r/Glasgow Tools

Title
Author	Noblemann
Comment	I wrote my dissertation based on the failed Darien Scheme Here was my conclusion: Historians have debated over the legitimacy of the scheme, frequently dismissing it as a fictional event or yet another example of a small nation’s failing attempt or in the words of one contemporary scholar a ‘tragic farce’. However, through the analysis of the sources and events ~~above~~ it can be strongly argued that the failure of the Company of Scotland to establish a successful joint-stock company focused on colonial expansion was down to the stout opposition of the English Parliament, its own joint-stock company and the crown. It is important to note, though, that the two expeditions to Darien, in particular the first, were fundamentally mishandled and ill-equipped; however, once the colony was founded it faced hostility and contrariness from multiple angles which contributed more than any negligence could have done to the colony’s demise. The lack of trade the colony was experiencing was no coincidence either. This then questions why historians have disregarded the venture as a fiasco. If the idea of colonising Darien was such a wild one, then it becomes more difficult to explain the high levels of opposition the Company and the settlers experienced from other European nations. Clearly the Scots were on to something and this threatened to alter the balance of power in Europe, causing vigorous opposition amongst the commercial powers that be. The Earl of Stair also stated during the union debates that: >The pitiful outcome of that enterprise is too sad a story to be told again. Suffice it to say that the English did not treat us as partners or friends or fellow subjects of a British King but as pirates and enemy aliens. The Union of Crowns gave us no security; we were exposed to hostile rivalry of Spain; our colony was sacked; we suffered every cruelty an enemy can inflict . The Union of 1707 brought about financial relief for a Scotland crippled after the demise of Darien through The Equivalent. The Scots had accepted proposals from England in 1702/3: of equality, of taxations, and were willing to help pay off pre-union English debt. In return the Scots would receive a large lump sum payment (The Equivalent), rather than money to be paid from the Scottish revenues over a number of years. From this period to the immediate run up to the Act of Union in 1707 the payments from England had transformed from small yearly payments, as small as 10000, to a lottery win of just short of 400,000. This lump sum saw all the subscribers to the venture given full compensation. The Scots were split over The Equivalent: some saw it as a rescue; others saw it as a bribe camouflaged in political clothing. Was it a bribe with a face of aspiration, with the main intent of stopping the Scottish forces joining against England with France? Some did see it that way. Some at the time also argued that the English sole reason for opposing the Company of Scotland was a prerequisite for an easier journey to a union. What was clear, though, was that the English did not want an unstable Scotland north of the border, especially with France preparing for war. The Company of Scotland represents Scotland’s most ambitious attempt of achieving a strong economic future by becoming a colonial power and expanding into the New World. In the end, however, Darien proved to be a more political affair than an economic one, and exposed the true agenda of the crown when it is forced to choose an ally. What the decisions made by William III, after advice from his parliament, irrefutably proved was that when the commercial interests of Scotland and England meet, the monarch will always move to support the position of the stronger of the two kingdoms, and that, unfortunately for the Scots, cash, in this case, was king. The failure of Darien did not only show the Scots that it was virtually impossible for them to establish themselves as a colonial power without an existing strong economy, military and/or the backing of an ally, but it simultaneously placed the Anglo-Scottish relations firmly on the political agenda more than ever before. The Company of Scotland’s Darien Scheme must not be looked upon as a monument of failure, nor another story of a famous flop, but instead a tribute to the Scottish people’s ambition and drive against vast odds and adversity. \---------------------- The essay 10 thousands words, I really enjoyed researching this event and time. In my mind it's a Scottish historical event that should be more widely known.
Reddit Link	https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/jlwyfl/the_steamie_sunday_1_november_2020/gasbipy/
Created	Sun 1st Nov 2020 12:17pm
Status	normal ()

I wrote my dissertation based on the failed Darien Scheme

Here was my conclusion:

Historians have debated over the legitimacy of the scheme, frequently dismissing it as a fictional event or yet another example of a small nation’s failing attempt or in the words of one contemporary scholar a ‘tragic farce’. However, through the analysis of the sources and events ~~above~~ it can be strongly argued that the failure of the Company of Scotland to establish a successful joint-stock company focused on colonial expansion was down to the stout opposition of the English Parliament, its own joint-stock company and the crown. It is important to note, though, that the two expeditions to Darien, in particular the first, *were* fundamentally mishandled and ill-equipped; however, once the colony was founded it faced hostility and contrariness from multiple angles which contributed *more* than any negligence could have done to the colony’s demise. The lack of trade the colony was experiencing was no coincidence either. This then questions why historians have disregarded the venture as a fiasco. If the idea of colonising Darien was such a wild one, then it becomes more difficult to explain the high levels of opposition the Company and the settlers experienced from other European nations. Clearly the Scots were on to something and this threatened to alter the balance of power in Europe, causing vigorous opposition amongst the commercial powers that be.

The Earl of Stair also stated during the union debates that:

>The pitiful outcome of that enterprise is too sad a story to be told again. Suffice it to say that the English did not treat us as partners or friends or fellow subjects of a British King but as pirates and enemy aliens. The Union of Crowns gave us no security; we were exposed to hostile rivalry of Spain; our colony was sacked; we suffered every cruelty an enemy can inflict .

The Union of 1707 brought about financial relief for a Scotland crippled after the demise of Darien through The Equivalent. The Scots had accepted proposals from England in 1702/3: of equality, of taxations, and were willing to help pay off pre-union English debt. In return the Scots would receive a large lump sum payment (The Equivalent), rather than money to be paid from the Scottish revenues over a number of years. From this period to the immediate run up to the Act of Union in 1707 the payments from England had transformed from small yearly payments, as small as 10000, to a lottery win of just short of 400,000. This lump sum saw all the subscribers to the venture given full compensation. The Scots were split over The Equivalent: some saw it as a rescue; others saw it as a bribe camouflaged in political clothing. Was it a bribe with a face of aspiration, with the main intent of stopping the Scottish forces joining against England with France? Some did see it that way. Some at the time also argued that the English sole reason for opposing the Company of Scotland was a prerequisite for an easier journey to a union. What was clear, though, was that the English did not want an unstable Scotland north of the border, especially with France preparing for war.

The Company of Scotland represents Scotland’s most ambitious attempt of achieving a strong economic future by becoming a colonial power and expanding into the New World. In the end, however, Darien proved to be a more political affair than an economic one, and exposed the true agenda of the crown when it is forced to choose an ally. What the decisions made by William III, after advice from his parliament, irrefutably proved was that when the commercial interests of Scotland and England meet, the monarch will always move to support the position of the stronger of the two kingdoms, and that, unfortunately for the Scots, cash, in this case, was king. The failure of Darien did not only show the Scots that it was virtually impossible for them to establish themselves as a colonial power without an existing strong economy, military and/or the backing of an ally, but it simultaneously placed the Anglo-Scottish relations firmly on the political agenda more than ever before. The Company of Scotland’s Darien Scheme must not be looked upon as a monument of failure, nor another story of a famous flop, but instead a tribute to the Scottish people’s ambition and drive against vast odds and adversity.

\----------------------

The essay 10 thousands words, I really enjoyed researching this event and time. In my mind it's a Scottish historical event that should be more widely known.