Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

**Add a comment or question to one of the readings below.**

====== Readings from Pursell ======
**McGaw did a great job defining her ideas of technology. On page 22, she states " we have given little thought to early modern technology or to farm technology in general. It suffices to say here that agricultural technology includes far more than machines, implements, and the knowledge of how to use them." There is more to technology than what we think of. She also says how "it must include the plants and animal behavior." She gave lots of examples of the types of technology in agriculture.** --Erika M.

Pursell made her point clear throughout the reading that understanding farming technology of early American settlements is more in-depth than just knowing what “the machine on the drawing board” looked like. Pursell stated on page 11 that “a careful and respectful observance of the particulars of time and space tends to dissolve the easy comfortable generalizations which can easily become conventional wisdom on any subject”. When looking at technology of the time, it is not only important to look at the tools and how each one was used, but also what in early framer’s environments caused them to use their tools in the ways they did. – Jack Sweetak

In the book, it is mentioned that the influence between the Frontier and Germany based on the food-processing technology that was somewhat different from one another. Germans cook and heat with stoves, while the British mainly used open-hearth cookery and heating. Like other German technologies however, the stove started to become part of British America’s modern technology. This makes things interesting for the counties in the area because of the fact that a stove was going to help them cook food and be able to process the food as well. The Craftswomen that prepared the meals resisted having new tools that would cause them their hard-won proficiencies that they loved to use. With the quality of the work experience in the food “industry” at the time, this just about required new repertoire of skills to have to be able to make meals (p. 28). - Hunter Dykhuis

In this section of the book, McCaw **writes how farmers not only needed to produce their own products, for example flax, but they also needed specialists to work on these materials. This is so because farmers did not have the machinery to work the grains, they could only grow it. This concept is interesting because one farmer could not do everything on his own, he would need help from surrounding people to create his final produc**t. McCaw describes this by saying, “There is, for example, no evidence that any farmer owned tools to grind his own grain; and, except in frontier York with its exceptionally poor transportation facilities, and many lacked hackles to comb it” (23). This shows that many people had to be involved in the process to create one goal. Not one farmer or person could do something on their own. McCaw emphasizes that farmers had to purchase everyday goods, but also had to put their products through mills and carpenters to help shape and finalize their goods they produced. -Reilly Miller

In this chapter of the book, McGaw compares different counties in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. McGaw states " Thus, comparing data from the various counties should indicate which of several relevant factors - Length of settlement, Ethnic composition, access to markets, relative affluence, and natural endowment" (p. 17). The first county, Burlington County, New Jersey settled early compare to other counties. the county is located close to the water thus making it good for water transportation. The population in the county in Brittish with Quaker influence. Another county being examined is Hunterdon, New Jersey, found north of Burlington. It was seen that settlement was not as fast as Burlington being 2 generations behind. Although, during the 18th-century Hunterdons population surpassed its neighbor. Unlike Burlington, most of Hunterdon's population was predominantly Dutch and German. Like their neighbor, Hunterdon also sent crops by water to Philidelphia. **I think it is interesting that two counties very close to one another can be so very different.** - Erin Madden

An impactful contribution that McGaw makes is pointing out the fact that there is no concrete standard for tools owned by colonial early farming families. McGaw argues that the American view of having a "one best way" comes from the use of modern technology because of the heavy focus on industrial history as well as the copious records of recent technological advancement. When most people think of technology, they quickly think of industrial machines or digital inventions while agricultural innovations and technology had a lot more to them. All products involving nature like livestock and food processes, fiber and wool, as well as other farm products are all interconnected by different aspects of labor and knowledge distribution that all qualify as technology. (pg 22 and 23) -Meghan McDonagh

In this reading the first point made discusses that in history **we have a tendency to study the new inventions as opposed to looking at the technology that was actually common throughout society.** The writing gives the example of the plow and how when you think of early farmers you often picture them with a plow but in reality most of them did not have or use this tool. I began to think about technology today and what could be seen as “the big thing” in the future when we will be studied and electric cars came to mind. There is a very good chance that in the future it will be portrayed as though everyone has electric cars at this point in time but that is far from the truth. -Emma Monaghan

In this part of the text, Pursell focuses on how we have somewhat of a wrong understanding, or not enough of an understanding, on the history of technology, especially when it came to that for the use of farming. When it came to early settlements, they did not have the technology/tools they had 200 years later, which can be misunderstood by the way history is examined, you only see the bigger picture. She states that most farmers could not afford or didn't own tools/machinery we thought they had, such as the plow. This was interesting because there are so many instances in history where this could happen, and it makes you wonder. -Nick Bass

