## Learning Outcomes

- Explain how colonial self-government developed in British North America before **1754**
- Identify the structure and powers of colonial assemblies, including the role of elected lower houses
- Compare self-government in New England, the Chesapeake, and other colonies
- Recall key examples such as the **House of Burgesses (1619)**, **Mayflower Compact (1620)**, and **Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639)**
- Analyse how **salutary neglect** strengthened colonial political habits
- Connect colonial self-government to later resistance over taxation and representation after **1763**

## AP United States History Syllabus

For the AP United States History, you are expected to understand colonial self-government and assemblies in the British colonies during **1607–1754**, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that the British colonies developed significant local autonomy before **1763**
- Identify the main parts of colonial government: governor, council or upper house, and elected assembly or lower house
- Understand that the **House of Burgesses (1619)** was the first elected representative assembly in English North America
- Explain the difference between direct local participation in **town meetings** and representative government through colonial assemblies
- Compare charter, proprietary, and royal colonies in terms of how much self-government they allowed
- Understand how assemblies used the **power of the purse** to influence governors
- Know that voting and officeholding were limited mainly to white male property owners, sometimes with religious restrictions
- Explain how these political habits later shaped colonial arguments about taxation, rights, and representation

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Why was the **House of Burgesses** important in colonial political development?
2. What was the difference between a town meeting and a colonial assembly?
3. How did colonial assemblies use the **power of the purse** against governors?
4. What did **salutary neglect** allow colonial legislatures to do in practice?
5. Why should APUSH students avoid calling colonial government “full democracy”?

## Introduction

Colonial self-government is one of the most important political developments of Period 2. The British colonies were not independent before **1754**, but they were not run day to day from London either. Distance, local conditions, and British willingness to tolerate a high degree of colonial autonomy meant that colonists gained long experience in making laws, levying taxes, and managing local affairs.

That matters for APUSH because it helps explain a major continuity into Period 3. When Britain tried to tighten imperial control after **1763**, colonists did not think they were asking for new rights. They believed they were defending political practices they had already exercised for generations.

> **Key Term: colonial self-government**
> The practice of colonists managing many of their own political affairs through local institutions, assemblies, and laws, with limited day-to-day interference from Britain.

### The structure of colonial government and why assemblies became powerful

Most British colonies developed governments with three basic parts: a **governor**, a **council** or upper house, and an elected **assembly** or lower house. This structure resembled English political traditions, especially the idea that lawmaking should involve representatives as well as executive authority. But colonial conditions changed how that system worked.

> **Key Term: representative government**
> A system in which voters elect people to make laws and decisions on their behalf.

The governor represented either the king or the proprietor. In theory, he had substantial authority. He could influence laws, enforce policy, and sometimes veto colonial measures. But theory and practice were not the same thing. Governors were far from Britain, depended on local cooperation, and usually needed colonial legislatures to approve money. That financial dependence gave elected assemblies real power.

> **Key Term: colonial assembly**
> An elected legislative body in a colony, usually the lower house of the colonial legislature.

In many colonies, the legislature became **bicameral**. The lower house was elected, while the upper house or council was usually appointed and often served as the governor’s advisory body.

> **Key Term: bicameral legislature**
> A two-house legislature, usually with an elected lower house and an appointed or less directly elected upper house.

The lower house mattered most politically because it controlled taxation and appropriations. This was the **power of the purse**. If a governor wanted his salary paid, or wanted money for administration, defense, or other policies, the assembly could bargain, delay, or refuse.

> **Key Term: power of the purse**
> The ability to control taxation and spending; colonial assemblies used it to influence governors and defend local interests.

This is one of the most tested points in this subtopic. Colonial assemblies were not powerful because Britain formally surrendered sovereignty. They were powerful because control of money translated into practical political influence. A governor who ignored local opinion too often could find himself without funds.

A good example comes from repeated conflicts between colonial assemblies and royal governors before **1754**. Assemblies could grant money only temporarily, attach conditions, or withhold salaries altogether. That meant royal authority existed, but it often had to operate through colonial consent.

> **Test Tip:** On SAQs and LEQs, do not just list “governor, council, assembly.” Explain the relationship. The best analysis shows how money gave elected assemblies influence over executive power.

### Key examples of self-government: Virginia, New England, and the middle colonies

The clearest early example of representative self-government was the **House of Burgesses**, created in **Virginia in 1619**.

> **Key Term: House of Burgesses**
> The first elected representative assembly in English North America, established in Virginia in 1619.

Its importance is bigger than the date itself. It gave property-holding white men in Virginia practice in electing representatives and participating in lawmaking. It also showed that even a colony founded for economic gain could develop political institutions rooted in local participation. This is a strong example for essays because it links Chesapeake development to later American political habits.

New England had a somewhat different pattern. There, self-government often developed from religious communities and compact settlements. Instead of focusing only on colony-wide assemblies, New England also developed direct local participation through **town meetings**.

> **Key Term: town meeting**
> A local New England gathering in which community members discussed and decided local issues directly.

Town meetings were not the same as assemblies. A town meeting handled local matters directly. A colonial assembly represented a wider population and passed colony-level laws. Students often blur these together, but the distinction matters. New England politics combined both direct and representative elements.

