Revolutionary Markets

Although this week's readings shared a common theme - the economic causes of the American Revolution outweighed the overtly political, reading them I couldn't help think about how primitive and fragile the world economy was during the mid- to late-18th century. 

It seems logical enough - limited markets meant that in a poor economic climate colonial merchants found themselves with too many imported English goods. To the English manufacturers a customer was a customer, and they spent little time concerning themselves with colonial merchants who felt slighted if their suppliers undercut them when they refused to buy more goods. Ultimately, with their pockets emptying the merchants decide to toss off the economic weight of the Crown  and go it on their own. 

One of the challenges faced at the time was one of limited markets. Primitive transportation, manufacturing, and communications limited not only the expansion of individual businesses but also where, when, and how those businesses could profitably sell their goods. 

In the 1770s Americans were either professionals - lawyers or bankers; farmers; or tradesman (mechanics, was a commonly used term at the time) - smiths, printers, coopers, sail makers and the like. (A fourth category, unskilled laborers, also existed of course, but they aren't german to this discussion.) 

By virtue of the fact these mechanics had limited ability to produce, and a limited market, they had a natural limitation on their potential revenue. The introduction of various mechanized means of production, commonly called the "Industrial Age," meant the downfall of the colonial tradesman. Who wanted to wait months for a rifle when one could be purchased - for less money - off the rack? And that mass-produced rifle could be repaired if needed cheaply and easily anywhere in the country.  A comforting thought if one was leaving Vermont headed out west. 

An how would one get our west? Train or steamboat. Such public works were unheard of in the 1700s, at least in North America. Building a railroad, all the rage in the 19th century, was not a task to be taken on by one tradesman. By their very nature, railroads required tremendous capital to plan, promote, and construct. All that before realizing a single cent of revenue. Corporations, in their various forms were the answer. 

Recently I finished reading Empire Express, David Haward Bain's epic work on the building of the first transcontinental railroad. It offers a far more detailed, and frankly academic, look at this massive project than Stephen Ambrose's "Nothing Like it in the World."  As I read one chapter detailing how the Big Three, in California, communicated with their agent, Huntington, in New York City I was amazed at the detailed telegraphed instructions that specifying how much rail, how many locomotives and cars, and how many spikes and mauls were needed at a specific point in time. Sometimes the wires would cross, literally and figuratively, a specific telegraph would be missed or delivered out of sequence, and Charlie Crocker's famed construction crews ran the risk of grinding to a halt. 

Business structure, namely the corporation, had evolved to meet the demands of the market, but communications were lacking. 

Ten years  ago I was amazed when I participated in a video conference for the first time. People in New Jersey, where the radars were being made and tested, those of us in Washington DC, and representatives from the shipyards in two locations. We were able to review in detail the goals and priorities for that week's work. 

"Sure," you might say, " the government can afford that." 

But times have changed - and this time the communication media is actually creating the market. Last night I participated in a video conference from my home with seven other people involved in an online publishing venture. It occurred to me that I've only met four of them in person. 

So, if those 1760-era producers in England had access to literally a world-wide market, would there have been an American Revolution? I detest "alternative" history, so I won't pursue the question. But it was kind of fun to ask it!

 

Comments

[leeannghajar]

I suppose if I just answered your question with a No, the Revolution wouldn't have happened, I'd be called upon to explain. Thanks for your comments on my blog--my post actually wasn't up yet, so I got a bonus from you.

You refer to the fragility of the world economy in the Revolutionary era--this last year seems to speak to current fragility! It seems to me that our authors were also trying to get at the point that economic interests--the self-interest of various groups--shaped policy and institutions. I am wondering if we can't ask how much that's changed, actually.