History 7A Midterm 1

Stamp Act Controversy

- bypassed typical elected assemblies that always claimed to have the right to tax colonists (since proximity, you know) - salutary neglect (felt like abrupt tyrannical move) - quartering act/stamp act felt like encroachment of imperial empire on citizens' rights Stamp act esp controversial bc: - DIRECT TAX - no precedent, nothing to do w international commerce (other taxes were reasonable bc import duties and stuff) - broad impact on population bc documents/prints circulated far into the interior, not just coastal cities - no taxation without representation: focused NOT on actual financial reprucussions, but more on the violation on RIGHTS (free press, right to trial) as british subjects - no voice bc parliament wasn't elected at all by them --> first organized forms of colonial resistance: sons of liberty, stamp act congress, terrorizing tax-enforcers/british-appointed governors Stamp Act UNIFIED the disparate colonies around the principle of defending their rights, and against the empire for encroaching upon them - amplified when british, though got rid of stamp act, instituted the declaratory act, where the root of problem was still there (no representation, encroaching on rights) --> saw rise of colonial influencers like patrick henry, etc that preached the concept of liberty (roots in philosophy like locke all the way down to the individualism touted in great awakening) --> basically KICKSTARTED a flurry of political developments in speakers, essayists/press (letters of american farmer), political groups (ex: tories/whigs), liberty trees, nonconsumption movements - types of organized resistance and circulation of ideas that would continue throughout the series of grevious taxation attempts the British would impose on the colonists *** - Beginning to enforce obligations for British colonists in N America to contribute to paying off British war debt HISTORY OF LOW TAXES- society was built on the idea that things would remain cheap and access would be unrestricted esp to land and more resources → disassembly of the version of the AMERICAN DREAM especially for land settlers *** These acts initiated colonists' first organized resistance attempt against British imperial policy * Started w the stamp act * Started w petitions to king/pamphlets Thing to note: this happened v QUICKLY

French and Indian War (1754-1763)

- first imperial war to originate in colonies themselves (in north american continent soil) Causes: tensions between borders of new france and British settlements (british trading w french indian allies, encroaching on french territory) --> french retaliated by building forts; GW led a small force of Virginia colonists against Fort Duqesne --> skirmishes in ohio river valley blew up into an all-out war between britain/french with global scope War Events: first 3 years, french and their indian allies racked up a lotta victories (bad for british!), until dichotomy of priorities exposed in Fort William Henry massacre caused a rift in their alliance (french just wanted fort, wanted to let british colonists leave, but indians wanted scalps/war glory) --> A TURNING POINT (shows how RELIANT french were on indian allies in New World) - france/britain also fighting in europe, and in india (trade companies) - GLOBAL SCOPE MORE TURNING POINTS: 1) colonists made peace with Ohio Indians in Easton Treaty (recognized their land claims), erasing France's native-alliance advantage and REORIENTING the balance of power (fighting shifted to primarily between european armies) 2) Secretary of State William Pitt committed to MASSIVE DEFICIT spending to enlarge armies and fund the war (encouraged colonists to provide "manpower" as parliament funded other costs) --> put france at severe NUMERICAL disadvantage effects: british pushed france into canada and captured quebec MORE COMPLICATIONS: Spain, ironically, tried to restore the balance of power (after seeing that britain was gonna win through spending) by joining the war but FAILED, losing its central commercial ports of Havana and Manila WAR ENDS with Treaty of Hubertusburg and Treaty of Paris, in which it was obvious British prioritized acquiring physical land for its colonists rather than merely trading benefits Aftermath: Treaty of Paris - changed boundaries on paper, but not in mindsets (did not incur immediate change in inhabitants, and indians resentful --> pontiac's rebellion --> proclamation --> colonists angry (paxton massacre) - SHOWS DIFFERENCE in PRIORITIES (europe wanted to REAL, PHYSICAL peopling/settlement in New World, while french/spain had more shallow attachments and were more there for commerical reasons like trade) Colonists vs Britain MASSIVE DEBT --> europe shifted some commercial burdens of repayment to colonists through various taxation attempts (Grenville) - attempts the colonists ABHORED bc cheap land/limitless expansion was central to the American Dream and constituted the primary reason for settling in America - british seemed to have entirely disregarded their contributions tot he war effort (what about havana? Easton Treaty? PLUS most lives lost in proportion to population lost, ever, in colonies) --> RIFT BETWEEN motherland/colonial priorities and interests *colonists saw themselves as sacrificing for empire, while british believed they were protecting the colonists so they should compensate commercially - colonists USED to paying low/no tax, and saw themselves as contributing greatly to empire in war (salutary neglect during wartime bc britain fighting war on multiple continents), so when british SUDDENLY tightened control over the colonies and imposed the taxation acts on them, they were like WTF - french had more difficulties migrating (acadian diaspora), often retraining their culture/influence in a region, while spanish left quickly to their carribean holds (shallow attachments) Key Takeaways: - signaled the end of imperial conflict on the eastern half of the continent that many Indian groups had strategically exploited to maintain their political independence and hold onto their lands (faced a political map marked by a single eastern frontier, with British colonists advancing aggressively westward) - change in relationship dynamic between colonists/great britain: felt connected to empire in war time, but now didn't need britain's protection bc french/spanish gone (incurred more resentment in paying further tribute to the motherland) - LESS DEPENDENCY OF COLONIES ON MOTHERLAND --> fueled idea of breaking ties when injusticed - general difficulties of british being able to govern its new territorial acquisitions *During the French and Indian War, the British government and its mainland American colonies had clung tenaciously to one another. But the war left a trail of mutual resentment and staggering debt, and the victory left colonists less dependent on British protection. *** 1758- Tide turns in Quebec, when French and Indian alliances begin to falter slightly- French success is crucially related to Indian armies- these alliances grow thinner gradually when successes go down, and British raise larger armies when they have more ability to borrow money as the war goes on FOR SIGNIFICANCE, consider: THEMES: Warfare: How did war differ from earlier conflicts? Interactions with Native Peoples: Why was its resolution so disastrous for native peoples? How did Indians respond to the outcome of the war, and what was the impact of that response? Colonialism: How did the war transform relations between Great Britain and its North Am. colonies?

