Did British colonists in North America always have an expansionist mentality?

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,989
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
...They had to somehow build a country on land that didn't belong to them... they also had to essentially undermine the hunter gatherer lifestyle of the Indians and convert them to farming. ?
It is inaccurate to say that all, or maybe even most, Indians in what became the USA were hunters and gatherers. Many were already farmers in 1492.

Most of the tribes and nations east of the Mississippi planted corn (maize) and other crops. And like the eventual European setters they also hunted wild game and gathered wild foods. The Pilgrims settled in lands recently abandoned after an epidemic a few years earlier and found abandoned fields ready for farming, for example.

On the great plains, buffalo hunting was hard without guns and especially horses. Travel was difficult with only dogs without horses. So most of the groups on the plains were at least partially agricultural, though they also hunted & gathered for additional food like the eventual white settlers did. The coming of European horses and guns changed that. Warrior tribes that got horses hunted buffalo and roamed around and attacked other tribes. On the southern plains the French supplied guns to allied tribes that attacked the plains Apache from the East while the Comanche migrated south to attack the plains Apache. The semi agricultural plains Apache were almost exterminated and farming tribes on the plains were constantly harassed by the nomadic horse tribes. Even epidemics of old world diseases that shrank the plains populations greatly couldn't stop the warrior buffalo hunting tribes from attacking each other and the settled agricultural tribes.

In the southwest the pueblo tribes and others farmed. Even the Apaches farmed, and their raids were often for additional food when their crops and hunting and gathering seemed likely to be inadequate.

So the idea that Indians the USA were all hunters and gatherers is greatly inaccurate.
 

M9Powell

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
4,456
appalacian Mtns
There was no such thing as "Scots-Irish' or 'Anglo-Saxons' at the dates relevant to the topic and they're not a nationality

People from the British Isles/Ireland would be known to themselves and others as either English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh or British. Still are
That's a matter of opinion, trying to be as politically correct as possible here I'll just call them people of Germanic descent from the border area.
 

RoryOMore

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,398
USA
I think the British kicked in a more or less rotten door. The French, at least, saw significant negatives in mass settlement of America. I don't think he addresses the issue specifically, but in reading Parkman's work it seemed pretty likely to me that by the middle of the 18th century the British colonies could put as many men under arms as there were French people in Canada and the west. It was just a matter of politics as to when the French territory would be taken.
 

M9Powell

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
4,456
appalacian Mtns
Why not just call people English, or Scottish or Irish?
I'm trying to be accurate. You've already mistakenly called them English, which by your'e own criteria they were not.
What they were (are) were an Anglo-Saxon people who are from the border area between Scotland & England. They tried to make a go out of it in the plantations in Ulster, then left & ended up in Appalachia. They are the biggest of several groups settling Appalachia. They are the same people as protestant UK citizens in Northern Ireland. The problem with calling them Irish or Scottish is they are not Gaels. Culturally they are probably closer too the English. As too there being no such thing as Scots-Irish at the time in question, I'll have too disagree. They really identify as such even today.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,493
Many of the settlers in Appalachia were from the Scottish - English border area or were Scottish from Ireland. Part of it was that settling west of the Proclamation Line was extremely dangerous. People from those areas were used to fighting between English and Scottish or Irish and Scottish, so they were less afraid of fighting, conflict, etc with native Americans.

Before you talked about German anscestory. English is a Germanic language. However, according to recent studies I can't discuss here, the English are mostly not of Germanic descent and the Scottish certainly aren't.
 

M9Powell

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
4,456
appalacian Mtns
Many of the settlers in Appalachia were from the Scottish - English border area or were Scottish from Ireland. Part of it was that settling west of the Proclamation Line was extremely dangerous. People from those areas were used to fighting between English and Scottish or Irish and Scottish, so they were less afraid of fighting, conflict, etc with native Americans.

Before you talked about German anscestory. English is a Germanic language. However, according to recent studies I can't discuss here, the English are mostly not of Germanic descent and the Scottish certainly aren't.
When you call these people Scottish please remember they are a different people than Gaelic Scots. They certainly are of Germanic stock. Hence why the Gaels call them Sacesnach which means Saxon. I don't think these unmentionable studies can distinguish between a Gael, a Saxon or a Dane. The difference is mostly cultural.