Chesapeake – U.S. to 1877

September 18, 2013

Slavery in the North, Virginia, and South Carolina

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Slavery took on distinct forms in the various regions of America. In the North slavery was not as commonplace as in the South, but slavery in some areas was still the primary backbone of physical labor, and unlike the South, Northern slaves were more directly in competition with working class whites, but at the same time had more elements of their own autonomy and were often quite close to their white owners. In Virginia slavery underwent several transformations. Slavery saw its roots initially in Virginia as very similar to indentured servitude, with some slaves finding freedom after working for a master for a set number of years. The beginning years of slavery in Virginia showed a surprising degree of egalitarianism between freed blacks and whites, with some blacks becoming planters and slave owners themselves. As time went on however, and more slaves entered Virginia, the elites among the society grew upset at the idea of this near racial equality and worked to enshrine black inferiority into the laws, resulting in a vast removal of the rights of freed blacks and of those of slaves. In South Carolina, a interesting dichotomy emerged, slaves were crucial to almost every aspect of South Carolina life, from working the fields to fighting Indians, and the slave owners profited greatly from the slaves’ skills and labor, but the slave owners were greatly fearful of the possibility of a slave uprising, as they were outnumbered by their slaves and instituted harsh slave codes to attempt to prevent it. But in spite of this slaves had a greater degree of cultural autonomy than within other portions of the American colonies.

September 18, 2013

Rise of the Plantation Elite

In his discussion of the Chesapeake colonies, Taylor discusses the rise of the ruling plantation elites who would go on to form the basis of the Antebellum South’s title-less aristocracy. The Chesapeake colonies saw a brief period of social mobility in the formative years of the colonies, during which time many of these elites made their place, a combination of freed servants and the initial planters who hired these servants formed the basis of this elite, but those who would come to the Chesapeake colonies after this brief period found the period of social mobility to be very short lived, as usable land vanished, thus leaving a growing divide between the wealthy landowners possessed plenty of good land to grow tobacco, and those with little or no land who were struck with poverty. This growing divide was further widened by the Governor of Virginia, who gave out vast land grants to his favorites among the plantation elite, which resulted in growing tensions between the ruling class and the lower classes, as well as those landowners dissatisfied with their position, ultimately resulting in Bacon’s rebellion and the recall of the governor. After this rebellion the planter elite underwent a major change, as they moved to build solidarity with the lower classes by developing a genteel manner and emphasizing shared racial bonds and their differences, conflicts, and superiority towards the Indians and Africans.

Unlike Virginia, the Carolinas did not start off with a planter elite at odds with the poorer common planters and servants, rather from the beginning the Carolinas the planters found a need for the commoners as they feared the possibility of slave and Indian alliances , and knew that they needed white commoners to help defend them against these dual threats. The fear of slave revolt drove these planter elites to greater solidarity with the white commoners and also drove them to attempt to set black slaves and Indians at odds with each other by offering indians rewards for black slaves being returned and declaring war on Indians who harbored black slaves. The plantation elite were able to fully establish their power, eventually overriding the Lords Proprietor and controlling the majority of political power within the Carolinas.

September 18, 2013

Southern History Ain’t Pretty

Finally, we reached the South. We piddled around the area for a little while with Virginia and shortly after went North. But now we can talk about some good ole southern tales of rice, raiders, terror, and for brief moment, Georgia. Those short headers from Taylor’s Chapter 11 on the Carolinas show us just how great colonial times were in the Carolinas. It is safe to say that they showed up a little late to the party. The “new world” was no longer a disease ridden mystery but rather a disease filled reality. People had been in America long before the Lords Proprietor were set govern the large state of everything above Florida and below Virginia. But quickly, as Taylor points out and we might expect, that large land mass split into North Carolina, South Carolina, and eventually Georgia.

However, for the Carolinas showing up late to the party might not have been a bad thing. Just as Virginians figured out their crop was tobacco, so did South Carolinians figured out that rice could be their fortune. So the South Carolinians did as all respectable rich white men did back then, they bought slaves. The slave trade was not a new entity, but rather a practiced trade. And these were not any slaves. They were specialists in their fields, literally. However, being so southern the slaves could easily run south away from the slaveholders and into free territory. So, to prevent them for running away they armed themselves at all times, scared them, and armed the Native Americans around them to help if any slaves were to run in their direction. The whites were scared up an uprising in a society where blacks were a large part of the population. As history tells us, South Carolina becomes a slave state and remains that way for a long, long time.

