Phases of Colonial America: the Navigation Acts and British America | American history & archaeology
Get 25% off Blinkist premium and enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1! Start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: blinkist.com/thelibrarian
"In Small Things Forgotten" by James Deetz is one of the best and most accessible books on the archaeology of colonial America. one of the many ideas that Deetz proposes is that the American colonial adventure followed a three-fold development cycle.
In his view, the English colonists that first came to virginia, Massachusetts, and Maryland in the first part of the seventeenth century were essentially yeomen who are very much similar to their kith and kin in England.
So stage 1 is the first few generations of colonists that are very much tied to England for supplies, immigrants, and products. Deetz uses the term "yeoman" to describe the English culture of this stage, so we can call this the yeoman stage.
However, by the middle of the seventeenth century the colonies were maturing economically, socially, and politically. the colonists had become more self-sufficient, and they were creating their own culture that was increasingly distinct from the mother country. this is a distinct phase, or stage 2. we can call this phase the "colonial self-sufficiency" phase.
At the outset of this phase, there is a kind of unofficial colonial independence as England is occupied in its own civil war between Charles I and parliament. from the British isles, the colonies are a distant affair, as parties in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland are engaged in a terrible conflict.
However, following the restoration of the monarchy after Cromwell's commonwealth period in England, there is an effort in England to consolidate the realm in the latter 17th century. the colonies were gradually brought back in to the cultural, economic, and political sphere of the mother country. we can call this third stage the "re-anglicization" phase. as the 1700s progress, the British colonies increasingly become re-tethered to the British isles.
In this model, the ironic thing is that the colonies enter the revolutionary period of the 1760s and 1770s during the time when they were the most connected to the mother country since the first generations of colonists in the early 17th century. it's the ultimate full-circle story.
in the early years of the English colonies, say, 1625, we have Jamestown in virginia and Plymouth in Massachusetts. these early colonies are populated by residents that are just recently arrived from England, and they are largely dependent on the mother country for supplies, political support, and new immigrants.
However, in a place like Jamestown, changes are happening. in the 1610s, John Rolfe had successfully introduced tobacco into virginia, providing the colony with its first cash crop. and by the 1620s there is a new sense economic independence. it's no longer a one-way street from England to America, as the colonies have a money-making product that the mother country wants.
In addition, skilled workers are arriving in America, bringing skilled workers like blacksmiths to American villages.
and then the English civil war gets going in the 1640s. England has its own major issues to work though, and the American colonies essentially function independently.
however, two major events will happen in the latter seventeenth century to draw the colonies back into the sphere of the mother country. the period of colonial "drift" from the mother country will continue, but these events will slow the drift and ultimately reverse it.
with the end of the English civil war period and Cromwell's protectorate era, the English monarchy is restored after 11 years. this era, the restoration of the monarchy, is a sea change in relations between England and her colonies.
King Charles II enacts navigation acts in 1660. king charles does not want the colonies acting so independently, as they had been trading with the French, Spanish, and Dutch. charles wants the English colonists to stop trading with these rival powers, in order to keep the wealth within the realm of England. the navigation acts require that English goods from America are exported back to England, not to rival powers.
The 18th century, the final phase of the colonial period, will see the British colonies ever more pulled back into Britain's sphere. Britain by about 1750 is entering the first industrial period, and a major product of that era is refined earthenware ceramics.
refined ceramics which had been a luxury for aristocracy, are now widely available by about 1760, produced in Staffordshire, England. these creamware and pearlwares are heavily imported into the American colonies, and they mark the widespread practice of British tea time.
Пікірлер: 47
Get 25% off Blinkist premium and enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1! Start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: blinkist.com/thelibrarian
My man out with another video!!
@JeffreytheLibrarian
Жыл бұрын
Thank you!
Fascinating. Thank you.
@JeffreytheLibrarian
Жыл бұрын
Much appreciated!
Yes. A new drop.
