document_title: Infection control

question_text: what is the most important aspect of all infection control procedures

text: Infection control

text: Infection control in healthcare facilities[edit]

text: Aseptic technique is a key component of all invasive medical procedures. Similarly, infection control measures are most effective when Standard Precautions (health care) are applied because undiagnosed infection is common.[2]

text: Hand hygiene[edit]

text: Independent studies by Ignaz Semmelweis in 1846 in Vienna and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. in 1843 in Boston established a link between the hands of health care workers and the spread of hospital-acquired disease.[3] The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) state that “It is well documented that the most important measure for preventing the spread of pathogens is effective handwashing.”[4] In the developed world, hand washing is mandatory in most health care settings and required by many different regulators.[citation needed]

text: In the United States, OSHA standards[5] require that employers must provide readily accessible hand washing facilities, and must ensure that employees wash hands and any other skin with soap and water or flush mucous membranes with water as soon as feasible after contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM).

text: In the UK healthcare professionals have adopted the 'Ayliffe Technique', based on the 6 step method developed by Graham Ayliffe, JR Babb and AH Quoraishi.[6]

text:
Mean percentage changes in bacterial numbers

Method used
Change in
bacteria present

Paper towels (2-ply 100% recycled).
- 48.4%

Paper towels (2-ply through-air dried, 50% recycled)
- 76.8%

Warm air dryer
+ 254.5%

Jet air dryer
+ 14.9%

text: Drying is an essential part of the hand hygiene process. In November 2008, a non-peer-reviewed[7] study was presented to the European Tissue Symposium by the University of Westminster, London, comparing the bacteria levels present after the use of paper towels, warm air hand dryers, and modern jet-air hand dryers.[8] Of those three methods, only paper towels reduced the total number of bacteria on hands, with "through-air dried" towels the most effective.

text: The presenters also carried out tests to establish whether there was the potential for cross-contamination of other washroom users and the washroom environment as a result of each type of drying method. They found that:

text:
the jet air dryer, which blows air out of the unit at claimed speeds of 400 mph, was capable of blowing micro-organisms from the hands and the unit and potentially contaminating other washroom users and the washroom environment up to 2 metres away
use of a warm air hand dryer spread micro-organisms up to 0.25 metres from the dryer
paper towels showed no significant spread of micro-organisms.

text: In 2005, in a study conducted by TUV Produkt und Umwelt, different hand drying methods were evaluated.[9] The following changes in the bacterial count after drying the hands were observed:

text:
Drying method
Effect on bacterial count

Paper towels and roll
Decrease of 24%

Hot-air drier
Increase of 117%

text: Sterilization[edit]

text: Sterilization is a process intended to kill all microorganisms and is the highest level of microbial kill that is possible. Sterilizers may be heat only, steam, or liquid chemical.[10] Effectiveness of the sterilizer (e.g., a steam autoclave) is determined in three ways.[10] First, mechanical indicators and gauges on the machine itself indicate proper operation of the machine. Second heat sensitive indicators or tape on the sterilizing bags change color which indicate proper levels of heat or steam. And, third (most importantly) is biological testing in which a microorganism that is highly heat and chemical resistant (often the bacterial endospore) is selected as the standard challenge. If the process kills this microorganism, the sterilizer is considered to be effective.[10]

text: Sterilization, if performed properly, is an effective way of preventing bacteria from spreading. It should be used for the cleaning of the medical instruments or gloves, and basically any type of medical item that comes into contact with the blood stream and sterile tissues.

text: There are four main ways in which such items can be sterilized: autoclave (by using high-pressure steam), dry heat (in an oven), by using chemical sterilants such as glutaraldehydes or formaldehyde solutions or by radiation (with the help of physical agents). The first two are the most used methods of sterilizations mainly because of their accessibility and availability. Steam sterilization is one of the most effective types of sterilizations, if done correctly which is often hard to achieve. Instruments that are used in health care facilities are usually sterilized with this method. The general rule in this case is that in order to perform an effective sterilization, the steam must get into contact with all the surfaces that are meant to be disinfected. On the other hand, dry heat sterilization, which is performed with the help of an oven, is also an accessible type of sterilization, although it can only be used to disinfect instruments that are made of metal or glass. The very high temperatures needed to perform sterilization in this way are able to melt the instruments that are not made of glass or metal.

text: Steam sterilization is done at a temperature of 121 C (250 F) with a pressure of 209 kPa (15 lbs/in2). In these conditions, rubber items must be sterilized for 20 minutes, and wrapped items 134 C with pressure of 310 kPa for 7 minutes. The time is counted once the temperature that is needed has been reached. Steam sterilization requires four conditions in order to be efficient: adequate contact, sufficiently high temperature, correct time and sufficient moisture.[11] Sterilization using steam can also be done at a temperature of 132 C (270 F), at a double pressure. Dry heat sterilization is performed at 170 C (340 F) for one hour or two hours at a temperature of 160 C (320 F). Dry heat sterilization can also be performed at 121 C, for at least 16 hours.[12]

text: Chemical sterilization, also referred to as cold sterilization, can be used to sterilize instruments that cannot normally be disinfected through the other two processes described above. The items sterilized with cold sterilization are usually those that can be damaged by regular sterilization. Commonly, glutaraldehydes and formaldehyde are used in this process, but in different ways. When using the first type of disinfectant, the instruments are soaked in a 2-4% solution for at least 10 hours while a solution of 8% formaldehyde will sterilize the items in 24 hours or more. Chemical sterilization is generally more expensive than steam sterilization and therefore it is used for instruments that cannot be disinfected otherwise. After the instruments have been soaked in the chemical solutions, they are mandatory to be rinsed with sterile water which will remove the residues from the disinfectants. This is the reason why needles and syringes are not sterilized in this way, as the residues left by the chemical solution that has been used to disinfect them cannot be washed off with water and they may interfere with the administered treatment. Although formaldehyde is less expensive than glutaraldehydes, it is also more irritating to the eyes, skin and respiratory tract and is classified as a potential carcinogen.[11]

text: Other sterilization methods exist, though their efficiency is still controversial. These methods include gas, UV, gas plasma, and chemical sterilization with agents such as peroxyacetic acid or paraformaldehyde.

text: Cleaning[edit]

text: Infections can be prevented from occurring in homes as well. In order to reduce their chances to contract an infection, individuals are recommended to maintain a good hygiene by washing their hands after every contact with questionable areas or bodily fluids and by disposing of garbage at regular intervals to prevent germs from growing.[13]

text: Disinfection[edit]

text: Disinfection uses liquid chemicals on surfaces and at room temperature to kill disease causing microorganisms. Ultraviolet light has also been used to disinfect the rooms of patients infected with Clostridium difficile after discharge.[14] Disinfection is less effective than sterilization because it does not kill bacterial endospores.[10]

text: Personal protective equipment[edit]

text: Personal protective equipment (PPE) is specialized clothing or equipment worn by a worker for protection against a hazard. The hazard in a health care setting is exposure to blood, saliva, or other bodily fluids or aerosols that may carry infectious materials such as Hepatitis C, HIV, or other blood borne or bodily fluid pathogen. PPE prevents contact with a potentially infectious material by creating a physical barrier between the potential infectious material and the healthcare worker.

text: The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires the use of Personal protective equipment (PPE) by workers to guard against blood borne pathogens if there is a reasonably anticipated exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials.[15]

text: Components of PPE include gloves, gowns, bonnets, shoe covers, face shields, CPR masks, goggles, surgical masks, and respirators. How many components are used and how the components are used is often determined by regulations or the infection control protocol of the facility in question. Many or most of these items are disposable to avoid carrying infectious materials from one patient to another patient and to avoid difficult or costly disinfection. In the US, OSHA requires the immediate removal and disinfection or disposal of a worker's PPE prior to leaving the work area where exposure to infectious material took place.[16]

text: Antimicrobial surfaces[edit]

text: Microorganisms are known to survive on non-antimicrobial in animate ‘touch’ surfaces (e.g., bedrails, over-the-bed trays, call buttons, bathroom hardware, etc.) for extended periods of time.[17][18] This can be especially troublesome in hospital environments where patients with immunodeficiencies are at enhanced risk for contracting nosocomial infections.

text: Products made with antimicrobial copper alloy (brasses, bronzes, cupronickel, copper-nickel-zinc, and others) surfaces destroy a wide range of microorganisms in a short period of time.[19] The United States Environmental Protection Agency has approved the registration of 355 different antimicrobial copper alloys and one synthetic copper-infused hard surface that kill E. coli O157:H7, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Staphylococcus, Enterobacter aerogenes, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in less than 2 hours of contact. Other investigations have demonstrated the efficacy of antimicrobial copper alloys to destroy Clostridium difficile, influenza A virus, adenovirus, and fungi.[19] As a public hygienic measure in addition to regular cleaning, antimicrobial copper alloys are being installed in healthcare facilities in the U.K., Ireland, Japan, Korea, France, Denmark, and Brazil. The synthetic hard surface is being installed in the United States as well as in Israel.[20]

text: Vaccination of health care workers[edit]

text: Health care workers may be exposed to certain infections in the course of their work. Vaccines are available to provide some protection to workers in a healthcare setting. Depending on regulation, recommendation, the specific work function, or personal preference, healthcare workers or first responders may receive vaccinations for hepatitis B; influenza; measles, mumps and rubella; Tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis; N. meningitidis; and varicella.[21]

text: Post-exposure prophylaxis[edit]

text: In some cases where vaccines do not exist, post-exposure prophylaxis is another method of protecting the health care worker exposed to a life-threatening infectious disease. For example, the viral particles for HIV-AIDS can be precipitated out of the blood through the use of an antibody injection if given within four hours of a significant exposure.[citation needed]

text: Surveillance for infections[edit]

text: Surveillance is the act of infection investigation using the CDC definitions. Determining the presence of a hospital acquired infection requires an infection control practitioner (ICP) to review a patient's chart and see if the patient had the signs and symptom of an infection. Surveillance definitions exist for infections of the bloodstream, urinary tract, pneumonia,surgical sites and gastroenteritis.

text: Surveillance traditionally involved significant manual data assessment and entry in order to assess preventative actions such as isolation of patients with an infectious disease. Increasingly, computerized software solutions are becoming available that assess incoming risk messages from microbiology and other online sources. By reducing the need for data entry, software can reduce the data workload of ICPs, freeing them to concentrate on clinical surveillance.

