23

I'm currently reading Adam Smith "The Wealth of Nations" and there he also writes about the American colonies. He writes that the UK imposes monopoly rights for British traders on all trades with the colonies and then argues that this monopoly is actually detrimental to the British economy. In consequence he argues that the UK should either grant independence to the colonies or grant them representation in the British parliament proportional to their burden of taxation.

This position is clearly in opposition to British politics at the time, however it seems the book was written in times of peace so this is a purely theoretical academic position. The book was published in 1776, the same year as the American declaration of independence and around that time the American Revolutionary War broke out.

Voicing this opinion at a time of war against the American colonies seems way more controversial and potentially carries some risk for him. So question, did Adam Smith still argue that the UK should just grant the American Colonies their wishes and abandon the war as the war was ongoing?

Improve this question
2
  • 4
    Took a little look into it, and it appears we don't know what party Smith supported (if any), but we do know that his biggest supporters and admirers were largely Whigs. Whigs as a party were out of power at the time. It was largely Tories who oversaw the policies that created the American Revolution, and those that carried out the British response (and lost it). Whigs at the time were largely critical of government policy (as is the opposition party's job). Commented Oct 14, 2024 at 13:51
  • Note: the war started in April 1775 (the "shot heard 'round the world" at Lexington and Concord). Commented Oct 16, 2024 at 19:19

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
27

Adam Smith wrote a brief document on the topic in 1778, addressed to the British Solicitor-General. At that time Smith's position was not fundamentally changed, but saw the option of restoring union as now practically impossible. Skinner (1977) summarizes Smith's analysis as follows:

the British Government, through delay, misunderstanding, over-confidence and fear of public opinion had effectively lost the opportunity to realise the best possible solution (union) to a problem which had to be faced sooner or later be cause of the contradictions inherent in mercantile policy. All that seemed to be left was public humiliation and disgrace, at least in the short run, while in the longer term Smith foresaw the possibilities of a special relationship between the two countries founded upon a common language and culture, but with Britain left with the most expensive and least desirable solution: the loss of America and the retention of Canada

Smith does discuss the option of attempting to restore the old colonial relationship, but sees it as leading "necessarily, but insensibly to the total dismemberment of America".

Improve this answer
6
  • 3
    Skinner's use of "special relationship" sounds suspiciously like how the relationship is described today (and presumably in 1977). Did Smith himself use any terminology similar to this, or would you guess that Skinner is using the term somewhat anachronistically? Commented Oct 15, 2024 at 12:02
  • 6
    @BenHocking Smith obviously doesn't use the term specifically, but in essence it's what he describes (in far wordier ways). For example, he mentions the "necessary mildness of such a government, so exactly resembling that of the mother country" Commented Oct 15, 2024 at 12:20
  • 6
    Here are Smith's words, from about half way down page 718: "..., yet the similarity of language and manners would in most cases dispose the Americans to prefer our alliance to that of any other nation. Their antient affection for the people of this country might revive, if they were once assured that we meant to claim no dominion over them; ...." Commented Oct 15, 2024 at 12:26
  • 2
    The question is about Smith's opinion of the American Revolution. This answer seems infatuated with Skinner's summary of, and opinion on, Smith's writings on the subject. I see it as no answer at all. The entirety of Smith's essay is contained within that link, and is properly the content of any quoted writings rather than Skinner who seems, on my humble opinion, intent on rewriting rather than elucidating Smith's thoughts. Commented Oct 15, 2024 at 12:31
  • 12
    @PieterGeerkens No need for the attitude.... If my answer is so bad why don't you post a better one? Commented Oct 15, 2024 at 16:16

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.