Richard Hakluyt appealed to Queen Elizabeth I (the 1st) to begin financing more exploration and even an immediate English migration to the Americas. The English had not really explored earlier as they were torn by a religious schism for decades. When Queen Elizabeth I consolidated her kingdom with a new Church of England, she created a United Kingdom. Now Great Britain was finally in a position to consider overseas settlements.
Read over the reasons offered by Richard Hakluyt attached in the link. Then choose one reason that you believe was probably going to be the most persuasive of them all and offer a brief complete response as a comment as to why you chose that reason.
There is no correct response, we just need to substantiate our responses with evidence from our Chapter One readings. As is our pattern, reply to two others and offer feedback to those classmates.
Question: Which of Richard Hakluyt's reasons to begin English expansion appears to be the most persuasive in getting England to want to support exploration and colonization of the Americas?
I find Richard Hakluyt's third point most convincing. I know that Asian and African commodities were no where near as easy to get in the 16th century as they are now, and I can't imagine how much wealth was gained as a result of this point alone. Hakluyt makes many points, all significant in their own right, but in my eyes, none are as important as monetary gain. After all, the only two reasons the Europeans even bothered to colonize was to amass fortunes and expand their power. Furthermore, expanding your power (as a nation) comes hand in hand with amassing fortunes, so this point encompasses all the needs the English could possibly have when it comes to colonization.
ReplyDeleteI like your analysis of Richard Hakluyt's third point: it regards direct financial success from enhanced trade among Europe, Asia and Africa; it is a subset of a major incentive for European colonization (the amassing of great wealth). I find your analyzation is very specific and accurate. Well done!
DeleteI find your connection between power and fortune very interesting and completely agree. It has been shown that monetary gains are the ways that a nation asserts itself as a major power.
Delete(Sakari)
DeleteI agree that money was one of the most important things for a nation, and I do think this point was very convincing for most of England. Hakluyt definitely knew what he was doing when he deciding to bring this up so early into the game.
I like what you are saying, and do agree that number three was a very powerful argument. I also like how you brought in information from past lessons.
DeleteI agree with your response! It makes a lot of sense, and it was more compelling because you incorporated background knowledge.
DeleteI am most persuaded by the fourth chapter of this document by Richard Hakluyt, which expresses an economic benefit to New World colonization. Specifically, the idea that New World colonies would provide "...employment of numbers of idle men...", "...breed[] many sufficient [Englishmen]…”, in-turn allowing for a larger market for the "...great quantity of the commodities of [England]." The textbook reinforces this argument, as it too explains Hakluyt’s idea that colonies in the Americas would create new markets, and that Hakluyt saw colonies as a way of lessening unemployment and increasing the well-being of English society. As a sidetone, the textbook also tells of Hakluyt's claim that even the "annoy[ances] to the whole state" who chose to stay in England would gain jobs in the improving economy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that economic benefit is the most important benefit to colonization, especially in a nation that is economically underdeveloped and suffering mass unemployment with high populations.
DeleteThis reason is very persuasive and also is a bigger reason that could cause the creation of other benefits and improvements.
DeleteOverall, I think the idea of having more, and advancing into a more prosperous society is what motivated England.
Delete(Sakari)
DeleteI do honestly believe that this chapter made a great point, as bettering English society and earning goods and profit was something very attractive to England, and Europe, at the time.
I agree. I was also interested in this point and I think it does a great job outlining how the colonization of the Americas could turn England's problem of surplus population into something positive and good for the entire country.
DeleteI agree as well. I also would add that having a large unemployed population, especially with such massive instability so near in the past, is incredibly dangerous for the state. Removing and employing this population would not only benefit England socially and economically, but also make sure the people don't revolt and destroy the government/nobility, just as long as the government doesn't destroy itself anyways...
DeleteI find number fifteen to be the most persuasive. We know that England was already very far behind the Spaniards, who had established their dominance and power in the Americas already. Colonization was a way for the English to increase their power and compete with other hugely developed and thriving nations who had already began this. Number fifteen gives a sense of urgency that I believe to be necessary for the English who are already behind in this area.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't thought about this before, but I agree. I think the sense of competition with other nations could drive England to colonize.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI like and agree with your idea of the motivating time-pressure aspect of English colonization. Like you said, England was behind Spain in the colonization of the New World, and they only had a small window of time before others would block their access to the new continents' rewards.
DeleteI think this is a very interesting way of looking at number 15. I think the sense of urgency does make this point very pursuasive.