text: As of 1998, approximately one third of healthcare acquired infections were preventable.[22] Surveillance and preventative activities are increasingly a priority for hospital staff. The Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC) project by the U.S. CDC found in the 1970s that hospitals reduced their nosocomial infection rates by approximately 32 per cent by focusing on surveillance activities and prevention efforts.[23]

text: Isolation and quarantine[edit]

text: In the health care context, medical isolation refers to various physical measures taken to interrupt nosocomial spread of contagious diseases. Various forms of isolation exist, and are applied depending on the type of infection and agent involved, to address the likelihood of spread via airborne particles or droplets, by direct skin contact, or via contact with body fluids.

text: In cases where infection is merely suspected, individuals may be quarantined until the incubation period has passed and the disease manifests itself or the person remains healthy. Groups may undergo quarantine, or in the case of communities, a cordon sanitaire may be imposed to prevent infection from spreading beyond the community, or in the case of protective sequestration, into a community. Public health authorities may implement other forms of social distancing, such as school closings, to control an epidemic.[24]

text: Outbreak investigation[edit]

text: When an unusual cluster of illness is noted, infection control teams undertake an investigation to determine whether there is a true outbreak, a pseudo-outbreak (a result of contamination within the diagnostic testing process), or just random fluctuation in the frequency of illness. If a true outbreak is discovered, infection control practitioners try to determine what permitted the outbreak to occur, and to rearrange the conditions to prevent ongoing propagation of the infection. Often, breaches in good practice are responsible, although sometimes other factors (such as construction) may be the source of the problem.

text: Outbreaks investigations have more than a single purpose. These investigations are carried out in order to prevent additional cases in the current outbreak, prevent future outbreaks, learn about a new disease or learn something new about an old disease. Reassuring the public, minimizing the economic and social disruption as well as teaching epidemiology are some other obvious objectives of outbreak investigations.[25]

text: According to the WHO, outbreak investigations are meant to detect what is causing the outbreak, how the pathogenic agent is transmitted, where it all started from, what is the carrier, what is the population at risk of getting infected and what are the risk factors.

text: The results of outbreak investigations are always made public in the means of a report in which the findings are communicated to the authorities, media, scientific community and so on. These reports are commonly used as pedagogical tools.

text: Training in infection control and health care epidemiology[edit]

text: Practitioners can come from several different educational streams. Many begin as nurses, some as medical technologists (particularly in clinical microbiology), and some as physicians (typically infectious disease specialists). Specialized training in infection control and health care epidemiology are offered by the professional organizations described below. Physicians who desire to become infection control practitioners often are trained in the context of an infectious disease fellowship.

text: In the United States, Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology is a private company that certifies infection control practitioners based on their educational background and professional experience, in conjunction with testing their knowledge base with standardized exams. The credential awarded is CIC, Certification in Infection Control and Epidemiology. It is recommended that one has 2 years of Infection Control experience before applying for the exam. Certification must be renewed every five years.[26]

text: A course in hospital epidemiology (infection control in the hospital setting) is offered jointly each year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.[27]

text: Standardization[edit]

text: Australia[edit]

text: In 2002, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners published a revised standard for office-based infection control which covers the sections of managing immunisation, sterilisation and disease surveillance.[28][29] However, the document on the personal hygiene of health workers is only limited to hand hygiene, waste and linen management, which may not be sufficient since some of the pathogens are air-born and could be spread through air flow.[30][31]

text: United States[edit]

text: Currently, the federal regulation that describes infection control standards is found at 29 CFR Part 1910.1030 Bloodborne pathogens.[32]


document_title: Joe Sugden

question_text: who was jack sugden's brother in emmerdale

question_tokens: who was jack sugden 's brother in emmerdale

root

text: Joe Sugden

text: Development[edit]

text: Joe is a farmer as was his father. When Emmerdale began it depicted actual farm life. Rather than act out tasks Hines learned to dip sheep and milk cows.[1]

tag: p

text: Joe is involved in a relationship with Christine Sharp (Angela Cheyne). They married during the episode broadcast 10 September 1974.[2] The duo overcome a series of problems before marrying and Christine has the wedding day "she'd always dreamed of".[3] To commemorate the event TVTimes featured a promotional souvenir photograph for readers prior to the episode's airdate.[4]

text: Storylines[edit]

text: Joe is the youngest child of Jacob and Annie Sugden (Sheila Mercier) born on 31 May 1949. Jacob dies in October 1972 and Joe's brother, Jack, inherits the farm and divides it between the family.

text: After a failed attempt at courting Marian Wilks (Gail Harrison), Joe starts dating Christine Sharp and they soon marry but separate when Christine decides she does not want to be a farmer's wife. Christine returns the following year to reconcile but Joe wants a divorce and she leaves for good. Joe's next relationship is with Kathy Gimbel (Polly Hemingway), who moves in with him. Their relationship is a huge talking point in the village as Kathy is separated from her husband, Kenny. When Kathy's father, Jim (John Atkinson) shoots himself, Kathy leaves Joe to live with her mother, Freda (Mary Henry).

text: In 1980, Joe gets a job working for NY estates and gets jobs for his nephew Jackie Merrick (Ian Sharrock) and Jackie's half-sister Sandie (Jane Hutcheson). Joe develops feelings for vicar's daughter, Barbara Peters, in 1983 but is rejected and moves to France for several years but briefly returns for the funeral of his grandfather, Sam Pearson (Toke Townley), in November 1984. In 1986, Joe returns permanently and becomes regional manager for NY Estates. During this time, he has a brief relationship with Karen Moore (Annie Hulley) who had previously had an affair with Jack but Karen ends the relationship.

text: In 1988, Joe meets divorcee Kate Hughes (Sally Knyvette), and her two children, Rachel (Glenda McKay) and Mark Hughes (Craig McKay). Initially Kate and Joe argue after he shoots her dog for bothering his sheep but eventually they fall in love. They marry in 1989 after Joe proposes but with Mark and Rachel opposed and wanting Kate to reconcile with their father, David (Martyn Whitby), Joe becomes worried. They do marry and Kate's children eventually come round to their mother's new marriage. In 1990, Kate accidentally runs over Pete Whiteley, killing him and is jailed for a year but is released the following January. Kate tells Joe the marriage is over and returns to Sheffield. Rachel and Mark decide to stay and Joe forms a closer relationship with them. On 30 December 1993, Joe and Mark argue over a vacuum cleaner that needs returning so Mark goes to the Whiteley Farm when a large section of an Eastern European Airjet comes down, knocking down a wall which falls on Mark, killing him. Joe, his mother, Annie and her new husband Leonard Kempinski (Bernard Archard) are also hit when another part of the plane hits his car. Joe breaks a leg, Annie is left comatose but Leonard is killed. When Joe learns of Mark's death, he becomes very depressed and blames himself. After saving Dave Glover from being run over by a car, Jack and Rachel persuade him go and spend time with Annie in Spain.

text: This is Joe's last appearance onscreen and in June 1995, news reaches Emmerdale that he has died in a car crash. Annie and Amos Brearly (Ronald Magill) return to the village for his funeral.

text: Reception[edit]

text: The character was selected as one of the "top 100 British soap characters" by industry experts for a poll to be run by What's on TV, with readers able to vote for their favourite character to discover "Who is Soap's greatest Legend?"[5]


document_title: List of presidents of the United States by age

question_text: who is the oldest president we ever had

question_tokens: who is the oldest president we ever had

text: Age of U.S. presidents[edit]

text: The median age upon accession to the presidency is 55 years and 3 months. This is how old Lyndon B. Johnson was at the time of his inauguration. The youngest person to assume the office was Theodore Roosevelt, who became president at the age of 42 years, 322 days, following William McKinley's assassination; the oldest was Donald Trump, who was 70 years, 220 days old at his inauguration. The youngest person to be elected president was John F. Kennedy, at 43 years, 163 days of age on election day; the oldest was Ronald Reagan, who was 73 years, 274 days old at the time of his election to a second term.

text: Assassinated three years into his term, John F. Kennedy was the youngest at the time of leaving office (46 years, 177 days); the youngest president to leave office at the conclusion of a normal transition was Theodore Roosevelt (50 years, 128 days). The oldest at the time of leaving office was Ronald Reagan (77 years, 349 days).

text: Born on May 29, 1917, John F. Kennedy was younger than four of his successors, the greatest number to date: Lyndon Johnson (8 years, 9 months, and 2 days); Ronald Reagan (6 years, 3 months, and 23 days); Richard Nixon (4 years, 4 months, and 16 days); and Gerald Ford (3 years, 10 months, and 15 days).

text: Born on February 6, 1911, Ronald Reagan was older than four of his predecessors, the greatest number to date: Richard Nixon (1 year, 11 months, and 7 days); Gerald Ford (2 years, 5 months, and 8 days); John F. Kennedy (6 years, 3 months, and 23 days); and Jimmy Carter (13 years, 7 months, and 25 days).

text: Three presidents—Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton—were born in 1946 (all within the span of 9 weeks). This is the only calendar year in which three presidents have been born. Two presidents—James K. Polk and Warren G. Harding—were born on November 2 (70 years apart). This is the only day of the year having the birthday of multiple presidents.[1]

text: The oldest living U.S. president is George H. W. Bush, born June 12, 1924 (age 94 years, 78 days). On November 25, 2017, he also became the longest-lived president, surpassing the lifespan of Gerald Ford, who died at the age of 93 years, 165 days. The second oldest living president, Jimmy Carter, has the distinction of having the longest post-presidency in U.S. history, currently at 37 years, 221 days. He surpassed the previous record, held by Herbert Hoover (31 years, 230 days) on September 7, 2012. The youngest living president is Barack Obama, born August 4, 1961 (age 57 years, 25 days).

text: The shortest-lived president to have died by natural causes (thereby excluding John F. Kennedy and James A. Garfield, who were both assassinated) was James K. Polk, who died of cholera at the age of 53 years, 225 days; only 103 days after leaving office.

text: Six U.S. presidents have lived into their 90s, with two of them currently alive. They are (in order of birth):

text:
John Adams(aged 90 years, 247 days)

Herbert Hoover(aged 90 years, 71 days)

Ronald Reagan(aged 93 years, 120 days)

Gerald Ford(aged 93 years, 165 days)

George H. W. Bush(age 94 years, 78 days)

Jimmy Carter(age 93 years, 332 days)

tag: ul

text: Table[edit]

text:
President

Birthdate

Start of presidency

End of presidency

Post-presidency

Death

Date
Age
Date
Age
timespan
Date
Age

01 • George Washington

Feb 22, 1732[a]

