The American Colonists: Among The Wealthiest People In The World In The 18th Century

The American Colonists: Among The Wealthiest People In The World In The 18th Century

Colonial Americans enjoyed one of the highest living standards of their time period.

When colonists came to North America as a part of a British mercantilist policy, British institutions were transplanted to the new world along with them. Common Law was the primary legal structure of Britain, which established routine relations between the people and the government and for disputes between private persons. It provided the strong protection of colonial property rights through the rule of law. The common law allowed for the establishment of a vigorous market economy in the colonies because of this heightened protection of property rights. This lead to comparatively high affluence and standards of living.

One institution called “market overt” established certain towns as market towns and certain days were market days. Goods, services, and chattel could be legally sold much more easily on these market days and locations and it enhanced the process of free trade. It allowed business activity to be regulated as one way to ensure the protection of property rights. Additionally, the full title passed when goods changed hands and the property right was secure according to the common law. When merchants had disputes, there were specific courts of “pied powder” which would allow merchants to swiftly resolve disagreements with others, even while on the move. Market overt was set up in all of the colonies by the 1630s and '40s. Growing markets in the colonies gave rise to intermediary merchants, wholesalers, and retailers who expanded the market process in the years to come.

Some information about the incomes of colonists shows that there was generally a wide income gap. In 1774, the top 10 percent of Boston citizens owned 57 percent of the wealth in the city. Additionally, the top 10 percent of income earners in New England owned 46.8 percent of the wealth. As Howard Zinn points out in his book “A People’s History of the United States,” there was also a significant amount of poverty in American cities. Certainly, the high amount of poverty is a strong negative and many would also look upon the income inequality with disdain. However, when we look at the data, we find that the average American colonist was among the most affluent and had among the highest standards of living in the world in the 1770s.

Common estimates of the real wealth that was owned by the average colonist are about $14,000. Incomes ranged from $2,100 to $3,500 per capita. This level of affluence approached that of those in Britain. When adjusted for the lower tax rates that were paid in the colonies, Americans had one of the highest disposable incomes in the world.

In addition to the high affluence of the average American colonist, there was also a comparatively higher quality of life. Due to the land resources, food was comparatively plentiful and wood, which served as a prime energy source, was cheap and abundant. The population density was low, which lessened the spread of diseases. This high quality of life led to high birth rates and lower death rates than Europe, which led to a strong population growth of 3 percent per year.

Another important way to measure a society’s standard of living is through measuring its people’s average heights. According to research from Richard Steckel, taller average heights are typically connected to a higher standard of living with better health care and a healthier/more plentiful diet. In the 1770s, the average colonial soldier stood at five foot eight, which was two inches taller than the average British soldier. This signals that American colonists might've had a better standard of living than their British counterparts.

Affluence and the standard of living for the average American colonist were among the highest, if not the highest in the world during the 1770s, despite the distribution of income being quite uneven. This high affluence and standard of living can be attributed to the expansive market economy that blossomed due to strong protection of property rights. This was secured by the colonial establishment of common law institutions.

Most statistics are taken from Cain & Hughes' Textbook “American Economic History,” which gathers from countless pieces of published economic research.

Cover Image Credit: Robert Finale Paintings

Popular Right Now

Reasons Why Having Gay Or Lesbian Parents is Weird

Every single reason, listed for your convenience.


There aren't any reasons why having gay or lesbian parents is weird.

We need to stop treating it as though there are.

The End.

Cover Image Credit: CFCA

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

I Can Be A Conservative And Still Hold Liberal AND Moderate Beliefs

Being liberal and conservative is a real thing. I'm one.


Being a young conservative mind is one thing, but when you promote conservative values and then publicly disagree with something that is Republican/conservative based; you inevitably end up getting bashed for it.

First and foremost, I have always supported President Trump. This does not mean that I have to agree with everything he says. I refuse to be brainwashed and sheep-like. I have my own set of values, and I stand for what is right and best for this country.

Now you're thinking "well, then that's not conservative." Definitionally, conservative means "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion." The key word in this definition is "cautious."

I am cautious about change, and being non-supportive of things like the attempt(s) to overturn Roe V. Wade is something I am extremely wary of.

Those beliefs do not make someone less conservative, less Christian, or less of a person.

I still believe in tradition. I support the death penalty in certain cases. I believe that oil and gas are good resources for energy, although we must be aware of how much we use as well as the research being done that will help us find more environmentally friendly ways to use/produce energy. I'm against physician-assisted suicide unless they are set to die with no chance to live. The second amendment is something that I will always protect. With the way the government is being currently running, I think it is important for us to remember that we do have the right of revolution if it comes down to that. Homeland security is very important, and it needs to be conducted in any way that promotes safety. I think that taxes should be lowered and that the government shouldn't take huge chunks of money from Americans. Private property is private property, the government has no right to seize it or use it in any way (unless, for some reason, the third Amendment came into play.)

I also have a small set of liberal beliefs.

Global warming is real.

Immigrants should be able to legally enter the country, and we should make the immigration process quicker and easier for people that want to come to the USA for a better life.

Separation of the church and state is necessary, and it should not be expressed in the government especially to make decisions. There are many different religions in the United States, meaning we cannot force one certain religion on the people.

Same-sex marriage should not be an issue because it does not have an impact on anyone's personal lives, besides the people that get married. It also doesn't pose any long or short term negative effects.

Aside from those beliefs, I have a set of beliefs that lay somewhere in the middle.

I support the welfare system but I also think that people should have to go through a set of "self-help" actions to slowly gear themselves away from being dependent on welfare.

I do not think we should go to war, but I do think it is important to do whatever we have to do to keep terrorism out of the United States; even if that means going to war.

Social security is important and we need to do what we can to mend it, but we cannot put our economy at an even higher risk than it already is to do so.

If you are happy, and your decisions do not have an impact on my life, then I'm happy and I will gladly mind my own business. As long as our economy, safety, and personal lives are not infringed upon; new sets of laws should be allowed.

The local/state government should not have such a power to dramatically go against federal law or threaten the constitution. There is nothing stopping them from doing this because they (state) find loopholes in the fine lines. We the people can put a stop to this, and we can use one of our greatest rights; the right to vote.

Related Content

Facebook Comments