MDS -- In recent years, textbooks and historians are promoting more and more frequently the view that the colonies on the Atlantic coast of North America was essentially growing so quickly due to their increasingly self-sufficient commerce. In the article “America, the Atlantic, and Global Consumer Demand, 1500-1800”, Carole Shammas argues otherwise that these new views are ignoring the previously widely accepted concept of mercantilism – that is, the concept of a booming global economy during America’s beginnings.
While it is true that America experienced a huge increase in population and therefore internal consumer demand during its early years, Americans understood what is largely overlooked today: the nation relied heavily on overseas trade for its own economic growth. Generally there are two common misconceptions today: either that trade was solely American-European, or that Americans traded freely with all continents and peoples. Both of these viewpoints are essentially untrue. Instead, this time period marked the beginning of an integrated, worldwide commerce. As Shammas points out, textbooks largely ignore anything related to trade and commerce with Asia once America is established. However, Europe was in fact more heavily interested in trading with Asia than with the New World. Asia’s goods and established commerce with Europe were essentially what allowed for the development of the global economy in the first place. Europe wanted the silver and food products from America to finance their purchase of novel Asian commodities.
While all of this is accurate and presents a wider scope on the slowly developing international market at the time, what Shammas does minimize and essentially fails to address is the importance of the national American economy as well. The consumer demand and exploding population inside the country provided the foundation for an independent nation. An increasing sense of unity came from the commerce inside the colonies which were to become the United States. Their increasing realization that they could be economically self-providing offered an out from the controlling and manipulative European merchants and government – eventually leading to the declaration of economic independence during the Revolution.

This is mostly of a compare/contrast nature -- analysis requires centering on one topic and zeroing in on it

L.M. - Carole Shammas, the author of this article, takes a focused economic approach on the Atlantic sphere in his article's thesis. The article attempts to prove that trade in the early Atlantic realm should be viewed, as is the more modern perspective sees it, as a global interaction that set the first president for uniting all corners of the world. Shammas asserted that any interpretations of early cross Atlantic trade as merchantilism (economic imperialism pursued by monarchs to imporove their nation's world stance) are wrong.
What I find is that
Shammas' explaination of the rising New World through his term "Atlantic globalization" takes a too narrow approach.
When considering that there was a plethra of factors (such as a fortuitous combination of concurrent philosophy, resource situation, and political scematic) that contributed to the rise in America as both a nation and a world player, to claim that the American continents' economic foundations were laid primarily by the drive to globalize economically is not a considerate enough viewpoint. For example, it was the monarchies of the Spanish and the Portugese that first set out to exploit Atlantic shipping routes. Later, when King James of England realized the newly discovered potential of the New World, he brought his country to contend in the colonization race (one could argue it was an indirect influence, as he permitted the London Co. to be the first operator of English-American interests); not long after England's arrival, the Dutch set sail to become the largest cross-Atlantic shippers of any nation. Shammas believes that none of the factors were of major influence, as he as asserted the inaccuracy of "merchantilism" (as defined by him, to mean a unified national pursuit of trade). At this time, trade of such distances was only viable through the support of enourmous political and capitol resources. Such resources were only possessed by the high and mighty of the land: the monarchs. Because of the enourmous capitol resources the various monarchies provided for trans-Atlantic trade, I believe that the true flame of any international markets linked to the Atlantic routes was sparked by Europe's monarchies' national interest. As Shammas himself explained, there were no commerce routes this expanisive to date and there were no exchanges this spread out on sea until the establishment of the Atlantic-American trading routes by the European powers. The only institutions capale of so large an investment that would make this possibility a reality were the monarchs and their merchantilism.
What Shammas also overlooks is the possibility that any later "globlization" of Atlantic world trade could have evolved out of merchantilism and into a tandem relationship. Although Shammas proves irrefutably that America was influenced immensly by the Atlantic tade, Shammas fails to analze on why that trade was driven (he analyzed how). It is possible that the role of the monarchies in maintaining this vast trading scheme declined as privatization in joint-stock companies increased, but the original association in undeniable. Cortes conquered the greatest American empire in the name of Spain. Columbus started the encomiendas in the Carribean in the name of Spain. Jamestown was settled by the London Co. with the consent of the King. The involvement of the monarchy was undeniable. As late Renaissance ideals of the value of individuals started to take root, philosophers such as Adam Smith concieved the preeminence of personal capability in economic matters, external of the government. Although Smith may have theorized after the fact, there is the distinct likelihood that this case is true with the Atlantic trade routes; individuals began to increase the globalization of trade in the Atlantic, not to fill their tresuries (like the monarchs did), but to increase their personal stature and wealth. In this manner, with merchanilism setting up the situation for a "globalized Atlantic trade," neither concept can exist without the other.
very well written but emphasis at times seems to be AP Eurocentric and not APUS