Another great vid. Keep up the good work
@JeffreytheLibrarian
Жыл бұрын
Thank you!
Preparing for a trip to Boston with my history-loving nephew. Thanks for helping us have a more enjoyable and informative visit.
@JeffreytheLibrarian
Ай бұрын
Thanks for watching!
I'm currently reading The Currency of Empire: Money and Power in Seventeenth-Century English America, by Jonathan Barth. Barth I think would take issue with some of these ideas. In particular, according to Barth the colonies were in no sense self sufficient at any point in the 17th century, with their dependence demonstrated by large persistent trade deficits. Barth does believe there was a period akin to "re-anglicization," but places it's beginning after the Glorious Revolution. Barth attributes willing consent to the imperial system by colonists as part of a grand bargain, in which London acknowledged colonial rights to self government in exchange for submission to the mercantilist imperial trade system. The unravelling of this bargain in the late 18th century was not part of some grand cycle or inevitable.
@lamwen03
Жыл бұрын
Could the 'self-sufficiency' be referring to governance of the colonies, rather than their economics? It would align better, I think.
Thank you for the well researched and presented look into this period of Colonial History.
@JeffreytheLibrarian
Жыл бұрын
Thank you!
Great WORK JEFFREY! Thanks for all you do!
@JeffreytheLibrarian
Жыл бұрын
Thank you!
I really enjoy your informative timeline videos. 👍
@JeffreytheLibrarian
Жыл бұрын
Much appreciated!
Welldone sir.
Fun to explore the past America😊Thank you💖
@JeffreytheLibrarian
Жыл бұрын
Thank you!
0:47 Yeomen Colonists, tied to England for supplies immigrants and products (early colonies needed a lot of work to get started) 1:19 Middle of the 17th century, the colonies were becoming more sufficient and self-sustaining 1:46 England is in Civil War and the Colonies are kept distant from England 2:16 1660 They’re gradually brought back into Britain’s tether. 2:57 _Blinkist_ 4:29 Early Colonies NEED The Mother Country (and help from knowledgeable natives) 5:18 Skilled Labor! *What brought the colonies back into British business?* 5:37 5:58 Monarchy Restoration of King Charles II who was a Mercantilist, meaning a monopoly on trade. No more doing business with anyone who isn’t England colonies. 7:06 Nathaniel Bacon’s Rebellion sparks a reaction from Britain to send in direct overseers to put down rebellion and restore order. 8:00 Independence rose and fell. 9:08 America in the Revolutionary Period were very British in culture. 10:34 1607 is NOT Medieval, they are Post-Medieval. 11:26 1600s It’s more Stuart Era, Renaissance Era, Early Modern Era, not medieval era.
10:25 Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was not published until the War for Independence was already under way. The influence it had on post-colonial america was massive, but its influence on colonial america itself still working with (or around lol) mercantilism was minimal.
I have a moment by moment account of schooner Hannah vs. nautilus.
Deetz nuts. Sorry I couldn’t help myself.
While this seems to be archaeological base, which i cannot argue, it ignores in the 3rd phase that the things which were materially changing, were the exact cause of the Revolution, because the colonies and colonists were treated as lessor, not equal. BTW, Have you read the Cousins Wars, about similarity and differences of English civil war, the American Revolution, and the American civil war? It also presents its ideas, which may be right or wrong.
Great video! Very interesting - what kind of cultural differences did colonists have during the self-sustaining era that contrasts to the Anglicized-America eras?