DeleteThe pressure of time was a definite problem, I agree. If England didn't do anything and let the Spaniards take all of the land, if the two countries went to war, Spain could just extract wealth and manpower from one of those locations and easily crush the English.
DeleteI like your point about how important it was for England to expand into the Americas before other countries got their first. There was a lot of competition between the European countries, and the limited amount of land in the Americas definitely exacerbated their rivalry.
DeleteThis was my second choice for exactly these reasons. The urgency and want to compete and keep up with their greatest rival would be a huge motivator. My only dislike is that this point focuses on how the English wouldn't be able to get territory in the New World and not so much as to why that is necessary when there is so much else to do.
DeleteI think that the 3rd point Richard Hakluyt made is the most convincing. If the Queen of England is going to invest money in the voyage to the Americas, she needs to see a foreseeable profit in the investment. The reason that consolidated power proves to be a motive to explore is because powerful people have the desire to gain more and more. Although the other reasons Hakluyt presents are valid, the argument that the voyage will yield resources and trade for England will appeal to the queen's desire to improve. Hakluyt says that the journey will "supply the wants of all of our decayed trades." I think this is what will persuade England to see the economic benefits of colonization in the Americas.
ReplyDeleteI agree! My old history teacher once told me that in the colonial era, money = power. I know the queen wanted nothing more than to gain power and consolidate that power, and I know that Richard Hakluyt wanted to capitalize on that.
DeleteI agree, and I appreciate the point about profit coming from the Americas.
DeleteYes, exactly. The only reason people went to the Americas in the first place is because they were looking for an easier way to Asia, and after they discovered it they looked for gold. They only did it for the profit.
DeleteI agree with this point. Most of their society was based on money, which came from goods. That means that the third point would be very convincing because it promises commodities, and therefore money.
DeleteSakari
ReplyDeleteI think the twelfth point in Hakluyt's essay would have been the most convincing to me if I believed in stealing land- uh, I mean, colonization. It reads as follows: "That the passage in this voyage is easy and short, that it cutteth not near the trade of any other mighty Princes, nor near their Countries, that it is to be performed at all tymes of the year, and needeth but one kind of wind, that Ireland being full of good heavens on the south and west sides, is the nearest part of Europe to it, which by this trade shall be in more security, and the sooner drawn to more Civility." That's a mouthful, and as an illiterate person, I shall try my best to translate it for ease and comfort: He basically says that the route doesn't interfere with any other country, and the route is easy, can be taken any time of the year, and only needs one kind of wind. He also mentions that it is closest to Ireland, which England controlled at the time, so the route would be more secure. I am a type of person that likes to avoid unnecessary conflict, so I will try to stay out of other's ways as much as possible (I am not a coward, I will fight if the need arises). Knowing that I can get what I want/need without conflict heightens my likelihood of taking the chance or opportunity to do something. And thinking of England, which had just recently recovered from a separation from the Church, you would think that they wouldn't be at full power, so it would be easier for them to avoid conflict, especially with Spain.
(I also feel like my tone/mood of writing changes depending on what I'm writing about, so I apologize if the tone of this sounds a little bit older or something lol)
I think the most convincing point was number 8. Number 8 pointed out that many other countries (most notably, Spain) had been colonizing the new world for a long time, and they had come out prosperous. If the English just let this keep happening, then the Spanish lands would just be passed down throughout generations and soon enough come to terrorize the rest of the world. I think Hakluyt is suggesting that the English get into this profitable business early not only for the sake of their country, but all others that would suffer from total Spanish control. But honestly, I think only all the reasons as a whole would be enough to possibly convince the monarchy to pursue colonization in the Americas. To me, the reasons by themselves are not very strong. Only when they are put together do I see a valid and powerful argument.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that all of these points are best presented together! Depending on what you did within England and who you were, there are bound to be different ways that colonization affects you and presenting all of these together is the most appealing.
DeleteI agree. I specifically like how this point emphasizes proactive action against Spain's growing power, which was a serious concern for England. Looking back we can see how well this worked, even if England only began colonization after defeating the Spanish Armada.
DeleteI think the most convincing point to English is in number 8 since it states that this will limit the power of Spain and Spain and the English are basically rivals. It states that it will limit the king of Spain’s domination of the West Indies. It also states that it will make sure that they enforce there own law and "terrify the Princes of the Religion and to abuse and blind them".
ReplyDeleteI agree with this, if Spain is limited then England can thrive in other places around the world.
DeleteI agree, along with monetary gain, the English were motivated by wanting the most power, which meant taking down Spain.
