Mẹo về How did the policy of salutary neglect benefit both England and its colonies? 2022
Hoàng Duy Minh đang tìm kiếm từ khóa How did the policy of salutary neglect benefit both England and its colonies? được Cập Nhật vào lúc : 2022-12-17 23:22:10 . Với phương châm chia sẻ Mẹo Hướng dẫn trong nội dung bài viết một cách Chi Tiết 2022. Nếu sau khi đọc tài liệu vẫn ko hiểu thì hoàn toàn có thể lại Comment ở cuối bài để Admin lý giải và hướng dẫn lại nha.When the French and Indian War finally ended in 1763, no British subject on either side of the Atlantic could have foreseen the coming conflicts between the parent country and its North American colonies. Even so, the seeds of these conflicts were planted during, and as a result of, this war. Keep in mind that the French and Indian War (known in Europe as the Seven Years' War) was a global conflict. Even though Great Britian defeated France and its allies, the victory came great cost. In January 1763, Great Britain's national debt was more than 122 million pounds [the British monetary unit], an enormous sum for the time. Interest on the debt was more than 4.4 million pounds a year. Figuring out how to pay the interest alone absorbed the attention of the King and his ministers.
Nội dung chính Show- What was the benefit of salutary neglect?How did England benefit from salutary neglect?What is salutary neglect and why was it important?What were the causes and effects of salutary neglect?
Cantonment of the forces in North America, 11 October 1765The American Revolution and Its Era, 1750-1789
Nor was the problem of the imperial debt the only one facing British leaders in the wake of the Seven Years' War. Maintaining order in America was a significant challenge. Even with Britain's acquisition of Canada from France, the prospects of peaceful relations with the Native America tribes were not good. As a result, the British decided to keep a standing army in America. This decision would lead to a variety of problems with the colonists. In addition, an uprising on the Ohio frontier - Pontiac's Rebellion - led to the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade colonial settlement west of the Allegany Mountains. This, too, would lead to conflicts with land-hungry settlers and land speculators like George Washington (see map above).
British leaders also felt the need to tighten control over their empire. To be sure, laws regulating imperial trade and navigation had been on the books for generations, but American colonists were notorious for evading these regulations. They were even known to have traded with the French during the recently ended war. From the British point of view, it was only right that American colonists should pay their fair share of the costs for their own defense. If additional revenue could also be realized through stricter control of navigation and trade, so much the better. Thus the British began their attempts to reform the imperial system.
In 1764, Parliament enacted the Sugar Act, an attempt to raise revenue in the colonies through a tax on molasses. Although this tax had been on the books since the 1730s, smuggling and laxity of enforcement had blunted its sting. Now, however, the tax was to be enforced. An outcry arose from those affected, and colonists implemented several effective protest measures that centered around boycotting British goods. Then in 1765, Parliament enacted the Stamp Act, which placed taxes on paper, playing cards, and every legal document created in the colonies. Since this tax affected virtually everyone and extended British taxes to domestically produced and consumed goods, the reaction in the colonies was pervasive. The Stamp Act crisis was the first of many that would occur over the next decade and a half.
For additional documents related to these topics, search Loc.gov using such key words as Stamp Act, Indians, western lands, colonial trade, navigation, and the terms found in the documents. Another strategy is to browse relevant collections by date.
�Salutary neglect� was the unwritten, unofficial stance of benign neglect by England toward the American colonies. On the whole, the colonists were relatively autonomous and were allowed to govern themselves with minimal royal and parliamentary interference. The colonies, in turn, fulfilled their role in the mercantilist system as the suppliers of raw materials for manufacture in England and as markets for those finished goods. Before the passage of the Navigation Acts, England was limited in its influence over the remote colonies due to its distance and a number of more pressing regional concerns. The Navigation Acts were an attempt to end the period of salutary neglect and create a coherent imperial policy. The Acts were poorly enforced, and the implicit policy of neglect continued until the end of the Seven Years War in 1763. By this time, however, the colonists had developed a tradition of self-government and the attempt by England to tighten the reigns of political control with the imposition of tax and trade regulations added to the tensions spawned by the French and Indian War (the North American theater of the Seven Years War). Some historians argue that the policy of salutary neglect gave the American colonists a degree of independence that led directly to the American Revolution.