Apr 30, 1789

7004208870000000000♠57 years, 67 days

Mar 4, 1797

7004237520000000000♠65 years, 10 days

7003101500000000000♠2 years, 285 days

Dec 14, 1799

7004247670000000000♠67 years, 295 days

02 • John Adams

Oct 30, 1735[a]

Mar 4, 1797

7004224060000000000♠61 years, 125 days

Mar 4, 1801

7004238660000000000♠65 years, 125 days

7003925300000000000♠25 years, 122 days

Jul 4, 1826

7004331190000000000♠90 years, 247 days

03 • Thomas Jefferson

Apr 13, 1743[a]

Mar 4, 1801

7004211440000000000♠57 years, 325 days

Mar 4, 1809

7004240660000000000♠65 years, 325 days

7003633100000000000♠17 years, 122 days

Jul 4, 1826

7004303970000000000♠83 years, 82 days

04 • James Madison

Mar 16, 1751[a]

Mar 4, 1809

7004211720000000000♠57 years, 353 days

Mar 4, 1817

7004240940000000000♠65 years, 353 days

7003705600000000000♠19 years, 116 days

Jun 28, 1836

7004311500000000000♠85 years, 104 days

05 • James Monroe

Apr 28, 1758

Mar 4, 1817

7004214940000000000♠58 years, 310 days

Mar 4, 1825

7004244160000000000♠66 years, 310 days

7003231300000000000♠6 years, 122 days

Jul 4, 1831

7004267290000000000♠73 years, 67 days

06 • John Q. Adams

Jul 11, 1767

Mar 4, 1825

7004210550000000000♠57 years, 236 days

Mar 4, 1829

7004225160000000000♠61 years, 236 days

7003693000000000000♠18 years, 356 days

Feb 23, 1848

7004294460000000000♠80 years, 227 days

07 • Andrew Jackson

Mar 15, 1767

Mar 4, 1829

7004226340000000000♠61 years, 354 days

Mar 4, 1837

7004255560000000000♠69 years, 354 days

7003301800000000000♠8 years, 96 days

Jun 8, 1845

7004285740000000000♠78 years, 85 days

08 • Martin Van Buren

Dec 5, 1782

Mar 4, 1837

7004198120000000000♠54 years, 89 days

Mar 4, 1841

7004212730000000000♠58 years, 89 days

7003781200000000000♠21 years, 142 days

Jul 24, 1862

7004290850000000000♠79 years, 231 days

09 • William H. Harrison

Feb 9, 1773

Mar 4, 1841

7004248590000000000♠68 years, 23 days

Apr 4, 1841[b]

7004248900000000000♠68 years, 54 days

00,0000 days

Apr 4, 1841

7004248900000000000♠68 years, 54 days

10 • John Tyler

Mar 29, 1790

Apr 4, 1841

7004186330000000000♠51 years, 6 days

Mar 4, 1845

7004200630000000000♠54 years, 340 days

7003616400000000000♠16 years, 320 days

Jan 18, 1862

7004262270000000000♠71 years, 295 days

11 • James K. Polk

Nov 2, 1795

Mar 4, 1845

7004180190000000000♠49 years, 122 days

Mar 4, 1849

7004194800000000000♠53 years, 122 days

7002103000000000000♠103 days

Jun 15, 1849

7004195830000000000♠53 years, 225 days

12 • Zachary Taylor

Nov 24, 1784

Mar 4, 1849

7004234750000000000♠64 years, 100 days

Jul 9, 1850[b]

7004239670000000000♠65 years, 227 days

00,0000 days

Jul 9, 1850

7004239670000000000♠65 years, 227 days

13 • Millard Fillmore

Jan 7, 1800

Jul 9, 1850

7004184450000000000♠50 years, 183 days

Mar 4, 1853

7004194140000000000♠53 years, 56 days

7003767400000000000♠21 years, 4 days

Mar 8, 1874

7004270880000000000♠74 years, 60 days

14 • Franklin Pierce

Nov 23, 1804

Mar 4, 1853

7004176330000000000♠48 years, 101 days

Mar 4, 1857

7004190940000000000♠52 years, 101 days

7003460100000000000♠12 years, 218 days

Oct 8, 1869

7004236950000000000♠64 years, 319 days

15 • James Buchanan

Apr 23, 1791

Mar 4, 1857

7004240560000000000♠65 years, 315 days

Mar 4, 1861

7004255170000000000♠69 years, 315 days

7003264600000000000♠7 years, 89 days

Jun 1, 1868

7004281630000000000♠77 years, 39 days

16 • Abraham Lincoln

Feb 12, 1809

Mar 4, 1861

7004190130000000000♠52 years, 20 days

Apr 15, 1865[b]

7004205160000000000♠56 years, 62 days

00,0000 days

Apr 15, 1865

7004205160000000000♠56 years, 62 days

17 • Andrew Johnson

Dec 29, 1808

Apr 15, 1865

7004205610000000000♠56 years, 107 days

Mar 4, 1869

7004219800000000000♠60 years, 65 days

7003234000000000000♠6 years, 149 days

Jul 31, 1875

7004243200000000000♠66 years, 214 days

18 • Ulysses S. Grant

Apr 27, 1822

Mar 4, 1869

7004171130000000000♠46 years, 311 days

Mar 4, 1877

7004200350000000000♠54 years, 311 days

7003306300000000000♠8 years, 141 days

Jul 23, 1885

7004230980000000000♠63 years, 87 days

19 • Rutherford B. Hayes

Oct 4, 1822

Mar 4, 1877

7004198750000000000♠54 years, 151 days

Mar 4, 1881

7004213360000000000♠58 years, 151 days

7003433700000000000♠11 years, 319 days

Jan 17, 1893

7004256730000000000♠70 years, 105 days

20 • James A. Garfield

Nov 19, 1831

Mar 4, 1881

7004180030000000000♠49 years, 105 days

Sep 19, 1881[b]

7004182020000000000♠49 years, 304 days

00,0000 days

Sep 19, 1881

7004182020000000000♠49 years, 304 days

21 • Chester A. Arthur

Oct 5, 1829

Sep 19, 1881

7004189770000000000♠51 years, 349 days

Mar 4, 1885

7004202390000000000♠55 years, 150 days

7002624000000000000♠1 year, 259 days

Nov 18, 1886

7004208630000000000♠57 years, 44 days

22 • Grover Cleveland

Mar 18, 1837

Mar 4, 1885

7004175180000000000♠47 years, 351 days

Mar 4, 1889

7004189790000000000♠51 years, 351 days

15 years, 112 days[c]

Jun 24, 1908

7004260300000000000♠71 years, 98 days

23 • Benjamin Harrison

Aug 20, 1833

Mar 4, 1889

7004202850000000000♠55 years, 196 days

Mar 4, 1893

7004217460000000000♠59 years, 196 days

7003293000000000000♠8 years, 9 days

Mar 13, 1901

7004246760000000000♠67 years, 205 days

24 • Grover Cleveland

Mar 18, 1837

Mar 4, 1893

7004204400000000000♠55 years, 351 days

Mar 4, 1897

7004219010000000000♠59 years, 351 days

15 years, 112 days[c]

Jun 24, 1908

7004260300000000000♠71 years, 98 days

25 • William McKinley

Jan 29, 1843

Mar 4, 1897

7004197580000000000♠54 years, 34 days

Sep 14, 1901[b]

7004214120000000000♠58 years, 228 days

00,0000 days

Sep 14, 1901

7004214120000000000♠58 years, 228 days

26 • Theodore Roosevelt

Oct 27, 1858

Sep 14, 1901

7004156620000000000♠42 years, 322 days

Mar 4, 1909

7004183900000000000♠50 years, 128 days

7003359500000000000♠9 years, 308 days

Jan 6, 1919

7004219850000000000♠60 years, 71 days

27 • William H. Taft

Sep 15, 1857

Mar 4, 1909

7004187970000000000♠51 years, 170 days

Mar 4, 1913

7004202580000000000♠55 years, 170 days

7003621300000000000♠17 years, 4 days

Mar 8, 1930

7004264710000000000♠72 years, 174 days

28 • Woodrow Wilson

Dec 28, 1856

Mar 4, 1913

7004205190000000000♠56 years, 66 days

Mar 4, 1921

7004234410000000000♠64 years, 66 days

7003106600000000000♠2 years, 336 days

Feb 3, 1924

7004245070000000000♠67 years, 37 days

29 • Warren G. Harding

Nov 2, 1865

Mar 4, 1921

7004202100000000000♠55 years, 122 days

Aug 2, 1923[b]

7004210910000000000♠57 years, 273 days

00,0000 days

Aug 2, 1923

7004210910000000000♠57 years, 273 days

30 • Calvin Coolidge

Jul 4, 1872

Aug 2, 1923

7004186550000000000♠51 years, 29 days

Mar 4, 1929

7004206960000000000♠56 years, 243 days

7003140300000000000♠3 years, 307 days

Jan 5, 1933

7004220990000000000♠60 years, 185 days

31 • Herbert Hoover

Aug 10, 1874

Mar 4, 1929

7004199290000000000♠54 years, 206 days

Mar 4, 1933

7004213900000000000♠58 years, 206 days

7004115530000000000♠31 years, 230 days

Oct 20, 1964

7004329430000000000♠90 years, 71 days

32 • Franklin D. Roosevelt

Jan 30, 1882

Mar 4, 1933

7004186600000000000♠51 years, 33 days

Apr 12, 1945[b]

7004230820000000000♠63 years, 72 days

00,0000 days

Apr 12, 1945

7004230820000000000♠63 years, 72 days

33 • Harry S. Truman

May 8, 1884

Apr 12, 1945

7004222530000000000♠60 years, 339 days

Jan 20, 1953

7004250930000000000♠68 years, 257 days

7003728000000000000♠19 years, 341 days

Dec 26, 1972

7004323730000000000♠88 years, 232 days

34 • Dwight D. Eisenhower

Oct 14, 1890

Jan 20, 1953

7004227430000000000♠62 years, 98 days

Jan 20, 1961

7004256650000000000♠70 years, 98 days

7003298900000000000♠8 years, 67 days

Mar 28, 1969

7004286540000000000♠78 years, 165 days

35 • John F. Kennedy

May 29, 1917

Jan 20, 1961

7004159420000000000♠43 years, 236 days

Nov 22, 1963[b]

