What was interesting about reading The Smuggler's World was the overarching feeling that there was an argument for free trade and open markets, at the very least an admonishment for imperial mercantilism. Especially in considering that the reason illicit smuggling was so prevalent in Venezuela was because their corresponding colonial power did not supply them with either economic opportunity, or the material goods necessary for self-sustainability. With this in mind, I feel that the book ends a little bit short. I understand the logic of smuggling in order to survive, or when the people seemingly don't care about providing additional taxes to the Spanish crown considering the negligence they've been subjected to. After all, the CompañÃa Guipuzcoana was a privatize entity but still acted according to the Spanish Crown's best interests. However, how did feelings about illicit smuggling change after independence? Was there a free-flowing market of goods and services from various imperial powers and sovereign nations afterwards? Was there a citizen's allegiance to lawful trade once La Gran Colombia becomes established? Or did Venezuelan traders in that moment feel neglected by Bogota in the same way they felt neglected by Madrid? Did those feelings change after the Venezuelan succession from La Gran Colombia? In ending the book at the Leon Rebellion, the historical narrative concludes around the overthrow of the centralization of commerce, either through the Crown or through the CompañÃa Guipuzcoana, but without an insight into what commercial trade was like after that proto-nationalism Venezuelans had in the 18th century manifested into a sovereign political entity in the 19th century.
I very much agree with your conclusion that the author’s choice of period does not make a great deal of sense, and falls short in its failure to discuss how smuggling culture plays into Venezuela’s decision to declare independence from Spain just 11 years after the end of the 18th century.
I also agree. I would find it interesting - if not imperative - to reach into the next half-century, or so. Maybe he felt ending at the Leon Rebellion was a narrative choice, to stop on a dramatic note?
I also agree with you Rafael, and follow the author's argument about illicit trade being a staple of survival attributed to the benign neglect of Hapsburg & later Bourbon crowns. Sara, I pretty much see the Leon rebellion as a response to the threat of what they know to be commerce versus the regulated and authoritative inconsistencies of both administrative central governments and the local crown representatives who arbitrarily enforce maritime laws.
I found this book frustrating. The author shared his conclusions in exhaustive (and repetitive) detail, and maybe this is my lack of familiarity with scholarly historical books, but I did not feel that he accomplished his purpose in walking us through how he came to his conclusion and the evidence he drew upon (and although my experience is obviously limited, this has not been my reaction to the other books and articles I’ve read for my classes to date including all four of our readings for last week). For example, on page 63, Cromwell writes, “As prize courts rarely doled out harsh sentences to women, female buyers emphasized proscribed feminine gender roles as mothers and household managers in their testimonies.” His footnote cites to 3 cases, but provides no further details on the specifics of the cases he encountered, nor does he discuss what sentences women commonly received nor how those sentences compared to those given to men (much less how these compare across class and race lines). I had no doubt that the author knows a great deal about Venezuelan smuggling, but I was frustrated that he did not walk us through the stories and evidence he read to explain how he came to his conclusions. This may be my law degree and years of legal practice talking (and I know that we are looking at early civil law rather than early common law), but in particular, I found myself quite frustrated when Cromwell cites to prize court proceedings without (in most instances) discussing the facts and circumstances of the individual cases from which he draws his conclusions in detail.
Even on 139-141, where Cromwell does discuss the case of the Danish sloop Pitre in more detail, he still jumps to conclusions that do not seem to be necessarily justified by the evidence he presents. For instance, he notes that the Philadelphian pilot and the Dutch Jewish scribe of the Pitre argued that Spanish law should not apply to their situation and that human law should not hinder free travel, as evidence that they had little regard for Spanish law, but then in the following paragraph extrapolates from there to argue without additional evidence that “foreign smugglers frequently did not identify with or conform to the imperial projects of their birthplaces.” The footnotes shed no further light on how the author jumped from Point A to Point B.
I compare this to our readings for last week (especially the Stephanie Wood piece), which walked us precisely through the evidence the authors relied on to make their arguments. For example, in Wood’s case she shows us the pictoral record, walks us through the meaning she gives it with discussions of how she arrived at her conclusions, and then makes arguments more generally from there. Norton similarly walks us through the processes by which chocolate gradually becomes incorporated into Spanish American and later Spanish European culture, and Earle grapples with the inherent contradictions in European explorers’ eating Native American foods even as they feel tension due to their belief that such food will change their physiology.
I finished this book feeling decidedly unconvinced by the author of much other than that smuggling was commonplace in 18th century Venezuela, that the Company attempted to cut off such smuggling without providing adequate replacement for the trade through intraimperial sources, and that local Venezuelans were frustrated by the Company’s and the empire’s failure to recognize the freer-trade necessities of the communities they’d built across the ocean. But I was not convinced that this was as unique as the author posits: was smuggling also common in 18th century Europe and colonial North America?
I don't know much about Spain in the 18th century, however, capitalism I know a little about. What I think is particular to this region, which is under Spanish control, is that at a time where the "Lowland countries" (modern day Norway, Finland, Denmark) and in some places in Italy, and England capitalism was becoming a more and more advantageous system of exploitation Spain wasn't feeling it. In Spain capitalism was viewed as sinful and antithetical to the system of mercantilism. Because of religious convictions and the will of the monarchy mercantilism lasted longer in Spain than in other empires and this is the only real distinction I know of that would make this place and period special when discussing the development and evolution of "free trade" and how smuggler's played a role in that development.
I am sure there will be someone who knows way more, but the distinction of Spain being anticapitalist, but not in a good way, is what backs up the assertion that smuggling would be so prevalent in this region, and during this time. Because within the Spanish Empire, free and open trade based on the creation of markets, would only be able to exist within an illicit market.
Also, I hear you on the pedantic "sharing of conclusions and detail," but from what I am told this is how many historians back up their assertions and defend their individual thesis. I also sympathize with the concern over sources. However, I would suggest that the list of secondary sources gives the author some authority on interpretation of primary sources through learned study of the period and familiarity of the events and milieu of the region. Additionally, Cromwell includes some explanations in footnotes that may abate some of your concerns. In footnote 6 it is mentioned that translations have been simplified because of the complexity of translating early modern Spanish. This may be, or may not be what do I know, why the primary source material may appear to be lacking in evidence. Regardless, I too share a concern over the issue of "interpreting sources" that at times seems problematic to me.
