Fellow instructors, I found this term a few months ago and began researching it. This was the underlying cause of the Revolution. The British governments conscious decision to not enforce the same laws in the colonies that were in effect everywhere else in the Empire caused the colonists to become VERY independent. They then viewed new laws from England as unnecessarily intrusive when they appeared after the French and Indian War. The colonists were addicted to Freedom and Liberty.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/salutary-neglect (https://www.britannica.com/topic/salutary-neglect)
There is also an Audible audiobook I can recommend titled "Lexington and Concord - The Battle Heard Round the World" that I listened to on the way to a CMP shoot in Oklahoma and back and it is excellent.
Wreck
Thanks, definitely worth a mention in the preamble
Another interesting thing I picked up, among many, from the audiobook was that the Americans who served with the redcoats in the French and Indian war observed how the British officers treated the men, mostly conscripts, from Ireland and Scotland. Men from those countries were treated barely better than animals and were brutally punished for the most trivial offense. They also heard tales of how life was under British rule in those countries and it was obvious that the poorest American was better off that the most affluent "middle class" family anywhere else in the empire. The Patriots knew that if they didn't succeed in the Revolution their lives would be no better than the lives of other British "subjects" in the empire.
Wreck
Quote from: Ramblin' Wreck on October 22, 2019, 07:08:28 AM
how the British officers treated the men, mostly conscripts, from Ireland and Scotland. Men from those countries were treated barely better than animals
Thanks: I am reminded of the treatment that Daniel Morgan received: a Scotsman by lineage, and perhaps why he received so severe treatment by the British:
"Morgan worked as a civilian teamster during the French and Indian War. He was still a young man with a rebellious attitude which resulted in him punching one of his senior officers. In response, General Braddock sentenced him to 499 lashes. This action caused him to hate the British."
The British learned to regret that incident I imagine - Saratoga, Cowpens, and his cousin Daniel Boone remembered as well.
General Braddock was a native-born Scotsman. But there's also some evidence that he was widely despised, to the point that he may have been fragged at the Monongahela due to general mistreatment of his troops. I would guess that Daniel Morgan wasn't alone in receiving harsh punishment.
--
The OP raises some interesting lines of reasoning. One thing that I've always felt instructive about the Colonial mindset and the political climate in 1763-onward is the parallel to the Glorious Revolution, roughly 80 years previous, that swept the British Isles and resulted in deposition of King James II/VII.
To sketch the situation briefly: King James was Catholic, unsettling the English gentry, but he started from a very secure position with convincing wins on the battlefield. However, the turning point was the Declaration of Indulgence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Indulgence), which was intended as an edict to increase religious freedom. This only made sense from the King's perspective, as he sought to normalize the Catholics and remove divisions between England and the Scots, but it was also supposed to reassure the Anglican Church.
But it had the opposite effect. The King was messing with institutions that everyone thought had been long settled, and that were the purview of Parliament. Even though the net effect was to increase religious freedom, implicit in the Declaration was a Royal claim of authority over the matter -- and if religious freedom could be granted by a King, it could be reversed by the King, either once James's position solidified or by some future, less magnanimous despot.
I see parallels to this in Colonial history. The first real alarm in the Colonies arose with the Sugar Act, but it wasn't the Act itself so much as the realization that the Colonial charters were no longer safe from Royal meddling. "Laws for thee, but not for me," and all that. Perhaps the best example is in the Tea Act, which was supposed to result in lower economic pressure on the Colonies, but it backfired in that it also asserted Royal control over the market.
The remedy also has parallels to the Colonies. Following the Glorious Revolution, the Declaration was nullified with the passage of the 1689 Declaration of Right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689), thereby reasserting Parliamentary authority. Our own solution and the Bill of Rights to the Constitution had a similar function but went further, not only redressing wrongs committed by the Crown but also affirming natural rights, such as freedom of religion.
Bottom line, it's not a good idea for governments to assert authority over their people that wasn't previously agreed to. :sb:
Excellent! You bring up some of the points I use in the preamble with colonial charters, the English Bill of Rights, and edicts from the King. And one more thing...those pesky presbyterians and their democratic ideas - especially some of my fore-bearers in the backwoods of Virginia and North Carolina.
Good article Ben. Reminds me of Captain Preston's words: "Young man, what we meant in going for those Redcoats was this: we always had been free, and we meant to be free always. They didn't mean we should."
Excellent find! O0