Cahokia

- largest Mississippi center - known bc of its huge MOUNDS (over 100 feet high, 16 acres at the base - HUGE) - MONK'S MOUND reconstructed (St. Louis, Illinois) - around 1050s (around same time as Chaco Canyon), grew into a big city like Chaco Canyon - largest city until the 18th century, until Philadelphia/ NY surpassed it *shows that europeans did not happen upon an uncultured, inhabited area like the surface of the moon (not a blank or static world); it was already bustling with cultures, communities, organization

Chunkey

- stick-ball game (one team throws a ceramic disk, other team throws wooden sticks at it to block it) - THE game of the culture - BINDED together the civilization; cemented the influence of that culture - when the people played it, it showed that they were bound to a culture (sometimes also used for proxy political conflicts - the existence of political conflict also serves to show that life was complex and has been "turned upside down" before europeans even set foot on the continent) *shows that europeans did not happen upon an uncultured, inhabited area like the surface of the moon (not a blank or static world); it was already bustling with cultures, communities, organization - challenges this^ misconception

Saö Tome and Principe (late 15th century)

-Def: A pair of islands in the Gulf of Guinea claimed by the Portuguese in 1471. The islands were colonized in 1485 and Portuguese soon began importing African slaves to work on sugar plantations. -Significance: This was a conquest; helped in creating a dependency on slave labor and laid the groundwork for the vast Atlantic slave system. *the initial source of motivation for importing slaves: growing sugar on colonies like these for profit *experimental grounds for testing out many different labor and business models before settling on slavery

Act of Union (1707) - Ratified existence of a single kingdom

1707 act that unified Scotland and England into one "Great Britain"; after James II was deposed (frick his "dominition") and William & Mary took his place, focus shifted from controlling the colonies to war against French catholics (back to religion again!) --> colonial assemblies gained more autonomy. - parliament still passed laws by framework of navigation acts, and governors were still directly appointed by parliament, but colonies were able to b more independent than under charles i or james ii. -UNIFICATION OF DIVERSE groups under one single empire - BEGINNING OF ONE COORDINATE british empire long-term effects: - of end of war: after war ended and conditions in england improved, there was less immigration to America (bc lack of motivation); but low mortality/high fertility increased colonies' population nonetheless and decreasing amount of land available caused people to move out of New England for land (seaports, or faraway farms) - COLONISTS FELT CONNECTED, or part of the bigger empire, through commerce (see: empire of goods)

Enlightenment (18th century)

A "rationalization" movement where people turned towards science and reason instead of blindly accepting biblical/religious authority; emboldened individuals to seek truth through experimentation and public debate; larger consequences include: skepticism towards clergy's authority, demand religion to appeal to reason, looking towards natural observation rather through "divine will" - champion influencers include ben franklin and john locke (first to establish that power comes from CONSENT OF governed - important foundation of ideals for future revolution - also spawned Deism, idea that god does not intervene, but instead his powers are already built into the natural world he created

Great Puritan Migration (1630s)

A great migration of Puritans to the New World in the 1630s during King Charles I's reign without Parliament; Puritans differ from Separatists (pilgrims) in that they still desire to reform the church from within, but by 1620s they found persecuted and sailed towards the New World; 90,000 by 1630s. - population multiplied faster than other New England settlements bc puritans arrived in a more-condensed wave, with balanced sex ratios + healthier climate + family units - wanted more than economic improvement or opposing the catholics; wanted to create an exemplar christian society filled with saintly individuals (that's why hella strict); in the words of John Winthrop: a "city on a hill." - ^ massachusetts bay colony (more autonomy to do as they pleased despite being religious minority) - puritans founded Boston, which became/remained the colonial seat of New England - emphasized importance of families (tight-knit clusters instead of spread out settlements) and township - considered Congregationalists - denounced the conventional idea of subordinating local congregation to a central authority (local towns held jurisdiction) ALSO separation of church/life - emphasis on reading scripture --> high literacy rates and educational centers (HARVARD); helped spread literacy to Indians - puritan contradiction: emphasizing the individual conscience vs conforming the individual to a set of religious ideals (or else exiled or branded witches, like Roger Williams/Rhode island (too individualist), Anne Hutchinson (predestination/too BDE), thomas hooker/connecticut) How this homogenous religious community declined: - colonial expansion --> more commercial opportunities (more migration to seaport towns, less church attendance), Puritan Revolution, hardass "personal scanctity" processes --> halfway convenant (but caused cracks in the system)

Neolin's Pan-Indianism

A notion put forth by Delaware Indian prophet Neolin that stated the need for Indians to unite by their common cultural roots against the encroaching white settlers; especially urgent in 1763 as the "lumping" together of white people, as proposed in Neolin's idea, was especially exemplified in french/spanish's removal from the continent, with only the aggressively land-hungry British left (situation seemed dire/hopeless bc indians could no longer exploit european competition to prohibit colonial expansion); theoretical motivation/inspiration behind pontiac's rebellion. - showed indian's desperate mindset/anger/situation after outcome of French and Indian War - see impact of Pontiac's rebellion

Proclamation Line of 1763

A royal proclamation issued by King George III stating that land WEST of the Appalachian Mountains were reserved for Indians, and that settlement was restricted to the East; spurred by concerns raised by Pontiac's rebellion + Easton treaty, also made colonial affairs more easy/cheaper to regulate when confined to a smaller area, AND bc britain cannot afford PEREPTUAL war against natives - restricting settlement was seen, by the british, as the PRICE OF PEACE in british america - main effect was discouraging land speculators from acquiring more land bc they needed their land titles recognized LEGALLY --> OBJECTION - GW: "temporary expedient to quiet the Minds of the Indians" - drove wedge between britain/colonies, and fueled the upcoming era of hostility between the two - PAXTON BOYS massacre, not persecuted --> depsite proclamation, indians/colonists still had tense relationship *** Discrepancy esp between colonists and perspectives of the Empire - esp when they had fought a war that they had lost lives in and funds→ felt like it was their war and had paid the price- resentment simmered especially because even within colonies-didn't see why they had to fight for dissimilar colonies For London, it looked like getting rid of a French and Indian alliance that made colonies vulnerable and won after three years of losing- they did this for the colonies- and the colonies are costly- we are trying to build up security and make you pay for the sacrifices to protect your colonies Cited low taxes and produce a need to raise taxes, any raise seemed like an encroachment on the colonists- when seen from the other parts of the empire was seen as shifting the cost of the Empire (the burden) onto the North American colonies Line drawn up by the British to appease the natives and slow down settlement in West (beyond Appalaichans) Paxton Boys Massacre (1763) kill natives on mass killing spree because enraged by the inability to have land titles recognized by the British government once beyond Appalaichans *** * DISPARITY between empire's and Colonists' interests * *became one of the major factors for revolution * Put itself in the way of colonists' westward expansion * Not only gonna be policing indians, also white settlers as well * Lots of ANIMOSITY built up between motherland and colonists

Restoration Colonies

A series of colonial settlements given out by King Charles II to his close supporters as a thank-you for restoring him to the throne after Cromwell; carved out New York, East New Jersey, West New Jersey, New Hampshire, Carolina, etc. from the stretch of land wrested from the Dutch; transformed the New World from sparse, independent outposts to a continuous chain of colonies belonging to the same empire. - instead of merely promoting protestantism, charles desired to wrest control from the Dutch (created Royal African Company and invaded Dutch's land claims in America - new amsterdam, new york (retained control), fort orange) - parliament in restoration era also tried to glean more profits from colonies (mercantilism, navigation acts) - FILLING IN OF A CONTINUOUS STRETCH (unification - physical) *** * Creation of this identity that they were part of a single colonial network, of a single imperial empire

