The Limits of Empire in Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts

Should an imperial approach automatically be applied to the history of the eighteenth century? Traditional wisdom tells us that this era represented the apex of the Age of Empire. Trade between metropoles and overseas colonies had become substantial and systematic. Bureaucrats and ministers replicated political and legal systems around the world. Imperial armies and navies expanded to unprecedented levels to maintain and expand spheres of control. Yet, recent transnational and comparative histories have raised serious questions about the efficacy and applicability of imperial frameworks of analysis for subjects such as slavery, race, class, and gender in the early modern period. These studies stress the porous nature of political borders and the limits of state power.

Capitalists living in the British North American colony of Massachusetts complicate the application of an imperial approach to life in the eighteenth century. On the one hand, these rational calculators, profit maximizers, and risk takers paid London lobbyists to pressure Parliament to make policies and pass laws that nurtured and sustained capitalist activities. Capitalists also applied for naval protection to reduce risks associated with transoceanic commerce. On the other hand, capitalists in Massachusetts habitually violated imperial commercial regulations. They used their own vessels, instead of ships belonging to metropolitan residents. They traded directly with foreign merchants, instead of conducting business through metropolitan intermediaries. They defied the efforts of imperial customs agents. Capitalists were self-interested profit maximizers who used state power to suit their own ends. In this, capitalists in colonial Massachusetts were no different than capitalists in Dutch, French, or Spanish dominions. Transnational or comparative approaches make more sense than imperial approaches, I argue, when examining the lives of eighteenth century capitalists.