Below please find this week’s web questions, written by your classmate, Erik Akselband.
Close-up of an Indian from The Death of General Wolfe by Benjamin West (1770)
1. What are some factors that led the Albany Plan to not being approved? Why were the British colonies of North America not able to cooperate with each other, especially when it came down to creating anything like a general government? Considering the fact that a war was going on, how was it that the colonies could not even establish a common defense?
2. After the French and Indian War was over, the size of British debt had expanded massively, in part because of the defense of the colonies. Colonists contributed little toward the war, and even sold supplies to the French. After all this, what is your opinion of London taking firmer control of the colonies in the years after 1763?
3. Going back to previous chapters, why do you think that all colonies sent delegates to Philadelphia for the first Continental Congress, except for Georgia?
4. Why do you think it took so long for the colonies of America to finally work together, and especially to work against the British? What specific events led to the colonies finally doing so? Do you think that the colonies would have worked together if certain events had not happened?
5. What might have happened had Lord North’s decision to allow the colonies to vote on Parliament’s proposed taxes came earlier then it did? Do you feel that the colonies eventually would have received representation in the Parliament?
AMERICA TO 1877 
I like this question! My response to reading “It did not reach America until after the first shots of war had been fired,” was [gasp] “Oh shoot!” Then I laughed. The Conciliatory Propositions may have been received by the colonies, but as with every other tax or law placed on the people during that time, the Propositions would not have seen longevity. From the text, the colonies were established and very comfortable with their developing lifestyles. That fact most likely gave the masses or the “extremist minority,” as Lord North believed, confidence that led them to believe the nation was capable of thriving without English influence. During the late 1700’s the emergence of unrelenting gumption in the colonies eventually took a bite out of “Mother” country’s greedy backside.
I don’t believe the colonies would have received representation in Parliament. English ideology was so deeply rooted in tradition which is not historically uncommon of any nation. A section of the text titled “Sovereignty Debated,” explains the British understanding of government, “…there must be…ultimate authority” [106]. The colonies didn’t need to understand, their right was to abide. Representation according to the British was not necessary because the basic needs of the people would always be met.
Sovereignty also explains, in my opinion, London wanting to revisit their policies and renew their control over the colonies. With the land expansion, the Kingdom had to exercise their “ultimate authority,” to ensure the obedience and security of their assets.
After the French and Indian War, England, “the mother country” faced a huge financial deficit. The overall consent from an English perceptive was the colonists mad few financial contribution and continued to sell food, supplies, and goods to the French in the West Indies throughout the conflict which angered many English leaders. This anger led to London having a increased authority over the colonies.
One thing that I fined interesting that may or may not have been considered a factor is of whom (which group) were partaking in the exchanging of goods between the French during the course of the war? I have to ask myself is this group from a particular region, religion, culture, or ethnicity. As we are all aware the British Colonies were not 99.9% all English men. We have to take into consideration that the new world consisted of the “leftovers”, criminals, religious refugees, and immigrants that the British wanted to get rid of ( ie Puritans, Scotts, and the bases of which Georgia was founded) So is it fair to assume that all inhabitants of the new world were loyal to the the British crown?
As we learned the colonies at this point operated as independent self govern communities and their were vast differences if you were to travel from north to south to coastal towns to towns that were more inland. This was because of the region, religion, cultures, and ethnicity.
So my overall opinion after London taking control over the colonies in the years after 1763 is maybe the assumption that all the “colonist” went against the crown in exchanging with the French during the war should have been investigated and dealt with in a different manner as to finding the source of treason. Because the flip-side is a lot of colonist did fight and give their lives to defend the crown. The multiple acts and legislation that was passed after 1763 only drove the wedge between the colonist and England further apart.
I agree with James on the fact that the population that is making up the colonies aren’t exactly loyal to England. Lets not forget the people who make up the new colonies are somewhat running away from London whether its because of religion, sentences, or to start a new life. The colonies tende to think that they are their own people and government, this is part of the reason why they were selling supplies to the French. I do understand why London would want to take firmer control but what London doesn’t get is that at that time most of the colonies wanted to be their own people and government.
2.
I still believe that the British Empire was getting out of hand even though colonists contributed not so much during the war. The war was for the British empire to have a bigger empire, not necessarily for the colonists. One of the reasons that the colonists were selling supplies to the French because they had no real profits and they weren’t allowed to trade with other nations but England. After the war, the British was going out of control with their authority, such as the stamp acts and then the Townshend duties. And when passing these acts, colonists were not even represented where the saying comes to play “No taxation without representation”
I agree with Farhana. The British just wanted to expand their empire which is perfectly fine because this is what imperialism is about. However, the colonist themselves were not receiving any benefits. It was as if they were the lacky. The colonist had to find ways to help with their own economy that’s why they were trading with the French. Some may see that as being a traitor. I personally think that is why the British enforced all these new acts on the colonist. It was to keep them under control and maybe instill fear into the colonist in a sense.
4
Due to the strong colonial independence that grew during the formative years of each colony’s development, it was hard for the colonies to suddenly for a collective unit and cooperate with one another. The strong differences in lifestyle, economy, and social values led to two very different societies in the North and South, and many sub-societies in both regions. It wasn’t until they worked together against a common enemy that they were able to overcome their differences.
