Growing Gold: The Tobacco Colonies

         In modern times, tobacco can be such a dirty word, and smoking a social taboo. It was not always this way, however, and it was in fact a staple of the Chesapeake Bay region, eventually becoming the backbone crop for many of the southern colonies. It had a profound effect on two in particular – Maryland and Virginia – so much so that they gained the moniker of "tobacco colonies". While they shared a common agricultural link, was that the only similarity? Were there more, or were differences more prevalent between the two? Were they founded to merely house cash crops, or did their proprietors have bigger plans for the colonies?

         The Virginia Colony had a rather rocky start, with a number of colonization attempts ending in failure before the ultimately successful Jamestown colony. Originally, the colony's borders stretched all the way from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Charleston, South Carolina, with the London and Plymouth Companies each receiving an equal portion. The London Company commissioned the first settlement voyage after Jamestown, and determined the government of the new colony before the even set sail. Led by Captain Christopher Newport, they intended to land at Roanoke, where the fabled Lost Colony had been located previously, but were forced north by a violent storm the Atlantic Ocean is so famous for, and stumbled across Chesapeake Bay. (Goodrich, 1823)

         After finding an ideal location to settle near the bay, they broke the seal on the governmental orders to see who the ruling council would consist of. Seven men were chosen by the company, including the expedition's Captain, Christopher Newport, and Captain John Smith, who would gain fame through his interactions with the indigenous American Indians there. Shortly thereafter, the colony began to experience a range of disasters and misfortunes, which – while expected of a newly formed colony – were nevertheless discouraging and distressing to many of the new colonists. These hardships prompted Captain Newport to leave and travel back to England in 1607, in an attempt to garner more support, supplies, and settlers. However, unbeknownst to the colonists, this marked the beginning of an upward turn for the Virginia colony, as the London Company petitioned the king for a new, updated charter granting them greater control, and more privileges, and appointed Thomas West, Lord De la War, as governor-for-life. Lord De la War immediately dispatched nine of his personal ships to go to Virginia, with Sir Thomas Gates and Sir George Somers – his two most trusted officers – at the helm. In a strange twist of fate, however, Sir Thomas' ship was blown off course and wrecked in "the Bermudas", where his men stayed for a short while and rebuilt 2 smaller vessels out of the wreck.

         One of those men marooned on Bermuda was a young businessman by the name of John Rolfe. He knew about the tobacco plants in the area, and he also knew the Spanish had a monopoly on the trade of tobacco. This, coupled with the fact that tobacco consumption was growing exponentially in England, proved to be a tantalizing business deal that could not be ignored. No one really knows how he obtained the seeds, as selling tobacco seeds to non-Spaniards carried the death penalty in the Spanish colonies, but he managed to smuggle them up to Virginia. The land and climate in Virginia is rather harsh to most crops, but tobacco flourished there, becoming the salvation to the settlements. As time went on, the Virginia Colony increasingly enlarged its production of tobacco. Yet, just a few decades before the American Revolution, the populace of Virginia was growing far quicker than the tobacco output was, forcing greater variety in the way of crops. (Economic Aspects, 1995)

         In 1624, the London Company's charter expired, and Virginia become direct property of the Crown once again. King Charles I then decided to carve up a portion of the colony and give it to George Calvert, Lord Baltimore, who had attempted in vain to begin a colony in Newfoundland. Unfortunately, he died before the deed was finally drafted and given to him, but Charles stayed true to his word, and passed the deed onto Calvert's son, Cecilius, second Lord Baltimore. Maryland, officially named for Queen Henrietta Maria, was one of the freest colonies, as Lord Baltimore had been granted quite a long leash by the Crown, and Baltimore fulfilled his father's dream of creating a Catholic haven in the New World. (McMaster, 1907) The first settlement was formed of a group consisting of roughly twenty gentlemen and approximately three hundred craftsmen and workmen. Leading the company were two of Lord Baltimore's brothers, along with two Catholic priests, and in 1635 they held their first Assembly. All freemen, were able to attend whether mere artisans or actual landholders, and they crafted a code of laws that were sent to their 'proprietor', Lord Baltimore, for authorization. Baltimore refused it outright, and countered with his own laws, which the Assembly, including Baltimore's own brothers, then rejected. Undeterred, the Assembly tried again and drafted a new set of laws, and Baltimore – showing exceptional good sense that was all but absent among his fellow proprietors –  decided to yield, giving his brother power to officially consent to acts drafted by the people, but, in compromise, he reserved the veto. As a result, Maryland became the first free, self-governing colony founded in the New World. (McMaster, 1907)

         Due to the close nature of the flourishing tobacco trade in neighboring Virginia, it was only natural for the settlers of Maryland to ply their trade as tobacco farmers as well. However, Maryland was geographically superior to Virginia, at least in respect to location: despite the plethora of tobacco plantations causing a lack of towns, there was never a dire need for roads or even artificial harbors. The copious coves, creeks, inlets, and small rivers gave ships the ability to come directly to the docks at a plantation to trade raw tobacco for English goods, something the larger Virginia Colony didn't have. (Economic Aspects, 1995)

         Virginia and Maryland were both success stories, but overall, their similarities were few. On one hand, Virginia was founded by a company seeking riches in a new corner of the world, whereas Maryland was originally a refuge for persecuted Catholics. It's unlikely, however, that Lord Baltimore protested at the colony becoming so wealthy from tobacco, but it was not the colony's original intent. Whether fate, or divine blessing, or whatever else may be suggested in regards to the two original "Tobacco Colonies", one thing is for certain: without that addicting little plant, life in the New World would have been incredibly more arduous than it already was. That one little plant, those few seeds protected and cultivated by John Rolfe may have almost single-handedly saved not only the two colonies listed, but the entire English colonization effort.

References

Economic Aspects of Tobacco during the Colonial Period 1612-1776. (1995). Retrieved from http://archive.tobacco.org/History/colonialtobacco.html

Goodrich, C. A. (1823). A History of the United States of America: A Brief History of the Virginia Colony, 1607-1679. Retrieved from http://www.celebrateboston.com/history/virginia.htm

McMaster, J. B. (1907). A Brief History of the United States: Maryland, the First Proprietary Colony. Retrieved from http://colonialancestors.com/md/proprietary.htm

These Are the Times That Try Men's Souls

         The Battle of Saratoga in 1777, while strategically insignificant, proved to be the turning point in the American Revolution. Not only did it provide the necessary psychological boost to the struggling revolutionaries, but it shored up the support of France, forcing Britain to go on the defensive around the globe for the first time. American victories began to be more frequent and tactically important, such as the case with the Battles of Cowpens,  Monmouth, and lastly, Yorktown, which forced Britain to sign the 1783 Treaty of Paris. This raises the question of how these particular battles came about, and why were they so successful? Were the English really that rattled by French involvement, or was there some other factor influencing the outcome on the battlefield?

         The Battle of Cowpens was the first with General Nathaniel Green in command of the rebel army. Gen. Horatio Gates was relieved by Greene after Gates' disastrous performance at Camden, Greene took a more guerilla approach, sending Henry Lee and Daniel Morgan to hassle and upset the British western outposts and supply lines to Charleston, respectively. Frustrated by the "ungentlemanly" fashion of warfare Greene exhibited, English Gen. Charles Cornwallis unleashed Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarlton, a man known for his brutality and malice, to deal with Morgan's forces. However, Captain Morgan was man full of guile, and planned for the battle to take place at Cowpens, where he could use the geography to his advantage. (U.S. National Park Service, 2013)

Morgan placed 150 of his sharpshooters, nicknamed "Morgan's Riflemen", on the front lines, supported by 750 militia, all of whom were given rather abnormal orders: fire several volleys as Tarlton's cavalry charged, then fall back behind the hill. Using the militia's reputation with the British as nothing but terrified farm boys, Morgan drew Tarlton in, counting on the latter's bloodlust to carry him into a trap. The overzealous English troops faced stiff resistance at the top of the first hill at Cowpens, and when the American right flank seemed to deteriorate, Tarlton's men jumped at the weak spot. Pouring through the weakened flank, the British found themselves facing the militia who had fallen back to the other side of the hill previously. General Greene then rushed his own cavalry units in, flanking the British line and wreaking havoc on both the men and their morale. Lt. Col. Tarlton escaped with fewer than 50 of his men, and news of the loss infuriated Gen. Cornwallis, who vowed to hunt Capt. Morgan down. (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008) This victory not only swung the momentum of the war in the south to the revolutionaries' favor, but also proved to the British that the southern campaigns weren't nearly as cut-and-dry as some of the upper echelon of officers would portray.

         The Battle of Monmouth was in some sense the northern equivalent of Camden and Cowpens for the American leadership. A result of British General Sir Henry Clinton deciding that New York was too valuable a port to lose to the French, upon his hearing they had entered the war on the side of the revolutionaries, 11,000 regulars, 1,000 loyalist volunteers, and a supply train stretching for 12 miles began to work their way tediously from Philadelphia to New York. The English' journey was riddled with problems though, facing burnt bridges, trees 'fallen' across the roads, and muddied wells, none of which were unintentional. American militia and their supporters were purposely harassing the English troops, slowing their movement to a mere 40 miles per week. (Logan, 2001) Despite American General Charles Lee's objections, General George Washington opted to pursue Clinton's forces, attempting to strike them while strung along in their travels. Washington's war council rather surprisingly decided not to attack the vulnerable British, though agreed to a compromise: the American army would send a 6,000 man advance corps to attack the rearguard of the English column. At first, Lee is offered the role of general for the corps, but turned it down, only to accept after Washington offered it to the Marquis de Lafayette.

         Lee's attack was mediocre at best, and his lack of communication with his subordinates nearly ruined the assault. Clinton sent Gen. Charles Cornwallis, fresh from the southern campaigns, to defend the rearguard, and despite being outnumbered by nearly 3,000 men, the Americans were forced to begin a disorganized retreat. When Washington rode forward to observe the attack and saw his advance corps fleeing headlong towards him, his shock and disbelief gave way to uncharacteristic rage. (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008) Relieving the incompetent Lee from his command, Washington took over the corps personally, establishing a new defensive line on high ground that was flanked by dense forest and a swamp. The newly-emboldened Americans under their charismatic general held their lines as the British attempted to attack their hasty fortifications, and after failing several times, Cornwallis wisely withdrew, causing Clinton to escape with his army under the cover of nightfall.

         Lastly, the Battle of Yorktown, where the last defeat of Gen. Cornwallis took place at the hands of Gen. Washington, and was part of Cornwallis' response to Cowpens, to crush the Virginian support of the rebels in the Carolinas. The Marquis de Lafayette did a magnificent job of holding a staunch resistance to Cornwallis' army, cornering the British into Yorktown and buying Washington enough time to orchestrate a blitz into the region. Logistically, Washington coordinated the battle months beforehand beautifully, going so far as to personally oversee repairs of bridges and roads, arranging resupply points, and leaving a decoy in New Jersey to feign an attack on Gen. Clinton in New York. (Klos, 2001) When Washington's troops finally arrived to relieve Lafayette's men, the number of Americans besieging Cornwallis swelled to 17,500. Escaping to the sea was rendered impossible, due to the French blockade, so Cornwallis penned a frantic letter, requesting help from Gen. Clinton in New York. Clinton wavered, before finally sending a meager fleet and only 7,000 soldiers – who arrived a fully 5 days after Cornwallis gave up hope and surrendered. (Klos, 2001) This didn't render an immediate end to hostilities, but when news of the surrender reached Parliament, they began taking measures against the hawkish King George to arrange peace with America.

         This peace was formed through the 1783 Treaty of Paris, orchestrated by Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and John Adams for the Americans, and Richard Oswald for the English. The treaty not only formed a peace between England and the newly-formed American states, but achieved British recognition of America as an independent nation, fishing rights along the Atlantic coast, and had the island kingdom cede all lands between the Mississippi River and Allegheny Mountains to the Americans, doubling the size of the fledgling nation in the stroke of a pen. (Foner, 1991)

         These were just three examples of resounding American victories that ultimately led to the British defeat. The threat of France, while helping exponentially, was not the ultimate driving force behind American victories – those were due to effective leadership, proper training, and most importantly, fighting for an ideal and home, something the British military never had there. As Thomas Paine once said, "These are the times that try men's souls," and those trying times proved that the mettle of Americans was strong enough to shake off the most powerful empire of the day, and to create the last bastion of freedom.

References

Foner, E., & Garraty, J. A. (1991). Treaty of Paris (1783) — History.com. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/treaty-of-paris-1783

Klos, S. L. (2001, July 27). Battle Of Yorktown. Retrieved from http://www.battleofyorktown.com/

Logan, J. T. (2001, December). The American Revolution - The Battle of Monmouth. Retrieved from http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battledetail.aspx?battle=21

Shmoop Editorial Team (2008, November 11). Cowpens (Jan 17, 1781) in The American Revolution. Retrieved from http://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/cowpens-battle.html

Shmoop Editorial Team (2008, November 11). Monmouth (Apr 28, 1778) in The American Revolution. Retrieved from http://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/monmouth-battle.html

U.S. National Park Service (2013). The Battle of Cowpens - Cowpens National Battlefield. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/cowp/historyculture/the-battle-of-cowpens.htm

Forged by Failure: Washington's Continental Army

         "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." This blunt statement by Sir Winston Churchill sums up George Washington's first few years as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army quite well. Faced with the insurmountable task of resisting the British Empire, the strongest military power of the time, he struggled just holding his ragtag volunteer army together. But as defeat after defeat led to despair, Washington's charisma was stretched to its limits, and his willpower was almost single-handedly holding the Revolution together. How did it come to that? How did the independent-minded Anglo-Americans get to the point of widespread dejection? And perhaps more importantly, why did the Battle of Saratoga – a seemingly unimportant location, both strategically and geographically – change the face of the war, tipping the scales in favor of the rebels?

         When the minutemen of Lexington and Concord clashed with the advancing redcoats in April of 1775, the American Colonies were suddenly thrust into a war the populace was ill prepared for. Many people, including most of Washington's militia force, were blissfully ignorant of the mountainous task ahead, and only a mere fraction of them were willing to see it all the way through, regardless of the inevitable barriers ahead. This was quickly apparent less than two months after Lexington and Concord, when the well-regulated and disciplined British troops drove the colonists' from Breed's Hill. Despite initial stiff resistance, the untrained rebels broke rank as the English bayonets descended upon their position, and the level of military education proved dominant on that day. (Weatherby, 2010) However, it was the invasion of British Canada that proved to be the first in a series of harsh defeats. The first major initiative of the Continental Army, the attack on Quebec was supposed to supplant the British army there, and garner French-Canadian support against the English. However, with the combined forces of American generals Richard Montgomery and Benedict Arnold dwindling due to starvation, disease, and expiring enlistments, the Battle of Quebec was nothing short of a disaster. Losing what little public support they had gained, due to British propaganda, the rebels were driven all the way back to Fort Ticonderoga. (Boundless Learning, 2013)

Fast forward eight months to August of 1776, and the Battle of Long Island. English General William Howe's force of 30,000 men handily defeated Washington's much smaller army, taking the island. Washington managed to orchestrate a rather skillful getaway, fleeing to Manhattan, but lost that island less than a month later. The loss of New York City merely reinforced Loyalists in the region, and further disheartened the rebellion's troops. Discontent among the populace was at an all-time high, and Washington faced even more troop loss as more enlistments began running out, further depleting the 5,000 man army. There was no rest for the weary, as they say, and Howe's forces pursued Washington through New Jersey and into Pennsylvania, camping for the winter in a place called Valley Forge. (Boundless Learning, 2013)

         Meanwhile, during Washington's retreat from Long Island, the Hessian mercenaries hired by the English captured Fort Washington, and while not overly vital position, proved a blow to the morale of the rebels – since the fort was a namesake of their commander-in-chief. It was when the spirits of the people and their army were lowest that Washington attempted a daring, albeit somewhat foolhardy, maneuver that gave people hope, and guaranteed him lasting fame. In a nighttime raid, he crossed the Delaware River again, and attacked the drunken Hessian garrison in Trenton, NJ – taking nearly 900 prisoners in the process. While this did not turn the tide of the war completely, it did make the beginning of the turnaround, with the British withdrawing to eastern New Jersey. (McJoynt, 2002) That victory that proved to be the turning point was the strategically insignificant Battle of Saratoga.

Before Saratoga, nearly everyone was short on hope, even General Washington himself. In a letter to his brother, he said "… I think the game is pretty near up, owing, in a great measure, to the insidious arts of the Enemy, and disaffection of the colonies before mentioned, but principally to the accursed policy of short enlistments, and placing too great a dependence on the militia, the evil consequences of which were foretold fifteen months ago, with a spirit almost Prophetic." (1890) However, Saratoga changed that, due in part to Washington's iron will. Originally looking to be a British victory, one of the rebel commanders issued the order to retreat, but Washington relieved him of his command, ordering his men to dig in and fix bayonets. Between the steadfastness of their general, and the Prussian training received during their winter encampment at Valley Forge, the rebels stood their ground, surprising the English. The shocked British troops were routed, with General Burgoyne surrendering to Washington just a few hours later. General Howe lost over 10,000 troops that day, with almost 6,000 being captured, a loss that successfully curbed his ability to retaliate. (Weatherby, 2010) (USHistory.org, 2008)

         Saratoga was not a vital center to the war effort, but it proved that Americans, with proper training and support, could in fact defeat the English war machine. This proof was what the French were looking for, and after the victory at Saratoga, were convinced to through their weight behind the revolution. As soon as news of the American triumph reached Paris, the French dispatched diplomats, and soon two Franco-American treaties were signed. The first of these treaties ensured peace and preference of commerce between the two nations, and the second guaranteed a "conditional and defensive alliance" (USHistory.org, 2008). This stated that if Britain and France began fighting due to the first treaty, France and America would be allies, and could not broker a peace with England, a truce, or even "lay down their arms until the Independence of the united states shall have been formally or tacitly assured by the Treaty or Treaties that shall terminate the War." (USHistory.org, 2008)

         Thomas Edison once said "Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." This was most certainly the case with George Washington and his fledgling army: they were beat down and pushed to the point where hope had all but abandoned them. A single decision, not to relieve a cowardly subordinate, but a decision not to give up, would set apart Washington from the other leaders of the day. The unwavering determination of Washington kept that small flame of optimism alive, and his resolute approach grew that flame into a beacon. It could be argued that without the charismatic, determined leadership of Washington, the French may not have ever supported the revolution.

References

Boundless Learning Technologies (2013). Quebec, New York, and New Jersey - The First Year of the War: 1775-1776. Retrieved from https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/the-american-revolution-1763-1783/the-first-year-of-the-war-1775-1776/quebec-new-york-and-new-jersey/

McJoynt, A. J. (2002). Brief Review of George Washington's Military Career. Retrieved from http://xenophongroup.com/patriot/washington/washingt.htm

USHistory.org (2008). The Battle of Saratoga [ushistory.org]. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/11g.asp

Washington, G., & Ford, W. C. (1890). Washington Describes the Setbacks of 1776. Retrieved from http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Wash1776.html

Weatherby, E. (2010). Washington’s Army | Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/washingtons-army/

The Roots of Revolution: America After the Seven Years' War

         The Seven Years' War began as the French and Indian War, a struggle between France and England for dominance over the North American continent. It soon bled into what could be argued was the first real world war, dragging numerous nations across the globe into the conflict. In the American colonies, it set the framework for the inevitable revolt against the English Crown. However, this begs the question: how exactly did this war change the socioeconomic and political atmospheres? And did the body known as the Continental Congress act as a catalyst to the movement, or was it merely a figurehead?

         The French and Indian War, named so by the English and colonists due to the – at the time – unorthodox and ungentlemanly alliance between the two namesakes, was a war testing the dominance of each parent nation in the New World. It would eventually spread to western Europe, but the end result was the same: a bitter, bloody English victory that vastly expanded their holdings in North America. Yet this triumph was a double-edged sword, in regards to the ends of what it accomplished; on one hand, it belayed colonial unrest and resentment towards the Crown by providing a common enemy, but on the other hand, it laid the groundwork for the coming Revolution. First and foremost, the victory against the French and indigenous American Indians proved that triumph heals all wounds even more than time does. With the British successfully defending her colonies against a common enemy, the pre-war hostility between the Anglo-Americans and the redcoats were all but forgotten. (USHistory.org, 2008) In fact, it sent the British politicians and warriors skyrocketing to a near deified state: William Pitt, the Prime Minister who almost single-handedly turned the outcome of the war around, was honored with hundreds of communities and towns being named after him – the most famous being Pittsburgh, PA. Even future Revolutionary War general Israel Putnam renamed his tavern in Connecticut the "Genl. Wolfe", in honor of James Wolfe, the audacious and bold hero who gave his life at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham outside Quebec. (Purvis, 2006) The war rekindled the colonists' sense of pride at being Englishmen, and made them proud to fly the Union Jack. 

         The same could not be said, however, for the class of elites back on the mother island. Englishmen that comprised the upper class claimed that the colonies had not contributed enough to the war effort, or at the very least, had not contributed equal to their abilities. This was due in part to a lack of information about the manpower the colonial governments volunteered to supplement the British regulars, as noted by Benjamin Franklin: "They say that last Year, at Nova Scotia, 2000 New England Men, and not more than 200 Regulars, were join’d in the Taking [of Fort] Beau Sejour; yet it could not be discover’d by the Account sent by Govr. Lawrence, and publish’d in the London Gazette, that there was a single New England-Man concern’d in the Affair." (1756) The upper crust of London also held the belief that the principal gauge of support was not manpower at all, but rather the tax revenue and incurred debt. England's debt doubled in nine years due to the war, and approximately 40% of that was spent on the colonies, and the taxpayers of Britain felt the colonists should pay more taxes to help with the military expenditures. (Purvis, 2006) News of the cost of maintaining their newly-conquered territories turned English public opinion downright hostile, and instead of reveling in their shared victory, they allowed the cost of the war to make themselves resentful of the Anglo-Americans, driving them further apart.

         As the British populace continued to resent their cousins across the pond, Anglo-American discontent grew as well. Parliament passed new laws and taxes intended to increase revenue for the island kingdom, driving costs in the colonies to rise. Taxation without representation and other issues causing discontent led those people now identifying as "Americans", not Englishmen, to form a representative body, known as the "Continental Congress". Officially established in 1774, the Continental Congress was the governing arm of the American Revolution, attempting to balance the needs and interests of the unified colonies, while being the liaison representing the colonies to Parliament and the Crown. In 1774, after the passage of the Intolerable Acts, the legislatures from each colony were pressured by groups – such as the famous Sons of Liberty – to send delegates a congress. The original intent of this congress was to set terms of a boycott of British goods, sponsored by the aforementioned Sons of Liberty. (Office of the Historian, 2010) What they accomplished was the passage of Articles of Association, which was not only a statement of boycott to the English government, but showed the British that the colonies had banded together against the perceived injustices of the Crown. (History.com, 1996) The Continental Congress would eventually go on to take control of the united colonial government, after the start of the Revolutionary War started, and then took the historic step of issuing a proclamation declaring independence from their mother country.

         The Seven Years' War and the corresponding effects it had on the colonies were indeed bittersweet. It allowed Britain to prove her dominance in the New World and across the globe, and gave the Anglo-Americans a chance to take pride in their heritage as Englishmen. However, it also forced those self-same Englishmen in America to think as Americans for the first time, since the Crown wouldn't treat them like true Englishmen. It was this thinking that led to the formation of the Continental Congress, the unification of the colonies, and eventually, American independence.

References

The Continental Congress — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts. (1996). Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/the-continental-congress

Franklin, B. (1756). The Papers of Benjamin Franklin; Personal correspondence to Sir Everard Fawkener (VI, 473). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Office of the Historian (2010). Continental Congress, 1774–1781 - 1776–1783 - Milestones. Retrieved from Department of State website: http://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/continental-congress

Purvis, T. L. (2006, March 20). HIS 571W: Colonial and Revolutionary America - Sam Houston State University. Retrieved from http://www.littlejohnexplorers.com/onlinegraduatecolonialcourse/sevenyearswarandpoliticallegacy.pdf

USHistory.org (2008). The Treaty of Paris (1763) and Its Impact. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/8d.asp

Southern Hospitality: How the Middle and Southern Colonies Came to Be

         The brilliant and interesting thing about the American Colonies is the fact that each of them has a unique and intriguing tale of how they were begun. These colonies might not be the most prevalent, especially when clumped together with some of their more seemingly-important brethren, but each plays a vital role in the history of what would soon become a fledgling nation.

         The "Middle Colonies" are generally agreed upon as consisting of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, though they are often grouped with New England in modern reckonings. New York came about after the English captured New Netherlands from the Dutch in 1664, and it was given by the King of England to his brother, the Duke of York, for whom the colony was named. It officially gained the status of a royal colony 21 years later, in 1685. (Goyal, 2013) New York also gave rise to the colony of New Jersey, after the Duke of York ascended to the throne. Taking a portion of his colony, the newly-coronate James II offered a portion of the land as remuneration to a pair of his supporters, who dubbed the plot "New Jersey". It was advertised as having a representative government and freedom of religion, something James II was not overly fond of. The nobles' ploy worked, however, and the colony attracted many a settler, growing rapidly for its small size. It was not to last, though, and in 1702, New Jersey fell to the Crown as well. (Alchin, 2012) (Goyal, 2013)

         William Penn established the colony of Pennsylvania in 1682 with land granted to him due to a debt that was owed by the Crown to his late father. He aspired to fashion a colony that not only allowed, but encouraged freedom of religion, due in part to his need to shelter himself and fellow Quakers from rampant persecution, coming even from Penn's own family. Pennsylvania – meaning "Penn's Woods" – also experienced a slight breaking apart, much like New York.

Delaware, formerly New Sweden prior to British annexation, started as the lower counties of land given to Penn, but were fiercely independent, just as they were when part of New York. After a number of years attempting to keep them a part of Penn's Woods, William Penn finally granted them proprietorship of their own, small colony, becoming Delaware, second smallest state in the United States, but would forever be known as the very first state to ratify the Constitution of that newborn nation. (Alchin, 2012)

         The Southern Colonies are generally considered to be Maryland, Virginia, Carolina, and Georgia, though the first two are not often grouped with the "South" in modern vernacular. Virginia was the first colony formed, originally attempted with a failed settlement at Roanoke, and Maryland was established less than 30 years after: a gift to the Catholic proprietor, George Calvert, Lord Baltimore. The Carolinas, or simply Carolina at the time, share a much more turbulent beginning. Originally one royal colony, after decades of arguments over differences concerning defense, government, and the ongoing battle between two separate agricultural methods used by the colonists, the colonial government set in place by the King split, with seven of the eight original proprietors selling their interests to the Crown, and the colony becoming two autonomous territories. (The History Channel, 2013)

