Wednesday, 16 March 2022

Autumn On Rustum

"A Fair Exchange."

It is autumn on Rustum and Terrestrial trees show appropriate colors:

red maple;
yellow birch;
scarlet gim (should that be gum?);
blue plume oak (is this native Rustumite?)
 
The first colonists laid out streets with saplings while they still lived in tents or huts.
 
The town of Anchor now has:
 
tree-lined streets;
earlier frame buildings;
later brick and concrete buildings;
ground cars; 
trucks;
a few antique horse-drawn wagons;
ten thousand residents, half children, a quarter of the planetary population;
schools;
a hospital.
 
The familiar sights also include:
 
a pale blue sky;
fliers migrating south;
the ruddy orange sun rising above the Hercules snowpeaks.
 
Dan Coffin is content with progress but concerned about its longer term consequences. 

16 comments:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I also recall mentions of how the heavier gravity of Rustum, 25 percent more than that of Earth's, was a matter of concern. Until the colonists could adjust, over several generations, falls and fractures were matters of serious anxiety.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

The high proportion of the population living in the first settlement is typical of "modern" colonizations -- that of Australia, for example.

By way of contrast, there were no real towns in Virginia for over a century after 1607.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

I'm not sure that is entirely correct. The very first VA settlement, Jamestown, did last for a long time before being abandoned. And Williamsburg (originally "Middle Plantation") was never abandoned even after it was no longer the capital of Virginia.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: they were hamlets rather than towns, with tiny populations, and there was no trend towards town growth.

Town growth in Virginia really dates from the mid-18th century, when its economy became more diversified than the simple exchange of tobacco for English goods.

That didn't require towns; the more complex economy of the period from the 1730's on did.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

I agree, but I was thinking of defining "towns" more broadly than that. There were also political and military reasons for having even those small hamlets.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Another notable feature of Virginia was that trades and occupations which were concentrated in towns in other colonies to the northward were dispersed in rural areas there -- carpenters, coopers, boatbuilders, furniture-makers, the higher orders of blacksmith, that sort of thing.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

That does seems a bit odd. I would have thought such trades would have been more efficiently plied in those small towns and hamlets early Virginia had.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: Virginia started off with "direct trade" -- English ships travelled up and down the rivers, bargaining for tobacco. When larger plantations emerged (mostly after the 1680's) they often acted as agents for local farmers, selling their tobacco for 'merchant credit', used to send orders to England to buy stuff.

This was a major factor in the extremely dispersed settlement pattern, because nothing but the -production- and primary processing of tobacco was done in Virginia. Planters often kept craftsmen, like coopers who made the tobacco casks, and sold their services.

Things started to change when Scottish factors sent agents to Virginia to set up stores, where tobacco, usually from small producers, could be sold and goods bought directly without having to wait.

(Big planters usually continued to sell directly through their agents in England, who extended them credit for buying things. A downturn in that and the calling-in of debts just before the Revolution was a major factor in turning the Virginia aristocracy against the connection with Britain.)

These Scottish often became the centers of small towns; at the same time, parts of Virginia stopped relying on tobacco and started exporting wheat, flour, corn, barreled salt pork, barrel staves, sawn timber, pig iron, and so forth.

And household production -- home weaving and spinning, and craft work -- became more common.

Those required much more complex processing, bulking and marketing operations in Virginia, and associated merchants, skilled labor, etc.

Some towns started to grow briskly in the two generations just before the Revolution, and cities like Baltimore in Maryland and Richmond and Port Royal in Virginia; but a lot of the skilled labor was itinerant, moving around rural neighborhoods rather than settling in town. This was partly due to the extreme "water orientation" of the Chesapeake Bay; inland, where trade had to go overland before it reached tidewater, towns also grew up in this period -- in the Shenandoah Valley, for instance.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

Many thanks for these illuminating comments. They make sense of what would otherwise have seemed, at first sight, a rather primitive socio/economic set up in early Virginia. In actuality, as you outlined, it was quite complex.

Intriguing, if that economic downturn and calling in of debts had not occurred, in the years before the War of Independence, Virginia might not have joined the rebellion against the UK?

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: not joined it as uniformly and enthusiastically, at least -- Virginia and Massachusetts were the most pro-Patriot colonies (though many slaves in Virginia sided with the Crown).

It wasn't just economics; from the viewpoint of the Virginia planters, their relationship with the British merchants (often carried from generation to generation) wasn't just quid pro quo, it was a "moral" one as well, which suddenly calling in their debts, instead of letting them pay them gradually, grossly violated.

That denigrated their honor, and the FFV's(*) were -extremely- touchy about personal honor. Their own local economic dealings tended to combine the economic and the personal, embodying patron-client and kin-kin elements as well as market calculation.

One reason George Washington shifted from tobacco to wheat at Mount Vernon was precisely that he could deal his wheat and flour through local merchants he knew personally, having come to distrust the British merchant factors.

(*) FFV -- First Families of Virginia.

S.M. Stirling said...

The basic attitude is summed up in one of the Border Ballads, when the Warden of Liddesdale learns that Lord Scroop, the English Warden of the West-March, has arrested the Kinmount Willie, an outlaw under his protection, and has taken him to Carlisle Castle "for to hang him up".

"He has tae'n the table with his hand
He has made the red wine leap on high:
'Now God's curse be upon my soul,' cried he,
'But avenged of Lord Scroop I will be!
For is my basinet but a widow's curch,
Is my lance but a wand o' the willow tree
And is this hand a lady's fair white hand
That this Southron lord dares to lightly me!'

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

Yes, I can see how a SUDDEN calling in of debts owed to these merchants, without them at least
first discussing/negotiating how best for the planters to pay them off, would cause anger and offense. And I have heard of how much personal honor mattered to the FFVs.

Yes, I have heard of how some slaves in the southern colonies sided with the Crown. It might have been smart of the British to promise manumission to any slaves of REBEL planters who came over to fight for the UK. Maybe they recoiled from the idea of making the war also a servile revolt? It could so easily have become GRISLY.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: actually in many places they -did- promise emancipation to the slaves of rebel masters, and tens of thousands came over to them. Many more just ran for the hills.

Canada's black population got its start this way, and Sierra Leone was founded by "black loyalists" from Nova Scotia. 3,000 escaped slaves were taken there (Nova Scotia) from the evacuation of New York alone, many ended up in the Bahamas and the Caribbean, and thousands more went to London.

It wasn't that the British were anti-slavery as such in this period, but they were quite willing to use blacks against rebels.

This probably backfired on them politically, because it united large segments of white Southerners in a feeling of righteous fury against Britain, since it violated local mores, to put it mildly.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

I can only conclude the British made mistake after mistake in their handling of the War of Independence, when I think they could have won during the period 1775-77. I recall reading of how Churchill believed the CENTER of the rebellion was not Philadelphia and the Continental Congress--that was Washington and his army. Churchill believed destroying Washington and his army was what would have won the war.

Another mistake seems to have been the British not properly using those tens of thousands of defecting slaves. My thought was that organizing and training them into new regiments would have greatly increased fighting strength and force projection.

And it was good of the British not to abandon Loyalist ex-slaves, but included them among the forces and and other Loyalist civilians after the war.

Hmmmm, if those Southern hadn't wanted their slaves to run away, maybe they should not have started a rebellion!

Ad astra! Sean

Nicholas David Rosen said...

Kaor, Sean!

The British did arm, train, and organize runaway slaves to fight against the American rebels, including their former masters. Not being as erudite as Mr. Stirling, I do not know to just what extent they did this, how many troops they gained this way, or how many more they could feasibly have gained. It was, I agree, good and honorable of the British not to abandon Loyalist ex-slaves, to the extent that they did not abandon them; but I have read that some did end up abandoned, or else grabbed by British officers and re-enslaved. Again, I don’t have the figures at m6 fingertips.

Best Regards,
Nicholas

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Nicholas!

Regrettable, of courses, what you said about the abuse of Loyalist ex-slaves, to the extent that happened. Which I hope was fairly minimal. Considering my skeptical, even jaundiced view of human beings, I am not surprised such things happened.

Ad astra and Regards! Sean