John Wollaston, "Portrait of a Girl" (1760s)
Below please find this week’s web questions, written by your classmate, Christopher Furnari:
1) I found the differences between the northern and southern colonies very interesting. Why do you think that the North was able to create a more diverse and prosperous economy–with more commerce and manufacturing–than in the South? Was it due to Northerners’ more stable social order, or the fact that they were forced to expand beyond agriculture due to poor farm land ?
2) Why do you think that wealthy southern planters tried to make themselves into an elite class of gentlemen that imitated the English aristocracy? Did behaving in this manner help to control the population (especially the slaves)?
3) I think that the northern colonies were already more on the road to a rebellious nature than those in the South as they set up their colonies for the most part with more freedom for the people and less direct control from the crown. Do you feel that the seeds of the revolution can be traced back this early?
4) Who had a bigger impact on shaping the culture and society of the colonies: the growing urban merchant class or the wealthy Southern planters?
Please post a comment in response to at least one of these questions by sometime Wednesday night, so that I have a chance to read them before class.
AMERICA TO 1877 
# 4
i think that the urban merchant class had the bigger impact on the shaping of the culture and society of the colonies. there were alot of challenges that the merchants had to face to be successful. i feel that by the merchants overcoming these obstacles and becoming successful traders rubbed off on the rest of the colonial society. the merchant class was determined to make money and they found the way to do it no matter how little gold or silver they had. they found a way to turn a profit.
The merchant class had to go through a lot of obstacles to become successful. Britain had passed navigation acts, so Britain would not have to face competition with the colonists and so colonists would not succeed. England wanted all the profits to go to the mother country and not to the colonies. Even though the navigation acts were passed, the merchants started to smuggle, so they can earn profits from Spain, France, and other European powers.
Yes I do believe the seeds of revolution can be traced back this early. In the northern parts you get to see more colonies emerging with leniency when it comes to religion. When comparing the southern colonies to the northern colonies you can see how religion impacts the development of the southern colonies in their every way life. Also a lot of the rebellious people who were part of a certain southern colony would always either flee to the north or get exiled and move to the north. The people that effected the north played an important role due to their open beliefs like the Dutch, also some Englishmen/ women who challenged the church and the king back at England. I believe all of this helped start the seed of revolution because these people started questioning many things when it came to religion, politics and even the social system that was held in the colonies, while most of the southern colonies focused their time on agriculture, religion and simply following the rules.
1.
The fact that the North and South were so geographically different made it inevitable that they would develop such polar societies. In the South, the life expectancy was much lower than in the North, which naturally led to a much different outlook on life. The fact that the plantation system in the South was so volatile, and prices were subject to fall at random, was ultimately the reason the Southern economy lagged behind their Northern counterpart’s.
The North also had a much more diverse environment, capable of producing many more types of agricultural products. Where the South primarily produced Tobacco and Rice. This helped when it came to trading, because there was more to put on the table; whereas in the South, if the traders weren’t interested in the few products they had to offer, they were out of luck.
1. A difference of economic life divided the Southern colonies from the Northern. This was heavily due to the field works in which each colony resided on. For the south, the land was more suitable for the planting of tobacco as well as the production of rice. These were the main crops in which the southern colonies greatly relied on for trade or sales. Also, the south relied on the labor from slaves which is another reason which differentiates the sectional regions. As for the north, the colonies there developed a more commercial industry due to the lack of land productivity. The land was less fertile and the weather conditions made it difficult for agriculture. Therefore, the establishment in the productions of blacksmiths, cabinetmakers, printers, etc. dominated the industry of the north, allowing the sales of surplus goods.
I got into Doc Holiday recently. An interesting note is that he was also a dentist. When his disease took him, tuberculosis i think it was, and he no longer had a steady hand, he became a drunken gambler who was proficient with a knife. Despite being a southern gentleman and fluent in latin, though, he didn’t like blacks, as was recounted ina story of him shooting over the heads of two of whom were bathing in his favorite spot in the river.
I say that to say that I would imagine that a southern planter would want to get as far away from English thought as possible. But then they found themselves on the other end of prosperity and they reverted to what they connected with wealth: aristocratic behavior, and the trappings that came with it.
And they didn’t need it to control anyone, especially not the slaves. It wasn’t English charm that kept slaves in line.
1.
An economic difference divided the Southern colonies from the Northern due to the land cultivation of each area. The south primarily prospered from the productions of tobacco and rice from the fertile land. Also, the southern colonies heavily relied on the labor from slaves which divided the two regions further more. On the other hand, the north developed an industry where it produced blacksmiths, cabinetmakers, printers, etc. due to the hard land and weather conditions which prevented agricultural productivity. Due to the fact that both regions were at opposites in environment, the lives as well as industrial economies would be diveresed, leading to differences amongst each area.
