rights of englishmen?

Question

The guarantee that English settlers in the New World would retain the “rights of Englishmen” had little impact on the future? Is this true or false?

Answer 1

Absolutely FALSE! In fact, it was their exercise of their "rights as Englishmen" that shaped the sort of colonial society they built, and ultimately to the American Revolution.

Through nearly all the period of colonization (from 1607 to 1763!) the policy of Parliament and British monarchs was what Edmund Burke referred to (in a famous speech before Parliament in March 1775) as "wise and salutary neglect". Basically, that meant letting the colonists take care of their own affairs. It involved not pressing them too much about paying taxes, mostly leaving them to DEFEND themselves (vs. Indians) and to make and execute their OWN laws by assemblies the colonists themselves chose.

As part of this, they enjoyed a lot of ECONOMIC freedom, developing their own businesses and their own trade connections. (Whether this was all in keeping with the "laws on the books" was not the point, since they acted on the basis of British PRACTICE, which had included the decision not to enforce those laws.)

This including building their businesses, including a lot of trading, around the actual British PRACTICE, not the laws that were on the books that no one enforced.

This meant that the colonists actually did enjoy "the rights of Englishmen" for this long period. It also encouraged a lot of settlers, eager for land and freedom. Thus the size and structure of the British American colonies was quite different from those of other colonial powers. Even though Britain FORMALLY subscribed to the same "mercantilist" economic-political philosophy as the other powers, and they passed laws along these lines, they didn't actually practice it (didn't enforce those laws). Under mercantilism, colonies existed solely for the benefit of the mother country -- colonists were typically few in number (cf. the small numbers of French colonists) and there to carry on business that profitted their homeland.

But after the French and Indian War ended and the British government decided to enforce its rights to collect taxes, etc. (that is, to actually begin following the mercantilist system), and to severely restrict the freedom of the colonies to trade with other nations. The colonists, having mostly fended for themselves, and confident of their ability to handle things internally (including taxes and defense), resented the various steps that they perceived as undermining their self-government as well as their economic freedom, including free trade.

(Incidentally, the last point is what led to the "Boston Tea Party". It was not precisely the taxes that were at issue --the tea, with the duty, was actually CHEAPER than they could buy otherwise-- but the right of Britain to DICTATE whom the colonists could do business with, including international trade. So the people in all the ports were trying to STOP the tea from landing, and force the ships to take it back.)

In the run up to the Revolution, colonial politicians and pamphleteers made much of this argument of their rights as Englishmen which they believed were being taken away. And they did so by drawing heavily on British writings on these matters, including those of the mid to late 17th century, the time of the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1689 (and the time colonists were coming to America!)

In fact, if you look at the structure and argument of the "English Bill of Rights" of 1689 -- explaining the grounds for Parliament's deposing one king (for a series of abuses they list) and installing another-- you may see the outlines of the Declaration of Independence. The ideas of their rights, including what they had the right to do when a monarch violated those rights, is rooted in this English document, and the long tradition behind it.

Answer 2

When you say future do you mean the future of the nation or of the englishmen? I imagine it did have an impact on both. on some level or another.

Answer 3

Lol