More than 200 years ago, who were the inhabitants of the North American continent at that time, and how did Britain rule this land?

First, the nature of the colony and the status of North American residents.

In the history of the world, there are three kinds of colonies with different forms and properties: one is the colonial land established by the residents of a country moving to areas without sovereign entities, which is an extension of the territory and sovereignty of the home country to a certain extent, and its residents are still nationals of the home country in theory; Second, a colony ruled by a foreign country formed by the conquest and control of another sovereign entity by a government or residents is usually the result of a war of aggression and needs to be maintained by force; Third, the colonies caused by the gradual manipulation of other countries' sovereignty through political, economic and cultural infiltration, the original sovereign entity exists in name only, so it has the color of alien rule. British colonies in North America belong to the first category. The British colonies in North America are not a whole, but 13 entities with the functions of political rule and social integration. Their political and legal status is clearly defined in the Charter: each colony is a "legal person and political entity" or a "permanent political entity and legal person group" created by the British king. The so-called "legal person and political entity" refers to a group of natural persons who are voluntarily or compulsorily combined by law to achieve a certain economic, spiritual or political purpose and can exercise political management power within a specific geographical scope. Legally speaking, the colony was a "free Suoling" enfeoffed by the British king, not a land that the British king "directly occupied". In medieval land relations, this is a form with the least dependence. According to this statement, the colony, like the British mainland, is the territory under the jurisdiction of the British king, not the territory of all British people. This clause actually recognizes that the colony is equal to the mother country in law. Therefore, the colony established according to the Charter is the overseas settlement and rule of the British, not the conquered land where the British rule other nations. It is true that there are many Indian tribes along the Atlantic coast, but when dealing with the relationship with tribes, Britain did not adopt military conquest as Spain did in Central and South America, but moved as peacefully as possible and purchased tribal land through "diplomacy". Although the establishment and expansion of British colonies seriously damaged the rights and interests of Indians, they did not aim at conquest, rule and plunder.

According to the political practice at that time, as an overseas territory of Britain, the political attributes and land rights of North American colonies were granted by the British king, so the British government had legal sovereignty and jurisdiction over them. The British government ruled by managing overseas territories, transplanted British social structure, political system and legal system to North America as completely as possible, and designed and established colonial government according to the British government's own model and function, just like cadwallader in new york? Kolton said: "One of the great blessings of the people of new york is that their government was formed according to the same plan of our motherland as far as possible." Therefore, the political structure of a colony corresponds to that of the motherland, and almost every colony is a semi-independent political entity. The Governor-General is the representative of the King of England. The incumbent is usually selected by Britain from the mainland, and many of them are local people in some colonies. A counselor's council composed of local people is equivalent to the Privy Council and the House of Lords in the home country, while the lower house of parliament elected by the people is opposite to the lower house of the home country. Both of them have the legislative power to formulate local regulations that do not violate British laws. Among them, the lower house of parliament gradually mastered the financial power and the appropriation right of the governor's salary in the later development, and became the core of the colonial power structure. Moreover, the geographical barrier weakened the effectiveness of British colonial control, the autonomy of North American residents increased, and the control over local affairs expanded and strengthened. In fact, the political elites in North America shared the rule of the colonies with their motherland. Conservatively speaking, colony is a political entity parallel to British local political units, but it has surpassed the integrity and autonomy of political structure. This is of great significance to the rapid maturity of American political mechanism after independence.

Because the colony is a British overseas territory established and ruled by the British, the British residents of the colony are naturally British nationals, not "second-class subjects" ruled by foreigners. They enjoy the same civil and political rights as British residents. This is also clearly stipulated in the Charter. 1584 the king of England awarded Walter? The Raleigh Charter points out that people who immigrated to the colony and those born there are still subjects of the British royal family, enjoying all the privileges and immunities of Britain and being free to return to their motherland. Since then, similar words have appeared repeatedly in the charters of other colonies. For example, in the Maryland Charter of 1632, it was written in a very long paragraph: British people who moved to Maryland and their children, people born there or who will be born in the future, are all "native residents and loyal subjects" of Britain, and they should be treated and respected as British-born subjects and enjoy all the privileges, civil rights and freedoms of British subjects. Not only do British residents enjoy equal political and legal status with British residents in theory, but even non-British immigrants who enter British colonies can become British nationals through proper naturalization procedures. 1740, the British parliament promulgated the colonial naturalization law for the first time, allowing people born outside Britain to become subjects through certain procedures. In all colonies, except Jews and Catholics, non-British residents and British residents enjoy the same rights and equal legal protection. In this way, among the white residents, there is no such status difference between "peninsular" and "indigenous white" as in the western United States.