As far as I know, smuggling was also common in North America. I got the sense that smuggling was commonplace throughout most of the New World colonies. I think Cromwell was trying to say that Venezuela makes for a good case study because smuggling was the most "normative state of commerce" there, rather than something commonplace but decidedly behind the scenes. I also wish he went into further detail about the conclusions he drew from particular court cases -- those examples were what I found most interesting about his book.
I’m sure you have far more expertise on the specifics of making change in economic than I, Jason, and I appreciate your point about a later shift for Spain from mercantilism to capitalism than was true for other parts of Europe. Thank you for that insight.
That said, I’m not letting Cromwell off the hook for his conclusory style and lack of citation to specific language to provide meat for his arguments and to back up his assertions. I also read his footnote about the difficulties of translation, but that strikes me as a cop out given that all four of our authors last week wrote about the same time period and yet each of them seemed capable of doing precisely what Cromwell claims is too difficult: citing original sources (and translating into English as necessary). I agree that he clearly has strong command of his secondary sources, but as an attorney I’m a trained skeptic especially when it comes to citation of evidence and over-reliance on secondary sources, so I’m not so willing to let him off the hook particularly when the sources he relies on but doesn’t specifically quote are legal cases. In my years of experience with the written aspects of litigation, anyone who cites to legal authority without providing at least parentheticals setting out what that authority says or stands for pretty much by definition has something to hide.
Smuggling was common across the European colonies of the Americas and all major European empires operated under a the economic ideology of mercantilism to a greater or lesser degree during this period. The Dutch were the closest to being an exception and they were the model for Smith's The Wealth of Nations, published in the last quarter of the 18th century. 1776 to be particular, the same year in which Britain's most populous colonies in North America declared independence. The British tax policies which precipitated revolution were largely exercised through their control of imports and trade more generally. I think, given that mercantilism was the norm and that smuggling is a subversion of mercantilism, it is fair to say that smugglers did not strongly care for the imperial projects of their parent empires.
In regards to the example of women prosecuted for smuggling he does actually provide detail of the different treatment drawing from the records he cites. He states that women generally were jailed for a few days, had their cases swiftly resolved, had the contraband goods confiscated, and received a moderate fine. Conversely a man involved in smuggling could have all his assets frozen for a significant length of time before his case is resolved, with the potential punishment including a sentence of transportation and hard labor that was often fatal.
I thought Smuggler's World provided a very informative framework for how capitalism came to Latin America, specifically Venezuela. Along with a very interesting historical analysis of the culture of social/economic interactions based upon false scarcity, and how its distinction as illicit trade helped to shape the norms of this periphery state. Through Cromwell's thesis one may come to perceive how that economic culture of illicit trade was developed, and maybe even how it continues to today in Latin America. While it may not have been a driving feature of the book, it does add to the greater narrative concerning the social and cultural milieu of a period, although preceding widespread rebellion against monarchies, still exhibited the behavior and developed the system to surplant totalitarian authority. Although never more than a taboo for those actively engaging in the secondary procurement of goods, those who directly supplied such goods risked their life.
An overview of the general methods and systems of transgression against imperial hegemony makes for an interesting read, and the sources are not only numerous but in some cases micro histories of their own. Although I find the use of sources in such "imaginative" ways to be problematic for a variety of reasons, Cromwell's basic thesis of how chocolate and other goods were used and the means by which they were distributed seems to have been shown.
However, the overall picture of how these systems were created and how they maintained themselves included, for me, an important and largely ambiguous point for the author. That is the use of various forms of violence for this system to exist. Whether it is the violence of the state which greedily guarded its national assets in their archaic mercantilists systems, or those early capitalist ventures that promoted "free trade," both the development and maintenance of this system involved, actually demands, violence. Not only was violence an initial aspect of this systems development, it was also a large part of how the system was maintained through exploitative transactions, illegal payments, and corruption all of which are aspects of a system based on competition, exploitation, and false scarcity. It was enforced through violence as well, including long and exploitative prison sentences, torture, and death. Although formed out of a basic need to, "make a living" as one Mr. Brundenburg states on page 7, as an exploitative and competitive system which commodify's and privatizes anything deemed profitable, it also perpetuated a system of hyper-exploitation, slavery.
One could easily argue that this also led to the development of the middle class and the ability for some to gain class advancement, or even that those of the poor working class could gain temporary access to foreign goods thus improving everyone's lot. However, while peoples material needs were being met in some places, the allocation and dispersement of these resources was not equal but confined to those who already had the resources to purchase such goods, the trade in illicit goods was not a charitable cause.
Cromwell states that the goal of the book is highlighting the ingenuity in subverting trade restrictions for sustenance and profit, and also of the values this process imparted on this intercontinental community. Seeing as how not one of the smugglers in this book was Han Solo, Lando Calrissian, or Chewbacca; coupled with the information provided by Cromwell, I would have to say that the book is very successful in illustrating what that influence was, (extremely damaging and ultimately negative to the development of an equitable or fair society)and how this system of trade developed, operated, and eventually diminished ( at least for a while, considering the perpetual existence of illicit trade that still exists throughout the entire hemisphere shaping cultures, norms, and various forms of violence). May the Force be with you.
Cromwell points out that part of what made this research difficult was the fact that for the most part, the only smugglers' perspectives we have are from those who got caught. Throughout each chapter I've read so far, I've noticed this gap in our understanding of what smuggling culture was really like. We don't have (unless they come up in the last few chapters) enough sources to tell us about the most successful smugglers -- the ones who got away with it and left no trace. As others have mentioned, Cromwell exhaustively repeats his point that smuggling was widespread. He thoroughly convinces us of this. Smuggling was not only an opportunity for profit and social advancement, but it was often necessary to meet basic needs.