7004169780000000000♠46 years, 177 days

00,0000 days

Nov 22, 1963

7004169780000000000♠46 years, 177 days

36 • Lyndon B. Johnson

Aug 27, 1908

Nov 22, 1963

7004201750000000000♠55 years, 87 days

Jan 20, 1969

7004220610000000000♠60 years, 146 days

7003146300000000000♠4 years, 2 days

Jan 22, 1973

7004235240000000000♠64 years, 148 days

37 • Richard Nixon

Jan 9, 1913

Jan 20, 1969

7004204650000000000♠56 years, 11 days

Aug 9, 1974[d]

7004224920000000000♠61 years, 212 days

7003719600000000000♠19 years, 256 days

Apr 22, 1994

7004296880000000000♠81 years, 103 days

38 • Gerald Ford

Jul 14, 1913

Aug 9, 1974

7004223060000000000♠61 years, 26 days

Jan 20, 1977

7004232010000000000♠63 years, 190 days

7004109320000000000♠29 years, 340 days

Dec 26, 2006

7004341330000000000♠93 years, 165 days

39 • Jimmy Carter

Oct 1, 1924

Jan 20, 1977

7004191040000000000♠52 years, 111 days

Jan 20, 1981

7004205650000000000♠56 years, 111 days

7004137350000000000♠37 years, 221 days

2018-08-29

7004343000000000000♠93 years, 332 days

40 • Ronald Reagan

Feb 6, 1911

Jan 20, 1981

7004255510000000000♠69 years, 349 days

Jan 20, 1989

7004284730000000000♠77 years, 349 days

7003561500000000000♠15 years, 137 days

Jun 5, 2004

7004340880000000000♠93 years, 120 days

41 • George H. W. Bush

Jun 12, 1924

Jan 20, 1989

7004235980000000000♠64 years, 222 days

Jan 20, 1993

7004250590000000000♠68 years, 222 days

7003935200000000000♠25 years, 221 days

2018-08-29

7004344110000000000♠94 years, 78 days

42 • Bill Clinton

Aug 19, 1946

Jan 20, 1993

7004169560000000000♠46 years, 154 days

Jan 20, 2001

7004198780000000000♠54 years, 154 days

7003643000000000000♠17 years, 221 days

2018-08-29

7004263080000000000♠72 years, 10 days

43 • George W. Bush

Jul 6, 1946

Jan 20, 2001

7004199220000000000♠54 years, 198 days

Jan 20, 2009

7004228440000000000♠62 years, 198 days

7003350800000000000♠9 years, 221 days

2018-08-29

7004263520000000000♠72 years, 54 days

44 • Barack Obama

Aug 4, 1961

Jan 20, 2009

7004173360000000000♠47 years, 169 days

Jan 20, 2017

7004202580000000000♠55 years, 169 days

7002586000000000000♠1 year, 221 days

2018-08-29

7004208440000000000♠57 years, 25 days

45 • Donald Trump

Jun 14, 1946

Jan 20, 2017

7004257880000000000♠70 years, 220 days

2018-08-29

7004288540000000000♠78 years, 364 days

2018-08-29

7004263740000000000♠72 years, 76 days

President

Birthdate

Date
Age

Date
Age

Post-presidency

Date
Age

Start of presidency

End of presidency

timespan

Death

tag: table

text: Notes[edit]

text:
^ Jump up to: a b c d Birthdate as changed to New Style.

^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Died in office.

^ Jump up to: a b Cleveland was retired for 1,461 days between his two terms (1889–1893), and then another 4,129 days from the end of his 2nd term (1897) until his death (1908).

Jump up ^ Resigned from office.

tag: ol

text: Oldest living U.S. presidents[edit]

text: Of the 44 persons who have served as president, 24 have become the oldest such individual of their time. Herbert Hoover held this distinction for the longest period of any, from the death of Calvin Coolidge in January 1933 until his own death 31 years later. Lyndon B. Johnson held it for the shortest, from the death of Harry S. Truman in December 1972 until his own death only 27 days later.

text: On three occasions the oldest living president lost this distinction not by his death, but by the inauguration of a president who was older. Theodore Roosevelt (born 1858) lost this distinction when William Taft (born 1857) was inaugurated, then four years later Taft lost it when Woodrow Wilson (born 1856) was inaugurated. More recently, Richard Nixon (born 1913) ceased being the oldest living president when Ronald Reagan (born 1911) was inaugurated. Furthermore, although Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest ever to become both the oldest living president (at age 49) and a former president (at age 50), he was the only living president or former president by the end of his term. Consequently, Taft was the oldest living president twice: first during his presidency (having succeeded the younger Roosevelt), and a second time after Wilson (his successor as president but an older man) died. Gerald Ford was the oldest individual to acquire this distinction, at the age of 90.

text: On seven occasions, the oldest living president has acquired this distinction during his term in office. In the cases of John Adams, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon, this happened at the same time as their becoming the only living president; in the cases of Andrew Jackson and Benjamin Harrison, the only other living president at the time was a younger predecessor (John Quincy Adams and Grover Cleveland respectively). By contrast, the president who acquired this distinction furthest from his time in office was Gerald Ford, who had been retired for 7003999800000000000♠27 years, 137 days.

text:
President

Dates

Age atstart date

Age atend date

Length

George Washington

April 30, 1789 – December 14, 1799

7004208870000000000♠57 years, 67 days

7004247670000000000♠67 years, 295 days

7003388000000000000♠10 years, 228 days

John Adams

December 14, 1799 – July 4, 1826

7004234210000000000♠64 years, 45 days

7004331190000000000♠90 years, 247 days

7003969800000000000♠26 years, 202 days

James Madison

July 4, 1826 – June 28, 1836

7004275030000000000♠75 years, 110 days

7004311500000000000♠85 years, 104 days

7003364700000000000♠9 years, 360 days

Andrew Jackson

June 28, 1836 – June 8, 1845

7004253070000000000♠69 years, 105 days

7004285740000000000♠78 years, 85 days

7003326700000000000♠8 years, 345 days

John Quincy Adams

June 8, 1845 – February 23, 1848

7004284560000000000♠77 years, 332 days

7004294460000000000♠80 years, 227 days

7002990000000000000♠2 years, 260 days

Martin Van Buren

February 23, 1848 – July 24, 1862

7004238200000000000♠65 years, 80 days

7004290850000000000♠79 years, 231 days

7003526500000000000♠14 years, 151 days

James Buchanan

July 24, 1862 – June 1, 1868

7004260240000000000♠71 years, 92 days

7004281630000000000♠77 years, 39 days

7003213900000000000♠5 years, 313 days

Millard Fillmore

June 1, 1868 – March 8, 1874

7004249820000000000♠68 years, 146 days

7004270880000000000♠74 years, 60 days

7003210600000000000♠5 years, 280 days

Andrew Johnson

March 8, 1874 – July 31, 1875

7004238100000000000♠65 years, 69 days

7004243200000000000♠66 years, 214 days

7002510000000000000♠1 year, 145 days

Ulysses S. Grant

July 31, 1875 – July 23, 1885

7004194530000000000♠53 years, 95 days

7004230980000000000♠63 years, 87 days

7003364500000000000♠9 years, 357 days

Rutherford B. Hayes

July 23, 1885 – January 17, 1893

7004229380000000000♠62 years, 292 days

7004256730000000000♠70 years, 105 days

7003273500000000000♠7 years, 178 days

Benjamin Harrison

January 17, 1893 – March 13, 1901

7004217000000000000♠59 years, 150 days

7004246760000000000♠67 years, 205 days

7003297600000000000♠8 years, 55 days

Grover Cleveland

March 13, 1901 – June 24, 1908

7004233700000000000♠63 years, 360 days

7004260300000000000♠71 years, 98 days

7003266000000000000♠7 years, 103 days

Theodore Roosevelt

June 24, 1908 – March 4, 1909

7004181370000000000♠49 years, 241 days

7004183900000000000♠50 years, 128 days

7002253000000000000♠253 days

William Howard Taft

March 4, 1909 – March 4, 1913

7004187970000000000♠51 years, 170 days

7004202580000000000♠55 years, 170 days

7003146100000000000♠4 years, 0 days

Woodrow Wilson

March 4, 1913 – February 3, 1924

7004205190000000000♠56 years, 66 days

7004245070000000000♠67 years, 37 days

7003398800000000000♠10 years, 336 days

William Howard Taft

February 3, 1924 – March 8, 1930

7004242460000000000♠66 years, 141 days

7004264710000000000♠72 years, 174 days

7003222500000000000♠6 years, 33 days

Calvin Coolidge

March 8, 1930 – January 5, 1933

7004210650000000000♠57 years, 247 days

7004220990000000000♠60 years, 185 days

7003103400000000000♠2 years, 303 days

Herbert Hoover

January 5, 1933 – October 20, 1964

7004213320000000000♠58 years, 148 days

7004329430000000000♠90 years, 71 days

7004116110000000000♠31 years, 289 days

Harry S. Truman

October 20, 1964 – December 26, 1972

7004293840000000000♠80 years, 165 days

7004323730000000000♠88 years, 232 days

7003298900000000000♠8 years, 67 days

Lyndon B. Johnson

December 26, 1972 – January 22, 1973

7004234970000000000♠64 years, 121 days

7004235240000000000♠64 years, 148 days

7001270000000000000♠27 days

Richard Nixon

January 22, 1973 – January 20, 1981

7004219280000000000♠60 years, 13 days

7004248480000000000♠68 years, 11 days

7003292000000000000♠7 years, 364 days

Ronald Reagan

January 20, 1981 – June 5, 2004

7004255510000000000♠69 years, 349 days

7004340880000000000♠93 years, 120 days

7003853700000000000♠23 years, 137 days

Gerald Ford

June 5, 2004 – December 26, 2006

7004331990000000000♠90 years, 327 days

7004341330000000000♠93 years, 165 days

7002934000000000000♠2 years, 204 days

George H. W. Bush

December 26, 2006 – present

7004301470000000000♠82 years, 197 days

Current

7003426400000000000♠11 years, 246 days

President

Dates

Age atstart date

Age atend date

Length


document_title: Thirteen Colonies

question_text: which european country was in control of the original 13 colonies

question_tokens: which european country was in control of the original 13 colonies

text: Thirteen Colonies

text: The Thirteen Colonies

text: In 1606, King James I of England granted charters to both the Plymouth Company and the London Company for the purpose of establishing permanent settlements in North America. The first permanently settled English colony on the North American continent was the Colony and Dominion of Virginia, established 1607. The Plymouth Company did found the Popham Colony on the Kennebec River, but it was short-lived. The Plymouth Council for New England sponsored several colonization projects, culminating with Plymouth Colony, which was settled by the English Puritans who are known today as the Pilgrims.[3] The Dutch, Swedish, and French also established successful North American colonies at roughly the same time as the English, but they eventually came under the English crown. The 13 colonies were complete with the establishment of the Province of Georgia in 1732, although the term "Thirteen Colonies" became current only in the context of the American Revolution.[4]

text: New England colonies

text:
Province of New Hampshire, established in the 1620s, chartered as crown colony in 1679
Province of Massachusetts Bay, established in the 1620s, a crown colony 1692
Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, established 1636, chartered as crown colony in 1663
Connecticut Colony, established 1636, chartered as crown colony in 1662

text: Middle colonies

text:
Province of New York, proprietary colony 1664–1685, crown colony from 1686
Province of New Jersey, proprietary colony from 1664, crown colony from 1702
Province of Pennsylvania, a proprietary colony established 1681
Delaware Colony (before 1776, the Lower Counties on Delaware), a proprietary colony established 1664

text: Southern colonies

text:
Province of Maryland, a proprietary colony established 1632
Colony and Dominion of Virginia, a crown colony established 1607
Province of Carolina, a proprietary colony established 1663

