Ellsworth from Connecticut considered in moral light, ought to free those already in the country. He predicted slave in time will not be a speck in our country. His predictions were very accurate. Heath from Massachusetts Detests every idea of slavery but he feels slavery would still exists. He
Colonists were provided with even more reason to practice their religion and continue their work in America for a better, more liberated life. England's success at colonizing, what would become the United States, was due in large part to its use of charter companies. Charter companies were groups of stockholders, usually merchants and wealthy land owners, who sought personal economic gain. While the private sector financed the companies, the King provided each project with a charter conferring economic rights as well as political authority. The colonies generally did not show quick profits.
The American Revolution was clearly more of a movement to implement enlightenment ideals. What can be perceived as conservative about the revolution is only its beginning, when the Colonists realized they needed to take action against the unfair taxation and the other things that separated them from the British. But that was merely what made them feel they needed to overthrow their government. The Declaration would’ve eventually come along anyway, still heavily based on Enlightenment ideals. Without those Enlightenment ideals it would’ve been believed that it was fine for the British to continue what they were doing.
I would say that the relationship between Britain and the American colonies were peaceful and harmonious on the subject of Salutary Neglect. Salutary Neglect was placed on the thirteen American colonies as the British had thought that it was best not to interfere and stir up trouble. The policy meant that the Americans could rule their colonies with no restriction unless the governor disapproves. The prime minister at the time had said that “if no restrictions were placed on the colonies, then they would flourish”. They did however have a Charter written up which had a list of people who had privileges and titles.
Disagreements erupted over how the colonies felt that they should be treated and the way they were actually treated by Britain. The British stance was that the colonies were created for the benefit of Britain and the Colonialists wanted more say in their own existence. One main cause of the revolution was that the Colonists wanted more representation within the British government hence “no taxation without representation”, (Hickman n.d.), Britain was unwilling to do this. Another factor was the geographical distance between Britain and the Colonists, this created a sense of independence with in the colonies. Britain therefore tried to tighten control over the Colonists through a series of acts designed to quell any sense of rebellion.
He states they the Indians led a “freer life” than Europeans because they are guided by the light of nature, being void of care which torments the minds of so many Christians: they are not delighted in baubles, but in useful things. #7. 1. Hakluyt thinks the Indians will welcome English colonizers as bearers of liberty because he insisted empire and freedom went hand in hand. English settlements would help to rescue the New World and its inhabitants from the influence of Catholicism and tyranny.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson explained how governments should not be overthrown for petty reasons, but he believed the King of Great Britain had taken the situation too far. The New England economy was growing, and the colonist gradually began to think and act independently from England. Therefore, England initiated Parliament
American citizens and politicians alike began calling the conflict the “second war of independence.” The political standpoint of entering the war was to preserve the rights of sailors and would-be American immigrants from British impressments. The US also wanted to prove that big brother Britain could not tell them who they could and could not trade with anymore (meaning France). This was an easy pill for the American public to swallow because of continued tensions with Britain after the Revolution and the rise of the anti-Britain, Democratic-Republican Administration and
Revolutionary Americans resented the economic restrictions, finding them exploitative. They claimed the policy restricted colonial trade and industry and raised the cost of many consumer goods. In his 1774 pamphlet, "A Summary View of the Rights of British America, " Thomas Jefferson asserted the Navigation Acts had infringed upon the colonists' freedom in preventing the "exercise of free trade with all parts of the world, possessed by the American colonists, as of natural right." Yet, as O. M. Dickerson points out, it is difficult to find opposition to the mercantile system among the colonists when the measures were purely regulatory and did not levy a tax on them. The British mercantile system did after all allow for colonial monopoly over certain markets such as tobacco, and not only encouraged, but with its 1660 regulation was instrumental in, the development of colonial shipbuilding.
“We have boasted the protection of Great Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not attachment; and that she did not protect us from our enemies on our account; but from her enemies on her own account…. A government of our own is our natural rights: and… it is infinitely wider and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance.” –Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776. A year after the American Revolution had begun, the decision to declare independence was made. Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense was published in 1776 with the purpose to be influential in persuading the colonists to end their relationship with Great Britain. Common Sense was directed toward the American colonists the intent of breaking free from British rule.