Fleming: What Life Was Like in 1776

WSJ ^ | 7-4-12 | Thomas Fleming

[afraidfortherepublic]

Almost every American knows the traditional story of July Fourth—the soaring idealism of the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress's grim pledge to defy the world's most powerful nation with their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. But what else about revolutionary America might help us feel closer to those founders in their tricornered hats, fancy waistcoats and tight knee-breeches?

Those Americans, it turns out, had the highest per capita income in the civilized world of their time. They also paid the lowest taxes—and they were determined to keep it that way.

By 1776, the 13 American colonies had been in existence for over 150 years—more than enough time for the talented and ambitious to acquire money and land. At the top of the South's earners were large planters such as George Washington. In the North their incomes were more than matched by merchants such as John Hancock and Robert Morris. Next came lawyers such as John Adams, followed by tavern keepers, who often cleared 1,000 pounds a year, or about $100,000 in modern money. Doctors were paid comparatively little. Ditto for dentists, who were almost nonexistent.

In the northern colonies, according to historical research, the top 10% of the population owned about 45% of the wealth. In some parts of the South, 10% owned 75% of the wealth. But unlike most other countries, America in 1776 had a thriving middle class. Well-to-do farmers shipped tons of corn and wheat and rice to the West Indies and Europe, using the profits to send their children to private schools and buy their wives expensive gowns and carriages. Artisans—tailors, carpenters and other skilled workmen—also prospered, as did shop owners who dealt in a variety of goods. Benjamin Franklin credited his shrewd wife, Deborah, with laying the foundation of their wealth with...

[SamAdams76]

I acknowledge that there were rotten boroughs, but I doubt they would send 100 to Parliament.

I looked this up in Thomas Fleming's Perils Of Peace (America's Struggle for Survival after Yorktown), p. 84-85.

...Only 215 thousand males could vote, and this privilege was distributed with an utter disregard for population. The city of London had eight seats in Parliament, while the rural county of Cornwall...had forty-four. There were no representatives for good-sized cities such as Manchester and Birmingham.

So my memory of reading that book was not entirely accurate, apparently no "rotten borough" was able to send 100 to Parliament but my main point stands that there was rampant taxation without representation even in the mother country during the time of the Revolution.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Read the entire article...it is excellent. The author discusses the Colonies having the strongest and wealthiest middle class in the entire world and the various occupations that created wealth.

[Old Sarge]

[afraidfortherepublic]

Prayers for you and yours in the aftermath of the storm.

[Pharmboy]

Thanks much for the post...and w/o the Droid, I would be completely silent...I like my Droid.

[afraidfortherepublic]

...by reading contemporary letters, which were written phonetically in the days before standard spelling rules were adopted).

Which brings me back to my true story about how I became involved in school and city politics back in 1967 and have remained so ever since.

My 7 yr. old daughter brought home a work sheet handed out by her 2nd grade teacher on the occasion of Washington's Birthday, which was still a Holiday in Berkeley, CA.

The paper included a picture to color and a few "factual" statements about George Washington with words missing for the children to fill in. One of the statements said "George Washington was poorly educated and couldn't spell."

I hit the ceiling and dragged my 4 little kids down to the local book store and purchased every book on George Washington that I could find that was suitable for their respective ages. I even bought a cute wooden model of Washington riding his horse for one of the younger ones. Then, I marched up to school on the day following the Holiday and demanded to know what the teacher was thinking handing out such tripe and misinformation to our kids. She (being 3 steps away from being a hippy, but dressed nicer) didn't care what I thought and made a snide remark that it was good that her efforts had encouraged me to "read a book". I was furious, and I've never taken my eyes off of what our schools are teaching our kids since, much to the chagrin of several school districts where I have resided since.

If these teachers who are so *ell-bent on undermining the reputations of our Founding Fathers could actually visit their homes (such as Mt. Vernon, Monticello, and others) and see what actually went into managing a plantation, they wouldn't be so snippy about our Founders.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

I suspect that George Washington and particularly Thomas Jefferson received educations of far more breadth and depth than the average American public school is even capable of providing...

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

I suspect that George Washington and particularly Thomas Jefferson received educations of far more breadth and depth than the average American public school is even capable of providing...

[DeaconBenjamin]

I enjoyed that book.

[Pharmboy]

Thanks for your kind thoughts and prayers. Others are, unfortunately, worse off than we are.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Indeed. And when (because of his father's death) Washington was denied the education in England that he desired, he educated himself -- diligently -- with the help of his older brother who had been educated in England.

The canard that he couldn't spell comes from the fact that there was no standardized spelling rubric in place in the day. I wonder what they will be saying about our citizens educated after 2000 in the future? Very few, it seems, know proper grammar and spelling -- especially those who are facile with texting and spell check.

By the time he was 16, he was surveying land for his neighbor and by the time he was 21 he had saved enough from his pay to acquire 1200 acres for himself. Not too shabby, I'd say.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I did read it. Freedom works.

[Agamemnon]

What is “Darwinism?”

You have been posting over at "Darwin Central" since at least June 30, 2006 along with all the other banned Village People and gay-loving space cadets over there. Yet after spending 6 years braying in the company of all those babbling intelli-fellators you're still just too stupid to render a definition, are you?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as posted currently defines Darwinism as:

"Darwinism" -- (First published Fri Aug 13, 2004; substantive revision Tue Jan 19, 2010)

"Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth. Its original formulation is provided in the first edition of On the Origin of Species in 1859. This entry first formulates ‘Darwin's Darwinism’ in terms of five philosophically distinctive themes: (i) probability and chance, (ii) the nature, power and scope of selection, (iii) adaptation and teleology, (iv) nominalism vs. essentialism about species and (v) the tempo and mode of evolutionary change."

That's certainly one definition. Mine includes that, as well as its other related philosophical sub-headings (e.g., social Darwinism) and the corrosive world views that proceed from them (e.g., yours). Hence, the philosophical application of Darwinism gives rise to liberalism, and by extension -- to little liberal space cadets just like you.

Why don't you give it a try and tell us what your definition of Darwinism is -- or, is it just the fact that after 6 years spent posting over at Darwin Central it is still something that's way beyond your level of competence to verbalize?

[freedumb2003]

>>That’s certainly one definition. Mine includes that, as well as its other related philosophical sub-headings (e.g., social Darwinism) and the corrosive world views that proceed from them (e.g., yours). Hence, the philosophical application of Darwinism gives rise to liberalism, and by extension — to little liberal space cadets just like you<<

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

I see your reasoning abilities still lie in your ability to fling useless and rather banal insults from inside your fence.

Thanks for the laugh — for me and many who ware reading.

FWIIW, there is no scientific study called “Darwinism.” Even as you stated, it is at best a colloquial term summarizing a set of somewhat related areas of study that is too complicated for many: thus the summary and meaningless term.