Confiscation Nation: Settler Postcolonialism and the Property Paradox

Abstract

Capitalist from the beginning. That is the emerging consensus about early America. Just a generation ago, many historians of law and economy sought instead to locate the moment of transition from community-based economies to market capitalism. The “great transformation” was dated variously, but the American Revolution often provided a key to the shift. Those scholars, in turn, were reacting against the consensus historians of the Cold War era, who tended to find broad agreement in the sources that politics, law, and society worked in tandem to generate economic growth. Now, a version of that consensus is returning. Historians today, however, find more conflict and exploitation in their sources. Perhaps the most striking departure from the old consensus is the prominent place of slavery in the new histories of capitalism. Another notable difference is the role of the Revolution—or its absence. Capitalism appears to have emerged almost fully formed in the colonial period, with changes to its legal structure representing functional adjustments to satisfy the needs or interests of market participants. But was early American politics just a pass-through device for wealth-maximizing private interests? Did politics and especially political ideas matter for the development of American economic institutions? And did the American Revolution have any effect on the structure of the market?