Through the fog of different historical periods presented in the textbook, historians may use the lens of economics to interpret the US past. Economic strife promoted the resistance of the American with the British inspired the revolution. Different opinions about economic policy persisted in the United States after independence, and eventually evolved into an irreconcilable intensifying contradiction between the north and the south. The perspective of economics is the most appropriate lens to interpret the period from the Colonial Era to Reconstruction.

First, the American colonists exemplified their defense of their country economically first and foremost declaring independence from Britain. In the Part 1 - Also November 16, 1767, in the Boston Post-Boy of DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE BOSTON TEA PARTY, the Boston-Post boys said, “by consuming less of what we are not really in want of, and by industriously cultivating and improving the natural advantages of our own country, we might save our substance, even our lands, from becoming the property of others, and we might effectively preserve our virtue and our liberty to the latest posterity”. This reflects the sacrifice the American colonists were willing to make to boycott British goods and secure their finances and property, which they believed were under immediate threat. According to the colonists, British taxes hurt the profit the colonial peoples made through commercial trade. In this regard, the American colonists were both angry and unwilling. The excerpt from the Boston-Post boys shows their anger and determination that they would rather rely on their own labor in their own territories than trade with Britain. The economic lens indicates that the American colonists would resolutely defend their property and start a confrontation with the British when their financial futures were threatened. The Boston Tea Party is an historical example that illustrates the economic patriotism of the American colonists. In May 1773, the Tea Act was passed by the British Parliament, which gave the East India Company exclusive rights to ship tea to the colonies while simultaneously allowing them to increase taxes on tea. In order to fight against this Act, a group of Patriots, known as the Sons of Liberty, were led by Samuel Adams as they stormed the British cargo ship and threw tens of thousands of goods overboard. Thousands of colonists gathered at the docks to vote to refuse to pay taxes on tea. The public refusal of colonists to obey the Tea Act demonstrates the economic risks the colonists were willing to take to defend their livelihood and further confirmed that independence would be the only way to secure a true financial future that reflected the values of the colonists.

Second, the economic lens can be used to understand the conflicts that emerged during the Hamilton and Jefferson eras when the nation formed a national identity and attempted to establish new federal initiatives, including the formation of the national bank. In the 1790s, the Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton and the Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson, disagreed over how much power the federal government would be given, especially over the economy. Hamilton envisioned an economy rooted in manufacturing and commerce. However, Jefferson wished to preserve America as an agricultural society. Wanting unity, Hamilton proposed that the government assume responsibility for the state's debts, but Jefferson was strongly against that. In Hamilton the musical Jefferson even mentions, “If New York's in debt –Why should Virginia bear it?”. In the southern states of America, the majority of citizens earned money by planting seeds and paid debts by themselves. Because they were largely self-sufficient, many southerners felt like paying northern debt was fundamentally unfair. However, Hamilton thought this was reasonable saying, “If we assume the debts, the union gets a new line for credit, a financial diuretic”. Hamilton hoped the federal government would assume the debts of the states in order to tie the states together and establish federal power through the nation’s economic vitality. From the letters that Hamilton and Jefferson wrote to Washington, we can see that the differences and contradictions between the two men became more serious over time. In Thomas Jefferson Letter to George Washington, Jefferson wrote, “Hamilton's views and mine, that I would wish the debt paid tomorrow; he wishes it never to be paid, but always to be a thing wherewith to corrupt and manage the legislature”. These statements reflect the economic divergence between the two sides on the issue of state governance, which led to the development of regional fractions that each held different economic interests and beliefs.

Thirdly, the economic lens can be used to understand the debate over the establishment of the national bank. After the Hamilton-Jefferson debate, a new economic dispute appeared in the form of the Bank War, which was led by Andrew Jackson. Disagreements between the First and the Second Bank of the United States resulted in inflation, which heightened political tension in the nation. The Second Bank of the United States was a private commercial enterprise. Jackson believed that the rise of the Second Bank of the United States threatened his own power and status. In Jackson and the Bank of the U.S, Jackson stated, “A bank of the United States is in many respects convenient for the Government and useful to the people. Entertaining this opinion, and deeply impressed with the belief that some of the powers and privileges possessed by the existing bank are unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people”. Jackson’s distrust of banks stemmed from his own personal experience, as he suffered financial losses on more than one occasion from the devaluation of paper money. As a result, Andrew Jackson had a general distrust of paper money and the banks that promoted its use. Besides, he also worried about the dominance of British investors in the Second Bank shares. Put simply, Jackson believed that British investment in Bank of America would allow the British royal family to re-emerge, so he thought that the bank had too much power and endangered the freedom of the people.

