This material is part of our museum in Charenton, Louisiana. It was not conceived as a response to the events of September 11, 2001. I had been researching much of the material here for about 15 years. I had already begun to write this material before the events of September 11, 2001. About one third of this material was composed prior to September 11. All of it had been researched.
As the full reality of that attack began to unfold it became more apparent to me that a museum of economic history was vitally necessary.
Father Bill Crumley CSC
Several days before the September 11, 2001 bombing I had come to recognize the need for putting together material I had been researching for a number of years. Looking at the data I had gathered, a pattern had begun to emerge.
Since the time of European colonization of the Americas there has been a gradual consolidation of the monetary assets, the land, the natural resources, and other assets of this world. This consolidation has led to a greater and greater control of these resources being held in the hands of fewer and fewer persons.
When the World Trade Center was bombed it was not difficult for me to understand what message these several terrorists were trying to give us. In the aftermath of the bombings several messages came to me.
1. No response to the bombings seems to acknowledge this underlying cause.
2. Most persons have no concept of the vast infrastructure which allows a few persons to continue to exercise such a stranglehold on the economy and the resources of this earth.
3. Most people do not recognize that the economic events which have led up these bombings are in any way related to these bombings.
4. It is important that someone take the trouble to attempt to point out what has happened over 400+ years that led us to the horrible events of September 11, 2001.
Prior to the coming of Europeans there was an intricate trade structure between various Indian nations. Archeological data indicates exchange of goods over a wide area. For example, material used by Indians in present day New York State are found in Southern USA.
Tribes survived by fishing, farming, hunting, berry picking and other simple feeding procedures. Those items they could not readily obtain were obtained by barter.
No one "owned" the land. It was owned in common. Various tribes had prior fishing and hunting rights to certain lands. Rivers and streams were the usual boundaries for these lands.
The deer was an important part of the economy of the Natives. One deer would provide an important amount of food. The skin provided clothing, shoes, housing. The bones provided tools. A few deer would provide a significant amount of a family's annual needs.
When Europeans came searching for skins and furs, a whole new concept of a skin's value evolved. Skins no longer served usual functions. They were now exquisite pieces of clothing for wealthy persons. Native American pragmatic use of the entire animal now became passe. Europeans also used guns to hunt.
The introduction of guns had two effects: hunting was easier, and so the basic economic unit of Indian economy became an endangered species. Secondly, Europeans began to charge 30 deerskins for a single gun. So, guns created a big debt which Natives had no means of repaying. As the debt grew, the value of the currency used to pay that debt decreased.
The Europeans who were visitors and a distinct minority began to dictate economic policy of this land. Before any government was established, European economic interests controlled much of the land's activity.
With a huge debt created by the purchase of guns, it was easy to extract "ownership" of the land from Native Americans. The Natives were told: "if you can't pay your debt, pay us off in the one currency you do have - the land."
The Natives did not believe anyone "owned" the land. But that did not matter` They were forced to sign documents that they would give up the land in payment of their debt. It could be said that the deer was basis of the Indian economy.
If you are tempted to think that the treatment of the Native Americans was an accident, rather than a plan, look at what happened to the Jesuits.
Earliest Catholic missionaries came to the "New World" as employees of trading groups. They were to work for the trading corporation and were allowed little contact with the "natives". Their main function was as chaplain for the European agents of the trading corporation.
Somehow the Jesuits managed to break that mold. They began to evangelize the "Native Americans". They began to teach them farming skills, management skills. In 1759, the Jesuits were expelled from Portugal. In 1763 the Jesuits were expelled from Louisiana and lost all their land. In 1766 the Jesuits were expelled from France. In 1767 they were expelled from Spain. By 1773 the Jesuits were suppressed.
The Jesuits survived because Catherine the Great of Russia and Frederick the Great of Prussia refused to suppress them. For 41 years the Jesuits remained suppressed until they were restored by Pius V in 1814.
We see the power of the European trading companies. They were able to even influence the workings of the Catholic Church.
In the early 1700's John Law proposed to several nations that they create a bank which would use land as a security. All nations rejected the proposal. However, John was still able to set up the "Company of the West".
John Law was able to create a colony based on the model of British and other European colonies. In the colony food was not produced for local consumption or sale. Large crops, many of them non-food, were produced for distribution and sale elsewhere. A small proportion was distributed back to the colony at a huge price.
In a colony it is always important that the costs of imports always exceed revenues from exports. The credit system is designed to keep everyone in debt. While in debt they have few options. To this day we have the expression; "in debt to the company store."
In this model, COMPANY vessels load and unload COMPANY goods in COMPANY stores while the distribution and handling of the goods is supervised by COMPANY people.
In nearly 300 years this basic pattern between European and U.S. "colonial" trade has not basically changed. Today the system is a little more sophisticated but essentially has not changed. Today whether it be the New Orleans Trade Mart or the World Trade Center it is really a tool of European financial interests dominating U.S. economic activity in the same way as John Law's Company of the West.
