Colonial rivalry and the European wars form 1650-1763

Chavelle Maitland
Montego Bay Community College
History (Yr 2)
“Colonial rivalry was the MAIN reason for the European wars from 1650-1763”. How far is it possible to agree with this statement?

"As sources of wealth for their European owners, the colonies became as important a cause of war in the eighteenth century as quarrels in Europe itself. Commerce, colonies and power in Europe were vitally connected, and any limitation of trading rights or any blow to a colony was a method of keeping the rivalry down.”1 This statement gives rise to the fact that there was indeed colonial rivalry amongst the major empires of the 18th century in the likes of the English, Spanish, French and Dutch. One reason for this was that in the 18th century the measurement of a kingdom’s wealth was no longer in the amount of gold they possessed (bullionism) as it was in the 15th and 16th century, it was now based on the size of their empire (land) and the trading power held by their monarch. . With all the possible land in Europe already conquered there was a need for the Europeans to venture into other unsettled lands. So when the English, French, and Dutch saw the success of the Spanish empire after Christopher Columbus’ Enterprise of the Indies (finding the indies/New World), in the 15th century they knew that taping into her colonies was the only way to get to where her empire was. Spain was proven to be an unbeatable fore in the pre-eighteenth century rivals, because her source of wealth was not in Spain which was where the other monarchs were targeting and not her colonies in the new world. Some writers posit that it was the frustration of this continuous loss that led the other Europeans to consider the Indies in the first place, because Spain dominated the trading arena and it evidently became unbearable to her rivals. However this power would be reduced when they entered the 18th century as Dookan states “by the end of the seventeenth century… Spain had recognized the rights of the English and French to their West Indian islands; the way was clear for a new rivalry…”2 Wars such as the War of Spanish Succession (1702-1713), War of Jenkins’s Ear which later evolved with the War of Austrian Succession (1739-1748) and finally the Seven Year War (1756-1763) came as a result of these colonial rivalries. Although some reasons like the merging of kingdoms, severing of an ear, religious strife and to set up new settlements, these not the main reason for the European Wars, the writer declares that it was as Louis XIV of France himself stated that “the main goal of the current war is colonial commerce and the wealth it produces.”3
The War of Spanish Succession (1702-1713) was said to have begun because of the fears of the English and Dutch (Holland) over the succession of the Spanish throne. There was to be the union of the Spanish and French thrones from the ambitions of Louis XIV of France who desired the two monarchs to be under one dynasty. This merge would be by way of a marriage, which as Smith wrote was where the Anglo-Dutch duo, “made it clear that they would not tolerate the unification of Spain with either France or Austria.” They made their case on the pureness of the bloodline, and who was closer to the heirless Charles II, the last Hapsburg rule of Spain. However it can be questioned as to the real reason for their opposition to this merging. It was not the first time that two kingdoms were merging and so what was so special about this one. The answer is in the deal that was made between the English, Dutch and Spain. They were willing to consent in his accession as long as the crowns of Spain and France remained separate. The fact that the war begun after the asciento4 for the Spanish salve trade was given to a French company gives away the real reason behind the urge felt by the English to war against the Spanish empire, even bringing back together her alliances from the War of the League of Augsburg (1689-1697)5. The British complained that this union would disturb the balance of the empires in Europe; they complained that this would have been a great menace to them both commercially and politically. Another reason which can be said to contribute to the English opposition was that without the asciento their trading ability was doomed. The asciento was a naval license to trade. That was their only ‘safe’ route of trade. By land the Turks had dominated terrestrial trade of decades. Evident of this can be seen where the Spanish was willing to found Columbus’ voyage to fine a new trade route to the east, which would see them not having to venture through Northern Africa in places such as Istanbul, Cairo, Tripoli and even Constantinople. These areas were Turkish territories you would pass trough to trade with China and India. The Europeans were fully aware of their power on land as not being as influential as that of the Ottomans and so they refused to challenge them. So without a land route and not the asciento being take away ad given to France the British commerce was set to fail, hence their heated rivalry. Along with the rights to trade Britain also had an eye on colonies that would be strategic in position to disrupt the trades of the other colonies hence her colonization of the French St. Kitts. So when Spain called for peace, Britain quickly maximized on her success with the treaty of Utrecht which stipulated that;
Britain and Holland are both granted commercial privileges and Britain is allowed to provide 4800 African slaves each year for their Spanish colonies in America…the Dutch win a confirmation of their right to maintain in a line of fortress along their southern frontier of the Spanish-Netherlands- as protection against French expansion.
