What were the differences between the way the Spaniards and the English set up c

Question: What were the differences between the way the Spaniards and the English set up colonies!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

It was a matter of strategy and long term goals!.

The Spanish colonies were designed for immediate profit!. They Spanish crown wanted gold, silver, jewels, pearls, and anything else that wasn't nailed down!. This required a huge military presence to guard all that wealth and to control the workers to make sure they didn't steal!. It also required a strict, central authority to make sure things were running well!. It was like a business!. The idea was to squeeze every last cent out of the colonies!.

On top of that, Spain was an absolute monarchy dominated by a military aristocratic class!. This was transplanted with very great intensity in its colonies!.

You see the results in the history of the former Spanish colonies: dictators and military oppression!. Its been a hard system to break!.

First of all, England had for centuries been slowly developing democratic institutions!. Parliament was increasing in power and the monarch decreasing!. They passed a bill of rights and all that!. It wasn't a democracy by today's standards, but by the standards back then, it was the most free nation on Earth except for maybe the Dutch and Poland!.

Britain took a different approach!. It was one that was first proposed by Sir Walter Raleigh!. The goal was a long term project to expand the boundaries of England by creating settlements in North America similar to what was at home!. The idea was that long term this would provide England with a larger population base, agriculture base, and industry!. While not as immediately satisfying as gold, it would increase England's raw industrial, military, and economic power in the face of its larger European neighbors!.

Because of this, the English colonies needed very little military presence except for the Royal Navy to keep the sea lanes clear!. The English colonies were predominantly farming communities which could manage themselves like villages back in England!. Most troops were locally raised and served under a royal governor!.

Because there wasn't the serious flow of money coming out, strict central authority was not needed!. The colonies were allowed to develop their own legislatures and courts which they modeled on England!. They built schools and universities!. This policy was called intentional neglect by Prime Minister Thomas Walpole!.

In fact, the taxes and conflicts that lead to the Revolution was England trying to finally squeeze profit out of the colonies!. The colonists had, without English input, triggered a war with their French neighbors!. England fought a 7 year war against most of Europe and nearly gone bankrupt because of this and mostly to protect its colonies!. The taxes they levied, where were 10% that of people in England, was to pay for the war that the colonists started!.

The results are evident today!. The United States has had a stable, civilian government since its inception!.

also, there is another thing to notice!. When the Spanish civil war broke out in 1936, none of the former colonies really gave either side a hand!.

When World War I and World War II broke out, The United Kingdom had the help of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and eventually the United States!. It might show which policy worked out best!.Www@QuestionHome@Com