Lastly, regional differences in the United States formed unique economic systems that came under threat during the Civil War. The Northern economy was mixed and industrial, while the Southern economy was dominated by agriculture. In the Map showing the distribution of the slave population of the southern states of the United States, compiled from the census of 1860, it shows a higher slave population in South than in North. The reason of why those lands needed the highest percentage of slaves was they required enough labors to develop planting fields, such as the ones used to grow cotton and rice. However, the manufacturing capacity of the South was very backward, with “about 29 percent of the railroad tracks, and only 13 percent of the nation's banks”. In contrast, the development of the North was aimed at commerce and manufacturing. In The Pacific Railway Act, it announced, “That so much of an act entitled ‘An act to provide increased revenue from imports, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes’”. This reflects that the North was ready to rely on industry to provide economic support for the Civil War. “By 1860, 90 percent of the nation's manufacturing output came from northern states. The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms”. This development had a direct impact on the North’s war capabilities. As the industrial North and the agricultural and slave-based South began to prepare for war, two different economic systems gradually revealed their strengths and weaknesses. The North's rapid industrialization and economic capacity soared during the war. In the South, however, a smaller industrial base, fewer rail lines, and an agricultural economy based on slave labor made resource mobilization more difficult. This made it impossible for the South to support and sustain a war economy. As the war dragged on, the South's deficits in factories, railroads, and manpower put them at a huge disadvantage.

A good economy can provide the foundation of a country. In the United States, the economy underwent a number of changes as the nation developed its identity from the Colonial Era to Reconstruction. In one letter of DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE BOSTON TEA PARTY, it shows the citizens’ defense of their country by economy. Through Hamilton-Jefferson debates, different economic policy propositions were reflected to show how to run a country. During the Bank War, the economic lens can be used to understand the debate over the establishment of the national bank. Furthermore, regional differences in the United States formed unique economic systems that came under threat during the Civil War. These all reflect that the perspective of economics is the most appropriate lens to interpret the period from the Colonial Era to Reconstruction.

                                                          Bibliography

Boston Post-Boy. “DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE BOSTON TEA PARTY”. November 16, 1767. Massachusetts Historical Society.

masshist.org/2012/juniper/assets/ed-curricula/blackington_bostontea_party_docum ents.pdf. Accessed December, 2022.

Adams Samuel. “Boston Tea Party”. Boston Tea Party - Definition, Dates & Facts - HISTORY. history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-tea-party. Accessed December 2022.

“Cabinet Battle #1”. Hamilton the musical. youtube.com/watch?v=lNTssCJJTHY. Accessed December 2022.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Thomas Jefferson Letter to George Washington, 1792 (ORIGINAL)”. Hamilton vs. Jefferson. Sep 9, 1792.

classroom.google.com/c/NTQ0MjQ1MTg1MDMy/a/NTUwMTYyNTIyNDQw/details. Accessed December 2022.

Jackson, Andrew. “Veto of the Bank of the United States”. July 1832. Washington, July 10, 1832.

college.cengage.com/history/us/resources/students/primary/veto.htm. Accessed December, 2022.

Trapani, Michael. “The Bank War”. August 15, 2022. The Economic Historian.

economic--historian-com.translate.goog/2021/03/bank-war/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=zh-C N&_x_tr_hl=zh-CN. Accessed December, 2022.

E., Hergesheimer. Map showing the distribution of the slave population of the southern states of the United States Compiled from the census of 1860. September 1861. Washington Henry S. Graham, 1861.

loc.gov/item/99447026/. Accessed December, 2022.

T. Arrington, Benjamin. “Industry and Economy during the Civil War”. August 23, 2017. National Park Service.

nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm. Accessed December, 2022.

Lincoln, Abraham(sign). “The Pacific Railway Act”. July 1, 1862. American Memory.

memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=520. Accessed December, 2022.