The Spanish Succession War (1702-1713) massively altered the balance of power in Europe and with its victory Britain quickly became the chief Mari-time power (controllers of the sea). Both the reasoned causes and results of this war points straight towards colonial rivalry, hence it can be cemented that colonial rivalry was the main cause of the Spanish Succession War.
Next in line would come the War of Jenkins’s Ear which would later brawl into the War of Austrian (1739-1748), in a bid to cripple the Spanish economy by the English. This was no doubt a war of trade. Although by way of the asciento Britain was granted access to the Spanish trade, there was claims of harassment as an embarrassed British ambassador in Madrid expostulated,
”Are the oaths of fellows that forswear themselves in every custom-house, in every port they come to, to be taken without any further inquiry or examination, what should we say to a brawling Spaniard who made a derelict of his ship in Jamaica and afterwards swore blood and murder before the Mayor of Bilbao?”6
This comment came on the heels of a number of complaints being received about the Spain’s treatment of English traders, Spanish ‘guarda costa’ insisted on sporadically searching every single British ship they came across, and occasionally they seized a legal slave-ship. It was impossible to get compensation from Spain hence the silent brewing of a war from the English. This silence got a voice when the ear of Captain Jenkins which was reportedly severed by Spaniards was paraded in parliament eight years after it was removed. The incident that gave the name to the war occurred in 1731 when, according to Robert Jenkins, master of the ship Rebecca, he had his ear cut off by Spanish coast guards. English smuggling and resentment at exclusion from the Spanish colonial trade caused the war, but Jenkins's story in the House of Commons (1738), reinforced by the showing of his carefully preserved ear, had a tremendous propaganda effect and forced the reluctant Sir Robert Walpole, Robert7 to declare war. It grew out of the commercial rivalry of the two powers and led to involvement in the larger War of the Austrian Succession English and France.8 The rivalry between Britain and France according to Augier came after the war of the Spanish succession and although it was declared that Britain was the winner, the French sugar economy begun to bloom, in places such as Martinique and Guadeloupe. The asciento along with some preferential trade rights which Britain was given in the treaty of Utrecht became strained as it was stipulated that all colonial sugar had to go to their home countries, however both the English and French were in a position to‘re-export’ sugar to other colonies, it was in this that the French proved a greater strength than Britain and would continue to do so for the next three-quarters of a century. With the soil of the British colonies showing signs of nutrient depletion there began a slowly growing grudge of the French success. It was with this in mind that Britain passed the Commercial Acts, however this did not stop France from trading in North America. When this did not work there was the declaration of war which would cripple trading in the colonies (French and Spanish). The incident of Jenkins ear made for a perfect excuse for this war, however anyone who took the time to look would have seen that it was not because of the severed ear that this war was declared9 it was the need of Britain to not only be the chief Mari-time power, but the chief trading power in sugar. Jenkins’s ear was cut off all of eight years before the war begun (1731), look how many boats with valuable goods were either hijacked or ceased by the Spanish, and wouldn’t it make more sense to fight for the promised but never received compensation for them? Why fight for an ear from a man who was still alive all of eight years after the incident? It was because of colonial rivalry. Evident of this can be seen where the French merchant marine which had 1,100 numbered ships in 1713, grew to 1,800 ships by 1735, trading cargos to and from the west indies consistently, clear sight that they posed a very tangible challenge and eventual loss in revenue to the English trading economy and to her empire at large. It was this relationship between Britain and the French that led to the war of the Austrian succession. According to Augier by 1744 the French had joined in with the war which had long ceased to be concerned with Jenkins’s ear. The British was no longer concerned with the disrespect being shown to them by the Spanish, it was the fact that the French colonies were outrunning them in the sugar economy. Although they had exclusive rights to the Spanish American colonies signs of illegal French merchants were increasingly apparent. As the governor of Trelawney in Jamaica said, “Unless French Hispaniola is ruined during the war they will, upon