When we learned about American Independence in school, we were not told the full story. Far from it. S. Max Edelson, in his “The New Map of Empire: How Britain Imagined America Before Independence” does not take sides but, rather, provides an unbiased and academic picture of how Britain saw its western colonies after the Seven Years’ War, a.k.a. The French and Indian War. The war ended in 1763 with a British (and its American Colonies) victory that saw them ceded large amounts of French and Spanish claimed land in the Western hemisphere, including what is now Canada, the Colonies to the Mississippi River, and also Florida. But the resounding victory was costly in terms of finances for Britain and suffering for its Colonies. The role of Native Americans would also prove rather important.

While having a united front during the war against primarily the French and the Native Americans, Britain and the American Colonies found themselves at cross purposes in the peace. Britain, being the seat of the empire, “mother country,” and debtor for the war asserted its claim to how the peace was to be structured. Britain saw its expanded empire as the means to pay its large debts incurred to make the acquisitions and a new source of revenue, and it sought regulation of its empire as a means to accomplish this.

Mapmaking with its necessary line drawing was one of the regulatory tools employed. The first and rather contentious line was the Proclamation Line of 1763. The Line, drawn roughly along the Appalachian Mountains, would separate Native Americans (to the West of the Line) from Colonists (to the East of the Line). This separation would serve two purposes: 1) Prevent conflict between Native Americans and Colonists by preventing Colonists from encroaching on Native lands to the West; and 2) Keep Colonists along trading routes of rivers flowing to the Atlantic where they can ship raw materials to, and then purchase finished goods from, Britain and remain under the control of Crown authorities. Britain saw this as a legal and practical measure as the winning empire, and necessary to pay back war debts and keep the peace. American Colonists saw it as overbearing, exploitative, and a denial of their ability (and purpose) to exploit the new empire for themselves and to “civilize” it after their sacrifices in the war. As Edelson states, “The Proclamation of 1763 began an incendiary process of tightening laws of trade, exercising taxation powers, and controlling how colonists took up, or were denied, American land.” George Washington, who had been granted lands beyond the Line, felt its enforcement would be short lived. Edelson notes that according to James Madison, “George III’s Proclamation of 1763…was the immediate prelude to the ‘wicked & oppressive measures which gave birth to the Revolution’ and therefore should be considered a violation of American rights.”

Not only did the Line attempt to stop land development on Native lands, it also presented a problem for the empire. Colonists did not obey it, leading to conflicts with the Natives. Britain was compelled to send forces to America to protect its subjects. But it, again, was cash-strapped. As a result Britain thought it appropriate to levy taxes and quarter soldiers in homes to cover these expenses. Is this sounding familiar? Britain’s measures towards the colonies were, at times, heavy handed and not done in the spirit of cooperation but were, instead, those of ruler over subject. Americans, thinking they knew better being on the ground found Britain’s actions oppressive. 1776 was the result.

As a final note, this book acknowledges extensive academic resources in both the United States and the United Kingdom. In the U.S., the John W. Kluge Center at the Library of Congress is mentioned along with multiple mentions of the University of Virginia. Without sufficiently-funded research resources, we are left in the dark.

For more information, see: https://frontiermuseum.org/lecture-series-virginias-proclamation-line-mapping-the-frontier-in-the-era-of-the-american-revolution/