Download Chapter 16 Eighteenth Century European Rivalries The mid

Chapter 16
Eighteenth Century European Rivalries
The mid eighteenth century witnessed increasing competition between European nations both for political
dominance in central Europe and in trade wars for transatlantic trade. The French and British would compete
for mercantile empires which would culminate in British worldwide economic dominance. The Spanish and
Portuguese would monopolistically and rigidly administer their empires. The African Slave Trade and
Plantation System would play a major role in transatlantic rivalries. Prussia and Austria would be the focus
point for two wars that would see Austria survive and Prussia rise to prominence. The Treaty of Paris in 1763
would end these conflicts but the fallout would be the American Revolution which created a society more free
than any the world had ever before seen.
European worldwide expansion can be divided into four eras or stages. The first stage began with the voyages
of discovery, the initial conquest and settlement of the New World along with the penetration of Indian and
Southeast Asian markets by the Portuguese and Dutch ending around 1700. The second stage was that of the
Mercantilist Empires, most of which is dealt with in this chapter. It was dominated by colonial trade rivalry
between Spain, France and Great Britain. (The Dutch and Portuguese maintained more modest colonial
holdings but were minor players.) These rivalries often sparked “hot spots” and the Anglo-French rivalry has
often been compared to a second Hundred Year’s War.
A pivotal element in these first two stages was the growing use of slavery. By the eighteenth century, the slave
population of the New World consisted almost entirely of slaves that had been forcibly imported from Africa
or their descendants. Slaves, which were cheap and easily obtainable, made plantations which grew sugar cane,
rice, indigo, tobacco immensely profitable. Towards the end of the second era, the British colonies along the
North American Seaboard, Portuguese Brazil and the Spanish colonies of Mexico, Central American and South
America won their freedom from their mother countries. The ideals and societal consequence would be very
different and leave a mixed legacy to our present day.
Looking beyond this chapter, the third stage would occur in the nineteenth century when European
governments carved out empires world-wide as they outright annexed most of Africa and India, settled
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Algeria; and economically penetrated the Ottoman Empire, Persia,
China and Japan. This worldwide empire building was fueled by a combination of trade (spell that profit and
$$$), national honor, Christian missionary zeal and military strategic considerations (such a coaling stations).
Of all these penetrations of European domination, only tiny Japan would free itself from that domination
before the twentieth century. World War I would bring an end to stage three and slowly open the door for stage
four which would blossom after World War II. This fourth stage was the Period of Decolonization, where
almost all the peoples and nations dominated by the Europeans freed themselves from colonial rule.
No analysis of the modern world in which we live in would be complete without noting that during the four
hundred and fifty years of European exploitation of most of the rest of the world, Europeans exerted a political
and economic control that was disproportional to their size and population. Europeans used the rest of the
world to their own economic and political benefit - often (most often) with little regard for the best interests of
those their technology allowed them to conquer or exploit. Moreover their superior technology usually gave
the Europeans a sense of cultural superiority which caused them to treat other peoples and cultures as inferiors.
Mercantile Empires
The Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, which ended the War of the Spanish Succession, allowed Philip V of Spain to
keep his throne, blunted the territorial dreams of Louis XIV and preserved the Balance of Power in Europe,
also established the boundaries of the various European empires. Tiny Portugal, which began the European
Age of Exploration, had the smallest of the empires consisting of Brazil and parts of the east African coast.
Except for Brazil and Dutch Guiana, Spain controlled the rest of South America, along with Mexico and
Central America, the American Southwest and Florida; much of the Caribbean and the Philippines.
The British Empire consisted of the colonies along the North Atlantic seaboard, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland,
Bermuda, Jamaica and Barbados along with trading stations in India which would expand greatly during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The French also had trading stations in India and along the west coast of
Africa. In North America, the French controlled three great river valleys: the Saint Lawrence, the Ohio and the
Mississippi. In the Caribbean, they held the islands of Saint Dominique (the western part of Hispaniola),
Guadeloupe and Martinique. The Dutch controlled Surinam (or Dutch Guiana), the south tip of southern Africa
(the Cape Colony), trading stations in West Africa, Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka) and Bengal in India. The
richest Dutch colonies were in the Dutch East Indies where they dominated the spice trade. Finally, Denmark
controlled a few small islands in the Caribbean.
Capitalism: the Foundation of Mercantilism
Capitalism is the economic system in which private parties make their goods and services available on a free
market and seek to take advantage of market conditions to profit from their activities. Whether they are single
individuals or large companies, private parties own the land, machinery, tools, equipment, buildings,
workshops and raw materials needed for production. In Capitalism private parties also pursue their own
economic interests, hire workers and decide for themselves what to produce and make the economic decisions
necessary for production – and the government either stays out and benignly supports.
The center of a capitalist system is the Free Market in which businessmen compete with each other and the
forces of supply and demand to determine the prices received for goods and services. During Early Modern
Times, Europeans - unlike the rest of the world - transformed their society in a way that no society had ever
before accomplished. The Europeans learned to take advantage of market variables (changeable conditions) to
their profit. For example, they might buy cheap grain in Russia and store it until there was a famine in France
and sell the grain at a handsome profit.
As Europeans learned to build efficient networks of transportation and communication systems, they continued
to organize banks, insurance companies and stock exchanges. In 1571, the London Stock Exchange opened and
we saw in Chapter 13 that the Dutch opened the first full-time stock exchange in1602 in Amsterdam.
Europeans produced economic journals, the forerunners of our Wall Street Journal. And most importantly
they continued to perfect the role of the Joint-stock company - like the French East India Company (La
Compagnie française des Indes orientales), the English East India Company (EEIC) and the Dutch East
India Company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie ),which spread risk and made large profits possible.
These companies and others were the principal foundations of the global economy that emerged in Early
Modern Times.
It is important to understand that European governments played an important role in promoting capitalism and
Joint Stock Companies. They recognized and protected individual rights to possess private property, enforce
contracts, and settle disputes between parties in business transactions.
The Goals of Mercantilism
It is important to understand that Capitalism spawned Mercantilism (also called Bullionism or the Mercantile
System). Mercantilism is the economic philosophy that tries to increase the power of a nation by increasing its
monetary wealth through policies designed to secure an accumulation of bullion (gold and silver), a favorable
balance of trade, the development of agriculture and manufacturing, and the establishment of foreign trading
monopolies. European merchants and entrepreneurs would often advocate aggressive imperialism, because it
protected their wealth and investments. Mercantilists thought of the world as an arena of limited resources and
economic limitations; an arena which had to be contested vigorously if a nation was to grow richer. Before the
Industrial Revolution and its boon of sustained economic growth, mercantilists felt that the only way for a state
to expand its wealth was at the expense of another state. And that could only be achieved if a state’s army/navy
could conquer other states, either in Europe or across the seas in largely undeveloped countries.
In the same manner as Capitalist entrepreneurs worked for their own economic gain, mercantilists were
primarily driven by economic gain for their own country. Thus colonies existed to provide markets for the
mother country’s goods and sources of natural resources which the mother country used for the benefit her
own industries. In theory, the Europeans, who felt themselves culturally superior, were supposed to protect and
care for their colonies but in real life the colonies were the inferior partners subject to the laws, tariffs and
prohibitions of the technologically superior mother country. The bottom line was that European mother
countries had a monopoly just about wherever they desired. Moreover, Colonial and mother country markets
did not mesh. Spain, for example, could not produce enough goods for South America and economic
production in British North America grew so fast that it became an economic challenge to British industry.
Problems also arose when colonists of different countries wished to trade with each other. English colonists,
for example, wanted to buy sugar and molasses more cheaply from the French colonists in Saint Dominique
and Martinique in the Caribbean than from English suppliers. Traders and merchants always wanted to avoid
national monopolies and buy and sell more profitably. For all these reasons the eighteenth century became
known to many historians as The Golden Age of Smuggling. The result was that European governments could
not control their colonists’ economic activities and inevitable conflicts arose.
Anglo-French Rivalries
The British and French would clash both in North America, the West Indies (Caribbean) and the Indian SubContinent. In North America both British and French colonists quarreled over fishing rights, the fur trade and
relations with Native Americans in the lower Saint Lawrence River Valley, upper New England and (later) the
Ohio River Valley. The greatest rivalry lay in the West Indies, where they competed for the lucrative plantation
crops of sugar, tobacco, cotton, indigo and coffee. These commodities were in great demand in Europe as they
were all changing the way Europeans lived their lives. Sugar in particular, although it had first been introduced
to Europe by the Crusaders, had now by 1700 become a staple and was used in coffee, and cocoa; and for
making candy, preserving fruits and in brewing beer. Sugar had become ubiquitous and consumers and
manufacturers put heavy demand on the market – all of this making the slave operated sugar plantations of the
West Indies hugely profitable – and thus the heart of Anglo-French rivalry in the New World.
India as well was a flashpoint for Anglo-French competition. India was a huge emporium of spices, tea, silk
and other commodities desired by the consumers of Europe. In India, both Britain and France traded through
privileged chartered companies (joint stock companies chartered by the government) that were legal
monopolies. We have already met the English East India Company (EEIC) and its French counterpart, the
French East India Company, both of which established trading posts in India called factories and hoped to
expand to potential markets in China. Both the English and the French did not interfere with the Dutch
holdings in Southeast Asia. Nevertheless as the Mughal Empire and many of its semi-autonomous dependent
states weakened, the French under Joseph Dupleix (1697-1763) and the British under Sir Robert Clive (17251774) both sought to expand their footholds in India.
The Spanish Colonial System
It is important to understand that the in building their empire, beginning with Queen Isabella commissioning
Columbus with her legal authority, the Spanish crown operated in the same way as it had in the Reconquista
(i.e., the reconquering of the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslims). Just as Ferdinand and Isabella had
militantly imposed their religion and culture upon the conquered Muslims, so in like manner the Spanish
Crown imposed the Catholic religion and Spanish culture on conquered native peoples. As the Spanish
colonies grew in the 16th century, two principal centers of authority arose: Mexico and Peru. The king
appointed administrators called Viceroys (meaning, in place of the king) who were responsible to the king
and made policy in the king’s name. This Viceroy system eventually expanded into four areas. The first were
New Spain (in Mexico and Central America) and New Castile (Peru, Ecuador and Northern Chile). They were
later followed by New Granada (Panama, Colombia and Venezuela), and finally Rio de la Plata (Bolivia,
Paraguay, Uruguay and much of modern Argentina).
However, as in any empire, there was a danger that the viceroy might try to build his own personal power base.
So viceroys were kept in check by a unique institution called Audiencias, which were review courts
(subordinate judicial councils). These courts heard legal cases which were really petitions to the king in Spain
who could affirm the viceroy’s decisions or change them. These courts even reviewed a viceroy’s conduct of
office at the end of his term - and a negative review by an Audiencias could lead to severe punishment. There
were also many local officials, the most important of which were Corregidores, who presided over municipal
councils. It is important to note the Viceroys, Audiencias and Corregidores all represented the power, authority
and prestige of the Spanish Crown and (this will be very important as time goes by) all authority would be top
down, that is local initiative and self-government scarcely existed.
Thus political administration and economic self-interest were one and the same. The Casa de Contratación
(House of Trade) or Casa in Seville regulated all trade with the New World. Cádiz was the only port
authorized for use to trade in America. The Casa became the most influential institution in the Spanish Empire
and its members worked in conjunction with the Merchant Guild (Consulado) of Seville and other groups
involved with trade to the Americas based in Seville. The Casa used the Flota System, which consisted of
fleets of merchant ships (guarded by warships), used to carry merchandize from Spain to three authorized ports
on the Atlantic coast of Spain’s American empire: Portobello, Veracruz and Cartagena. The ships would then
be loaded with gold and silver bullion, which would be taken back to Cádiz. This tightly controlled monopoly
allowed no other authorized ports in the south Atlantic or the Pacific and other ports in the New World could
receive goods only after they had been offloaded at the three authorized ports. This imperfect system also
prohibited Spanish colonists from trading with each other and building their own ships, developing commercial
industries or allowing foreign merchants to break this Casa monopoly.
The Casa System was inefficient at best, unable to control the growing colonies and plagued both by English
privateers and smugglers. This decline in authority became worse as gold and silver became harder to mine and
the last Hapsburg king of Spain, Charles II (1661-1700) was not able to overcome his physical, emotional and
intellectual disabilities. As we have seen before Charles died childless, he named Philip, the 16-year old
grandson of his half-sister Maria Theresa and Louis, the Grand Dauphine and son of Louis XIV, as his
successor. Philip was born French of the House of Bourbon and his claim to the Spanish throne precipitated the
War of the Spanish Succession. When the war ended with the Treaty/Peace of Utrecht, Philip V and his
successors tried to use French administrative skills to reassert the imperial trade monopoly and thus revive
Spanish power in Europe.
Philip used coastal patrol boats to suppress smuggling in American waters. We shall see later in this chapter
how an incident in which Spanish sailors boarded an English ship and cut off the ear of the captain, Robert
Jenkins, led to the War of Jenkins Ear (1739-1748). This war also led to the establishment of the third of the
Viceroyalties, that of New Granada as an organizational strategy to strengthen royal authority. But in spite of
Philip’s efforts, it became obvious to all the powers of Europe that Spain’s colonies were becoming
increasingly vulnerable to naval attack and economic penetration. When Spain, which was allied with France,
came out on the losing side in the Seven Year’s War (1756-1763), - even though France was forced to cede
Louisiana to Spain – the Spanish government and the new king, Charles III (1759-1788), became convinced
that the colonial system had to be reformed.
Charles preferred the use of royal ministers rather than councils and so he marginalized the role of the Casa de
Contratación, abolished the royal monopolies of Seville and Cádiz and permitted other Spanish cities to trade
with America. He also opened more South American and Caribbean ports to trade and allowed trading between
Spanish ports in the Americas. In 1776, he organized the fourth viceroyalty in South America along the
Atlantic, Rio de la Plata, which included much of modern-day Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia.
Finally, to make tax collection and colonial administration more efficient, Charles introduced the Intendant
(patterned after the French Intendents), in which royal bureaucrats brought royal authority and taxing power
to the Spanish colonies.
Although the reforms of Charles III did stimulate the Spanish imperial economy, nevertheless increased
control did not bring reforms that could withstand the test of time and revolutionary ideas. Spanish colonial
society was still a rigid affair. The peoples in the Spanish empire were divided into five classes:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
The Peninsulares, or those born in Spain, who stood at the top of the social hierarchy. They came to
the New World fill administrative posts such as intendants whose monetary rewards were highest.
Second came the Creoles, who were individuals born of European parents in the Americas. They were
slightly lower in the social hierarchy and over time came to resent the Peninsulares and felt that they
were second class citizens. In time, their resentment would fuel the independence movements of the
early nineteenth century which would drive the Spanish out of most of Latin America.
Third were the Mestizos, who were born of mixed European and Indian parentage. At first, they lived
on the fringes of society until their numbers became so great that they integrated into all but the
uppermost levels of society
Fourth came Zambos (or as called in other countries Mulattos), persons of African and White parents
Lastly there were imported Amerindians (indigenous conquered peoples) and African slaves who were
pushed onto useless lands and used for slave labor.
In some ways a comparison can be drawn between the reforms of Charles III and George III of England both
of whom wanted to reassert royal authority and whose policies eventually lost them their empires (save
Canada) in the New World.
Slavery in the Trans-Atlantic Economy
The Encomienda: When Christopher Columbus first discovered Hispaniola, he thought he had found Asia
and hoped to set up trading posts like the Portuguese and Dutch had done along the African coast. When it was
realized that a new world had been discovered, the Spanish went hunting for valuables, that is, gold and silver.
So the Spanish forcibly recruited the Native Americans for mining the gold. Recruitment of labor came
through an institution known as the Encomienda, which was first established on Hispaniola in the mid-1490s
while Columbus was still exploring. Encomienda gave the Spanish settlers the right to compel the Native
Americans to work in their mines (or in fields and plantations). In theory, the Spanish assumed responsibility
to look after the workers’ health and welfare and to encourage their conversion to Christianity. In reality, the
Encomienda system was forced labor (almost if not slavery); that is, a forced conscription of brutal
proportions. The Indians were severely treated. If they refused or rebelled, they were crushed by superior
Spanish technology.
When the Spanish overthrew the Aztec and Incan nations, they simply melted down all gold (including art
works) into ingots to be sent to Spain. When that was exhausted, mining for precious minerals began in
earnest. Gold was highly prized but silver was much more plentiful. Using Encomienda, the Spanish drafted
the Incan and Aztecs to work the mines for almost nothing. The Spanish monarchy encouraged mining silver
because it received a fifth (or Quinto) of all the silver mined which helped them to finance their army and
bureaucracy in Spain. Silver production was concentrated at two major sites: in Mexico, especially around the
region of Zacatecas and the fabulously wealthy mines at Potosi in Peru, high in the Andes Mountains.
The Atlantic Slave Trade: Of all the processes that linked Africa to the larger Atlantic world in early
modern times, the most important (and terrible) was the Atlantic Slave Trade. From the 15th to the 19th
centuries, many European peoples looked to Africa as a source of cheap labor for massive, profit driven
plantations in the New World. The institution of slavery appeared as early as Neolithic times and until the 19th
century, many agricultural cultures made some place for slaves in their societies. Thus, both in Africa and in
Europe, slavery was a well-established institution, which little or no moral stigma attached to it. Many slaves
came from war captives taken in battle and we have seen how Muslim pirates and Vikings raiders made much
money from capturing slaves for sale in great slave markets. But much changed after 1453 and the fall of
Constantinople, when growing sugar plantations in the Canary Islands and then the New World needed slave
power and the Ottoman Empire forbade the export of white slaves from areas under its control.
So the Portuguese began to import African slaves. The Muslim world also imported African slaves from along
the shores of East Africa but the Portuguese found that it was cheaper and easier to purchase African slaves
directly from African peoples along with West Coast of Africa. Most were used for plantation work but some
slaves found their way into domestic service in the wealthy homes or royal courts of Europe where they were a
novelty because of the color of their skin. In 1441 the Portuguese began to deliver about 500 slaves a year to
Portugal and Spain. As their New World empires grew, they soon shipped slaves to plantations on islands in
the Atlantic and then to Brazil and the Spanish colonies. The English began to ship slaves to North America in
the early 17th century. This led to an unprecedented interaction between the peoples of Europe and Africa and
between European settles in the Americas and Africa.
Although the Encomienda system allowed the Spanish to virtually enslave the Native Americans, they soon
discovered that European diseases such as smallpox decimated the local populations and that African laborers
were stronger and could withstand more physical strain of plantation life than Native American laborers. In
order to maximize profits, Europeans made use of Triangular Trade. The commodities involved were several,
but principally they were manufactured goods, sugar, rum, and slaves. The idea was to make three trips across
long distances of ocean instead of four. For example, an English ship might leave England for Africa with
clothing, firearms and tools. In Africa these would be traded for slaves who would be transported to plantations
in the West Indies. There, the slaves would be traded for sugar which would be taken back to England and sold
for a handsome profit. Sometimes New England was a one of the points, but the important concept is that by
using a triangle method of sailing, one trip out of four was avoided so that profits were maximized.
Slaves were brought to the Americas by the Middle Passage (so called because it formed the middle leg of
Triangular Trade. The entire process is a blot on the human race: violent capture; forced march to coast; the
dreadful passage aboard ship in which 25% of slaves died; and finally sale and a life of slave labor in and new
and strange land. The impact of the slave trade from Africa resulted about 2,000 slaves shipped to the
Americas per year in the 16th and 17th centuries. By the 1780s, about 88,000 slaves were shipped to the
Americas annually. From beginning to end, the Atlantic Slave Trade transported about 12,000,000 slaves to the
Americas, not counting another 4,000,000 who died along the way.
In the New World, some slaves worked as urban laborers or domestic servants and, in Mexico and Peru, many
worked as miners, especially in the great silver mines at Potosi and Zacatecas. The vast majority, however,
provided agricultural labor on plantations, where they cultivated cash crops: sugar, tobacco, indigo, rice, cotton
and coffee. Plantations also grew agricultural crops for local communities, but their main purpose was to make
$$$ for their owners. The typical plantation community usually had a ratio of about a hundred slaves overseen
(directed) by a handful of European or mestizo supervisors. In the Caribbean and Brazil, the high death rate
from maltreatment and disease coupled with a low reproduction rate (because female slaves were rarely
imported) created a constant demand for the importation of new slaves. Moreover, slaves in Portuguese Brazil
(on plantations called Engenhos) suffered unspeakably and were afforded the fewest legal protections.
A curious and important contrast is that North America received only 5% of all slaves shipped and that the
English colonists/plantation owners were gentler and less severe to their slaves; and the cooler climate caused
fewer deaths from disease. Moreover, North American slave owners imported female slaves and encouraged
family life and children, which created far more (relative) happiness than in Iberian plantations.
Slave resistance was far more common than once thought and resistance took many forms. Slow work and
sabotage were the most common forms of resistance. Many slaves ran away and, if not caught, these runaways
formed communities in mountains, forests or jungles. These escapees were called Maroons and they
established many communities in the New World. Some even raided their former plantations for weapons,
tools, and provisions - and even to free and recruit other slaves to strengthen their communities. In present day
Suriname, for example, the Saramaka people maintain an elaborate oral tradition that traces their descent from
18th century maroons.
But the most dramatic form of resistance to slavery was revolt, which caused terror when both vengeful slaves
lashed out and brutal reprisals when rebellions were suppressed. In a later chapter we will study the only
successful slave revolt in world history, when, in 1793 in the French sugar colony of Saint-Dominique, a slave
rebellion was successful and by 1803 became the Republic of Haiti.
Language and Cultural Interaction: Enslaved Africans found it very difficult to maintain of their
inherited cultural traditions in the New World. They were thrust into a harsh life where European languages
were spoken. Nevertheless, some were able to preserve their languages and religions. Many others lost their
languages, but most began to speak Creole languages, which drew from African and European languages.
Many became Christians, but, as in Africa, it was a syncretized Christianity. Sometimes, as in the Voodoo cult
in Haiti or the Santeria in Cuba, their syncretized religions even developed an institutional structure.
Many slaves became Catholics in Spanish and Portuguese countries and many slaves became Protestants in
North America. Yet, even here they preserved their own traditions in their interpretations of the Christian
religions.
Culturally, the slaves introduced African foods to the Caribbean and American societies. They used African
okra with European vegetables and American shellfish to produce magnificent gumbos. Okra and gumbo are
both African words. African slaves and their descendants also built houses, fashioned clay pots and wove grass
baskets in African style. Their musical melodies brought a powerful dimension to Christian music.
The End of the Slave Trade and Slavery: The Portuguese and other European merchants and
entrepreneurs have been painted in a harsh light, but it is very important to understand that many Europeans
called Abolitionists - from the very beginning - called for its abolition as labeled both slavery and the slave
trade as the worst of evils. The American and French revolutions would stimulate the Abolitionists’ cause. The
American call for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and the French appeal for “liberty, equality and
fraternity” would cause many Euro-Americans to see slavery as an evil that had to be abolished – that slavery
was a violation of the universal human right to freedom and equality.
Economically, slavery became less desirable as slave labor became more expensive to maintain and sugar
prices began to decline (with reduced profits) in the late 18th century - and entrepreneurs began to turn to more
profitable manufacturing industries. So, as cynical as it sounds, decreased profitability was the principal reason
many Europeans found their moral consciences. Thus, it is very important to understand that the rise of the
Industrial Revolution parallels the decline of the profitability of slavery.
The slave trade ended in the 19th century. Denmark was the first European State to abolish the slave trade in
1803. Great Britain followed in 1807, the United States in 1808, France in 1814, the Netherlands in 1817 and
Spain in 1845. British naval squadrons began to patrol the Atlantic to put a stop to illegal slave trading
Perhaps the best known abolitionist internationally was the British politician William Wilberforce. Born in
1759 in Hull, he was the son of a wealthy merchant who with his parents had made a fortune in the Baltic Sea
Trade. Wilberforce became a Member of Parliament in 1780 and from 1788 repeatedly pushed the British
government to abandon the slave trade and slavery. Wilberforce was hailed as the Hailed as a 'Renewer of
Society', and until his death in 1833 was known as the conscience of Parliament. He lived to see the abolition
of slavery in Great Britain in the year of his death. Great Britain’s example would soon be followed by France
in 1848 and the United States in 1865.