The personal tales of how particular smugglers got punished or let off have been interesting, but they paint a confusing picture. Mostly, I've understood that smugglers were handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on their gender, their personal connections, or what they were caught red-handed with. The enforcement of laws was tightened and loosened throughout the 17th century, particularly due to the influence of the Caracas Company. This vacillation does tell us something about the nature of smuggling in Venezuela. The poorest smugglers carried most of the risk, which further encouraged wealthier smugglers because they could manipulate the system to get away with it. People found their own gaps in the law, and laws were not designed to protect everybody equally. In many of the court cases we read about, it seemed that both the smuggler and the judge knew what was up, but they were playing out a charade of ignorance because smuggling lined everyone's pockets. Smuggling could not be fully stopped because not enough people wanted it to -- smuggling benefitted too many people and infiltrated all levels of society. As Cromwell states, Venezuelan society was more stable due to the practice of smuggling. It was so commonplace that it's possible many people genuinely did not see themselves as lawbreakers. So far, I agree with Cromwell, but I don't necessarily think that stability was a good thing. Those small time smugglers who did so out of necessity were kept down and disproportionately punished. Priests and government officials benefited financially from smuggling, but they also benefited by keeping their power as they maintained the status quo.
In a way it felt as if he wanted to draw parallels between Venezuelan smuggling and the benefits of free trade, or at the very least promoting free trade while admonishing mercantilism and the centralization of commercial activity in the Spanish Empire. However, you mention some important observations as to how smuggling, and the subsequent smuggling networks that followed, replicated power dynamics in accordance to the Spanish colonial project. I am sure that I have oversimplified many of his arguments within the book. But you are correct in that the commercial avenues that smuggling opened for Venezuelan merchants eventually created a system that disproportionately punished small time smugglers, who were often poor and black, while simultaneously benefiting government officials, who were peninsulares, and the clergy.
Katelyn, as I read this, I kept thinking about modern parallels--where else do we see an "outlaw culture" or criminal enterprise with so many complicit people at so many different levels of society? While Cromwell points to the necessity of smuggling to meet needs in Venezuela because of Spain's neglect and closed mercantile system, it also seems likely that the distance from Spain made the opportunities for self-enrichment were just too tempting--being caught and tried may have felt likely because of both the physical distance from Spain, but also because of the emotional distance Spain's neglect fostered in the settlers.
Hi Katelyn, I agree with you that there's a need for more perspectives aside from those that were caught. I think that that is an appropriate critique for many of the different people involved in the smuggling such as the clergy, the officials, the Caracas Company smugglers etc. It would give the narrative Cromwell is trying to create more depth.
What struck me most in reading Jesse Cromwell’s The Smuggler’s World was the interdependence of the smuggling—that something that was illegal was such an integral part of the economy for so many. The smugglers themselves were an obvious beneficiary, and people generally don’t engage in behavior that doesn’t benefit them in some way, so that they found financial reward worth the risk isn’t surprising. However, the filtering of smuggling into the domestic sphere, where people (especially women) were not just end-users but purveyors of smuggled goods, surprised me. The pervasiveness of smuggling points to the unfilled need, or at least as perceived by those in Venezuela. The use of the court records to determine that women were sometimes charged but less likely to be convicted, and that it points to an unwillingness to conceive of women as those who engage in criminal behavior consistently, reflects the ideas about the abilities and station of women by those in the courts. The question is whether they think that women are not clever enough or desperate enough, or whether they are pointing to the morality of women as their reason. Current studies reflect gender bias in the charging, conviction, and sentencing of women—with women being underrepresented in all three cases—in both the United States and the United Kingdom, revealing that the gender bias is perhaps worth of a longitudinal study that analyzes the records of a wider variety of court systems over centuries. In addition, that the smuggling was found in all class levels also shows that there was likely not another way to meet these consumer needs. The driving force, according to Cromwell’s argument, was that European goods marked the Spanish settlers as different from the indigenous, pushing them to resort to smuggling to maintain their status and set themselves apart. That the wealthy were far less likely to be charged and convicted that the poor is also an issue in contemporary society—suggesting that the wealthy use their connections and cash to avoid prosecution.
I think the sexism pointed towards women at this time is more towards their roles in society and that negative connotations arose to enforce those connotations. Religion is a major factor and i wished touched on a little more in The Smuggler's World in regards to social/financial benefits for the various groups. I know the clergy benefited, but i wish it was more in depth.
Great point Jen. I thought the area that discussed not only women as a benign participant questionable, but that also of the Africa Slave, as being mentally deficient of sorts or lacking the mental capacity to form intent. The author's is placing the domestic needs and roles of women as the motivating drive to place themselves as "criminals" at a time when monarch neglect was a sure way to starve. I believe the role of women and the slave should be examined a little closer if possible. While Cromwell does acknowledge the reliability questions regarding testimonies, he also seems to present that a one size fits all mode of operation in responding to women as criminals was not the case, and consistently expresses fluidity and knowledge of the law provided by the network of smugglers
After having read “The Smuggler's World: Illicit trade and Atlantic Communities In The 18th Century Venezuela” by Jesse Cromwell the concept of how current and previous generations of historians have interpreted history. the majority of our historical interpretations have been handed down to us from middle to upper-class European males from the 19th century and before. These interpretations have varied from somewhat factual to extreme misrepresentations. A lot of current work of modern historians is to reassess the sources and lenses used by these historians in order to give a more accurate representation of the world and the people who lived in it. are readings from last week are proof of that. underlined clause that was somewhat stated in those readings was that our interpretation of the world that we inherited from past historians is mostly represented by the colonial Europeans and only gives their and their descendant’s interpretation of historical. this week's readings truly challenged are interpretations of imperialism and colonialism and how the concept of world history ( which is usually dominated by European politics in other regions of the world) is only a half-truth and that history and that's our interpretations are truly a global phenomenon. in the prologue it mentions the popularity coffee and chocolate drinks during the 18th century in French Salons. Salons Is where academics and their bourgeoise Financers would throw parties and talk about politics and other academic topics. much of the ideas that led to the French Revolution occurred in salons. People of Mexico and Latin America and their Knowledge and advancements in cuisine 4 LED indirectly two aspects of a cultural movement in Europe which would have a world wide ripple effect on politics around the globe. another misconception of this. Is the influence of the absolute monarchies Imperial proclamations. that's what the Venezuelans even though the Spanish Crown prohibited trade with any ships but the Spanish merchants a counter-movement a rose that led to a thriving economy which led to much exposure two other nations and cultures. these cultures were also fluid as many times the Venezuelan Smugglers were of mixed Heritage whether it be Afro-Caribbean or some form of European ethnicity mixed with Colonial heritage. These states which have been formed and their identities are much more fluid than solely a Spanish colony.
