Lauren Benton’s article focuses on the role of treason in the Atlantic and explains how many Europeans had committed treason and has been punished for their actions in the Atlantic. Lauren Brenton illustrates the creation of treason coming from Roman Law that created the rule of treason because they look into European powers trying increasing their power and authority with illegal tactics relating to trade or partnerships through the Atlantic. For example, Roman ideas of treason can be best described political violence and treason which could be committed at times by officials like Governors or Military Officials who have more of an opportunity to become a traitor than an honest citizen or foot soldier. (Brenton, Page 60). In my opinion, the amount of treason was committed in England and France because of increased power and more dealings were made through the Atlantic in later years. Lauren Brenton explains how both France and England had serious offenses relating to treason due to other’s people aiding the King’s enemies and gaining an advantage towards an act of war or trying to take advantage of power from the King. (Brenton, Page 61). The increase of power started to become significant in British North America through port merchants and geographic imaginary featuring upriver regions as colonial factors shaped the politics of treason during the late 17th century. For example, The English occupied and disrupted the Dutch-Indian network in the Hudson Valley River which led to the removal of Swedish settlements near Delaware. As a result, two Indians groups offset the increased power of the colonies insisting that loyal subject of English sovereign drew a direct relationship to the crown that may bypass colonial authorities. (Brenton, 90-91). The amount of treason increased and now European power in later years could no longer get away what they’re doing involving power.<\/p>\n
This reminds me of Matt Everett’s response relating to Europeans felt that they needed more power even though the Europeans and Native Indians had agreed to a working relationship, European superiority over the Native Indians which might led to an act of war in Andrew Lipman’s reading.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n