The Roots Of Rural Captialism == Chris Clark Essay, Research Paper

Christopher Clark?s, The Roots of Rural Capitalism focuses on the Connecticut River Valley in Western Massachusetts between the American Revolution and the Civil War. Clark?s study of the economy of the Connecticut River Valley traces the move from an economy based on household subsistence to one of wage labor and commercial industry. Clark argues that the society did not change because of any particular underlying reason, but because of changes in the Valley. He notes that many of cause were related to land shortage, the makeup of the people and the household and the growth of an economy.

According to Clark, between the 1780?s and 1820?s, farmers and workers produced agriculture, which varied to meet the needs of their household. In the beginning, the society was mainly built on self-sufficiency, which that farmers traded what they had left to market only after they took care of the needs of their family. Essentially, there was not a great variance in the distribution of wealth and power. The economy at that time was weak because of lack of a cash crop. Until the Revolutionary War, wheat served as the cash crop but then suffered as prices fell. As time went on, the economy tightened and families had to take up other means of production such as raising other crops such as corn and participating in home manufacturing.

Clark, in his book shows that rural capitalism did not really take form until after the 1830?s. He asserts that the household determined the growth of capitalism. Clark throws out the notion that long distance trade, cash exchange and profits resulted in the growth of capitalism in the Valley. He sees the expansion of capitalism based on how farmers entered and used the local market. In the 18th century, according to Clark, many families faced debt problems, land shortages and insecurity based in their position in life. In addition, the pressure of family and finances led many farmers to increase production, raise livestock and to add and diversify crops. All this actually helped to have enough goods and services to trade on the outside market. This helped to develop trade and to also bring new materials and services to the Valley. This helped to create a manufacturing industry in the Valley area.

The economy in the Connecticut Valley began to emerge as local merchants as their methods of commerce. The economy moved from one based on trade and credit to one where merchants relied on cash to secure their place and stability in a changing economy. Before this change, families borrowed from one another for items they could not produce such as livestock, tools and skills. Long distance trade mostly consisted of the import of luxury goods and other foods into the Valley and exporting surplus goods. In addition, there was a boom of factories and the small towns in the Valley. In long distance trading, merchants took care of the transactions, while with local trading, barter and credit dependant on trust fueled business.

Clark notes that the growth of the economy is attributed to the farmer?s willingness to diversify crops and raise livestock. He feels that growth was due to the availability of materials, labor and credit, not so much location and access to rivers and roads. He also notes the family provided workers based on need and availability, so factories were a non-entity and local workers determined the economy.

The change in the Valley came about as the structure of the family and the economy. Because of debts within families and the growth of trade, families had to look for a source to make money. According to Clark, by 1820, children did most of the farm work and women wanted to find work to supplement their income.

From 1830 to the Civil War, Clark asserts that merchants and manufacturers invested profits from trade and retail sales to factories and new machines. In that period, tobacco became the new cash crop for farmers and they too invested their money to wage labor rather than using family members. By 1860, the Valley resembled most areas of the East and had the same attributes concerning the division of wealth. The change happened not only because of economics, but also because of cultural factors and ideological changes.

After 1830, merchants also made getting credit much stricter, kept much better credit and accounting records as well as charging interest. Also, rising prices and a cash economy forced many farmers into debt and forced them to sell off their property or have it foreclosed. This led many of the farmers to become activists in their community and fight against the movement of capitalism. Some turned to the Anti-Masons and the Working Men?s party that acted as advocates for small producers and landowners. In addition, growth nationally especially to the West added discontent and anger. In essence, the growth of capitalism and the institution of a corporate entity were the symbols of a decaying society and the household. The impact of these movements and the anger provided from it led to social reform from both the government and the workers themselves. This also led to thoughts of the right to “free labor” and arguments against slavery and worker abuse.

I do believe in Clark?s argument. I think it?s good and very well developed, but the argument is muddled partly because he does not delve enough into the role of the bank and it?s role in the economy. Clark notes that the Valley did convert to an economy based on trade and cash, but I?d think banks would serve of some great importance. I would wonder as to where people and businesses received the funds to expand and how the bank played in that. It also seems that he gets a lot of facts from the town that he has studied, but does not seem to connect relationships. For example, he does not seem to delve too much into the relationship between farmers and merchants in other instances such as like in a store, or on a market. It seems rather than investigated much further, he just points out facts than dig right deep into the business relationships. Another part of Clark?s argument that struck me was that he tends not to consider that maybe the farmers and merchants had a lot in common. It seems to be that Clark separates the two into separate entities rather than make qualitative commonalties between them.

The argument he makes is very complicated and I myself did not understand some of the points he was trying to make. I also like how he drove the point home that capitalism did not affect everyone else the same and it was different wherever it happened. All in all, it seems that the people of the Valley accepted capitalism as part of their society. The book was a good read, but it still left me very much confused.

The book, The Roots of Rural Capitalism is a great study into the world of capitalism in the antebellum period. The main argument from Clark is that cultural and ideological changes along with economic changes led to the growth of the Valley. I think this is real important because it shows that the growth of capitalism was not the same everywhere.