I found this book to be a good read, overall. When it comes to academic writing, I much prefer a very structured approach to the construction of chapters and paragraphes, so the repetitiveness some felt to be exhausting I found refreshing.
One of the core strengths of this study, however, is his connections to broader historical theories and concepts. See his extensive footnotes which delve deeply into the ideas he uses in the text. For example, utiltizing E.P. Thompson’s idea of the “moral economy” or Michael N. Pearson’s “littoral society.” Thompson approaches the moral economy from a localized standpoint; Cromwell deploys this idea to the transnational level is most interesting, especially given the status of communication at the time. Pearson’s littoral society works in tandum with this idea, ascribing the commonality of coastal communities to the formation of a more general illicit-yet-ubiquitous economy.
There were a couple things that I got from reading "The Smuggler's World". The first is that how free trade was being established, despite the Spanish Crown's attempt to enforce mercantilism in her colonies in the Americas. More people than ever before in history are participants of a globalized economy and free trade, despite attempts to return to protectionism. I choose not to use the world mercantilism in that context because many of the great colonial powers are mere shadows of their former selves, in short most of their colonies have political independence. However, I was disappointed that the author did not tie it in with the ideas of the Enlightenment such as from Adam Smith. It is most likely that smugglers knew long before Smith about the benefits of free trade.
Another criticism that I have of the book was that the author could had done a different way to cite in the book. The footnotes covered in some case almost an entire page. The author should not have used footnotes, but instead endnotes. I believe that it would have been easier for some of us to read the text.
Finally, I will add that the reading material repeated itself throughout the book. I am not sure that the author wanted to make his case known, but it was not necessary to repeat the material again and again.
After reading Jesse Cromwell's "The Smugglers' World, Illicit Trade and Atlantic Communities in Eighteenth-Century Venezuela", I was left with the feelings that Cromwell was petitioning on behalf of the traders and smugglers. Even though, Cromwell brings to the light the long ago tales of smugglers as evil pirates, he ventures right into a slightly romanticized view of the average smuggler struggling to support himself since he was not a slave or part of the upper echelon. Cromwell stresses that use of the smugglers as a positive factor to Spanish trade systems along the Venezuelan coast and vital to connector to the relations between the Dutch merchants and the local Venezuelans. The theme for the positive need for the smuggling trade repeated itself throughout the entire book which left the reader feeling the material was covered and the book could have been shorter. Jesse Cromwell made his argument and continued to repeat his supporting material.
Jesse Cromwell does make an attempt to address the role that Afro-Caribbean seafarers play in the race relations between the Caribbean and Spanish governments. The complexity of the relationship where the African decent seafarers were able to make advancements within the occupation but were also still regarded as third class citizens that to the non-African decent merchants and seafarers. This point in his book, made the most impact when it came to the topic of the slave trade in the Spanish-Caribbean and Spanish territories.
This along with other factors is why Cromwell's book does not bring to light any new key points or information and made continuing points to the same common themes told by others historians on the subject of intro-Caribbean maritime trade within the Spanish colonies.
One of the things that grabbed my attention early on in the book is the way in which women, indigenous, and African people in Venezuela were able to use the negative stereotypes Spanish and Spanish American people had of them to their advantage. By using these stereotypes they were able to get more lenient sentences and at times be completely acquitted. Ironically, the stereotypes of these people arose from the assumed supremacy of the Spanish which meant that Spanish constituents, particularly men, would actually get punished for smuggling. I do think that overall these narratives and the roles that African and indigenous people played in Venezuela should have been expanded and examined more thoroughly. I think that since the majority of the evidence used throughout the book was from the testimonies of smugglers and buyers caught, there isn’t a clear representation of how smuggling was actually looked upon by the population. I think it hones back to some of the questions that Cromwell posed early on about how we view smuggling and label the act. Should we keep on reiterating the word used by the colonizing power, or find a word that the actual people in Venezuela would see more fitting? How should the story be framed, and under who's point of view?
The term "Bourbon Reformer" is frequently used but not given context until the third chapter and even there the context may not be fully adequate to understand the depth of change aspired to by the new Bourbon dynasty. A quarter of the book passes during which the arrival of the Bourbon dynasty is portrayed without the context that the Bourbons were the family of the French monarchy and that the War of the Spanish Succession was fought to preclude a unification of France and Spain. That knowledge appears as assumed to be already in the reader's posession. Without this context it appears that the Habsburg dynasty was merely in a state of decrepitude and the value of the Bourbons was in the injection of new vigor to the Spanish empire. What this portrayal overlooks until the third chapter, and then does not fully express, is that the Bourbons had taken massive strides towards the centralization of state power and the removal of feudal vestiges within France. It is this new formulation of state and empire which the Bourbon dynasty sought to impose on Spain and its possessions. It is also overlooked that the loss of Spanish imperial possessions in Europe advances Spain along the path to becoming a nation-state, with corresponding changes in Spanish identity and expectations of the state. If the books narrative had been continued into the 19th century then I am sure the corresponding changes in colonial national identity would have been an important element in understanding the forces which combined with resentment of imperial subjecthood to motivate the wars of independence.
