Historiography by Liam, 2016 - 2017
The author of the first passage I read is Clinton Rossiter. Rossiter's passage argues strongly that due to a multitude of factors, the American colonies had lost their English identity and in many respects, had formed a unique identity that contributed to their separation. British mercantilism contributed heavily to the later circumstances that would begin to uproot the colonists’ ties to their homeland. By adopting policies designed to promote the interests of the mother country, the British effectively excluded the colonist from the benefits associated with being a subject of the king. Over time such regulations and efforts would turn stale in the eyes of the colonists and promote a feeling of dissent. As argued by Rossiter, these growing feelings combined with extended periods of salutary neglect proved to be ideal circumstances for the growth of a new independent identity. Early forms of self government soon blossomed under these conditions to become relatively autonomous democracies which initially suffered few restrictions from The Crown. These democracies gradually promoted new ideas and went in different directions to promote personal liberties that soon became the norm. Potentially the stronger liberties though came not from the expansion of democracies, but from the wilderness and great natural freedoms that came with the great scope of the New World. The frontier lifestyle promoted rugged individualism, and the only attempted limitations would ultimately come from the mother country, spurring frustration. The 3000 some miles that separated the colonies already made restrictions challenging to enforce and over time caused great change in various aspects of typical British traits, but the frontier created a whole new challenge for the British. Infrastructure between colonies was relatively sparse, significantly extending the struggle. Economically the colonies found themselves in a unique position, with better pay than their brothers from across the pond. Another major contribution to the creation of this new identity noted by Rossiter was immigration from other reaches of Europe. With an influx of Germans, Scots, Irish, and others the British colonists were exposed to new ways of life and certainly mixed ideas and customs with their new neighbors. New colonies were formed and the English identity slowly evolved into a unique and independent picture.
In a different light, Lawrence Gipson argues that the British identity of the colonists remained very much intact during this period. Gipson discusses the pride associated with being British, and how the colonists were no exception to this notion. A major factor noted by Gipson was the attraction to British law which followed strict code and had been quite successful at home in maintaining order. This strict code Gipson argues, effectively meshed the colonists together and maintained their devotion to the mother country even with an ocean separating them. The economic security provided by the Crown was also certainly something not to be overlooked, with the British Empire stretching across the globe and virtually owning the seas. Great Britain secured colonial devotion in many respects in regard to its military being used in their defense. The British spent an incredible amount of money on the colonies, Gipson points to this as an example of how the colonies found their leadership back home as theirs. I find myself in agreement more so with Rossiter than Gipson. Although it ultimately varied from household to household and individual to individual, the general feelings of this new identity was strong during the 18th century. Undoubtedly most colonists were faithful at least for the majority of the century, to their homeland identifying themselves as British, however it appears quite evident to me that a new identity had been formed. Immigration was certainly a major factor, infusing new cultures into a society virtually cut off from the Crown at many points. With such great distance separating the two sides it is no wonder that during this time period a new identity would be formed. Specifically after the French and Indian war it seems as though this identity was becoming more and more unique. It was only a matter of time before this change was recognized and acted upon.
4 Comments
Jazmine Evans
10/4/2016 04:32:05 pm
I believe that they could both be true, based on the region of colonies that is examined. When looking at the Southern colonies, Gipson may be more correct, because they retained a stronger British identity, because of their Anglican practices and economic prosperity. This fondness for their mother country did weaken in the years prior to the Revolutionary War due to an increased harshness in England's treatment of the colonies. When examining the middle and northern colonies, I believe Rossiter's point of view is much more valid. The northern colonies had much less in common with England, such as differing religious practices, and social structures. The Northerners also came to the New World to begin a new life and create a new society. Most Southerns came to profit off of this opportunity. This difference may explain why different regions reacted differently to England's treatment. England's laws may have felt like more of a hindrance to the northern colonies that wanted to govern themselves. Overall, I believe that these view are both correct in some aspects.
Reply
Liam Kelly
10/12/2016 08:49:00 am
Thank you for your comment Jazmine, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. This question’s answer is certainly not black and white, there’s a whole lot of gray. This issue greatly varied from region to region and was based on a number of factors, potentially even varying door to door depending on how strongly a household’s ties to the crown. Due to this, I feel like your decision to agree with the assessments of both authors to a certain capacity is an excellent choice.
Reply
Katie Hart
10/5/2016 02:06:11 pm
I would also have to agree with Rossiter's opinion over Gipson's, even though both sides are true and have relevance. The New World formed a new identity in the 1800th century, which was inevitable due to the distance but also the new, outside, and attractive cultures, religions, and beliefs that came with the immigrants. The New World was just that, new. The influence and culture that was brought from England was still very much alive except it was often mixed with other languages, cultures, and religions. It's true that many colonists stayed loyal to the King and most still called themselves Englishmen, but after he rejected the Olive Branch Petition in he later 1700s, they had no choice but to become Americans.
Reply
Courtney Floyd
10/5/2016 08:26:04 pm
Depending on the location, either opinion could be true. In the more southern colonies, there were many loyalists identified themselves as English subjects and as under the rule of the King. It was more common for patriots to be in the New England colonies and they were more likely to see themselves of a new identity rather than of a British identity. However, only about twenty percent of the total colonists were loyalists, which leaves the remainder either as patriots or neutral (USHistory.org). Because of this, I am in agreement more with Rossiter than Gipson. Despite there being loyalists in the colonies, there was definitely a new identity displayed and felt by most of the colonists who were patriots or were neutral but didn't see themselves as Englishmen. The amount of people who felt they weren't of a British identity only increased as the number of immigrants from countries other than Britain increased.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWelcome to Liam's Blog. Liam is participating in an independent study of history this year part of which requires him to interpret historical arguments. Archives
April 2017
Categories |