In the direct aftermath of Blackbeard’s blockade, the colonists were quick to request aid. In a letter to the Board of Trade and Plantations in June of 1718 the colonies’ representative wrote that, “the unspeakable calamity this poor province suffers from pyrats obliges me to inform your lordships of it in order that his Majestie know it and be induced to afford us the assistance of a frigate or two to cruise hereabouts upon them for we are continually alarmed and our ships taken to the utter ruin of our trade.”
This is just one of the many glaring contradictions present in the relationship between colonial merchants and the British government. On one side, the Crown needed the merchants. Merchant networks and economic activity provided much of the fuel for the British economic boom in the eighteenth century. Curtailing this new independent capitalist activity would surely restrict the growth propelling the Empire to new heights, but without direct control, the opportunity to reap the rewards offered by these new businesses seemed to be very limited. This attitude was a result of the mercantilist economic view prevalent in Seventeenth and eighteenth century European …show more content…
Much like the French populace that would later be discussed by Tocqueville , these merchants “sought reforms, before liberties.” However, in many cases the British government used these reforms to create a web of military dependence and parliamentary patronage that kept the most successful merchants inextricably bound to the Empire and its needs. This does not match the commonly expressed concept of salutary neglect. Nor does it address the misconception that colonial merchants were singular entities working without the support of their home
This is just one of the many glaring contradictions present in the relationship between colonial merchants and the British government. On one side, the Crown needed the merchants. Merchant networks and economic activity provided much of the fuel for the British economic boom in the eighteenth century. Curtailing this new independent capitalist activity would surely restrict the growth propelling the Empire to new heights, but without direct control, the opportunity to reap the rewards offered by these new businesses seemed to be very limited. This attitude was a result of the mercantilist economic view prevalent in Seventeenth and eighteenth century European …show more content…
Much like the French populace that would later be discussed by Tocqueville , these merchants “sought reforms, before liberties.” However, in many cases the British government used these reforms to create a web of military dependence and parliamentary patronage that kept the most successful merchants inextricably bound to the Empire and its needs. This does not match the commonly expressed concept of salutary neglect. Nor does it address the misconception that colonial merchants were singular entities working without the support of their home