The Effects on Family Life

As stated previously, the agricultural revolution had a major impact on the economics of society. However, the changes brought by the agricultural revolution also brought changes to the family life.

Before the putting-out system and the enclosure movement, people tended to marry older. The average marriage age was twenty-seven or older. The reason for this was before couples could marry, they had support themselves economically. Women had to earn money for a dowry and men had to wait for their fathers to die to inherit their money. Furthermore, officials made laws preventing marriage among peasants because it was believed freedom of marriage would lead to more abounded children and more money for welfare.

However, this changed after the agricultural revolution. Children began leaving home for jobs. They went to the cities for employment. For girls, this often meant working as servants. Not only was the work for a servant endless, but the servant girls were often abused. Their mistresses would call them names and beat them because that was one of the few way they could exert power in their lives. Also, servant girls were also sexually abused because their were no laws protecting them. If the girl became pregnant, she was thrown out on the steer in disgrace.

Often these girls thrown on the street were forced into prostitution. Sound familiar?  

This time period also resulted in an increase of illegitimate children. Previously, even when premarital sex did result in pregnancies, couples would get marry because they were tied to the land and in the small towns they were held accountable for their actions by the peasant community. In the city, there were no community controls.

The increase of illegitimate children was one factor in the growth of foundling homes but not the only. Often the babies abandoned at these homes were from married couples who could not feed another mouth. Over one third of all children abandoned were from married couples. However, these foundling homes were not so great for the babies left there. In the best homes, only 50% died. In the worst, up to 90% of children died. Dropping children off at foundling hospitals became an almost "legalized infanticide".

This women is "anonymously" dropping off her bread loaf  baby. I guess the artist just wants us to imagine the nun can't see her.

Due to the high infant mortality rate, many women gave birth to six or more children. However one in five and sometimes even one in three would die. This resulted in many historians believing at this time, parents had a lack of emotion for their children (though this is debatable). It was believed that since children would die so often, parents were not supposed to get attached. This theory of lack of emotion could be supported by the numerous cases of overlaying. This was when parents would suffocate their babies by "accidentally" laying on top of them in the night. Austira had to make a law stating it was illegal to have children under 5 in the same bed as the parents to prevent this.

Here is a picture of those attached crib beds we discussed in class. 

Another morbid way of killing babies this chapter discussed was with killing nurses. During this time it was a common practice for upper-class women to hire wet nurses for their children because it was believed nursing was a undignified practice. It was also a common belief that a nurse passed her traits to the baby. So when children turned out poorly, the nurse was said to have changed it. Killing nurses were nurses who would get paid to nurse a child and then let it die so they could nurse another and get paid again.

The agricultural revolution helped improve the economy but it also resulted it a worse family life. People were making more money after the revolution but things such as an increase in illegitimate and abandoned children and people leaving their families to work in the cities happened. One argument is that even with the less happy family life, people would be happier because they would have more money. On the other hand, it could be argued that even with less money, people would be more happy before the agricultural revolution because they would care more about having a better family life.

European History feat. 'Merica

The Colonies and European Economy

While the cottage industry was developing in Europe, the colonial economies also began to thrive economically. The agricultural industry boomed in British North American colonies, providing an expanding market for English manufactured goods. The colonies gave raw materials back to their mother country - the country could then export manufactured goods, selling them back to the colonies (or to other nations) and taxing the colonies' imports and exports. 

Atlantic trade:

The wealth derived from the colonies was based on a mercantilist system, largely introduced by the Navigation Acts. The Navigation Acts required the colonies to use British ships for all trade, and forced them to purchase manufactured goods exclusively from England, thus increasing British income. Soon other European nations followed England's lead and developed a system of exporting more than they imported, and engaging in foreign trade in order to increase wealth and power of the state. 

The colonies were overall crucial to Europe's, especially England's, economy. The colonies provided raw materials, a market for goods, and an outlet for surplus population. The Atlantic trade created a market of goods from the British North American colonies, such a tobacco and cotton, as well as sugar and rum from the Caribbean colonies, slaves from Africa, precious metals from South America, and manufactured goods exported from the mother countries. At this time, mercantilism and the colonies provided great benefits for Europe, especially England.

Ultimately, toward the end of the 18th century, the colonies began to grow autonomous, and their economies grew independently from England's. Leading to the Revolution and onward, British colonies become more of an economic competitor rather than provider. But for the majority of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the colonies provided a significant benefit on British and European economy.

Then vs. Now

During the fifteenth century, European expansion and intercontinental economy was largely provided by the discovery of the New World and the spice islands. Dominated by Spain, exploration at this time led to a discovery of new lands and new routes, as well as new economies. Better access to the spice islands opened up a new market between Europe and the rest of Asia. Furthermore, as Spain made claims in the New World and began to exploit the natives, new markets emerged as a result of products including sugar, rum, and precious metals gold and silver. These new markets provided a boom in European economy, especially for the Spanish.

In the seventeenth century, as prior discussed, trade with the New World was largely dominated by Britain, and the Atlantic trade allowed European international economy to thrive. Raw materials from the colonies and manufactured goods from Europe allowed for the success of mercantilism.

The fine details of colonial relations in these two periods, of course, have their differences, namely in the dominating countries, the systems of trade, and the dominating products. In the fifteenth century, the Spanish exploited the natives and brought gold and silver back home; in the seventeenth century, the vast majority of the population of England's colonies were British immigrants, and their agricultural economy was largely dominated by British mercantilism.

 However, the goals and motivations are ultimately quite similar. Expansion during the fifteenth century as well as colonization and trade during the seventeenth century were majorly driven by European nations' interest in strengthening their economies and increasing their power. Goals of expansion along with those set forth by mercantilism were largely based on the desire for money and power, and with respect to that drive, the eras were similar in terms of intercontinental trade.

The Journey to Capitalism

Through the mercantilist and putting out systems, Europe was making progress towards a capitalist economy.

First, we need to know and understand our destination: capitalism. Capitalism was an economic theory developed by Adam Smith. He believed that the free hand should rule the economy, not the government. In a capitalist system, a country would import (in bulk so it’s cheaper) and export. Investment in capitalism involved bigger business. If the world economy was seen as a pie, capitalists believed the pie could grow so that everyone had the opportunity to take a lot of slices. 

Mercantilism is defined as the economic theory that trade generates wealth and is stimulated by the accumulation of profitable balances, which a government should encourage by means of protectionism. Basically, a country needed to export more than import. This was a national policy directed by the government. It was a policy that affected a country and the foreign countries it traded with. Colbert was a French economist who wanted France to become completely independent so that they would only export and never import. England instituted the Navigation Acts in order to achieve  mercantilism. The Navigation Acts stated that all goods sent into Europe by the colonies would be carried on British ships so that Britain could reap all the profits. , mercantilist policies would state that in order for a country to ‘win’ it would need to take a lot of slices leaving other countries with less pie. So far, everything about mercantilism is exactly the opposite of capitalist ideas. How is mercantilism a step toward capitalism? Mercantilism and capitalism held the idea that if individuals thrive privately, the state will thrive as a result. By putting an emphasis on exports rather than imports, the government was helping industry and private capitalists, which would then assist the state economy. 

The putting out system also transitioned Europe towards a capitalist economy. This system was a relationship between individuals within the country rather than between governments of different countries. It made production more efficient and allowed individual laborers to become more independent. It was a system directed by individuals, rather than the government, and it worked for what was best for the individual. Additionally, women had great control and could be self employed as seen by the spinsters. Women were contributing to the economy. The putting out system laid the foundation for capitalism by creating an early capitalist society. There were some shortfalls, however. Merchants could not regulate their weavers. Weavers would take 3 days of rest. Monday was called “Holy Monday.” 

Relationships between workers and employers were not always pleasant. Finally, five spinners were required for every weaver. Despite such shortfalls, the putting out system was a means by which a country could achieve mercantilism and held the ideas of “freedom” seen in capitalism. Additionally, the new world was good for the cottage industry. In building the Atlantic economy, a larger market opened up. This allowed for the bigger business seen in capitalism. 

The first industry to become capitalized was the textile industry. This was because human invention created mechanical looms, which would become a part of factories powered by mills, which were powered by water. 

Evidently, mercantilism and the putting out system helped to bring Europe, Britain in particular, toward a capitalist economy. 

The Fascinating world of Fields and Farmers

The Agricultural Revolution began in the Low Countries and soon spread to England. Did England steal the Low Countries' agricultural innovations or did the Low countries give them to England? That answer varies depending on who you ask (me or Mr. Yarnall). It is undisputed, however, that the beginning of the revolution centered on the innovations of selective breeding, the elimination of the fallow, and the enclosure of open fields.

In place of the "haphazard union of nobody's son with everybody's daughter", the selective breeding of domesticated animals became the more widely-accepted method among farmers. This method was founded by using observation and critical thinking- two major parts of empiricism. Empiricism, expounded upon by our old friends Hume and Locke, stresses sensory experiences as the basis for all knowledge.

By eliminating the fallow (the period between harvests that was often a year or more), farmers were able to produce a lot more goods than before with the same pieces of land. This was done by using a crop rotation system, adding in nitrogen-storing crops between the main harvests to moisten the earth.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, the system of shared land and common rights among the peasants was replaced with the enclosure of farmland, the innovation of experimental scientists and government officials. This was done in order to farm more effectively with the new rotation method for crops. The peasantry, and even most of the noble landowners, opposed this, however. The peasantry had to sell their small land holdings to pay their share of expenses while the noble landowners had to pay large investments for the enclosures. But did it benefit them in the long run??? The peasants definitely wouldn't think so.

·      English peasant farmers declined in number due to the enclosures and couldn’t compete with the rising group of tenant farmers. However, the new, highly-intensive form of farming and the work involved in closing the land provided many employment opportunities. Historians disagree on whether or not the aristocracy who supported parliamentary enclosure was right or wrong in doing so. However, whether or not Parliament passed these measures was of little importance because it only completed a process already in full swing in England. 

 This painting represents the old, shared system of farming that the peasants preferred. Although many of them complained about the new system, the number of landless peasants only slightly increased with the enclosure of farmlands.

The proletarianization (transformation of large numbers of small peasant farmers into landless rural wage earners) was especially prominent in England. England's social structure devolved into two different classes: those who one things and those who work for pay. This was the price of the Agricultural Revolution. Whether it was worth it or not, again, historians disagree.

The agricultural revolution did have one large effect: population growth. This growth occurred because of the surge in agricultural production and an increase in the average person’s life span, not an increase in the birthing rate. "The Grim reapers of demographic crisis were famine, epidemic, disease and war," and they were not occurring at this time in history.