This paper focuses on the British Colonization in America. Apparently, the English colonizers entered into America to claim territories for different reasons. Evidently, most of these personalities entered into this part of the continent since it was a productive hub and was conducive for living with the Native Americans who were self governed and sustained.
The spirit of organization and governance elicited an interest to settle there and do various economic activities to make wealth rather than claim the territories. However, the settlers gained the influence to grab the territories from the natives and took over the entire leadership, collecting taxes and decreeing at their dispensation. Most of the outcome was because the royal government did not support or oversee the colonizers in any way.
The English colonial endeavor was extremely slow in its initiation. Notably, when the Spaniards and the Portuguese were dividing the Far East trade and America, England was gradually emerging and recuperating from a protracted fight back for dynastic powers dubbed the battle of the roses. Starting the 1530s, Britain’s Sir Walter Raleigh lost disappointingly, the colony of the Carolina coast, preceding a war with the Spaniards in the 1580 (Adler and Pouewls 310).
In the 1600s, the British began entering the American colony in a more systematic way. The English colonialists operated the colonies under direct discretion from private companies and organization, just like the Dutch, but not under supervision or oversight from the royal British government.
The BEIC was such an outstanding example of these kinds of affiliations that privately conducted their colonial advances, with reinforcement from their much-diversified political and commercial abilities (Adler and Pouwels 310). They also had military resources that they used for war.
Principally, this paper lays succinctly, the main influences, inculcated by lack of royal discretion, control and support from the royal government. Thus, I will categorically delve into both the positive influences and negative ones in detail, basing evidence from the previous researches, primary resources and secondary resources. It is overtly clear that, during that era, the royal government did not have a particular considerable interest on the colonies as the private affiliations involved had.
This must have affected the British government in diverse ways, with regard to political and militaristic aspects. The royal military did not have a say in the advances of the private affiliations that were colonizing the Americans. This did not mean that their individual actions and advances had no impact on the overall picture and profile of the royal government. I will discuss the character of the British affiliations brought about by minor or no oversight and support by the British royal government.
The main reason behind the exploration and colonization of North America was that the systems there supported income generation, a quality elicited by the orderliness in terms of political independence and order, cultural diversity, religious toleration and economic growth due to hard working citizens. The nature of representative government also was a contributing factor to various conquests by the British, Dutch and French colonial powers. By 1700, the British pushed the Dutch away, and the French colony dismantled (Richard 387).
The French, Spanish and Dutch colonial powers were willing to take up this initiative and explore the lucrative and fruitful North America. The British colonialists had an added advantage due to their freedom as compared to their counterparts, the Spaniards and French, who were under instruction, discretion and supervision by their rulers.
This, thus freedom gave the British more ease and power of will. They had more discretion to call war against their enemies and push them out of these colonies. The lack of royal support thus gave the colonial venture an upper hand.
The English colonialists were free to set up representative governments and economy diversification at their dispensation. The British reinforced their local governments and representative assemblies with military and allowed to tax on their own rates, as long as they did not deviate from the crown respects (Streich).
They diversified their economy to instill wealth by practicing agricultural activities such as farming, fishing and intensive trading internally and externally. Additionally, they had exports of different types to other countries, such as tobacco, which was the principal exert item to external countries.
Independence on the part of the British colonialists was evidently notable. Instantly, the ventures, inspired by various factors such as religious freedom for those British nationals who felt humiliated or discriminated led to the occupation of the thirteen territories by the British nationals on the various parts of North America.
Most British nationalities did not mean to harm anyone during these ventures. For instance, those religious outcasts like the Huguenots, Puritans, Pilgrims and Quakers instilled treaties with the native North Americans but did not aim mat converting to the native tribes (Middleton). This displayed that the British colonialists were characteristically independent. This is because they did not depend on the royal government for any assistance.
For instance, John Smith’s initiative to inculcate a decree of working conditions, that demanded every settler to work, is an example of god organization, whereby, the settlers, without supervision or rule by the colony, were self-governed and independent. Thus, the Royal government positively influenced the British colonialists by giving them an opportunity to work independently and produce a spirit of affluence, independence and hard work, which reflected a diversified and independent exemplary ruling and administration.
In fact, the character of the British colonialists turned into self-sustaining, minimally involving the mother ruler, the Royal Britain. This could also have influenced the British colonialists to gain jest and cease concentrating on the need for the rule and discretion by the mother country (Joshuaisd).
They declared their own wars against their foes, instilled their decree and lost their people in battles, though they ad their own military. The religious outcasts dominated by teaching their religious tenets and converting the Native Americans. This displayed their overall character as impulsive and unmoved.
