Empire summary

In the twenty-first century, we’re still grappling with the impact colonialism had on the world. There’s no doubt that horrific atrocities occurred at the hands of British colonists, but according to historian Niall Ferguson, the creation of the British Empire also came with some beneficial advances. Intercontinental communications as well as the spread of democracy and life-saving medications are just a few of the good things.

The British Empire, and the international trade and wealth it generated, has left behind a legacy that is neither entirely bad nor entirely good. And before it collapsed, it may have saved the world from a fascist takeover. This is the story of how it came to be and why it had to go away.

In these blinks, you’ll learn

• how a notorious pirate got the British Empire underway;
• how prisoners became more loyal colonists than pilgrims; and
• how wars helped grow and destroy the Empire.

Turns out that the English had quite a sweet tooth. They loved sugar. They couldn’t get enough of the stuff. And thanks to Jamaican sugar cane, the price became low enough for aristocrats and commoners alike to enjoy.

Indeed, by the eighteenth century, people in England were going mad for imported goods like sugar, as well as coffee, tea, tobacco, cotton, ginger, chocolate, and rice. In just ten years, from around 1740 to 1750, the amounts of tea used for home consumption leaped from under 800,000 lbs. to over 2.5 million lbs. It was clear there was big money to be made in fulfilling the demand for imported goods, and doing so would have a far-reaching impact on the world.

The key message here is: The British Empire grew through the demands of commerce and consumerism.

The company that would fulfill consumer demand was the East India Company. But, to complicate matters, there were, at first, two East India companies – the Dutch East India Company and the English one. Both were founded just two years apart from each other at the start of the seventeenth century.

Competition between the two was so fierce that it prompted three wars between England and the Dutch Republic between 1652 and 1674. Despite being a smaller power in many ways, the Dutch largely bested England in both war and commerce. How? Well, in large part it was thanks to their advanced economy. The Dutch were essentially practicing an early version of modern finance. Unlike the English, Dutch financial institutions were set up to support their national currency and their navy, while also managing the national debt.

Following these defeats, a coup took place in England in 1688. The English monarch, King James II, was ousted by a group of powerful aristocrats who opened the doors of England to the Dutch. William of Orange, the Dutch Stadtholder, or national leader, was installed as King of England. He brought with him a financial revolution that included the merger of the two East India companies.

In 1694, the Bank of England was created, modeled after the Bank of Amsterdam. Government bonds were issued, money was raised, credit and debt were managed, the navy was revitalized and made stronger than ever. Now, the financial system that had been working wonders for the Dutch would be put to work on a far larger scale with the newly merged East India Company generating new levels of profit. This is how England began to establish and maintain roots in India, South East Asia, Africa, the West Indies, and elsewhere. The Empire began to take shape.

Where the East India Company went, bureaucracy followed. Settlements were established, fortifications put up, and company men installed to ensure the smooth running of trade and money. 

It was a business, albeit one that didn’t always run so smoothly. Stationed in India, far from the prying eyes of England, many company men, like Thomas Pitt, started to run their own side operations. After all, their salaries weren’t that great and tempting opportunities were everywhere. At first, the Company disapproved. But their attitude soon changed when it became clear that these side hustles were helping to create new contacts and strengthen overall business. Before long, the East India Company began to give industrious men like Pitt the green light to take the initiative.

Of course, France – England’s main rival – wasn’t going to sit idly by while all of this was happening. By 1664, they’d launched their own East India company. In the early eighteenth century, tensions between France and England would reach boiling point.

The key message here is: With new wars and conflicts, European empire-building was underway.

It should be noted that a significant change occurred in 1707. The parliaments of Scotland and England officially united, giving birth to the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The burgeoning English empire became the burgeoning British Empire.

In 1713, there was the War of Spanish Succession, a conflict involving Britain, France, and Spain. This war weakened the already tottering Spanish navy, and the Spanish Empire. Afterward, there was little doubt that Britain now had the superior naval power in Europe.

