Friday, June 23, 2023

A Liberal Dose, June 22, 2023 "Dispossessing the Poor, Part 3- Into the New World"

 



“Dispossessing the Poor, Part 3- Into the New World”

Part One

 Part Two


“Here every man may be master and owner of his owne labour and land. If he have nothing but his hands, he may by industries grow quickly rich.”

Imagine how such words would affect poor people in London in the early 1600s, many unemployed and landless since the enclosure system had forced them off farms. The words were written by Captain John Smith. Ads were posted throughout the city, promising wealth and freedom to anyone willing to go to the English colonies in North America, where free land awaited. The goal of the Virginia Company was to get the one thing their new colony needed most: workers.

The Virginia Company and the Plymouth Company were both trading companies chartered by King James I in 1606 to settle the Atlantic Coast of North America. Stories about Pocahontas or the Pilgrims do not mention corporations, but they were the primary movers of the colonies. The King granted them authority to use “his” land, much as kings had previously done with feudal lords. The Plymouth company’s shareholders were gentlemen in Plymouth, while those of the Virginia Company were mostly gentlemen from London.

There were several reasons the British government would want to cooperate with private companies to create colonies in North America. They hoped to find gold and silver, like the Spanish had (they did not). They wanted to grow tobacco, introduced to Europeans several decades earlier (turns out, the more people smoked the more they wanted). They hoped to establish bases from which to fight the Spanish in the Caribbean. But there was another, very important reason, one that set them apart from France and Spain.

England, especially in the cities, had too many people. And a great many of them were poor, whether unemployed in the cities or farming in the country. It was a great enticement, indeed, to tell them that in the colonies they could get rich -or, at the very least, be free, have land, and be their own boss. It sounded like a great deal, but the shareholders of the Company and their agents were not quite as magnanimous as they seemed. Some of them spoke of the laborers they attracted -many of whom they expected to die in the process -as “manure” from which they would grow their empire. One of them described the colonies as a sinkhole into which they could sweep all the filth of England.

The catch was, you had to get across the ocean. It was expensive. Some of the new colonists had no problem paying their own way- these were the “gentlemen of means,” many of them second or third sons who would have only a small inheritance but could still afford to travel. These were the people who expected to own and control most of the land they encountered. For the poor people, imported as labor, they had to pay their way by signing a contract indenturing themselves, usually for a seven-year period. In other words, their masters who paid their way by buying their contracts OWNED their labor for seven years. Many drove their servants on with whips, or literally worked them to death. That, plus disease, starvation, and wars with local Native Americans meant that, for the first fifty years, most indentured servants did not survive their first seven years. And, if they did, they were told the available land had all been taken (which brings us, once again, to Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676).

Many of the poor found themselves in the same position they had been in back in England: existing only to serve as labor, with no end in sight. Some, though, were daring. They left the tobacco plantations behind and pressed into the western part of the colonies, up into the mountains. The Appalachian Mountains. There, many of these “back woods” people adapted and became self-sufficient.

But that would change.

 

--Troy D. Smith, a White County native, is a novelist and a history professor at Tennessee Tech. His words do not necessarily represent TTU.


 You can find all previous entries in this weekly column HERE

A list of other historical essays that have appeared on this blog can be found HERE

Author's website: www.troyduanesmith.com

The author's historical lectures on youtube can be found HERE

 

 





Thursday, June 15, 2023

A Liberal Dose, June 15, 2023 "Dispossessing the Poor, Part 2 -Building Fences"

 





A Liberal Dose

June 15, 2023

Troy D. Smith

“Dispossessing the Poor, Part 2- Building Fences”

[note- this is part of a series. Previous installments are linked below]

link to PART 1

 

Last week we talked about feudalism and the commons in Europe, and how things started to change in the 16th century. Discovery of the New World had opened up global trading, which made money much more important than it had previously been. Oh, there had always been trade, and money had been around for millennia. But money was not what conferred power in the Middle Ages, it was the control of land. Many nobles were “land rich and cash poor” and it didn’t matter much. For simple farmers, you might come across some money now and then, and use it, but mostly you worked the land and were self-sufficient. You grew what you needed, supplemented by hunting and fishing in the commons (which were owned by everybody) and by trading items here and there with neighbors. The whole society didn’t RUN on money.

Two things happened to change that after the Plague. First, English wool was in high demand in Europe. Lords who were not receiving much real income from the land in their tenure decided that raising more sheep on that land WOULD bring income, and in the form of money which was becoming easier to use (“money travels”- you can use it in other places and it will not go bad while it is getting there.) Therefore, in the mid-1500s, English nobles started practicing “enclosure” -which is just what it sounds like. Fences and walls. Usually in the form of stone walls, these enclosures were built on the commons. Much woodland was leveled to make room for sheep pasturage. Fencing off these areas meant they no longer belonged to everyone- they belonged solely to the noble. Peasants were cut off from them. We established last week that peasants could not survive simply on what they could farm for their noble liege (as much of it was taken from them). Now, if they followed their previous practices, they would be arrested or hung as poachers. As a result, many of them moved away from the village farms and into cities, hoping to find jobs, which most did not. By the late 1500s cities -especially London -were teeming with poor, unemployed, landless people. Those who remained on farms had a very difficult time of it, and certainly had lost any vestige of leverage they may once have had.