Divided into the Province of North Carolina and Province of South Carolina in 1712, each became a crown colony in 1729

Province of Georgia, a crown colony established 1732

text: 17th century

text: Southern colonies

text: The first successful English colony was Jamestown, established May 14, 1607 near Chesapeake Bay. The business venture was financed and coordinated by the London Virginia Company, a joint stock company looking for gold. Its first years were extremely difficult, with very high death rates from disease and starvation, wars with local Indians, and little gold. The colony survived and flourished by turning to tobacco as a cash crop.[5][6]

text: In 1632, King Charles I granted the charter for Province of Maryland to Cecil Calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore. Calvert's father had been a prominent Catholic official who encouraged Catholic immigration to the English colonies. The charter offered no guidelines on religion.[7]

text: The Province of Carolina was the second attempted English settlement south of Virginia, the first being the failed attempt at Roanoke. It was a private venture, financed by a group of English Lords Proprietors who obtained a Royal Charter to the Carolinas in 1663, hoping that a new colony in the south would become profitable like Jamestown. Carolina was not settled until 1670, and even then the first attempt failed because there was no incentive for emigration to that area. Eventually, however, the Lords combined their remaining capital and financed a settlement mission to the area led by Sir John Colleton. The expedition located fertile and defensible ground at what became Charleston, originally Charles Town for Charles II of England.[8]

text: New England

text: The Pilgrims were a small group of Puritan separatists who felt that they needed to physically distance themselves from the corrupt Church of England. After initially moving to the Netherlands, they decided to re-establish themselves in America. The initial Pilgrim settlers sailed to North America in 1620 on the Mayflower. Upon their arrival, they drew up the Mayflower Compact, by which they bound themselves together as a united community, thus establishing the small Plymouth Colony. William Bradford was their main leader. After its founding, other settlers traveled from England to join the colony.[9]

text: The non-separatist Puritans constituted a much larger group than the Pilgrims, and they established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. By 1640, 20,000 had arrived; many died soon after arrival, but the others found a healthy climate and an ample food supply. The Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies together spawned other Puritan colonies in New England, including the New Haven, Saybrook, and Connecticut colonies. During the 17th century, the New Haven and Saybrook colonies were absorbed by Connecticut.[10]

text: Providence Plantation was founded in 1636 by Roger Williams on land provided by Narragansett sachem Canonicus. Williams was a Puritan who preached religious tolerance, separation of Church and State, and a complete break with the Church of England. He was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony over theological disagreements, and he and other settlers founded Providence Plantation based on an egalitarian constitution providing for majority rule "in civil things" and "liberty of conscience" in religious matters.[5][11] In 1637, a second group including Anne Hutchinson established a second settlement on Aquidneck Island, also known as Rhode Island.

text: Other colonists settled to the north, mingling with adventurers and profit-oriented settlers to establish more religiously diverse colonies in New Hampshire and Maine. These small settlements were absorbed by Massachusetts when it made significant land claims in the 1640s and 1650s, but New Hampshire was eventually given a separate charter in 1679. Maine remained a part of Massachusetts until achieving statehood in 1820.

text: In 1685, King James II of England closed the legislatures and consolidated the New England colonies into the Dominion of New England, putting the region under firm royal control of Governor Edmund Andros. In 1688, the colonies of New York, West Jersey, and East Jersey were added to the dominion. Andros was overthrown and the dominion was closed in 1689, after the Glorious Revolution deposed King James II; the former colonies were re-established.[12] According to Guy Miller:

text: Middle Colonies

text: Beginning in 1609, Dutch traders explored and established fur trading posts on the Hudson River, Delaware River, and Connecticut River, seeking to protect their interests in the fur trade. The Dutch West India Company established permanent settlements on the Hudson River, creating the Dutch colony of New Netherland. In 1626, Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Lenape Indians and established the outpost of New Amsterdam.[14] Relatively few Dutch settled in New Netherland, but the colony came to dominate the regional fur trade.[15] It also served as the base for extensive trade with the English colonies, and many products from New England and Virginia were carried to Europe on Dutch ships.[16] The Dutch also engaged in the burgeoning Atlantic slave trade, supplying enslaved Africans to the English colonies in North America and Barbados.[17] The West India Company desired to grow New Netherland as it became commercially successful, yet the colony failed to attract the same level of settlement as the English colonies did. Many of those who did immigrate to the colony were English, German, Walloon, or Sephardim.[18]

text: In 1638, Sweden established the colony of New Sweden in the Delaware Valley. The operation was led by former members of the Dutch West India Company, including Peter Minuit.[19] New Sweden established extensive trading contacts with English colonies to the south, and shipped much of the tobacco produced in Virginia.[20] The colony was conquered by the Dutch in 1655,[21] while Sweden was engaged in the Second Northern War.

text: Beginning in the 1650s, the English and Dutch engaged in a series of wars, and the English sought to conquer New Netherland.[22] Richard Nicolls captured the lightly defended New Amsterdam in 1664, and his subordinates quickly captured the remainder of New Netherland.[23] The 1667 Treaty of Breda ended the Second Anglo-Dutch War and confirmed English control of the region.[24] The Dutch briefly regained control of parts of New Netherland in the Third Anglo-Dutch War, but surrendered claim to the territory in the 1674 Treaty of Westminster, ending the Dutch colonial presence in North America.[25]

text: After the Second Anglo-Dutch War, the British renamed the colony "York City" or "New York". Large numbers of Dutch remained in the colony, dominating the rural areas between New York City and Albany, while people from New England started moving in as well as immigrants from Germany. New York City attracted a large polyglot population, including a large black slave population.[26] In 1674, the proprietary colonies of East Jersey and West Jersey were created from lands formerly part of New York.[27]

text: Pennsylvania was founded in 1681 as a proprietary colony of Quaker William Penn. The main population elements included Quaker population based in Philadelphia, a Scotch Irish population on the Western frontier, and numerous German colonies in between.[28] Philadelphia became the largest city in the colonies with its central location, excellent port, and a population of about 30,000.[29]

text: 18th century

text: In 1702, East and West Jersey were combined to form the Province of New Jersey.

text: The northern and southern sections of the Carolina colony operated more or less independently until 1691, when Philip Ludwell was appointed governor of the entire province. From that time until 1708, the northern and southern settlements remained under one government. However, during this period, the two halves of the province began increasingly to be known as North Carolina and South Carolina, as the descendants of the colony's proprietors fought over the direction of the colony.[30] The colonists of Charles Town finally deposed their governor and elected their own government. This marked the start of separate governments in the Province of North Carolina and the Province of South Carolina. In 1729, the king formally revoked Carolina's colonial charter and established both North Carolina and South Carolina as crown colonies.[31]

text: In the 1730s, Parliamentarian James Oglethorpe proposed that the area south of the Carolinas be colonized with the "worthy poor" of England to provide an alternative to the overcrowded debtors' prisons. Oglethorpe and other English philanthropists secured a royal charter as the Trustees of the colony of Georgia on June 9, 1732.[32] Oglethorpe and his compatriots hoped to establish a utopian colony that banned slavery and recruited only the most worthy settlers, but by 1750 the colony remained sparsely populated. The proprietors gave up their charter in 1752, at which point Georgia became a crown colony.[33]

text: The colonial population of Thirteen Colonies grew immensely in the 18th century. According to historian Alan Taylor, the population of the Thirteen Colonies stood at 1.5 million in 1750, which represented four-fifths of the population of British North America.[34] More than 90 percent of the colonists lived as farmers, though some seaports also flourished. In 1760, the cities of Philadelphia, New York, and Boston had a population in excess of 16,000, which was small by European standards.[35] By 1770, the economic output of the Thirteen Colonies made up forty percent of the gross domestic product of the British Empire.[36]

text: As the 18th century progressed, colonists began to settle far from the Atlantic coast. Pennsylvania, Virginia, Connecticut, and Maryland all laid claim to the land in the Ohio River valley. The colonies engaged in a scramble to purchase land from Indian tribes, as the British insisted that claims to land should rest on legitimate purchases.[37] Virginia was particularly intent on western expansion, and most of the elite Virginia families invested in the Ohio Company to promote the settlement of Ohio Country.[38]

text: Global trade and immigration

text: The British colonies in North America became part of the global British trading network, as the value tripled for exports from British North America to Britain between 1700 and 1754. The colonists were restricted in trading with other European powers, but they found profitable trade partners in the other British colonies, particularly in the Caribbean. The colonists traded foodstuffs, wood, tobacco, and various other resources for Asian tea, West Indian coffee, and West Indian sugar, among other items.[39] American Indians far from the Atlantic coast supplied the Atlantic market with beaver fur and deerskins.[40] British North America had an advantage in natural resources and established its own thriving shipbuilding industry, and many North American merchants engaged in the transatlantic trade.[41]

text: Improved economic conditions and easing of religious persecution in Europe made it more difficult to recruit labor to the colonies, and many colonies became increasingly reliant on slave labor, particularly in the South. The population of slaves in British North America grew dramatically between 1680 and 1750, and the growth was driven by a mixture of forced immigration and the reproduction of slaves.[42] Slaves supported vast plantation economies in the South, while slaves in the North worked in a variety of occupations.[43] There were some slave revolts, such as the Stono Rebellion and the New York Conspiracy of 1741, but these uprisings were suppressed.[44]