It is also important to understand that the abolition of slavery was a long and more drawn out process. Cuba
did not abolish slavery until 1886 and Brazil until 1888. Some nations kept slavery till the mid-20th century.
Saudi Arabia and Angola did not abolish slavery until 1960. Although slavery is technically illegal almost
everywhere in the world, the legacy of slavery remains a source of problems and frustrations to our very hour.
Many forms of servitude such as debt bondage, debt marriages and “white” slaving thrive in many parts of the
world.
European Conflicts: 1739 to 1783
The War of Jenkins’ Ear: The Treaty of Utrecht gave the British a thirty year Asiento or contract to
supply slaves and goods to Spanish colonies in the New World and this made it easier for British privateers
and smugglers to penetrate the closed markets of Spanish America. The British, however, resented the Spanish
government’s serious enforcement of its monopoly and tension between the nations grew. Then in 1731, the
British brig Rebecca was boarded by the Spanish warship La Isabela, commanded by Julio Fandiño. After boarding,
Spanish captain cut off the left ear of the Rebecca's captain, Robert Jenkins, whom Fandiño accused of piracy. Fandiño
told Jenkins, "Go, and tell your King that I will do the same, if he dares to do the same." Jenkins kept his severed ear
in a bottle of brandy until 1738 when he produced his ear in Parliament as evidence of Spanish atrocities.
British merchants and West Indian planters pressured the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole, to fight.
Walpole gave in and Britain went to war with Spain. The war itself was a trade war marked by a series of
skirmishes and much privateering finally concluded as a result of the War of the Austrian Succession.
The War of the Austrian Succession: As we saw in Chapter 13, shortly after Frederick II became
King of Prussia in 1740, he ignored the Pragmatic Sanction and seized the Austrian province of Silesia. More
troubling to Europe’s monarchs was not so much the violation of Charles VI’s edict that his daughter be
allowed to inherit the Austrian throne as much as it upset the Balance of Power in Europe. Thus new alliances
were formed and two major wars were precipitated. Maria Theresa herself wisely won the loyalty and support
of her subjects both by her heroism and by her granting new privileges to the nobility, especially her
recognizing Hungary as the most important of her crowns and her promise to the Magyar nobility of local
autonomy. Thus she preserved her authority in her empire, but what she wanted more was the return of Silesia.
Now all these events happened as the trade war of War of Jenkins’ ear between Spain and Britain was being
fought and the two conflicts could have remained separate events. But it would be France which would unite
the two them. Just as Sir Robert Walpole had been pressured into the War of Jenkins’ Ear to protect British
commercial interests, so Cardinal Fleury (1653-1743), the first minister of Louis XV (1715-1774), was
forced to give up his planned naval assault on British trading interests in order to support the Prussians and
Frederick II against Austria, which was France’s traditional enemy.
This decision had profound consequences. First, France’s support of Frederick helped Frederick to consolidate
Prussia as a powerful German state. Second, it brought Great Britain into the continental conflict because
Britain wanted to make sure that the Netherlands, which was an Austrian possession, remained in the friendly
hands of Austria, not France. The British-French conflict escalated in 1744, when the French supported Spain
against Britain in the War of Jenkins’ Ear. Third, France was weakened in this two-front conflict because she
lacked resources to fight Great Britain in the New World and Austria in the old. So the war ended in a
stalemate – Prussia retaining Silesia and Britain keeping her Asiento – by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in
1748.
The Diplomatic Revolution of 1756: Even though the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle brought peace in
Europe, Britain and France continued to unofficially struggle for control in the Ohio River Valley and upper
New England. This contest would resume in 1755 and be known as The French and Indian War. In broader
terms, however, the period after Aix-la-Chapelle was a resting a reorganizing period, one which would witness
a dramatic shift in alliances known as the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756.
The British king, George II, who was also the king of Hanover in Germany, was afraid that the French might
also attack Hanover in response to the conflict in America. So in January, 1756, Great Britain and Prussia
signed the Convention of Westminster, which was a defensive alliance, which sought to prevent foreign troops
from invading Germany. Frederick II also embraced the Convention of Westminster because he feared an
alliance between Russia and Austria against him. It also stunned Maria Theresa and the Austrians because
Britain had been an ally of Austria ever since the wars of Louis XIV; and this led to an even more stunning
political realignment.
Maria Theresa was despondent over these turn of events but her foreign minister, Prince Wenzel Kaunitz
(1711-1794), saw the Convention of Westminster as an opportunity to form an alliance with France in order
not just to regain Silesia but to dismember Prussia. Moreover, suspecting that Prussia was about to launch an
invasion of Bohemia - and fearing that the British would do nothing to help them (since Britain was concerned
in its dispute with France over the Ohio River Valley), Kaunitz was able to conclude an alliance with Austria’s
traditional enemy, France. This diplomatic triumph for the Austrian foreign minister completely reversed over
two hundred years of French foreign policy as France would not help Austria to restore Austrian hegemony in
central Europe.
The Seven Years’ War: The Seven Years’ War was a global military conflict driven by Austrian determination
to reclaim Silesia (and its former glory) as well as the antagonism between Great Britain and the Bourbons of
France and Spain in their colonial empires. It was Frederick who opened hostilities and precipitated a
worldwide war that would earn him the title of “the great.” In August, 1756, he invaded Saxony, a small
German state allied with Austria. He intended it as a pre-emptive strike before the Austrians and French could
invade Silesia. The Saxon and Austrian armies were unprepared, and their forces scattered. Frederick was
successful but the unintended consequence was that Russia, Sweden and some smaller German states join
Austria and France against Frederick, who had only British money and his own daring and fortitude to stave
off the alliance against him.
Frederick faced an almost impossible challenge because he was outnumbered and surrounded by his enemies.
