Introduction
Despite the fact that the very existence of the United States depended on the willingness of Great Britain to invest in the U.S. economic development, the economic relationships between the two countries have always been represented by a considerable strain. The tension in the relationships between the two states started becoming evident with the growth of independence-oriented tendencies in the American political and social environment.
Therefore, the very nature of the conflict between American and British economic policies is rooted deeply in the willingness of American citizens to make independent choices in the realm of their country. It should be noted that the tension between the two states was aggravated by the geographic position of the U.S.as much as it was enhanced by the willingness thereof to gain freedom in its economical choices and become the leading power in the global market.
Nevertheless, the relationships between the U.S. and the United Kingdom remained quite ambiguous and seriously lacking trust and cooperation (Osterhammel 59). The specified phenomenon was partially fueled by the past conflict between Great Britain and its colonies in North America, where the movement for political and economic independence ignited a massive conflict that would, later on, be resolved in the war for independence.
Independence War – 1812 War
When considering the specifics of the economic relationships between the U.S. and Great Britain in the era of the Napoleonic war, one cannot possibly detach the subject matter form the history of the U.S. It should also be borne in mind that the relationships between the two states were built on the principles of mercantilism, which implied that most of the economic activities within the country were regulated by the government of Great Britain:
From their foundation, the American colonies were an integral part of the British Empire and hence of the Atlantic trading community. According to the dictates of mercantilism, then the dominant school of economic thought, the colonies supplied the mother country with timber, tobacco, and other agricultural products and purchased its manufactured goods. But the Americans also broke from prescribed trade patterns. (Herring 12)
The increasingly high levels of dependency on the choices made by the British government can be viewed as the driving force behind the process of dissatisfaction building among the American population. The need to create a viable economy that would not depend on the British mercantilism and be independent of the Atlantic Trade Agreement was becoming increasingly more obvious. As a result, the economic tension between the two states reached a tremendous scale, thus, compelling the two sides to become opponents in the global economic environment.
In fact, the necessity to shift from the colonialism-based regulation of economic processes toward a more independent approach that could encourage the further development of business and the design of a more efficient economic system can be deemed as one of the factors leading to the numerous confrontations that would, later on, spark the Independence War (Field 6).
The willingness of the U.S. to create strong ties with the members of the global community, in general, and the states of the Middle East, in particular, can also be regarded as the stumbling block on the way to the improvement in the relationships with Great Britain. As Oren explains, once opportunities were open to travelers in the Mediterranean area, the process of exploring the Middle East environment commenced (270).
The resulting rise in the development of diplomatic relationships and the study of trade options can be deemed as the sign of America’s readiness to grow economically. The specified process, in its turn, affected the position of Great Britain, which had already lost its influence on the American trade processes by the time (Perkins “The Creation of a Republican Empire” 166).
Therefore, the economic relationships between the U.S. and Great Britain could not technically be defined as hostile at the specified point in history, yet they were becoming increasingly cooler and tenser. Similar tendencies could be observed after the Independence War ended, and the U.S. gained an opportunity to regulate its economic processes based on the state’s legal standards and the decisions made by the state authorities as opposed to the principles that were viewed as crucial by the British authorities.
It would be wrong to assume, however, that the lasting relationships that America had had with Great Britain up until the War of Independence had solely detrimental effects on the efficacy of the American economy. For instance, the reinforcement of the Jay Treaty in the realm of the American economy contributed to a massive rise in the efficacy of commerce, thus, boosting the performance levels among American organizations extensively (Stagg 26).
Thus, from a certain perspective, the American economic growth can be attributed to the ability of the state government to build a unique policy based on the needs and properties of the American economic environment, at the same time making efficient use of the regulations and legal standards set by Great Britain. Nevertheless, the ability to free the state from the weight of the British authority can be deemed as the key step in improving the American economic situation despite the following rise in the economic tension in the relationships between the two countries.
1812 War – Civil War
The 1812 war-affected Great Britain significantly, weakening it economically, politically, and financially. As a result, an opportunity for the American business to occupy the realm of the global economy was created. The post-WWI environment of the American economy was characterized by a rapid rise in production levels. That being said, the competition between the U.S. and the United Kingdom remained the key competitors in the environment of the global market (Perkins “Prologue to War” 137).
Furthermore, as America was approaching its own crisis and slowly gearing toward the Civil War, its relationships with Great Britain were turning even more ambiguous. Because of the connection that middle- and high-class citizens of the United Kingdom had with the South, the latter had a significant number of supporters among the citizens of Great Britain. The attitude of Britain toward the Civil War became especially controversial when the North annexed annexation of Florida, Texas, California, and Oregon.
