Misplaced Pages

Broad Arrow Policy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactivelyContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:02, 22 December 2024 editRjensen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers227,011 edits copy ex Broad arrow Dec 22 2024 see history for attributionTag: harv-error  Latest revision as of 20:21, 22 December 2024 edit undoRjensen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers227,011 edits →top: ce 
(18 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''Broad Arrow Policy''' was a policy of the British government from 1691 to preserve tall trees in the American colonies which were of critical use for the ]. It applied to Massachusetts from 1691. It was extended to New Hampshire (1698); New England New York and New Jersey (1711); and Nova Scotia (1721).<ref>Carolyn Merchant, ''The Columbia guide to American environmental history'' (Columbia University Press, 2005.) p. 197.</ref> The '''Broad Arrow Policy''' was a policy of the British government from 1691 to preserve tall trees in the American colonies which were of critical use for the ]. It applied to Massachusetts from 1691. It was extended to New Hampshire (1698); New England, New York, and New Jersey (1711); and Nova Scotia (1721). The colonists disliked the policy and it was one of the grievances that led to the ].<ref>Carolyn Merchant, ''The Columbia guide to American environmental history'' (Columbia University Press, 2005.) p. 197.</ref>


]
⚫ The broad arrow was used by the British to mark trees (one species of which was the ]) intended for ] use in ] during colonial times. Three axe strikes, resembling an arrowhead and shaft, were marked on large ]-grade trees.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nelma.org/lagniappe/kings-broad-arrow-and-ewp/ |publisher=NeLMA: Northeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association |title=The King's Broad Arrow and Eastern White Pine}}</ref> Use of the broad arrow mark commenced in earnest in 1691 with the ], which contained a Mast Preservation Clause specifying, in part:<ref>{{harvp|Malone|1979| p=10}}</ref>

⚫ The broad arrow symbol was used by the British to mark trees (especially the ]) intended for ] use. Three axe strikes, resembling an arrowhead and shaft, were marked on large ]-grade trees.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nelma.org/lagniappe/kings-broad-arrow-and-ewp/ |publisher=NeLMA: Northeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association |title=The King's Broad Arrow and Eastern White Pine}}</ref> Use of the broad arrow mark commenced in earnest in 1691 with the ], which contained a Mast Preservation Clause specifying:<ref>Joseph J. Malone, ''Pine Trees and Politics'' (1985), p.10.</ref>


{{blockquote|... for better providing and furnishing of Masts for our Royal Navy wee do hereby reserve to us ... ALL trees of the diameter of 24 inches and upward at 12 inches from the ground, growing upon any soils or tracts of land within our said Province or Territory not heretofore granted to any private person. We...forbid all persons whatsoever from felling, cutting or destroying any such trees without the royal license from us.}} {{blockquote|... for better providing and furnishing of Masts for our Royal Navy wee do hereby reserve to us ... ALL trees of the diameter of 24 inches and upward at 12 inches from the ground, growing upon any soils or tracts of land within our said Province or Territory not heretofore granted to any private person. We...forbid all persons whatsoever from felling, cutting or destroying any such trees without the royal license from us.}}