MRL - In contemporary times, the phenomenon of globalization is largely well established, but during the time period of the 16th century to the 19th century the marvel of a global economy was in its infancy. Although trade between Africa, Asia, and Europe had been occuring for a significant amount of time, until the Atlantic trade was set in motion the world had not yet experience a truly global economy. With the development of the North American continent by the English, Spanish, and Dutch, as well as several other nations, the Atlantic was transformed into a region fit for lucrative trade. Although the Indian Ocean region remained a significant economic region, the Atlantic was soon an equally important region for trade.
The immense amount of commodities and food products that was shipped to Europe and Africa from North America was not only significant for the enormous econmic impact it had on the global economy, but also for the spread ofproducts to places that normally wouldnt't have such things, forever changing the cultures of many groups of people. One of the most well known examples is the slave trade. The Atlantic slave trade not only affected the Americas due to the economic gain from slavery, but also because of the mixture of cultures are races that inevitably occured. This forever altered the future of North America, Europe, Africa, and beyond, in an infinite amount of ways. Yet another example is the introduction of native American crops to Europe. The hardy foodstuffs of America allowed the population in Europe to grow dramitically, once again greatly affecting the history of the European continent. Also, the exchange of disease between North America and Europe had devastating consequences on both parts of the world. European diseases eradicated a staggering proportion of the Native American population, and American diseases ran rampant in Europe as well. This exchange of food and disease is sometimes referred to as the "Great Biological Exchange", and it planted the seeds to form the world as we know it today. The mixing of cultures, the biological exchange, and the enormous economic effects, were the result of the formation of the global economy, causing all parts of the world to directly or indirectly affect eachother economically, culturally, and physically.
summary -- not analysis

VB – In the eighteenth century a new type of commerce was emerging with the growth of the Americas. It was widely acknowledged that a triangular trade existed between America, Europe and Africa, but as important to the overall contribution were the Asian nations who provided furniture, pottery and clothing to the rest of the world. Prior to the colonization of the Americas, Asia traded with Europe and Africa, creating an economic pattern correlative to that of the triangular trade. Since America represented a multi-faceted economy, having raw materials, labor and manufacturing, and the accessibility between the three continents, this misconception is both understandable and pardonable. Over time Europe depended less on the trade from the east by producing products originally associated with Asia. America followed this trend and together began to exclude Asia as a dominant factor in their mercantilism.
America profited from the trade of groceries and silver. The products’ values existed because of their wide-spread appeal. Tobacco, sugar and cotton were consumed globally, thus attributing to the stubborn attitude of the Americans. They saw their position in the economy elevated, and therefore, were reluctant to compromise. Paying taxes or acknowledging human mistreatment were not concessions they were willing to make. The Americans, by gaining economic statue through trade, also gained prominence in the governance of their colonies. This attitude led to a desire for independence and eventually to war.
summary -- not analysis


