What do you think?
Rate this book
Early American Studies
An Empire Divided: The American Revolution and the British Caribbean
There were 26—not 13—British colonies in America in 1776. Of these, the six colonies in the Caribbean—Jamaica, Barbados, the Leeward Islands, Grenada and Tobago, St. Vincent; and Dominica—were among the wealthiest. These island colonies were closely related to the mainland by social ties and tightly connected by trade. In a period when most British colonists in North America lived less than 200 miles inland and the major cities were all situated along the coast, the ocean often acted as a highway between islands and mainland rather than a barrier.
The plantation system of the islands was so similar to that of the southern mainland colonies that these regions had more in common with each other, some historians argue, than either had with New England. Political developments in all the colonies moved along parallel tracks, with elected assemblies in the Caribbean, like their mainland counterparts, seeking to increase their authority at the expense of colonial executives. Yet when revolution came, the majority of the white island colonists did not side with their compatriots on the mainland.
A major contribution to the history of the American Revolution, An Empire Divided traces a split in the politics of the mainland and island colonies after the Stamp Act Crisis of 1765-66, when the colonists on the islands chose not to emulate the resistance of the patriots on the mainland. Once war came, it was increasingly unpopular in the British Caribbean; nonetheless, the white colonists cooperated with the British in defense of their islands. O'Shaughnessy decisively refutes the widespread belief that there was broad backing among the Caribbean colonists for the American Revolution and deftly reconstructs the history of how the island colonies followed an increasingly divergent course from the former colonies to the north.
The plantation system of the islands was so similar to that of the southern mainland colonies that these regions had more in common with each other, some historians argue, than either had with New England. Political developments in all the colonies moved along parallel tracks, with elected assemblies in the Caribbean, like their mainland counterparts, seeking to increase their authority at the expense of colonial executives. Yet when revolution came, the majority of the white island colonists did not side with their compatriots on the mainland.
A major contribution to the history of the American Revolution, An Empire Divided traces a split in the politics of the mainland and island colonies after the Stamp Act Crisis of 1765-66, when the colonists on the islands chose not to emulate the resistance of the patriots on the mainland. Once war came, it was increasingly unpopular in the British Caribbean; nonetheless, the white colonists cooperated with the British in defense of their islands. O'Shaughnessy decisively refutes the widespread belief that there was broad backing among the Caribbean colonists for the American Revolution and deftly reconstructs the history of how the island colonies followed an increasingly divergent course from the former colonies to the north.
376 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2000
7 people are currently reading
247 people want to read
About the author
Andrew O'Shaughnessy
9 books28 followersAndrew O’Shaughnessy is the Saunders Director of the Robert H. Smith International Centre for Jefferson Studies at Monticello, and Professor of History at the University of Virginia. Originally from Britain, he lectured at the University of Oxford before moving to the US, where he currently lives in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 20, 2014
I enjoyed O ' Shaughnessy's newer book The Men Who Lost America: British Leadership, the American Revolution, and the Fate of the Empire, which included a good discussion of the Revolutionary War's global aspects, including the Caribbean. I picked this up on a whim.
The book is turgid and not an easy read. The author aims to show that Britain's Caribbean colonies were as important as its North American colonies, and that economic differences were the primary reson that they did not revolt.
The West Indies submitted to the Stamp Act even though it imposed the greatest tax burden on them. And while the mainland colonies fiercely debated the Stamp Act, Jamaica was involved in a seemingly petty dispute over local priviliges.
The West indies were also exempt from most of the policies that were so unpopular in the mainland colonies. This resulted in local passivity regarding British colonial policy, which might explain why the British government kept insisting on enforcing of their infamous taxes despite opposition in the mainland colonies.
Slavery also played a role in preventing the islands from rebelling. The British governors feared sparking a slave revolt if they joined the revolutionaries. This explains why the West Indies did not object to the presence of a standing army in their midst. In any case, the West Indies had nothing to gain by joining the rebellion.
Those Caribbean islands that belonged to the French and the Dutch served as vital transit points for supply shipments to the rebels. They also became the target of British military campaigns. These Caribbean operations usually receive less than adequate treatment in most histories of the revolution. George III considered the defense of Jamaica more important than even defense of the British home islands. In most American histories, Yorktown serves as a convenient end to the story. But Yorktown actually marked an escalation of the war in the Caribbean.
In all, a fairly interesting book.
The book is turgid and not an easy read. The author aims to show that Britain's Caribbean colonies were as important as its North American colonies, and that economic differences were the primary reson that they did not revolt.