But another war was on the horizon, a conflict that could justifiably be called the first true world war. The Seven Years’ War, which began in 1756, involved all the major European powers, including Prussia, Austria, Russia, and Spain. Yet despite all these participants, the primary question of the war was, simply, would France or Britain control the world?

Much of the conflict was over territory in North America. But territories in the Caribbean and India were also battlegrounds. In the end, it was a huge victory for Britain. France ceded nearly all of its territories in Canada, as well as Florida and the islands of Dominica, Grenada, Tobago, and St. Vincent, to Britain. The strategic area of Bengal in India also became a British territory.

Once again, the decisive victory was largely attributed to finances. France’s economy was simply not set up to support a long drawn out war the way Britain was. France wouldn’t give up though. Conflicts and territorial exchanges between the two European powers would continue well into the nineteenth century, but the Seven Years’ War did make one thing clear: India was firmly in the hands of Great Britain.

India proved to be an enduringly popular destination for Britons with enterprising ambitions or wanderlust. Many were eager to set voyage to India, make a small fortune, and return home wealthy. There was even a popular term for such a person: a Nabob.

Huge numbers of people from the United Kingdom were eager to migrate and try their luck in new territories. This mass migration was unprecedented in history, and it was key to forming the foundation of the British Empire. In the seventeenth century alone, some 700,000 people from the British Isles left for new destinations. Many Europeans set their sights on the new colonies in North America. But others were also taken with little or no choice. 

The key message here is: Migration and the slave trade populated the British Empire.

First, there were indentured servants. People with few prospects in the old world, tempted by the lure of five years of servitude followed by freedom, braved the uncertain journey across the Atlantic. For those who managed to survive the harrowing trip, there was the additional threat of the deadly new diseases that awaited them in America, as well as the gross mistreatment at the hands of their employers.

Then there were the enslaved people. From the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, the international slave trade ruthlessly eked massive profits out of human misery. By 1750, around 800,000 Africans had been forcibly transported by British ships to the Caribbean. By 1807, around 3.5 million enslaved people had been taken to North America. It was a barbaric trade, and conditions for the enslaved Africans truly horrific.

Things began to change in the late eighteenth century. Abolitionist groups in Britain started gaining political power. A combination of Evangelical Protestants and Quakers formed the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade and they gained enough influence that in 1808, the slave trade was officially banned in the British Empire.

As Britain entered the Victorian era, starting in 1837, the Evangelical, Quaker, and Methodist influence became even stronger. In many ways, this was a good thing, at least as far as respecting basic human rights went. But that respect came with a caveat. Non-Christian subjects of the Empire fell under an increasing amount of pressure by missionaries to become God-fearing Christians. As we’ll see later, this could have deadly consequences.

Imagine being convicted of forgery or perjury and your sentence involving an eight-month boat trip to a desert island, where you’d serve out your time doing hard labor. This is basically what happened to around 150,000 people who were transported to Australia between the years 1787 and 1853. 

At first, the boats to Australia were deemed hell ships. Indeed, for many years, the journey was life-threatening. But after some time conditions improved, and a thriving community was built by the convicted felons. Word soon reached London that Australia was becoming less of a barren wasteland and more of a boomtown. It actually reached a point where a few people raised objections because their sentence didn’t allow them to be shipped to Australia.

Ironically enough, the prisoners sent to Australia proved to be a much more stable community than the pilgrims who went to America.

The key message here is: As the Empire grew, a distant government struggled to balance oversight and control.

The colonization of Australia began just after Britain’s colonies in America declared independence. In North America, a community that started out as a group of pilgrims seeking religious freedom and liberty quickly grew to such strength that they grew tired of having laws and taxes imposed by a far-off government on the other side of the Atlantic. Eventually, in the late eighteenth century, they rebelled. 

After a war that found many British-born people killing one another, Britain recognized the independence of the United States. There was little doubt that America would be a crucial trade partner in the future, so many in the British government hoped that by granting independence, there would be some salvageable relationship. 

The British learned a painful lesson from the loss of their North American colonies. The thing they denied the Americans, self-government, was something it would grant to many of their other territories, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. This was a lesson learned, and it was one that could have drastic consequences on the indigenous populations. 