It was not enough for European individuals to take over lands. European governments must somehow take control. John Law was able to set up a structure which allowed him to assume many of the duties and responibilities of government without actually being a government.
The Company of the West gave John Law a complete monopoly of trade in the entire colony of Louisiana. Law had absolute control over the interior affairs of Louisiana. All mineral concessions belonged to the Company. Law could arm and equip vessels of war. Any real estate could be freely alienated. Eventually, Law was able to set up a vast network of monopolistic enterprises in Africa, America, Asia, China, and India.
When Law's system began to break down, John Law was able to convince one of the European governments to buy up the stock of the Company of the West. This was one of the early examples of government bailing out private individuals who make foolish investments. Government printing presses began to run day and night in order to print money to pay for one half of Company of the West stock which the government had agreed to buy.
Whether it be individuals or governments, it is essential to keep them in debt. While in debt you have fewer options.
Prior to the American Revolution, British colonists in the 13 colonies understood the economics of colonization. On October 20, 1774 they signed the "Non Importation Agreement".
The agreement stated that as of December 1, 1774 they would not import into "British America" from Great Britain or Ireland any goods, wares, or merchandise as shall have been exported from Great Britain or Ireland. They went on to list specific items they would not import: East India tea from any port of the world, molasses, syrups, coffee, or pimento from British plantations.
It is interesting that they will not import or purchase any slaves imported after December 1, 1774. On that date they will wholly discontinue the slave trade. The Agreement lists several other items which will not be imported.
The colonies agree to promote frugality, economy, and industry. They will promote agriculture, arts, and the manufacture of this country.
Even though they still refer to themselves as "British America" they understand the whole philosophy of colonization. They resolve not to be a part of it. But, 35 years later (1807) the U.S.A. is importing $138.5 million worth of goods while exporting only $108 million, a trade deficit of $30.5 million. And 85 years later the United States will engage in Civil War over the importation of slaves. What happened to the "Non Importation Agreement?
That agreement was wiped out in article 4 of the Treaty of Paris which was signed to end the American Revolution. In that article the newly formed U.S.A. agreed to provide no lawful impediment to any British trader seeking to do business in the new nation. In a sense the colonies fought in vain. The very reason for their complaints (unjust British commerce) was still alive and well. One of the major reasons for the War of 1812 would once again be unjust British commerce.
After the American Revolution, the new nation was still frightened of Britain taking over the fur trade. They knew the British would continue to exploit that trade through Canada. The U.S.A. employed two tools to keep the Indians friendly to the new nation and not trade with Britain. The first was a series of treaties which defined their relationship. The second tool was the appointment of Indian agents who would make sure the Indians acted in a manner favorable to the new nation.
Over the years other tools were used to insure that Indians would not be a problem for the new nation. They attempted to require a license to trade with the Indians. Many gifts were given to the Indians to buy their support. "Friendly" Indians were even given gun powder to protect U.S. interests. Arming "friendly" nations is not a concept invented by the U.S.A. in the last half of the twentieth century. It is a concept that dates from the very beginning of our existence as a nation.
By 1803 the new nation was beginning to expand. The Louisiana Purchase almost doubled the amount of land of the new nation. President Jefferson and other leaders realized they could not have Indians roaming and hunting freely on this new land.
In 1806 the Indian Act was renewed with some changes. A superintendent was appointed to oversee the work of all the individual Indian agents. Two hundred fifty thousand dollars was appropriated for the work. For us, that is a pittance. But in 1806 it represented a 67% increase over the original apporpriation. Even in those days the U.S. Government budget was increasing at a rapid pace.
Even though the words were not used, the rapid increase in Government spending was for the sake of "national security." Not a lot has changed in the 225 years of our nation.
In fact, the Indian agents often acted more in the interest of white traders than in the interest of the Indians. Still, the foreign (especially Britsh) traders often did more business with the Indian than the U.S. traders.
British traders had two advantages over U.S. when dealing with the Indians. First, British traders knew their language. Most U.S. traders did not. Second, an ongoing commerce with Europe was necessary if the young nation was to survive. She could not afford to alienate any European traders, especially the British.
But by 1816 the government of the young nation enacted legislation making it illegal for any foreigner to trade with the Indians. All trade with the Indians had to be conducted through the Government. This precipitated a struggle that would last, in earnest, for fifty years and would never really be resolved. Who had the authority: the central government? or the states?
By 1820, the State of Georgia was testing the waters. Georgia wanted to move the Cherokee Indians from its territory. For ten years the State of Georgia and the Federal Government battle over who has jurisdiction over the Indians and over Indian land. In this dispute, no attention is given to the rights or the ideas of the Cherokee Indians.