Initially England imported its mast trees from the Baltic states, but it was an expensive, lengthy and politically treacherous proposition. Much of British naval policy at the time revolved around keeping the trade route to the Baltics open. With Baltic timber becoming less appealing to use, the Admiralty's eye turned towards the Colonies. Colonists paid little attention to the Charter's Mast Preservation Clause, and tree harvesting increased with disregard for broad arrow protected trees. However, as Baltic imports decreased, the ] increasingly depended on North American trees, and enforcement of broad arrow policies increased.<ref>{{harvp|Malone|1979| p=11}}</ref> Persons appointed to the position of Surveyor-General of His Majesty's Woods were responsible for selecting, marking and recording trees as well as policing and enforcing the unlicensed cutting of protected trees. This process was open to abuse, and the British monopoly was very unpopular with colonists. Part of the reason was that many protected trees were on either town-owned or privately owned lands. Initially England imported its mast trees from the Baltic states, but it was an expensive, lengthy and politically treacherous proposition. Much of British naval policy at the time revolved around keeping the trade route to the Baltics open. With Baltic timber becoming less appealing to use, the Admiralty's eye turned towards the Colonies. Colonists paid little attention to the Charter's Mast Preservation Clause, and tree harvesting increased with disregard for broad arrow protected trees. However, as Baltic imports decreased, the ] increasingly depended on North American trees, and enforcement of broad arrow policies increased.<ref>Malone (1979) p.11</ref> Persons appointed to the position of Surveyor-General of His Majesty's Woods were responsible for selecting, marking and recording trees as well as policing and enforcing the unlicensed cutting of protected trees. This process was open to abuse, and the British monopoly was very unpopular with colonists. Part of the reason was that many protected trees were on either town-owned or privately owned lands.
] is a flag which was often used in the ] and ] as a symbol to oppose tyranny.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shalhoup |first=Dean |date=2024-06-11 |title=Libertarians stage City Hall protest of mayor's decision against flying 'Pine Tree Flag' |url=https://www.unionleader.com/nashua/libertarians-stage-city-hall-protest-of-mayors-decision-against-flying-pine-tree-flag/article_887f2dff-0e60-5fb8-87ea-dcfbd1eeb1de.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240611004630/https://www.unionleader.com/nashua/libertarians-stage-city-hall-protest-of-mayors-decision-against-flying-pine-tree-flag/article_887f2dff-0e60-5fb8-87ea-dcfbd1eeb1de.html |archive-date=June 11, 2024 |access-date=2024-07-11 |website=New Hampshire Union Leader}}</ref> It was inspired by the Pine Tree Riot. ]]
⚫ Colonists could only sell mast trees to the British, but were substantially underpaid for the lumber. Even though it was illegal for the colonists to sell to enemies of the crown, both the French and the Spanish were in the market for mast trees as well and would pay a much better price. Acts of Parliament in 1711, 1722 and the 1772 Timber for the Navy Act extended protection finally to {{convert|12|in|mm|adj=mid|-diameter}} trees and resulted in the ] that same year. This was one of the first acts of rebellion by the American colonists leading to the ] in 1775, and ] was flown at the ].

==See also==
* ]

==Notes==
<references/>

==Further reading==

* Conway, Dick. "Roots of Revolution" ''American History'' (Dec 2002) 37#4 pp.&nbsp;56–59.
* Kinney, Jay P., ''Forest legislation in America prior to March 4, 1789'' (1916)
* Malone, Joseph J. ''Pine Trees and Politics: The Naval Stores and Forest Policy in Colonial New England, 1691-1775'' (U of Washington Press, 1985)
* Marshall, Philip.   "The Historical and Physiological Ecology of Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus L.) in Northeast Connecticut, 1700-2000" (PhD dissertation, Yale University; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses,  2011. 34969700).
* Roberts, Strother E. "Pines, profits, and popular politics: Responses to the White Pine Acts in the colonial Connecticut River Valley" ''New England Quarterly'', (2010) 83(1), 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1162/tneq.2010.83.1.73
* "The King's Broad Arrow and Eastern White Pine," ''NELMA'' (2020)


]
⚫ Colonists could only sell mast trees to the British, but were substantially underpaid for the lumber. Even though it was illegal for the colonists to sell to enemies of the crown, both the French and the Spanish were in the market for mast trees as well and would pay a much better price. Acts of Parliament in 1711, 1722 and 1772 (]) extended protection finally to {{convert|12|in|mm|adj=mid|-diameter}} trees and resulted in the ] that same year. This was one of the first acts of rebellion by the American colonists leading to the ] in 1775, and ] is said{{by whom|date=November 2019}} to have been flown at the ].
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 20:21, 22 December 2024

The Broad Arrow Policy was a policy of the British government from 1691 to preserve tall trees in the American colonies which were of critical use for the Royal Navy. It applied to Massachusetts from 1691. It was extended to New Hampshire (1698); New England, New York, and New Jersey (1711); and Nova Scotia (1721). The colonists disliked the policy and it was one of the grievances that led to the American Revolution.