In real life, the rights and interests of North American residents are indeed guaranteed by law. Virginia abolished military rule in 16 19, and began to implement the British-style rule of law, and the rights of residents were recognized. 164 1 year, the Massachusetts colonial parliament promulgated the Code of Freedom, and in 1648, it compiled Law and Freedom, which established the basic rule of law and the principle of protecting people's personal and property rights. 1639, the Maryland legislature promulgated a bill on people's freedom rights, which clearly declared that the rights and privileges of freemen should be protected, and they should not be deprived of their property or exiled without legal procedures. In addition, the jury system and habeas corpus system implemented in Britain have also been introduced and given special significance. In addition, colonial residents enjoy wider voting rights than native British residents. According to American historian Jack? Green believes that in most villages and towns in New England, freemen who enjoy civil rights account for 60-70% of the adult male population; British scholar r? c？ Simmons said that in the middle of the18th century, 50-80% adult white men in North America had the right to vote.

What needs to be pointed out in particular is that before 1763, Britain did not station a standing army in North America in peacetime, and the colonial residents' recognition and obedience to British sovereignty did not come from military deterrence and violent coercion, but from their voluntary choice based on national identity and interests. North American residents consider themselves British and are proud of it. They feel extremely lucky to be protected by the British Constitution and enjoy "British rights". Even the radical anti-British James? Otis also admitted: "As human beings and free British subjects, we have enough rights to make all colonial residents look very happy compared with other subjects under the rule of any monarch." It is true that the British natives tend to discriminate against colonial residents in concept. They believe that colonies are vassals of the motherland and should unconditionally obey the will of the motherland and serve the interests of the motherland. This view became more popular in Britain after the anti-British sentiment in the colonies rose. In addition, 1696 British judgment on colonial maritime trials deprived North American residents of their jury rights in maritime cases, which was also a discriminatory measure. However, these did not change the actual status and rights of the colonial residents as a whole.

In short, the 13 colony in North America is completely different from the colonies of European countries in Asia and Africa, and even different from the colonies in the western United States, so there is no problem of alien rule. Although Indians were driven and abused by whites, legally speaking, indigenous tribes are sovereign entities independent of British jurisdiction. British colonies are an extension of British sovereignty. They are overseas colonies ruled by the British themselves, especially those living in North America, and the political and economic control is mainly in the hands of North American residents themselves. Colonial residents are not inferior subjects enslaved by the British, but British nationals who enjoy full civil and political rights. Therefore, Britain's rule over North American colonies is not "national oppression", nor is the North American independence movement "national liberation movement", but the increasingly mature political separation movement of British overseas territories from their home countries. John? Dickinson said after the Continental Congress in 1774 that the colonists believed that if the motherland did not give in, "it was inevitable to get involved in the civil war". It is precisely for this reason that the leaders of the independence movement, more than a year after the outbreak of armed conflict, still have no full confidence in the legality of leaving the motherland, and are hesitant on the issue of independence, hoping to redefine the relationship between the colony and the motherland through alliance or Federation.

Second, the British rule over North America and its consequences

The original intention of Britain to establish colonies in North America was to expand its competitive strength with other European countries, spread Christianity, resettle the domestic surplus population, develop trade and increase wealth. As for ordinary immigrants who voluntarily immigrate to North America, their intention is nothing more than to get rid of the unsatisfactory situation in their home countries and seek better conditions for survival and development. In the colonial movement, the demands of the government and the people are the same. In the development and expansion of the colonies, these two interests went hand in hand and were at least partially satisfied: Britain expanded its strategic and economic interests through colonization, while the situation of immigrants and their descendants gradually improved.

Generally speaking, Britain's policy towards North American colonies has a long-term feature: political management is relatively loose, while economic control is relatively strict. Historian Charles? When comparing the different strategies of Britain and France in treating colonies, Andrews wrote, "Britain imposed stricter restrictions on colonial trade and imposed heavier tariffs on domestic ports, but she rarely interfered in the internal affairs of colonies and paid little attention to population flow, government assistance and maintenance"; In this way, the British and American colonies became a self-reliant, autonomous and self-supporting group, with an independent spirit and full confidence in their ability to handle their own affairs. In other words, the British colonial policy is negative as a whole, and its main purpose is to prevent colonies from getting rid of their loyalty and attachment to the motherland and protect them from attacks by other European colonial countries and Indians, rather than actively regulating their social development path. This is a very lucky thing for the development of colonial autonomy and autonomous system in North America.

Moreover, due to various factors, there are obvious differences between the British government's policy intentions and actual effects. The ways of British colonial governance include electing the governor, appointing advisory committees, setting up customs, implementing maritime trade regulations, and reviewing the decrees promulgated by the colonial parliament. In addition to the loss of effectiveness caused by friction between management institutions, low quality of officials and corruption, remote geographical barriers have always been an unavoidable constraint. What's more, the governor sent by Britain sometimes disobeyed the instructions of his home country and even publicly resisted. Therefore, Britain's political control over the colonies is far from as serious as imagined. Britain's review of laws passed by colonial parliaments is a convincing example. During the period of 169 1- 1776, there were 8563 laws * * * submitted by the North American colonies to Britain for examination, of which only 469 were repealed, accounting for only 5.5%. Moreover, the colonial parliament usually used various techniques to escape the scrutiny of the British government. Many laws became invalid when the British government began to review them, and some colonies passed the rejected laws in another way. Sometimes the British government's resolution to abolish slavery was not implemented in time and seriously in the colonies.

Under the loose control of Britain, colonial autonomy was strengthened. In daily political life, colonial affairs are mostly in the hands of North American residents themselves. Theoretically, both the Advisory Council and the Governor are representatives of the authority of the British king, but they sometimes conflict. The power and role of the lower house of parliament in the colony has been expanding, and it has gradually evolved into a balancing force between the governor and the counselor's Committee. Many major political struggles in the colonies were carried out between the parliament and the governor, and most of them involved power struggles. Generally speaking, the governor can't stop the expansion of parliament's power. This seriously restricted and weakened Britain's ruling ability. In order to get rid of this unfavorable situation, the British government sought to weaken the legislative power of the colonies and tried to fix the salaries of royal officials. However, all attempts were strongly resisted by the colonial parliament and had no effect. In addition, the British government also tried to change the fragmented colonial situation and establish a unified colonial government in North America, but all failed. Obviously, the growth of social forces and the enhancement of self-awareness in North America make autonomy an irresistible orientation. In a sense, the independence movement is the result of the extreme development of this tendency.

Economically, Britain imposed more and stricter restrictions on the colonies. If North American residents enjoy the same rights and status as British residents politically and legally, they are rarely treated equally economically. Britain's basic policy towards colonial economy is to maintain its dependence on the mother country and make it complementary to the mother country economy. Britain pursues a mercantilist policy, encourages the development of domestic manufacturing industry, and restricts colonial manufacturing industry to become a market for domestic manufactured goods. However, in the past, historians overemphasized British restrictions. In fact, British laws restricting colonial manufacturing are rarely strictly enforced, and only the hat-making decree of June 1732 has a slight impact. In the eyes of some colonial residents, weak manufacturing industry is not a bad thing. People think that farming land and fishing are more beneficial to them than manufacturing. Benjamin? Franklin believes that only countries with less land and high population density must feed their residents with manufacturing; In a land-rich place like the United States, "there will never be any large-scale and valuable manufacturing industry." Adam. Smith also said that mercantilism did little harm to the colonies because land was always cheap and labor was always expensive. The goods imported from Britain by colonial residents are not only of better quality, but also much cheaper than the goods made by themselves. It was not until the eve of the revolution that North American residents began to question the British policy of restricting colonial manufacturing.

The influence of mercantilism is more reflected in the colonial trade model. The original intention of the British government to formulate the Maritime Trade Regulations is to seek and maintain the monopoly position of trade, enhance the dependence of colonial residents on their home country and promote British commercial interests. How these measures affected the colonial economy has always been a controversial issue in the history circle. Traditionally, they seriously restricted the development of colonial economy. Since 1970s, American historians have reinterpreted this issue. On the one hand, due to the lack of sufficient maritime anti-smuggling ability, customs officials are inefficient and corrupt, which makes the maritime trade laws and regulations not effectively implemented, colonial smuggling prevails, and the trade and tariff systems are full of loopholes; On the other hand, the policy of the home country has positive significance to the colonial economy, which stimulated the production of shipbuilding materials and indigo in the south, ensured the reliable market of tobacco, rice and other products, and protected the shipowners in the north from the impact of shipping in France, the Netherlands and Spain. Because of this, except for smugglers in New England, North American residents did not begin to condemn the maritime trade regulations until the rise of the independence movement. In addition, in the past, scholars believed that there was a large surplus in colonial trade; According to recent research, the colonies compensated the surplus in various ways, thus greatly reducing the trade deficit.

Currency plays a very important role in the development of colonial economy, and Britain's restrictions on the issuance of colonial paper money are considered to be an important embodiment of colonial oppression. The lack of hard currency and insufficient currency circulation in the colonies greatly limited the means of exchange. Naturally, the solution is to coin or issue paper money. By the middle of18th century, every colony had some form of paper money. However, the value of paper money is very unstable, often depreciating, and gradually losing credibility among creditors. The British Parliament passed the currency regulations in 1764, which stipulated that the colonies were not allowed to issue paper money from September 1 2008. The paper money in circulation will be automatically abolished after it expires, and the service life will not be extended; It is not allowed to repay private debts and pay public fees with paper money. Many colonies protested and resisted this, and some ignored the restrictions of the British government and still allowed the circulation of paper money. The British government gradually relaxed the restrictions later.

There is a theory that the economic policy of the mother country towards the colonies is usually characterized by plunder. When applying this theory to evaluate the economic relationship between North American colonies and Britain, it is necessary to make a concrete analysis. Of course, Britain needs colonies to provide it with raw materials and products that it can't produce, and at the same time buy a lot of manufactured goods from its home country, thus creating wealth for its home country. Proceeding from this interest demand, island colonies and southern North America, which are dominated by farming, are considered to be the most favorable areas for the motherland. However, it is these colonies that are rich areas in British America, where planters are mostly rich. It can be seen that although the colonial economy depends on the home country, there is also a reciprocal relationship between the two. If thousands of British people who are eager to get rich move to the United States all the way, but only accept "plunder" from their home country, it is really unimaginable. On the other hand, there are some vicious factors in the economic relationship between the colony and the home country. The most outstanding performance is the continuous growth of colonial debt. 1757, Chesapeake residents owed British businessmen1000000 pounds (pounds), 1776, and their debts reached more than 2 million pounds. 1760, the total colonial debt was 2 million pounds; 1772, the credit crisis occurred in Britain, which led to a sharp increase in North American debt and jumped to 4 million pounds.

The colonial economy has indeed created huge economic benefits for Britain, but at the same time, the wealth of North American society itself is also growing. By 1775, among all the British American colonies, the 13 colony in North America had the highest degree of social development and the richest population. Before the number of affluent people in cities increased by: 1730, it was rare for people in northern cities to have property above 5,000 pounds (British currency), but by 1750, it was not uncommon for people to have property above 20,000 pounds, and many people could reach more than 50,000 pounds. Therefore, North American society as a whole is prosperous and rich. According to people's description at that time, New England "presents a rich and satisfied atmosphere", "The residents here seem to eat well, dress well and live well, and there is no higher degree of independence and freedom than other places"; There are "nice cities, rich villages and vast fields" everywhere. "This beautiful scene will definitely bring a series of pleasant ideas; This scene will definitely arouse great happiness in the hearts of a good citizen. " In short, "these American colonies" are no longer wilderness, but "land of hope" and "land of milk and honey".

It can be seen that the British rule over the North American colonies was not characterized by oppression and plunder, nor did it cause widespread poverty. On the contrary, under the wing of Britain, North America has gained the space of political autonomy and the opportunity to develop its economy, which is unmatched by the most developed countries in Europe in terms of resources and wealth, and the society is more stable and orderly. It can be seen that the Whigs accused Britain of "oppressing" its colonial policy from the very beginning, which was unfounded in history. In a sense, after 1763, North American residents opposed not British oppression and plunder, but the inherent subordination and dependence of "colonial" status, demanding that they stand on their own feet in the world. Even the "loyal ministers" who escaped the disaster in Britain felt very harsh when they heard that the British called North America "our colony".

```````