By Nathaniel Parry: Nathaniel is author of Samuel Adams and the Vagabond Henry Tufts: Virtue Meets Vice in the Revolutionary Era, just published by McFarland Books.
When redcoats arrived in Flatbush as part of a campaign to regain control of New York City in mid-August 1776, they marveled at the magnificence of the colonists’ homes and wondered how such financially successful people could ever rebel against a system that had made them so wealthy. An officer described scenes of roads lined with dead cattle, burned-out houses and fields in ashes, as well as “chests of drawers, chairs, mirrors with gold-gilded frames, porcelain, and all sorts of items of the best and most expensive manufacture” scattered across the landscape. Astonished to see first-hand how blessed the Americans were with such luxuries, the Brits viewed the affluence as evidence that the colonies had grown rich at the expense of the motherland.[1]
The British troops were mostly young farmers and unskilled laborers, as well as some tradesmen such as blacksmiths, carpenters and weavers, hailing disproportionately from oppressed regions such as Ireland and Scotland.[2] Many of them had entered the ranks after being convicted of a crime in order to avoid a death sentence, while others had been tricked into enlisting by unscrupulous recruiters. In some cases, the soldiers had been compelled into service by press gangs that would simply kidnap young men and force them into terms that ranged from 21 years to life. Once they arrived in America, they saw more economic abundance than they had ever imagined. America in the 1770s had a far greater standard of living than any country in the world,[3] with many living on their own land and enjoying material wealth that others could only dream of.[4]
There was inequality in the colonies, however, with the top 20 percent of colonists in 1774 holding 47 percent of the wealth, and the bottom 40 percent holding just 12 percent. The colonial middle class was sizeable, with the mid-40 percent range of households holding just over 40 percent of the colonies’ wealth, but certain regions were more stratified than others. The middle colonies were the most egalitarian, followed by the northern colonies, and lagging behind in terms of income equality were the southern colonies. The poor in the South were poorer than the poor in the North, with the bottom 40 percent of households in the southern colonies holding just about 11 percent of the wealth.[5]
But while inequality certainly existed, so too did opportunity. Abundant land both provided the means for prosperity to anyone willing to work and effectively capped the accumulation of wealth among the upper classes. Because land was so cheap, white Americans typically would not work for others except for brief periods, which tended to keep wages high.[6] Therefore, the prosperity of economic growth was spread relatively evenly and the view of a typical farmer was that of gratitude for their blessings, not of envy. As J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur explained in a collection of essays published in London in the early 1780s, American life was one of equal opportunity and self-determination, where ingenuity, hard work and grit paid off with economic success. With plentiful land and opportunity, there was no reason to covet the wealth of others, according to Crèvecoeur:
I bless God for all the good He has given me; I envy no man’s prosperity, and with no other portion of happiness than that I may live to teach the same philosophy to my children and give each of them a farm, show them how to cultivate it, and be like their father, good, substantial, independent American farmers – an appellation which will be the most fortunate one a man of my class can possess so long as our civil government continues to shed blessings on our husbandry.[7]
He contrasted the American experience with that of Ireland, where “lands possessed by a few are leased down ad infinitum” and the “poor are worse lodged there than anywhere else in Europe.”[8]
Essentially, the colonists lived exceptional lives that enabled them to develop a unique outlook that seemed strange to their counterparts from across the pond. To the British soldiers who arrived in 1776, the idea that these privileged people would take up arms in rebellion may have been incomprehensible, but the reality was that, paradoxically, it was due to their high standing that American colonists would rebel. The reasons for this are varied, but one of them is because of the ideology of republicanism that found fertile ground in the New World, which was made possible by high literacy rates and the widespread availability of cheap land, particularly on the frontier. This dynamic is what led General Thomas Gage to observe that “democracy is too prevalent in America,” noting that the ability of colonists to develop their own institutions far away from the centers of power in coastal towns had eroded royal authority.[9] As the colonists’ rebellion intensified in the early 1770s, Gage urged his superiors in London to “confine the Colonists” closer to the coast, believing that this would undermine the material base of democratic ideas – namely the political and economic independence that colonists enjoyed on the frontier.