Due to the presence of land and hardworking native people, the British inculcated numerous projects, meant to sustain its people and bring about business flourishing.
Thus, the British focused on trade and business with control from the representative governments, initiating projects such as fishing, farming, tobacco growing and trading with other countries and internal trading. This brought about economy diversification and kept the British at an elevated position, in comparison with the other contesting powers such as Spanish and Dutch. This practice is mercantilism.
Wars cropped up among the British and French, with the Spanish included. These wars occurred without the royal support from the British mother government. Apparently, the British colonialists worked extremely hard to protect and secure their possessions when fighting with their rivals.
His war carried on for seven years after which British recovered their belongings and emerged with victory (Streich). Lack of Royal support, in this case, inculcated a sense of insecurity and extreme defense, which saw the British colonialists working hard and fighting the battles with jest to emerge as the winners.
More independence and discretion at will from the central government led into the British colonialists inculcating measures to increase the population of the Native Americans fore labor provision. Additionally, they would obtain more workforces from African countries where they had more colonies to augment their working population and influence trade positively.
Human trafficking, also slave trade, was one of the ills they involved themselves (Joshuaisd). For lack of questioning by the royal government, the British colonialists went ahead and purchased slaves to work in the plantations and induced harsh treatment on them. Slavery was an act of inhumanity.
The slave trade increased, and, the rich would trade people for land. This practice brought about activism by various people since it was an inhumane act. Therefore, many people would die due to fighting against the practice while others would die while overworking, as they presumably were property.
This practice progressed as the royal mother government did not take any interest to intervene. Indeed, if the royal government had intervened, the British colonialists would not have involved in such malpractices. The process ought to have been legitimate and humane. Additionally, the practice of the family farm, where the children instead of adults worked in the tobacco plantations was extremely terrible.
Their character had turned out to be dictatorial and not democratic. The war that resulted was due to the illegitimate rule, which was controllable if the British royal government a significant position in the administration of the colonies (Streich).
Thus, the British government should have intervened and established the right measures to undertake the agriculture and trade with moderation, rather than in a way to persecute other people, regardless of their nationality. The lack of support from the royal government was a contributing factor to this quandary.
The royal charter to relocate some of British citizens such as farmers, lumbermen, sawmill workers and religious outcasts aimed at giving them an opportunity to explore freedom in the new territories and coexist with the natives. This successfully was completed, and, these people travelled to North America, and, depended on the Indian natives for survival.
However, they later began colonizing and fighting their hosts (Joshuaisd). This was out of the knowledge of the royal crown, which could have moderated the upcoming quandaries. The British settlers turned into dictators and greed merchants to delve into economic success and independence. This attitude brought about fights and insecurity for natives.
Lack of intervention by the British royal crown resulted into the settlers augmenting in number. This incidence flooded North America with British settlers, who sometimes would starve and had to practice intensive agriculture to survive. The small representative governments had an extremely heavy task to take care of the people.
Basing to the fact that they found other people there, they clashed occasionally, without the British government providing a concrete solution. The increase in numbers pushed the settlers to take up arms against the native people, leading to clashes that led to numerous life losses. This was detrimentally affecting the position of the British colonies.
Distance from the royal crown made the settlers make their own decree and rules that would govern them and the local people. They reorganized the territories and made advances in bringing the people under a representative government, which would tax them and deliver ruling (Joshuaisd). This is positively inclined, since it led into the acquisition of territories, in the name of Britain, their mother country. Minimal control encompassed more both demerits and merits on the local territory and the profile of the mother royal, crown.
Thus, the minimal or lack of involvement by the British royal crown in moderating or overseeing the British colonies in the North America affected the character of the British colonialist bodies who had the authority to establish the representative governments and deliver their decree. The royal crown, however, should have taken an active role to moderate the local or representative governments. This is because the actions of the governments were a reflection of their mother government profile.
Thus, the representative governments acted friendly at first, as expounded above, but their advances to utter greed and inhumane character. They practiced independently and fought their battles with jest, winning them in the end. The expanded and diversified the economy of the North American territories by a colossal scale implied negatively in their greedy behavior.
They indiscriminately involved in the slave trade and harsh treatment of the subjects, a practice that brought and harm to most people. Therefore, the lack of royal involvement brought more harm than good, though the two aspects seem to balance in intensity.
Works Cited
Adler, Philip and Pouwels, Randall. World Civilizations: Since 1500. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.
Middleton, Richard. Colonial America: A History, 1565-1776. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Limited, 2002. Print.
Streich, Michael. Comparing Spanish and English American Colonies. 23 Jun 2009. Web.
Joshuaisd. Growth of American Colonies. n.d. Web.