@JeffreytheLibrarian
7 ай бұрын
That's a great question. The biggest things are the development of self-governing assemblies, widespread education, and freedom of religion. The colonies almost had their own mini Parliaments, and so they were shocked when Parliament suddenly started making laws in the colonies. Each colony had it's own unique cultural aspect. Some that come to mind are: Massachusetts: very high education and literacy Rhode Island: freedom of religion and high literacy, Jewish population there New York: Dutch influence Maryland: "free exercise of religion" born there in 1634, Catholicism permitted Pennsylvania: pacifism, freedom of religion, peace with the Indians, German immigrants
@RELYTS88
7 ай бұрын
Thanks for the reply! @@JeffreytheLibrarian
@joshmay7921
5 ай бұрын
@@JeffreytheLibrarianat what approximate time period in the Thirteen colonies did “colonial born” settlers become a majority in the free populations? Was there any major differences between such population patterns in English Caribbean colonies, New France, New Spain, Portuguese Brazil, etc.?
I would like to hear a bit more about what constituted self sufficiency in early America. I suspect a big part was metal working and iron ore smelting like you said. Salt as a preservative would possibly be another. Also, I've heard tobacco was the first cash crop, but I'm surprised animal hides wheren't bigger .
Another video of elegant clarity. BTW: I've just learned there was a Swedish colony (!) in the US - New Sweden along the Delaware River.
@JeffreytheLibrarian
Жыл бұрын
This is the Fort Christiana colony, New Sweden. It later became Dutch then English.
@spacey118
Жыл бұрын
Yeah… it got caught up in the battle over the land charters. Pennsylvania was supposed to be bigger, extend to the coast. But the DuPont line stole Delaware and Lord Baltimore took some land from the 38th parallel. so those individuals integrated into the Pennsylvania Dutch region of PA. This was the beginning of the corruption of the 40th parallel, which was to be protected by William Penn. Penn had terrible children that relegated the Lenape Indians to 800 acres of land in this area. Now known as Oley, PA. The Lenape were renamed the Delaware in the history books and this deviation, can be equated to the original sin.
@tommy-er6hh
Жыл бұрын
There were also previous French vs Spanish struggles for the colonies south of Chesapeake to Florida, those were abandoned before the English, Dutch, and Swedish came or the later French colonies. There were also a couple of Scots attempts at colonies in north America.
@expatexpat6531
Жыл бұрын
@@tommy-er6hh Yes, I think the failure of the Scottish colonization attempts was a factor in pushing for the Union with England. The Edinburgh rich saw better chances with the English.
@tommy-er6hh
Жыл бұрын
@@expatexpat6531 I am certain of it, the direct cause was Scotland having gone totally bankrupt because all the moneys for colonies had gone, and they had over subscribed. England stepped in, offered to take their debts if they unified. (I have wondered if English "pirates" took the missing colony money.)
the books 1481 and 1493 are fantastic
@JeffreytheLibrarian
Жыл бұрын
I like them, too. Mann does a good job of explaining history that few others have explored.
Wow
@JeffreytheLibrarian
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching!
Is it heresy to say that the english culture was cleansed and fortified through the many wars it fough with its own self AND its mother country? Which other culture can claim such feat? (I feel like Vietnam and the Philipines could be added to this list.. any other?) let me know your perspective.
An interesting framing, but I'm concerned shoehorning history into distinct periods is always going to lead to arbitrary and historically deceptive results. After all, why three periods? Why not six or nine or 99? Ultimately the process becomes subjective, and less about accurately describing history and more about trying to control how we imagine it.
@JohnnyAngel8
Жыл бұрын
What would be deceptive is to think of human civilization as devoid of growth periods and emerging trends. I believe that using distinct periods helps us to orient ourselves to the past. I have no problem believing that eras overlap; that abrupt change is not the norm.
@JeffreytheLibrarian
Жыл бұрын
It is subjective, but it's a way to organize the past. Sometimes the schematics tell you more about the historian or archaeologist, but it's a lens to view the past, and folks are going to try to distill the information with patterns.
@ChimeraActual
Жыл бұрын
Not to mention how periods developed differently over time and substance over distance. As an overview and teaching tool emphasising distinct phases is probably useful, but it obscures the ebb and flow of the system. Anthropology has the same problem.
You all clueless about what protects freedom and justice exactly your jobs as we the people . Lie down if clueless about what stand for