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
Taylor starts off by describing the background and beginnings of the unstable power taken by the wealthy, local land owners, called the “southern elites”. Because of this, and the fact that tobacco prices were dropping and land was becoming scarce, people were more power hungry and desperate to keep their power than ever. This instability of social power was due to the prevalence of single men in society; social power was based on whether you were married, how much land you had, how many dependents you had (i.e wife, kids, servants, etc.). These components for measuring power added up to what were called “little commonwealths”, which were the foundation of a stable society, but, since the ratio of men to women was so skewed, it was impossible for society to build such a stable foundation.
Beth made a great point in her post that, although there was social tensions among the colonists in their society, they could ultimately unite against another society: the indians attacking their frontier. Since land was becoming scarce, more colonists had to move to the frontier to find more available land, and this obviously did not sit well with the Indians. Expanding their frontier meant moving further and further into the natives’ land, causing more disturbances to start more conflicts among the inhabitants. After more of these conflicts occurred, colonists living on the frontier expected more support from their local governments so as to prevent more Indian attacks on their farmland. Eventually the colonists were not satisfied and rebellions began, creating many new problems for the English crown and the local governments.
Taylor definitely puts his own spin on retelling history to make a point and show his own opinions. After a certain point it is unproductive for him to input his own opinions and feelings into the readings because it can skew and distort what really happened, which would defeat the purpose of writing history in the first place. However, this can be good to a certain extent; it is good in that he can incorporate emotion and feeling into the presentation to absorb the reader more than just talking about history. This keeps the reading interesting, and more effective in showing the reader a more clear picture of the history being told.