I never quite understood how the British allowed the Colonists to have the right to make laws (i.e., Viriginia’s House of Burgesses); yet, it seems each colony had a Governor appointed by the Crown. Also, how did the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses operate right under the noses of the British? Why didn’t the British put a stop to this immediately?
It seems every history book and recap of events never goes far enough to explain. Perhaps, the SD has a good understanding of Colonial politics?
Slow travel times, geographic isolation, the scarcity of lawyers in the early settlements, and the independent development of the settlements (and they were settlements before becoming colonies) all contributed to ad hoc development of early colonial law.
One thing to consider is that over 150 years separated the establishment of Jamestown and the Declaration of Independence. Lots of time for the different settlements to develop their own local laws. Even in England during this period (Great Britain would not exist until 1707, one hundred years after Jamestown’s founding), law was generally local in nature. The early colonies’ laws reflected the laws that the settlers were familiar with, greatly compounding the nonuniform nature of early colonial law.
Historically, one controlled far-flung outposts through logistics, trade, military support, and education. In the case of the original 13, my WAG was to speed up the development of mercantilism (easier to control a city-based population,) education (being British means you’ve won life’s lottery --what more do you want?) and a political system that would have a voice in the London Pahleement (if cities in Britain can handle their own funds, why can’t an entire state?)
??? The people of Virginia went there to get away from rule from Britain.
They created the House of Burgesses in order to create rules to run the towns.. its even named “The local council”. Burgess means BURROUGH.. the local council of a small part of a city.
Virginia was a crown colony - under direct control of the English monarch - from 1624. The House of Burgesses was established under an older charter (the defunct London Company) and was there as a devolved administrative body, with the Royal Governor having essentially unlimited veto power.
The old principle had been known as “benign neglect”. The King and Parliament felt they had the power over the colonies but they never really used it. Colonial legislatures were created (in many cases without official permission) to handle local affairs.
The crisis came when London started enacting laws that effected the colonies and enforcing them. This revealed a difference in attitudes. The colonials by now saw their local governments as their legitimate government and resented what they saw as an attempt by London to take over. London’s attitude was that they weren’t taking over because they had always been in charge and this was nothing new - they were just choosing to use the power they had possessed all along.
Not really. The Virginia settlers didn’t go to America for religious or political reasons. They went there to make money. Virginia was very much seen as a commercial colony.
I highly recommend Joanne Freeman’s online course on the American revolution. Its entertaining and very informative. The early part of the course discusses the colonies before the Revolution and how they interacted (or didn’t), and how the continental congresses were not that easy to arrange, didn’t do much and had very little power wrt the member states–any resolution could be ignored by the colonies–even if their delegation voted for it.
Things weren’t all sweetness and light before the evolution.
Many places (towns, etc.) in europe saw the need for local laws, determined by a local body.
The new world colonies were no exception.
What always surprised me was how tone-deaf the Crown was to the situation in the Colonies in the first half of the 18th century. Really, the main point of contention – taxes – should have been a non-problem. The general idea that the Colonies should pay for their own defense is quite reasonable.
So why didn’t the Colonies get those votes in Parliament? It would have been mainly lipservice, and nothing would have really changed except that one of the main Marketing Points of the seperatists would have been defanged. Shooting people that you claim to be defending was another unbelievably bad move (which somehow happens even today!)
England had just gone through a phase where it was clear what could happen if you pissed people off too much. It’s all rather puzzling how they could make one bad move after another.
A big problem was the insistence that Crown Taxes be paid in English coinage.
The Colonies had no Mint. Foreign coinage was used, or barter for goods.
The Colonies asked for a Royal Mint, but this was refused.
The insistence on English gold & silver only ruined a great many men.
Taxes were an issue but most Americans understood they were being asked to pay a light tax burden. (Britons paid more. Americans imposed higher taxes upon themselves once they declared independence. And the Americans offered to collect the tax if they could do it through a local legislature.)
The main issue was political representation not taxes. But Parliament felt it couldn’t give any ground on that issue. People forget there were also protests in the UK about political representation. If Parliament had given the American colonies proportional representation, they would have had to give the same to England.
Was it a question of population? IIRC, land was dirt-cheap (sorry) in the colonies, so the restriction of vote to land-owning male citizens would mean a lot more of the common riff-raff could vote in the colonies than in Britain?
However, AFAIK, Britain never went so far as France to allow members from remote “pieces” of the dominion to have representation in the main legislature. Colonies were never considered part of the motherland.
Basically it was an issue of apportionment. Parliamentary representation had been set in the 12th century. By the 18th century, some formerly significant towns had faded into non-existence but still had representation in Parliament while some major cities had come into existence and had no representation. (The two extremes were Old Sarum and Manchester. In 1830, Old Sarum had seven voters and sent two people to Parliament; Manchester with a population of over 250,000 in 1830 sent no representatives to Parliament.)
So the government in London felt it had to hold the line on representation. If it allowed Americans to send representatives to Parliament, other colonies would insist on the same. And more significantly, the unrepresented masses in Britain would insist on the same.