The specified issue was leveraged by the support that representatives of the British working class offered the American North, yet the lack of concern for the values for which the American North was fighting had its toll on the further communication between the states. It would be erroneous to claim that the U.S. severed its connection with Great Britain, yet the lack of trust and the increased rivalry levels became even more obvious as the American society approached the Civil War.
Furthermore, the advent of the “era of national greatness” (Immerman 121) can be regarded as the starting point for the American economy to experience rebirth and complete renovation. Not only did the U.S. shake off the shackles of imperialism of the United Kingdom, but it also managed to use the available resources to improve and enhance its economic potential. As a result, the premises for further harsh competition with Great Britain were built.
Despite the fact that the U.S. was facing a significant internal crisis and was not ready to enter another stage of economic competition with the United Kingdom, the conspicuous controversy of the standpoint that Great Brittan had at the time regarding the Civil War in the U.S. served as another stage in severing the relationships between the two states and enhancing the levels of rivalry between the opponents I the realm of the global market (Varg 134).
Civil War – End of the 19th Century
It should also be borne in mind that, apart from the need to distance from the influence of Great Britain, the process of establishing itself in the realm of the global market was necessitated by the social factors that pressured the American government into exploring all available opportunities for the economic growth. To be more specific, the exhaustion of the opportunities for the consistent growth within the continent was the factor that conditioned the U.S. to search for the opportunities to exert its influence in the global context: “the exploding population, the rise of farm tenancy, the similarities of America’s problems and Ancient Rome’s decline” (LaFeber and Cohen 28) pointed to the possibility of a rapid demise unless opportunities for enhancing the state’s macropolitical influence were explored.
Furthermore, seeing that cotton was the key export material provided by the U.S. to Europe, the drop in the production thereof, which was caused by the Civil War, created a significant obstacle in the further advancement of the U.S. in the global market. The economic crisis that followed the Civil War, in turn, has also had a detrimental effect on the U.S.’s position in the global market. Great Britain, in turn, used the critical situation in the U. S to its economic advantage (Stuart 112).
In addition, the fact that Hawaii was practically destroyed by the end of the Civil War intensified the struggle for power between the U.S. and Great Britain. Attempting to retaining its position and feeling superior after handling the crisis of the Civil War, the U.S. endeavored to regain the influence that it had before the crisis (Stuart 113). Consequently, the economic challenges experienced by the U.S. enabled the United Kingdom to fight for its economic well-being in a more intense manner, yet the U.S. also handled the situation rather efficiently, leading to a steep rise in tension between the two states.
It would be wrong to assume that America was in a perpetual confrontation with Great Britain and the rest of Europe, in particular. According to the existing evidence, the foreign policy deployed by the leaders of America at the time could be boiled down to inaction unless provoked to taking immediate measures: “The one principle to which the American people have learned to cling in foreign affairs is that the less they have, the better” (Perkins and Cohen 200).
That being said, the above statement represents a very rough generalization of the U.S. policies of the identified era. Because of the enhancement of foreign trade and the increase in the role that commerce played in the global advancement, the U.S. had to focus on the redesign of its economic policies and the development of the ability to withstand the competition of the global market. Alaska made the position of the U.S. even stronger in the global economy, thus, cementing its role as a leader and creating the foundation for further cooperation with Great Britain (Immerman 124).
Seeing that the propensity toward the development of the global trade was beginning to grow in the specified economic environment, the U.S. had to engage in the global economic relationships, competing with the United Kingdom from the supreme position in the identified economic realm (Allison 13). Therefore, the tendency toward expanding into the European market, by which the U.S. policy could be characterized in the late 1860s, can be regarded as the endeavor at restoring the state economy:
Approximately 72 percent of American exports went to Europe in the late nineteenth century, but imports from outside Europe increased to one half of the total at the turn of the century. The biggest increase was not from Latin America but from Asia, from which imports nearly doubled from 1860 to 1901-5, reaching 15.4 percent of the total. (Tyrrell 14)
However, apart from taking a niche in the European market, the U.S. was affecting the United Kingdom’s influence in the specified market. To be more specific, the U.S. attempts at capturing the market and expanding its economic growth came at the cost of the British economic success, thus, ousting the state from its top position in the global market. With the advance of the U.S. in the global economic realm, however, the tension levels were growing increasingly high between American and Great Britain; furthermore, with the rise in its economic potential and the opportunities that it could pursue in the European market, the U.S. also had to face rather tight competition from a range of European countries such as France (Stuart 112).
It should be noted that, at the end of the 19th century, a shift in the paradigm of the relationships between the U.S. and the United Kingdom could be observed. While the economic rivalry between the states remained an issue, nature thereof changed slightly toward cooperation (Weeks 54). The specified phenomenon can be explained by the general propensity toward globalization and, therefore, shift toward cooperation as the key to successful economic growth.