What was interesting about reading The Smuggler's World was the overarching feeling that there was an argument for free trade and open markets, at the very least an admonishment for imperial mercantilism. Especially in considering that the reason illicit smuggling was so prevalent in Venezuela was because their corresponding colonial power did not supply them with either economic opportunity, or the material goods necessary for self-sustainability. With this in mind, I feel that the book ends a little bit short. I understand the logic of smuggling in order to survive, or when the people seemingly don't care about providing additional taxes to the Spanish crown considering the negligence they've been subjected to. After all, the CompañÃa Guipuzcoana was a privatize entity but still acted according to the Spanish Crown's best interests. However, how did feelings about illicit smuggling change after independence? Was there a free-flowing market of goods and services from various imperial powers and sovereign nations afterwards? Was there a citizen's allegiance to lawful trade once La Gran Colombia becomes established? Or did Venezuelan traders in that moment feel neglected by Bogota in the same way they felt neglected by Madrid? Did those feelings change after the Venezuelan succession from La Gran Colombia? In ending the book at the Leon Rebellion, the historical narrative concludes around the overthrow of the centralization of commerce, either through the Crown or through the CompañÃa Guipuzcoana, but without an insight into what commercial trade was like after that proto-nationalism Venezuelans had in the 18th century manifested into a sovereign political entity in the 19th century.
ReplyDeleteI very much agree with your conclusion that the author’s choice of period does not make a great deal of sense, and falls short in its failure to discuss how smuggling culture plays into Venezuela’s decision to declare independence from Spain just 11 years after the end of the 18th century.
DeleteI also agree. I would find it interesting - if not imperative - to reach into the next half-century, or so. Maybe he felt ending at the Leon Rebellion was a narrative choice, to stop on a dramatic note?
DeleteI also agree with you Rafael, and follow the author's argument about illicit trade being a staple of survival attributed to the benign neglect of Hapsburg & later Bourbon crowns. Sara, I pretty much see the Leon rebellion as a response to the threat of what they know to be commerce versus the regulated and authoritative inconsistencies of both administrative central governments and the local crown representatives who arbitrarily enforce maritime laws.
DeleteI found this book frustrating. The author shared his conclusions in exhaustive (and repetitive) detail, and maybe this is my lack of familiarity with scholarly historical books, but I did not feel that he accomplished his purpose in walking us through how he came to his conclusion and the evidence he drew upon (and although my experience is obviously limited, this has not been my reaction to the other books and articles I’ve read for my classes to date including all four of our readings for last week). For example, on page 63, Cromwell writes, “As prize courts rarely doled out harsh sentences to women, female buyers emphasized proscribed feminine gender roles as mothers and household managers in their testimonies.” His footnote cites to 3 cases, but provides no further details on the specifics of the cases he encountered, nor does he discuss what sentences women commonly received nor how those sentences compared to those given to men (much less how these compare across class and race lines). I had no doubt that the author knows a great deal about Venezuelan smuggling, but I was frustrated that he did not walk us through the stories and evidence he read to explain how he came to his conclusions. This may be my law degree and years of legal practice talking (and I know that we are looking at early civil law rather than early common law), but in particular, I found myself quite frustrated when Cromwell cites to prize court proceedings without (in most instances) discussing the facts and circumstances of the individual cases from which he draws his conclusions in detail.
ReplyDeleteEven on 139-141, where Cromwell does discuss the case of the Danish sloop Pitre in more detail, he still jumps to conclusions that do not seem to be necessarily justified by the evidence he presents. For instance, he notes that the Philadelphian pilot and the Dutch Jewish scribe of the Pitre argued that Spanish law should not apply to their situation and that human law should not hinder free travel, as evidence that they had little regard for Spanish law, but then in the following paragraph extrapolates from there to argue without additional evidence that “foreign smugglers frequently did not identify with or conform to the imperial projects of their birthplaces.” The footnotes shed no further light on how the author jumped from Point A to Point B.
I compare this to our readings for last week (especially the Stephanie Wood piece), which walked us precisely through the evidence the authors relied on to make their arguments. For example, in Wood’s case she shows us the pictoral record, walks us through the meaning she gives it with discussions of how she arrived at her conclusions, and then makes arguments more generally from there. Norton similarly walks us through the processes by which chocolate gradually becomes incorporated into Spanish American and later Spanish European culture, and Earle grapples with the inherent contradictions in European explorers’ eating Native American foods even as they feel tension due to their belief that such food will change their physiology.
I finished this book feeling decidedly unconvinced by the author of much other than that smuggling was commonplace in 18th century Venezuela, that the Company attempted to cut off such smuggling without providing adequate replacement for the trade through intraimperial sources, and that local Venezuelans were frustrated by the Company’s and the empire’s failure to recognize the freer-trade necessities of the communities they’d built across the ocean. But I was not convinced that this was as unique as the author posits: was smuggling also common in 18th century Europe and colonial North America?
I don't know much about Spain in the 18th century, however, capitalism I know a little about. What I think is particular to this region, which is under Spanish control, is that at a time where the "Lowland countries" (modern day Norway, Finland, Denmark) and in some places in Italy, and England capitalism was becoming a more and more advantageous system of exploitation Spain wasn't feeling it. In Spain capitalism was viewed as sinful and antithetical to the system of mercantilism. Because of religious convictions and the will of the monarchy mercantilism lasted longer in Spain than in other empires and this is the only real distinction I know of that would make this place and period special when discussing the development and evolution of "free trade" and how smuggler's played a role in that development.
DeleteI am sure there will be someone who knows way more, but the distinction of Spain being anticapitalist, but not in a good way, is what backs up the assertion that smuggling would be so prevalent in this region, and during this time. Because within the Spanish Empire, free and open trade based on the creation of markets, would only be able to exist within an illicit market.
Also, I hear you on the pedantic "sharing of conclusions and detail," but from what I am told this is how many historians back up their assertions and defend their individual thesis. I also sympathize with the concern over sources. However, I would suggest that the list of secondary sources gives the author some authority on interpretation of primary sources through learned study of the period and familiarity of the events and milieu of the region. Additionally, Cromwell includes some explanations in footnotes that may abate some of your concerns. In footnote 6 it is mentioned that translations have been simplified because of the complexity of translating early modern Spanish. This may be, or may not be what do I know, why the primary source material may appear to be lacking in evidence. Regardless, I too share a concern over the issue of "interpreting sources" that at times seems problematic to me.
As far as I know, smuggling was also common in North America. I got the sense that smuggling was commonplace throughout most of the New World colonies. I think Cromwell was trying to say that Venezuela makes for a good case study because smuggling was the most "normative state of commerce" there, rather than something commonplace but decidedly behind the scenes. I also wish he went into further detail about the conclusions he drew from particular court cases -- those examples were what I found most interesting about his book.
DeleteI’m sure you have far more expertise on the specifics of making change in economic than I, Jason, and I appreciate your point about a later shift for Spain from mercantilism to capitalism than was true for other parts of Europe. Thank you for that insight.
DeleteThat said, I’m not letting Cromwell off the hook for his conclusory style and lack of citation to specific language to provide meat for his arguments and to back up his assertions. I also read his footnote about the difficulties of translation, but that strikes me as a cop out given that all four of our authors last week wrote about the same time period and yet each of them seemed capable of doing precisely what Cromwell claims is too difficult: citing original sources (and translating into English as necessary). I agree that he clearly has strong command of his secondary sources, but as an attorney I’m a trained skeptic especially when it comes to citation of evidence and over-reliance on secondary sources, so I’m not so willing to let him off the hook particularly when the sources he relies on but doesn’t specifically quote are legal cases. In my years of experience with the written aspects of litigation, anyone who cites to legal authority without providing at least parentheticals setting out what that authority says or stands for pretty much by definition has something to hide.
Smuggling was common across the European colonies of the Americas and all major European empires operated under a the economic ideology of mercantilism to a greater or lesser degree during this period. The Dutch were the closest to being an exception and they were the model for Smith's The Wealth of Nations, published in the last quarter of the 18th century. 1776 to be particular, the same year in which Britain's most populous colonies in North America declared independence. The British tax policies which precipitated revolution were largely exercised through their control of imports and trade more generally. I think, given that mercantilism was the norm and that smuggling is a subversion of mercantilism, it is fair to say that smugglers did not strongly care for the imperial projects of their parent empires.
DeleteIn regards to the example of women prosecuted for smuggling he does actually provide detail of the different treatment drawing from the records he cites. He states that women generally were jailed for a few days, had their cases swiftly resolved, had the contraband goods confiscated, and received a moderate fine. Conversely a man involved in smuggling could have all his assets frozen for a significant length of time before his case is resolved, with the potential punishment including a sentence of transportation and hard labor that was often fatal.
I thought Smuggler's World provided a very informative framework for how capitalism came to Latin America, specifically Venezuela. Along with a very interesting historical analysis of the culture of social/economic interactions based upon false scarcity, and how its distinction as illicit trade helped to shape the norms of this periphery state. Through Cromwell's thesis one may come to perceive how that economic culture of illicit trade was developed, and maybe even how it continues to today in Latin America. While it may not have been a driving feature of the book, it does add to the greater narrative concerning the social and cultural milieu of a period, although preceding widespread rebellion against monarchies, still exhibited the behavior and developed the system to surplant totalitarian authority. Although never more than a taboo for those actively engaging in the secondary procurement of goods, those who directly supplied such goods risked their life.
ReplyDeleteAn overview of the general methods and systems of transgression against imperial hegemony makes for an interesting read, and the sources are not only numerous but in some cases micro histories of their own. Although I find the use of sources in such "imaginative" ways to be problematic for a variety of reasons, Cromwell's basic thesis of how chocolate and other goods were used and the means by which they were distributed seems to have been shown.
However, the overall picture of how these systems were created and how they maintained themselves included, for me, an important and largely ambiguous point for the author. That is the use of various forms of violence for this system to exist. Whether it is the violence of the state which greedily guarded its national assets in their archaic mercantilists systems, or those early capitalist ventures that promoted "free trade," both the development and maintenance of this system involved, actually demands, violence. Not only was violence an initial aspect of this systems development, it was also a large part of how the system was maintained through exploitative transactions, illegal payments, and corruption all of which are aspects of a system based on competition, exploitation, and false scarcity. It was enforced through violence as well, including long and exploitative prison sentences, torture, and death. Although formed out of a basic need to, "make a living" as one Mr. Brundenburg states on page 7, as an exploitative and competitive system which commodify's and privatizes anything deemed profitable, it also perpetuated a system of hyper-exploitation, slavery.
One could easily argue that this also led to the development of the middle class and the ability for some to gain class advancement, or even that those of the poor working class could gain temporary access to foreign goods thus improving everyone's lot. However, while peoples material needs were being met in some places, the allocation and dispersement of these resources was not equal but confined to those who already had the resources to purchase such goods, the trade in illicit goods was not a charitable cause.
Cromwell states that the goal of the book is highlighting the ingenuity in subverting trade restrictions for sustenance and profit, and also of the values this process imparted on this intercontinental community. Seeing as how not one of the smugglers in this book was Han Solo, Lando Calrissian, or Chewbacca; coupled with the information provided by Cromwell, I would have to say that the book is very successful in illustrating what that influence was, (extremely damaging and ultimately negative to the development of an equitable or fair society)and how this system of trade developed, operated, and eventually diminished ( at least for a while, considering the perpetual existence of illicit trade that still exists throughout the entire hemisphere shaping cultures, norms, and various forms of violence). May the Force be with you.
Cromwell points out that part of what made this research difficult was the fact that for the most part, the only smugglers' perspectives we have are from those who got caught. Throughout each chapter I've read so far, I've noticed this gap in our understanding of what smuggling culture was really like. We don't have (unless they come up in the last few chapters) enough sources to tell us about the most successful smugglers -- the ones who got away with it and left no trace. As others have mentioned, Cromwell exhaustively repeats his point that smuggling was widespread. He thoroughly convinces us of this. Smuggling was not only an opportunity for profit and social advancement, but it was often necessary to meet basic needs.