In Australia, for instance, there was an ongoing battle between farmers and Aborigines. It was a conflict that was not unlike the fighting going on between the US government and Native Americans. In Australia, the British granted self-government to the colonists while maintaining oversight. They used this oversight to establish Aboriginal Protectorates in New South Wales and Western Australia. It didn’t end the violence, but it did provide a restraining force that curbed the power of the colonists. This was altogether absent in the treatment of Native Americans in the United States.

For a while, the unspoken modus operandi of Great Britain was to exploit its colonies for economic gain. Since the early days of the East India Company, England had been draining money out of India and into the pockets of wealthy white men. But in Victorian times, this wasn’t enough. Christianity had to be imposed as well. As you can imagine, it didn’t go well.

The key message here is: In the Victorian Era, the colonies saw an influx of Christian missionaries.

There were some genuine concerns on the part of Victorian missionaries in India. There was the custom of female infanticide, which was known to occur when the family was unable to afford the costs associated with marrying off their daughter. Another was the tradition of sati, which involved a Hindu widow being placed atop her husband’s funeral pyre and burned alive.

Reports of these practices that reached Britain often overstated their number. For example, infanticide was largely limited to the North-Western Provinces. Nevertheless, stories of such practices only strengthened the resolve of Christian-minded organizations in Britain. And this led to change in India. The campaign against infanticide persuaded the Maharaja of Marwar to officially ban the practice. Similarly, in 1829, a new Governor-General, William Bentinck, officially banned the practice of sati. 

Few Indians spoke out against the ban. Indeed, some applauded the measure. But some wondered if this was only the start of a new trend of religious impositions. One British official, Lt.-Col. William Playfaire, even wrote a letter to Bentinck’s office warning that such measures could quickly lead to rebellion. He wasn’t wrong.

The final straw wasn’t a ban or a new law, however. It was the issue of new bullets to the Indian Army. Indian infantrymen were known as sepoys, and they could be Muslim, Hindu, or Sikhs. For them, their calling as warriors was directly linked to their faith. So, it was no small offense when the army issued new turbans that included brocades made of animal hide, and new bullet cartridges that were lubricated with animal fat.

Using the cartridges required the soldier to bite off the ends. As this was against their faith, the sepoys refused. When they were jailed for insubordination, it was the spark that set off a violent uprising across India.

The Sepoy Mutiny would also be known as the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Thousands of Europeans were killed, including women and children, but the retaliation against the Indian population was far greater. No one can be sure of the total casualties, but the words of British Lt. Kendal Coghill paint a gruesome picture. He wrote, “We burned every village and hanged all the villagers… until every tree was covered with scoundrels hanging from every branch.”

The rebellion resulted in the Government of India Act 1858. The East India Company finally became part of the British government. This meant that India, for the first time, officially became ruled by the British government. It was a significant change. Yet, while the government began playing an active role in India, in other areas, private enterprise still took the lead when it came to empire building.

The key message here is: In Africa, the Empire expanded through more commercial desires.

By the mid-nineteenth century, Africa was home to one of the quintessential Victorian missionaries, Dr. David Livingstone. In some ways, he represented the best of British intentions. Despite the fact that most Africans laughed off his attempts at introducing Christianity, he recognized that many were “wiser than their white neighbors.” And when he saw that an eastward slave trade was still going on in Africa, he vowed to put an end to it.

To reach that end, Livingstone dreamed of bringing wholesome commerce to the heart of Africa. He would take that dream with him to the grave in 1873, when he succumbed to malaria and dysentery.

In the late-nineteenth century, a more vicious brand of commercial explorer emerged with men like Cecil Rhodes. Backed by the wealthy Nathaniel de Rothschild, Rhodes brought the diamond-mining De Beers Company into Southern Africa when he struck a land deal with the king of Matabele. The king believed he was just signing over some mining rights, but in 1893, Rhodes took everything with the help of a new machine gun, the Maxim. The high-powered gun allowed Rhodes, with his 700 men, to wipe out a Matabele army of 1,500. With the victory, the new British territory of Rhodesia was founded. But Rhodes wasn’t prepared to stop there.