         Georgia was established upon capturing the region from the Spanish, and settlement was spearheaded by James Oglethorpe, a Member of Parliament at the time. Oglethorpe wanted a haven for the English poor, someplace to flee to instead of being sentenced to the already overloaded debtors' prisons. After securing a royal charter Oglethorpe and his Trustees founded colony of Georgia on 9 June 1732. This gave rise to the fallacy that Georgia was established to be a penal colony, akin to the founding of Australia. (Giola, 2011)

         The two regions were just as diverse as they are today, if not more so. The Middle Colonies relied heavily on indentured servitude and tenants to drive their industries of shipping and food export, a natural choice due to the copious amounts of timber, fish, and coastline they had access to. Their two major ports, New York City and Philadelphia, provided quick and efficient transport of all their goods, whether built or grown. Pennsylvania even launched a successful venture into export of pork, beef, wheat, and corn, among other foodstuffs. (Miller, 2011) They were also religiously diverse, due in part to Penn's Quakers, and because there were so many nations represented when the English began to dominate the region. (Miller, 2011)

         The South, in contrast, was much more predominantly Protestant British. Catholics were present as well, but were a small minority when compared to Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. The geography and climate was more suited to agriculture than most of the Middle Colonies as well: less mountainous, better farmland, and warm weather all added to the agrarian society. (Giola, 2011) However, this also meant that cheap, efficient labor was in high demand, and indentured servants were only good for so long. By 1675, the slave trade was well rooted in the Southern economy, and by the 18^th century, slaves had near wholly replaced indentured servants. African slaves had been a commodity in the New World since Jamestown was established, due to an unlikely capture from a Spanish vessel headed to Mexico, though it is still unclear to historians if they were slaves or considered indentured servants. (Monticello, 2013) They became a vital part of the South's financial system, and no amount of religious or political pressure could force a change, until war finally tore the young nation apart.

         By and large, the Middle and Southern Colonies vastly different, yet remarkably similar. Each colony was filled with independent, hardy people who weren't afraid of a new land, with new dangers. The prospect of a fresh start, free from political, religious, and social upheaval was worth it to them, and they would do whatever it took to pursue prosperity and happiness.

References

Alchin, L. K. (2012). The Middle Colonies. Retrieved from http://www.landofthebrave.info/middle-colonies.htm

Giola, S. (2011). Southern Colonies - The Thirteen Original Colonies. Retrieved from http://original13colonies.weebly.com/southern-colonies.html

Goyal, M., Johnson, C., Khan, R., & Rojas, R. (2013). Who founded the Middle Colonies - The New World Colonizers. Retrieved from http://thenewworldcolonizers.weebly.com/who-founded-the-middle-colonies.html

The History Channel (2013). Southern Colonies. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/southern-colonies

Miller, F. T. (2011). Middle Colonies. Retrieved from http://clio.missouristate.edu/FTMiller/121/Online/LM/17th%20Century/Middle/midcolonies.htm

Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello (2013). African Slavery in Colonial British North America. Retrieved from http://www.monticello.org/slavery-at-monticello/african-slavery-british-north-america

Northern Foundations: The Establishment of the New England Colonies

         The political, religious, and socio-economic history of the New England colonies are reasonably similar to their southern and middle colonial counterparts, yet vastly different at the same time. These small settled areas would often share some traits with their neighbors, due to their geographical proximity, but what would cause some of these people to hold opinions such apparent stark contrasts to their countrymen? And did the Glorious Revolution in the mother country of England have an effect as well?

         One of the least talked about aspects of the New England colonies is the socio-economic side. While the religious and political realms captured center stage with the Puritans arrival to the New World, a small yet thriving economy was in its infancy. It began primarily as an agrarian economy, since many of the settlers of the Colonies were farmers by trade, or were forced to learn quickly, as providing one's own sustenance was vital to survive in the New World. Farming consumed almost the entirety of everyday life in New England, with the end goal of many farmers merely being that their sons were able to establish successful farms of their own. (Elson, 1904) Buildings in New England were almost always made completely out of wood, due to the abundance of timber in the region. The "saltbox" style house became popular around the middle of the seventeenth century, giving most residents a sturdy, albeit odd looking, abode that handled the often harsh weather quite well.