Imperial Wars - end of 17th, 18th century

A series of religious wars (King Williams' War, Queen Anne's War, King George's War) started by King William III (England) against the French (protestants vs catholics); impact spread beyond europe and into their other territories, embroiling colonists and indians alike starting from Queen Anne's War (also multi-ethnic force like in the French and Indian war); spanish/english/french raided each other's colonial claims. RESULTS: - Queen Anne's War: indecisive for europeans, but enhanced the power of some indians (creek and iroquois) - War of Jenkin's Ear (king george's war): ENGLISH won (colonists captured French fort at Louisborg, giving English control of St. Lawrence, but English gave it back to French BUT paid for costs, gesturing that the colonists' efforts were part of the greater imperial whole - UNIFIED COLONIAL/MOTHERLAND RELATIONS; convenant chain, however, strained bc english wanted iroquois to abandon neutrality pledge but they didn't. noteworthy details: - french did not attack English's New York bc didn't want to antagonize the Iroquois there, who they had just signed a peace treaty with (shows Iroquois' usefulness/influence) - Iroquois remained neutral - south carolina planters didn't contribute actively bc didn't want to leave their plantations unguarded in the aftermath of Stono's Rebellion *** What ties the six wars? All of these wars were alliances of colonists and natives against groups that typically inc alliances between natives and settlers Antagonism between powers often religion was influential (split between Protestantism and Catholicism) COMPLEX SHIFTING ALLIANCES: In order to survive in European NA Needed multi ethnic or multiracial political alliances to defeat whoever the primary enemy may have been- typically didn't involve major territorial changes. NONE of these wars was just solely an "Indian War" → or conflict against natives *** IN COMMON: all these wars weren't white against red, but were alliances between european+indian alliance against european+indian alliance *NOT SOLELY EUROPEANS * Involved complex shifting alliances in order to survive in European North America * Needed multi-ethnic political alliances in order to face off primary enemy * Didn't involve the exchange of major territorial claims, but killed lotsa people * Religion was the most consistent line of conflict *indians greatly EXPLOITED European conflicts/political desperation and needs

Crusades (1095-1291)

A series of wars by Latin Christendom against non-Christians designed to wrestle control of the Holy Lands from the Muslims during the Middle Ages, and weed out christian heretics, between 1095 and 1291. European men enlisted in these holy wars, since they were drawn in by the sense of adventure, promise that all their sins would be pardoned. - unified europeans (fostered broad european identity) along lines of ethnicity and religion - introduced/reinforced idea that conquering territory was key to salvation (or encouraged idea of conquering land to spread religion - good for religion! *sense of justification) - *^ model of the expansion of latin christendom into future lands - first instance where large group or european going somewhere and claiming superiority of religion/ethnicity to claim land

Havana (1762)

After Spain entered the French and Indian War in 1762 on the side of the French (in an effort to even out balance of power after realizing british gonna win), British targeted this Spanish port, central to its booming carribean empire; laid siege and captured it - along with Manila - but lost thousands of colonial and british lives to YELLOW fever; Havana also significant bc british used it to BARGAIN for Spain's claims in the new world in the Treaty of Paris. - settlers also cited their sacrifices in havana in their grievances against paying taxes after war ended - spain entering the war also EXPEDITED the end of the war *** * Shows war coming to an end * Tried to help France reach a stalemate with British * But instead expedited negotiations (RIP - FAAAIL) *** * Capture of Havana would shape negotiations/treaty in major ways (BARTER for more New World territory in treaty of paris) * Also shaped traumatic experience in eyes of the colonies - image of sacrificing for motherland, but motherland still demanding compensation * Where significance of Havana comes in: family member dies in Havana war in Cuba against a country you haven't even thought about, and now the empire won't even defend ur rights to property (Proclamation of 1763) * Colonists felt they were dragged to fight a war * INCREASING REASON to see their interests diverging from that of the empire Colonists believed they gave their lives to protect imperial interests in French & Indian War --> breakdown of uNITY between colonies/motherland *british diff perspective - HUGELY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

Atlantic Slave Trade

After winning the Anglo-Dutch War, England began playing a larger role in the Atlantic Slave Trade by forming the Royal African Company (1672); began transporting thousands of slaves to colonies every year; price difference narrowed between servants/slaves, making much more financially worth to procure a life-long slave than a six-year-contracted servant. - facilitated transformation of colonies into slave society - before 1670s, had been mainly dominated by Holland/Dutch, who shipped slaves to sugar plantations in Caribbean, etc

Pontiac's Rebellion

Angered by not being included at the negotiation table for Treaty of Paris, for not being able to resume its previous method of multi-national negotiations with european powers (only one power left - and not a very friendly/super land-hungry one; could no longer EXPLOIT european competition to dislodge intruders), and for the prospect of distant european powers dictating their internal matters, and INSPIRED by Neolin's ideal of Pan-Indianism (which lumped indians against white people), Ottawa Pontiac mobilized Indians from the Great Lakes/Ohio regions to launch full-out attacks on british settlements/forts. - made british realize they needed resources/money to wage perpetual war to actually secure western territory for realsies --> proclamation (believed restricting settlement was the sacrifice for territory) - pontiac seized 9 british forts, killed hundreds of settlers, reclaiming much of the land lost by french over span of few months - eventually lost bc british's indian alliance w Seven Nations of Canada put diplomatic pressure on them (ANOTHER INSTANCE of importance of NATIVE ALLIES) Direct consequence: - showed britain that they can't just simply incorporate their new territory and rule them under one unified empire (too many conflicts) --> PROCLAMATION *** Pontiac's military proposal converge with Neolin's ideology Message was clear after the French and Indian War when it was closing up shop and there could be no more exchanges and influence with the British and French without endangering communal identity British Empire basically lost its hold on the Western territories when Pontiac and his armies rise up, the British response→ soldiers gather more colonists and borrow more money to continue the war and spending on armed conflict with natives Other response: realize that although formally British gained land-they did not simply gain access to these lands that were already inhabited by the natives of the Great Lakes region *** *gradual formulation of the radical view of INDIAN versus WHITES (us vs them) * No more european-indian alliances (inter-continent relations) * Pontiac was CONTINUING a war that, from the Indian's point of view, was not resolved * Was gonna reclaim the land the British arrested from us and our French alliances * Gonna put an end w British expansion in america * Undo the agreed upon outcome in Treat of Paris * British thought they tidied everything up on their end, but Indians wanted to continue the war that started in indian country, in indian country British Response * Staged more soldiers + borrow more money - continue the war w very brutal measures (DEFEATED Pontiac in the end) * REALIZED that although FORMALLY the map looked this way on the treaty, cannot so easily resolve the conflict between indians and British settlers * Therefore, needed to REGULATE that conflict or else they'd need to constantly refight the war against indian forces * 1) brutal military suppression of temporarily indian rebellion and 2) put in place a kind of mechanism to avoid this same conflict from recurring in the future —> ISSUED **PROCLAMATION OF 1763**:

Transition to Slavery in the Chesapeake

Beginning in 1660s, Chesapeake (virginia) colonial gov'ts established set of slave codes that codified/legalized slavery, racially divided society, and encouraged tobacco planters to as a long-term investment (supply labor needs perpetually). *examples of legal codes: - slave status inherited through mother --> raised value of female slaves and encouraged breeding/rape - bounties on runways, legal immunity for slaveholders for inflicting violence on slaves - no arms - outlawed marriage between black men and white women *started the "trend" of slaveholding throughout the colonies (south carolina and georgia followed) - racism existed BEFORE slavery, but slavery continued it (permanent divide by skin color) other reasons: - expanding english role in atlantic slave trade - declining mortality rates - competition for emigration from other colonies - codification of legal permanence + inheritance of slave status - bacon's rebellion

Hendrick Theyanoguin

Born in MA after King Phillip's War and moved into Mohawk Country in NY to fight on the English/Iroquois side; aligned with Sir William Johnson, an Irish Mohawk, during King George's War in which they organized bands of Indian men to fight on the British side, despite the Iroquois League's policy of neutrality - key figure in an example of balance-of-power diplomacy - more indian aligned with French, w the Iroquois tribe remaining neutral, so tipped some indian-alliances *** King Hendrick (wearing British uniform in portrait —> mixed identity) * christian * Mohawk Chief + major ally of the British * Shows that it IS possible to be wearing British uniform/be indispensable ally AND be full-blooded Indian chief representing your tribe's interests ***ELABORATION OF THE FRONTIER: more than coexistence;alliance

German Immigrants

Came from many different countries, but united by German language (incorrectly grouped as one as "deutsche" or dutch by colonists); arrived by the thousands; started coming from penn's old recruiting efforts for Pennsylvania - esp attracted to middle colonies of new york and pennsylvania - shows pennsylvania v diverse!

Chattel Slavery in the New World

Chattel Slavery: System that treats individuals as property that could be bought/sold causes: less european migration bc of europe's newfound political stability, europe's increasing role in atlantic slave trade, slaves became more financially worth it than servants, Bacon's Rebellion, virginia's and south carolina's slave codes (racially divided whites from blacks in all aspects) - ALSO: precedent already existed - human trafficking from africa to Americas existed BEFORE formation of colonies - africans not protected by any major faith (ex: muslims, etc) - biggest factor tho was racial prejudice (permanently divided) (SOCIOECONOMIC, LEGAL, RELIGIOUS, RACE factors) - slavery appeared as early as 1560s after founding of Virginia, but DID NOT initially dominate labor force (only 4% of population); Colonies initially depended on european labor (ex: indentured servants, etc) - until the last quarter of 17th century, Africans were potential landowners/worked side-by-side w white servants (found common bonds); slavery was accepted/legal but not necessarily permanent/guaranteed (lines between race began to harden in 1660s after Bacon's Rebellion bc whites came voluntarily while africans against their will) Overall timeline/trend of slavery: - started off as small minority - emergence of stable cash crop + other factors --> slaves main labor force - africans from middle passage were soon outnumbered by creole africans

Chesapeake vs. Lowcountry

Chesapeake (largest colonial slave society): tobacco --> SMALL slaveholdings, gang system (increased contact between white/blacks bc overseers --> less organized resistance); white majority; natural reproduction of slaves (creolization) Lowcountry (south carolina & Georgia): rice --> LARGE slaveholdings, TASK system (just had quota due at the end of the day, giving slaves time for private farming; also useful bc for rice, quantity > quality) *other aspects of low country: - commercial metropolis bc rice needed to be processed --> charleston was 4th largest city in America (also human trafficking center; the Ellis Island for Africans) - lowcountry settlers were barbadians that were familiar w carribean practices, so lowcountry slave society modeled those of sugar colonies (used african agricultural knowledge to their benefit) - LARGE labor force (rice had more startup costs --> larger labor force --> encouraged greater economy of scale) - tasks system combined w large slave population meant less white-black contact and more chances for organized resistance --> STONO REBELLION (which led to period of tightening of slave codes) - also had to worry about slaves escaping to spanish florida (gave slaves a dream/cause)

Creolization

Colonies' slave population eventually became "creole," or self-producing and born in America; factors: higher birth rates/lower death rates, self-producing --> balanced sex ratios, born here means disease immunities (even lower death rates), american mothers birthed more frequently - occurred first in Chesapeake than south carolina (still relied heavily on importation but main contribution was still natural reproduction) - creole slaves still sought to preserve/transmit their african culture to their offspring through naming, concentrated african communities, linguistics (gullah), religion, cultural taboos/norms

Pennsylvania (1681)

Colony granted to William Penn by King Charles II (bc his father lent him money, and also to quell domestic conflict by shipping Quakers overseas); Penn used this land as a Quaker refuge, and recruited settlers vigorously from europe (germans, scots, etc) - not just Quakers (inclusive!) - diff start from chesapeake/new england colonies bc population was super DIVERSE and preestablished (linguistic diversity, w mixture of germans, africans, scots-irish) - Quakers rejected idea of predestination and instead preached that EVERYONE had a chance at salvation ("inner light") and did not need deference to clergy/authority - Quakers proved a headache to england bc challenged established social conventions as they refused to swear/serve in military (pacifists) --> migrated by the thousands to join Penn's "Holy Experiment" in the New World - maintained friendly relations w Delaware Indians - Penn introduced bicameral legislature in pennsylvania constitution (later revised to unicameral); gave commoners a voice but only christians could hold office *early form of gov't that reflected ideals of religious freedom and individual liberties

Santa Fe (early 1600s) - ADD TO THIS ASK ANNE/MAX

Colony of New Mexico established by Juan de Onate; originally intention was more peaceful (King Philip said it was in name of God/Catholicism - in light of 1573 ordinance - but also said it was necessary to pacify/reduce the Pueblos); ensuing encroachments/suppressions of pueblo culture culminated in the Pueblo Revolt and caused Sante Fe to be turned into a Royal colony. - initially used plays/demonstrations (ex: carried Hernan Cortez' banner to remind Indians of previous success and superiority of catholicism), but soon turned violent when his nephew was murdered by Acome Pueblo Indians bc he wasn't patient enough for some fricking corn - very brutal - 800 killed, enslaved, mutilated —> Spain reacted and changed New Mexico into a ROYAL COLONY directly controlled by Spanish monarchy - kept colony bc of already-converted Indians and concerns about Jamestown - NM relocated to Santa Fe, and became a marginal missionary outpost supported by a small royal subsidary see: pueblo revolt