The West Indies submitted to the Stamp Act even though it imposed the greatest tax burden on them. And while the mainland colonies fiercely debated the Stamp Act, Jamaica was involved in a seemingly petty dispute over local priviliges.
The West indies were also exempt from most of the policies that were so unpopular in the mainland colonies. This resulted in local passivity regarding British colonial policy, which might explain why the British government kept insisting on enforcing of their infamous taxes despite opposition in the mainland colonies.
Slavery also played a role in preventing the islands from rebelling. The British governors feared sparking a slave revolt if they joined the revolutionaries. This explains why the West Indies did not object to the presence of a standing army in their midst. In any case, the West Indies had nothing to gain by joining the rebellion.
Those Caribbean islands that belonged to the French and the Dutch served as vital transit points for supply shipments to the rebels. They also became the target of British military campaigns. These Caribbean operations usually receive less than adequate treatment in most histories of the revolution. George III considered the defense of Jamaica more important than even defense of the British home islands. In most American histories, Yorktown serves as a convenient end to the story. But Yorktown actually marked an escalation of the war in the Caribbean.
In all, a fairly interesting book.
December 21, 2016
O'Shaughnessy opens a new chapter in American history for me. One of his central themes is: why didn't the British West Indies, the "sugar islands," rebel at the same time as the North American mainland colonies that we know (incompletely) as the 13 original colonies? In fact, why didn't the fabulously wealthy sugar islands rebel, period?
The West Indies—Barbados, Jamaica, and others in the British Caribbean—were part of the English colonial frontier throughout the period that we customarily regard as colonial American history, but we customarily ignore them. That's a mistake. The West Indies were strongly integrated with the mainland colonies by trade, but politically they were a breed apart: much more strongly tied to the mother country through their protected status and monopoly exports of sugar products, and therefore much less inclined to rebel and throw away their continuing access to that richly rewarding connection. They needed the English navy to keep predatory French and Spanish forces at bay.
O'Shaughnessy's prose is engaging, if a bit redundant here and there. He makes it plain that King George and his Privy Council and Parliament consistently dealt with the "big picture" of their Atlantic colonies, and he gives new context to the repeated punitive tax and other policies that helped to precipitate the Revolution.
For me, an interesting revelation is that England never committed and never actually had enough military strength on our side of the pond to defeat Gen. Washington's somewhat ragtag army. Apparently the King and his ministers wanted to hang on to the sugar islands more urgently than they wanted to keep the 13 colonies in the family.
You'll learn much by reading An Empire Divided.
Read more at
http://richardsubber.com/
The West Indies—Barbados, Jamaica, and others in the British Caribbean—were part of the English colonial frontier throughout the period that we customarily regard as colonial American history, but we customarily ignore them. That's a mistake. The West Indies were strongly integrated with the mainland colonies by trade, but politically they were a breed apart: much more strongly tied to the mother country through their protected status and monopoly exports of sugar products, and therefore much less inclined to rebel and throw away their continuing access to that richly rewarding connection. They needed the English navy to keep predatory French and Spanish forces at bay.
O'Shaughnessy's prose is engaging, if a bit redundant here and there. He makes it plain that King George and his Privy Council and Parliament consistently dealt with the "big picture" of their Atlantic colonies, and he gives new context to the repeated punitive tax and other policies that helped to precipitate the Revolution.
For me, an interesting revelation is that England never committed and never actually had enough military strength on our side of the pond to defeat Gen. Washington's somewhat ragtag army. Apparently the King and his ministers wanted to hang on to the sugar islands more urgently than they wanted to keep the 13 colonies in the family.
You'll learn much by reading An Empire Divided.
Read more at
http://richardsubber.com/
September 1, 2023
A good overview of the "other" British American colonies and why they did no join the American Revolution like the mainland colonies did. Simply put, the Caribbean colonies were much more reliant on Britain, and more embracing of British troops for security (against potential uprisings of enslaved people). But the Caribbean islands were also more attached to Britain than the North American colonies, less attached to their own (many plantation owners were absentees), and more vulnerable to other powers (the French, the Dutch, etc.). Importantly, British subsidies on sugar made the planters more economically dependent on Britain.
While the islands did experience some scuffles with Britain, including displeasure with some of the same policies that led the North American revolts, as well as tensions between the local assemblies and Governors, few on the islands went as far as to actually support revolution. It was only economic pressure from the incipient revolutionary North Americans, resulting in a loss of food imports and concerns about slave rebellions, that led the islands to try to intercede with Britain for North America in 1774. The islands were, otherwise, in full support of Britain once war was declared, and became an important staging era of the international war that accompanied the Revolution (with significant battles still fought after the war in North America had ended).
It would have been nice to have had more of an island-by-island overview, but this isn't the place for that. Still, this is an important work that expands our horizons of the American Revolution and the British Empire in late eighteenth century America.
While the islands did experience some scuffles with Britain, including displeasure with some of the same policies that led the North American revolts, as well as tensions between the local assemblies and Governors, few on the islands went as far as to actually support revolution. It was only economic pressure from the incipient revolutionary North Americans, resulting in a loss of food imports and concerns about slave rebellions, that led the islands to try to intercede with Britain for North America in 1774. The islands were, otherwise, in full support of Britain once war was declared, and became an important staging era of the international war that accompanied the Revolution (with significant battles still fought after the war in North America had ended).
It would have been nice to have had more of an island-by-island overview, but this isn't the place for that. Still, this is an important work that expands our horizons of the American Revolution and the British Empire in late eighteenth century America.
May 7, 2021
Growing up in the milieu of America, it is hard not to wonder why only 13 colonies rebelled against British tyranny in 1776. After all, how could the Canadiens, the Caribbean Islanders, and other subjects of King George III bear to live under coercion, slavery, and an utter lack of freedom? Andrew Jackson O'Shaughnessy fills in part of the answer with "An Empire Divided," recounting in great detail why the British Caribbean islands, such as Jamaica and Barbados, chose to remain loyal to Great Britain rather than journey out to an independent future with the United States.
O'Shaughnessy makes the case that Caribbean islanders, via the unique plantation system which left many landlords rich and absent in Great Britain, remained loyal to the Crown out of closer cultural, economic and political ties. Cutting away from Britain would have left the islands highly vulnerable and devastated trade with their most important trading partner: Great Britain.
Perhaps most fascinating is how crucial in a military respect the Caribbean was to the American Revolution. Admiral Rodney, to satiate his own pride and greed, selected the rich trading entrepot of St. Eustatius to sack in 1781, rather than interfere with French Admiral de Grasse' fleet, which found its way north to the Chesapeake and eternal glory with General Washington's and General Rochambeau's land forces outside of Yorktown. If Rodney had been a bit less greedy, a bit more strategic, and a bit more energetic, would the world have turned upside down?
O'Shuaghnessy's book leans toward the more academic side of the spectrum, but is fascinating and well worth a read for those interested in the Revolutionary era.
O'Shaughnessy makes the case that Caribbean islanders, via the unique plantation system which left many landlords rich and absent in Great Britain, remained loyal to the Crown out of closer cultural, economic and political ties. Cutting away from Britain would have left the islands highly vulnerable and devastated trade with their most important trading partner: Great Britain.
Perhaps most fascinating is how crucial in a military respect the Caribbean was to the American Revolution. Admiral Rodney, to satiate his own pride and greed, selected the rich trading entrepot of St. Eustatius to sack in 1781, rather than interfere with French Admiral de Grasse' fleet, which found its way north to the Chesapeake and eternal glory with General Washington's and General Rochambeau's land forces outside of Yorktown. If Rodney had been a bit less greedy, a bit more strategic, and a bit more energetic, would the world have turned upside down?
O'Shuaghnessy's book leans toward the more academic side of the spectrum, but is fascinating and well worth a read for those interested in the Revolutionary era.
April 3, 2020
O’Shaugnessy looks at a group of British colonies in North America that did not rebel—the West Indies—to examine why they stayed loyal to the British Crown. This is a good way to interrogate the causes of the American Revolution, since it forces us to move away from the usual method of taking a fait accompli—the Thirteen Colonies rebelling and declaring independence—and finding reasons to justify that predetermined outcome. He points out that the Caribbean colonies were much happier with a British Army presence within their borders than the mainland colonies were, because the army was used for preventing slave rebellions, and also that the West Indian gentry were much more integrated into British society than the mainland upper class were, as they routinely moved back to Britain and served in Parliament. (Though this latter point ignores the number of mainland colonists who settled in Britain and built their lives there—like Benjamin Franklin or Arthur Lee—but still sided with the independence movement when war broke out.) It’s pretty dully written but does pick up in the final chapter, dealing with Rodney’s sacking of St. Eustatius and the Battle of the Saintes.
September 11, 2018
Untold story, and fascinating. Helped do some research years ago for this book.
March 5, 2012
A informative look at Great Britain's OTHER 13 colonies in the Western Hemisphere and a compare/contrast on why they stayed loyal during the American Revolution. Sort of disjointed and had some issues with how things were organized, however.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews