We are not blessed with perfect or even adequate reporting in some areas. We are at the mercy of persons who, despite their credentials and best work, must fumble a bit in presenting whatever it is that they are interested in advancing. From books and teachers we learn that: Virginia was more wealth-oriented than the more religious New England contemporaries. But while the Puritans might have been intent on building a shining city on a hill, they also regarded economic success as a sign of God’s grace and pursued wealth, sometimes energetically. Puritans often put at the head of their ledgers: In the name of God and profit. Is the reader to believe the northeast was secretly crass or greedy in the privacy of business? Whatever the oddities, New England peacefully rejected slavery, and Virginia adopted it for profit. New Englanders resisted the tea tax, which tax was not really excessive. Viewpoints differed.
A reviewer called his observations in the book he is evaluating as: an occasional weed in the pleasing expanse of American Eden. He adds that the author of the book: . . . shows us that the history of how our nation grew can be found in what it has grown [agriculture]. Certainly agriculture contributed to the history, but only as one of many factors (compound) that make up the story of a nation and people. The sweeping statement may mislead us in understanding our history, and its forces. One doubts that it is greater than the force of the Church, with a strong clergy leadership in the colonies, or the seeking of wealth with its appeal to refined life, education and power. One great problem is to find truth, even in the understanding of excesses, distortions, omissions and consequences. Our concern is future – for children.
Having read many biographies, and critical reviews of them, I am rather firmly persuaded of the idealism of those who, by their relative affluence, were used to advance the American nation. The Adams family (and many others in New England), the Washington family (and many others toward the South), with the Franklins in between, were adamant that their children should not embarrass themselves by failing to serve their communities. The historians of the period have sometimes remarked that, in summary, no country was founded as was America with much of the wealthy class risking themselves, their lives and their sacred honor as did much of the gentry class of the thirteen colonies of the American mainland. Amazing!
Following the Civil War, and the growth of American immigration, the story changed. Greed became a major diversion. Leadership turned to business, and even public servants were seen as the pawns of business barons. At last, persons like William Jennings Bryan spoke out against the ugliness of the robber barons. Bryan was a Christian, and was three times a candidate for the presidency of the United States. The most important result, in my view, was the gradual change in the American psyche that was accomplished in the pervasive motivation toward wealth – a natural human yearning. It revealed itself in the Gold Rush in 1849; in the search for furs to meet the demands for coats and beaver hats, for timber to build mansions, for steam engines to move goods and people – and so the story goes. Results were mixed, ugly and magnificent. Ugly in sordid processes, beautiful in a culture of family homes in towns not permitting any building to be taller than the church spire, and guided by citizen government – a decency of the emerging society, the modesty of the children and families, and the hope for improvements. Certainly there were low-brows in every city, but there were more citizens on this value side who stood for right, love, work, family, sharing, even faith than were those who were selfish, carnal, deviant – even criminal. These last were troublesome, but mostly manageable. We wonder why human studies and values have been diluted by the large emphasis given to deviants. We may not really know where we are on the continuum of good and evil. Greed has wizened some in society, but careful evaluation of rich and poor will likely find great omission in the beliefs and limited actions of the poor as in selfish rich. No society can advance in the areas desired by virtually all the citizens without the wealthy who are willing to invest for the good of others. The attitudes of the rich in America’s founding fathers have been diluted in modern life by some – not all. Sharing rightly won wealth and sacred honor is a godly approach. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020