He seemed oblivious to the odds against him; he seemed to attack in every direction and won some battles but
lost more, especially The Battle of Kunersdorf in 1759 when the Russians and Austrians almost destroyed his
entire army. Nevertheless, with his brilliance and sheer force of will, Frederick managed to keep Prussia in the
war despite having his territories frequently invaded. His tactics paid off when, in 1763 when the Empress
Elizabeth of Russia died and her successor, Peter III, who admired the Prussians, recalled the Russian armies
and made peace with Prussia. The Treaty of Hubertusburg in the same year ended the war. Frederick kept
Silesia, Prussia gained enormously in influence at the expense of the Holy Roman Empire and Austria became
more dependent than ever on its Hungarian territories.
But Frederick the Great’s triumphs in Europe were only half of the drama of the Seven Year’s War and less
impressive (at the time) to the rest of Europe than the worldwide triumph of Great Britain. The mastermind of
Great Britain’s victories was William Pitt the Elder (1st Earl of Chatham, 1708-1778), who became the de
facto leader of the British government in 1757 and pumped great sums of money to Frederick the Great as a
way to divert French resources and money away from the colonial struggle in North America, which was
Pitt’s real goal. Pitt sent 40,000 regular British soldiers along with colonial troops to attack French Canada.
The numbers of troops were unprecedented in colonial struggles and the colonists gave strong support because
they wanted to defeat their French neighbors to the north. France was both unwilling and unable to commit
such resources not just because of the struggles against Prussia but also because there were far fewer French
settlers in North America than British. So it was no surprise that in September, 1759, on the Plains of Abraham
overlooking the Saint Lawrence River at Quebec City, the British army under James Wolfe defeated the
French under Louis Joseph de Montcalm. Pitt would later boast that America was won on the plains of
Germany.
Pitt also sent British ships to the West Indies where they captured the major French islands including
Martinique and Guadeloupe whose sugar production helped the British finance the war and drained much
needed revenue from France. Between 1755 and 1760, the value of French foreign trade fell by more than
eighty percent and lost most of their slave trade to the British as well. The British were also successful in India
where British forces under Robert Clive defeated France’s Indian ally, the Mughal Raja (ruler) of Bengal, at
the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Plassey is important because it laid the basis for the English East India
Company’s conquest of all India. Pitt would soon quarrel with King George III and be replaced by the Earl of
Bute who would negotiate the Treaty of Paris of 1763, but Pitt’s place in history is secure with the leadership
he showed during the Seven Year’s War.
The Anglo-French hostilities were ended by a complex series of land exchanges, the most important being
France's cession to Spain of Louisiana, and to Great Britain the rest of New France except for the islands of St.
Pierre and Miquelon. France was given the choice of retrieving either New France or its Caribbean island
colonies of Guadeloupe and Martinique, and chose the latter to retain these lucrative sources of sugar. Spain
lost control of Florida to Great Britain, but received part of New Orleans and the Louisiana Territory west of
the Mississippi River from the French. The exchanges suited the British as well, as their own Caribbean islands
already supplied ample sugar, and with the acquisition of New France and Florida, they now controlled all of
North America east of the Mississippi.
In India, the British retained the French territory around Madras, but returned all the French trading ports, the
fortifications of which had be destroyed and never rebuilt, with minimal garrisons rendering them worthless as
military bases. Combined with the loss of France's ally in Bengal and the defection of Hyderabad to the British
side as a result of the war, this effectively brought French power in India to an end, making way for British
hegemony and eventual control of the subcontinent.
The American Revolution
As we have seen, 1763 was a watershed year because it catapulted Great Britain into world prominence and
gave her control of almost all of North America. Yet, in less than 20 years, she would lose control of the
richest of all her North American colonies and not only grant them independence but cede to them all the land
west to the Mississippi River. The root of this dramatic reversal of fortune began when the British government
had trouble paying for the Seven Year’s War and maintaining her now enormous empire. Parliament expected
that the North American colonies should pay their fair share since they were the chief beneficiaries of the war
but the colonists resented the British drive for revenue, especially since it was done without their consent.
In 1764, George Grenville became Prime Minister and presided over the passage of the Sugar Act, which
attempted to produce more revenue from imports – especially from sugar and molasses from British islands in
the West Indies - into the colonies by more rigorously enforcing existing laws. The importation duties were not
new but colonists had become used to smuggling and evading pay customs on imported sugar; and so they
resented the Sugar Act and especially its provision that smugglers would be tried in admiralty (not colonial)
courts - without juries. Grenville and Parliament then passed the Stamp Act of 1765 which required expensive
stamps to be placed on publications and legal documents. The British considered this tax legal because it was
passed by Parliament and fair because the money was to be spent (so they said) in and for the colonies.
Many (not all) American colonists angrily responded that they had the right to tax themselves and, since they
were not represented in Parliament, Parliament had no right to levy taxes on them. In October 1765, a Stamp
Act Congress met in New York City and made a formal protestation to the king and Parliament that (1) only
colonial assemblies had a right to tax the colonies; (2) trial by jury was a right granted to all English citizens,
and that the use of Admiralty Courts was an abuse of that right; (3) colonists possessed all the rights of
Englishmen and without voting rights, Parliament could not represent the colonists. There was much anger and
indignation in Great Britain as well; and much more uproar in the colonies, especially in Massachusetts where
a quasi-political group, the Sons of Liberty, led vociferous protests which sometimes became violent
demonstrations. The colonists then did something unexpected; they united and agreed to refuse to import
British goods. This had a profound impact in Britain – hit them in the wallet – and in 1766 Parliament repealed
the Stamp Act but also passed the Declaratory Act which asserted its power to legislate for the colonies.
It is important to note that the Stamp Act crisis set a pattern in British-Colonial relations that would last for ten
years. Parliament, under the leadership of a royal minister, would approve new taxes or administrative
legislation and the Americans would then resist by reasoned argument, economic pressure (usually boycotting
British goods) and civil demonstrations often with violence. Then the British would back down and the cycle
would begin again. But each time tempers became more frayed and attitudes more hardened as more and more
colonists gradually evolved from Englishmen into Americans.
The next round came in 1767 when Charles Townshend, the British Finance Minister, led Parliament to pass
the Townshend Acts which taxed many imports, such as glass, paint, paper and tea. The colonists again
resisted and the British government sent its own enforcement agents to oversee the new regulations - along
with soldiers to protect them. The resulting stress and confusion led to sometimes violent demonstrations,
including the Boston Massacre in which British soldiers, who were ironically justified in shooting into a
crowd of violent demonstrator, since they were attacked by the demonstrators. Parliament quickly repealed the
Townshend Acts.