DeleteI think that his third point about acquiring overseas goods from Africa and Asia is the most compelling, because England did not have access to a lot of the things that were available in other parts of the world. Richard makes the point that if England starts to colonize and explore more, they will become more likely to explore other parts of the world. England wanted easy access to a lot of these goods, like gunpowder for example. England wanted to be able to buy gunpowder in large amounts.
ReplyDeleteI agree, not everything can be supplied from one area so having access to many trade routes through the Americas will allow England to receive all the goods it may need.
DeleteI also agree with this because if Europe begins to colonize more around the world, they will have access to trade and new goods and supplies, this could benefit England.
DeleteI agree with this. The point you made about the colonization seems very correlated to the third reason
DeleteI think that the fourteenth point is the most convincing. Spain among other countries were growing their colonies in the Americas, this posed as a serious economic threat to England as they would soon lose any strength they had left to the Spanish, leaving the citizens of England and the whole of Europe in a very bad position. This is why going to the Americas and investing in colonization is such and important trade and power tactic pointed out by number 14 when involving the fact that this trade will add strength to the realm.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I had also put point 14 as the most convincing point that Hakluyt made, which is similar to what you are conveying as well. The rapid militarization and advancement of weapons made the Spanish a very viable enemy to the English, and the English needed something such as strong trading to boost their economy and start advancing as well, where it is argued that the Americas are a great place to first start colonizing.
DeleteWhile all of the points were convincing, point 3 was particularly well reasoned because it not only mentioned potential economic gain but presented a solution for current economic problems. This point is when Hakluyt says that colonization will give them access to all the commodities of Europe, Africa, and Asia, as well as providing for the wants of all of England's decayed trades. There are few things more appealing than something that not only has the potential to bring all sorts of gains and benefits, but will also solve a great number of existing problems. Point 3 does a great job outlining what a vast impact these ventures could have and how much it could help the English.
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting point that you have come up with, as now that I look at it, point 3 was also an incredibly persuasive and convincing argument that Hakluyt brings to the table. In order to expand, trading and the variety of goods also needed to be present, and currently, Europe, Africa, and Asia have most of the goods. However, not many people know about what goods are in the Americas, and if the English were able to colonize and exploit the resources, they would benefit greatly from expanding into the Americas.
DeleteI agree with this. I also believe that it does a good job of highlighting how important trade routes can be.
DeleteI found the third point to be the most convincing, as it states "yield unto us all the commodities of Europe, Africa, and Asia, as far as we were wont to travel, and supply the wants of all our decayed trades." I think this is convincing because the colonization of Europe, Asia, and Africa will allow the English to have access to more commodities. England still does not have access too a lot of things, and goods, around the world so exploring and colonizing in these places will solve a lot of England's problems.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. They would need resources if the mother land does not have it and if the new land doesn't either.
DeleteI believe that Richard Hakluyt's reason number 14 is the most persuasive into getting England to support the exploration and the colonization of the Americas, because he is talking about how beneficial expanding and colonizing will be for the English. He says that it will increase and strengthen their Navy (military strength) and protect to make sure shipping goods are safe and secure. In addition, the support for the Navy will have a ripple effect, and in turn will provide a sort of "anchor" for "all those occupations that depend upon the same." This is basically him saying that new job opportunities will also be created if England decides to expand and colonize, which was also a big thing back then. There were many people, and they all needed jobs in order to work and survive. Hakluyt argues that as a result from exploration and expansion, it will strengthen their trading presence, as well as create more job opportunities, which were huge positives and incentives back then for the English to be doing.
ReplyDeleteI find that Richard Hakluyt’s third reason is the most logical and reasonable. Most people don’t want to invest money into an organization, or company without any word about profit. Richard says that he will use the money given to him by the queen to explore the New World. This is a difficult feat, so many would be unwilling to do it. This gives him a chance to become very wealthy from what he finds or gets. Then give back some money with interest and it would be a win win for both the Queen and Richard.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that Hakluyt's third point was the one that tempted Queen Elizabeth I the most. Asian and African commodoties were extremely hard to get back then. The goods that were in demand the most from Asia, such as silk or spices, could only come from the Silk Road, which took months, or by sailing around the tip of Africa, which took even longer. Thus, prospects of Asian goods that could come in a steady stream as a result of the colonies there would make England a ton of money, and would increase their economy. It would also reboot, if you will, their economy, which had folded under centuries of religious civil war.
ReplyDeleteI totally see where you're coming from and like the way you got into detail with everything you got from point three. I also think the Europeans would very much benefit from a voyage.
