Transactional Colonialism and Independence
To the Editor:
As we revisit the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we must critique the transactional character of colonialism and understand its economic and political rationale for independence. Fractures divided colonial America because of inherent weaknesses of monarchical, transactional colonialism. British colonialism began with Elizabeth I, increased during the reigns of her kin, the Stuarts, and broke during the rule of George III.
British colonization was based on land ownership and commercial practices that started long before 1620. “Downton Abbey” fans can recall such practices. The Crawleys, led by the Earl of Grantham, were granted land by British monarchs for their loyal service. Lords and earls set and enforced rules. Indentured tenants, including farmers, paid rent. In this transactional practice, earls enforced policies. Tenants complied or left.
This domestic practice was similar to imperial colonization, which in the “new” world started with Columbus. Spanish ships transactionally removed tons of gold and silver from indigenous colonies. British monarchs implemented their form of colonialism along the Atlantic coast. The deal was straightforward. British companies, chartered as private, profit-seeking enterprises, received land which kings and queens owned by “divine right.” In Virginia Colony, colonists settled the land and planted crops, especially tobacco, which were sold to entitled British companies. The Crown took its cut. Transactional colonialism never granted colonists “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Control was centralized in the Crown and Parliament.
Boston’s commercial value was unique. The Crown expected to be paid for use of “its land” when Calvinist Puritans, in 1630, came to the Atlantic shores seeking religious freedom. Massachusetts lacked cash crops but did have fish, timber for ships, shipbuilding, and furs and hides harvested by Indigenous people who were paid in tools, trinkets and alcohol. Massachusetts’commercial value increased because colonists purchased goods sold by British companies and taxed to the Crown’s advantage.
Transactionalism caused friction. Colonial governors, people with entitlement, were appointed to reduce conflict and assure that transactions favored the British government. In Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, a Loyalist, successful merchant as was his father, benefited from trade with Britian. During the years 1758-1774, Thomas tried to maintain peaceful relationships as lieutenant governor and governor of the Provence of Massachusetts Bay. His efforts to negotiate personality conflicts and leadership squabbles led to his being seen as loyal to the Crown and disloyal to colonists. For instance, he opposed the Stamp Act of 1765, worried that it could lead to dreadful outcomes, but acknowledged that giving in to colonists’ complaints could lead to their independence. Colonial leaders, especially Adams and Otises, claimed that Hutchinson supported the StampAct. Taxes, Patriots argued, should not be levied without representation. Colonists accused Hutchison of conflicts of interest, treachery and betrayal. They famously ruined his house as well as that of the collector of stamp revenue.
Hutchinson was acting governor when British soldiers fired into a crowd of Bostonians on March 5, 1770, the Boston Massacre. He had the offending soldiers arrested and tried; he requested that troops be withdrawn from Boston. Parliament ordered him to move the seat of government from Boston to Cambridge, thereby denying colonists access to their modestly effective House of Representatives. In 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act. Sons of Liberty organized mobs and dumped tea into the harbor. Believing he must take a hardline against those lawbreakers, Thomas had British troops intervene. He was replaced in May 1774 by General Thomas Gage who enforced the Coercive Acts which further militarized Britain’s colonial relationship and lead to Concord and Lexington. Exiled in London when the Declaration was published, Hutchinson loyally defended the King against its charges, claiming that the Declaration expressed willful misrepresentations, fake grievances and unfair assaults. Patriots were criticized for having false motives, selfish interests, and vanity, charges which they turned against the King who was entitled to hit back harder as he was hit.
Transactional imperialism failed because it was based on unsustainable agreements without the meeting of minds. The Declaration justified independence by opposing capricious, tyrannical misuse of power. Issued at a time when principles of representative government were replacing “transactionalism,” the Declaration defended “foundational” rights of we the people.