The **Mayflower Compact (1620)** is also important, though it was not an elected legislature.

> **Key Term: Mayflower Compact**
> An agreement by Plymouth settlers in 1620 to form a civil body politic and govern themselves by consent.

Its significance lies in the principle of consent. The settlers agreed to create government and obey laws they made together. That idea later fit neatly with American arguments about legitimate authority resting on the governed.

The **Massachusetts General Court** became the colony’s legislature and reflected New England’s stronger habits of communal political participation. It helped extend the idea that towns could send deputies and have a voice in broader decisions.

The **Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639)** are another major example.

> **Key Term: Fundamental Orders of Connecticut**
> An early written framework of government in colonial Connecticut, often seen as a major example of self-rule based on consent.

This document is useful because it shows that colonial self-government was not just improvisation. Colonists increasingly wrote formal rules for governance. That strengthened habits of constitutional thinking long before independence.

In proprietary colonies, self-government also appeared. **Maryland** had an assembly that could pass important legislation, including the **Maryland Toleration Act (1649)**. **Pennsylvania** developed a representative structure under William Penn’s frame of government. These cases matter because they show that assemblies were not limited to one region or one colony type.

> **Test Tip:** If asked to compare regions, a strong answer might contrast Virginia’s representative assembly tradition with New England’s mix of assemblies and town meetings. That is better than describing one region in isolation.

### Limits of colonial democracy and why those limits matter

Colonial self-government was real, but it was limited. APUSH rewards precision here. It is inaccurate to call these colonies democratic in the modern sense.

Voting was usually limited to **white, male, property-owning** adults. In some colonies, especially early Massachusetts, religion also mattered. Women, enslaved people, most free Black people, Native Americans, indentured servants, and many propertyless men were excluded. So political participation was broad for its era, but narrow by modern standards.

That limitation matters for interpretation. Colonial assemblies taught habits of representation, lawmaking, and political bargaining, but they did so within a hierarchical society. Southern county government, vestries, and county courts often concentrated local power in the hands of elites. Even where elections existed, elite influence remained strong.

This is especially clear in regional comparison. New England’s compact towns made broader local participation easier. The Chesapeake and southern colonies, with dispersed plantations and county-based administration, tended to give more control to planters and local notables. So self-government existed in both places, but not in identical forms.

Another limit: assemblies were not independent sovereign legislatures. Governors and councils still shared power. Britain still claimed imperial authority. Colonists could pass local laws, but they remained within the empire. This is why the later break with Britain was so politically explosive: colonists had exercised self-rule, but not full sovereignty.

### Salutary neglect and the road toward later resistance

From about **1650 to 1750**, Britain followed a policy often called **salutary neglect**. The empire still regulated trade and claimed authority over the colonies, but enforcement was often loose, especially in local political affairs.

> **Key Term: salutary neglect**
> A British policy of loose enforcement of imperial regulations that allowed the colonies considerable autonomy before 1763.

This policy did not mean British absence. Governors still existed. Trade laws like the Navigation Acts still existed. But the colonies were often left to manage everyday governance themselves. That gave colonial assemblies time to mature.

Why does that matter? Because self-government became normal. Colonial legislatures gained experience in budgeting, taxation, local lawmaking, and political argument. Colonists came to see these practices not as privileges temporarily tolerated by Britain, but as established rights.

That helps explain why later efforts at tighter imperial control triggered resistance. Even before independence, the colonies resisted plans that threatened their local taxing authority. The **Albany Plan of Union (1754)** failed partly because colonial legislatures did not want to surrender the right to tax themselves to a broader central body. That is a major clue to later arguments against Parliament: colonists already believed that legitimate taxation should come from their own representatives.

The continuity is crucial. Colonial assemblies did not invent revolutionary ideology on their own, but they gave colonists the institutional experience to make later claims credible. By the time disputes over taxation erupted after **1763**, colonists had more than abstract principles. They had a long political tradition of self-rule.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- Colonial self-government meant colonists handled many local political affairs with limited day-to-day British interference
- Most colonies developed governments with a governor, council or upper house, and elected assembly or lower house
- The **House of Burgesses (1619)** was the first elected representative assembly in English North America
- Many colonies had **bicameral legislatures**, though not all at every stage
- The elected lower house became influential because it controlled the **power of the purse**
- New England combined representative institutions with more direct local participation through **town meetings**
- The **Mayflower Compact (1620)** established an early example of government by consent
- The **Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639)** provided an early written framework for self-rule
- Proprietary colonies such as Maryland and Pennsylvania also developed representative assemblies
- Colonial political participation was limited mainly to white male property owners, and sometimes by religion
- **Salutary neglect** allowed colonial assemblies to gain practical autonomy before 1763
- These habits of self-government later shaped colonial resistance to imperial taxation and tighter British control

## Key Terms and Concepts

- colonial self-government
- representative government
- colonial assembly
- bicameral legislature
- power of the purse
- House of Burgesses
- town meeting
- Mayflower Compact
- Fundamental Orders of Connecticut
- salutary neglect


The Regions of British Colonies - Colonial self-government and assemblies