He had a dream of British territories stretching from North to South Africa. An unbroken commercial chain throughout the continent that would make the Empire stronger than ever. By the start of the twentieth century, that dream very nearly came true.

The British weren’t alone in colonizing Africa. The nineteenth century ended with what is known as the Scramble for Africa. Germany, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, and Italy were all involved to one extent or another.

Britain’s claims in the continent stretched from Egypt in the north to South Africa, and only German East Africa prevented British rule forming a complete chain.

This brief period represents the high watermark of the British Empire, with its total territories accounting for nearly one-fourth of the world. But at the same time, in some ways this was to be its tipping point as well.

The key message here is: Following a tragedy in Africa and a costly war, the Empire began to prove untenable.

To secure diamond and gold mines in Southern Africa, Britain entered into what are known as the Boer Wars, between 1880 and 1902. The Boer Republics were independent states in south-east Africa. The Boers themselves were descended from Dutch settlers, and they put up a fierce resistance against the British forces. In a long, drawn-out battle, around 30,000 Boer homes were burned to the ground, and women and children were transferred to poorly maintained concentration camps where nearly 30,000 died. Another 14,000 Black prisoners died in internment as well. In both cases, the majority of the deaths were children.

News of this avoidable tragedy was met with grief and indignation back in Britain. The Liberals in Parliament seized upon this moment as an opportunity to take control of the government. Publications like the 1902 Imperialism: A Study, by J. A. Hobson, suggested that the Empire was essentially a tax burden that benefitted only a few of the most wealthy elite.

Complicating the Liberals’ position, however, was a brewing war with Germany. Already in negotiations over African territories, the Germans had been playing the British and French against each other. And Germany had been setting the stage for the Great War for some time. The Liberal government in Britain wasn’t eager to go to war. The Germans had a far superior army, but the idea of standing by while Germany conquered Europe didn’t sit well with anyone.

When the war finally came, the Empire was key. Indeed, it was a war that wouldn’t have been winnable if not for the Empire. One-third of the troops fighting on behalf of Britain were from the colonies. Indians, Australians, and New Zealanders were especially brave and devoted fighters for the British cause.

While Great Britain gained more territories at the end of World War I, the financial drain caused by the war would prove to be the beginning of the end for the British Empire. For example, Britain was granted Iraq after the war, but in 1921 alone, this would cost £21 million – more than the UK spent on health care that year.

The Empire was hurting Britain. Britain needed to invest in rebuilding its defenses, and modernizing its military. It didn’t, and in World War II, it nearly cost Britain everything. 

The key message here is: Following the cost of two major wars, the Empire collapsed.

At the start of World War II, Britain was still relying on horses in the battlefield. It had none of the modern tanks and artillery that Germany had. Many felt that the war couldn’t be won, given the weakened position Britain was in. Fortunately, Winston Churchill knew that Hitler’s offers for a treaty were in bad faith. And Britain still had one thing going for it: the soldiers of the Empire. They once again played a crucial role in winning the war. Altogether, around 5 million troops were raised.

This time, however, it was America’s entry into the war that proved decisive. And it would be the Americans that would end up in the position of future empire-building.

Once again, at war’s end, Britain was left with massive debt and a desperate need for rebuilding, not maintaining a vast empire. Plus, in negotiating post-war terms, America was in a position to make demands, and both Roosevelt and Eisenhower were clear in their disapproval of the Empire. As FDR said, “The colonial system means war.” The exploitation inherent in the colonial system inevitably leads to conflict.

Sure enough, the British Empire began to crumble. In 1947, the jewel of the Empire, India, was granted independence. In place of the Empire, the Commonwealth was created. As of 2003, it had 54 members, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

In the aftermath of WWII, the US emerged as the dominant world power. And as a globalized economy strengthened, new questions about empire-building emerged. Britain's history revealed both the good and bad that can occur. Can we learn from this? Can a voluntary, cooperative empire exist that offers both stability and protection?

Perhaps as a testament to the bad reputation colonialism and imperialism has gained, no nation seems willing to answer these questions.