One of the main claims Georgia sets forth is that in 1802 the Federal Government had signed an agreement with the State of Georgia. According to the terms of that agreement, the Federal Government was to work for the removal of the Indians from land belonging to the State of Georgia.
For many years the treaty was not ratified by the Federal Government. Almost twenty years later the Federal Government had not acted. So, Georgia took the initiative to seek their removal.
In 1829 gold is discovered on the Cherokee land. Suddenly the dispute between Georgia and the Federal Government now seems minor. Both sides are now interested in the removal of the Indians because of the gold on the land.
The Cherokees appeal their case to the United States Supreme Court. The Court rules in their favor. The new president, Andrew Jackson, refuses to enforce the decision of the Court. He reasons: If the court so rules, let the court enforce the decision.
Within months the Cherokee are removed to Oklahoma in the infamous "Trail of Tears." The United States and the State of Georgia reach an agreement. Under terms of the agreement, troops of the United States will assist the State of Georgia in keeping the Cherokee from working the gold mine. The agreement forbids Cherokees to mine gold within their own territorial boundaries, even if they are in the mining business. Within months, they will be deprived of the even the land.
On September 15, 1830 representatives of the Choctaw nation signed the Treay of Dancing Rabbit Creek. According to the treaty any Choctaw who wished to become a citizen of the United States would receive a land grant of 640 acres. In fact, very few of the Choctaws were given the opportunity to register.
Each of the three chiefs were given four sections each (2560 acres). In addition each was given $250 a month for life. That was a considerable amount of money in those days.
After defining the territory involved, most of the treaty described the advantages which would accrue to the leaders who were responsible for getting the treaty accepted by the Choctaw nation.
The preamble to the treaty was not approved. It contains three major points.
1. President Andrew Jackson says he cannot protect the Choctaw people from the laws of the State of Mississippi.
2. The purpose of the treaty is "so the Choctaws can live at peace under their own laws."
3. The Choctaws have determined to sell their land.
I'm not sure why the preamble was not approved. There are reasons it should not have been approved.
1. Andrew Jackson had no desire to protect the Indians. Even when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the Cherokee Nation, Jackson refused to enforce the decision.
2. The purpose of the treaty had little to do with the Choctaws "living at peace under their own laws." The treaty had only one purpose: gain the land for the U. S. Government.
3. They have determined to sell their land. The Choctaws did not sell their land freely. A marker near the spot of Dancing Rabbit Creek laments the fact that Choctaws were forced to sell their land. Most of the treaty deals with the perks given to the leaders of the Choctaws who pushed the treaty.
There were only about thirty years between the movement of the Indians from Mississippi and the start of the Civil War. But in that short time, Mississippi became one of the richest states in the young Union. How did such a huge plantation system develop in so short a time?
Many of the Mississippi plantation owners had moved to Mississippi from the Carolinas after the removal of the Indians. Many of these owners had strong economic ties to British banks and marketing firms.
Many of them were lawyers, bankers, politicians. Some of them owned plantations in three states. In 1860 plantations accounted for more than half of the nation's exports.
January 1, 1863 the "Emancipation Proclamation" took effect. Supposedly it declared that all slaves were henceforth "free". In reality no one was freed by the proclamation.
There were a number of exceptions to the proclamation. One of these exceptions was the State of Delaware. Another was 13 southern Parishes in Louisiana. According to the Proclamation the excepted areas "are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."
Although it took effect January 1, 1863 the proclamation was issued by Abraham Lincoln on September 22, 1862. Why would Lincoln issue this proclamation and then exempt every area where the Union was in control. In effect, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.
Eleven weeks before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued General McClellan send an advisory to President Lincoln. Much of the spirit of the Emancipation Proclamation seems to have been taken from the advice of General McClellan.
McClellan told Lincoln that at all costs the "the Constitution and Union must be preserved." He reasoned that if secession were successful, "other dissolutions are clearly to be seen in the future." He also advised Lincoln that he should not in any way "contemplate ... the forcible abolition of slavery."
McClellan went so far as to say: "Military power should not be allowed to interfere with the relations of servitude." He advised Lincoln that "slave contraband" seeking military protection should receive it. He also stated that the Government should assert its right to "appropriate permanently to its own service claims to slave labor."
That's hardly a proclamation of the end of slavery. Yet many of Lincoln's principles seem to come from this letter of McClellan.
At the end of the Civil War Union victory was very fragile. The nation itself was divided. New Orleans still dominated shipping. The Mississippi River would assure New Orleans domination as long as riverboat shipping continued to be the dominant means of the transportation of goods. Another system of transportation was necessary.
Railroads were being develped in Europe. European help must be sought in order to assure continued Union domination of the shipping industry.
Even prior to the Civil War railroads were being constructed and planned.
THERE IS MORE TO THIS PAGE
To continue viewing this page, Economic History move ahead To view the next page without completing this page CONTINUE To return to home page HOME