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

Sindane

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
4,686
Europe
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.
I've called people from England English. How is that innacurate?

The English are not an 'Anglo Saxon' people. They are a mixture and mostly of pre Roman heritage

The border area between Scotland and England was sparsely populated, still is. There was not the numbers of population to make a significant impact on any area abroad

Protestants, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists and other nonconformists, in Ireland are Irish. Same in England, they're English and so on.

This American myth about 'Scots Irish' and 'border people' is fantasy. It started quite recently when US family tree researchers realised that their ancestors were just everyday ordinary boring English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh people (basically all the same people and who constantly intermarried ). Labourers looking for work but thay wasnt good enough, so people wanted to spice their family trees up a bit by inventing some kind of Hollywood Braveheart type scenario of constantly warring tribes and clans, who struck out for the New World in search of 'freedom' from 'oppression'. They wanted to see there ancestors as film stars. This is why we see bonkers fake history all over the net/ YouTube about 'border reivers', who it's doubtful even existed above half dozen random thieves, the bogus 'Irish slaves' memes and people claiming they are related to Catherine Howard or John of Guant.

Most people who emigrated to the Appalachia region were English not Scottish. This is clear in parish records. It's clear in the census. There just were not the numbers of Scots to have a majority influence. Its simple demographiics. There are more people living in just one English county than in the whole of Scotland
 

M9Powell

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
4,441
appalacian Mtns
I've called people from England English. How is that innacurate?

The English are not an 'Anglo Saxon' people. They are a mixture and mostly of pre Roman heritage

The border area between Scotland and England was sparsely populated, still is. There was not the numbers of population to make a significant impact on any area abroad

Protestants, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists and other nonconformists, in Ireland are Irish. Same in England, they're English and so on.

This American myth about 'Scots Irish' and 'border people' is fantasy. It started quite recently when US family tree researchers realised that their ancestors were just everyday ordinary boring English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh people (basically all the same people and who constantly intermarried ). Labourers looking for work but thay wasnt good enough, so people wanted to spice their family trees up a bit by inventing some kind of Hollywood Braveheart type scenario of constantly warring tribes and clans, who struck out for the New World in search of 'freedom' from 'oppression'. They wanted to see there ancestors as film stars. This is why we see bonkers fake history all over the net/ YouTube about 'border reivers', who it's doubtful even existed above half dozen random thieves, the bogus 'Irish slaves' memes and people claiming they are related to Catherine Howard or John of Guant.

Most people who emigrated to the Appalachia region were English not Scottish. This is clear in parish records. It's clear in the census. There just were not the numbers of Scots to have a majority influence. Its simple demographiics. There are more people living in just one English county than in the whole of Scotland
It's clear you know very little about Appalachia.
 

M9Powell

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
4,441
appalacian Mtns
I'm not Scots-Irish BTW. But most people in Appalachia are. I'd say about 40% of the original settlers were. I don't call them Scottish. So if there are no Scots here then I guess all the McNeils, McEwans, McGregors, Ferguesons, Fraisers, Campbells, etc, etc, came from London right? It didn't take as many as you think too populate Appalachia. Once they could have their own farms, it was quite common for a man to have 10-15 kids. Maybe more than 1 wife over time if the first one died in childbirth. Feeding all these kids was not a problem, besides farming game was plentiful, still is. I grew up on a large Appalachian farm but did very little farming, hunting & fishing was what occupied my time, from the age of five I was more productive with a rifle than a hoe. These large families were pretty common up until WW2. One reason Scotland is so sparsely populated is because so many of us came over here. Ever hear of the highland clearances?
 
Last edited:

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,631
Spain
At the risk of repeating something that's already been said seven times---which British colonists would you be referring to? It was not a monolith, you know.

That said, I think it is generally true that unlike the French and Spaniards and Portugese, the British ex-pats tended to be interested in the land qua the land as opposed to expoliting/converting the natives/exhausting the gold mines.
¡Vive Dios! that I wanted to be out of this thread... because threads about always, best, etc are not very much scientific....but I can´t be in silent with this phrase... I won´t tell about Portuguese and French because in this forum there are great members from both kingdoms...but yes about Spaniards...

It is not right to think Spaniards were only interested in "expoliting natives the gold mines"... as British Propaganda.. ok... as Reality... no way.... Spaniards stablished the UNIVERSITIES in America... (they stablished the first American university in Santo Domingo, Hispaniola, in the year 1538...only 46 years later they discovered the New World).. British landed in America in 1583 (Raleigh)...they established their first University in Pennsylvania in 1740.. around 157 years later)...the Spaniards stablished the oldest HOSPITALS in America (the own Hernán Cortes established San José and Limpísima Concepción hospitals in Technotitlán in 1521).