Then in 1773, the Prime Minister, Lord North, led Parliament to pass a new law relating to the sale of tea by
the English East India Company. The law permitted the direct importation of tea into the colonies and actually
lowered the price of tea while retaining the tax imposed without the colonists’ consent. Many colonial ports
boycotted the tea and in Boston there was the Boston Tea Party in which a shipload of tea was dumped into
the bay. In 1774, Lord North – more determined than ever to enforce British authority – had Parliament pass
the Intolerable Acts which closed the port of Boston (until the value of the was repaid), reorganized the
colonial government of Massachusetts, allowed troops to be quartered in private homes and moved the trials of
royal customs officials to England. Parliament also passed the Quebec Act which extended the boundaries of
Quebec to include the Ohio River valley which was a direct affront to American westward settlement beyond
the Appalachian Mountains.
During these years, the colonists began to organize collectively and established committees of correspondence
which more and more led them to make common cause. In 1774, they organized a Continental Congress to
coordinate the colonial resistance to British action. In April 1775, tensions were so high that the inevitable
clash between British troops and the colonists finally took place at the villages of Lexington and Concord,
near Boston. In June the British defeated the American forces besieging Boston at Bunker Hill even though
the American forces were still able to maintain the siege. In August, George III declared the colonies in
rebellion. The war had begun! Then in early in 1776, Thomas Paine published a pamphlet called Common
Sense, in which he openly challenged the authority of the British government and was the first to formally call
for American Independence.
Later that year, on July 4, 1776 the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence, which
drew up Enlightenment thinking and from English Constitutional tradition. It asserted that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, which among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It echoed John Locke’s contractual theory of government in arguing
that individuals established governments to secure these rights and that government derives its power
and authority from the consent of the governed. The declaration listed colonial grievances and declared that
they had the right to be free and independent states.
The war was frustrating for both sides. On one hand, the British had overwhelmingly military superiority, but
could not physically occupy a country so vast in size. They had the world’s strongest navy; a strong
government, a good army and a sizable portion of the colonists called Loyalists (or Tories) made up about a
third of the population. The rebels on the other hand, were fighting on their homeland for their homes, while
the British had to cross the sea with supplies and reinforcements to fight in what was now a foreign land, even
with Loyalist help. Moreover, Spain, France, the Netherlands and several German states eagerly helped the
colonists because of the hatred for Britain.
The rebels were frustrated because they were only a third of the population (Tories being a second third and
those who didn’t care the last third). Nevertheless, in spite of their small numbers, the rebels benefited greatly
from strong political and military leadership. And the greatest of these leaders was George Washington, who,
as commander in chief, used creative, daring, hit and run tactics learned from the Indians. His character molded
the Continental Army together and effectively integrated local militias. Although the British held many major
cities, including New York and Boston and defeated Washington several times, they could never get that
elusive and decisive victory.
As he gained experience, Washington began to win more victories and eventually, with foreign aid, was strong
enough to lay trap in 1781 for the army of Lord Cornwallis in Yorktown, Virginia. With French naval help,
he forced Cornwallis to surrender. This victory was a terrible blow to the British, who nevertheless still had
overwhelming force. But the truth was that the British were tired because they weren’t able to destroy the
American Army or hold much land. So in 1783 both sides met in Paris and in September the Treaty of Paris
was signed. The British recognized American Independence and – interestingly ceded all land from the
Appalachians to the Mississippi River to the new republic.
American Political ideas
The American Revolution was an outgrowth of the ideals of the Glorious Revolution when the absolutist
Stuarts were driven from power and rule by Parliament triumphed. The Americans had claimed – justifiably –
that George III and the British Parliament had attacked the liberties guaranteed to English citizens in the
English Bill of Rights of 1689 and used this to justify their protests and ultimately their revolution. All these
ideas came from the Whig Party, a liberal-leaning group in Parliament which contested power with their rival,
the Tory Party, from the 1680s to the 1850s. The Whigs were supporters of constitutional monarchy, great
aristocratic families, the Hanoverian succession and toleration of non-Anglican Protestant churches. The
Tories were more conservative (some supporting the claims of James II’s heirs; but most supportive of
stronger monarchy) and supported the Anglican Church as the established church. The Tories sometimes
disappeared as a political party and then reorganized but in spite of many ups and downs, they survived to
become the modern Conservative Party in Britain.
The American colonists had been deeply influenced by Whig political idealism based, as we have seen, on the
philosophy of John Locke. During the eighteenth century, American colonists had become familiar with a
number of English political writers called the Commonwealthmen or the Commonwealth Party, who were
highly outspoken Protestant political and economic reformers during the early 18th century. They promoted
Republicanism (the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, where the head of state is appointed by
means other than heredity, often election) and had a great influence on Republicanism in the United States.
Two of the most influential of these writers were John Trenchard (1662-1723) and Thomas Gordon (d.
1750), who together, between1720 to 1723, wrote a series of 144 weekly essays entitled Cato's Letters, which
condemned the corruption and lack of morality within the British political system and warned against tyranny
that such a system engendered. They argued that government patronage and the Parliamentary system begun
by Sir Robert Walpole was corrupt and actually undermined liberty. They regarded Parliamentary taxation as
little more than financing political corruption and considered standing armies to be a tyrannical act in itself.
In Great Britain the Commonwealth Party had little impact because the British regarded themselves as the
freest people in the world. But on the other side of the Atlantic, the American colonists – faced with what they
saw as an encroached on their rights as Englishmen - took the ideas of the Commonwealth Party more
seriously. It has often been observed that there is no force more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
So it was that after 1763, the actions of the British government towards the American colonies convinced the
colonists that their worst fears were coming true and they needed to organize for radical solutions.
