taylor – Page 2 – U.S. to 1877

September 18, 2013

Southern History Ain’t Pretty

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

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

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 18, 2013

Inhuman Bondage: Chapter 6

In chapter 6, Davis discusses slave culture and social norms along the Atlantic coast. Rather than the arguements Taylor put forth, showing the similarities and differences between the three geographical regions, Davis makes the case that slave culture and treatment differed along lines that were by no means geographical. The differences between how black slaves were treated, he points out, is far too complex to be grouped into distinct categories, and even within small regions slave social norms take on unique identities. He points out an example from the mid atlantic colonies, where a graveyard of 23,000 dead slaves were found buried, but within the same community slaves were allowed to eat the same food at the same table with their white masters. As in the nature of the text, Inhuman Bondage dives deeper into the story of African American’s lives as slaves, and how many of them worked the system to become free men. Davis discusses how slaves would spend time learning about christian culture, and use it to their advantage in order to bargain to for their freedom, or in most cases half-freedom. Davis also makes the argument that a major reason for the difference in the number of slaves was due to the number of indentured servants available to work in the particular region. He states that many of the northern areas had less slaves because many vagrants and criminals from Britain were being shipped over in order to work,and that slavery boomed when the labor pool of indentured servants dries up. Overall, I enjoy the more focused writing of Davis, and his ability to condense large ideas into concrete writing that paint an alternative picture of slavery in colonial america

September 17, 2013

Sweet Carolina (Chapter 11 Taylor)

In Chapter 11 of American Colonies Taylor discusses the life of the colonists and the beginnings of the Carolina colonies. Carolina was started in defiance of the Spanish, a way for the English to try and assert their dominance. Taylor made an interesting point about how back in 1607 the English had to hide their colonies but then in 1670 when Charleston was founded they did it to challenge the Spanish and show that they were no longer scared. This was bold but also somewhat foolish and the Lord Proprietors found themselves needing to grow in numbers quickly. To do this they promised freedom of religion and large portions of land to draw settlers to come to Carolina.

Originally Carolina was under the control of 8 Lords Proprietors. It became apparent to the colonists living in Carolina though that these 8 men were not well suited to be leading the colony. The Lord’s Proprietors weren’t able to effectually lead the people and didn’t have any power in the colony. After they lost their power changes were made to the colony, such as a state sponsored religion and soon there was a revolution. The revolutionaries decided they wanted the crown to control them, so in 1729 the crown bought out 7 of the 8 Proprietors

Slavery was also a large attraction for plantation owners in the Carolinas. The Lords Proprietors promised the plantation owners total power over the slaves. After the Stono Rebellion, which was brought up in a previous post here http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/contrasting-slave-systems-in-colonial-america-inhuman-bondage-ch-6/, the slave owners became much more strict in their dealings with the slaves. Rice was the large cash crop of the region and this demanded numerous workers. Because of the large amount of slaves, the owners lived in constant fear of rebellion. Taylor makes this point using a quote from a slave owner about how they wished their slaves weren’t so dangerous and cumbersome.

Taylor also mentions Georgia in this chapter but he glazes over it. They were the colony that no one really wanted to be a part of but it was necessary. This is how Taylor portrays it. He does try to make the point that it is not the hoodlum colony that many people in modern times have made it out to be but it is still used primarily as a place for beggars and dissenters and as a buffer zone to stop slaves from fleeing into Florida as easily.

