing today? Yeah, it's the fourth Amendment. Why do you think it was included? Right. Because of this and other things like it. What was the colonial response to the writs and to this ending of salutary neglect, not rebellion? They argued that the blanket writs violated their rights as Englishmen. They also argued that the king was personally violating their privacy, which is a bit much. The center of this angst of this pushback was Boston, which if you know or remember first, you know what you've learned about this period in American history before. **[4:37]:** Boston is the hotbed of all of this. Hence Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party. **[4:44]:** They never, the colonists never really answered to the smuggling in general and particularly never answered to the whole selling goods to the enemy during time of war. **[4:56]:** So for this first part, the enforcement of navigation acts, the ending of salutary neglect. What's the significance of this? Again, just to reiterate, it was focused on ending salutary neglect, but it created much resistance, resentment and anger against both the King and Parliament. Back in England, the French, to further reiterate the French and Indian war created this fiction that the British would not have. The British government would not have pushed for this without the war occurring. **[5:27]:** And this controversy will only intensify over time, especially when the British do. **[5:33]:** The second strategy to deal with this debt, which was the creation of new colonial taxes, the decision to tax the colonies. **[5:48]:** They couldn't significantly raise taxes in England because they were already taxed to their limit. As I said, the colonies made the most sense for several reasons. As the focus for new taxes. They paid less taxes than people in England proper. They directly benefited from the war and technically started it. **[6:08]:** And honestly, colonists should pay their fair share, right? They're not paying nearly as much as other British citizens. Why shouldn't they pay closer to what's at least even fairness can be a tricky word to use here, but you understand the concept. **[6:30]:** The colonists produced a few basic counter arguments to this. They said there was no precedence for new taxes because there were very few to begin with. You're going to start putting these taxes in and enforcing them heavily. But that's not something you've done before. And we understand that from a individual and small scale. But that's not necessarily how government works. So you understand that, but. And it's reasonable for most things. But when it comes to the government, precedent does matter. But they also have the right to collect taxes. Just because they have it doing it before doesn't mean they can't now. **[7:14]:** They also made the counter argument that these taxes wouldn't be enforced anyway because the taxes that did exist weren't enforced all that strictly anyway. Remember, this is happening at the same time the British are moving towards ending salutary neglect. So as far as the colonists were concerned, you can put new taxes on, but you're not going to enforce them. I don't know what the big deal is. **[7:36]:** And the other counter argument I'll mention is that they claimed it wasn't fair to them because the taxes that will be applied to them did not also apply to the people in England. What have I already told you? The English citizens were paying a lot of taxes that the colonists didn't. So looking at this from the British perspective, you can see that it's a reasonable thing for them to do, right? It makes sense from their perspective. **[8:04]:** They're doing what they already doing to the British citizens at home, to a group of people who aren't paying nearly close to what the rest of their fellow countrymen are. And you see from the American perspective, see, there's reasonable there that they're going to try to enforce laws that don't they haven't enforced before. They're going to try to put taxes on them when they've never really done that before and haven't enforced them strictly. **[8:32]:** The words that commonly get thrown around over these next, this next decade plus are words like tyranny. And I hope when you actually understand the perspective and as we see the approach on both sides, it wasn't tyranny from the British, it was just fiscal policy. Right? They weren't doing this to be cruel or mean or, you know, anything like that. It was purely a financial decision based on the situation that occurred, based on who started the war, who benefited from the war, who didn't pay many taxes and who wasn't following the laws even, and now they're now being enforced. **[9:14]:** It's not that crazy of a decision by the British. Now there's difference between the idea behind it and the reasonable background to it. How the British go about this is a different story. But the decision wasn't one born out of tyranny, necessity and reason. **[9:38]:** But as we know, they're not going to see eye to eye on this. **[9:44]:** Now, the colonists made counter arguments and they claimed that they would protest and they would not pay the new taxes. And that form of resistance, resistance to new taxes and new enforcement was not uniform. But the most famous and prominent group to stand up to and refuse to pay these taxes and leading protests and boycotts were the Sons of Liberty. This was not a singular organization. It was more of a generic term for any person or group who opposed the enforcement of new taxes. **[10:19]:** The new enforcement and new taxes, rather, they rarely coordinated. There's no national organization. Essentially, if you were against the taxes and you wanted to lead others in doing that, then you called yourself the Sons of Liberty. That was the entry requirement. So you had groups in every. **[10:38]:** Most of the major cities, particularly in the North. Any person could call themselves a Son of Liberty. There's no set ground rules of what that actually means. So we're speaking in very general terms. **[10:52]:** The most famous of these groups was in the Boston area. This branch was created and led by two men, Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Samuel Adams, who we'll talk about several times, is the namesake but not the actual founder of the Sam Adams Beer Company. He was a brewer. But the Sam Adams that exists today is not the Samuel Adams Brewing that he did back here during this time period. **[11:21]:** The other was John Hancock, who, if you know the name is most famous because people think he signed his name super big on the Declaration of Independence as a fu to the king. No, that's because he just had this massive fancy signature and he loved to do it. And he also signed it first. You know, if you've ever had to sign a card, birthday card for somebody and there's like a bunch of people signing it and you're like, well, how much space do I take up? How big of a message do I do? Imagine you're doing that and it's a document declaring independence for an entire country, right? So he just. Big cursive signature. And somehow that became his. What he was known for to the point where slang. Slang still exists, that if you. If you ask for somebody's signature and you ask for their John Hancock, that's asking for Their signature, but they actually did a lot more than sign stuff and brew beer. **[12:16]:** They were founders of the Boston chapter, the Sons of Liberty. They, particularly the Boston chapter, primarily organized most protest and acts of retaliation against the taxes and enforcement writs of assistance. **[12:36]:** They also committed acts of violence, including tar and featherings and beatings. The targets were tax collectors, government officials and customs officers, and also their fellow colonists who were simply following the taxes and the laws. Why attack their fellow colonists? Well, if the majority of the colonists pay the taxes and follow the laws, does that signal to Parliament and the British government that they accept them? Yes. **[13:03]:** If most people follow a law without protest, then they must think the law is okay. And that's not a 100% true statement, but it's about as true as you get when it comes to government policy. **[13:22]:** This was not the majority of the groups who took this approach. This was largely just the Boston one. **[13:30]:** Overall, however, most colonists simply paid the taxes and lived their lives. Those who spoke up and protested and did these things were a significant minority. Tarring and feathering could be a traumatic experience. It depended on the type of tar they used. If they used pitch, then it was basically like pine tar. **[13:55]:** It would be heated, but it wouldn't necessarily. It wouldn't feel great, but it wouldn't have lost long lasting effects. If they use tar like that, they use for like blacktop when they make roads, that could be a death sentence because of the burns to the skin. And of course, when that tar dries, you have to peel it off and it's incredibly sticky and skin usually came with it. Then they throw the feathers on for the humiliation. They would also sometimes pour hot oil down people's throats and that would kill them. You're probably distracted by the image. I found this when I was looking for a sketching of the tarring and feathering to show and I saw this and I had no idea what to make of it, and I still don't. I figured I'd come up with a joke or a comment or something to explain it. **[14:41]:** I've got nothing. **[14:43]:** I don't know. Like, did. Did you know this guy? Is he trying to make a deal with the devil with this? Like, I don't know what kind of kink thing is going on here. **[14:55]:** Is this like a colonial furry thing? Is this actually the devil? Is it a dude dressed up like the devil? Like, maybe it's better if we don't know. This doesn't really have anything to do with the taxes. **[15:07]:** It's just a goofy image. And also the end of the video. So, yeah, you have that to to think about. All right, then.