Great Britain after the American Revolution
The Kingship of George III: George III became king in 1760 and unlike his father (Frederick, Prince of
Wales, d. 1751), grandfather (George II), and great grandfather (George I), he was been born in England and
spoke English as his first language. George believed that a few powerful Whig families had controlled the
government and had bullied George I and George II for their own gain. George III also believed that he should
have ministers of his own choosing and that Parliament should be answerable to him rather than aristocratic
management by dominant Whig families. Thus, after William Pitt’s resignation in 1761, he appointed the Earl
of Bute as his first minister and promptly ignored the Whig families that had dominated British government
since the death of Queen Anne and appointed ministers who opposed the Whigs and used the same techniques
of patronage (putting supporters in positions of power) that Walpole used to control the House of Commons.
Between 1761 and 1770, George tried one minister after another in a vain attempt to gain enough support in
the House of Commons for him to dominate. Finally in 1770, he turned to Lord North, who in spite of his
blundering in the American War of Independence, remained the king’s first minister until 1782. The Whigs
despised the king for what they saw as his attempt to impose a tyranny but what George III was really trying to
do was to restore more royal influence to the government the only way he knew how. He wanted to be king not
a tyrant.
The John Wilkes Affair: John Wilkes was born in London in 1725; the second son of a distiller and well
educated. Wilkes was said to be notoriously ugly, and was called the ugliest man in England at the time. He
possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but had a charm that made him endearing. Wilkes himself
boasted that it took him only half an hour to talk away his face. He was first elected to Parliament in 1757
and fought for the right of voters—rather than the House of Commons—to determine their representatives. He
became the editor of a newspaper, The North Britton, and in 1763 (in issue 45) strongly criticized Lord Bute’s
handling of the Treaty of Paris. Wilkes was then arrested under a general warrant issued by the secretary of
state. He pleaded privileges of Parliament and released. Even though the courts ruled that he could not be
arrested on such a vague warrant, the House of Commons ruled his criticism libelous and expelled him from
Parliament. He fled the country but remained an immensely popular figure.
In 1768, Wilkes returned to England and was re-elected to Parliament, but the House of Commons refused to
seat him. He was elected three more times but each time – under the influence of the king and his followers –
he was refused his seat. After the fourth election, the House of Commons simply ignored the election results
and seated the government candidate. But Wilkes was very popular and unruly demonstrations by shopkeepers,
artisans, small property owners and Whig politicians kept pressure on Parliament and the government. Their
popular slogan was Wilkes and Liberty and when he was briefly imprisoned in May of 1768; his supporters
cried No Justice, No Peace. Soldiers fired on the unarmed crowd killing seven and wounding 15, an incident
that came to be known as the St George's Fields Massacre. Finally in 1774, Wilkes was seated after he
became Lord Mayor of London.
The American colonists followed these events and their resolve during the War of Independence was
strengthened when Wilkes supported the colonists across the sea. It is important to understand that all this
confirmed colonial fears about a tyrannical monarch and a parliament which was trampling on their political
rights. After the Revolution, representatives to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787
included provisions in the new American constitution which prevented Congress from rejecting any legally
elected member or to publish general warrants for arrest. The American colonists had demonstrated to the
world that revolution for political liberties did not have to result in social bloodshed as would happen in the
French Revolution of 1789.
Moreover the unfolding of the American Revolution which began with the Stamp Act Congress of 1765,
through the Continental Congress and Articles of Confederation culminating in the American Constitution of
1789 was not lost on many Englishmen. They saw in the struggles of John Wilkes and the American colonists
protests against the power of a self appointed aristocracy and a king who wanted more authority that was in
conflict with the ideal of Popular Sovereignty or the principle that the legitimacy of the state is created and
sustained by the will or consent of its people. It should be no surprise that towards the end of the American
War of Independence there came calls for parliamentary reform in Great Britain.
The Yorkshire Association Movement: This movement took root in the late 1770s for three reasons:
the bungling of the war in North America and the policies of Lord North, especially high taxes. It was
organized in 1778 in northern England by Christopher Wyvil (1740-1822), a landowner and retired
Clergyman, to press for curbs on government expenditure and patronage, an increase in freely elected
members of Parliament (MPs). The Yorkshire Association disintegrated after the loss of the North American
colonies; and the association’s reform efforts were curtailed by more radical movements inspired by the French
Revolution.
Nevertheless, the movement had a salutary but short lived effect. In 1780, the House of Commons passed a
resolution which called for a decrease in the power of the king. In 1782, Parliament adopted a reform measure
that abolished some patronage available to the king. But George III continued to appoint his own ministers. In
1783, Parliamentary pressures forced Lord North to form a ministry with Charles Fox (1749-1806), who was a
longtime critic of the king. The king was furious and approached William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806), son
of the hero of the Seven Year’s War, and Pitt, with powerful royal support, put together a House of Commons
favorable to the king. Two years later Pitt tried a pass a modest reform bill and when it failed he abandoned all
attempts parliamentary reforms.
Thus by the mid-1780s, George III had achieved the royal power he so much desired. But at the height of his
triumph he was struck down by mental illness. He remained king in name but a regency headed by his son,
George IV, which governed Great Britain led to a grave weakening of royal authority.
The Results of the American Revolution
The greatest surprise of the American Revolution was economic. The new nation needed money for investment
and British financiers were only too willing to lend money and British trade with the Americans after
independence actually increased – dramatically! Less surprising and more obvious were the political and social
ramifications and consequences:
1. The American colonists demonstrated to Europe that a successful governmental structure could be
established without kings or hereditary nobility. They founded a nation based on popular sovereignty
which had the highest legal and political authority. The implications were so dramatic that Europe
could not for long ignore them.
2. The American Constitution extended what had been begun during the Glorious Revolution. They
American colonists believed that they were preserving traditional English liberties against the tyranny
of Parliament and King George III. And once their constitution was adopted, the Americans quickly
insisted on a Bill of Rights to protect their liberties.
3. The Americans also rejected the social hierarchy of colonial days. Even though the franchise (the right
to vote) was limited to men of property, the Americans embraced the democratic ideal and asserted the
equality of all white males before the law. And they rejected social status based on birth, wealth or
political office.
4. Even though by modern standards, the American political system of 1789 was not perfect (i.e., slavery),
it nevertheless produced a society more free than the world had ever before seen and achieved it in a
relatively bloodless manner without violent, social upheaval.
5. Thus the American Revolution was genuinely radical but peaceful and its influence would widen with
time, the westward movement and as Europeans interacted with the new republic.