Assess the view that grievances over taxation were the most important factor in bringing about the American Revolution.

Historian Justin du Rivage’s view that economic grievances were the main factor in bringing about the Revolution is the most compelling. Rivage argues that whether or not colonists wished to revolt “turned on what taxes Americans would pay and on whose terms” and that “radical resistance gained strength from economic anxiety and the fact that authoritarian imperial reform was clearly and explicitly designed to subordinate the colonial economy”. This is a persuasive view as from 1765-74, the Stamp Act and Townshend Duties raised £36,000 from the North American colonies, and it was economic discontent from these taxes that led to the establishment of Colonial Committees of Safety across colonies in 1774 with a mandate to enforce a trade boycott banning British imports which, by Spring 1775, employed 7000 colonists. Rivage’s argument can be substantiated by Andrew Elliot writing in 1766 that the Stamp Act (1765) had been “calculated...to enslave the colonies”. This source being written privately in a letter to his friend in England, Thomas Hollis, suggests that Elliot had little reason to embellish his claim. His criticism of the British may seem surprising as Elliot, a British governor of New York, remained a British Loyalist throughout the American Revolutionary War; as a British governor his salary was also paid for by the British and therefore his view is further surprising as we could certainly expect him to endorse British policy; that he does not do this, thereby, lends credibility to his claim. Thus, as he was evidently not an ardent supporter of the colonies, his criticism holds weight as evidence for Rivage’s view as while we may not expect him to have propounded this view, his vehemently critical tone revealed in the contention that Britain had “enslaved” the colonies shows a clear recognition of the grievances caused by the Stamp Act. While it might seem that he Elliot was simply reiterating a typical view of the colonies, the same view is actually also found in Britain in the 1765 political cartoon ‘The Great Financier; or, British Economy for the Years 1763, 1764 1765’, which depicts economic issues that plagued British-colonial relations, in which Prime Minister Grenville is shown holding a balance with scales entitled "Debts" and "Savings", with the debt far outweighing the savings. Thus we can infer that Elliot’s critical view of British taxation existed far beyond the colonies and into Britain itself. Elliot’s view is further substantiated by how it came at the same time (1766) as much discontent towards clauses of the Act which seemed unnecessary and tyrannical, such as pamphlets and newspapers being taxed at the rate of a penny for a single sheet, with the highest tax of £10 being placed on attorney licenses. Rivage’s argument, and the view of the source, is also compelling when considering the grassroots opposition of the ‘Boston Tea Party’, whereby from the 28th of November 1773 onwards, thousands of colonists gathered everyday to prevent the Dartmouth (and later, the Eleanor and Beaver ships) from unloading their tea into Boston; and on December 16th, 60 Sons of Liberty boarded the ships and threw £10,000 worth of East India Company tea into the harbour. It was a grievance wholly originating from the taxation of the Tea Act (1773), which abolished duties on the East India Company while still forcing colonists to pay these taxes. Therefore there is compelling evidence to support Rivage’s view that colonial discontent was centred on grievances over British taxation because this view is found in the perspectives of both the British and the colonists.