The Pros And Cons Of Early English Colonization

Discussions of early English colonization have often focused exclusively on the perspectives of the colonists and the colonial promoters and organizers, such as the commercial joint-stock companies. Beyond their role in the issuance of charters, the English Crown and its related bodies, such as the Privy Council, are given little consideration or confined to roles as secondary figures within the greater colonial narrative. The problem lies in the fact that imperial involvement and the politics of empire are frequently excluded from the English colonial narrative by scholars. In Sovereignty and Possession in the English New World, historian Ken MacMillan redresses this problem by discussing the efforts of the English Crown to legitimize its

In his writings, Dee drew upon historical arguments, such as the settlement of portions of the North Atlantic by King Arthur, the unification of England by the Welsh Tudors, and the journeys of John Cabot, as giving the British precedent over the Spanish. Dee also drew upon the idea that possession was based on physical presence, territorial control, and religious law, stating it was the Crown’s obligation and right to evangelize and settle the unreached portions of North America. Building upon the idea of settlement as indicating possession, the English crown began issuing charters or royal letters patent to further colonization. Although these charters are often viewed as the distribution of authority by the Crown, MacMillan argues that they reflected the Crown’s direct authority and involvement in the colonizing process. In order to receive a patent, one had to justify the specific reasons for colonization, forcing one to go directly before Crown-appointed officials, such as Privy Councilors, to explain one’s endeavors. Prepared by royal officials, many charters would draw upon the language of Roman law to address the ideas of imperial and dominative rights, conferring authority upon colonizers while maintaining their subjectivity to the

MacMillan clearly demonstrates that the colonial narratives of the major imperial powers, including France, Spain, and England, are interwoven and that these powers actively competed for control of the New World, seeking to assert their right to colonize. One could argue that MacMillan’s work is representative of an emerging trend in the historiography which seeks to challenge the traditional American narrative by framing colonization within a much more international and imperial context. Aligning with the arguments of Macmillan, the historian Karen Ordahl Kupperman argues that “American was international before it became national.” The colonization of the Americas involved extensive interaction and negotiation between the European powers and their colonies. In contrast to MacMillan though, Kupperman also interweaves the involvement of the diverse groups of colonists and Indian polities into the narrative, fostering a continental history alongside the Atlantic perspective. Historian Alan Taylor also adopts the approach of looking at colonization in more broad and fluid terms, including discussions of imperialism and European powers. Taylor even extends the importance of imperial competition into discussions of conflict in the eighteenth century, past the time range in which