://theomahaproject.org/module_display.php?mod_id=161&review=yes#1769
According to 18th-century British constitutional theory, it was the "balance" of powers in government which safeguarded liberty. There was a monarchial element (the Crown), an aristocratic element (the hereditary House of Lords), and a "republican" or "popular" element (the House of Commons). Only measures passed by both houses and signed by the king or queen had the force of law. Two of the three elements in this "mixed" form of government exemplified the principle of hereditary rule. The monarch inherited his or her throne, and the members of the House of Lords also inherited their titles and offices. No one could claim a seat in the House of Commons by hereditary right. However, unlike our modern notions of election, the actual processes by which members of Parliament were chosen were diverse, sometimes almost incomprehensible. In theory they represented all the "common" people of the realm. In reality, members of the House of Commons were themselves usually members of the aristocracy. Most British citizens did not vote. I
Government in the royal colonies in North America was modeled on the British system, the royal governor standing in for the Crown, a royally-appointed council taking the place of the aristocratic House of Lords, and the elected assembly representing "the people." All of these should in theory have "balanced" one another, "the people" holding a share, but only a share, of the power. In practice, however, the royal governors -- even when supported by their councils -- found themselves confronted by lower houses which aggressively sought to limit governors' powers and enhance their own. In the colonies most males could vote. Further, as population shifts occurred, new seats in the lower houses were created so that the assemblies fairly accurately represented the entire population.
In 1765, in the wake of its great victory in the Seven Year's War (known as the French and Indian War in the American colonies), Great Britain set about putting its imperial house in order. Retiring the debt was a major priority, and the Stamp Act was one of several revenue measures designed to get the colonies to pay a greater share of the costs of empire. Colonists refused to pay the new stamp tax. Instead they organized a boycott of British goods and proclaimed that Parliament lacked the power to tax them, something only their own colonial legislatures could legitimately do.
Neglect, benign or other, ended with the defeat of France in the Seven Years' War. When Parliament in 1765 tried to impose taxes on newspapers, playing cards, and legal documents, the elected assemblies in each colony led a broadly-based and increasingly unified resistance movement. So fierce was local resistance that most agents resigned their commissions, and no one made a serious effort to collect the tax. In addition, colonies adopted non-importation agreements which were, in effect, boycotts of British goods until the Act was repealed.
Colonial condemnations of the Stamp Act not only affirmed the principles put forth by John Locke -- and universally accepted in Britain -- that taxation must rest upon consent, but went on to insist that the colonists were not represented in the House of Commons, and thus could not be taxed by Parliament. Colonial assemblies sent representatives to a Stamp Act Congress which proclaimed:
What was the benefit of salutary neglect?
Salutary neglect gave the colonists the opportunity to prosper economically while also establishing self-government. The colonies were able to control what they traded and who with, without the British breathing down their necks.How did England benefit from salutary neglect?
Salutary Neglect allowed colonial merchants to flourish, which also benefited British merchants. As Americans prospered, they were able to purchase more products from British merchants. Under the Mercantile System, colonies were vital because they provided raw materials, like tobacco, to the Mother Country.What is salutary neglect and why was it important?
Salutary neglect was an unofficial British policy of non-enforcement of trade regulations on their American colonies during the 17th and 18th centuries. The purpose was to maximize economic output amongst the colonists while maintain some form of control.What were the causes and effects of salutary neglect?
Salutary neglect was a large contributing factor that led to the American Revolutionary War. Since the imperial authority did not assert the power that it had, the colonists were left to govern themselves. These essentially sovereign colonies soon became accustomed to the idea of self-control. Tải thêm tài liệu liên quan đến nội dung bài viết How did the policy of salutary neglect benefit both England and its colonies?