the peace, ruin our sugar colonies by the quantity they will make and the low price they can afford to sell it.”10 By this time the Spanish was in no position to keep up with the war of Austrian succession so it was really only between the French and English. It would last for only nine years with Britain’s desire for neutral islands (St. Lucia, Dominica, St. Vincent and Tobago) which was put forward in the war- another evident of colonial interest- realized with the Treaty of Aix-la chapelle (1748). The treaty stipulated that these islands were not to be colonized by any European powers. Both Britain and France knew that at the end of wars, lands would be given as peace offerings, thus expanding their colonies. Britain used this knowledge to wage war against France on the basis that they were breaching the rules of the treaty of Aix-la chapelle. This was ended with the treaty of Paris with the British gaining the very same islands that were declared ‘neutral’. Thus clear evidence of colonial interests, the importance of total commercial dominance and Mari-time control.
The final war that was waged in this period was the Seven Year War (1756-1763). In this period the nature of the wars would change. It was still on the basis of colonial interest, however it begun to move out of the Caribbean to other parts of the world, such as North America which as Eric Williams in his decline thesis states was changing into an industrial investment ground. The French wanted to extend her fur trade to North America. Although one should also note that there was still a very noticeable tension between France and Britain over France’s refusal to evacuate the neutral islands in the West Indies as was stipulated by the treaty of Aix-la chapelle. The war was mostly between the French and English over the unclaimed territories and also [on the part of the British] some that were already colonized as will later be seen with the treaty of Paris. At the time of this war the British native population according to Dookan, in the thirteen colonies was rapidly increasing creating a larger market every year for English manufacturers, while the population in the Caribbean islands was nearly static a result of this Britain needed a release for the English colony. This release would only come by cramping the trading in sugar for the French. They knew a way to do this was through war. As Dookan states France was a greater opposing power to Britain in a time of peace than in war. It was this coupled the greed of the British monarch that lead to the war. This was a pliable route of assault as no trade could be conducted during war time. This would lead to a shortage of sugar in the French economy and the spoilage of the already manufactured sugar. It was also during this period that the colonies became a liquid able trade. Now this would be said by some as a sure sign that an interest in land was not the main reason for the wars, however they were being used as ‘pawns in the diplomatic game at the treaty table’. In doing this they were able to exchange islands for colonies in other parts of the world. This added a variety in the goods they were able to supply, so they had not only sugar colonies but also spices and strategic naval points to attack other ships and trade. British took this to her advantage, as she used this as a reason to take many of the French colonies such as Martinique and Guadeloupe. It was not until later in 1762 that Spain was economically stable enough to consider joining the war joining on the side of the French. Another example of bargaining using the islands was the use of St. Lucia to barging for the right bank of Mississippi to ensure the navigation right on the river was in the hand of the British American colonists. With Spain now, they entered the war over disputes with Britain concerning the logwood camps in British Honduras and the Mosquito Coast of Nicaragua. Also over the way the British handled the treaty of commerce as it pertains to the ‘British Rule of War’. The English seemed to have been the most successful of the three empires as they came out at the end with more colonies than the others and a larger dominance in the sea and commercial trade.
In conclusion the writer seeks to cement the notion that colonial interest was the primary driving force behind the wars from 1650-1763. With clear evident of these intentions with every treaty which sought to quell the arguments among the monarchs, islands being given to Britain, the asciento being bought from Britain by span in the Seven Year War for £100,000.00 and the declaration of neural islands and preference in commercial rights. This shows clear signs of colonial interest and the writer will again agree with Dookan who states that “ the excuse for the wars was some European quarrel, but the real reason for their bitterness and wide spread fighting was the rival struggle for trade and colonies.”11