The north had to expand its way through earning money because of non- arable land. According to our textbook the Unfinished Nations, The North did not have prosperous land as the South did. For example, the North had bad weather for farming and not arable soil for farming.
The Northerners first started to earn through surplus goods by selling and trading. There were also many artisans and craftsmen, such as cobblers, blacksmiths, rifle makers cabinetmakers, silver smiths, etc. The North was becoming more industrial than the South. The first industries of metal were built in the north in Massachusetts. Metal work became very important for the economy of the North. Britain saw this as a threat and passed the Iron Act of 1750, which stopped the industries in the North. Nevertheless, the North still rose economically through commerce. The North had traded with the West Indies and traded rum, meats and fish for sugar and slaves for return. There was also trade with England and West Africa, also known as the “triangular trade.”
#3
I do believe its possible the “seeds of Revolution” were planted in the North. With the advances in technology as well as the differences in social structure of the North and South, I can see Northerns being more likely to question things. Education I believe also played an important part, since Many of the school were established in the North.
The enlightenment as well as the Great awakening encouraged individuals to look at themselves and take responsibility for their own lives; that would contribute to number early Revolutionary thinkers in the North. Living in a city instead of a plantation also allowed interaction with a larger group of people, giving new idea’s and thoughts a chance to be heard and even flourish. It would be easier for people in the North to band together unlike those in the South.
I think the North had a more diverse and prosperous economy because they were more industrialized. The industrial revolution changed the way commoners lived with textile jobs, increasing technology, capital and various knowledge. The South was agriculturally based and the textiles and various ways did not permeate the agricultural based society of the South. The North may not have had good farming ground, but in my opinion, the slave trade many have held back their advancing economy. I do think that many southerners had aristocratic ways. Maybe not all but many. It created a culture of styfiling the mind. I am not sure about this but did many white southerners do the manual labor or was that just the slaves? When you work common labor, it gives creative people the incentive to think of new ways of doing things, the tenacious to act on it. Slaves never had that opportunity to act on it nor probobly thought they could. Booker T. Washington and George W. Carver were the exceptions but they got out of slavery relatively early. Slavery will damage the true identity of ones self. The culture of maintaining a certain social order styfiled their economy. What do you guys think?
I think the Southern planters wanted to imitate the English aristocracy to separate themselves from the others. They wanted to appear more powerful and superior to the less fortunate ones, including the slaves. If they wouldn’t have considered themselves elite then no one would have. Just as the English had done in Jamestown, making themselves appear more advanced, these planters wanted to do here. In a way it did help control the population. It helped because they were the ones that took charge. If they wouldn’t have taken charge, their plans would not have succeeded. You can’t put people to work without making them believe you’re better than them, or else there would be no point.
I’m not quite sure if the seeds of a revolution were visible at the time of the establishment of the colonies or even at the turn of a new century. In my Revolutionary Generation course that I had taken last semester, Americans actually viewed themselves as English citizens, and appreciating and believing in the power of the monarchy. To a certain extent statues of English monarchs were placed everywhere in the colonies, in showing gratitude and appreciation of the monarch. Rather than a revolution, I believe that tension between northern colonies and southern colonies were evident in mere simple fact of life style. But even a civil war can not be imagined at that early of a time. First, because the colonies were not a unified nation and second because the mentality of both the northern colonies and southern colonies were coherent and common in certain aspects, such as the strong belief in racial inequality. Just because the north was not an agricultural society, does not diminish the fact that they were as well aware and believed in racial inequality.
I agree with Marina. The colonists were very loyal to the mother country: Britain. The colonists believed they were British and tried as much as they can to be loyal to Britain. If anything, it was Britain who planted the seeds for the American Revolution. Britain was taking advantage on the power they had over the colonies with passing navigation acts, stamps acts, etc.
1. Nothern Colonies had agriculture in place. There was not as much arable land as in the South to be able to have large plantations. Climate and geography also played a role. However, nothern farmers still did grow wheat and actually exported it to South and Carribean. The fact that it probably didn’t bring as much profit as cash crops such as tobbaco coupled with not so much land available drove people into other professions. I think that in Southern Colonies plantations already dominated the economic atmosphere for any other industry to develop.
#1
Southern colonies relied too much on their agriculture ( tobacco and rice), and relied on slave labor for production, that limited how much the southerners were willing to do and learn. The fact that the northerners were not able to produce the same agriculture made them expand their skills into doing other things which resulted in diverse and prosperous economy. The northerners knew they had to work harder to stay on track and keep up with the southerners. The northerners were practicing all sorts of skills that the southerners never thought of learning.