ReplyDeleteThe personal tales of how particular smugglers got punished or let off have been interesting, but they paint a confusing picture. Mostly, I've understood that smugglers were handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on their gender, their personal connections, or what they were caught red-handed with. The enforcement of laws was tightened and loosened throughout the 17th century, particularly due to the influence of the Caracas Company. This vacillation does tell us something about the nature of smuggling in Venezuela. The poorest smugglers carried most of the risk, which further encouraged wealthier smugglers because they could manipulate the system to get away with it. People found their own gaps in the law, and laws were not designed to protect everybody equally. In many of the court cases we read about, it seemed that both the smuggler and the judge knew what was up, but they were playing out a charade of ignorance because smuggling lined everyone's pockets. Smuggling could not be fully stopped because not enough people wanted it to -- smuggling benefitted too many people and infiltrated all levels of society. As Cromwell states, Venezuelan society was more stable due to the practice of smuggling. It was so commonplace that it's possible many people genuinely did not see themselves as lawbreakers. So far, I agree with Cromwell, but I don't necessarily think that stability was a good thing. Those small time smugglers who did so out of necessity were kept down and disproportionately punished. Priests and government officials benefited financially from smuggling, but they also benefited by keeping their power as they maintained the status quo.
In a way it felt as if he wanted to draw parallels between Venezuelan smuggling and the benefits of free trade, or at the very least promoting free trade while admonishing mercantilism and the centralization of commercial activity in the Spanish Empire. However, you mention some important observations as to how smuggling, and the subsequent smuggling networks that followed, replicated power dynamics in accordance to the Spanish colonial project. I am sure that I have oversimplified many of his arguments within the book. But you are correct in that the commercial avenues that smuggling opened for Venezuelan merchants eventually created a system that disproportionately punished small time smugglers, who were often poor and black, while simultaneously benefiting government officials, who were peninsulares, and the clergy.
DeleteKatelyn, as I read this, I kept thinking about modern parallels--where else do we see an "outlaw culture" or criminal enterprise with so many complicit people at so many different levels of society? While Cromwell points to the necessity of smuggling to meet needs in Venezuela because of Spain's neglect and closed mercantile system, it also seems likely that the distance from Spain made the opportunities for self-enrichment were just too tempting--being caught and tried may have felt likely because of both the physical distance from Spain, but also because of the emotional distance Spain's neglect fostered in the settlers.
DeleteHi Katelyn, I agree with you that there's a need for more perspectives aside from those that were caught. I think that that is an appropriate critique for many of the different people involved in the smuggling such as the clergy, the officials, the Caracas Company smugglers etc. It would give the narrative Cromwell is trying to create more depth.
DeleteWhat struck me most in reading Jesse Cromwell’s The Smuggler’s World was the interdependence of the smuggling—that something that was illegal was such an integral part of the economy for so many. The smugglers themselves were an obvious beneficiary, and people generally don’t engage in behavior that doesn’t benefit them in some way, so that they found financial reward worth the risk isn’t surprising. However, the filtering of smuggling into the domestic sphere, where people (especially women) were not just end-users but purveyors of smuggled goods, surprised me. The pervasiveness of smuggling points to the unfilled need, or at least as perceived by those in Venezuela. The use of the court records to determine that women were sometimes charged but less likely to be convicted, and that it points to an unwillingness to conceive of women as those who engage in criminal behavior consistently, reflects the ideas about the abilities and station of women by those in the courts. The question is whether they think that women are not clever enough or desperate enough, or whether they are pointing to the morality of women as their reason. Current studies reflect gender bias in the charging, conviction, and sentencing of women—with women being underrepresented in all three cases—in both the United States and the United Kingdom, revealing that the gender bias is perhaps worth of a longitudinal study that analyzes the records of a wider variety of court systems over centuries.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, that the smuggling was found in all class levels also shows that there was likely not another way to meet these consumer needs. The driving force, according to Cromwell’s argument, was that European goods marked the Spanish settlers as different from the indigenous, pushing them to resort to smuggling to maintain their status and set themselves apart. That the wealthy were far less likely to be charged and convicted that the poor is also an issue in contemporary society—suggesting that the wealthy use their connections and cash to avoid prosecution.
I think the sexism pointed towards women at this time is more towards their roles in society and that negative connotations arose to enforce those connotations. Religion is a major factor and i wished touched on a little more in The Smuggler's World in regards to social/financial benefits for the various groups. I know the clergy benefited, but i wish it was more in depth.
DeleteGreat point Jen. I thought the area that discussed not only women as a benign participant questionable, but that also of the Africa Slave, as being mentally deficient of sorts or lacking the mental capacity to form intent. The author's is placing the domestic needs and roles of women as the motivating drive to place themselves as "criminals" at a time when monarch neglect was a sure way to starve. I believe the role of women and the slave should be examined a little closer if possible. While Cromwell does acknowledge the reliability questions regarding testimonies, he also seems to present that a one size fits all mode of operation in responding to women as criminals was not the case, and consistently expresses fluidity and knowledge of the law provided by the network of smugglers
DeleteAfter having read “The Smuggler's World: Illicit trade and Atlantic Communities In The 18th Century Venezuela” by Jesse Cromwell the concept of how current and previous generations of historians have interpreted history. the majority of our historical interpretations have been handed down to us from middle to upper-class European males from the 19th century and before. These interpretations have varied from somewhat factual to extreme misrepresentations. A lot of current work of modern historians is to reassess the sources and lenses used by these historians in order to give a more accurate representation of the world and the people who lived in it. are readings from last week are proof of that. underlined clause that was somewhat stated in those readings was that our interpretation of the world that we inherited from past historians is mostly represented by the colonial Europeans and only gives their and their descendant’s interpretation of historical. this week's readings truly challenged are interpretations of imperialism and colonialism and how the concept of world history ( which is usually dominated by European politics in other regions of the world) is only a half-truth and that history and that's our interpretations are truly a global phenomenon. in the prologue it mentions the popularity coffee and chocolate drinks during the 18th century in French Salons. Salons Is where academics and their bourgeoise Financers would throw parties and talk about politics and other academic topics. much of the ideas that led to the French Revolution occurred in salons. People of Mexico and Latin America and their Knowledge and advancements in cuisine 4 LED indirectly two aspects of a cultural movement in Europe which would have a world wide ripple effect on politics around the globe. another misconception of this. Is the influence of the absolute monarchies Imperial proclamations. that's what the Venezuelans even though the Spanish Crown prohibited trade with any ships but the Spanish merchants a counter-movement a rose that led to a thriving economy which led to much exposure two other nations and cultures. these cultures were also fluid as many times the Venezuelan Smugglers were of mixed Heritage whether it be Afro-Caribbean or some form of European ethnicity mixed with Colonial heritage. These states which have been formed and their identities are much more fluid than solely a Spanish colony.
