Hist 3204
19 Jan 1999
Colonial period = 2 phases
1. unstable; lines of social and political authority
were unclear; org. of economy still uncertain
2. 2nd phase, society more coherent; economic basis
more clear; institutions of social and politcal auth in
place
Phase 1 - corresponds with 17th; phase 2 with 18th.
This is generally the case, but keep in mind that
some areas, like Tidewater Va, had already reached
second stage by last decades of 17th while
backcountry Carolina did not reach the second phase
until roughly 1750.
Motivations of English:
2 categories here also
1. example of Spain
2. thrust of econ. Develpt in Engl
1. Spanish example: riches in Mexico and Peru;
English wanted to mimic it
2. Although Spanish example was a powerful
stimulus, less impt than changes going on in Engl
between 1480 and 1660: summarize:
a. shift from feudal society to market-centered
society; push for markets; look outward
b. another factor that contrib. To coloniz by
providing incentives, sources, and tools was the
growth of the joint stock trading company; rise of
lawyers and businessmen (nouveau riche) and lesser
importance of older elites; more land sales and
transactions made for more volatile mercantile life;
set people on the move too and made them less
attached to place and more willing to forsake it for
profit. Reformation was factor too: when Henry
VIII broke up the monasteries, he stimulated
considerable redistrib of land; also intellec and relig
ferment of reformat made people look around for
more certainty (explains extreme popularity of
ancient idea that there was a grand order to the
universe est by God and every person had a settled
place in that order --- whenever there is
unsettledness, there is alarm and intense need for
certainty, such as 2000 and y2k and all that
millenialist fever we see now). Same in 17th cent
Engl.
Also reformat. Produced impulse to purify society
(just as 2000 millenialists stress); desire for purer
church, less corrupt society, etc. So coloniz was
partly utopian in motivat. But only partly
Rise of men in last decades of 16th cent. Like
Richard Hakluyt, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, and Sir
Walter Raleigh -- articulated a rationale for founding
colonies. Writings were mostly promotional and
emphasized more mundane benefits: profit, glory,
and advcmt of Protestantism.
Yet many writers and potential settlers were
ambivalent about the New World. Best seen in
Shakespeare's play The Tempest. Here S. juxtaposes
Engl civil (represent by Prospero) ag the barbarism
of remote, uncultivated places (exemplified by
Caliban). Tension between Prospero and Caliban
reveals contradictory perceptions Englishmen had of
New World: great hope it might be converted into a
new Eden; widspread fear the wilderness would
corrode or destroy English culture and undermine
traditl values and instits, reduce Engl settlers to
savage level of the Indians.
Which motives were uppermost in colonists' minds?
Impossible to say for sure. Both aspirations, econ.
And relig, were present; both were operative in New
Engl and Va. Relig motives do seem to have been
more predominant in New Engl; similarly econ
motives seem greater in VA. Not correct to say that
all NE were Puritan utopians and Virginians were
materialistic profiteers (refer them to the Hakluyt
doc to see weave of motives).
What should be stressed: in both instances there was
a powerful movement to re-create in the New World
an idealized version of Engl society. This impulse
was accentuated by colonists fear of the barbarizing
and corrosive effects of the wilderness. Sometimes
the idealized impulse to "civilize" could even
overwhelm the materialistic drive.
Two other distinctions=important: motives of
founders and mass of people who came
1. planners (Hakluyts, Gilberts, Raleighs)=
comprehensive goals; schemes; plans
2. Indiv settlers=prob more motiv. By many little
probs in their daily lives; I say "probably"
becausemost obviously did not have time, energy, or
wherewithall to sit down and write for us what they
thought they were doing; when they got here,
simple problems of survival were uppermost. How
well did they anticipate what they were going to
find?
Not very well, esp in Va. It took 25-years for the
Virginias to get on their feet, to accept Va for what it
was, to learn how to live in it and use the envirmt.
Did the colonizers have to modify their goals and
aspirations?
You bet. Stated objs of planners in Engl usually
gave chief emphases to stockholders and looked
forward to achvmt of tightly integ society along
lines of Great Chain of Being. These objs had to be
quickly modified. In Va. For instance, the Company
was unable to recruit settlers to work for Company
forever, as it had planned. To make Va attractive,
the Company had to relax the harsh discipline and
rigid work-camp-style social structure of early years
and offer incentives in form of easy access to land
and particip in the polit process. With these
concessions, Company control ov colonists became
more tenuous and orig objects impossible to
maintain. This pattern was repeated ov and ov again
in next century.
One final thing: structure of colonial econ in 17th
cent.
Agricultl base
Farming, not subsistence, but for surplus
Meant need for market mechanisms, inclg
mercantile commty to distrib and exchange
Impt regional variations: NE agricl devoted to
foodstuffs; Chesapeake colonies around tobacco
Tobacco trade handled by English rather than
colonial merchants; channeled to markets in Europe
NE developed native merchants with brisk trade in
WI and Europe and ENGL (furs, skins, and fish as
well as agricl)
So econ capital of Mass=Boston; econ capital of VA
and MD was London
Chief result=elites org diff
Chesapeake=land and labor very impt; NE the large
merchants=at apex
Three econ probs faced by colonists
1. finding something marketable (to be exchanged
for goods or services). Solved quickly
2. labor; toughest problem; initially met
w/indentured servts; after 1660 increasingly
w/African slaves
3. capital to finance econ expansion. Mercantile
groups in Philly, Ny, Charleston, Boston, and
Newport accumul considerable amts and invested it;
but planters and farmers rarely had enough capital.
Result=credit for planters had to come from English
merchants; farmers had to rely on planters.
Key Question need to consider:
Why did slavery develop?
Paul -- talk about that on Thursday
Read:
One final ? I want to address: Engl attitudes towards
Indians
2 sources
1. archaeology (still underdeveloped)
2. Writings of Englishmen (like George Percy)
On course English writers were jaded; limitations of
witnesses means we have to proceed carefully; impt
to recognize the biases of the observers (that's why
attitudes toward civil; wilderness, Engl society, etc
are impt). But even with these limitations, these are
extremely valuable sources, that when used with
care, can tell us much, even about Indian life and
culture.
When Engl came: found a people who had
been living in Chesapeake for 10,000 years.
Algonquian-speaking mostly; roughly
13,000-14,000 in coastal VA; some 50 tribes
(Pamunkies, Rappahannocks, Accomaks,
etc) in all; organ. In a chiefdom und.
Powhatan; often called collectively the
Powhatans. Powhatan, their leader
(supreme chieftan called Mamanatowick
controlled the chiefdom in Virginia called
Tsenacommacah meaning "densely
inhabited land"), was equiv to a king;
powerful man to whom the tribes paid
tribute in forms of hides, furs, venison, etc.
It was integrated kinship society
administered by selected local chiefs of
power and wealth. Tribal leaders were
called werowances, "he who is rich).
Hunters/gatherers; lived in encampments
(not permanent houses); depended upon
small game, deer, fish, and cultivated small
gardens and raised corn. Not unfamiliar
with Engl by 1607. In fact, they attacked
them 2 weeks after they landed at
Jamestown to test them by force of arms.
Failing to dislodge them, Chief Powhatan
changed his strategy to one of hospitality,
offering food and overtures of peace. The
Mamanatowick then had John Smith
captured (by Opencancanough), leading to
the famous incident. After 1608 relations
under Smith and others entered a period
where the English used intimidation and
force to get what they believed their superior
civil deserved. Two major incidents were
uprisings of 1622 and 1644. After the latter
date, the English settlers simply pushed the
Powhatans ever deeper into the wilderness.