Pocahontas

Daughter of powerful Chief Powhatan; she exercised an instrumental role in Jamestown-Indian relations at the time, by saving John Smith from execution in a subordination ritual (indians meant to "adopt" smith and make the settlers their subordinate people, but settlers still thought of themselves as conquerors and the indians as subjects) and being a key diplomatic figure between her tribe and the jamestown settlers. - captured in 1613 for a year, where she converted to christianity and married john rolfe (powhatan eagered accepted marriage alliance to user in a brief peace between the peoples - SHOWS that indian-white relations CAN be swell! - don't always want to be at odds) - sailed to England w infant son in 1614, where she was received as a high-profile prostestant convert (EVIDENCE OF the virginia colony's success) and renamed Rebecca; died there After her death, however, her people-colonist relations deterioriated --> Powhatan's death--> Opechanough's War (1622) --> resulting violence resulted in Virginia being turned into a ROYAL COLONY (where king directly appointed officials and could OVERRIDE decisions made by the Virginian House of Burgesses) *political injustice would prove key later on for rev war causes

Gentility

Despite the even distribution of private property and fluidity of colonial society, there was still an entrenched notion of "gentility" or social superiority in colonial society; colonists would invest in a gentry lifestyle, in clothing, furniture, conversation, MANSIONS. - even in new england, where there were no mass estates (like the plantations of the south), freshmen at harvard were sorted by family position - entrenched deference to social superiors allowed the rich to also establish political dominance in colonial legislatures - increasing cultural diversity though helped undermine this hierarchy as different cultures defined "social superiority" differently (see: protestant melting pot) --> colonial society less and less hierarchial

Freehold Property

Disregarding European/Indian views of land (europeans tried to keep land within families by primogeniture/inheritance; indians simply believed land could not be owned/sold), colonists turned land into private property; though immigrants were a melting pot/ diverse, everyone came to own land (almost 2/3 of colonists owned land, much higher than any european country). - land ownership was the norm - however, this norm created a paradox that threatened to undermine the freehold lifestyle: colonists who owned land felt more secure to start families earlier, increasing population and land prices, and thus concentrating these more expensive lands in the hands of the wealthy (less available for commoners) --> WESTWARD EXPANSION in search of mORE cheap land (important later bc explains why colonists were so angry at proclamation of 1763) - later conflict w indians (diff views about land; american dream for the individual v collective identity)

Competing Conceptions of Landed Property

Europeans/Natives had COMPETING concepts of land - natives: group sovereignty, use, movable property, commodity, symbol of collective identity - euros: private prop, exchange, fixed property, heritage, symbol of personal status (evidence of self-progression) *MAINLY that europeans saw land as fixed, personal, and as a marketable commodity, while natives saw it as un-ownable and representative of their collective identity (individual v community) *root source of conflict between future conflicts and skirmishes between natives/settlers when colonists began expanding aggressively into indian country; stemmed from this differing perspective of land and its usage/value

Farm Households (significance?)

Families/relations in colonial settlements centered around the PATRIARCH - everyone else (sons, servants, wives) were legally subordinate to him; had more jurisdiction to divide up land among several sons instead of the standard primogeniture practice; women could not own land and were thus v disenfranchised (wove, bore children, did farm work) - settlements were p sparse and so overall under control of the male patriarch of the family - showcased "yeoman" or American Dream ideal - bought gentry items and acquired land as evidence of personal progression (american dream)! - different views about land from indians

Subsistence Farming (early 17th century, middle colonies); yeoman

Farmers devoted most of their time farming/providing for their own immediate families/communities instead of worrying about distant customers; adhered with "independent yeoman" farmer ideal (living in their own bubble). - still traded for stuff though, dw - eventually drawn into overall market relations though, both through the crops they grew (ex: wheat price fluctuations), and the land they owned (paradoxically, the notion of land as a commercial item resulted in it being exploited/manipulated financially - ex: land speculation where rich ppl would amass great estates then rent it out) --> undermined equality, "sweat by the brow" ideal - still thought of themselves as independent yeoman farmers, but grew increasingly dependent on european political/economic developments

Jamestown (1607)

First permanent English Settlement in North America; found in East Virginia in 1607; drama between john smith/pocahontas showed dynamic of indian-colonial relations (doesn't always have to be hostile; can be healed w trade or marriage) Context: Original Establishment Goals: - spread Protestant faith, stop Catholic Spain - find gold & passage to Pacific Ocean - subdue natives to make them provide food Settled in swampy area bc can be used as a fort against Spanish. Disadvantages: - dominated by Powhatan's powerful confederacy (harder to divide and conquer) - colonists were not farmers (more like gentlemen looking for economic profit) - indians at first refused to barter - drought and disease *initially, massive FAILURE until powhatan decided to trade corn surplus But survived bc: - Virginia company persisted - John smith forced everyone to work the land - tobacco, introduced by John Rolfe, returned a profit —> more colonists arrived - Powhatan decided to trade CORN SURPLUS Powhatan tried to ritually adopt smith/colonists as subordinate peoples, but colonists still thought of themselves as conquerors and Indians as subjects - Pocahontas: managed diplomatic relations JAMESTOWN WAS LATER turned into a royal colony bc of deteriorating relations (see Pocahontas) --> rev war causes

Cowrie Shells

Form of currency that were prized by BOTH europeans (packing peanuts + exchanged them for slaves) and africans (for cultural/ nostalgic value - worn as jewelry to remind them of their homeland) - cowrie shells unearthed in all parts of the world, testifying to the economic links that bound china, maldives, barbados, europe, americas into a SINGLE global economy - basic triangular slave trade model: europeans traded textiles/goods to Africa for slaves, slaves produced sugar/materials for europeans

Scots-Irish (early 1700s migration)

Formed largest group of european immigrants in first half of 18th century; driven by land scarcity and poverty; became a large part of colonial society (1/3+ on census); protestant - led migration to North Carolina (broke away from south carolina; slaves were uncommon there) - examples of VOLUNTARY/INVOLUNTARY HUMAN Movement/migration to america - PROTESTANT MELTING POT - unified by want for economic expansion and land *** Before 17th century, most colonists came from England; after 1700s, most newcomers were africans or German or Irish (non-english-speaking places) - flow of them represents demographic change -also shows theres diff types of movement (voluntary/forced)

George Whitefield

Great Awakening preacher (1739) famous for his entrancing oratorical style of preaching; emphasized - along w edwards & Tennent - the individual conversion experience and total/enthusiastic faith; followers were called the New Lights, who championed enthusiastic worship, as opposed to the Old Lights who worried bold worship would encourage women/minorities to step out of their limited social position. RELATED to Enlightenment bc both movements emboldened individuals to CHALLENGE traditional authority and seek the truth for themselves (emphasis on INDIVIDUALISM).

