Richard Hakluyt wrote Discourse of Western Planting in 1584, detailing what he thought
were the incentives and possible benefits for English expansion into the New World. Hakluyt’s
vision was of a strong English empire achieved through robust economic and military growth.
Achieving this goal would not just catapult England to supremacy on the world stage, but also
supplant the reigning Catholic power: Spain. It is important to emphasize Spain’s Catholicism
because it was Catholicism, not Spain specifically, which was inherently evil and needed to be
defeated according to Hakluyt’s vision. This is shown by Hakluyt’s reference to Spain’s
“popishe Clergye,”1 his naming the Pope as “the greate Antechriste of Rome,” 2 and his belief
…show more content…
that the voyage to the New World should be free of men that are “knowen to be a papiste.”3 In other words, it was Catholicism, not Spain, which was to be defeated: it was simply incidental that during Hakluyt’s time Spain was the most powerful Catholic force in the world.
The growth
of English economic, martial, and religious dominance were all inexorably tied to one another.
As Hakluyt foresaw, the establishment of English colonies in the New World would stimulate
the English economy, which would both necessitate and foster the growth of a powerful English
military. This military would then not only protect English economic interests, but be
instrumental in defeating Catholicism. As I will demonstrate, Hakluyt’s three interconnected
1 Richard Hakluyt, Discourse on Western Planting (1584), Page 47
pillars of a prosperous English economy, a powerful English military, and the defeat of
Catholicism were fully realized by the mid-18th century.
Hakluyt’s economic vision was bilateral and reciprocal: the colonies would provide
metropolitan England with a new market for its manufactured goods while simultaneously
supply the requisite raw materials needed to bolster manufacturing in England.
…show more content…
Although Jamestown was founded in 1607, colonies in the New World did not become profitable until sometime in the 1630s.4 This, along with the Great Migration that took place concurrently, were critical first steps in the realization of Hakluyt’s empire. The Great Migration of 1629-30 was markedly different than the types of emigration that had come before. Whereas Hakluyt correctly anticipated that the colonies would attract young, unemployed males in search of work,5 the Great Migration hallmarked the first large-scale migration of families to the New World.6 This fact is important in understanding the genesis of Hakluyt’s vision. These families not only provided a stable sex-ratio for the colonies to sustain and grow their population (particularly the Massachusetts Bay Colony), but also indicated people’s willingness to commit their entire families to the region. This willingness to relocate permanently is integral to the colonies becoming persistent centers of operation, and thus, perennial new markets for England’s manufactured goods. As families in New England spurred a natural increase in the population, the market for English manufacturing increased concordantly. However, it was not just new markets that Hakluyt envisioned. He also believed that the colonies would become valuable sources of commodities for the empire. Nearly a century later, 4 Yirush, 138A Lecture, October 17th, 2012. 5 John M Murrin, Beneficiaries of Catastrophe: The English Colonists in America, (London and New York, Date 6 Yirush, 138A Lecture, October 12th, 2012 his successors in England appeared to agree with this assessment. Starting in 1651, Parliament passed a series of Navigation Acts which, among other things, “prohibited ships of any nation except England or English plantations from importing colonial commodities of Asia, Africa, or America into any English port”.7 Up until this point, Dutch ships were largely responsible for the transportation of American commodities into European markets.8 With the passage of the Navigation Acts, England began down the path to monopolizing control of its own commodities. Although largely disregarded by the colonies at first, after the Glorious Revolution in 1689 the colonies began to abide by the regulations of the Navigation Acts.9 Additionally, the Navigation Acts sought not only to regulate raw goods leaving the colonies, but also attempted to “make Britain the source of most manufactures consumed in the colonies.”10 Adherence to these Acts would thus fulfill Hakluyt’s vision of England’s bilateral and reciprocal economy, and the Navigations Acts enjoyed “an extremely high level of compliance by the early eighteenth Additional evidence for the fruition of Hakluyt’s economic vision of the colonies can be found in the debate that was going on from the late 17th to the mid-18th century in England. The battle raged between Tories (who wanted the colonies to continue to produce only commodities) on the one hand and Whigs (who hoped that New York and New England would become manufacturing centers) on the other.12 In 1754 Benjamin Franklin sent a letter to the Governor of Massachusetts Bay, William Shirley, arguing that manufacturing benefited the empire as a whole, regardless of whether it was taking place in the colonies or in metropolitan England.13 7 Breen and Hall, Colonial America,page 173 9 Yirush, History 138A Lecture, October 15, 2012 10 Murrin, Beneficiaries of Catastrophe page 277 12 Steve Pincus, Rethinking Mercantilism: Political Economy, the British Empire, and the Atlantic World in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (2012), page 27 This is evidence that as late as the mid-1700s the colonies were still affected by legislation that limited their ability to compete with England’s mainland manufacturers. Additionally, Franklin argues for the right of colonists to “[vent] their produce in the same ports” as other Englishmen.14 This implies that the colonies were also under the influence of legislation in the middle of the 18th century that restricted their ability to sell commodities to anyone other than English merchants. It’s clear that Parliament’s intention with the Navigation Acts was to regulate both the commodities market as well as English manufacturing, and Franklin’s letter would suggest that the Navigation Acts were successful in their implementation. For the time being, the Tories’ argument held sway, in accordance with Hakluyt’s vision. Hakluyt always envisioned England’s martial strength growing in tandem with England’s economic strength. This does not mean, however, that the success of the English economy is evidence of the success of the English military. Whether or not the relationships between England’s economy and military in the 17th and 18th centuries is causal or independent is irrelevant; what’s relevant is that Hakluyt’s vision of a powerful English military toppling Catholic rivals was also realized.