The french and Indian war showed that they could unite and resist undesirable control over the colonies when they resisted William Pitt’s impositions in 1757. When the British government put forward the Stamp Act of 1765, the colonists were able to unite to fight a common enemy, so to speak.
If it weren’t for the common goal of ending what they saw as unfair impositions by the British government, I don’t know that the colonists would have ever needed to join together. If conditions were agreeable, there would be no need for a revolution of any type, and the North and South would have no reason to join together.
The colonists still wanted to be devoted to the King of England. The colonists still believed they were British and no different from the mother country. Colonists were so devoted to the mother country since Britain had given a lot of freedom within their business affairs, this era was called “Benign neglect” After the stamp act, then they had started feeling that Britain was taking advantage of them and were not use to Britain taking full control over their affairs. Colonists started to rebel against the British Empire and had started this new slogan of “no taxation without representation” since England was passing all these acts without the colonists concern.
# 2
I see the auctions of the British Empire after the french Indian war as a selfish act. The British attempted to justify these auction by telling the colonists, England was in debt because they protected the American colonies. This was not a case; the colonists did not even have a voice in the British Government (so where were they represented) who was looking out for them? England would not risk losing their colonies and all the money they made through them, that was their motivation for fighting. It was also about England maintaing power. Later, the authorities in England showed their true colors when they repealed the Stamp Act; just to replace it with Declaration Act. I also wonder about the other British colonies around the world. Did this heavy taxation and strict control also come down on them? Or were the American colonies the only ones subjected to this because of the steady income America brought to England.
London took firmer control of the colonies because it couldn’t afford anything to intervene with the western trade. After the French and Indian war, London was left with was debt and the only way they could get by was by the tax put on goods. To avoid another outbreak, they made the Proclamation of 1763. It wasn’t for the good of the people or to bring peace. It was mainly for their welfare. If the war had not intervened with the western trade, the English would have easily taken over the land. The Proclamation was beneficial for the Indians but in the end failed because what was more important for the colonists was land not London’s debt.
It took so long for the colonists to work together because of self interest. But when they had a common enemy, they united. There’s no way they would have united without pivotal events happening. It took a serious sense of outrage to unite, fight, and win. Looking at the reach of the British Empire, it seems like the story of Rudy, not American Independence.
I think the English took more control over the colonies because they wanted to expand their power. At first, maybe they thought it could be a place of dumping their unwanted people. But then, they saw the potential of expansion and getting rid of their debt. I think they got a intimidated of the colonists getting too powerful and also saw opportunities to make money.
#2
The underlying motivation behind most of the actions of the British Empire was money. The reason the colonies existed in the first place was to make money so of course the British Empire wasn’t going to be content with any situation that would cause them to lose money which is what happened with the French Indian war. I believe a lot of the legislation passed was to exert control over the colonies but also to make money off of them. However I also believe the British were asking for trouble when they decided to suddenly exert so much force over the colonies. The Americans were used to being independent and virtually free of control. Of course they wouldn’t like the sudden change and of course they weren’t going to take it lightly. Revolution was inevitable.
#2
The underlying motivation behind most of the actions of the British Empire was money. The reason the colonies existed in the first place was to make money so of course the British Empire wasn’t going to be content with any situation that would cause them to lose money which is what happened with the French Indian war. I believe a lot of the legislation passed was to exert control over the colonies but also to make money off of them. However I also believe the British were asking for trouble when they decided to suddenly exert so much force over the colonies. The Americans were used to being independent and virtually free of control. Of course they wouldn’t like the sudden change and of course they weren’t going to take it lightly. Revolution was inevitable.
I think the reason for increasing the control of the colonies was two fold. First the English were more than willing to leave the colonies in a state of salutary neglect when they were making a profit of there raw materials and once they had to pay off this massive war debt they needed to collect more money. Second i believe that the bristsh may have gotten a little worried about how different the Colony’s actually were.
3. Georgia was still a fresh state and had a lot of territorial issues with the Natives. Because of that, they relied heavily on British assistance to provide further protection military and treaty wise. This was too much of a risk for both Georgia and the colonies to take.
1. The colonies were unable to cooperate with each other because of their differences in society such as religion, agriculture techniques, colonial goals and their loyalty to Britain varied. It’s no surprise that they took some time to establish a government because each colony would have their best interest in mind do they would try and establish rules that benefited them. I also think of the Puritans and Pilgrims and how their goals for society were to create a peaceful, god fearing society, a goal very different from other colonies who focused on in colonies after the war.
4.
The relationship that the American colonies had with Britain was a pretty close one at the beginning. It was the event of the Stamp Act in 1765 which destroyed the relationship of the British Empire with America.The taxation of every printed document took a toll on every American, causing the relationship between the two to further fall apart. Prior to the Stamp Act, the american colonies had paid their due taxes but this time around, they felt like England was raising the revenue from the colonies without their consent. This would serve as the beginning of the colonies to stand together and take action against the Stamp Act and put a stop to the British unwanted presence in America.