Land speculation was the preferred get-rich-quick scheme of people of means in colonial America, and since land was plentiful and cheap, becoming a landholder was not prohibitively difficult. Speculators often undervalued the price of land, particularly wild land, and the better land could be obtained on credit.[10] This meant that a poor person could become not only a relatively prosperous farmer, but also a fully enfranchised citizen, with up to 75 percent of the adult males in some American colonies qualifying as voters.[11]
Land ownership and speculation, however, also had a downside. “From what I have Seen, heard,” General George Washington confided in 1778, “speculation—peculation—& an insatiable thirst for riches seems to have got the better of every other consideration and almost of every order of Men.” He lamented that “personal quarrels are the great business of the day” while challenges such as “accumulated debt—ruined finances—depreciated money—& want of credit … are but secondary considerations & postponed from day to day.”[12] When these concerns were considered, the response was generally to raise taxes, ultimately creating heavier tax burdens than the British had attempted to impose. This led, increasingly, to violent resistance among hard-pressed taxpayers.[13]
During the Revolutionary War, indeed, tax resistance would prove a major challenge to the Continental elite, with evidence indicating that citizens throughout the states defied contributing their share. Tax collectors met violent resistance that occasionally escalated into riots. When a two percent tax increase was ordered in Virginia in 1781, for instance, the result was a “dangerous insurrection,” which local officials struggled for months to get under control.[14] In Norwich, Connecticut, rioters broke open the town jail to free those who had been incarcerated for tax delinquency.[15]
More often, tax collectors avoided violence by declining to collect. Locally elected selectmen routinely abated the taxes of those in need of relief, increasing from a rate of about five percent abatement in Connecticut to heights of 25 percent in later years. Elsewhere, elected representatives would endeavor to ensure that the tax burden fell disproportionately on the rich. In New York, the legislature adopted the Confiscation Act in 1779, the first of many harsh laws that would strike at the wealthy by allowing tax assessors to rate them according to “circumstances and other abilities to pay taxes, collectively considered.” Alexander Hamilton denounced this progressive taxation scheme as “radically vicious,” but it proved popular among the lower classes of New York who wanted the rich to pay their fair share.[16]
Class conflict persisted, though, and facing war-related deprivations, farmers in Virginia and Maryland united to attack the plantations of prominent patriots who were suspected of hoarding supplies. Even George Washington’s Mount Vernon estate would be affected by this rebellion, and narrowly avoided being raided by a mob demanding salt.[17] Some members of the Continental elite viewed these riots as an act of treachery inspired by loyalism, with one denouncing the Maryland rioters as Tories who “by their declarations against the present measures of the country and in favour of the King shew themselves intirely disaffected to our cause.”[18] Others, however, recognized the grievances of the lower classes as similar to the issues that prompted the Revolutionary War. Prominent Virginian George Mason expressed concern over the power of the mob rectifying what it saw as an injustice, in this case rich people’s hoarding of badly needed supplies, and drew parallels with the broader struggle against the Crown. “The same Principles which first induced us to draw the Sword will again dictate Resistance to Injustice & Oppression, in whatever Shape, or under whatever Pretence, it may be offered,” Mason observed.[19]
Throughout the war, the reluctance of the lower classes to fight for what they saw, in many cases, as a rich man’s cause would prove to be an enduring challenge for the revolutionary leaders. These “neutrals” are often overlooked because their voices at the time were muted and generally lost in the cacophony of vocal advocates of revolution or loyalism, but their defiance would arguably pose as great a challenge to revolution as armed loyalist resistance.[20]
While populist firebrands such as Samuel Adams tended to speak and write on behalf of all colonists and the Declaration of Independence employed broad, inclusive language about the “Right of the People” to abolish tyrannical government, the reality was that not all residents of the 13 colonies shared the same interests. Not only were there the obvious differences between creditors and debtors, but there was a large swath of the country in which a disadvantaged and criminal underclass held more or less free rein. These mavericks – much like the various Indian tribes that allied with whichever side was more favorable to their interests – would become something of a wild card for the revolution, with both sides coveting their services but neither able to fully rely on them.
