Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- week_2_questions_comments-325_25 [2025/09/04 05:17] – [Leo Marx, The Machine] 76.78.172.114
+++ week_2_questions_comments-325_25 [2025/09/04 15:04] (current) – [Leo Marx, The Machine] 199.111.65.11
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+**Add a comment or question to one of the readings below.**
+===== Readings from Pursell (place comment under respective subheadings) =====
+==== Judith McGaw, "So Much Depends..." ====
+I find it to be an interesting look at the gender roles of the time period to establish certain technologies as unequivocally male or female, or so pertinent that there was no reason to list it as something owned by someone. I wonder what technologies today are so taken for granted that they would not show up on a document of that kind. - CJ Nemetz
+I think that McGaw’s analysis provides sufficient data to disprove the mythical status of colonial settlers and frontiersmen as entirely self-sufficient, heroic individuals who acted outside of a communal framework. In my opinion, such factors as the prevalence of carts over wagons until the mid-century, the lack of mauls, and dependence on mills suggest a greater involvement in social and economic networks than previously thought. - Nikolai Kotkov
+McGaw emphasizes how everyday objects and technologies, often overlooked, shaped broader social and cultural dynamics. I wonder how her argument might change if we applied it to today’s digital technology, like smartphones and social media, which also seem mundane but clearly transformed daily life, relationships, and even politics today.—-Caitlyn Edwards.
+I found McGaw’s attention to the predominant nationalities of the different colonies, such as how York had a high German population, to be particularly fascinating, since it allowed us to get a better sense of where new technologies likely originated from. York’s German farmers used drastically different tools than Burlington’s British farmers, such as the dung hook, dung shovel, and cradles for harvesttime. These tools reflected Germany’s proclivity towards what the British viewed as technological progress. The different nationalities of different colonists isn’t something I’ve considered much in the past, so it was very interesting to see. - Noah Rutkowski
+I like how McGaw studied the Mid-Atlantic region, focusing on specific counties while making her observations. She really got to know the culture of each area she studied, explaining the economic and cultural differences between the counties. McGaw notes that there is no such thing as a representative colonial farm community or region, each is different from the next. The population of each respective county greatly effected which tools were in use, and how widespread the tool was amongst the population. I found it so interesting that frontier residents were only slightly more likely to own a gun than residents of longer settled regions. There are many societal misconceptions that McGaw noted were false indicators of what life was like for the average person. I find it so cool that she decided to look into the lives of average people to find out about common tools, rather than what inventions the public deemed as popular.
+- Hannah Holstrom
+McGaw’s perspective on analyzing the history of technology in the Mid-Atlantic is something I found quite interesting. When I think of the history of technology I typically just think of the chronology of new inventions and their impacts on American society. McGaw makes a critical point that while things like the gun did exist in early American history and were used doesn’t mean that what we assume about them (that everyone owned guns) is accurate. One of the things I love about history is when you uncover something that changes your perspective on the past and you realize that the common assumption or idea about a particular time or place is not always accurate, so her relating this to technology made me much more interested to keep reading. - Grayson Donohoe
+One of the points that McGaw brings up is that the definition and opinions on different technologies differ based on each individual’s point of view. Just as they brought up with the “Peanuts” reference about a kid never seeing a plow and Sally never even seeing a farmer. Something I didn’t think about before this is that it also relied on gender as well as women primarily worked with technologies such as the spinning wheel, churning, candle making etc. Social context is important when it comes to the relaying of technological history. - Izzy Ellenberger
+I find McGaw's assertion that we must consider the social contexts of technology as we study and discuss the history of technology incredibly important. One thing that stuck out to me was her mention of the gun on page 14, where she states that the gun was only present in about half of all American households. This makes sense to me when you consider that in early America, the iron, steel, and gunpowder required to build, maintain, and continuously utilize a gun would have been prohibitively expensive to many early Americans. - Abby Firestone
+It is so easy to look at technological history and look at when key inventions were and just picture the world as black and white for before and after that invention. Well McGaw really made me think deeper about how technology is used by the average person on a daily basis. The inventions that get all of the spotlight in history classes aren't always readily available or used to the everyday person. Guns seem like such an easy thing to assume everyone has during that time period, but in reality only half of Americans had even just one in their household, really put it in perspective for me. -James Clayberg
+==== American Colonial Wealth ====
