economics – American History to 1877

March 19, 2014

The “Golden Rule”

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Thomas Jefferson “trembled” on behalf of his country when he remembers God’s just nature; he abolished the international slave trade on the first date the constitution allowed it, and all the while refused to veraciously stand against slavery (Wilentz, 114-15). Many wealthy northern politicians did exactly the same, and even many areas on the fringes of slavery condoned it as a “necessary evil,” despite not directly benefiting from it. All the while, southern plantation owners were claiming its “benevolence” and remained aggressive with the rhetoric of protecting and civilizing the slaves from their own bestial nature. Therefore, there came two forms of the “golden rule” being played out in the slavery argument, one of the plantation owners claiming benevolence, and the others of the non-slave owners who condoned the practice or did not actively fight it because those who have the gold make the rules.

There is no question slavery was extremely economically valuable and that, overall, the country benefited economically from the practice. There is similarly no doubt that, purely on an economic standard, new western states would benefit from slavery. With the addition of Maine, there was an imbalance of power that swayed towards the northern political sphere. More delegates for northern free states than southern. As Charlotte points out in her post, these political divides became more about geography and less about political philosophy, instituting a slave state gave more power to the south and vice versa. The question then becomes who the north was actually fighting for. It is convenient (and perhaps uplifting) to assume that the northern politicians were fighting for the abolition of slavery in new states when perhaps a complication of that reading could entail the northern politicians fighting for political power on the playing field of slavery with morality as the central argument.

Therefore, the Missouri Compromise was not so much a compromise on slavery, but rather on power and money. There was no compromise on slavery; slavery won. So long as slavery was still a part of the southern states and they maintained at least equal power on the senate floors, slavery was still an economic cornerstone of the south. Thus, the “Era of Bad Feelings” commenced with this unsettling notion that it was not a compromise but rather perhaps a delay of the inevitable. This ties neatly into Davis’ reading and again to Charlotte’s point that there were no innocent sides in this debate. It may have been a political one just as much as a moral one, albeit played out on a moral battleground. Underneath it all, however, was the addictive promise of wealth, cotton, and trade that was inherent with the slavery society.

January 22, 2014

Economics and Religion in English Colonization

In chapters 6 and 8, Taylor examines the early failures and eventual successes of English colonies. The British arrived in the New World some time after the Spanish, Portuguese, and French had laid claims to the land, and while the economy the English developed varied significantly from those of the Spanish empire and of the French trading posts, all Europeans came to America with similar objectives. I agree with many of Taylor’s points on incentives to emigrate, and I believe these incentives warrant close study.

In reference to the reading on Tuesday, Dana attributed French and Spanish violence to desire for wealth and greed. European powers saw rivals in each other and relished the chance to change their fortunes in America. Grey’s blog post reinforces the significance of economic incentives in a claim that, for the French and Spanish, the economy outweighed all other factors in New World colonization. Grey even names religion an “afterthought” to “economic conquests.”

This theory, voiced in my classmates’ writing and often inferred in Taylor’s work, often aptly describes European and native relations. Downplaying the significance of religion, however, fails to capture the essence of colonial interactions. Religion plays a crucial role in understanding the cultural differences that the Europeans encountered, and certainly in English colonization, religion and economics serve as interdependent, equally important incentives.

Taylor frames English colonization in Virginia as a strictly economic venture, devoid of missionaries and of the desire to Christianize natives. He does identify the colonists’ intentions to first “absorb[… natives] as economic subordinates” and then convert them, an excellent point, but I feel Taylor detracts too much from religious incentives even in this description. Religion, as much as economics, determines English attitudes towards colonization.

What else but religion do the English exploit to justify seizing the land? The English insisted they could take the land because of a religious obligation to improve it, undoubtedly derived from a passage in Genesis: “fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over… every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28). Taylor also pinpoints an English obligation to “subvert the native culture and transform the Indians into lower-sort English men and women” (128). While the English had economic reasons for subverting the natives, also present is a desire for cultural conversion. Making the natives English naturally encompasses a conversion to Christianity. While the English might have lacked the missionaries of the French and Spanish, religion remained a crucial factor in colonization.

The Great Migration to New England, in particular, perfectly captures the interplay of religion an economics, and I mostly agree with Taylor’s portrayal of Puritan colonists. The Puritans associated “material aspiration” inextricably with “the pursuit of salvation” (166). A hardworking and devout community, the Puritans met the challenges of colonization far more readily than the inhabitants of Jamestown. Puritan emigrants sailed to America with their families and with a sense of purpose, and Taylor describes them as successful, equitable, and determined, even if stern, people.

Largely, I agree with the facts presented. Quite unlike other colonists, the Puritans fared remarkably well in the New World and created communities enriched by religious and educational programs. My only critical response is the tendency of history books to portray Puritans somewhat, well, politely. Yes, Taylor mentions the Salem witch trials, the exile of religious dissenters to Rhode Island, and the tense relations with England, particularly with the monarch. Juxtaposed with the incredible violence of the other colonies, however, the Puritans appear an admirable group, the type of colony, if any, one might want to join. Even with their faults, they aimed to create a moral society, not to exploit natives and make a fortune.

I remember feeling similarly about the Puritans in my high school US History class, but that same year, we also read some Puritan literature in English. The Puritans possessed many talents, but likability was not among them. In Particular, I remember Jonathan Edward’s sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Here is a short excerpt:

“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.”

(For those interested: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html)

I don’t believe Taylor writes about the Puritans incorrectly, per se, but I do think primary sources paint a far more vivid picture of Puritan society than secondary sources. With that sermon in mind, Taylor’s description of the Puritans facing criticism in England takes on a much deeper meaning. One can easily imagine what they might have said of the society allegedly “awash in thieves, drunks, idlers, prostitutes, and blasphemers” (162). No wonder the king threatened to remove them from England; Puritans make poor neighbors.

Regardless of their character, though, the Puritans do exemplify the blending of religious and economic themes in colonial America. Trying to separate the religious from the economic in the colonization of America is as difficult as it is impractical. More beneficial to the study of history is the acceptance of religion and economics as one intermingled and cohesive influence.

January 20, 2014

Instability of Trade, Economy, and Structure

In Chapters 3 & 5 of American Colonies, Taylor focuses on New Spain and Canadian post-initial contact interactions with the native tribes and mainly focuses on the trading and economic relationships. Especially with the Spanish Empire, Taylor argues that violence and domination of the native cultures was largely the result of economic incentives by privately investing Spaniards financing conquistadors. The Spanish middle class was faced with a stagnant social and economic situation on the Iberian Peninsula, and therefore found the greatest opportunity for social mobility and economic gain was the new world. Taylor notes the most noticeable change of economic status happened with successful conquistadors. Veiled by religion, the conquistadors were simply out for economic gains.

However, Taylor notes that these immediate and violent conquests were often unsustainable. This would be the point where in order to maintain a sense of credible, long term, and sustainable economic cashflow, administrators, priests and skilled workers were required to enter into the social and economic structure of the Spanish conquests. This influx of new Europeans, mainly males, began to form the new social structure based off of race in the new world. This poses a significant problem for the Indian culture, however. As Rebecca stated in the last post, the Native social structure was not a monolith. There had already existed an extremely complicated hierarchy and tribal system well before the conquistadors made their first contacts. Treating an entire culture as a subservient entry into the new European system will ultimately be problematic and unsustainable.

The unsuitability of the new social structure and the increase of a Catholic presence augments Taylor’s argument that religion, while being the basis of conquistadors’ justification for attacking, killing, enslaving and usurping the natives, was truly an afterthought that rode the coattails of economic conquests. Only when the conquistadors failed to consistently create a market due to social disruption did priests find their way into the social scheme of the Americas and given authority. I find this argument overwhelmingly compelling.

It is strengthened further when almost an identical situation unfolds in Canada, as the French initially successful with fur trades only later provide substantial religious presence in the areas. While the violence in the north was perpetuated more by the natives and the Five Nations especially, Taylor argues that the increase in violence led to an increased demand in European Weaponry, especially guns, by the natives. This demand led to the over-hunting of beaver and again, to an unsustainable economy.

This does seem slightly simplistic, but as an Economics major, I enjoy understanding the effects simple economic transactions can have on overall populations, and it seems that through both of these geographic areas religion was used as an economic tool rather than a moral or religious one. In order to rectify the deep harm the European conquests had on both civilizations, religion was brought in to rectify it. Not for religious purposes itself, but rather for an assurance of stable social structure for long term economic prosperity.