ReplyDeleteI found this book to be a good read, overall. When it comes to academic writing, I much prefer a very structured approach to the construction of chapters and paragraphes, so the repetitiveness some felt to be exhausting I found refreshing.
ReplyDeleteOne of the core strengths of this study, however, is his connections to broader historical theories and concepts. See his extensive footnotes which delve deeply into the ideas he uses in the text. For example, utiltizing E.P. Thompson’s idea of the “moral economy” or Michael N. Pearson’s “littoral society.” Thompson approaches the moral economy from a localized standpoint; Cromwell deploys this idea to the transnational level is most interesting, especially given the status of communication at the time. Pearson’s littoral society works in tandum with this idea, ascribing the commonality of coastal communities to the formation of a more general illicit-yet-ubiquitous economy.
There were a couple things that I got from reading "The Smuggler's World". The first is that how free trade was being established, despite the Spanish Crown's attempt to enforce mercantilism in her colonies in the Americas. More people than ever before in history are participants of a globalized economy and free trade, despite attempts to return to protectionism. I choose not to use the world mercantilism in that context because many of the great colonial powers are mere shadows of their former selves, in short most of their colonies have political independence. However, I was disappointed that the author did not tie it in with the ideas of the Enlightenment such as from Adam Smith. It is most likely that smugglers knew long before Smith about the benefits of free trade.
ReplyDeleteAnother criticism that I have of the book was that the author could had done a different way to cite in the book. The footnotes covered in some case almost an entire page. The author should not have used footnotes, but instead endnotes. I believe that it would have been easier for some of us to read the text.
Finally, I will add that the reading material repeated itself throughout the book. I am not sure that the author wanted to make his case known, but it was not necessary to repeat the material again and again.
After reading Jesse Cromwell's "The Smugglers' World, Illicit Trade and Atlantic Communities in Eighteenth-Century Venezuela", I was left with the feelings that Cromwell was petitioning on behalf of the traders and smugglers. Even though, Cromwell brings to the light the long ago tales of smugglers as evil pirates, he ventures right into a slightly romanticized view of the average smuggler struggling to support himself since he was not a slave or part of the upper echelon. Cromwell stresses that use of the smugglers as a positive factor to Spanish trade systems along the Venezuelan coast and vital to connector to the relations between the Dutch merchants and the local Venezuelans. The theme for the positive need for the smuggling trade repeated itself throughout the entire book which left the reader feeling the material was covered and the book could have been shorter. Jesse Cromwell made his argument and continued to repeat his supporting material.
ReplyDeleteJesse Cromwell does make an attempt to address the role that Afro-Caribbean seafarers play in the race relations between the Caribbean and Spanish governments. The complexity of the relationship where the African decent seafarers were able to make advancements within the occupation but were also still regarded as third class citizens that to the non-African decent merchants and seafarers. This point in his book, made the most impact when it came to the topic of the slave trade in the Spanish-Caribbean and Spanish territories.
This along with other factors is why Cromwell's book does not bring to light any new key points or information and made continuing points to the same common themes told by others historians on the subject of intro-Caribbean maritime trade within the Spanish colonies.
One of the things that grabbed my attention early on in the book is the way in which women, indigenous, and African people in Venezuela were able to use the negative stereotypes Spanish and Spanish American people had of them to their advantage. By using these stereotypes they were able to get more lenient sentences and at times be completely acquitted. Ironically, the stereotypes of these people arose from the assumed supremacy of the Spanish which meant that Spanish constituents, particularly men, would actually get punished for smuggling. I do think that overall these narratives and the roles that African and indigenous people played in Venezuela should have been expanded and examined more thoroughly. I think that since the majority of the evidence used throughout the book was from the testimonies of smugglers and buyers caught, there isn’t a clear representation of how smuggling was actually looked upon by the population. I think it hones back to some of the questions that Cromwell posed early on about how we view smuggling and label the act. Should we keep on reiterating the word used by the colonizing power, or find a word that the actual people in Venezuela would see more fitting? How should the story be framed, and under who's point of view?
ReplyDeleteThe term "Bourbon Reformer" is frequently used but not given context until the third chapter and even there the context may not be fully adequate to understand the depth of change aspired to by the new Bourbon dynasty. A quarter of the book passes during which the arrival of the Bourbon dynasty is portrayed without the context that the Bourbons were the family of the French monarchy and that the War of the Spanish Succession was fought to preclude a unification of France and Spain. That knowledge appears as assumed to be already in the reader's posession. Without this context it appears that the Habsburg dynasty was merely in a state of decrepitude and the value of the Bourbons was in the injection of new vigor to the Spanish empire. What this portrayal overlooks until the third chapter, and then does not fully express, is that the Bourbons had taken massive strides towards the centralization of state power and the removal of feudal vestiges within France. It is this new formulation of state and empire which the Bourbon dynasty sought to impose on Spain and its possessions. It is also overlooked that the loss of Spanish imperial possessions in Europe advances Spain along the path to becoming a nation-state, with corresponding changes in Spanish identity and expectations of the state. If the books narrative had been continued into the 19th century then I am sure the corresponding changes in colonial national identity would have been an important element in understanding the forces which combined with resentment of imperial subjecthood to motivate the wars of independence.
ReplyDelete