This isn’t quite right. Debt was a problem for planters who didn’t adapt, but not really the cause of the Revolution in Virginia. Sovereignty was For one, the Stamp Act was a big deal in Virginia because it had to be paid in specie, which there was practically none of in the colony. They used tobacco as currency instead, and so the specie requirement was an immense hardship and imposition on everyone in the state Second, it’s true that tobacco prices had crashed, which was an issue. But the planters had survived that before, namely during the last quarter of the 17th century, during which they actually became wealthier The bigger issue was that the state was settled by thus point, so they couldn’t just engross more land as their farms went too infertile to grow tobacco. They had to either 1) produce a lower quality leaf, or 2) switch to grain production. Most chose 1 because it was easier and entailed no real change in the pace of life. The more provident ones, like Washington, chose 2 and made a great deal from selling it locally or exporting it to the West Indies Adding to the infertility problem was that this generation of planters both wasn’t great at farming and, as a result of the times, e def up being more focused on public service than planting. American estates required more direct supervision than English estates(while also being roughly twice as profitable to own if managed correctly), so this was a problem for them, particularly as tenants only returned about a tenth as much income in America as Britain So the planters found themselves making less from farming, particularly if they stuck with tobacco, while not adjusting their lifestyles In the past, they had been able to do this because they also were their own merchants. One son would be a trader in London, and handle the family imports, another would manage a trading operation back home selling imports to small farmers in exchange for tobacco, which was sent to the brother in London. Others ran the plantations. The family owned the ships. This worked well and kept them profitable in hard times. Gradually this ended in most cases (though not all, as shown by the Stratford operation) because of British trade policy. Thus the planters ended up in debt to British merchants, though generally, they did not think they would be able to get out of debt with the revolution, except for a scheme by which they tried paying back their debts using continentals. And those trade regulations bring us to the final point. Sovereignty. During the French and Indian war, they had learned that the British did not see them as equals, and instead despise them as colonials who are not fit to lead themselves or set their own policies. This infuriated them. It even infuriated the planters like George Washington and Robert Carter of Nomini Hall, who were not deeply in debt because they had diversified their operations. Four more than the stamp tax, the existential question of sovereignty was British attempts to cut them off from the western lands. They needed those western lands because their farms were growing infertile for anything other than grain to be grown upon. That meant that overtime they were way of life would fade and they would not be able to revision other sons or buy land which they could rent to tenants. That fight over sovereignty, infuriated them, and, compared with the wig principles they had gradually develop developed, helped to lead the revolution Debt and related financial woes were a problem. But the much bigger problem was that a class of men who had spent generations developing their habit of command, were being told that they could no longer rule themselves. This they could not abide by. Those who ended up broke, ended up so largely because of the time they spent in public service rather than focusing on planting. Debt was related to that but more outgrowth of it than its cause The below book has a great deal of information on this