To shed light on the role of the colonies in the British mercantilist system, it is imperative to fully understand the concept of mercantilism. In fact, mercantilism represents a system of economic ideas oriented towards the establishment of new colonies throughout the world. T he mercantilist system was a system where Britain established influence over some countries or regions which paid tribute to the Great Britain. These areas became Britain’s colonies or protectorates. T he concept paved way for the expansion of Great Britain. The mother country needed many raw materials that the colonies could actually supply. In regard to the American colonies, they provided the vast amount of natural resources; Great Britain conceived of the American colonies as a source of lumber and tobacco. It can be said with certainty that the colonies had an important role to play in boosting British trade. Yes, Great Britain owed much of its prosperity to all colonial imports. By immersing into a concept of mercantilism, it comes to light that this economic policy enabled Great Britain to make a number of raw materials into finished products. British colonies were instrumental in producing and supplying raw materials to the Great Britain. Many historians observe that Britain found it cheaper to acquire raw materials from its colonies than buying them from other countries since the empire produced them cheaply. The colonies acted as a source of raw materials and also provided the market needed for British processed goods. This was important in building Britain’s economy. In sum, it is not an exaggeration to say that colonies proved to be instrumental in cultivating the economic ideas of mercantilism. Certainly, their role in the British mercantilist system should not be underestimated.
Why did Britain switch to a Southern military strategy? Why did that strategy ultimately fail?
The Southern military strategy was used by Britain in the revolutionary war in America in the 1778. France was increasing aid to many American countries which brought conflicts with British. Many historians advance an argument that this strategy was employed by the British to gain an advantage over France. The strategy focused on southern part of America which was believed to be loyal. The British authorities reckoned that if they could propel the Southern colonists, the locals would demonstrate an ultimate commitment to participate in the war effort. Subsequently, it was expected that the same sentiments would reach some other colonies as well. True be told, such a suggestion did make sense to some extent. Nevertheless, numerous missteps by the British and the reluctance to come up with the best way to fight rebellion resulted in the failure to stop the uprising of rebel armies. After a thorough consideration, it becomes apparent that the British strategy ultimately failed due to the fact that the military potential of their opponents was extremely underestimated. The British expected a very quick victory, which in turn contributed to the failure of their military campaign aimed at cutting off the British colonies from other colonies.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Irrespective of the good strategy, Britain suffered a major blow in the war. The British used brutal force against the southern population which made the loyalists turn to enemies. The colonialists fought guerrilla wars against the British who were further weakened by Holland which declared war on Great Britain as soon as they set their eyes to the south. All these factors compounded to a disgraceful failure in the southern military strategy that Great Britain took a critical decision to switch to.
In what ways did the emerging industrial economy conflict with artisan republicanism? How did wage laborers respond to the new economy?
Industrialization process kicked off in 1760’s in the United States. During this period, there were shifts from the traditional production using labors in the factories. Production shifted to automation in production process with employment of new production strategies. In America, industrialization started after manufacturers improved production capacity by saying yes to the shift away from the old way of doing things. With the help of expansion strategies, it became possible to buy products at a lower price. In addition, the United States has seen a new division of labour. The price of goods was lowered due to mass production and specialization in production. This means there was less and less money to pay the workers. Workers slowly lost control over speed and process of production unlike initially when they controlled everything. This meant their services were not required as they used to be demanded before. This prompted a huge uprising against the industrial revolution from the workers since most of their jobs were now performed by machines. Only a handful of workers were required to supervise the machines, sending an enormous number of them home
It would be reasonable to indicate that the employees control over conditions was greatly undermined. As mentioned above, the new industrial economy did conflict with artisan republicanism in many different ways. First and foremost, the law against unions created prerequisites for the conflict. Wage labourers created unions in an effort to get someone on their side when they really need them. To tell the truth, labour unions provided employees with a powerful voice to communicate to the employers their concerns and complaints. The fact that these organizations were made illegal contributed to indignation in the community. The good news is that Commonwealth v. Hunt in 1842, an American legal case in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, gave labour unions legitimacy.
How did the abolitionists’ proposals and methods differ from those of earlier antislavery movements? Why did those proposals and methods arouse such hostility in the South and in the North?
Slavery was a vice that was performed on slaves drawn from both Africa and India. As a matter of fact, various groups championed and defended the right of slaves even though they had different perspectives. Earlier movements defended, championed and campaigned for equal rights for the slaves. Some historians note that the activists demanded equal rights between the slaves and the whites. Most whites feared for their jobs and security since the massive population of the slaves would claim a huge chunk of the whites’ fortune if treated equally with the whites in northern America.
Indeed, the abolitionist movement was intended to put an end to racial segregation and discriminatory treatment of slaves. Markedly, abolitionists’ proposals and methods differed from those of earlier antislavery movements. While antislavery movement advocated the gradual emancipation of slaves, the abolitionists maintained a different position in this regard; namely, they demanded immediate emancipation. Unlike free-soil activists, the abolitionists called for a lot more than not allowing slavery in the new western territories. They demanded for slavery to be ended right away. They demanded for slavery to be eliminated once and for all time. The abolitionists wanted slavery to be abolished immediately from the society, since it was thought of as nothing but a social injustice on the slaves. The abolitionists’ perspectives mainly prevailed in the South. As abolitionists’ proposals and methods turned to be an integral part of Northern politics, they arouse hostility in the South and the North. As many historians reiterate, the abolitionists’ proposals and methods generated animosity between the South and the North due to many reasons. The thing that the masses disliked the most is that the abolitionists sought to place black people upon equality with the Whites. Many were concerned about the probable loss of their social status in the North.
