2G - Britain and North America in 1760: British attitudes towards the colonies
Learn why Britain valued its North American colonies in 1760, how authority within the empire worked, and how rivalry with France both strengthened and strained the imperial relationship.
An empire of shared interests
In 1760 most colonists in Britain's thirteen mainland colonies understood themselves as British subjects, rather than citizens of a separate American nation. They could value local self-government and still welcome royal protection, British trade and victory over France. Britain also possessed colonies elsewhere, including the Caribbean. The thirteen colonies were one part of a wider Atlantic empire, not its only source of wealth or strategic concern.
Imperialism
The extension and maintenance of a state's power over other territories and peoples. In eighteenth-century North America this involved settlement, trade, military power and claims to political authority.
British attitudes combined commercial interest, strategic calculation and a sense of superiority. Colonies supplied products, bought manufactures and supported shipping. Ministers also treated them as dependencies whose prosperity owed something to British institutions and defence. That view could make obedience seem a reasonable return for protection. Yet it underestimated the work, taxes and military service contributed by colonists themselves. Neither British nor colonial opinion was uniform: merchants, ministers, soldiers and settlers judged the relationship through different interests.
Wartime celebrations show why loyalty should be taken seriously. Bostonians celebrated the conquest of French Canada and the enlarged empire; opposition to later taxation did not mean that they had secretly wanted independence all along. The important tension was between belonging to Britain and expecting meaningful local rights. The National Park Service describes these colonial celebrations.
For example, a Virginia planter could want British ships to protect his tobacco exports while expecting Virginia's own assembly to decide local taxes. These positions were compatible while imperial demands stayed limited. They became harder to reconcile when London required a larger contribution and claimed the right to determine its form.
Who governed the colonies?
The politics of empire rested on several overlapping authorities, rather than one government making every decision. The Crown appointed many governors and exercised authority through ministers. Parliament passed imperial legislation, particularly laws governing trade. The Board of Trade advised on colonial affairs and examined colonial legislation. Governors, councils, courts and elected assemblies handled government within the colonies. UK Parliament explains the development of this imperial machinery.
Assemblies had become powerful because government needed money. By approving local taxes and expenditure, they could bargain over governors' salaries and other demands. A governor might possess a formal veto or the power to dissolve an assembly, yet struggle to govern effectively without its cooperation. Atlantic distance and slow communication made continuous direction from London difficult. Local influence therefore reflected both political custom and the practical limits of imperial administration.
Britain had an unwritten constitution: its rules developed through statutes, institutions and precedents, rather than a single constitutional document. British leaders generally regarded the Crown-in-Parliament as the supreme legislative authority. Colonists could instead emphasise their charters, inherited English liberties and the authority exercised by their own representatives. In 1760 these claims had not produced a settled agreement about which body could impose every kind of colonial tax.
Legitimate government
Government whose authority is regarded as rightful. The later imperial dispute concerned the grounds of that authority: parliamentary supremacy, inherited liberties and the consent of the governed.
The accession of George III in 1760 changed the monarch, but did not turn Britain into a system in which the king alone made every colonial law. Ministers needed parliamentary support, and political factions disagreed about war, peace and administration. Explaining the Revolution solely through the king's personality would miss these institutions and disagreements.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account