Now, as Taylor did with Georgia, I will briefly speak of the Chesapeake colonies. Taylor presents a lot of information here. Yet, while I was reading, I felt as if I was reading a book of fun facts. He spats off numbers about how much it cost to cross the ocean and then mentions the story of Elizabeth Abbot and her master. Which leads him to wealth, successful planters, which in turn lead to Bacon’s Rebellion, and so on. Taylor then ends the chapter with slavery. He acknowledges a successful freed black man, Anthony Johnson, but then speaks his final words on the demise of the status of freed black men. One colonist even said that Negro and Slave had become homogenous (157).

I’ve always had a passion for studying southern history because it is where I am from. But it has never been nor will it ever be pretty. Taylor does what should be done. He speaks of truths, horrible, horrible truths, but truths that should be acknowledged and learned from.

September 18, 2013

Transformation of Labor in Virginia

In Chapter 7, Taylor writes about the Chesapeake colonies from 1650-1750. The part of this chapter that stuck out to me the most was how labor transformed from indentured servitude to the concept of slavery usually associated with the South. Most indentured servants before 1620 were forcibly brought over, but after 1620 it was a mostly voluntary choice. The emigration of servants fluctuated accordingly with the tobacco prices and wages in England (142). Although the first Africans were brought over as salves in 1619, it was not a profitable decision. Many of the early Africans were treated as indentured servants and were freed after their allotted labor time. There were no colonial laws against blacks, so “black freedmen and women could move as they pleased, baptize their children, procure firearms, testify in court, buy and sell property, and even vote (p. 154).” There were even instances of interracial marriage. These examples are in stark contrast to the way blacks were treated even up until the 1960s and 70s.

As Will said in his post after Bacon’s Rebellion a decrease in white indentured servants caused many of the planters to seek African labor. Even as late as 1650, enslaved Africans still only comprised 2% of the Chesapeake colonial population (142). Taylor says, “At the end of the seventeenth century, slaves became a better investment, as servants became scarcer and more expensive (p. 153).” The decrease in diseases increased slave life expectancy and allowed slave traders to come to the Chesapeake. Surprisingly, Taylor says that the change from indentured servants to salves protected the planters against rebellions by angry freedmen (p. 154). The only problem was, that the planters now had to worry about slave rebellions. The colonial militia began as a safeguard against slave rebellion. This was the beginning of whites grouping themselves together, not based on class, but by race. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, the Chesapeake colonies started placing stricter legal codes in regard to both slaves and freed Africans (p.155). Masters also started believing that “only pain and fear could motivate them (slaves) (p.155).” They considered the Africans as non-humans and this justified their despicable treatment of the slaves.

Laws passed in 1680 and 1705 further divided the races and set out punishments for blacks that broke the racial boundaries (p.156). Previously freed slaves were also discriminated against, and many of them left the Chesapeake colonies (p. 156-157). As racial slavery grew, Taylor says that “Virginia became both more stable and more distinctive from England (p. 157).” The racial divide continued to grow and your identity was the connotation associated with your skin color. Although whites were more united than ever once slavery was introduced, the classes within the white race were extremely unequal.

September 18, 2013

Carolina on My Mind (and Georgia and Chesapeake too)

As the 17^th century progressed, the map of the United States was becoming more and more complete as people from all over Europe came to the New World to settle the land. Out of all these countries, England emerged as the dominant colonizing force. Starting with the colonization of Roanoke in 1585, the English gradually took control of the majority of the eastern United States by the end of the 17^th century.

Chapter 7 and 11 of Alan Taylor’s American Colonies discusses the English colonization of Chesapeake Bay, the Carolinas and Georgia. The chapters almost read like a coming-of-age story for English settlers, who finally learned how to effectively and efficiently settle American land. The ultimate testament to this is how Taylor discusses the settlement of Georgia, the final colony discovered by the English. He uses three pages at the end of discussing the settlement of the Carolinas, not even giving the colony its own chapter. This is due to the fact that colonization there was significantly less arduous than at other locations, where there was no major quarrel with the local Indians or disastrous experiments in running the local economy. Taylor describes James Oglethrope and the Georgia Trustees as “powerful and distant elites (242)” and even “dictatorial (242)” in their approach to successful management. Initially after reading the chapter I felt unsatisfied with Taylor’s overview of Georgia’s founding, but when Georgia students in the class spoke of how dry the history of their own state was, I felt fulfilled.