September 17, 2013

Discussing British Aggression and the Overlooking of Georgia

A major theme in American Colonies in this week’s reading is England’s emergence as a major imperial power in the mid-17th century. Two of England’s earliest attempts at colonizing the “New World”, Jamestown and Roanoke, were relatively low risk endeavors and went widely unnoticed by the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch. Although Roanoke failed miserably, Jamestown’s survival followed by moderate success and establishment of additional settlements in Virginia officially marked England’s entrance into the “New World”. When compared to the empire the Spanish had forged in present day Mexico and Florida, England’s territory in Virginia and Massachusetts was diminutive. However, England’s confidence grew significantly as the 17th century drew onward and in 1670 they founded Charles Town on the mouth of the Ashley River in present day South Carolina. This was a bold statement by the English because it defied Spanish claims to the coast and was much closer to the major Spanish city of San Agustin than the English settlement of Jamestown.
As Taylor describes the Lords Proprietor that controlled the Carolina territory and their methods of attracting settlers and actually settling the massive amount of land they impulsively “claimed”, he portrays the English as these daring up-starts who are directly challenging the Spanish for superiority in the Americas. Taylor also depicts the English as a country determined to thrive in the Americas and through their relentless recruitment of Englishmen to the Carolina territory, they were able to construct a colony formidable enough to prevent the Spanish from continuing their attacks. I consider Taylor’s representation of the English’s sharp rise in aggressiveness toward claiming and settling land in the Americas relatively easy to comprehend and overall quite effective. However, I found Taylor’s section regarding the establishment of Georgia less than adequate.
I understand there is tremendous skill required to write concisely but I found Taylor’s section on the colony of Georgia to be lacking significant depth. Despite providing a history (even a brief one) of Native people and their experiences prior to European arrival in previous areas of focus, Taylor offered no information about Native people and their existence in Georgia before it became a British colony. Despite Taylor’s decision to leave Natives out, I did not find his section on Georgia completely distasteful. I appreciate the distinctions he made between Georgia and the rest of the British colonies. For example, he discussed the trustees’ decision to forbid the importation or possession of slaves until 1751. He also described the difference in crop cultivation, most colonies grew tobacco, indigo, or rice but Georgia produced hemp, flax, mulberry, and grapes during the early years of the colony. Perhaps the most noticeable difference he described was the colony of Georgia’s attempt to prohibit rum consumption on the grounds that it “deterred hard work and moral uplift”.
Lastly, I would like to comment on a Georgia’s role as a British colony in the 17th century. As my classmate Evan Farese mentioned, Carolina was initially intended as a buffer zone between Virginia and Florida. Following the economic success in the Carolinas, the crowned deemed it necessary to create Georgia as a buffer zone between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida. Although it was not a glamorous one at the start, Georgia did play a very important role in the English expansion in the Americas.

September 10, 2013

Inhuman Bondage, Chapters 4 and 5:

While reading chapters 4 and 5 of David Brion Davis’s Inhuman Bondage, I found that I was able to appreciate Davis’s style and delivery of information more than the passages from Alan Taylor’s American Colonies. Although several of my classmates may disagree, I believe that Davis’s writing is easier to read and absorb than Taylor’s.

One of the topics included in the reading that stood out to me was that not all forms of slavery were equal. While learning about the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery in the “new world” in high school, there was little emphasis placed on the sharp differences between picking cotton, making sugar, or growing tobacco. Through this generalization of labor, it was difficult to understand which tasks were particularly arduous. In chapter 5, however, Taylor depicts the painstaking process of sugar cultivation in vivid detail. Taylor describes sugar production as having “far exceeded anything slaves encountered when cultivating tobacco, cotton, rice, or indigo” (108-109). Taylor essentially said that if slaves could pick their job, working in the sugar industry would be their last choice.

Another portion of the reading that stood out to me was how the Europeans justified the enslavement of other people. One particular way is the fact that Africans did not practice traditional European religions led Europeans to view them as inferior and worthy of being enslaved. Some people believed that by enslaving Africans and converting them to Christianity, the African people became civilized. Perhaps the most obvious difference between Africans and Europeans was race. Africans dark complexion was seen negatively in the eyes of Europeans, who associated black with “demons, devils, and tortures.” This simple but blatant difference enabled Europeans to frame Africans as the “ultimate outsiders” (79). Perceptions of Africans as inferior and foreign led to the acceptance of their roles as slaves by Europeans and resulted in African slaves becoming a social normality.

September 4, 2013

History trumps childhood- Chapters 3 & 5

Alas, yet another childhood story is ruined by the fierce truth of history. First, I found out the Pocahontas movie is not historically accurate. Then, it was unveiled that Columbus treated the natives with harsh brutality. Now, my world centered on the English being the main explorers to the “New World” is historically skewed. Taylor, altering my preconceptions on colonization, offers up a history, thus far, that centers on many other cultures.

Chapter three targets the Spanish explorers and their fierce conquest in the “Americas.” Taylor takes a relatively harsh approach in presenting the Spanish. The Spanish were vicious in their takeover of their so-called new land. Cortés and his army demonstrate the Spanish desire for conquest by taking over Tenochtitlán. What was once a booming metropolis of native wealth and civilization was “reduced… to a bloody rubble” (53). To make matters worse, the area they took over was littered with gold and silver. Yet, the new gold over powered the Spanish economy causing a rough period of inflation for those at the bottom of the economic pyramid. For me, the Spanish represent the normal colonist that came over seas and soon showed dominance over the native peoples in an attempt to become rich.

However, chapter five showed a different relationship between the native peoples and the European explorers. The French explorers to the north had a contrasting association with the natives than that of the Spanish. The French were in North America to acquire furs and dominate the fur market. The native peoples knew the French were so far inland for the furs and soon took advantage of this fact. The native peoples were bringing in such large quantities of fur that the French were in an interesting position socially and economically. If they attacked the natives, they could take them over and the area. However, that would remove their supplier of fur, so they were trapped in a period of peace. Normally peace would be the ideal, but in a culture where the native peoples were originally though of as beasts, the French were not ecstatic to be equals. Taylor does give the French a certain amount of praise for being so peaceful, and they were nicer than the Spanish. Yet, they still had their fighting and were only peaceful for economic reasons.