Slavery in the North

In the North, slaves worked alongside (not equally with) whites, but not always under supervision; major difference: CITIES - New York had largest % of slaves (1/2 of population) - slaves engaged in artisan work, or herding/building roads - northern colonies were mainly agricultural with no "staple" crop like the south, so not as many slaves needed - had violence/rebellions too (1741 plot to burn NY)

Navigation Acts (1660s, 1670)

In vein with the Mercantilism (the idea that colonies SHOULD/CAN bring its motherland profit), parliament passed the a series of economic regulations that gave England a monopoly on colonial economic affairs (ex: could only use english ships/ports, raw materials ONLY shipped to england for manufacturing, taxed colonial imports); closed loopholes colonial merchants had previously used to avoid paying taxes/customs - results of parliament's effort to CENTRALIZE control of its colonial empire and empower itself (divergence of crown/colonial interests) - facilitated the EMPIRE OF GOODS concept; when colonists DEPENDENT on british imports, they are reminded of their connection to the motherland *shows that colonies didn't have the CHOICE to sell to whomever they chose; british restricted them - acts in place to shape what the colonists can/can't do *** * Effect: tied colonies together into single economic network * With ships, came people, ideas, etc (created new, common connections between colonies) * Everyone had a deeper connection to England in some way * Increased common ground between colonies * ECONOMIC SYSTEM/SCHEME (intention of parliament); not symbolic connection * Core of imperial policy until Revolution * Set up area for conflict later that led to revolution

Beringia (submerged by 10,000 BP, or 900 CE - NAWP)

Land mass that spanned the Atlantic Ocean, connecting Alaska to Siberia, and allowed the Paleo-Indians (original migrants) to cross to the American continents and inhabit/develop there. Though climatical changes such as the North Atlantic Warming Period soon submerged it by 10,000 BP, these warming periods also enabled agricultural, permanent settlements, and thus development of the native peoples. - allowed paleo-indians to migrate over - shows that europeans did not happen upon an uncultured, inhabited area like the surface of the moon (not a blank or static world); it was already bustling with cultures, communities, organization

Haudenosaunee (Iroquois)

League of the Iroquois, "People of the Longhouse" - v powerful league of 5 Indian nations (Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga, and Seneca) formed to end constant small scale warfare before European contact; played Dutch/English against each other to defeat its enemies in the mid-1600s; this trend of diplomatic negotiations w european settlers continued via Convenant Chain (but between english/french - did not rely on a single european power; gave all powers a reason to have good relations w them) - European germs —> mourning wars (won bc of iron blades/new goods brought by the europeans) - these new goods also changed their daily life habits (ex: wampum beads/necklaces became most valued commodity) - Iroquois benefited from fact that there was a single good that could b traded to dutch settlers and fur-trading Indians (provided them w beaver pelts that europeans liked most) *even during imperial wars, french did not touch english claims to New York where the Iroquois resided, bc they had recently signed a peace treaty w them and didn't want to piss them off - showed how powerful/crucial of an ally they were to european powers *** ELABORATION of variation of this "frontier": - coexistence is possible, through diplomacy + covenant chain NOTES: * Always have been a dominant power, but now took it upon themselves to represent native peoples AS A WHOLE when dealing with white people * White vs red (before Indian tribes very disjointed/varied) * White/indian relations were conducted w DIPLOMACY * Powerful factor in cementing alliances/stabilizing relations, and shaping the growth oc colonial British expansion * Called the COVENANT CHAIN: platform of negotiations that authorized the Iroquois to conduct trade/conduct relations w British colonies * State of NY represented British, Iroquois represented Indians * Successful mechanism for regulating international relations/trade - produced series of treaties that gave Iroquois security on western front + gave them access to weapons they needed to fight their own Indian enemies (ex: western rivals for the fur trade) * British ppl benefited bc more stable fur trade partners, and Iroquois served as allies/buffers against their British enemies (ex: French) * Diplomacy was one of the principle mechanisms for regulating political/economic life in colonial America

King Philip's (Metacom's) War (1675)

Massive Indian uprising spearheaded by /Algonquians that took the most lives in PROPORTION to the population; 1000 colonial deaths, 2000 Indian deaths, thousands more due to starvation/disease; RESULT: colonial settlement pushed back all the way to the seaboard (expansion curbed greatly), all 4 colonies greatly DEPENDENT on England for survival. - causes: Colonists wanted Wampanoag's land more than their relations (used to have peace treaty w Massoit - Metacom is son) - Colonists started overstepping their bounds in colonial-indian relations: regularly encroached on Indian land, jurisdicted matters between indians/colonists; forced Metacom to sign a document affirming the superior authority of royals/plymouth colonial gov't when he refused to surrender all his arms - not exactly indians against whites; indian coalation vs white-indian coalition (iroquois sided w whites); christian indians fought on both sides, until white ppl sent them away to starve bc suspicion (bruh) - john sassamon tried to warn colonists, then was assassinated - DESTROYED 25+ colonial towns, specifically targeting English symbols, such as bible/cattle/fences - ended when metacom was shot

Protestant Melting Pot

Middle Colonies formed a melting pot for Protestants from all over Europe (Presbyterians, Quakers, Lutherans, Anabaptists, Moravians, Mennonites, or Huguenots (French Protestants)); included german and scots-irish immigrants. Requirements for British citizenship: 7-years residence in a British colony, swore allegiance, AND attended Protestant church in the prev three months - shows importance of protestantism (prioritized above speaking english even); and thus how much they hated catholics (willing to tolerate so much cultural diversity AS LONG as they were protestant) -UNITED ALONG LINE OF PROTESTANTISM - protestants welcomed as VOLUNTARY MIGRANTS - by 18th century, most immigrants to america came from lands other than england - so much diversity also helped undermine some notions of hierarchy and gentry; with so many competing cultures, impossible that "social superiority" would be defined the same --> less hierarchy, more equality

Bacon's Rebellion (1676)

Nathaniel bacon (Berkeley's relative - not commoner), backed by angry/landless ex-indentured servants, used united hatred towards Indians (common enemy) Results: - govt allowed aggressive expansion into Indian territory to give these men land so they wouldn't threaten the political hierarchy - encouraged importation of African slaves to defuse class struggle (bc perpetual servitude) - realized indentured servantry was not reliable form of labor —> switched to africans - created first Indian reservation - testament to internal class division as well as deteriorating colonial-indian relations "Bacon's Rebellion alerted large land-owners to the dangers of depending on servants, who were now more likely to survive their indentures and demand land. Poor ex-servants allied with slaves and former slaves during the rebellion, and planters began to see how the indenture system could lead to class conflict. If they turned to African slaves instead and assigned them a more clearly inferior status, they could drive a wedge between poor whites and blacks and preempt this conflict" *turned the tobacco region into a slave society

