In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Perhaps no other American constitutional topic has been subject to such changing and contrary interpretations as has that of colonial charters. For example, george bancroft, who in 1834 had written that the Massachusetts charter of 1629 "established a corporation, like other corporations within the realm," wrote in 1883 that the charter "constituted a body politic by the name of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay." Bancroft's apparent inconsistency is less contradiction than part of a constitutional controversy. Even during the colonial period constitutional experts disagreed about the legal nature of charters. A few North American colonies (Plymouth, New Haven) had no charters. Most did, however, and the earliest charters were of two types. The first (Virginia, Massachusetts Bay), modeled on trading company charters granted to merchants, stressed commerce and settlement. The second (Maryland, Maine, Carolina) was based on the palatinate bishopric of Durham County, England. Later, a third type of charter was issued: "royal" charters for colonies in which the governor and other designated officers were appointed by the Crown. Containing more provisions directing government functions, royal charters generally defined a colony's relations with the mother country, not its internal constitution. No matter the type, charters were statements of privileges, not organic acts of government; they conferred immunities from prosecution and did not define structures of governance. Colonial charters, therefore, did not contribute significantly to constitutional law or history except when Americans claimed immunity from parliamentary authority. American legal theory held that charters were contracts by which the king promised to protect and defend his American subjects in exchange for the subjects' allegiance. A better theory was that charters were evidence of a contract between the English crown and the first settlers of America. By either theory charters were not constitutions but one of the sources of constitutional rights along with the ancient English constitution, the current British constitution, the original contract, the second original contract, common law, custom, and, to a minor degree, natural law. The first charter of Virginia stated a principle, repeated in later Virginia charters and in the charters of several other colonies, that the colonists "shall have and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities … to all Intents and Purposes as if they had been abiding and born within this our Realm of England.…" Americans of the Revolutionary period read such provisions as supporting their constitutional arguments against Britain. The legal theory subscribed to on the imperial side of the controversy held that charters created corporations not unlike municipal and commercial corporations in the mother country. As joseph galloway declared, the colonies were only "corporations, or subordinate bodies politic, vested with legislative powers, to regulate their own internal police, under certain regulations and restrictions, and no more." A more extreme imperial theory held that charters were irrelevant; that the powers and limitations of colonial government came not from charters but from the instructions that British ministers issued to colonial governors. This theory, which American legislatures repudiated, contributed to the coming of the Revolution. The American theory that charters were inviolable contracts confirming inalienable rights was premised on Old Whig constitutional definitions of limited government which still enjoyed some support in Britain during the second half of the eighteenth century and found expression in arguments that Parliament lacked constitutional authority to revoke or amend charters. This argument had little support in Britain, where all charters were viewed as revocable. In fact, a majority of colonies had their charters revoked and regranted at various times by the British government. Indeed, no single action so provoked the american revolution as the Massachusetts Government Act asserting the authority of Parliament to amend colonial charters by unilateral decision. When the Revolution commenced there were only two proprietary charters (Pennsylvania, Maryland) and two corporate charters (Connecticut, Rhode Island). Remaining colonies had royal charters, except Quebec and Georgia, which were governed by instructions. When Americans began to draft organic acts, they came more and more to think of charters as constitutions. To resist the Massachusetts Government Act, which revoked the charter of 1691, colonial leaders gave consideration to "resuming" the original charter of 1629 granted by Charles I. Connecticut and Rhode Island retained their charters as state constitutions, Connecticut until 1818 and Rhode Island until 1843. John Phillip Reid BibliographyReid, John Phillip 1976 In the First Line of Defense: The Colonial Charters, the Stamp Act Debate and the Coming of the American Revolution. New York University Law Review 51:177–215. The Thirteen Colonies , The Thirteen Colonies were British colonies in North America founded between 1607 (Virginia) and 1732 (Georgia). Although Great Britain held several… John Winthrop (scientist) , John Winthrop John Winthrop (1588-1649) was an American colonial political leader and historian. He was a very effective governor of the Massachusett… Colony , colony, any nonself-governing territory subject to the jurisdiction of a usually distant country. The term is also applied to a group of nationals wh… Stamp Act , In March 1765 the English Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which imposed a tax on all paper imported into the American colonies. To get the paper the… Constitutional Convention , Constitutional conventions, like the written constitutions that they produce, are among the American contributions to government. A constitutional co… Constitution Of The United States , The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the character of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must co… Colonial Administration, Spanish Colonia, Regina Célia (1940–) Colon, Joseph ben Solomon Colombres, José Eusebio (1778–1859) Colonial Cities and Towns, Africa Colonial Conference, British Colonial Dames of America Colonial National Historical Park Colonial Office, Great Britain Colonial Port Cities and Towns, South and Southeast Asia Colonial Properties Trust Colonial Rebellions and Armed Civil Unrest Colonial Theory from 1500 to 1690 A charter is a document that gives colonies the legal rights to exist. Charters can bestow certain rights on a town, city, university, or other institution. Colonial charters were approved when the king gave a grant of exclusive powers for the governance of land to proprietors or a settlement company. The charters defined the relationship of the colony to the mother country as free from involvement from the Crown. For the trading companies, charters vested the powers of government in the company in England. The officers would determine the administration, laws, and ordinances for the colony but only as conforming to the laws of England. Proprietary charters gave governing authority to the proprietor, who determined the form of government, chose the officers, and made laws subject to the advice and consent of the freemen. All colonial charters guaranteed to the colonists the vague rights and privileges of Englishmen, which would later cause trouble during the American Revolution. In the second half of the 17th century, the Crown looked upon charters as obstacles to colonial control and substituted the royal province for corporations and proprietary governments. HistoryThe Virginia and Massachusetts charters were given to business corporations. Regular meetings of company officers and stockholders were the only governmental institutions required. The Virginia charter, issued in 1606, and revised in 1609 and 1612, was revoked upon bankruptcy of the sponsoring and organizing Virginia Company of London in 1624. The second Colonial Charter was granted to Massachusetts Bay in 1629, settling at Boston and Salem, a decade after the first "New Englanders" at Plymouth Colony further south towards Cape Cod. In 1684, the Chancery Court in England voided the charter and changed it to a royal colony. Charles II placed Massachusetts under the authority of the unified Dominion of New England in 1685. After William III and Mary II had ascended to the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland, in addition to the stewardship of the Dutch Republic, they issued Massachusetts Bay a new liberal charter in 1691. Charles II granted Connecticut its charter in 1662 with the right of self-government. When James II ascended the throne in 1685, he tried to revoke the Connecticut charter and sent Sir Edmund Andros to receive it for the Crown. Captain Joseph Wadsworth spirited the precious document out a window and stole the charter and hid it in a hollow oak tree, the "Charter Oak," until James was overthrown. Connecticut temporarily lost the right of self-government under the unification of the several colonies into the Dominion of New England in 1687 until it was reinstated 1689. The last charter by Charles II was issued to Rhode Island in 1663. Connecticut and Rhode Island attained colonial charters as already established colonies that allowed them to elect their own governors. As a result of political upheavals, especially after the three English Civil Wars in the 1640s, and the later "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 with their Roman Catholic-Protestant/Anglican conflicts, which also transformed into struggles between the King and Parliament. As the conflicts traveled across the Atlantic Ocean, most colonies eventually surrendered their charters to the Crown by 1763 and became royal colonies, as the King and his Ministers asserted more centralized control of their previously-neglected and autonomous Thirteen Colonies. By the late 1600s, the colonial Maryland had its Proprietary Charter to the Lords Baltimore revoked and had become a royal colony with its Governor of Maryland, appointed by the Monarch, with the advice of his Ministers and the Colonial Offices and Board of Trade of members from Parliament. By 1776, Pennsylvania and its lower Delaware Bay counties remained proprietary colonies under a charter originally granted to William Penn and his heirs. The Province of Connecticut and the Province of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations continued as corporation colonies under charters, and Massachusetts was governed as a royal province that operated under a charter after the unifying of the older "Massachusetts Bay" colony at Boston and the "first landing" colony, Plymouth Colony at Plymouth, Massachusetts, with its famous "Mayflower Compact" from 1620. Further south, the Provinces of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia to the undefined border with Spanish Florida, all had their original charters dismissed with different opinions about the role and powers and taxing authority between the royal governors and their increasingly-restless and defiant colonial Assemblies. Royal authority reasserted itself and becoming governed more directly from London with increasing friction as the 18th century progressed to its revolutionary climax. See also
References
External links
|
In colonial charters, all the power of the government was given to the governor.
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 wiewird Inc.