DeleteI consider Richard Hakluyt's third point the most persuasive. The third reason states that colonies would give England access to goods that are found in Africa, Asia, and Europe, without having to trade. This would allow England to improve and expand. This argument is good because it makes up for one of the main reasons why England would not want to expand; expanding into the Americas would cost a significant amount of money, but if England believes they will profit from it in the long run, the cost would be less of a concern. It is also appealing because England is competing with other countries in the world, so the promise of all the commodities that those other countries already have is convincing.
ReplyDeleteThis argument is quite strong and it is well reasoned, but I didn't choose it because the logic is too risky. For example, the cost of expanding would be massive and if they didn't make it back, they would be even further behind. With no real proof other than the spaniards, this argument I feel would not be as strong as others.
DeleteI completely agree with this. They would need resources from other lands if the new land didn't have them or if the mother land didn't have it.
DeleteI think that argument 4 was very persuasive because it talks about the surplus population, which any empire needs to look towards expansion, and it would also mean that many people would gain jobs which would make the economy of Britain grow.
ReplyDeleteI think Richard Hakluyt's third point was the most compelling to the queen because, something that England would have to consider before expanding is that maybe they don't have the right resources and money to go with them. Or that this new-found land does not have the right resources. So, saying that they could go to Europe, Africa, and Asia to get resources is really good when expanding to new land.
ReplyDeleteI like your emphasis on specific parts of point three, in which the europeans really dont have a lot to lose but rather a lot to gain by exploring more!!
DeleteIn my perspective, Richard Hakluyt's twelfth point was most persuasive mainly when focused on the first line, "this voyage is easy and short" meaning that the voyage to start exploring outside of Europe, isn't a high commitment voyage and a journey with nothing to lose whilst managing to gain new trade connections along the way and being able to acquire more input in other places near Europe.
ReplyDeleteI find Richard's Hakluyt's third reason to be the most convincing because it provided potential economic gain/profit. It also can be determined as a solution to England's current economic problems. The third reason also makes up for the fact that England does not have access to a lot of resources that are available to other parts of the world. Among these resources that are not available to them, are resources and materials from Asia, Europe, and Africa. In short, reason 3 provides solutions of economic problems, provides economic gain, and displays the huge impact that trade routes can provide to countries that did not have it previously.
ReplyDeleteGabriel M-F
ReplyDeleteI think that the most convincing point is number 3 as it tells you that there will be vast profit and commodities from other countries and continents, which is very appealing as the Queen of England.
I find the third reason to be the most persuasive because there has to be profit with looking westward. First and foremost, the colonization of a completely new land is going to take a lot of money, resources, and men. As a result, the payout needs to be extremely high, especially considering money and power were essential to the English society. With Hakluyt offering this reason, it tells the Queen that a voyage west could have a result that revives English trade and grants them all the resources they want.
ReplyDeleteI find the third point most convincing. Asian and African commodities were rare and in high demand. This could come in a steady stream, make a lot of money, and would increase the economy. Hakluyt brings up many compelling reasons, but, none are as important than access to valuable commodities and an opportunity to grow the economy.
ReplyDeleteLike all foreign policy decisions, there is a long term answer and a short term answer. Short term, England was undergoing great unrest due to large amounts of unemployed people, argument 4, and also wanted to get this territory before Spain took it, argument 15. I think these would have been most convincing as they were urgent problems that needed to be solved or else rebellion or invasion would follow. Of those two 4 is most convincing as 15 doesn't mention much of any benefit for England besides that they might not be able to get it in the future, which isn't much of a benefit if the land is useless. On the other hand number 4, whether or not the land is any good, criminals and the unemployed could be moved there where they can't revolt, or at least if they do it wouldn't be at the queen's doorstep. I don't think longer term benefits like those discussed in argument 3 would be that important to Elizabeth given that the country had just consulted itself religiously so social tension would be the highest priority, which means having an employed, or very very far away, populace.(an additional note is the unemployment problems were caused by a lack of land for the poor, so free land, more than purely economic policy, would seem like an obvious solution)
ReplyDeleteRichard Hakluyt's most persuasive reason was his third one, that colonization would come with a massive monetary gain. Instead of sailing to other continents, which was difficult and incredibly time consuming, not to mention expensive, they could already have money-making land. If England had access to their own natural resources and trading goods, their wealth would increase exponentially. Most systems/governments are motivated by wealth, so it makes sense that one of his earlier, and most persuasive reasons, would involve gaining riches.
ReplyDelete