AJN- The author, Carole Shammas, tries to assert that trade in the early Atlantic needs to be viewed as a global relation. Shammas asserts it should be considered necessary to not overlook the fact that this allowed the first president to unite the world and not to confuse early cross Atlantic trade with mercantilism.
With all of the factors dealing with the rise in America as both a nation and a world power, it is easy to say that it was paving way for a globally active economic status. However, Shammas contests that the monarchies of Spain and Portugal were the ones who first saw the viability of the trade routes and paved the way for this globally economic connection. The national interest of many powers in Europe was easily one of the main causes for the extremely high paced amount of trade going on in the international market at this time.
The amount of merchandise and other such products that were shipped to Europe and Africa from North America were quite significant. In fact, the enormous economic impact it had on the global economy and also the spread of products to places that normally wouldn’t have such things
was huge at this time.
Once this had been established America saw their position in the economy elevated, so they were reluctant to compromise with anything or anyone. Once this happened they were not willing to pay taxes or acknowledge human mistreatment. The Americans then were able to gain prominence over all of their colonies. This position eventually led to America’s desire for independence, and this desire was powerful enough to spark conflict and lead to war.

week 2xx

SFH – Carole Shammas the author of ‘American, the Atlantic, and Global Consumer Demand, 1500-1800’ attempts to persuade her audience of the truly global trade occurring world wide from 1500-1800. This idea of Atlantic trade uniting all corners of the world falsely asserts countries position in the global economy, and glorifies a highly un-united epoch. Although this period leads itself to a truly global community, the time span of 1500-1800 is far to early to generalize trade as truly global. America had become a powerhouse for goods and resources highly sought after in England and some parts of Europe, yet America was not on the receiving end of other global products. Triangular trade (which became extensively controlled by the Americans) linked all Atlantic trade, making America a lucrative exporter of lumber, tobacco, and indigo. At this time America was for the most part uninterested in British goods, largely because of the exuberant taxes and England’s policy of salutary neglect, leaving the Americans to fend for themselves. With many scholars arguing that the Atlantic world (comprising Europe, America, and Africa) and the Asian world acted as two separate entities; this lack of integration of Asia left two thirds of the worlds population for the most part excluded from Shammas’s ‘global trade.’ Although Asia’s lack of contact and integration with the European, American, an American worlds may be no fault other than their own, how can we claim that by the 1500-1800`s trade was truly a global economy? The silk roads did connect Asia to Europe but it would be years before America would be receiving goods from Asia, and trade routes between Asia and America would be permanently established. Hence I believe it is more accurate to portray the world as on its way to a truly global economy, than integrated with a functioning global economy.
not sure what your point is (that is not a good thing) -- the only thing that is clear to me is your emphasis seems to be directed toward some mythical AP Global class -- not APUS

JT -- Atlantic trade opened many windows for a global exchange of goods. While Europe originally sparked the market that America would become, its intentions were to increase trade with Asia. Some believe that European mercantilism was the driving force behind the colonization of America. While powers in Europe were key players in settling the American continents, their interests were not the primary reason that the American market expanded. It is commonly overlooked that Asia played an enormous role in the various colonies success because it was a primary buyer of the massive silver deposits found in South America. It was actually because of the resources that the Americas had to offer that colonization was encouraged, not because of European monarchs’ interest in expansion.
Spain and Portugal held some of the most recognized colonies because of their silver deposits. Contrary to our perspective on history today, the thirteen colonies in North America were not thought of as overly important. They gained their prestige by becoming the suppliers of “groceries” for the rest of the world. Crops, such as tobacco, became extremely popular in Europe, as they were considered luxury treats for the common man. This is because royalty often discouraged the popularity of imports such as tobacco. In England, for example, the King felt that tobacco must be unhealthy because of its horrible smell, and was greatly against it becoming popular in his country. Eventually, royalty became more lenient about the demand for these “groceries” because they brought in such considerable profit. The Atlantic trade was far from exclusive between European monarchies and their colonies, and the resources that were discovered in the America’s such as tobacco and silver became the incentive for empires to invest in their colonies across the world.
summarized not analyzed -- also AP Euro not APUS