A general point that I got from reading this was that** we really don't know exactly what life looked like in the past. Our ideas of the past are based on different artifacts and documents that have created a false sense of knowing what life was like.** For me the idea that most people in the Colonial Era owned guns was one that was interesting to learn that they really didn't(page 14) In my mind I always imagine a colonial person walking around with a gun when in fact few of them even owned one. I think that this translates to the thought that even now our ideas of technology in the past across all boards are false. This makes me really question what we actually know and to try to think deeper into these ideas. I think that when Pursell was writing about the inventories as well a good point was that it totally erases the poor’s impact on history because they didn't have a written history. (page 19) This means that there is a whole part of the population who was completely erased from history because of lack of documentation. Generally we would have only learned about the people who owned a lot of land and possessions which again leads us to this false identity of the common man.This leads me to reconsider what I have been taught and question what we really know. Overall this article was really interesting and gave me insight that I previously did not have. -Tory Martin

Within this reading, Pursell states that a common mis-characterization of frontiersman from around the 18th century were a "jack of all trades" and their nurturing of technological creativity is what ultimately fueled America's rapid industrialization. Pursell makes the argument that this simply isn't true, as her own research shows that most frontiersman did not own much in the way of advanced technology for the time, such as plows. Pursell goes on to explain how colonial stereotypes has resulted in a distorted view of America's own technological history. I agree completely with Pursell how this is an instance where a popular stereotype has resulted in a version of history that simply is not true, and we should work to correct that. -Michael Dietrich

==== Judith McGaw, "So Much Depends..." ====

==== American Colonial Wealth ====
===== Readings from Smith and Clancey =====

Hamilton and Coxe bring up interesting arguments in defense of building American industry. Jefferson's concerns about Americans choosing the better quality of more experienced industries, like England's, over their own less refined product is counter-argued by Coxe. He says that Americans would choose American products //because// it is American: fads, styles, and formats will be adopted and picked up by American culture because it is made in America as oppose to Americans wearing English or French fashion because that is what is popular in Europe. It makes me wonder how true that statement is and its effects on commercializing American products. Hamilton addresses Jefferson's concerns about labor by simply stating the usefulness of children and women. As we know, women and children were a large part of the workforce when industrialization and mechanization reached its peak in America in the late 19th and early-mid 20th centuries. -K.Eastridge

During Washington's time in office I found it interesting that it was the most critical time for defining the new role that the federal government should play in fostering manufacturing. They were encouraging manufacturing of this technology but the issue kept reoccurring about foreign tariffs, especially with the Europeans. Much of Washington's cabinet was split on this issues with manufacturing and agricultural interest. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were key parts of this discussion. A lot more would continue to be done about foreign manufacturing and tariffs. -Haley Denehy

==== Debate over Manufacturing in the Early Republic (Jefferson, Coxe, Hamilton, Cooper)====

I’m perplexed as to how Jefferson truly conceived and believed in the notion that manufacturing operations could remain overseas, but the productions that occurred from them could be imported and then exist in the U.S. Maybe I initially misunderstood, but surely Jefferson didn’t believe that a nation at this time could rely on foreign labor for its leading technological advancements. As Nate mentioned in his comment, Jefferson also seems to struggle with an environmental decision between choosing whether or not to cultivate and develop American land. Although, Jefferson’s reasons seem to be aesthetically driven, not scientifically. He simply finds America too beautiful. - Dillyn Scott

==== Leo Marx, The Machine ====

In this work, Leo Marx writes regarding the issue of technology intruding on North America’s pastoral scenery.

Modern & advancing technology seems to support the integration of nature with technology - think of the Climate Change movements advocating for the implementation of Green Cities. Are these movements motivated solely out of concern that modern technology is harming the environment, or is there an unspoken concern (health hazards aside), that the aesthetics of natural landscapes being encroached upon is also unacceptable?--Nate Stringer

Leo Marx’s work placed an emphasis on the economic positives of manufacturing and capitalism. Jefferson acknowledges the importance of the steam mill and how it can have a major role in American Society. It is odd that Jefferson, who emphasized farming and agrarian societies does deem steam engines to hold an important role in the upcoming society. It is likely that Jefferson knew the significance these inventions would be able to contribute to America by increasing economic activities. To be able to stand independently in the world America had to become a producing and manufacturing country. It was necessary to begin manufacturing, despite the agrarian society, which would allow America to become a worldwide power. - John Liberty

It is quite interesting to see how against new and evolving technology Jefferson was. I would expect in that time- as in this- that if it’s new and seems to be better, why not jump at the prospect? He seems to be very stuck in his ways until he goes to England and sees the new way of factories and he suddenly changes his view.- Lauren Blouch

I just don’t quite understand why Jefferson, as one of the founding fathers of a new growing nation, wouldn’t want to further the growth of the nation with better technology.  I can see that he wanted the country to be rural and more technology wouldn’t fit his idea for the new nation. But why did he assume that the people living in the country would all share his idea and want to be stuck in the past technologically?  I agree with Lauren, if new is seen as better then why not jump on the prospect?  - Claire Starke

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International