The different geographic setup between the North and South determined the transformation in growth of the colonies in the North and South. The North consisted of few farms of more diverse crops and growing cities, which created a more industrial society. Whereas in the South they were relying on the agricultural of rice and tobacco crops, their economy relied on the work of slave laborers, while in the North they were figuring out way to exploit natural resources in lumbering, mining, and fishing, leaving the Southerners more concerned with harvesting and producing enough goods. The South also had a lower life expectancy, and was more susceptible to disease than in the North, which was another issue they had to worry about, and is another form of the long term goals and objectives for Northerners differentiated. Even with the earliest settlers in the late 1600’s were mostly indentured servants, they avoided migrating to the South because the “prospect of advancement was slim” (Brinkly. 61)
I agree to the fact that there were profound differences between the northern and southern colonies, One reason was the variation of the agricultural production of cash crops. The north with tobacco and the south with rice in which knowledge of its cultivation was brought to the Americas by the African slave. However in my opinion although the north seemed to be more industrious because of its large scale merchant base, and its perceived higher social order? Yes the colonists developed many skilled craftsmen and entrepreneurship especially in the metal industry, but the south had a more lucrative system with land that was ideal for farming, and could produce cash crops on a more lager scale. Nevertheless the northern and southern sates were both forced to expand, but because of poor farm land? It is a possibility, but rest assure it was most definitely profit motivated. Again we should not forget Americas most exploited and greatest natural resource The African Slave who’s population by the late mid 1700’s exceeded the European colonists, and was the “…basis of the southern workforce.”
I believe there was, is and will continue to be an exaggerated disconnect between the North and the South. Considering that, the culture and society of the colonies absolutely influenced neighboring regions but not far beyond that. New York City, for instance, characteristically inhabits a crude population as do other well known cities. While “Southern hospitality“ cannot be denied. Aside from pockets of migration and superficial political debates, I don’t believe that Northern and Southern states have been receptive to sharing the defining elements of their cultures. The urban merchants and the wealthy Southern planters did well to contribute to their local communities but again, I don’t believe those contributions were recognized far beyond the land in which they held those positions.
3) As we all are aware from prior American History classes, the American Revolution was a result of England asserting its direct power over the this idea of an American “culture”. Yes as history shows the northern colonies were in fact more rebellious then southern colonies. Boston or rather the Massachusetts Bay area is an example of a “hot” location, i.e the Boston Massacre. The New England colonies were the first areas the British sent troops to control and limit the increasing tension.
Although the revolution itself doesn’t begin officially until 1775 with the battle of Lexington and Concord the seeds of the revolution can be traced during the mid 1700’s. One clear example of British wanting to control the colonies or assert their power is with the Iron Act of 1750 which restricted metal processing in the colonies. This act also led to a limited manufacture of woolens, hats, and other goods. The British Navigation Act also limited the colonies from trading with foreign European competitors.
It is interesting to note that as the 18th century progresses the Navigation Act would only become more stricter and specify a market in which the British could control, and example the Sugar Act of 1764. As the colonies began to gain prosperity England wanted more control to gain more profit, the whole purpose of the New World was to enrich the mother country. But this idea did not sit well with a lot of colonist who now started to see themselves as Americans and this new attitude created a resentment towards England that would eventually led to the American Revolution. So I definitely agree that seeds could be traced back to this point.
2. Planters imitated the English aristocracy because there was nothing else to relate to in terms of an elite class outside of what they knew. Since there were few manufactured goods in America, they received most of their things from England. They ruled over the poor while they had tea parties and listened to depressing piano recitals. Despite being a minority, planters dominated the Southern government with their aristocracy, which allowed them to elevate their social status so far up from the poor. Based on laws passed in their favor and the history of our government, I would say yes this allowed them to maintain control over all population.
1. I think that the North was able to create a more diverse and advanced economy because they did not depend as heavily on agriculture as the South did. The South’s dependence on rice and tobacco cultivation prohibited them from expanding on other economical opportunities. Similar to the argument some Northerners made in their argument against sustaining slavery, relying on one method hindered the chance for opportunities. In the case of the South their arduous work conditions called for a great deal of attention, time and energy in order to maintain their economy whereas in the North, they needed to look to other prospects in order to maintain their economy which included craftsmen and entrepreneurs.Their continuous advancement led to more production, trading centers, more jobs and a stable economy as oppose to the risky boom or bust economy in the south.