Talk:Salutary neglect

Three periods?

I think we need some citation or supporting evidence for the 'three periods of salutary neglect' paragraph. First, England began restricting trade in navigation acts in 1651 with further consolidation after the restoration in 1660. Perhaps it's wise to just delete this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.210.85 (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I really agree about the 'three time periods'. For me the 1807-2012 one is the most suspicious. All told this makes it seem as though the period of direct colonial management was something like 25 years in total.82.2.94.235 (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Citing facts

WP:V

There seems to be debate here about what terms are correct and the applicability of them. My concern is that with all this discussion there are no cited sources. Technically an editor could fly through these articles and delete the content. Please see the above regarding the verifiability of facts on wikipedia. Alan.ca 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC) i think that there was only one period

Robert Walpole can't have said much interesting about American colonial policy in 1688; he was only twelve! What year was this?

The quote cited at the end as [1] is quite confusing. Who is this by? Where is it from?82.2.94.235 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge Salutory Neglect into Salutary Neglect

Salutary Neglect is a specific term that retrospectively came to be applied to the American policy. That is worthy of a separate article. If a general Benign Neglect article wants wo wikilink to this one as a specific example, it can go right ahead. If any more references are needed beside the Burke speech itself, there are hundreds of American history books to choose from.Hughespj 13:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ladies and gentlemen, when making remarks on the talk page, finish your comment by signing with four ~

Alan.ca 18:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is currently an article at the mis-spelled Salutory Neglect that should be merged into this article, whether or not a merger with Benign Negelct goes ahead. Since I know nothing about the topic I hope someone else will pick this up. Pontificake 08:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT Merge

-I agree with all who say not to merge. they are different things. salutary neglect is part of benign neglect so you can put this in that but not that in this, if you know what i mean "if it aint broke don't fixit" i aint broke~`~ opps!! it aint broke!!!

I have to agree with the guy two below me. It doesn't seem logical to merge them. ~

-Disagree, don't merge.

Yeah, don't merge

do NOT merge them. they are not the same thing. Samz0r 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

do not merge they are not the same. futurebird 00:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

merge salutary neglect and benign neglect

Under benign neglect, salutary neglect is given as a synonym. The benign neglect page talks about a different example of the same thing. The articles should definitely be merged.

- Agreed, go for it!

DONT merge salutary neglect and benign neglect

but salutary neglect is distinctly refered to today in textbooks as the British policy of avoiding strict enforcement of parliamentary laws meant to keep the American colonies subservient to Great Britain. It is not the same as benign neglect because it is more specific...

- So I DISAGREE, DO NOT Merge the two topics

Merge

Merge this with Salutary Neglect, as they are the same thing.

delete salutory neglect

Whenever you click on the link for salutory neglect, it takes you to salutary neglect. Therefore they are the same article, and since the official spelling is salutary neglect, salutory neglect should be deleted. agreed

Confusing Sentence

"Salutary (benign) neglect was an undocumented, though long-standing, British policy of avoiding strict enforcement of parliamentary laws meant to keep the American colonies obedient to Great Britain." This sentence can be better punctuated so that its meaning were clearer. September 25, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiz0floyd (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Expanded Definitions

I've always understood salutary neglect to incorporate other related concepts such as a car driving up to an intersection with no other traffic but stop signs and coming to a "rolling stop" and going through. Unless I'm wrong I think this deserves some investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.250.232 (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Took out the confusing paragraph.

I've decided to remove the small paragraph towards the end of the page that was a grammatical mess, didn't make any sense, and was rather irrelevant. I think what was trying to be said there was adequately explained in the second paragraph and much better. Feel free to add it back in if you disagree Greepish (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Royal Disallowance

Historian Charles McLean Andrews notes how it was common for colonial laws to be disallowed:

Before the end of the colonial period was reached, every colony had had one or more laws disallowed; during the eighty-three years of her second charter, Massachusetts had forty-seven public laws and twelve private laws disallowed; while with other colonies the number was much greater.[1]

Andrews noted in particular: (This is because of the Mercantilist system that was in place during the Empire/colonial period)

The governors were specially instructed to veto any acts laying a duty on English or European goods imported in English vessels

Salutary neglect in the Caribbean

The lax oversight or independency of colonies was not really limited only to the 13 colonies that later became the U.S. As historians have noted, the islands in the West Indies were treated much the same way. Historian W. F. S. Miles notes: (Scars of Partition, Postcolonial Legacies in French and British Borderlands) [2]

British policy toward Barbados in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was perhaps best characterized by Edmund Burke, who termed it "Salutary neglect." Control of internal political affairs in this early English settlement was generally left to the Barbadians themselves

Others have noted the same: (Empire of Neglect, The West Indies in the Wake of British Liberalism) [3]

Through the age of revolutions, colonial houses of assembly did in fact assert the islands' freedom from imperial legislation over internal affairs - a kind of constitutional solidarity with the rebellious colonies to the north.

Also: (A Very Mutinous People, The Struggle for North Carolina, 1660-1713) [4]

Meanwhile, the Bahamas enjoyed a period of salutary neglect, and Quakers, ex-slaves, and pirates built a community free from government protected from planters and dangerous coastal terrain.

These freedoms that were pervasive is how Barbados ended up writing the very first slave code, in 1661: (The Brave New World, A History of Early America) [5]

Worried about the same kinds of slave resistance that had bedeviled the Spanish master class, the Barbadian Assembly fashioned the slave code of 1661. Without any precedent in English law and indifferent to the myriad small ways in which Spanish law and the Catholic Church mitigated the severities of slavery in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, the Barbadian planters denied to their African laborers all personal, civil, and political identity.