After the defeat of the Stuart line of kings with the Glorious
Revolution, William of Orange (now King of England), refocused England’s military attention
from Spain to France and engaged in a series of wars culminating with the Treaty of Utrecht in
1713.15 The Treaty of Utrecht was a pivotal moment in English military history. Not only was it a
significant victory for England that garnered several territorial concessions from France, such as
Nova Scotia, but it also established England as a major imperial power.16 England’s peak,
however, was far from reached. In another pivotal conflict, the Seven Years’ War, England
13 Benjamin Franklin to Governor William Shirley (December 22, 1754) page 378.
15 Yirush, History 138A lecture, October 26, 2012
16 The Utrecht Settlement: Treaty of Peace between England and France (March 31, 1713) page 224
would yet again prove triumphant over Catholic France. With the signing of the Treaty of Paris
in 1763, France not only conceded all land in North America east of the Mississippi, but also
significant territories in the Caribbean and India.17 Additionally, England gained major territorial
concessions from Spain as well, most significantly the territory of Florida.18 England’s
military had won control over the majority of the North American continent, supplanting her Catholic rivals France and Spain in the process. Whether or not English contemporaries at this time were correct in their assertion that their empire was the greatest since Rome is debatable. What’s not debatable is the ascension of England as the most dominant military force in the world at this time. The vast amount of territory conceded by the Catholic kingdoms Spain and France in 1763 can only be interpreted as their defeat. England’s economy stretched from Europe to North America, from the Caribbean to India. Even Hakluyt’s ambitious vision didn’t include the scope of 18th century England. His vision did provide a successful blueprint, however, and it was adherence to this blueprint (whether intentional or not) that allowed England to succeed where others had failed. England’s foray into the New World was based on economic motives and incentives, and it was the prosperous economies of the New World colonies that fueled England’s ascension as the world’s foremost military power in the early- to mid-18th century.
After the French and Indian War, Great Britain obtained a huge amount of land including Canada and the land west of the Appalachian mountains and owned most of the New World(Document A). Great Britain may of obtained all this land, however they had twice the debt than before the war. To compensate for all this money, English monarchs imposed tariffs and high taxes on
The United States acquired the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803, thereby gaining control of the Mississippi River, and its watershed at the golf of Mexico. The U.S. government realized how important this was and its potential of becoming a great trading post. By 1812 this area called New Orleans grew as expected in size and importance. In peace it was a commercial outlet and trading center of the western United States.
The Louisiana Purchase stands as an iconic event today that nearly doubled the size of America, ultimately introducing the United States as a world power. In 1762, during the Seven Years’ War, France ceded its control of the Louisiana Territory to Spain (Britannica). However, when Napoleon Bonaparte assumed control of France in 1799, France rallied as a world power once more. Bonaparte’s interest in the Louisiana Territory spiked, and he pressured Spain’s king, Charles IV to relinquish his control of the land on October 1, 1800. This was known as the Treaty of San Ildefonso (Britannica). In view of the transfer between France and Spain, president Thomas Jefferson sent Robert R. Livingston to Paris in 1801. Jefferson became worried, because
In the years leading up to the Seven Years War, there were already many skirmishes in the thirteen colonies between the British and the Native American tribes in the area.1 The first official year of fighting also led to many decisive defeats to the overextended British Empire. Many small battles for dominance between the British and the French also occurred along the Indian coast. In response to the acts of expansion by the French, the British decided to defend its own territory in North America and India.2 There were many battles scattered across the world, with significant naval battles in the Indian theatre and the Mediterranean. At first, the French won many decisive battles with the aid of its allies against the British Empire. Both countries however, were relatively equal in size and power at the time, but that would soon change. The British began to turn the tide as they made significant lead...
