• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/12

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

12 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
theoretical and reality of the parent-child system
though Britain looked at the relationship as america needing a parent, aside from regulating trade, they pretty much left the colonies alone, which allowed a leader class to develop. when britain tried to fix this, it was too late
mercantilism
they key to national strength was a favorable balance of foreign trade. they wanted to sell more than they imported.
cost of american goods
inability to trade with other countries due to navigation acts lowered costs of american goods
guaranteed market
on enumerated articles, colonists had a guaranteed market. they had a monopoly
enforcement of navigation acts
not really enforced. america shipped lumber fish grain etc. to west indies in exchange for sugar. they would go to england and drop off the sugar and pick up a bunch of cheap british goods. technically this was illegal because west indies was not british but the trade was really lucrative so UK allowed it.
Dangerous precedent-English/French war
english tried to cut off trade, but colonists bribed customs agents, which meant colonists felt justified in acting outside the law
colonial self-government
most colonies had a king appointed governor, and an upper house whose members were picked by the king, kind of the equivalent of the house of lords. assemblymen were house of commons. they met without governor, levied local taxes, regulated local expenditures, etc.however, power division was never spelled out. if brits were at war, they left the colonies alone.
governors
kind of crappy people. governorship was not a promotion, because america was middle of nowhere. they were usually greedy and corrupt. in theory they controlled the assembly, but england couldn't enforce this.
zenger case
prior to 1735, NY had one newspaper. William Cosby became gov. in 1731. He sued the previous governor for leaving the post in shambles and lost, so he removed the head of the supreme court, Morris. Morris launched a colony-wide petition and got a german immigrant printer, Zenger, to start his own paper, since the other newspaper just said what cosby wanted. cosby tried to sue for libel, but it was true, so he couldn't. governor couldn't just wildy wield power like a prince could.
40 shilling freeholder requirement
since they didn't want poor people to be pressured by their overlords to vote a certain way, colonists used the practice used in england. if you could rent your land for at least 40 shillings a year, you could vote. 1/5 qualified in england, 2/3 in America.
virtual representation
parliament used this, saying they were speaking for all of england, not just their district. they considered america part of england, but no american was in parliament. in the colonies it was much more local and you had to reside in the community that elected you. in the 150 years since colonization, politics had diverged considerably, but the english were too busy focusing on trade to notice
self-regulating parts
americans thought they were part of an empire of self-regulating parts. the center was the king and parliament. even as late as the 1760s, they didn't think they should be independent. britain disagreed with self-regulating parts. they thought england center of huge empire, and they had total jurisdiction over colonies. no one noticed this until ***1763*** when britain began to assert itself more forcefully