text: A small proportion of the English population migrated to British North America after 1700, but the colonies attracted new immigrants from other European countries. These immigrants traveled to all of the colonies, but the Middle Colonies attracted the most and continued to be more ethically diverse than the other colonies.[45] Numerous settlers immigrated from Ireland,[46] both Catholic and Protestant—particularly "New Light" Ulster Presbyterians.[47] Protestant Germans also migrated in large numbers, particularly to Pennsylvania.[48] In the 1740s, the Thirteen Colonies underwent the First Great Awakening.[49]

text: French and Indian War

text: In 1738, an incident involving a Welsh mariner named Robert Jenkins sparked the War of Jenkins' Ear between Britain and Spain. Hundreds of North Americans volunteered for Admiral Edward Vernon's assault on Cartegena de Indias, a Spanish city in South America.[50] The war against Spain merged into a broader conflict known as the War of the Austrian Succession, but most colonists called it King George's War.[51] In 1745, British and colonial forces captured the town of Louisbourg, and the war came to an end with the 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. However, many colonists were angered when Britain returned Louisbourg to France in return for Madras and other territories.[52] In the aftermath of the war, both the British and French sought to expand into the Ohio River valley.[53]

text: The French and Indian War (1754–63) was the American extension of the general European conflict known as the Seven Years' War. Previous colonial wars in North America had started in Europe and then spread to the colonies, but the French and Indian War is notable for having started in North America and spread to Europe. One of the primary causes of the war was increasing competition between Britain and France, especially in the Great Lakes and Ohio valley.[54]

text: The French and Indian War took on a new significance for the British North American colonists when William Pitt the Elder decided that major military resources needed to be devoted to North America in order to win the war against France. For the first time, the continent became one of the main theaters of what could be termed a "world war". During the war, it became increasingly apparent to American colonists that they were under the authority of the British Empire, as British military and civilian officials took on an increased presence in their lives.

text: The war also increased a sense of American unity in other ways. It caused men to travel across the continent who might otherwise have never left their own colony, fighting alongside men from decidedly different backgrounds who were nonetheless still American. Throughout the course of the war, British officers trained Americans for battle, most notably George Washington, which benefited the American cause during the Revolution. Also, colonial legislatures and officials had to cooperate intensively in pursuit of the continent-wide military effort.[54] The relations were not always positive between the British military establishment and the colonists, setting the stage for later distrust and dislike of British troops. At the 1754 Albany Congress, Pennsylvania colonist Benjamin Franklin proposed the Albany Plan which would have created a unified government of the Thirteen Colonies for coordination of defense and other matters, but the plan was rejected by the leaders of most colonies.[55]

text: In the Treaty of Paris (1763), France formally ceded to Britain the eastern part of its vast North American empire, having secretly given to Spain the territory of Louisiana west of the Mississippi River the previous year. Before the war, Britain held the thirteen American colonies, most of present-day Nova Scotia, and most of the Hudson Bay watershed. Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including Quebec, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River valley. Britain also gained Spanish Florida, from which it formed the colonies of East and West Florida. In removing a major foreign threat to the thirteen colonies, the war also largely removed the colonists' need of colonial protection.

text: The British and colonists triumphed jointly over a common foe. The colonists' loyalty to the mother country was stronger than ever before. However, disunity was beginning to form. British Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder had decided to wage the war in the colonies with the use of troops from the colonies and tax funds from Britain itself. This was a successful wartime strategy but, after the war was over, each side believed that it had borne a greater burden than the other. The British elite, the most heavily taxed of any in Europe, pointed out angrily that the colonists paid little to the royal coffers. The colonists replied that their sons had fought and died in a war that served European interests more than their own. This dispute was a link in the chain of events that soon brought about the American Revolution.[54]

text: Growing dissent

text: The British were left with large debts following the French and Indian War, so British leaders decided to increase taxation and control of the Thirteen Colonies.[56] They imposed several new taxes, beginning with the Sugar Act of 1764. Later acts included the Currency Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765, and the Townshend Acts of 1767.[57]

text: The British also sought to maintain peaceful relations with those Indian tribes that had allied with the French by keeping them separated from the American frontiersmen. To this end, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 restricted settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains, as this was designated an Indian Reserve.[58] Some groups of settlers disregarded the proclamation, however, and continued to move west and establish farms.[59] The proclamation was soon modified and was no longer a hindrance to settlement, but the fact angered the colonists that it had been promulgated without their prior consultation.[60]

text: Parliament had directly levied duties and excise taxes on the colonies, bypassing the colonial legislatures, and Americans began to insist on the principle of "no taxation without representation" with intense protests over the Stamp Act of 1765.[61] They argued that the colonies had no representation in the British Parliament, so it was a violation of their rights as Englishmen for taxes to be imposed upon them. Parliament rejected the colonial protests and asserted its authority by passing new taxes.

text: Colonial discontentment grew with the passage of the 1773 Tea Act, which reduced taxes on tea sold by the East India Company in an effort to undercut competition, and Prime Minister North's ministry hoped that this would establish a precedent of colonists accepting British taxation policies. Trouble escalated over the tea tax, as Americans in each colony boycotted the tea, and those in Boston dumped the tea in the harbor during the Boston Tea Party in 1773 when the Sons of Liberty dumped thousands of pounds of tea into the water. Tensions escalated in 1774 as Parliament passed the laws known as the Intolerable Acts, which greatly restricted self-government in the colony of Massachusetts. These laws also allowed British military commanders to claim colonial homes for the quartering of soldiers, regardless whether the American civilians were willing or not to have soldiers in their homes. The laws further revoked colonial rights to hold trials in cases involving soldiers or crown officials, forcing such trials to be held in England rather than in America. Parliament also sent Thomas Gage to serve as Governor of Massachusetts and as the commander of British forces in North America.[62]

text: By 1774, colonists still hoped to remain part of the British Empire, but discontentment was widespread concerning British rule throughout the Thirteen Colonies.[63] Colonists elected delegates to the First Continental Congress which convened in Philadelphia in September 1774. In the aftermath of the Intolerable Acts, the delegates asserted that the colonies owed allegiance only to the king; they would accept royal governors as agents of the king, but they were no longer willing to recognize Parliament's right to pass legislation affecting the colonies. Most delegates opposed an attack on the British position in Boston, and the Continental Congress instead agreed to the imposition of a boycott known as the Continental Association. The boycott proved effective and the value of British imports dropped dramatically.[64] The Thirteen Colonies became increasingly divided between Patriots opposed to British rule and Loyalists who supported it.[65]

text: American Revolution

text: In response, the colonies formed bodies of elected representatives known as Provincial Congresses, and Colonists began to boycott imported British merchandise.[66] Later in 1774, 12 colonies sent representatives to the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia. During the Second Continental Congress, the remaining colony of Georgia sent delegates, as well.

text: Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage feared a confrontation with the colonists; he requested reinforcements from Britain, but the British government was not willing to pay for the expense of stationing tens of thousands of soldiers in the Thirteen Colonies. Gage was instead ordered to seize Patriot arsenals. He dispatched a force to march on the arsenal at Concord, Massachusetts, but the Patriots learned about it and blocked their advance. The Patriots repulsed the British force at the April 1775 Battles of Lexington and Concord, then lay siege to Boston.[67]

text: By spring 1775, all royal officials had been expelled from all 13 colonies, and the Continental Congress became a national government. It raised an army to fight the British and named George Washington its commander, made treaties, declared independence, and recommended that the colonies write constitutions and become states.[68] The Second Continental Congress assembled in May 1775 and began to coordinate armed resistance against Britain. It established a government that recruited soldiers and printed its own money. General Washington took command of the Patriot soldiers in New England and forced the British to withdraw from Boston. In 1776, the Thirteen Colonies declared their independence from Britain. With the help of France and Spain, they defeated the British in the American Revolutionary War. In the Treaty of Paris (1783), Britain officially recognized the independence of the United States of America.

text: Population

text:
Population of the American colonies[69]

Year
Population

1625
1,980

1641
50,000

1688
200,000

1702
270,000

1715
435,000

1749
1,000,000

1754
1,500,000

1765
2,200,000

1775
2,400,000

text: The colonial population rose to a quarter of a million during the 17th century, and to nearly 2.5 million on the eve of the American revolution. Perkins (1988) notes the importance of good health for the growth of the colonies: "Fewer deaths among the young meant that a higher proportion of the population reached reproductive age, and that fact alone helps to explain why the colonies grew so rapidly."[70] There were many other reasons for the population growth besides good health, such as the Great Migration.

text: By 1776, about 85% of the white population's ancestry originated in the British Isles (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh), 9% of German origin, 4% Dutch and 2% Huguenot French and other minorities. Over 90% were farmers, with several small cities that were also seaports linking the colonial economy to the larger British Empire. These populations continued to grow at a rapid rate during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, primarily because of high birth rates and relatively low death rates. Immigration was a minor factor from 1774 to 1830.[71]

text: Slaves

text: Slavery was legal and practiced in many of the Thirteen Colonies. In most places, it involved house servants or farm workers. It was of economic importance in the export-oriented tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland and on the rice and indigo plantations of South Carolina.[72] About 287,000 slaves were imported into the Thirteen Colonies over a period of 160 years, or 2% of the estimated 12 million taken from Africa to the Americas via the Atlantic slave trade. The great majority went to sugar colonies in the Caribbean and to Brazil, where life expectancy was short and the numbers had to be continually replenished. By the mid-18th century, life expectancy was much higher in the American colonies.[73]

text:
Slaves imported into Colonial America[74]

1620–1700
1701–1760
1761–1770
1771–1780
total

21,000
189,000
63,000
15,000
287,000

text: The numbers grew rapidly through a very high birth rate and low mortality rate, reaching nearly four million by the 1860 census. From 1770 until 1860, the rate of natural growth of North American slaves was much greater than for the population of any nation in Europe, and was nearly twice as rapid as that in England.

text: Religion

text: Protestantism was the predominant religious affiliation in the Thirteen Colonies, although there were also Catholics, Jews, and deists, and a large fraction had no religious connection. The Anglican Church or Church of England was officially established in most of the South. The Puritan movement became the Congregational church, and it was the established religious affiliation in Massachusetts and Connecticut into the 18th century.[75] In practice, this meant that tax revenues were allocated to church expenses. The Anglican parishes in the South were under the control of local vestries and had public functions, such as repair of the roads and relief of the poor.[76]

text: The colonies were religiously diverse, with Protestant denominations brought by British, German, Dutch, and other immigrants. The Reformed tradition was the foundation for Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Continental Reformed denominations. The Dutch Reformed Church was strong among Dutch Americans in New York and New Jersey, while Lutheranism was prevalent among German immigrants. Germans also brought diverse forms of Anabaptism, especially the Mennonite variety. Baptist preacher Roger Williams founded Providence Plantations which became the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Jews were clustered in a few port cities. The Baltimore family founded Maryland and brought in fellow Catholics from England.[77] Presbyterians were chiefly immigrants from Scotland and Ulster who favored the back country and frontier districts.[78]

text: Quakers were well established in Pennsylvania, where they controlled the governorship and the legislature for many years.[79] Quakers were also numerous in Rhode Island. Baptists and Methodists were growing rapidly during the First Great Awakening of the 1740s.[80] Many of the denominations sponsored missions to the local Indians.[81]

text: Education

text: Higher education was available for young men in the North, and most students were aspiring Protestant ministers. The oldest colleges were Harvard College, College of New Jersey (Princeton), Yale College, and College of Rhode Island (Brown). Others were King's College (Columbia), the College of Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania), and Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. South of Philadelphia, there was only the College of William and Mary which trained the secular elite in Virginia, especially aspiring lawyers.

text: Most New England towns sponsored public schools for boys, but public schooling was rare elsewhere. Girls were educated at home or by small local private schools, and they had no access to college. Aspiring physicians and lawyers typically learned as apprentices to an established practitioner, although some young men went to medical schools in Scotland.[82]

text: Government

text: The three forms of colonial government in 1776 were provincial (royal colony), proprietary, and charter. These governments were all subordinate to the King of England with no representation in the Parliament of Great Britain. The administration of all British colonies was overseen by the Board of Trade in London beginning late in the 17th century.

text: The provincial colony was governed by commissions created at pleasure of the king. A governor and his council were appointed by the crown. The governor was invested with general executive powers and authorized to call a locally elected assembly. The governor's council would sit as an upper house when the assembly was in session, in addition to its role in advising the governor. Assemblies were made up of representatives elected by the freeholders and planters (landowners) of the province. The governor had the power of absolute veto and could prorogue (i.e., delay) and dissolve the assembly. The assembly's role was to make all local laws and ordinances, ensuring that they were not inconsistent with the laws of England. In practice, this did not always occur, since many of the provincial assemblies sought to expand their powers and limit those of the governor and crown. Laws could be examined by the British Privy Council or Board of Trade, which also held veto power of legislation. New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were crown colonies. Massachusetts became a crown colony at the end of the 17th century.

text: Proprietary colonies were governed much as royal colonies, except that lord proprietors appointed the governor rather than the king. They were set up after the English Restoration of 1660 and typically enjoyed greater civil and religious liberty. Pennsylvania (which included Delaware), New Jersey, and Maryland were proprietary colonies.[83]

text: Charter governments were political corporations created by letters patent, giving the grantees control of the land and the powers of legislative government. The charters provided a fundamental constitution and divided powers among legislative, executive, and judicial functions, with those powers being vested in officials. Massachusetts, Providence Plantation, Rhode Island, Warwick, and Connecticut were charter colonies. The Massachusetts charter was revoked in 1684 and was replaced by a provincial charter that was issued in 1691.[84] Providence Plantations merged with the settlements at Rhode Island and Warwick to form the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, which also became a charter colony in 1636.

text: British role

text: After 1680, the royal government in London took an increasing interest in the affairs of the colonies, which were growing rapidly in population and wealth. In 1680, only Virginia was a royal colony; by 1720, half were under the control of royal governors. These governors were appointees closely tied to the government in London.

text: Historians before the 1880s emphasized American nationalism. However, scholarship after that time was heavily influenced by the "Imperial school" led by Herbert L. Osgood, George Louis Beer, Charles McLean Andrews, and Lawrence H. Gipson. This viewpoint dominated colonial historiography into the 1940s, and they emphasized and often praised the attention that London gave to all the colonies. In this view, there was never a threat (before the 1770s) that any colony would revolt or seek independence.[85]

text: Self-government

text: British settlers did not come to the American colonies with the intention of creating a democratic system; yet they quickly created a broad electorate without a land-owning aristocracy, along with a pattern of free elections which put a strong emphasis on voter participation. The colonies offered a much freer degree of suffrage than England or indeed any other country. Any property owner could vote for members of the lower house of the legislature, and they could even vote for the governor in Connecticut and Rhode Island.[86] Voters were required to hold an "interest" in society; as the South Carolina legislature said in 1716, "it is necessary and reasonable, that none but such persons will have an interest in the Province should be capable to elect members of the Commons House of Assembly".[87] The main legal criterion for having an "interest" was ownership of real estate property, which was uncommon in Britain, where 19 out of 20 men were controlled politically by their landlords. (Women, children, indentured servants, and slaves were subsumed under the interest of the family head.) London insisted on this requirement for the colonies, telling governors to exclude from the ballot men who were not freeholders—that is, those who did not own land. Nevertheless, land was so widely owned that 50% to 80% of the men were eligible to vote.[88]

text: The colonial political culture emphasized deference, so that local notables were the men who ran and were chosen. But sometimes they competed with each other and had to appeal to the common man for votes. There were no political parties, and would-be legislators formed ad-hoc coalitions of their families, friends, and neighbors. Outside of Puritan New England, election day brought in all the men from the countryside to the county seat to make merry, politick, shake hands with the grandees, meet old friends, and hear the speeches—all the while toasting, eating, treating, tippling, and gambling. They voted by shouting their choice to the clerk, as supporters cheered or booed. Candidate George Washington spent £39 for treats for his supporters. The candidates knew that they had to "swill the planters with bumbo" (rum). Elections were carnivals where all men were equal for one day and traditional restraints were relaxed.[89]

text: The actual rate of voting ranged from 20% to 40% of all adult white males. The rates were higher in Pennsylvania and New York, where long-standing factions based on ethnic and religious groups mobilized supporters at a higher rate. New York and Rhode Island developed long-lasting two-faction systems that held together for years at the colony level, but they did not reach into local affairs. The factions were based on the personalities of a few leaders and an array of family connections, and they had little basis in policy or ideology. Elsewhere the political scene was in a constant whirl, based on personality rather than long-lived factions or serious disputes on issues.[86]

text: The colonies were independent of one other long before 1774; indeed, all the colonies began as separate and unique settlements or plantations. Further, efforts had failed to form a colonial union through the Albany Congress of 1754 led by Benjamin Franklin. The thirteen all had well-established systems of self-government and elections based on the Rights of Englishmen which they were determined to protect from imperial interference.[90]

text: Economic policy

text: The British Empire at the time operated under the mercantile system, where all trade was concentrated inside the Empire, and trade with other empires was forbidden. The goal was to enrich Britain—its merchants and its government. Whether the policy was good for the colonists was not an issue in London, but Americans became increasingly restive with mercantilist policies.[91]

text: Mercantilism meant that the government and the merchants became partners with the goal of increasing political power and private wealth, to the exclusion of other empires. The government protected its merchants—and kept others out—by trade barriers, regulations, and subsidies to domestic industries in order to maximize exports from and minimize imports to the realm. The government had to fight smuggling—which became a favorite American technique in the 18th century to circumvent the restrictions on trading with the French, Spanish or Dutch.[92] The tactic used by mercantilism was to run trade surpluses, so that gold and silver would pour into London. The government took its share through duties and taxes, with the remainder going to merchants in Britain. The government spent much of its revenue on a superb Royal Navy, which not only protected the British colonies but threatened the colonies of the other empires, and sometimes seized them. Thus the British Navy captured New Amsterdam (New York) in 1664. The colonies were captive markets for British industry, and the goal was to enrich the mother country.[93]

text: Britain implemented mercantilism by trying to block American trade with the French, Spanish, or Dutch empires using the Navigation Acts, which Americans avoided as often as they could. The royal officials responded to smuggling with open-ended search warrants (Writs of Assistance). In 1761, Boston lawyer James Otis argued that the writs violated the constitutional rights of the colonists. He lost the case, but John Adams later wrote, "Then and there the child Independence was born."[94]

text: However, the colonists took pains to argue that they did not oppose British regulation of their external trade; they only opposed legislation which affected them internally.

text: Other British colonies

text:
Newfoundland
Nova Scotia
Thirteen Colonies
Bermuda
Bahamas
British Honduras
Jamaica
British Leeward Islands and Barbados

text: Besides these thirteen colonies, Britain had another dozen in the New World. Those in the British West Indies, Newfoundland, the Province of Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Bermuda, and East and West Florida remained loyal to the crown throughout the war (although Spain reacquired Florida before the war was over, and later sold it to the United States). There was a certain degree of sympathy with the Patriot cause in several of the other colonies, but their geographical isolation and the dominance of British naval power precluded any effective participation.[95] The British crown had only recently acquired those lands, and many of the issues facing the Thirteen Colonies did not apply to them, especially in the case of Quebec and Florida.[96]

text: At the time of the war Britain had seven other colonies on the Atlantic coast of North America: Newfoundland, Rupert's Land (the area around the Hudson Bay), Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, East Florida, West Florida, and the Province of Quebec. There were other colonies in the Americas as well, largely in the British West Indies. These colonies remained loyal to the crown.[97]

text: Newfoundland stayed loyal to Britain without question. It was exempt from the Navigation Acts and shared none of the grievances of the continental colonies. It was tightly bound to Britain and controlled by the Royal Navy and had no assembly that could voice grievances.

text: Nova Scotia had a large Yankee element that had recently arrived from New England, and shared the sentiments of the Americans about demanding the rights of the British men. The royal government in Halifax reluctantly allowed the Yankees of Nova Scotia a kind of "neutrality." In any case, the island-like geography and the presence of the major British naval base at Halifax made the thought of armed resistance impossible.[98]

text: Quebec was inhabited by French Catholic settlers who came under British control in the previous decade. The Quebec Act of 1774 gave them formal cultural autonomy within the empire, and many priests feared the intense Protestantism in New England. The American grievances over taxation had little relevance, and there was no assembly nor elections of any kind that could have mobilized any grievances. Even so, the Americans offered membership in the new nation and sent a military expedition that failed to capture Canada in 1775. Most Canadians remained neutral but some joined the American cause.[99]

text: In the West Indies the elected assemblies of Jamaica, Grenada, and Barbados formally declared their sympathies for the American cause and called for mediation, but the others were quite loyal. Britain carefully avoided antagonizing the rich owners of sugar plantations (many of whom lived in London); in turn the planters' greater dependence on slavery made them recognize the need for British military protection from possible slave revolts. The possibilities for overt action were sharply limited by the overwhelming power of Royal Navy in the islands. During the war there was some opportunistic trading with American ships.[100]

text: In Bermuda and the Bahamas local leaders were angry at the food shortages caused by British blockade of American ports. There was increasing sympathy for the American cause, including smuggling, and both colonies were considered "passive allies" of the United States throughout the war. When an American naval squadron arrived in the Bahamas to seize gunpowder, the colony gave no resistance at all.[101]

text: East Florida and West Florida were territories transferred from Spain to Britain after the French and Indian War by treaty. The few British colonists there needed protection from attacks by Indians and Spanish privateers. After 1775, East Florida became a major base for the British war effort in the South, especially in the invasions of Georgia and South Carolina.[102] However, Spain seized Pensacola in West Florida in 1781, then recovered both territories in the Treaty of Paris that ended the war in 1783. Spain ultimately transferred the Florida provinces to the United States in 1819.[103]

text: Historiography

text: The first British Empire centered on the Thirteen Colonies, which attracted large numbers of settlers from Britain. The "Imperial School" in the 1900–1930s took a favorable view of the benefits of empire, emphasizing its successful economic integration.[104] The Imperial School included such historians as Herbert L. Osgood, George Louis Beer, Charles M. Andrews, and Lawrence Gipson.[105]

text: The shock of Britain's defeat in 1783 caused a radical revision of British policies on colonialism, thereby producing what historians call the end of the First British Empire, even though Britain still controlled Canada and some islands in the West Indies.[106] Ashley Jackson writes:

text: The first British Empire was largely destroyed by the loss of the American colonies, followed by a "swing to the east" and the foundation of a second British Empire based on commercial and territorial expansion in South Asia.[107]

text: Much of the historiography concerns the reasons why the Americans rebelled in the 1770s and successfully broke away. Since the 1960s, the mainstream of historiography has emphasized the growth of American consciousness and nationalism and the colonial republican value-system, in opposition to the aristocratic viewpoint of British leaders.[108]

text: Historians in recent decades have mostly used one of three approaches to analyze the American Revolution:[109]

text:
The Atlantic history view places North American events in a broader context, including the French Revolution and Haitian Revolution. It tends to integrate the historiographies of the American Revolution and the British Empire.[110][111]
The new social history approach looks at community social structure to find issues that became magnified into colonial cleavages.
The ideological approach centers on republicanism in the Thirteen Colonies.[112] The ideas of republicanism dictated that the United States would have no royalty or aristocracy or national church. They did permit continuation of the British common law, which American lawyers and jurists understood, approved of, and used in their everyday practice. Historians have examined how the rising American legal profession adapted the British common law to incorporate republicanism by selective revision of legal customs and by introducing more choice for courts.[113][114]


document_title: Epidemiology of diabetes mellitus

question_text: what is the percentage of diabetes in india

text: Epidemiology of diabetes mellitus

text: Asia[edit]

text: Bangladesh[edit]

text:
In 2013, Bangladesh, a developing country in South East Asia, was home to more than 5 million (prevalence adjusted to the national population – 5.5%) diabetic patient, which will rise to more than 10 million (prevalence adjusted to the national population – 8.2%) by 2035.
[8]

text: China[edit]

text: Almost one Chinese adult in ten has diabetes. A 2010 study estimated that more than 92 million Chinese adults have the disease, with another 150 million showing early symptoms.[9] The incidence of the disease is increasing rapidly: a reported 30% increase in 7 years.[10] Indigenous nomadic peoples like Tibetans and Mongols are at much higher susceptibility than Han Chinese.

text: India[edit]

text: Until recently, India had more diabetics than any other country in the world, according to the International Diabetes Foundation,[11] although the country has now been surpassed in the top spot by China.[9] Diabetes currently affects more than 62 million Indians, which is more than 7.1% of the adult population.[12]  The average age on onset is 42.5 years.[11] Nearly 1 million Indians die due to diabetes every year.[11]

text: According to the Indian Heart Association, India is projected to be home to 109 million individuals with diabetes by 2035.[13] A study by the American Diabetes Association reports that India will see the greatest increase in people diagnosed with diabetes by 2030.[14] The high incidence is attributed to a combination of genetic susceptibility plus adoption of a high-calorie, low-activity lifestyle by India's growing middle class.[15]

text: Europe[edit]

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: About 3.8 million people in the United Kingdom have diabetes mellitus, but the charity Diabetes U.K. have made predictions that could become high as 6.2 million by 2035/2036. The NHS spent a daily average of £2.2m (€2.6m; $3.7m) in 2013 on prescriptions for managing diabetes in primary care, and about 10% of the primary care prescribing budget is spent on treating diabetes.[16] Diabetes U.K. have also predicted that the National Health Service could be spending as much as 16.9 billion pounds on diabetes mellitus by 2035, a figure that means the NHS could be spending as much as 17% of its budget on diabetes treatment by 2035.[17][18][19]

text: North America[edit]

text: Canada[edit]

text: Almost 2.4 million Canadians (6.8%) have been diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, based on 2009 chronic disease surveillance data. Prevalence is higher among males (7.2%) than females (6.4%).[7] However these numbers are likely an underestimate, as data obtained from blood samples indicate about 20% of diabetes cases remain undiagnosed.[20]

text: Accounting for the younger age structure in Aboriginal populations, the prevalence of diabetes is 2-3 times higher among First Nations and Métis, compared to the non-Aboriginal population.[7]

text: The prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among Canadians increased by 70% over the decade from 1999 to 2009.[7] The greatest relative increase in prevalence was seen younger adults (35 to 44 years), attributable in part to increasing rates of overweight and obesity. The Public Health Agency of Canada estimates that if current trends in diabetes continue, the number of Canadians living with diabetes will reach 3.7 million by 2019.[7]

text: United States[edit]

text: Diabetes rates in the United States, like across North America and around the world, have been increasing substantially. According to the 2014 Statistics Report done by the CDC it was found that, “Diabetes Mellitus affects an estimated 29.1 million people in the United States and is the 7th leading cause of death. It also increases the chances of mortality, as well as the risk for heart attack, kidney failure, and blindness”[21] While the number of people with diabetes in the US continues to grow, the number of new cases has been declining since 2009, after decades of increases in new cases.[22] In 2014, more than 29 million people had diabetes in the United States, of whom 7 million people remain undiagnosed.[23] As of 2012 another 57 million people were estimated to have prediabetes.[24][25]  There were approximately 12.1 million diabetes-related emergency department (ED) visits in 2010 for adults aged 18 years or older (515 per 10,000 U.S. population), accounting for 9.4 percent of all ED visits.[26]

text:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has called the change an epidemic.[27]
Geographically, there is a U.S. diabetes belt with high diabetes prevalence estimates, which includes Mississippi and parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.[28]
The National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse estimates diabetes costs $132 billion in the United States alone every year. About 5%–10% of diabetes cases in North America are type 1, with the rest being type 2. The fraction of type 1 in other parts of the world differs. Most of this difference is not currently understood. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) cites the 2003 assessment of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) that one in three Americans born after 2000 will develop diabetes in their lifetimes.[29][30] Diabetes is also more prominent in minority groups. For example according to the American Diabetes Association the rates of diagnosed diabetes are 12.8% of Hispanics, 13.2% of Non-Hispanic blacks, 15.9% of American Indians/Alaskan Natives. While Non-Hispanic whites are 7.6% and only 9% of Asian Americans have diagnosed diabetes.[31] 4.9% of American adults had diabetes in 1990. By 1998, that number rose by a third to 6.5%. The prevalence of diabetes increased for both sexes and every racial group. American women have suffered from diabetes at a higher rate than men, with 7.4% of women being diabetic in 1998, as opposed to only 5.5% of men. The increase in diabetes coincides with an increase in average weight across both genders. In the same time frame, average weight in both men and women increased by nearly 4 kilograms. This relates to the fact that the most common form of diabetes, type 2, is strongly associated with unhealthy weight. Older Americans have suffered from diabetes at a much higher rate than younger people, with over 12% of those in their 60s and 70s being diabetic in 1998. In the same year, less than 2% of those under 30 suffered from diabetes. Weight is also a strong factor in one's likelihood of becoming diabetic, with 13.5% of obese Americans in 1998 being diabetic. In the same year, only 3.5% of people at a healthy weight had the disease.[32]

text: As of 2006, about 18.3% (8.6 million) of Americans age 60 and older had diabetes, according to the ADA.[33] Diabetes mellitus prevalence increases with age, and the numbers of older persons with diabetes are expected to grow as the elderly population increases in number. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) from 1988–1994 demonstrated, in the population over 65 years old, 18% to 20% had diabetes, with 40% having either diabetes or its precursor form of impaired glucose tolerance.[34]  Older individuals are also more likely to be seen in the emergency department (ED) for diabetes.  A study by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) found that in 2010, diabetes-related ED visit rates were highest for patients aged 65 and older (1,307 per 10,000 population), compared with 45- to 64-year-olds (584 per 10,000 population) and 18- to 44-year-olds (183 per 10,000 population).[26]

text: A second study by AHRQ found that diabetes with complications was one of the twenty most expensive conditions seen in U.S. inpatient hospitalizations in 2011, with an aggregate cost of nearly $5.4 billion for 561,000 stays.  It was among the top five most expensive conditions for uninsured patients, at an aggregate cost of $440 million for 62,000 hospitalizations.[35]

text: Oceania and the Pacific[edit]

text: Australia[edit]

text:
An estimated 700,000 Australians have diabetes.[5] Indigenous populations in developed countries generally have higher prevalence and incidence of diabetes than their corresponding nonindigenous populations. In Australia, the age-standardised prevalence of self-reported diabetes in indigenous Australians is almost four times that of nonindigenous Australians.[36] Reasons include higher rates of obesity, physical inactivity, and living in poor housing and environments among Indigenous peoples.[5]
Preventative community health programs are showing some success in tackling this problem.

text: Africa[edit]

text: International Diabetes Federation (IDF) estimates that 14.2 million are living with diabetes in Africa.[37] The region of Africa has the highest percentage of undiagnosed diabetes cases reaching 66.7%, highest proportion of diabetes mellitus related mortality and the lowest health expenditure spent on diabetes.[37]