The Europeans saw themselves as greater beings than the native peoples. With superior technology, I could see how the Europeans thought of themselves as higher powers. So since the Europeans “discovered” the “New World,” colonization history has been presented in that light. Taylor, however, is fighting the norm by presenting his thoughts differently. I admire his prowess for attempting to change a more than five hundred-year-old practice.

September 1, 2013

Taylor, Chapter 2: An Environmental Perspective

Sherwood Callaway

HIS 141, Blog Post 2

For context, my post today has mostly to do with the environmental history Taylor presents in chapter 2.

Generally speaking, chapter 2 was concerned with three things: thee driving forces behind European exploration, the decimation of local inhabitants upon European contact, and the environmental ramifications of European-American interaction. The Europeans pursued exploration because it offered new opportunities for commercial exploitation and religious conversion. Their experiences in the western Atlantic –where they subdued the Guanche through “just” warfare, manipulation of local politics, and by unintentionally introducing of foreign diseases, plants and animals – demonstrated these benefits, and prepared the Europeans for their “new world.” Finally, the breadth and variety of economical implications resulting from making contact was astounding; rampant disease destroyed whole Indian nations, crops were exchanged and food supplies significantly altered, livestock introduced, deforestation dramatically increased, etc.

Simply, the Europeans threw America’s natural balance completely out of whack.

Taylor deserves credit for giving sufficient attention to the role of the environment in this period. In his post last week, Wells was first to recognize the way Taylor weaves anthropological and environmental histories together. Certainly, one cannot be separated from the other, but less mindful historians often diminish the weightof the latter. Taylor has proven himself otherwise; for example, he quotes Thomas Malthas’ principle of population, acknowledging man’s environmental dependency.

After reading the first chapter, I assumed Taylor’s interest in environmental history was conditioned by his subject material— the Indians. Wells may have felt the same, since in his blog post he employed the examples of the Anasazi and the Hohokam. Under this impression, I considered Taylor backward and hypocritical, since much of his introduction was spent condemning historical inaccuracies like that of the nature-loving Indian. However, this reading has clearly proven that Taylor’s interest in environmental history is simply part of a well-rounded modus operandi. The environment pertains equally to all three parties this time; the Europeans gained more efficient crops like maize and potatoes; the Indians suffered from alien disease, flora and fauna; the Africans benefit from the introduction of cassava, and enjoyed some protection from slavers, thanks to the harshness of their environment.

I applaud Taylor for his including this historical dimension, and am excited to experience other aspects of American history through it.

August 29, 2013

Taylor, Chapter 1: A Diversity-Continuity Contradiction

Sherwood Callaway

HIS 141, Blog Post 1

In his introduction, Taylor describes colonial America as a melting pot of diversity, in which the three distinct cultures – European, Indian and African – each with its own subdivisions, were thrust together in a manner of unprecedented speed and force. Driven by “profit-seeking and soul-seeking,” the Europeans facilitated this gathering with their comparatively advanced navigational abilities, shipping entrepreneurial colonists and African laborers alike. British America emerged as the dominant cultural entity in the so-called New World, imposing itself upon Indian and African cohabitants. These less powerful cultures were certainly not less prominent, however; they held equal influence in the cultural mix. Taylor writes profoundly of colonial society, saying “in such exchanges and composites, we find the true measure of American distinctiveness, the true foundation for the diverse American of our time.” That particular statement struck me as Americentric (if that is even a word), and I was surprised to hear such a thing from Taylor, who makes such a point of debunking the “traditional story of American uplift” that is associated with the colonies.

Additionally, in chapter one, Taylor seems to contradict his description of colonial America – which I previously summarized in brief – by suggesting cultural continuity between pre-Columbian Indians and Europeans. Their violent tendencies, for one:

“the chiefdoms conducted chronic warfare. Burials reveal skeletons scarred with battle wounds; many towns were fortified with wooden palisades, and their art often celebrated warriors displaying the skulls, scalps, and corpses of their victims. Of course, none of this rendered them more warlike than their contemporaries elsewhere in the world; European graves, cities, and art of the same period (“the Middle Ages”) also displayed the prominence of war and the honors bestowed upon victors.”

Their metropolitan and technological advancements, for another: The Hohokam used a massive and complex system of irrigation canals for farming, which “demanded extensive, coordinated labor to build and maintain.” And near the Mississippi River, the Mound Builder city of Cahokia once sprawled – the notable home of an impressive calendrical device and the largest earthen pyramid in North America. Taylor seems to legitimize Indian civilization in the face of Eurocentrism by describing in detail these accomplishments.

In summary, Taylor seemed to contradict himself by first championing the diversity of colonial America, but then spending the entire first chapter writing an indigenous history in the way we usually write European history.