The broad arrow symbol stamped on trees

The broad arrow symbol was used by the British to mark trees (especially the eastern white pine) intended for ship building use. Three axe strikes, resembling an arrowhead and shaft, were marked on large mast-grade trees. Use of the broad arrow mark commenced in earnest in 1691 with the Massachusetts Charter, which contained a Mast Preservation Clause specifying:

... for better providing and furnishing of Masts for our Royal Navy wee do hereby reserve to us ... ALL trees of the diameter of 24 inches and upward at 12 inches from the ground, growing upon any soils or tracts of land within our said Province or Territory not heretofore granted to any private person. We...forbid all persons whatsoever from felling, cutting or destroying any such trees without the royal license from us.

Initially England imported its mast trees from the Baltic states, but it was an expensive, lengthy and politically treacherous proposition. Much of British naval policy at the time revolved around keeping the trade route to the Baltics open. With Baltic timber becoming less appealing to use, the Admiralty's eye turned towards the Colonies. Colonists paid little attention to the Charter's Mast Preservation Clause, and tree harvesting increased with disregard for broad arrow protected trees. However, as Baltic imports decreased, the British timber trade increasingly depended on North American trees, and enforcement of broad arrow policies increased. Persons appointed to the position of Surveyor-General of His Majesty's Woods were responsible for selecting, marking and recording trees as well as policing and enforcing the unlicensed cutting of protected trees. This process was open to abuse, and the British monopoly was very unpopular with colonists. Part of the reason was that many protected trees were on either town-owned or privately owned lands.

The Pine Tree Flag is a flag which was often used in the American Revolution and modern day libertarian activists as a symbol to oppose tyranny. It was inspired by the Pine Tree Riot.

Colonists could only sell mast trees to the British, but were substantially underpaid for the lumber. Even though it was illegal for the colonists to sell to enemies of the crown, both the French and the Spanish were in the market for mast trees as well and would pay a much better price. Acts of Parliament in 1711, 1722 and the 1772 Timber for the Navy Act extended protection finally to 12-inch-diameter (300 mm) trees and resulted in the Pine Tree Riot that same year. This was one of the first acts of rebellion by the American colonists leading to the American Revolution in 1775, and a flag bearing a white pine was flown at the Battle of Bunker Hill.

See also

Notes

  1. Carolyn Merchant, The Columbia guide to American environmental history (Columbia University Press, 2005.) p. 197.
  2. "The King's Broad Arrow and Eastern White Pine". NeLMA: Northeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association.
  3. Joseph J. Malone, Pine Trees and Politics (1985), p.10.
  4. Malone (1979) p.11
  5. Shalhoup, Dean (2024-06-11). "Libertarians stage City Hall protest of mayor's decision against flying 'Pine Tree Flag'". New Hampshire Union Leader. Archived from the original on June 11, 2024. Retrieved 2024-07-11.

Further reading

  • Conway, Dick. "Roots of Revolution" American History (Dec 2002) 37#4 pp. 56–59.
  • Kinney, Jay P., Forest legislation in America prior to March 4, 1789 (1916) online
  • Malone, Joseph J. Pine Trees and Politics: The Naval Stores and Forest Policy in Colonial New England, 1691-1775 (U of Washington Press, 1985) online review of this book
  • Marshall, Philip.   "The Historical and Physiological Ecology of Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus L.) in Northeast Connecticut, 1700-2000" (PhD dissertation, Yale University; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses,  2011. 34969700).
  • Roberts, Strother E. "Pines, profits, and popular politics: Responses to the White Pine Acts in the colonial Connecticut River Valley" New England Quarterly, (2010) 83(1), 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1162/tneq.2010.83.1.73
  • "The King's Broad Arrow and Eastern White Pine," NELMA (2020) online
Categories: