2008 Woodie Awards
A New Natural History
Donovan Martin
Issue date: 9/20/06 Section: No Gods, No Masters
- Page 1 of 2 next >
"Every man lives for himself, using his freedom to attain his own ends, and feels in his whole being that he can at any moment perform or abstain from performing this or that action, but as soon as he has performed it, that action executed at a given moment in time becomes irrevocable and belongs to history, in which it has not a free but predetermined significance," writes Leo Tolstoy in War and Peace. This sentiment echoes my initial thoughts on the beginnings of U.S. history.
In my last article, a discussion had begun concerning the origins of the American social system: the events leading up to independence. Despite the intentions of the crown, regardless of the efforts of the London and Plymouth Companies, things in the colonies took their own course.
I have found myself adopting what I call a natural view of history, that is, historical events occur almost as a force of nature insofar as they are the result of a seemingly infinite array of associations between individuals and groups of individuals. For who was it that was in control of the colonial situation?
The crown? No not really. As I said in my last column the goal of the crown was to secure gold, silver, iron ore and to locate the Northwest Passage. None of these goals were achieved and necessity forced England to rely on trade, forestry and tobacco. Further, the colonists adapted means of meeting their own needs without the crown and often behind its back.
For instance, colonial products were called "enumerated products" and could legally only be shipped from colonial ports to England. The colonists effectively ignored these laws in the initial absence of customs officials, but even when those officials were instated it was excessively easy for the colonists to bribe these officials of the crown due to the extremely low living wages afforded to them by the King. John Hancock's uncle, for one, made his fortune smuggling colonial goods to the Dutch and French.
So, perhaps it was the colonists themselves and their counterparts in the London and Plymouth Companies that had real control over the formation of American society. But is this really the case? They were, largely, under the crowns control, despite their flaunting of several royal laws.
In my last article, a discussion had begun concerning the origins of the American social system: the events leading up to independence. Despite the intentions of the crown, regardless of the efforts of the London and Plymouth Companies, things in the colonies took their own course.
I have found myself adopting what I call a natural view of history, that is, historical events occur almost as a force of nature insofar as they are the result of a seemingly infinite array of associations between individuals and groups of individuals. For who was it that was in control of the colonial situation?
The crown? No not really. As I said in my last column the goal of the crown was to secure gold, silver, iron ore and to locate the Northwest Passage. None of these goals were achieved and necessity forced England to rely on trade, forestry and tobacco. Further, the colonists adapted means of meeting their own needs without the crown and often behind its back.
For instance, colonial products were called "enumerated products" and could legally only be shipped from colonial ports to England. The colonists effectively ignored these laws in the initial absence of customs officials, but even when those officials were instated it was excessively easy for the colonists to bribe these officials of the crown due to the extremely low living wages afforded to them by the King. John Hancock's uncle, for one, made his fortune smuggling colonial goods to the Dutch and French.
So, perhaps it was the colonists themselves and their counterparts in the London and Plymouth Companies that had real control over the formation of American society. But is this really the case? They were, largely, under the crowns control, despite their flaunting of several royal laws.
Be the first to comment on this story