History
6393
Review
Two
February
9, 2000
Williams,
William Appleman. The Roots of the Modern American Empire: A Study of
The Growth and Shaping of Social Consciousness in a
Marketplace Society.
New York: Random House, 1969.
In The Roots of the Modern American Empire (hereafter
referred to as Roots), William
Appleman Williams examined the growth of American agricultural and industrial
output, and the impact each area had on the political economy. He explained how such growth fueled United
States expansion not only on the North American continent but into the Pacific,
into the Caribbean, and into Asia as well.
Williams claimed that American producers all agreed on the importance of
expansion in order to create new markets for excess production, but not
everyone displayed the same intensity and drive. Because that was based
on what they produced and where they produced it, they held
different views on the internal and legislative mechanics of such
expansion. These basic disagreements
between agricultural businessmen and the metropolitans (Williams’ term)
determined the structure of the American political economy until the Spanish
American War, the last period covered by Roots.
By
way of a disclaimer, I grant that Williams discussed the importance of
expansion, especially continental expansion to Texas, California, New Mexico,
and Oregon in his discussion of production surpluses. These, however, are topics given close attention in previous class
discussions and readings. With that
given in place, I choose to stress that portion of his thesis with which I am
the most unfamiliar. The continuing struggle between farmers and
metropolitans brings to the discussion nuances heretofore (for me)
unknown.
Williams
colored this canvass with economic and class hues, not necessarily surprising
in light of what seems to be a revisionist consensus in this course (both at
the table and at the keyboard) with regard to the importance of economics and
class in the formulation of American foreign policy. What was surprising was
Williams’ creation, for the purposes of this book, of two new classes (or
groups, or coalitions, or blocs) that defied the normal conventions of class
construction such as income, education, social status, vocation, or geographical
location. Williams’ two classes (the
agricultural businessmen to a greater extent, and the metropolitans to a lesser
degree) were amalgams of all such characteristics, and might today be referred
to as special interest groups.
Agriculture,
for the better part of the nineteenth century, played the most important role
in providing American products abroad.
Until the 1840s, Southern cotton and tobacco led American exports. After that date, Northern grain and
livestock became increasingly important.
As the nation expanded into the Old Northwest, and then into the area of
the trans-Mississippi, agricultural surpluses became a real concern for
farmers, no matter their size, geographical location, or crop of choice. The importance of the timely movement of
crops to internal as well as overseas markets assumed an over-riding importance
to those producers, and became the glue that bound them together as a
group. They requested government
assistance in the completion of those tasks, and were among the first to demand
of the government internal improvements along major rivers and canals to
expedite the movement of produce to market.
Later, agriculturalists lobbied for government intervention with a
subsidized railroad system unresponsive to accusations by farmers of rate
gouging which lowered already marginal farm profits. Generally, farmers from all parts of the nation supported the
bimetallist faction in the currency debate, simply because many of their
potential foreign markets used the silver system. The farmers supported reciprocal tariffs long before such
treaties became common. And, in the
face of concerted resistance to their programs, some chose to attempt reform of
the political economy through the Populist movement of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries.
The
other main class considered by Williams was the group he dubbed the
metropolitans. Generally composed of
commercial, industrial, and financial groups operating out of the Northeast
during a time when the contributions made by industry to the political economy
were secondary to those of agriculture, the metropolitans enjoyed an influence
out of proportion to their numbers.
Metropolitans dominated both post-Civil War parties, including
presidential cabinets, and favored legislation that profited their own minority
and conflicted with the interests of the agricultural majority. Metropolitan profit centers often stood in
close proximity to the better established roads, canals, and harbors of the
Northeast, so their needs for improvements remained minimal. Metropolitans owned the railroads, and
protected their profits by resisting
lower shipping rates. Additionally,
until the late 1890s, most American industrial output (generally) found buyers
in internal American markets. Therefore,
metropolitan interests dictated that high protective tariffs on competing
imported goods remain in place at the expense of farmers. With regard to the currency debate,
metropolitans supported the gold-only system, largely because Great Britain, the
world’s premier economic power, continued on a gold system.
Despite
occasional conciliatory moves by the metropolitans, farmers continued to be
frustrated in their quest for national policies that addressed their
needs. Neither political party answered
all the needs of the farm sector, so many farmers withdrew their support from
the established parties in order to form the Populist Party, whose leader
managed to capture the Democratic nomination at the 1896 convention. Rather than become a voice for all agrarian
concerns, however, the Populist/Democrats conducted a one issue campaign. Their leaders stressed the remonetization of
silver at the expense of all other issues.
Faced with William McKinley’s more well-balanced campaign in support of
bimetallism and a reciprocal tariff (a genuine indication that existing market
conditions were reshaping metropolitan attitudes toward traditional
agricultural concerns), the Democratic/Populist effort failed.
The
adoption by metropolitans of some traditional agricultural issues as their own
did not mean a surrendering of their principles. Rather, it simply reflected the changing course of business
within the metropolitan community. Industry
exhibited amazing growth by the beginning of the twentieth century, and the
need for foreign markets, long the obsession of farmers, became a necessity for
industrialists as well. The two sides
found themselves more in agreement for expansion into foreign markets than ever
before. By the time John Hay enunciated
the Open Door Notes, both agrarians and industrialists stood prepared to take
advantage of the policy.
Roots and the Chapter Four reading by
Edward Crapol and Howard Schonberger complement each other. Far more eloquently than I could hope, the
Chapter Four reading is consistent with Williams, although on a much smaller
scale, and without Williams’ flare.
Throughout, Crapol and Schonberger stressed the conflict between farmers
and the metropolitans (although they did not use Williams’ term).
I
find it less disturbing that northeastern elites formulated the policies so
critical to the political economy than that they did it to further their own
personal agendas at the expense of the remainder of the country. Edmund Morgan said that one of the critical
features of true representation (forgetting for a moment pork-barrel politics)
is a willingness to forgo local advantage for the greater good. If that is true, then the metropolitans
acted contrary to the basic premises of good government, as did the other
politicians who permitted themselves to be swayed. Perhaps I make this more difficult than it really is, for it
might simply be a matter of perception.
Presidents and elected officials might automatically discount the
opinions of anyone with cow manure on their boots, especially when faced with
the educated and well-dressed (not to mention freshly bathed) scions of the
Northeast establishment. Maybe that
perception continues today, as the opinions of the great unwashed are ignored
by the grandsons still exercising power, which, like a snake eating its tail,
brings us back to economics and class.