Question 1
Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more convincing as an explanation as to the state of British colonies in America in the period from
1660 to 1713.
Passage A
In the last forty years of the seventeenth century and probably at least the first dozen or so years of the eighteenth century, British America lurched from crisis to crisis. Long term economic difficulties were punctuated by a series of violent upheavals not only between European settlers and Native Americans but between different groups of colonists in a single colony. The list of things that went wrong in these years is long: economic pain; political and especially religious discord; a plenitude of wars, both with Native Americans and also with a resurgent French empire and a defensive Spanish empire; rampant piracy in the southern colonies; natural disasters, such as the earthquake that flattened Port Royal; and even witchcraft panics. Indeed, if we were to single out any years as being the nadir of English experience in the New World, it would be 1691 and 1692. British America was also rocked by rebellions. To this could be added problems in the metropolitan centre, as England struggled both to cope with the aftermath of a surprisingly bloody and still contentious Glorious Revolution, along with facing down, not too successfully, attacks from France, the most powerful nation in Europe. Indeed, the French defeat of the English Navy in 1690 had shown English America that it could not even defend its own borders, let alone protect North Americans from similar attacks by the French. In North America, English failure was replicated in 1690 by a dismal and costly failure to capture New France.
Adapted from: T. Burnard, Death Valley to Sunlit Uplands: The Middle Period in early American History, lecture, 2007.
Passage B
The economic system was not as oppressive to the colonies as it may seem. Great Britain wanted her plantations to be contented and prosperous and took steps to make them so. The tobacco colonies of the south were allowed to trade only with England; but they were given a monopoly of the market. Similar advantages were given to South Carolina. The colonies of the north mainland had their own profitable place in the system. The British West Indies became dependent on them for provisions. New Englanders were encouraged by the imperial government to build and sail ships. Despite the Navigation Acts an illicit trade with French and Spanish colonies was an additional valuable source of income.
Perhaps the colonies’ chief gain was in the political and military sphere. England did not interfere with their internal government, beyond occasionally disallowing a colonial law; and she protected them against France and Spain. It did not matter that no large British force was sent to America until the Seven Years’ War: they were protected equally, or better, by the mother country’s victories on European battlefields, or at sea. For the rest, they were sure of some assistance and support in their perennial struggles against the French-and Spanish-supported Indians. The Board of Trade could plan intelligently and rescue a desperate situation. On the whole the system must be reckoned to have fulfilled the purpose of its makers: it made the prosperity of all parts of the empire possible.
Adapted from: H. Brogan, The Longman History of the United States of America, published in 1985.
[30]
Answer
