One of the things that struck me the most after reading Morgan's American Slavery, American Freedom was how often he spoke of early English colonial interests being almost entirely militaristic. In fact, I would argue that a lot of the narrative in the first half of Morgan's book deals with how English colonial interests in Virginia were dominated entirely not by friendly, peace-making colonists, but rather by privateers, and colonists whose primary mission it was to either be soldiers seeking riches or English gentlemen who could afford the pay to make the journey to the Americas who fought and intrigued against one another.
I thought it was interesting how early colonial Virginia saw non-European encounters in the New World as opportunities for exploitation, whether it is using the Cimarrons to attack the Spanish or using Native Americans. I had known previously that early English colonists exploited non-European New World residents, but I had never known just how militaristic the early Virginia colony really was. I was struck throughout the reading how Morgan interprets the colony's actions through a militaristic method of analysis, with the commander being a "lieutenant" and the early leaders being military appointees leading colonists who Morgan claims were over half soldiers and sailors used to navigate the ship. I also found it interesting that many of these colonists also did not possess the farming skills to grow crops for themselves, knowing only very particular skill sets. I thought it was a very smart analysis to actually take a look at how both Native Americans and Englishmen lived in society at the time as well. The chapter "Idle Indians and Lazy Englishmen" was my favorite, because it took the time to give this crucial backstory, so that readers may understand better the personalities and characters in early colonial America.
Coming back to the point on military, did anyone else find this "militaristic" view of early colonists to be appropriate or did you have a different understanding of society in early colonial Virginia? I think it is a useful way to look at early colonial Virginia, but I have a hard time believing that EVERYONE was either backstabbing or had a militaristic mindset as Morgan makes it seem, so I think he might be stretching this character trait a little too much. Thoughts?
We forget, sometimes, that imperial competition was a driving factor in colonial settlement, especially in Virginia. This may be due to proximity with the Spanish (clearly a concern). But don't overlook the commercial context as well--Morgan makes almost NOTHING of this, but merchant wealth and investment was also important. Remind me to bring it up in discussion...
ReplyDeleteHi, everyone,
ReplyDeleteI thought that the commercial endeavors really came through in Morgan's historiography--it seemed to me that they were more front-and-center than the issue of liberty. In fact, it seemed that the idea of liberty was just another way of saying "free trade." Morgan's descriptions of the wealthy colonists as well as those who came initially to serve make clear the opportunistic attitude toward the new world; quick riches seemed to be the primary draw. Additionally, all of the talk about the "Raskells" and "scum" who sailed over from England seemed directed toward this depiction of the ethos of the colonies. Any thoughts on this?