Balance-of-Power Diplomacy (early 1700s)

Need to have ability to use alliances to tip the balance of power in favor→ why native allies were so integral to the British and the French Friendship between Johnson and King Hendrick King Hendrick: history of diplomacy connected to his Mohawk Lineage (Mohawk) major ally of the British Imaginary racial line→ indispensable ally against the French Land claims looks extensive and as if French and British settlements are now neighboring: The more Europeans that settle- more difficult for certain aspects of native ways of living- beginning in the second half of the 17th century→ line between "their ways" and "ours" In 1750 the fact that the Europeans think of the map is opportunity and the biggest threat is that territories may be Eliminated→ can undermine the foundation of native power and put native Americans in position of vulnerability → diplomacy was existentially paramount to native Americans and colonists to keep a balance of power as well, but was delicate, yet still time to form alliances to engage and participate in international relations

Pueblo Revolt

Numerous acts of Spanish oppression (onerous demands for corn/labor, prohibition of religious worship) bred an atmosphere of hostility between spanish/pueblo people, culminating in the Pueblo Revolt -first successful war against European colonizers that drove Spanish governor south to El Paso and restored Pueblo autonomy in Southwest for 12 yrs - christianity not working to mediate relations/subdue Pueblos - background of periodic rebellions/executions + - population loss from disease, crop failure, drought - pueblos coordinated, using knotted cords in a rope to signify days before the attack; striking when Spanish food supplies low More Context: The Missionary Regime in the Southwest 1610: Franciscan priests continued to spread catholicism, but attacked Pueblo traditions/rituals (called katsina) - outlawed katsina dances/masks and superimposed christian ideas into native symbols (ex prayer-sticks = cross, calendar = Jesus' life events) - Indians secretly practiced in underground structures called kivas - suppressed/subverted Pueblo gender roles too *** Spanish perpetrated wild, murderous regime in Americas - and started to expand UNTIL: Pueblo Revolt (1680) removed Spanish presence from the region —> Spanish moved towards diplomatic measures

Great Lakes Region—Pays d'en Haut (CHECK W STUDY GROUP)

Part of French land claims northwest of Quebec; population (65,000) more than Spain, but less than British (1.5 m); French maintained better relations w Indians bc their economic emphasis was on the FUR TRADE, not stable agricultural (thus more beneficial to have Indian trading partners than Indian land); intermingled w women/provided indian men w weapons to build relations and grow empire. - different approach/relationship dynamic between settlers and indians

Covenant Chain (WHAT DO WE NEEDA know about indians overall? do we needa know like rivalries between group, who w who, who came to/declined from power?

Pattern of councils/diplomatic treaties between Iroquois League and New York (English); started when Edmund Andros set out to establish good relations w Iroquois after Bacon's Rebellion in 1676; other states eventually followed; Iroquois claimed to represent all indian tribes and played english/french off of each other (realized you cannot rely on a single european power; however, they're powerful so europeans continue to establish relations .w them). - Iroquois benefited by gaining access to weapons and security on eastern front - europeans got stable fur trade partners and allies/buffers against French - didn't just do europeans "bidding"; did whatever suited/benefited them, even if it meant two-timing or contradiction context: - 18th century indian groups frequently did this trend of playing europeans off of one another, conducting trade w both, etc.; showed decentralized leadership—one where communities were on the move, ethnic identities were in flux, and the village remained a fundamental political unit - overall, indians still dominated the New World, esp west of Mississippi (less need to interfere/play europeans off of each other); european settlements/shenanigans occurred on the outer periphery

North Atlantic Warming Period (900-1300 CE)

Period of significantly higher average temperatures (2-3 degrees), which lead to more dependable growing seasons. Occurred between 900-1300 C.E. This climatical change allowed for the implementation of agriculture, which allowed for permanent/stable settlements and thus development of civilizations such as Chaco Canyon/Mississippian civilizations that would later interact with the Europeans. - shows that europeans did not happen upon an uncultured, inhabited area like the surface of the moon (not a blank or static world); it was already bustling with cultures, communities, organization

Mississippian Civilization

Refers to the dominating circuit of civilizations that utilized vast river networks throughout Ohio, Arkansas, Mississippi etc. during the North Atlantic Warming period in 900-1300CE in Central America. - shows that europeans did not happen upon an uncultured, inhabited area like the surface of the moon (not a blank or static world); it was already bustling with cultures, communities, organization

Reconquista (8th-15th century)

Religious campaign from 8th-15th century intended to reestablish christian control over the Iberian penninsula - didn't just want Jerusalem, but also wrestle control of Spain/Portugal from Moors/non-christians. - catholic monarchs played large role in these campaigns, leading the Inquisition and enlisting men in their armies significance: - unified europeans (fostered broad european identity) along lines of ethnicity and religion - introduced/reinforced idea that conquering territory was key to salvation (or encouraged idea of conquering land to spread religion - good for religion! *sense of justification) - *^ model of the expansion of latin christendom into future lands

Adelantados

Spanish word for "advance man"; sponsored by monarchs to conquering land in their name in order to explore/conquer lands in the western ocean, spread glory of catholicism, and get money/enslave native people. Main source of motivation was economic; they received a portion of the goods they brought back, around 1/10. -Significance: Specific Business Plan; The conquests helped foster a broad European identity and provided a model for the expansion of Latin Christendom into foreign lands and European interest. *exemplified notion of how conquering land is crucial to spreading latin christendom (parallel to crusade model) - adelantados like Columbus were able to make landmark discoveries that kickstarted colonialism and european empires/expansion

Chaco Canyon (900-1300 CE)

Stone housing blocks built by the Anasazi after the North Atlantic Warming Period, in the Four Corners area of New Mexico. It acted as a metropolitan center, where tens of thousands made their homes. 250 miles of road flowed in/out of the city attracting immigrants, produce, political supports and religious pilgrims. - 700 rooms (biggest structure in America) - 400 miles of roads radiated out of Chaco canyon - these things cemented Chaco Canyon as the metropolitan hub/center *shows that europeans did not happen upon an uncultured, inhabited area like the surface of the moon (not a blank or static world); it was already bustling with cultures, communities, organization

Paleo-Indians (10,000-15,000 BP)

The "original" migrants, or ancestors of the Native Americans, that arrived at the Americas from Asia by traveling across Beringia (a land bridge spanning the Atlantic Ocean, between 10,000-15,000BP. - shows that europeans did not happen upon an uncultured, inhabited area like the surface of the moon (not a blank or static world); it was already bustling with cultures, communities, organization *migrated in small journeys (not one fell swoop)