For being "crazy miners"... Spaniards just did many things faster than others....didn´t they? And talking about "miners".. and "poor" indians exploited by the evil Celtiberians...

Indians had to obtain a "fair wage" to work in Mines... (Real Cédula from December 20th, 1503). Later, protective laws for natives were expanding :

- Elisabeth I´s last will in 1504
- Laws of Burgos in 1512
- Charles I´s Laws in Septembert 4th, 1528
- New Laws in 1542. These Laws prohibited the work of pregnant women from the 4 month or the prohibition of working for minors under 14 yo.

And finally about crops... These were some products Spaniards introduced in America and they were the first to carry, plant and harvest (We can see that the "crazy miners" when they get bored, they took it into their heads to plant strange things in America... and we can see they were very good at it)...

These are some products Spaniards brought to America (they and not others were the first and they only in some crops):

Wheat, barley, oats, rye. Olives, lentils, lettuce, cabbage, radishes, asparagus, carrots, spinach. Sugar cane. Citrus fruits like lemons, oranges, limes, grapefruit. Apples, grapes, bananas, roses, rice, saffron, basil, coffee, cinnamon, anise, almonds, nuts, garlic. Onion, cilantro, rosemary, oregano, cloves, ginger, peppers, mustard.

The first rice planted in America was done by the Hernán Cortes´ Spaniards in México in the year 1521.. and the rice came from Guadalquivir River... (not from China, India or Venice)...and the first wheat in America.. came from Castile. AS the sugar cane was planted in 1493. And the first Windmill built in America.. was built in Guadalajara, New Spain in the year 1542.... so or the "crazy miners" had lot of hobbies... (universities, hospitals, legislation, agriculture, cattle, industry..) or they were something more than "crazy miners"...

Examples:

Wine: The first wine in America was wine from Ribadavia (Ribeiro, Galicia) and arrived to America in the year 1492.

Horses: brought by Spaniards. First horse arrived to America at morning May 23rd, 1493.

Cows:. these animals arrived America from Andalusia... the first cown in America left from Cadis on September 25th, 1493.

Pigs: They arrived in 1492. And they were Iberian pigs (Black, smaller and better meat than Germanic Pigs).

Grape: planted by Spaniards in New Spain in the year 1522. Around 1560, they have extended the grape crops till Chili.


I just wanted to point out some small points .... not matched to the thread about "expansionist" mentality... but because the issue of the Spanish in America has come out ...

Regards.
 

Sindane

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
4,686
Europe
I'm not Scots-Irish BTW. But most people in Appalachia are. I'd say about 40% of the original settlers were. I don't call them Scottish...
How is that possible. There were not enough numbers of so called 'Scots Irish' to achieve this. Look at the population demographics of the UK and Ireland


These large families were pretty common up until WW2. One reason Scotland is so sparsely populated is because so many of us came over here. Ever hear of the highland clearances?
Everyone had large families back then. My English Grt Grandmother had 16 children. Another GG had 11 children

Most people from the Highlands moved to the cities and towns of Scotland, and also England, to work in industry. Stanley Mills on the river Tay near Perth is a good example. Now a massive museum with a lot of information about highlanders recorded there. Shipbuilding and coal were other Scottish industries. Internal migration from the countryside to urban areas during industrialisation in the UK and Ireland is a very well known part of our history. The vast majority of people stayed here. They did not emigrate to America, Austrailia, Canada and New Zealand.
The largest annual numbers of immigration into Ameriica from Europe was during the the late 19th and early 20th century. Colonial America was small by population
 
Feb 2019
779
Pennsylvania, US
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..
In macrosociological / sociological terms, whether you tag Native Americans as hunter-gatherers (primarily using hunted and collected food sources) or horticulturalists (primarily using grown food sources) wouldn't affect the statement at all. Both hunter-gatherer and horticulturalist societies share the same characteristics that would make them encounter problems when confronted with an agricultural society like the ones represented by the European colonists. The major problem is not so much about whether a group is hunting and gathering food or growing it and 'how' - it has more to do with differing ideas about ownership, land usage and employment of technological advancements. Also, to a degree you could add that there were religious differences, population size differences, etc. characteristic of both types of societies.