         Roughly 100 years after the saltbox houses, however, the New England colonies and their lifestyle were endangered by overpopulation, due to overwhelming birth rates and astonishing leaps of life expectancy. In fact, people in the Colonies were starting to live well into their sixties, something unheard of at the time. (Bidwell, 1916) In a bid to stave off the inevitable demise of the independent "yeoman farmer" in New England, some farmers decided to branch out, pick up their family and move outright, or even try their hand at side jobs. Some experimented with planting different, high yield crops such as potatoes for humans, and timothy grass or red clover for cattle and other livestock. A number of famers from Connecticut and Massachusetts decided to buy land in the colony of New Hampshire, establishing what would eventfully become Vermont. (Bidwell, 1916)

        This "farming to survive" mindset fell right along in step with the Puritanical beliefs held by many of the settlers and their descendents. Yes, economic success was welcomed, but the true aim was spiritual success, and breaking away from the ceremony and rigidity of the Anglican Church. The Puritans, or Separatists as they were called in England, left in an effort to found a place where religious freedom was more than a catch phrase. However, the Puritans stayed true to their Separatist mindset even in the New World, staying secluded to their settlements in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire – whereas the Middle Colonies were more diverse in their religious inhabitants. (USHistory.org, 2013) The Puritans held that effort and strict morals on the part of the individual was the only way of attaining personal salvation, in addition to some economic success along the way. Saving money was vital to many of them, calling it "wise stewardship" and the like, and it was this belief that gave them the opportunity to attempt to create a haven, in their minds, from the Old World and its corrupt ways. These principles permeated everything they did, including the political formation of their chartered lands.

         The Puritans had a strange mixture of government: it was a combination of representative democracy, and at the same time, an totalitarian theocracy. It was held that a community of like-minded Puritans in Massachusetts – while a committee of responsible, concurring individuals – was under the direction of the same God supposedly guiding another group that had formed a settlement in Connecticut, almost akin to ancient Israel. (SkyMinds, 2011) The first governor of the Massachusetts colony, the Puritan John Winthrop, agreed wholeheartedly with this midset, saying "we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us because we profess ourselves to be a people in relation with God." (SkyMinds, 2011) Under Winthrop, only church members could become full fledged citizens of Massachusetts, and he declared that freedom was confined by religious ideals. Under the Puritan governments, political dissent was unheard of, as it meant – quite literally – dissent from the church. However, this authoritarian, oppressive religious regime was not mirrored by the central and southern colonies, and even had a few souls brave enough to stand up to it. One of those daring individuals was Roger Williams, a minister from the town of Salem – the same one that would later host the infamous witch trials. Williams asserted that every man had the right to follow is own conscience, being led by God. This nefarious deviance caused quite an uproar, and Williams was banished from the colony by the General Court. After taking refuge amongst the neighboring American Indian tribes, from whom he purchased a small plot of land, he began the process of obtaining his own charter colony. Eventually he was successful, and founded the Rhode Island colony, where every man had the freedom to pursue what he felt was right. (SkyMinds, 2011) Those aforementioned witch trials, in which 400 people were arrested, 20 were executed, and 5 people died in prison, merely reinforced Williams' claims that men should not be told by the government what was right and wrong, and simply polarized the two sides of debate. It split the protestant churches of New England, with some claiming that the church and government needed to go hand-in-hand to flush out more of those influence by the devil, resulting in more severe dictatorial intolerance. Others took the other route, however, claiming that the trials were immoral, and men needed independence, relying on personal responsibility and contractual freedom. (SkyMinds, 2011) (Vallance, 2011)

         Around this time, but back in England, the Glorious Revolution was ongoing. It was truly an earth-shaking event for the colonists, as it not only meant that Catholics had lost the English throne for good, but it also guided in an age of enlightenment. King James II was deposed by William of Orange, and as the news trickled back to the New World, small rebellions broke out, casting out the Catholic-friendly governments James had installed and returning power to the colonists. (Vallance, 2011) Some contend this was the herald of things to come, showing that the American colonists could, and should, govern their own affairs, separate from the Crown of England and laying the groundwork for the American Revolution 100 years hence.

         The New England colonies were founded upon what sounded like sound principles and noble aspirations, but in retrospect, were hardly that. In an effort to escape the oppression felt in England, Separatists ran away to the New World and founded their own, different totalitarian establishments. Glimmers of hope stood out, however, such as Williams' Rhode Island colony, but the religious fervor and subtle frenzy that dominated the New England colonies were not easily overcome.

References

Bidwell, P. W. (1916). Rural Economy in New England at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=6P8YAAAAYAAJ

Elson, H. W., & Leigh, K. (1904). History of the United States of America - New England Confederation. Retrieved from http://www.usahistory.info/NewEngland/

SkyMinds Research (2011). The American colonies : Religion and Politics. Retrieved from www.skyminds.net/anglo-american-civilisation/from-the-reformation-to-the-birth-of-the-american-nation-1534-1776/the-american-colonies-religion-and-politics/

USHistory.org (2013). The New England Colonies. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/3.asp

Vallance, E. (2011). BBC - History - British History in depth: The Glorious Revolution. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/glorious_revolution_01.shtml