The French and Indian war took place between 1754 and 1763. Here between these nine years would serve as the blue print to America’s history and future. “What began as a struggle over territorial rights between British colonist and French settlers became part of an international war between the great powers” (Schwartz, 1). To truly understand the French and Indian war, many must take a look into the past events that caused the dispute between the British and the French. During the year 1498, the British claims to the continent were based on the London Company and the sailing of the waters under the rule of King James I. This is where the British company in the latter half of the seventeenth century, under the crown established a reign or province, extending from seas to sea.
Before Columbus landed in the West Indies in 1492, The Spanish Inquisition made it known to anyone within Spain’s domain of influence that if a person was not of the Catholic religion, they were to be punished severely and sometimes even fatally. This influence would undoubtedly be brought over to the Americas a century later, as the colonization of the New World would begin by then. While it was very essential for the Spanish (as well as the Portuguese) to improve their economy by using the resources they found in Latin America, it seemed to a number of them as if that was the only reason for being there, or the main reason at the very least. During the Spanish Inquisition and from that point after, it was the Pope’s main goal, to convert everyone to Roman Catholicism; an opportune moment arrived as the Americas were found, along with the Natives who resided there who were waiting to be converted.
Upon learning that France was to apprehend this territory, President Thomas Jefferson noted, “There is on the globe one single spot, the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy. It is New Orleans.” (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/louisiana-purchase) This was the reason that the United States ended up buying the Louisiana Purchase to begin with. With New Orleans in the hands of the French government, one of the most vital ports to the States would be gone. So the Louisiana Purchase kept the United States’ economy afloat as well as adding land to the evolving
The war would lead Prussia to the forefront on the European continent, however Britain clearly gained much more than any other did. France would not recover, and Louis knew all too well what lay in store when he said “ After me, the deluge.”
In the 1740's, Great Britain and France both realized that a struggle for control of North America was unavoidable. The French involvement in the fur trade and England's concern with their cash crops caused the desire for more land to grow, which ultimately led to clashes between the two empires.
After witnessing the Dutch Republic’s rise in becoming a dominating controller of European trade, other countries in the area were eager to be a part of the success – even if that meant using force. England attacked the Dutch in three Anglo-Dutch Wars between 1652 and 1674, according to Document 3. Compared to the five hundred English ships that the Dutch seized, the English took approximately two thousand Dutch ships. This loss to Dutch merchant shipping would not be easily recovered. It is clear by the battle markers shown in Document 1 that many English Battles for economic influence occurred near trade routes. Everyone was desperate for a chance to get in on the profitable trade. France even allied with England in the Treaty of Dover (Document 6) so that the “allied sovereigns [could] then jointly declare war on the Dutch Republic…” As an official treaty, Document 6 is a clear insight into the true and blatant violent intentions of the other nations to take out the Dutch Republic’s power in order to increase their own. It was strategic partner to take out the Dutch before they absorbed all the trade power – a win-win for the England and France. At the Amsterdam City Council, people were obviously biased toward the Dutch side of the war. However, their opinion that “other kings seem more and more to scheme how to ruin wh...
acquired by Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris of 1763. The mass majority of
Shortly after the Spanish reconquering of the Iberian Peninsula, they had ambitious visions of unifying the country, namely in the light of religion. The Spanish felt that they needed to be unified entirely under one religion in order to progress: Christianity. Inquisitors only had power over Christians, and so the forced conversions brought all men under the domain of The Church.
US massacre, give disease, take land without restitution. French do not take as much land because they are operating mainly as fur Traders; shower Indians with gifts of French goods; marry Indian women rather than just rape and abuse them, although there is some of that going on. Not uncommon, however, for a Frenchman to have 2 families, one in France and one in America; provide for their children and wives; educate children in French schools when possible. The French and the Indians become Allies.” (Griffin, PP11, 9/14/15). In King William’s war during 1689 to 1697, “Colonists fighting with the French and Indians over the Hudson Bay area and Mass Bay Area” (Griffin, PP13, 9/14/15). In Queen Anne’s war during 1702 to 1713, “French and Spanish decide to be friends and team up against England. The Indians fight with French in New England, South Carolina, and Florida” (Griffin, PP14, 9/14/15). In the Tuscarora war during 1711 to 1713, “North Carolina and South Carolina colonists against a group of Indians called the Tuscarora Indians. North Carolina colonists are starting to move into Tuscarora land and the Indians fight back. South Carolina calls in their Indian allies to fight and the Tuscaroras are defeated. Those that aren’t killed are enslaved. England gets Hudson Bay area, some of Canada (Newfoundland and Nova Scotia), the island of St. Christopher in the Caribbean, and the French
Shuck, M. That They May Be One: Social Teaching of the Papal Encyclicals, 1749-1891. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. 1991.
The Treaty of Ghent supports the notion that the essential long-term national interests of both parties are the most important factor in peace treaty success. Both the United States and Great Britain clearly perceived that they had real grievances and cause for war in 1812. However, within a short time, both nations realized they had a greater interest in peace without regard to most of the issues that provoked the conflict.