Notes on Early Development, Mercantilism, and Triangular Trade (1607–1650s)

The colonies started as British colonies (e.g., Jamestown, Plymouth).
Over time, their growth and push toward independence set them on a road toward conflict with Britain.
Events unfold in a cause-and-effect chain:
- Colonies grow
- Conflicts over control arise
- French & Indian War follows
- American Revolution results
The teacher frames the story as a "Three Act Play" leading to America's independence.

For about $150$ years, the colonies received very little attention from England.
Reasons:
- England had its own political upheavals.
- Colonies were profitable, effectively making money for England.
Colonists viewed themselves as loyal British citizens under the King, not as independent actors.

Each colony had a royal governor appointed by the King.
Colonists followed the King's authority but also practiced self-rule (e.g., House of Burgesses).
This mix fostered early independence habits even if England did not intend it.

Mercantilism: colonies exist to benefit the mother country.
Policy: Export more than import (a favorable balance of trade): ext{Exports} > ext{Imports}
Colonial role: supply raw materials (lumber, fish, tobacco, etc.).
English role: supply finished goods back to the colonies (a sign of wealth/status).
Market dynamics (the idea of a ready market):
- Colonies could always sell to England.
- England could always sell goods to the colonies.

Colonies prospered, populations grew, and the economy thrived.
England saw little reason to interfere as long as money flowed.
Colonists developed their own shipbuilding industry (especially in New England) using abundant timber.

Visual metaphor: the colonies as maids/servants providing for the "mother country."
Flow of goods:
- Raw materials → Finished goods → England
Participants and routes:
- Colonies, England, Africa/Caribbean involved in the broader slave trade networks
Triangular Trade (summary):
- Colonies → England (raw materials)
- England → Colonies (finished goods)
- Africa/Caribbean ↔ Colonies (slave trade routes)

Colonies often produced excess raw materials.
Rather than wasting surplus, they sold to other markets (e.g., France, Spain, even Asia).
Perspectives on surplus:
- Colonists: extra goods are theirs to control and profit from.
- England: all goods belong to the empire, and the surplus should flow within imperial channels.
This mismatch in views about surplus contributed to growing tension between colonial economies and imperial policy.

Real-world relevance: Mercantilist policies shaped colonial economics and governance, setting the stage for later debates over taxation, representation, and autonomy.
Foundational principles: Self-rule practices (e.g., local assemblies) planted seeds of independence even under imperial oversight.
Ethical/practical implications: Balancing profit for the mother country with local economic growth created friction that fed resistance to imperial control.
Numerical/analytical note: The period involved a long horizon of economic integration and policy enforcement rather than abrupt changes; the approximate timespan $1607$ to $1650$ s with about $150$ years of limited oversight characterize the early phase.

Mercantilism tied imperial profits to colonial output and manufactured goods.
The colonies' growth and local governance fostered independence-oriented habits despite loyalty to the Crown.
Surplus production highlighted tensions between colonial economies and imperial trade rules, foreshadowing future conflict and calls for greater autonomy.
The Triangular Trade framework helped explain how wealth and goods moved within the Atlantic world, including problematic connections to the slave trade.