So regardless of whether they were horticulturalists or hunter-gatherers, they needed to be forced to adapt to the huge technology leap and the concept of possessing land presented by Europeans, and I suspect in some sense, be converted from pantheism in order to dominate (destroy?) the wild environment. I can only imagine that it would have been a horrible undertaking... Much later, you have legislation like the Dawes Act that essentially tried to force Native Americans to assimilate into this agricultural society... in such a degrading manner.

Can I say that equating Native American horticulture with European agriculture is a gross oversimplification of both methods - ignoring their respective strengths and weaknesses - as well as a misunderstanding of the significance of the nomenclature?

Agriculture ("farming") generally includes the growing of crops and the raising of domesticated animals. Horticulture is the cultivation of plants and crops.

From what I understand, Native Americans utilized slash and burn techniques to create a swidden - and after a year or so of use, would allow the area to lay fallow, sometimes up to several decades. Every year, a new acre or 2 plot would be selected and razed - creating a constant need for new acreage. The techniques associated with cultivation used labor intensive / low efficiency methods, with little surplus (growing for personal use, not for profit). They would have used hand tools. They employed polyculture. Relying solely on produce for food wouldn't provide the fats essential for brain function and fat-soluble vitamin absorption, so they also hunted... Native Americans had no domesticated livestock prior to European introduction, and the vibe I get is that they were very slow to adapt to livestock - other than pigs that were released to live wild and later hunted. I may be wrong on this point... but the need for grazing / hay production / hay storage seemed like if would have been prohibitive.

Europeans would select permanent pasture areas and fields for agriculture and continuously till these areas for crops - they introduced many types of small grains (soil depleting), using methods that were less laborious and more efficient - they also were farming beyond their personal needs to make a profit. They employed crop rotation. They had an understanding of fertilization of soil. They used plows/harrows, horses/oxen... revolutionary techniques for horticultural societies... basically day and night in a comparative sense... imagine the acreage you could plant by hand versus with a plow and horse.

Europeans were more effective at growing crops and having protein sources close to hand - their techniques also robbed the soil of nutrients and destroyed natural environments. The Dust Bowl can be directly equated with the great failings of European agricultural techniques. They also encouraged higher pest populations by continually growing crops in the same spot.

Native Americans were less effective at growing crops and until Europeans arrived, had to hunt for protein sources. Their techniques enriched the soil and were highly sustainable - also, pests could be evaded by picking up and moving... It's interesting that immigrants would later move into these "isolated" areas on the U.S. and find rich, fertile soil that *just happened* to be there... perhaps the product of years of Indians' renewing growing techniques?


I don't think anyone would doubt the Native Americans' development and use of cultigens or domesticated crops... but it's not really pertinent to the line of reasoning I was using... of how oppressive / thorny the issue of Colonial society encroaching on Native American lands / society must have been. My point was more about the sociological clash.
 
May 2019
99
Earth
The Brits ("King George Men") who came to the Northwest Coast and Columbia Plateau region in the late 18th/early 19th century seemed primarily interested in trade rather than large scale settlement. I'm aware they placed territorial claims to the region (which led them into competition with the USA), but from a local indigenous perspective the Brits were often viewed as traders. A lot of tribes were willing to deal with the HBC to acquire manufactured goods. In that region, it was the Americans (USA) who came to be the main expansionist threat. Note though that I'm speaking about the region south of the current Canadian border. I'm not of indigenous Canadian descent, so I can't say how those people viewed the Brits.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2018
478
Southern Indiana
The Brits ("King George Men") who came to the Northwest Coast and Columbia Plateau region in the late 18th/early 19th century seemed primarily interested in trade rather than large scale settlement. I'm aware they placed territorial claims to the region (which led them into competition with the USA), but from a local indigenous perspective the Brits were often viewed as traders. A lot of tribes were willing to deal with the HBC to acquire manufactured goods. In that region, it was the Americans (USA) who came to be the main expansionist threat. Note though that I'm speaking about the region south of the current Canadian border. I'm not of indigenous Canadian descent, so I can't say how those people viewed the Brits.
True in the Ohio Valley as well. Trade was the only profitable enterprise for the Empire in the colonies. Initially a lot of tribes sided with the French because they had formed close connections to the tribes, intermarried and were generally fair in trading. After the French and Indian War more tribes warmed up to the British, especially after the Proclamation of 1763 by King George. By the time of the Revolutionary War, the British were seen as an ally against the invading American settlers by many of the tribes in that region.
 
Likes: hyuzu