The meticulous strategy designed to make the U.S. advance in the European market also implied cooperation with Great Britain; thus, compromises had to be made to enter a new epoch of economic relationships and foster continuous economic progress. Therefore, the overall change in the paradigm could be regarded as a crucial change and a necessary method of adapting toward the economic environment of the end of the 19th century.
It could be argued that the identified trends in the changes in relationships between the U.S. and Great Britain were the signals of the globalization process that was bound to prove the necessity of cooperation and support as the primary means of maintaining economic growth and keeping it consistent. The relationships between the U.S. and the United Kingdom entered a new era where the bitterness of the negative outcomes of the British colonialism would no longer affect the attitudes among the citizens of the U.S. toward Great Britain. Instead, the possibility of further enhancement of economic relationships between the two states was created (Campbell 66).
Conclusion
The relationships between Great Britain and the United States were marked by a considerable strain in their economic relationships due to the continuous rivalry between them. Sparked by the willingness of the U.S. to establish its independence and develop a self-sustaining economic strategy that would not be dependent on the choices of the United Kingdom, the competition between the two states was fueled significantly by the unique environment in which each of the states found itself, as well as the harsh political conditions to which each was exposed at the specified time slot.
Also influenced by the geographic position of each state, the competition reached an especially large scale at the time of the WWI. While the geographic isolation of the U.S. could not technically be viewed as an advantage and, instead, prevented the U.S. from partaking in the economic relationships of the 19th century, it allowed the U.S. to take significantly fewer losses in the WWI era. Therefore, the economic rivalry between the U. S and the United Kingdom was also affected to a large degree by extraneous factors, including not only economic but also political and social factors.
It should be borne in mind that the competition became less intense at the end of the 19th century with the advent of the globalization era. Focusing on cooperation rather than the willingness to excel in each other’s performance in the global market, the U.S. and the United Kingdom strive to compete by contributing to the development of the global community. The specified phenomenon, however, was not the case for the 19th century, when both were aiming at taking the leading position in the realm of the global economy.
When considering the roots of the specified competition, one must admit that the willingness to distance themselves from the British rule and build an independent economic system that would ultimately prove superior was the primary driving force behind the choices made by the U.S. indeed, given the long-lasting fight for its independence from the British rule, the endeavors of the U.S. to become the emblem of the consistent economic growth and striking success in the economic environment of the 19th century was quite understandable.
Therefore, supported by both foreign policy goals and the necessity to build a strong foundation for its further advance in the global economic environment, the U.S. started taking the position that the United Kingdom claimed at the time, the resulting confrontation between the two countries led to the continuous rivalry and the increase in the levels of tension between the U.S. and the United Kingdom. It would be wrong to claim that the specified relationships were completely healthy since they often involved taking significant losses for both sides.
However, the propensity toward competing for the position of the global economic leader allowed the U.S. and the United Kingdom to define their home and foreign policies, thus, helping them maintain a delicate balance between the idea of global cooperation and the necessity to exert global influence on key economic processes, thus, defining the course of the economic growth worldwide.
Works Cited
Allison, Robert J. The Crescent Obscured: The United States and the Muslim World, 1776-1815. University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Campbell, Charles S. From Revolution to Rapprochement: The United States and Great Britain, 1783–1900. Wiley, 1974.
Field, James A. Jr. America and the Mediterranean World, 1776-1882. Princeton University Press, 1969.
Herring, George C. From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Immerman, Richard H. Empire for Liberty: A History of American Imperialism from Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz. Princeton University Press, 2010.
LaFeber, Walter, and Warren I. Cohen. The American Search for Opportunity, 1865-1913. Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Oren, Michael B. Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present. Norton, 2006.
Osterhammel, JĂĽrgen. Globalization: A Short History. Princeton University Press, 2009.
Perkins, Bradford. The Creation of a Republican Empire, 1776-1865. Cambridge University Press, 1993.
—. Prologue to War: England and the United States, 1805–1812. University of California Press, 1961.
Perkins, Bradford, and Warren I. Cohen. The First Rapprochement: England and the United States, 1795-1805. University of California Press, 1967.
Stagg, John C. A. The War of 1812: Conflict for a Continent. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Stuart, Reginald C. United States Expansionism and British North America, 1775-1871. The University of North Carolina Press, 2012.
Tyrrell, Ian. Reforming the World: The Creation of America’s Moral Empire. Princeton University Press, 2013.
Varg, Paul A. United States Foreign Relations, 1820-1860. Michigan State University Press, 1979.
Weeks, William. Dimensions of the Early American Empire, 1754-1865. Cambridge University Press, 2013.