Middle Passage

The arduous journey slaves underwent on the second leg of the triangular slave trade (Africa to Americas), spanning several weeks; 10-25% of slaves died from disease or brutal suppression of mutiny; the surviving slaves were then sold at the dock at auctions. - less than 5% of total slaves (90+% to sugar colonies) arrived in american colonies, but those that did survived and reproduced a population of african diaspora (distanct, imagined connection to african homeland) - slavetraders didn't kidnap africans directly, but bought preexisting slaves (POWs, etc) - no unified african identity; slaves hailed from distinct cultures/languages

Empire of Goods

The notion that CONSUMPTION (buying english goods as per the navigation acts) binds the disparate parts of the empire together; also called a period of "anglicization" (british imports rose by 50+%) bc colonists were keen to emulate british trends/the genteel lifestyle through purchasing similar clothing/trends/furniture; indians bought rum. - it wasn't merely british items that made colonists more british; it was the literal act of BUYING that made them dependent on/impacted by and thus connected to the empire/motherland - if colonists manufactured their own stuff, they would have been more isolated; but bc of higher labor costs and navigation acts, could not compete w british industries -didn't just want goods but POLITICAL/SOCIAL BETTERMENT - even commoners able to participate in consumer culture --> widespread, penetrating into interior of continent - sense of british empire identity also reinforced by unified mailing system and times of war (fought on same side bc all british settlements were target to attack by enemy) - "The New England farmers who served in the colonial militia and staffed the forts for short stints clearly belonged to the larger consumer culture of the empire of goods. The materials of their daily life were imported from England and closely resembled those of men and women on the other side of the Atlantic. Fort residents smoked pipes, lifted wine glasses, used forks, fired guns, and filled paper sheets that had originated in the Old World and made their way along circuitous but well-worn commercial paths that led to retail stores on the rural frontier" - settlers were at vulnerable edge of british settlement, but they belonged to the heart of the empire sad note: - even tho white ppl saw devastating effect of liquor on indian communities, continued selling bc it was for the "greater commercial good" smh

Colonial Cities (*KNOW KEY DIFFERENCES - printing in middle/new england) significance would be comparing them - economic focus - social structures

Though only 5 major ones by 1750 (Boston, Newport (Rhode Is-land), New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston (South Carolina), they performed important functions like being "immigration hubs" for slaves/servants, colonial seats of gov't, shipping/manufacturing centers; each also had diverse structures (ex: boston like medieval english town w haphazard structure, while philadelphia planned w orderly grid structure). - less than 10% of the population dwelled in cities - all located near eastern seaboard - since most ppl in spread out farms, urban society seemed like a barely visible connection to the Old World - ALSO birth place of Enlightenment ideals and Great Awakening (aka receiving center of European ideologies) - development of taverns and newspapers to stay connected w european news/lifestyle - newspaper later v important bc was a platform to express public views on politics (ex: Zenger) - free expression! (spurred by Enlightenment ideals)

New Imperial Policy

To govern its new, vast territorial acquisition in the New World, british instituted two strategies: 1) stationed british troops in America and 2) transferring more war costs to colonists in the form of taxation; both led to colonial leaders feeling injusticed/alienated and driving rift between colonists/motherland 1) stationing of british troops - no real need for protection (unlike sugar colonies facing black/native/foreign majorities or threats), so just seemed like a threatening police force instituted to enforce taxation - quartering act was also an encroachment of britain/military of colonists/citizens' rights (trend that would continue); also a 'tax' since colonists had to pay for soldiers' expenses Prime Minister Grenville's motivations: to raise revenue and assert parliamentary supremacy over the colonies *** * Gave colonists the OBLIGATIONS but not necessarily the RIGHTS of English citizens * Passed along the burden of paying British war debt to colonists * More military presence in colonies * TAXED on CONSUMPTION (deeply controversial) - IRONIC bc consumption used to bring colonies/motherland together * Began w sugar act - inaugurated SERIES of taxes designed to indicate this policy shift * Quartering act (accommodate presence of British soldiers in their own homes) * British intended to impress upon the colonists that these soldiers are here to protect you (OBVIOUSLY backfired) * Like soldiers to protect white owners in black-dominated sugar colonies, etc * Reinforce mindset

Treaty of Paris (1763)

Unlike the Treaty of Hubertusburg, which simply restored Austria and Prussia's prewar borders, the Treaty of Paris (between France, Spain, Britain) DRASTICALLY altered the geography of their global empires, esp in the New World: British exchanged its commercial gains of Havana, Manila, etc for North American territory (saw treaty as opportunity to REMOVE french presence/catholic + Indian ties from New World/midwest without destabilizing power relations in Europe); British territory now spanned the eastern half the continent. - showed different priority of British than French/Spain (COLONISTS OVER TRADE) - more land --> governing difficulties w Indians --> proclamation --> rift between colonists/motherland - rewrote boundaries diving european empires in America, but this did not instantaneously alter them mindset/character of the land's inhabitants (no immediate change besides on paper) - indians mad bc not invited to negotiations --> pontiac's rebellion ---> proclamation --> colonists mad - some migrations occurred, but removal of people does not remove their culture/influence, such as in New Orleans - treaty followed immediately by a wave of AGGRESSIVE colonial settlement to the west, deep into indian country (but then stopped by proclamation) *** British pushed for all lands up until the Mississippi River- and also gain access to Gulf of Mexico: Wanted Louisiana- not always unambiguously about getting the most land - Wanted Florida if Spain would not give up Havana, priority was no longer trade because BRITAIN HAD A HUGE POPULATION OF SETTLERS Slave labor and consumer base- wanted to expand so the British was willing to trade Havana and Louisiana for the Midwest without jeopardizing power in Europe Indian impact: Unmitigated disaster for indian villages in the long term- the ones involved in the war rejected the treaty (got NOTHING out of the deal and weren't at the negotiating table) → Power rested on alliances, with the French gone, BOTH sides were vulnerable (saw Western expansion of British settlement and forts in their land, saw a more tenuous boundary between the Europeans encroaching on their land) *** * But British had a different perspective: huge population of consumers, enslaved, colonists * Seemed to represent the "heart" of what Britain had in North America * BRITISH have come to PRIORITIZE colonial settlements * Britain's vision was colonists w large enslaved populations

Columbian Exchange (15th, 16th centuries)

Widespread transfer of plants, animals, people, ideologies, diseases between Europe and Americas (New/Old World) in the 15th 16th centuries. - grouped New/Old World into one economic system/trade network; facilitated relations between europe/africa/americas - most important thing is not just transfer of commercial goods but also DISEASES - one of the leading factors of using slave-model: slaves that survived the transfer developed immunities, and thus were reliable to perform perpetual labor, while natives did not. - in this manner, disease also facilitated european expansion and conquest as huge numbers of natives were wiped out by germs, not just european-incited violence