In reading Taylor’s work, it is interesting to see how each colony makes use of its unique environment to create an agricultural-based economy, and the Carolinas were no different. As a Canadian and being inexperienced with American history, while I was aware of the Virginia tobacco plantations, I was unaware of the significance that rice played in the economy of the Carolinas. Taylor writes how rice “thrived in the wet lowlands of Carolina (237)” and that annual exports reached 43 million pounds in 1740, “comprising over 60% of the total exports from Carolina (237).” While their economy was dependent on a different resource than other colonies, the means by which the Carolinians exploited the available rice was through the same method of other settlements: slavery. As echoed in the blog posts made by JANEWTOWN and ROMANGONE, and in Taylor’s own words, the treatment of slaves in Carolina was among the worst on the entire continent. “Desperate to suppress the rebellion (240),” Taylor writes, the Carolinians clearly took no chances with their slaves.

One aspects of the reading on Chesapeake Bay that stuck with me was Taylor’s description of the social hierarchy that mirrored the traditional English model of king, provincial government, court and household. For a group of settlers that were desperate to escape from the overpopulation and underemployed English cities, they still retained many of the same elements of society they left with.

September 15, 2013

Chesapeake and Carolina – Late 17th and Early 18th Centuries

Chapter 7 of American Colonies features Taylor’s description of the development and progression of the Chesapeake Colonies. Colonists in the Chesapeake region sacrificed their quality of life for economic success. Shorter life expectancy, limited opportunity to create a family, and strenuous work permeated the region; a cost many Englishmen willingly accepted to reap the benefits of the tobacco boom during the middle of the 17th century. However, the period of economic prosperity eventually subsided, and political inaptitude resulted in unrest. Essentially, the majority of leaders lacked the experience or qualities to lead, and an imbalanced and corrupt society caused a discontented society. In addition, Governor Berkeley basically controlled trade, policy, and land distribution, and exploited his power with favoritism.

Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676 aptly demonstrated the societal issues. Disputes over the distribution of land and the permission to invade native peoples’ lands led to the major conflict. While Bacon and the rebellion died fairly quickly, distinct changes followed, including the removal of Berkeley from office.

Notable differences occurred following the rebellion in an effort to satisfy the commoners. Changes in policies regarding taxes, native peoples, and land distribution all appeased the common planter. Another noteworthy transition occurred in labor. A decline in white indentured servants due to the impact of Bacon’s Rebellion led to planters looking to Africa for laborers. The dramatic influx of African slaves resulted in a fear of revolt among whites. This fear unfortunately caused severe restrictions to be placed on slaves, and a shared identity and mindset among all whites. This shared identity masked the growing economic inequality between the great and common planters.

The Carolina colonies Taylor depicted differed from the other colonies due to its large land grants, Indian relations, and slave quantity. The massive amount of land offered attracted an elite more dignified than its Chesapeake counterpart. The elite men lived luxurious lives and took pride in expressing their fortune with grace and dignity. The achievement of such success directly resulted from mastering the exploitation of other peoples, namely the African slaves and Indians. Carolina planters amassed an unparalleled amount of African slaves and incredibly secured such a dramatic population imbalance by manipulating the surrounding native peoples through trade. Essentially the colonists offered arms to the natives in return for deerskins and slave capturing. When it became apparent that deerskin trade did not provide a stable economic base, planters turned to the cash crops of rice and indigo. These crops relied upon a steady dose of slave labor, which the planters ensured through severe repression.

I found Taylor’s descriptions of the dynamic change of the Chesapeake colonies and the exploitation carried out by Carolina planters very interesting. I think Taylor successfully portrayed the attitudes and desired appearances of the colonists. However, I did notice a lack of attention paid to the sentiments African slaves and native peoples, especially considering the immense roles both played in the Carolinas.