Revolutionary War Causes & Salutary Neglect: Internal English Turmoil Allowed the Colonies to Develop Autonomy
By Prof. Michael Streich, North Carolina A&T State University
English non-interference with certain colonial matters has come to be known as “salutary neglect” and is best embodied in Prime Minister Robert Walpole’s dictum regarding North Americans: “Let sleeping dogs lie.” This policy allowed local colonial assemblies to assume greater autonomy politically over internal affairs and may help to explain why, under King George III and the post-Seven Years’ War Parliament, parliamentary measures became viewed as acts of oppression. Additionally, 17th century internal turmoil in England had allowed the American colonies to establish trade relationships with non-English competitors, notably the Dutch.
17th Century Internal Turmoil Fostered Colonial Autonomy
Thirty-five years after the founding of the first permanent English colony in Virginia, a civil war broke out in England, pitting King Charles I against Parliament, which dominated by Puritans. It was an inevitable answer to Charles’ notions of divine right rule and his refusal to grant basic rights of due process. Defeated in 1645, Charles I was executed in 1649 and for the next ten years England would be led by Oliver Cromwell during the Commonwealth Period.
1660 was the year of the Restoration, bringing Charles II to the throne. During his reign, England fought a series of naval wars against the Dutch in order to curb the Netherlands’ maritime commercial empire. It was also the period in which the Navigation Acts were issued, an attempt to promote mercantile goals that sought to end illegal trade with competing nations. Further, England sought to tighten control of its Caribbean possessions where English Separatists were become increasingly independent of home rule.
Charles II’s brother, James II, threatened the peace of the kingdom by actively embracing Catholicism. In 1688, England erupted in the bloodless Glorious Revolution and in the following year William and Mary became the new monarchs. They signed off on the English Bill of Rights and inaugurating the first phases of a constitutional monarchy in Great Britain. King William, however, brought with him an animosity toward France.
William, as the prior lord protectorate of the Netherlands, had been fighting Louis XIV of France for several years. Now, as the new English king, he embroiled England in what would become a series of wars with the French. In America, they would be known as King William’s War, Queen Anne’s War, King George’s War, and the French and Indian War. All four of these conflicts would involve the American colonies in some way, shape, or form; however, with the exception of the French and Indian War, British-Americans themselves were asked to played little role in the ultimate turn-out.
Salutary Neglect and the Colonies
Due to the constant decades of conflict between Britain and the major European powers, English non-interference with the coloniesbecame a standing policy of Sir Robert Walpole (Prime Minister) in the early 18th century simply because America provided much-needed raw materials for British businesses and there was a more pressing need to defend British interests than involve the government in American economic and social affairs. During these years, the colonial population grew and the colonies became prosperous. Americans developed their own indigenous aristocracy, notably among Southern planters and wealthy urban merchants. Further, colonists were slowly developing a self-identity as Americans, fiercely defensive of their freedoms.
First and foremost, Britain was on the bargain end of the trade balance between itself and America. Between the years 1700-1760 (the definitive decades of salutary neglect), American exports to Britain increased by 150 percent. Imports from Britain, however, increased an almost unbelievable 400 percent. Beneficiaries of these policies were primarily merchants who bought and sold goods wholesale to the British-American population. The oversaturation of British-made goods on the American market also worked well for consumers as prices dropped considerably and quality became of paramount importance due to competition. The question that remains, however, is, “was all of it enough to satisfy an almost insatiable demand”? The answer, quite simply is no. The majority of money to be made came from French, Spanish, and Dutch colonies in the Caribbean, all of whom traded with British-Americans in strict violation of the Navigation Acts. Salt-cod and corn to feed Caribbean slaves in return for sugar was the main export-import between the two sides. Most of the sugar was made into molasses, fermented into rum, and then sold to British and colonial markets. The result was an exorbitant amount of money being made by a small but powerful group British-Americans in a very short amount of time with little to no rules being followed or enforced.
Although England had policies in effect designed to combat illegal foreign trade as per theNavigation Acts, none were enforced until the end of the Seven Years’ War (French and Indian War). According to Howard Zinn of Columbia University, some British-Americans of the Revolutionary time period, like John Hancock, had made fortunes in smuggling illegal goods in violation of English policies and the mercantile system. It seems little wonder then, with money to be lost due to enforced regulation and new taxation that these individuals became the leaders of the impending revolution.
Sources:
Oliver M. Dickerson, The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylviania Press, 1951)
Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States
Name:______Date:______
“Salutary Neglect”/American Revolution Connection?
Directions: Please read over the article discussing “salutary neglect” and British involvement in foreign wars during the first 150 years of the American colonies’ existence. When you are done reading, construct a response to the following question:
Are you convinced, as the author is, that these actions were direct causes of
the American Revolution? Why or why not?