Fears of disaffection leading to defection to the British were ever-present among the revolutionary leaders, who were increasingly cognizant of the dilemma that they faced and understood that in order to broaden the appeal of the patriot cause, it would have to be more egalitarian. As John Adams wrote to Patrick Henry on June 3, 1776, “The Decree is gone forth, and it cannot be recalled, that a more equal Liberty, than has prevail’d in other Parts of the Earth, must be established in America.”[21] In 1779, Samuel Adams wrote to James Warren, who at the time was serving on the naval board of the Continental Navy, touting the benefits of patriotism to counter greed and avarice. “The vigilant Eye of so consistent a Patriot, may be formidable to a Combination of political & Commercial Men, who may be aiming to get the Trade, the Wealth, the Power and the Government of America into their own Hands,” Adams wrote. “He must therefore be hunted down; and the young as well as the old Hounds are all ready for the Game.”[22]
In other words, what Adams was saying was that patriots needed to remain vigilant not only against the British, but also against domestic opportunists who seek wealth and power. This vigilance would only be partially successful, with the broader society growing more economically stratified but at the same time more egalitarian. Marquis de Lafayette, who travelled to America in the late 1770s and would go play a major role in the revolution, observed that “[t]he richest and the poorest man are completely on a level.” While there were “some immense fortunes in this country,” Lafayette wrote to his wife, “I may challenge any one to point out the slightest difference in their respective manner toward each other.”[23]
After the revolution, wealth would become more unequally distributed throughout the country, but some aristocratic practices were abandoned, with for example, the primogeniture laws that disadvantaged younger family members being abolished, and many states passing inheritance laws that equalized the rights of all children, including both for sons and daughters.[24] On the whole, despite the persistent wealth gap, there was a greater sense of social equality, with lower-class Americans displaying less overt demonstrations of deference to superiors, and a more informal manner of social relations taking hold.
As historian Gordon Wood has put it, “living in a free country meant never having to tip one’s cap to anyone.”[25]
Check Out Nathaniel Parry’s Outstanding New Book
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ MORE, CHECK OUT THESE OTHER GREAT BOOKS ON AMAZON
OF SIMILAR INTEREST ON REVOLUTIONARY WAR JOURNAL
SOURCES AND ENDNOTES
[1] McCullough, David. 1776. Simon & Schuster, 2006, pp. 157-158
[2] Ibid., p. 167
[3] Ibid., p. 158
[4] Lindert, Peter H.; Williamson, Jeffrey G. “American Colonial Incomes, 1650-1774” Working Paper 19861 National Bureau of Economic Research. January 2014. http://www.nber.org/papers/w19861 Accessed January 11, 2023
[5] Ibid.
[6] Sellers, Charles. The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846. Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 4
[7] De Crevecoeur, J. Hector St. John. Letters from an American Farmer and Sketches of Eighteenth-Century America. Penguin Classics, 1981, p. 72
[8] Ibid., p. 85
[9] Fischer, David Hackett. Paul Revere’s Ride. Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 39
[10] Main, Jackson Turner. Social Structure of Revolutionary America. Princeton University Press, 1969, p. 9
[11] “Who Voted in Early America?” Constitutional Rights Foundation. https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-8-1-b-who-voted-in-early-america Accessed October 6, 2022
[12] “From George Washington to Benjamin Harrison, 18–30 December 1778,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-18-02-0510.
[13] Cogliano, Francis D. Revolutionary America, 1763-1815: A Political History. Taylor & Francis, 2016, p. 107
[14] McDonnell, Michael A. “Resistance to the American Revolution,” A Companion to the American Revolution, edited by Jack P. Greene and J.R. Pole. Blackwell, 2000, p. 346
[15] Ibid., p. 345
[16] Countryman, Edward. “Confederation: state governments and their problems,” A Companion to the American Revolution, edited by Jack P. Greene and J.R. Pole. Blackwell, 2000, p. 366
[17] McDonnell, Michael A. “Resistance to the American Revolution,” A Companion to the American Revolution, edited by Jack P. Greene and J.R. Pole. Blackwell, 2000, p. 345
[18] Ibid., p. 346
[19] McDonnell, Michael A. “Resistance to the American Revolution,” A Companion to the American Revolution, edited by Jack P. Greene and J.R. Pole. Blackwell, 2000, p. 346
[20] Ibid., p. 343
[21] “From John Adams to Patrick Henry, 3 June 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-04-02-0102. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Papers of John Adams, vol. 4, February–August 1776, edited by Robert J. Taylor. Harvard University Press, 1979, pp. 234-235.]
[22] Adams, Samuel. The Writings of Samuel Adams – Volume 4, edited by Harry Alonzo Cushing. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908, p. 115
[23] Camp, Phineas. The Life of General Lafayette, Marquis of France, General in the United States Army, Etc. C.M. Saxton, 1856, p. 31
[24] Wood, Gordon S. The American Revolution: A History. Modern Library, 2003, p. 125
[25] Ibid., p. 121