+American colonial wealth was so intrinsically tied to agricultural specialties that families may own vastly different pieces of technology yet still be grouped into “middle income” classes due to the nature of technological access and the pre-industrial economy. - CJ Nemetz
+These documents display a great variety of objects from colonial America. In particular, it is interesting to see how certain items received specific descriptions. For example, Henry Nelich’s inventory listed “a cow with a spot before her face” and “a mare with a cold.” - Nikolai Kotkov
+As an English major, I couldn’t help but pay attention to the linguistic differences from modern English in the documents, since there were many words and spellings that I didn’t recognize. I was especially curious about what exactly some of the different properties listed were, such as the “poot reack” and “flax brack” listed in William McHenay’s inventory. -Noah Rutkowski
+It was interesting to see the similarities and differences between to two farmers and widow because you may assume the widow wouldn’t have the same kind of technology that the other men did, and there were things she didn’t, but she had an axe on her list which maybe we wouldn’t have assumed a woman would have. - Grayson Donohoe
+Reading this was very interesting because we get to see the materials, and items that they held at what value it was as well. It is also interesting to see how their words were spelt such as, in reference to what we know of today as a “spinning wheel” they spelled it “wheal” and in reference to a “barrel” they said “barrel”. It makes me start to think of that’s probably where the stemming of what we recognize today of being a really strong southern accent - Izzy Ellenberger
+Recognizing that people were not capable of being self-sufficient even if it seems like they were the biggest thing to me. People had any variety of a collection of tools, while not having everything, and in many cases, it would be feasible that people would need to borrow from others and exchange their tools. -James Clayberg
+I like looking through and trying to find the major differences between the women's and men's inventories. There were very few differences, which I feel would surprise modern readers, in part because we think of colonial men and women as possessing very different things, and performing wildly different tasks. - Abby Firestone
+Most American colonial wealth comes from land ownership and from a country's perspective all the natural resources. The technology supported these as most technology were tools to help settlers farm and extract resources. Most of the time families produced what they needed so wealth was measured not so much in money but land, tools, and household technology. - Will Crane
+===== Readings from Smith and Clancey (place comment under respective subheadings) =====
+==== Debate over Manufacturing in the Early Republic (Jefferson, Coxe, Hamilton, Cooper)====
+Hamilton rules, Jefferson drools -- Dr. M
+It makes sense that slave owners wouldn't find any use in manufacturing, as their entire system of life relies on the colonial/early republic's dependence on agriculture as a commodity. If America starts building things, then farming wouldn't be as profitable. Contrasted to Hamilton who sees the economic importance of it anyway. Jefferson claiming morals to stop manufacturing is strikingly similar to modern day when politicians claim morals whenever something new scares them too. -- Oliver M.
+**It is interesting to contextualize these debates within a larger intellectual tradition, since the origins of Jefferson’s early negative attitude toward manufacturing can be traced, on the one hand, to the discourse of classical republicanism (Cicero, Cato, the 18th-century physiocrats) and, on the other hand, to the “four stages theory” of the Scottish Enlightenment. A similar statement can be made about Hamilton and Coxe, though in their case they were more likely influenced by Hume through Franklin, given their support for manufacturing and luxury goods. - Nikolai Kotkov**
+Jefferson’s letters are a fascinating look at his gradual acknowledgment of the progress of manufacturing in America, as well as it is fascinating to see the development affect Jefferson’s life and the way he corresponds with colleagues. - CJ Nemetz
+**Jefferson had the overall worry that manufacturing would corrupt the American citizens, while Coxe saw that it was the key to their independence and would give them a great push in toward the economy in the early republic. With Coxe recognizing that it would strengthen their economic self sufficiency as well as help out the American people by opening up more employment, and Hamilton being pro manufacturing, it was the start and laid out the grounds for the growth of America’s economy**. - Izzy Ellenberger
+I think Coxe makes a very good point in his speaking. We wouldn't have had a lot of motivation to make factories or really ramp up production underneath the British monarchy, and much of our production would have just gone back to the crown. But when we gained independence our production could quickly diversify. - Justin H
+I do think that Jefferson's points (on quality, not on morality), based on his own experience, are valid. Based on his worldview, it was true that inexperienced manufacturers in the US were turning out lower quality fabrics than those more experienced manufacturers in Europe. His points lose their validity in my book when **he starts on about morality as it relates to the manufacturing of goods and their supposed "corrupting" effect on the cultivators of those goods.** On the other hand, Hamilton and Coxe, on the other hand, make their points more grounded in the economic truth that they no longer had to rely on England and Europe as a whole to obtain fabrics and other manufactured goods. - Abby Firestone
