Final answer:
Freebooting, privateering, and buccaneering differed in terms of government support and authorization. The British government decided to stamp out freebooting due to its threat to trade and stability. The British Navy successfully suppressed piracy by utilizing superior naval power, disrupting pirate networks, and collaborating with other nations.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the early 1700s, freebooting differed from privateering and buccaneering in the sense that it was not authorized or sponsored by any government or crown. Freebooters were essentially pirates who operated independently to seize ships and cargoes. Privateering, on the other hand, was state-sponsored piracy where governments issued permits to individuals or ships to attack and plunder enemy ships during times of conflict. Buccaneers were also pirates, but they primarily operated in the Caribbean, often with the support of British authorities.
The British government decided to stamp out freebooting because it was seen as a threat to trade and stability. Freebooters often targeted not just enemy ships, but also neutral vessels. This led to disruptions in trade and caused tensions among nations. Additionally, freebooters undermined the authority of governments and were difficult to control or regulate.
The British Navy was able to successfully suppress piracy due to a combination of factors. First, the British Navy had superior naval power and technology compared to pirates. They had well-trained sailors and heavily armed warships that could easily overpower pirate vessels. Second, the British Navy focused on disrupting pirate networks by attacking their bases and cutting off their supply chains. Finally, the British Navy worked closely with other nations to coordinate efforts in suppressing piracy, establishing international agreements and laws to combat piracy effectively.