Question

How does Paine reject the argument that the colonies have "flourished" as members of the British empire? What was Britain's true motive in defending the colonies, and what does this motive reveal about the relationship between the two?

Answer 1

Paine says that while some have argued that because colonies like America has flourished under British rule, it is necessary for America to remain tightly bound to Britain. Paine likens this argument to saying that because a baby has flourished on milk, it should never eat meat. Furthermore, he argues that the situation in the colonies would have been even better had various European countries not exerted their power over America.
Britain's True Motive-It is argued that Britain has protected the colonies, but Paine points out that Britain protected the colonies for its own financial gain, not out of altruism. Additionally if the colonies had not been dependent on Britain, then they would no longer be enemies with countries that are enemies of Britain. Therefore, Paine argues, the very condition of being Britain's colony is what brought about the need for protection in the first place.
This motive reveals that British Empire used colonies just as a source of raw materials and labour.Over the previous 150 years the colonies had attracted an ever-increasing number of immigrants and grown steadily in themselves so that they now contained significant urban centres such as Philadelphia and Boston,an abundance of land rapidly being more fully used by the growing population it attracted, and a growing number of manufacturing industries. These were significant because the traditional model of colonies had been to serve as exporters of raw materials and staple goods to Britain and purchasers of manufactured goods, all along the protected trading lines of the Navigation Act. But the mainland American colonies were increasingly less dependent, more able to stand on their own