Here’s the second thing. Over time, European elites, philosophers, and merchants began to associate a free flow of money as evidence a society had left savagery and entered modern civilization. By the 1700s, this was associated with urban living and the factory system. Labor must be specialized, Adam Smith argued, not broad. If there are 18 steps to making a pin, with a different worker trained specifically for each step, many more pins enter the market and more money is made -for the owner of the pin factory and for the workers. More money is thus injected into the system, benefitting everyone. Well, almost everyone. It is not good, Smith argued, for one person to have a BUNCH of skills… like a farmer has to have. Because they are self-sufficient, not making much money yet still getting by -they are not contributing to “society” in the form of the economy. Yet we need farmers… but do we, really? Other thinkers of the time stressed that we need FARMS, but not farmers… if those farms can be corporatized and workers hired, that’s much better. In short, people who were not maximizing their land and making it a commodity, and who were only producing enough for themselves, were a burden on society even if they took nothing from that society. Poor = bad. Intentionally poor, due to not trying to get rich and being content with getting by… that, in the eyes of the upper crust, was downright wicked.

These attitudes about simple farmers and poor workers were about to travel across the ocean.

 

--Troy D. Smith, a White County native, is a novelist and a history professor at Tennessee Tech. His words do not necessarily represent TTU.

 

You can find all previous entries in this weekly column HERE

A list of other historical essays that have appeared on this blog can be found HERE

Author's website: www.troyduanesmith.com

The author's historical lectures on youtube can be found HERE

 


Thursday, June 8, 2023

A Liberal Dose June 8, 2023 "Dispossessing the Poor: Part 1, How It Started"




A Liberal Dose

June 8, 2023

Troy D. Smith

“Dispossessing the Poor- Part 1, How It Started”

 

I hope everyone had as good a holiday weekend as I did last week. Unfortunately, between travel and family time, I was unable to get a column written. I have been doing a lot of thinking and reading, though, about my most recent topic: the big shots against the little guy. I laid most of this (at least for the last century) on the Republicans, while admitting Democrats have also played a role. What I’d like to do now is a multi-part historical deep-dive into what got us here. I’m going to be mentioning thinkers from previous centuries, such as Adam Smith (generally considered one of the fathers of capitalism) and Karl Marx. I will be critiquing and disagreeing with both of them. While I don’t think most people understand capitalism or communism as well as they think they do, I think it is fair to say that communism puts the working class at the mercy of the state, and capitalism puts the working class at the mercy of the market. In other words, going to extremes at either left or right puts workers in a bad spot. My personal opinion is somewhere in the middle, but we’ll get to that later. First, some basics about English society BEFORE any English colonies were established in the Americas.

Actually, before even that, I should cite my sources. In addition to the two 18th & 19th century thinkers mentioned above, there is John Locke in the 17th century and E.P Thompson and Marcus Rediker in the 20th/21st. There is the classic 1968 article “The Tragedy of the Commons” by Garret Hardin (and countless others arguing against his ideas), and, more recently, the work of Allan Greer. I particularly recommend two recent books: “Ramp Hollow: The Ordeal of Appalachia” by Steven Stoll, and “White Trash” by Nancy Isenberg.

With that out of the way, let’s go back in time. From William the Conqueror’s Norman Conquest of England in 1066 until the 16th century, England -like most of Europe (and Japan, for that matter) -existed under the system called feudalism. This term does not mean, by the way, people having feuds. It means that, technically, the monarch owned all the land. The monarch had nobles, to whom he/she granted “tenure”, or control, of certain lands (hence Earl or Duke is a “landed title”.) Under the nobles were the knights, each of whom was granted tenure to certain lands held by the noble to whom they swore allegiance. Under the knights came the peasants, who were allowed to build villages and work the land -giving a portion to the local knight, who gave a portion to his noble liege, who gave a portion to the monarch, to whom it all technically belonged. Each level in this society had certain obligations: they had to be loyal to the level above them, and provide for the level below them.

Simple farmer villages divided up the land and the work. Only a portion of each region was farmed- the rest was forests and open fields, for the use of everyone in the village. These were called “the commons.” So a peasant would put in long hours farming, and would supplement his family’s diet by hunting or fishing in the commons. Without access to the commons, peasants would not be able to subsist, as so much of their crop went to those above them.

This system fell apart in Europe due to the Plague. So many people died -including farmers- that peasants had leverage to ask for more, as there was a labor shortage. The nobles had other ideas. The discovery of the “New World” had opened up trade across the board. English wool was especially prized in Europe, and could thus be turned into money. Throughout Europe, this situation led to new ideas about money, how to use land… and the proper status of peasants.

To be continued.

 

--Troy D. Smith, a White County native, is a novelist and a history professor at Tennessee Tech. His words do not necessarily represent TTU.

 

You can find all previous entries in this weekly column HERE

A list of other historical essays that have appeared on this blog can be found HERE

Author's website: www.troyduanesmith.com

The author's historical lectures on youtube can be found HERE