SW
This article focuses on the economical view of the finding of the new world. Carole Shammas attempts to prove that due to Atlantic trade the first global economy was formed. The reason for the finding of the New World is purely economical. In the future when it causes a global economy, it is profoundly due to Atlantic trade. Why the global market was formed was because of the want of luxury goods and the stumbling upon the New World, which gave the world a new area to trade with. How this happened was due to the greed of people and the kings and queens that allowed explorers to go find luxury goods. When the first explorers from Portugal set out, their reason was to find India and rare goods such as spices and silk. When the New World was found and the explorers realized that it was not India, they still wanted to prosper from it economically and combine it as part of the world trade. Sailors and conquistadors from Europe sailed to the New World in search of gold and silver. Silver then became one of the most common products that was exported from the New World. Triangular trade started between three continents of America, Europe, and Africa. Mostly raw materials from America were traded with Europe while manufactured materials went from Europe to America and slaves came from Africa to the New World. The founding of the New World was the reason for the sudden growth and prospering of trade. It was the reason for the global economy. But Africa, Europe, and America were not the only ones involved in trade. Asia was still a huge player and that made trade truly worldwide. Still Europe and then America was interested in buying goods from Asia. Throughout the world trade prospered. Trade was identified as one of the largest centers in economic growth in the period. Shammas proves her point that with the finding of the New World a world economy was produced. summarized not analyzed -- also AP Euro not APUS
AJJ- In the article “America, the Atlantic, and Global Consumer Demand, 1500-1800”, Carole Shammas talks about the economic effect of American trade and commerce. He argues that a major effect of trade with the New World was the actual connection between these areas of the world. The triangle trade was the first time that Europe and America did business and had a relationship as economic partners.
Sugar and tobacco products are cited by Shammas as the major items that were traded from America to Europe at this time. This tells us which products that Europeans looked to America for. Without these products America would not have been a colony worth trading with and therefore would not have inspired many people to be farmers there. In essence, these two products sparked economic interest in America and if we did not have them America would cease to be the powerhouse it is today as it would have never gotten off the ground as a colony of Great Britain.
Shammas has a somewhat questionable view though when in terms of why Europe would do business with America as “globalization” was doubtfully what sparked interest by monarchs but instead the search for resources and power. The British empire would not have cared about uniting the world unless there was some profit involved. Shammas’ lack of understanding on this topic relegates the article to being one that only takes a narrow look at this situation.
summarized not analyzed -- AP Euro not APUS and short CJD-When European powers descended upon America in the 16th century, their main goal was not to develop an economy that would help the New World flourish; rather it was to retrieve quick and cheap materials for their own purposes. Carole Shammas argues that with expansion and colonization into North and South America from countries such as Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, and Holland, a global economy was created. While this is true in a literal, geographic sense, it does not have much meaning when the economic details, such profits and trade routes, are examined.
America was originally thought to contain a wealth of precious metals and resources that could be brought back to whichever nation paid for naval expeditions. While these were found and exploited, they did not become the focus of many European colonists. A plantation complex is what made the Americas so important to the world economy. Africans were brought in huge numbers to the new land in order to reap the benefits of land suitable for the growth of sugar, tobacco, and other crops that could be traded in Asia for large profits.
Through the end of the 18th century, the thirteen British colonies that became the United States did not play as large a role in monetary gain for Europe or Asia as colonies in the West Indies or Central and South America. When independence was gained, a possibility for a world economy was brought to life. Prior to this, the “global economy” that Carole Shammas speaks of consisted of profits being made in Europe and Asia. America represented the world financial system similarly to Africa, as it was a location that contained people and materials that would benefit other continents. A notable self-sufficient economy did not exist in America before the 19th century, therefore there was no global economy until the United States and eventually other independent countries in the Americas joined those in Europe, Asia, and Africa.
summarized not analyzed -- if you had a thesis statement, I missed it