+I think these documents, like McGaw’s, bring in another aspect of the history of technology which goes beyond what a certain piece of technology does for society but also as a society how are we going to respond to developments in technology, such as machinery in manufacturing. - Grayson Donohoe
+I really enjoyed seeing the transition of Jefferson's viewpoints as while being a slave owner he saw the process of being profitable on reliant on the agricultural south. After being in office and when the idea of running a country, you really need more than just agriculture, you need more production of things for your military or for domestic consumers. It was just cool to see how the environment Jefferson was in shaped his views a little more and got softer to the idea of manufacturing. -James Clayberg
+The debate about manufacturing was a huge topic in America after the Revolutionary War as many people argued to be more industrial or more agricultural, mostly being split between North and South. The two main people leading the debate were Jefferson and Hamilton. Jefferson fought as a southerner to keep the country more agricultural and Hamilton fought for an industrial nation and tariffs to make the nation grow. Coxe was on Hamilton's side and helped shape tariff and patent thinking while Cooper wanted free trade and was a critic of tariffs. - Will Crane
+I quite enjoyed Coxe's writing, **his faith in the idea that new technology could help the colonies flourish, in the "new land" where goods and recourses were plentiful, could help them easily surpass their counterparts.** The meticulous nature of his writings, this pitch that they could be a "full danger to the manufacturing nations of Europe" was all very intriguing to delve into. - Izabella Martinez
 ==== Leo Marx, The Machine ====
 Marx sees the future and how manufacturing can benefit America in the long run, and obviously he was right to go against Jefferson on this idea. The debate between manufacturing and agriculture during this time really seemed to come almost entirely between North and South. Of course a Philadelphian man would be interested in manufacturing, just like a Virginian would be interested in agriculture. - Oliver M
-I agree with L. Marx’s analysis of Jefferson’s and Coxe’s views on technology and manufacturing. I think that Marx presents a substantial argument by explaining Jefferson’s attitude through “economic realities,” since the rural character of the colonies combined with Jefferson’s republican agrarianism offers a strong explanation for his ideas. - Nikolai Kotkov
+I agree with L. **Marx’s analysis of Jefferson’s and Coxe’s views on technology and manufacturing. I think that Marx presents a substantial argument by explaining Jefferson’s attitude through “economic realities,” since the rural character of the colonies combined with Jefferson’s republican agrarianism offers a strong explanation for his ideas.** - Nikolai Kotkov
 Marx is very keen to analyze Coxe’s motives, which can be understandable given Coxe’s unique way of blending nationalism and hardline rural ideology into one. - CJ Nemetz
@@ Line 11: / Line 85: @@
 Marx makes an interesting comparison at the end of the articles between Coxe and Hamilton and from my interpretation asserts that they both agree that technology will lead to tremendous economic benefits for the United States but there are different ways of approaching that and marketing it to the American people that will better set that system up for the future. It’s interesting to see technology not only having an impact culturally but possibly socially and politically, as well. - Grayson Donohoe
-Marx seems to play into Coxe's clear excitement over the economic prospect of American industry (or future industry) obtaining "machines of fire or water". There is emphasis placed here on the potential for economic growth and a widespread industrialization (before the term exists) that would possibly even take over America in a way that would horrify Jefferson. - Abby Firestone
+I think Grayson's (above) emphasis on how both Hamilton and Coxe agree there will be economic benefits is very important, but even more so looking at how their roles in American society lead to these different marketing approaches. Hamilton with his role in economics can see the specific ways of improvement while Coxe can communicate more effectively with the general public and the comparison at the end starts to show this dynamic. -James Clayberg
+Marx seems to play into Coxe's clear excitement over the economic prospect of American industry (or future industry) obtaining "machines of fire or water".** There is emphasis placed here on the potential for economic growth and a widespread industrialization (before the term exists) that would possibly even take over America in a way that would horrify Jefferson.** - Abby Firestone
 Overall, Marx's analysis of Jefferson and Coxe was fair and full of perspective. Jefferson wasn't "wrong" for arguing against manufacturing in America and it's very plain why, he processed this stance from the perspective that agriculture worked just fine in the colonies while Coxe displayed the economic boom that manufacturing would implore. Coxe was not the only American drawn to the possibility and Marx reflects on that perspective as well. - Izabella Martinez
+Coxe and Hamilton were very different on why they believed manufacturing to be beneficial. Coxe needs to speak to the everyday people, the people who still have benefits to agriculture. He speaks as if America will do it right and that his main point. Whereas Hamilton just thinks at some point to be successful economically manufacturing has to happen at some degree, and the methods used do not really matter that much. -James Clayberg
+Industrialization had nearly began in America which meant that most didn't understand the need in interior American Production. Coxe advocated the incredible productive power of machines and factories. He believed it would be the instrument to America's future power. - Ashley Palin