Comparative history has not been very fashionable recently in colonial Latin American studies. Undoubtedly, the pitfalls of the approach—not to mention the extra labor involved—have discouraged its pursuit. In this revision of a 1981 Duke University dissertation, however, John Robert McNeill shows what insights can be gained from the comparative approach when it is done carefully.
Arguing that Louisbourg and Havana were garrison cities occupying similar positions within the French and Spanish empires, McNeill proceeds to examine the experiences of the two outposts from the beginning of the War of Spanish Succession through the end of the Seven Years’ War. With some notable exceptions, the two sites served their mother countries well militarily. Havana probably met Spanish expectations somewhat better in this respect than Louisbourg fulfilled those of France. It is on economic, not military history, however, that McNeill focuses most of his attention.
Many scholars have traditionally viewed the economic importance of Louisbourg and Havana as that of being way stations for trade between richer colonies in the New World and Europe. McNeill, however, makes a solid case that the economic “hinterlands” of each city—for Louisbourg, it was the rich fishing banks around Cape Breton Island and for Havana, the soil of Cuba’s interior—were significant in their own right. The sale of cod from Louisbourg to Mediterranean customers provided France with a handsome source of hard currency throughout the early half of the eighteenth century. Tobacco was the principal concern in Havana. Because so much Cuban tobacco eventually found its way into contraband trade, McNeill discovered that the Spanish crown took decisive steps in the late 1740s to convert the island’s agriculture to sugar, a crop much easier for royal officials to supervise. Historians had formerly dated the emergence of sugar in Cuba much later in the century.
If Atlantic Empires of France and Spain has a serious weakness, it is one that is inherent in comparative history—too much ground is covered. Yet the sweep of McNeill’s book makes this problem unavoidable. The merit of the work is that it will undoubtedly stimulate research to test the author’s conclusions.
