Colonial charters in the Thirteen Colonies in the context of "Governor's Council"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about Colonial charters in the Thirteen Colonies in the context of "Governor's Council"

Ad spacer

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

👉 Colonial charters in the Thirteen Colonies in the context of Governor's Council

The governments of the Thirteen Colonies of British America developed in the 17th and 18th centuries under the influence of the British constitution. The British monarch issued colonial charters that established either royal colonies, proprietary colonies, or corporate colonies. In every colony, a governor led the executive branch, and the legislative branch was divided into two houses: a governor's council and a representative assembly. Men who met property qualifications elected the assembly. In royal colonies, the British government appointed the governor and the council. In proprietary colonies, the proprietors appointed the governor and his council. In corporate colonies, voters elected these officials.

In domestic matters, the colonies were largely self-governing on many issues; however, the British government did exercise veto power over colonial legislation, and regardless of the type of colonial government, retained control of the law and equity courts; judges were selected by the British government and served at the king's pleasure. Diplomatic affairs were handled by the British government, as were trade policies and wars with foreign powers (wars with Native Americans were generally handled by colonial governments).

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Colonial charters in the Thirteen Colonies in the context of New England Confederation

The United Colonies of New England, commonly known as the New England Confederation, was a confederal alliance of the New England colonies of Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, Saybrook (Connecticut), and New Haven formed in May 1643, during the English Civil War. Its primary purpose was to unite the Puritan colonies in support of the Congregational church, and for defense against the Native Americans and the Dutch colony of New Netherland. It was the first milestone on the long road to colonial unity and was established as a direct result of a war that started between the Indigenous Mohegan and Narragansett nations. Its charter provided for the return of fugitive criminals and indentured servants, and served as a forum for resolving inter-colonial disputes. In practice, none of the goals were accomplished.

The confederation was weakened in 1654 after Massachusetts Bay refused to join an expedition against New Netherland during the First Anglo-Dutch War, although it regained importance during King Philip's War in 1675. It was dissolved after numerous colonial charters were revoked in the early 1680s.

↑ Return to Menu

Colonial charters in the Thirteen Colonies in the context of The Unconstitutionality of Slavery

The Unconstitutionality of Slavery is an 1845 abolitionist essay written by the American abolitionist Lysander Spooner. In it, Spooner responds to Garrisonian abolitionists and proslavery theorists who argued that slavery was supported by the United States Constitution. Spooner claims that slavery is unconstitutional and cites natural law, colonial charters, and American founding documents to argue that there is no legal basis for the existence of slavery in the United States and that Congress is obligated to prohibit it.

Spooner was an anarchist who argued that the authority of the courts was derived from fundamental principles of justice and universal human rights. He cites the precedent established in Somerset v Stewart that slavery is incompatible with liberty and cannot exist absent positive legal sanction. Spooner notes that contrary to this principle, the Articles of Confederation, the several state constitutions, and the 1787 federal constitution do not refer to slavery directly; the Declaration of Independence, meanwhile, implicitly proscribes slavery by recognizing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as self-evident natural rights. Spooner rejects appeals to original intent concerning the historical context for constitutional provisions generally understood to address slavery, arguing that laws must be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the text. He concludes that there is no legal basis for slavery in the United States and that the Guarantee Clause requires Congress to enforce emancipation.

↑ Return to Menu