A History of the American People

two forms of ownership, which involved a high degree of self-government, the colonies would
never have got going at all, because the English crown, unlike the crowns of France and Spain,
was simply not prepared to pour out the prodigious amounts of cash needed. So the English state
got its colonies largely for nothing and this successful stinginess continued to condition the
thinking of British governments throughout the 18th century. They did not expect to have to pay
for the empire or, if they did, they expected those who lived in the empire to refund the money
through taxes. However, having set up these quasi-independent and self-supporting colonies in
the early and mid-17th century, the crown began to wrest back some degree of control before the
end of it. From Charles II to William III, they revoked or refused to renew charters-there was
always a perfectly good excuse-and turned both commercial and proprietary colonies into crown
ones. By 1776 only two commercial colonies (Connecticut and Rhode Island) and two
proprietary colonies (Maryland and Pennsylvania) were left. It is true that Massachusetts was
also still operating under a royal charter, but it was governed as a royal province.
This ought to have given the crown a great deal of power, at any rate in the nine colonies it
controlled directly. In practice, English meanness in colonial matters again frustrated London's
ability to control what happened. In each colony, the governor constituted the apex of the
pyramid of power-and it is characteristic of the profound constitutional conservatism America
has inherited from England that the fifty members of the United States are still run by governors.
But the actual power of the colonial governors was less than it looked in theory, just as today the
state governors of the federal republic are severely limited in what they can do. In the crown
colonies the governors were appointed by the King on the advice of his ministers. In the
proprietary colonies they were chosen by the proprietors, though the King had to approve. In the
charter colonies they were elected, though again royal approval was needed. All were treated in
some ways with deference, as viceroys. But whereas in the Spanish and French colonies they had
not only enormous legal powers but the means to enforce them, in America they were not even
paid by the crown. In every case except Virginia, their salaries were determined and paid by the
colonial assemblies, who, true to the tradition of British meanness, kept these stipends small.
They were often grudgingly and tardily paid too. Nor did they have many valuable perks and
privileges. Most of them seem to have been able and-amazingly for the 18th century-honest. But
they were not, on the whole, great, forceful, self-confident, or masterful men. That in itself made
a difference to the degree of authority exercised over the people of the colonies.
The governors were caught between two quite different and often opposed forces. On top of
them, but exercising power from distant London, was the crown. Colonies were supervised by
the Privy Council, which operated through a Commission, variously called for trade or
plantations and, from the days of William III, the Board of Trade and Plantations (1696-1782),
which continued to be in charge of American policy until the end of the Revolutionary War. It
was handicapped by the fact that it did not actually pay the governors (or in many cases appoint
them) and it was very rare indeed for any of its members, or officials, to have set foot in
America. The instructions it issued to governors were not always clear, or sensible, or consistent,
and were often beyond their power to carry out. On the other hand, the crown tended to see
governors as weak, ineffectual, demanding, and `expensive servants,' always quarreling with the
planters, provoking rebellions, or getting themselves involved in Indian wars through needless
brutality and insensitive actions. The Crown usually sided with the Indians in cases of dispute
and sometimes even with white rebels. When Governor Berkeley, who had run away from
Nathaniel Bacon and his followers, turned on them savagely after Bacon died, Charles II