A Comparison of Imperial Systems in the 16th and 17th Centuries

Like most other things in life, the push towards colonial empires was powered by a greed for wealth. During the timeframe of this paper, mercantilism was the predominant economic theory. This theory states that the power of a country is directly proportional to the amount of wealth stored within its treasury. This wealth was acquired through trade. Towards the end of the 15th century, Spain was searching for a way to replentish its treasury, which had been wiped out by war. In an attempt to recover this wealth through expanded trade, Spain sent an expedition to find a fast trade route to the far east, where Marco Polo had encountered miraculous items of wealth one hundred years before.

There was, however, very little government compared to what the British would later set up in their North American colonies. Again, this was because the Spanish settlers were there to make a fortune for their king and themselves, and make a name for themselves.

Not surprisingly, the American’s refusal to pay for the war they started did not go over well in Parliament. In a further attempt to teach the American colonists a lesson, Parliament responded with the Townsend Acts. The Townsend Acts dissolved the most vocal legislature in the colonies, that of New York. It also taxed just about everything that the Grenville plan had not: lead, glass, rum, tea, etc. It also established boards of trade to control colonial commerce. These boards were not answerable to the colonies and angered the colonists who despised a government in which they were not represented.

At the time of the Grenville Plan, the ideas of a political philosopher named John Locke were becoming quite popular. Locke stated that kings ruled by power of a social contract; that is, the king ruled only by consent of the ruled. If the king violated his social contract, the ruled would remove him from power. Also, Locke stated that a tax was simply a gift to the government from the people. Thus, the American colonists believed that the King had violated his social contract. Furthermore, they had been taxed without representation. Backed by Locke’s definition of tax as a gift from the people to the government and the fact that an ocean prevented effective enforcement of tax law, the American’s refused to pay the taxes associated with the Grenville Plan.

In another contrast to the Spanish system, the English were (relatively) quick in setting up a government that was involved with the citizens. This was a requirement of the long-term goals of the English settlers. Without government, the growing English colonies would collapse into chaos. Thus, the English colonies developed highly organized governments; Virginia, as an example, moved from “Laws Divine, Moral, and Martial” to the House of Burgesses in the short time frame of 1611 to 1630.

If the Atlantic had been smaller, the Americans would never have refused to pay taxes. They would have known that government agents would

Some topics in this essay:
English America, Spain England, John Locke, Bonds” English, England England, Townsend Acts, Europe Spanish, Marco Polo, Stamp Act, Grenville Plan, american colonists, english settlers, american colonies, grenville plan, social contract, natives english, townsend acts, economic theory theory, refused pay, native languages, trade natives, violated social contract, king violated social, refused pay taxes, mercantilism predominant economic,