February 2014 – Page 5 – American History to 1877

February 12, 2014

Religious Awakening in the Colonies

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

Current day thoughts about religious motivation in the colonies can be far from the truth. When most students learn early on about the pilgrims, the mayflower, and thanksgiving, they automatically view the pilgrims as a group who came to escape religious persecution and develop a place where everyone was free to worship as they please. However, Taylor describes that this is not the case with most colonial settlers. As Taylor states “Not all colonists had felt persecuted at home, and few wanted to live in a society that tolerated a plurality of religions”(339). The early colonists did not practice the freedom of religion as it is known today, and this lead to spiritual divide between differing regions of the colonies. This divide also went deeper to inter-faith divide, with the the New Lights and the Old Lights differing on the correct ways to practice religion. This divides played a large role in the events known as the The Great Awakening.

Taylor paints a clear picture of the different types of religious beliefs throughout the colonies. He makes this clear by giving the number of churches each specific religion has and the region it is in. Although the church numbers were high, as were the attendance rates, Taylor explains that in many places Church was drifting from place a deep worship to a more social gathering. That along with the emergence rationalists, who Taylor describes as people who “instead found guidance in the science that depicted nature as orderly and predictable operation of fundamental and discernible laws”(344), made the reality that strong christian faith was a thing of the past.

This set the stage for key revivalists to bring the fundamental core of Christian beliefs back to the people of the Colonies. This all started with Reverend Jonathan Edwards, who was taught deep religious ideals by his Grandfather Solomon Stoddard. Edward set out on a tour and preached to thousands of how people and churches must get back to their strong fundamental faith. This effort by him sparked the great awakening and inspired the “most extensive and synchronized set of revivals in colonial experience”(346). His work also inspired Whitefield to come across the Atlantic from England and make a nation wide tour, enthusiastically preaching his message of deep religious faith and the work of God, further contributing to the Great Awakening.

As one of my classmates points out in “Religious Revival in the American Colonies” the main divide of the old lights vs. new lights serves as the main conflict throughout the Great Awakening. While the old lights preferred carefully planned out sermons and scriptures, the new lights preached spontaneously and emotionally to demonstrate the holy spirit inside them.

Taylor clearly portrays the events and feeling feeling throughout the Great Awakening. He speaks of specific examples and people who played a key role in the process. My main critique would be for him to go into more detail on the overall effects that the Great Awakening had on the Colonists.

February 10, 2014

Chesapeake and the South

The colonists in Virginia enjoyed more political autonomy than their friends in New England and back home. Furthermore, Virginians developed a political philosophy that is similar to the modem federal system: representative democracy and popular politics. For both Chesapeake colonies, the royal ruler shared power with the wealthiest colonists who dominated the county system of local government. As a result, the political freedom attracted many young men and there was a skewed sex ratio. In 1625, only 10% of the population were women. The gender gap indicated men greatly outnumbered women and the prevalence of single men increased social volatility.

Similar to other colonies, the Chesapeake employed both indentured servants and slave labors. The colonists occupied all of the best tobacco lands and enjoyed tremendous trade surplus. However, the economic success also came at a heavy cost. The Native Americans again lost their lives for protecting their ancestral land. The colonists also made sacrifices by accepting shorter life expectancy and poor prospects for marriage. The economic success also created some social mobility and allowed people to express their desires. Bacon’s Rebellion took place as a result from a split between people who allied with the royal governor and a group of ambitious planters. The Bacon’s Rebellion actually played an important role in facilitating Virginia’s “democratic” process. The assembly decided to build a more popular political base by reducing poll tax. The colonists also started to treat visitors with great hospitality and generosity. Furthermore, the policies allowed the African slaves to acquire freedom after a few years of working. However, as the number of African slave increased, white masters felt compelled to use brutal punishment to control and motivate slaves. The planters created a racial system of slavery and almost all blacks were slaves and almost every slave was black.

The Chesapeake was functioning similarly to a modern democratic entity for a while but slave trade and economic gains from tobacco trade turned Virginia to a usual colony that is based on exploitation and violence. On the other hand, Carolina and Georgia were two very interesting cases because they both enjoyed economic prosperity yet did not solely used violence in the slave system. Carolina primarily attracted farmers and artisans from modest origins from both the Chesapeake and the West Indies. The Carolina’s leaders knew that deerskins and Indian slaves were volatile commodities, so they decided to develop valuable agricultural staple for export to prosper in the long term. As a result, the Carolinas became the empire’s great rice and indigo colony. In terms of social manners, the South Carolina elite became renowned as more gracious and polite than the gentlemen of Virginia. By 1670, Georgia became the first and only British colony to reject the slave system in North America. The Carolina and Georgia region enabled a relatively small group of whites became rich and politically powerful by developing a strong local economy and working together with a large population of African labors.

February 10, 2014

British Colonies Coalesce

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.

February 10, 2014

Power Tensions in the Chesapeake Colony

In his chapter about the Chesapeake colonies, Taylor outlines the social classes and power struggles, as well as the developing slave nation that would shape the rest of American history. These power rankings emerged from labor classes. Taylor describes that in England, power rankings were based on aristocracy and education, whereas in the colonies competitive middle-class men were on top of the social ladder (139). Underneath these middle-class men were indentured servants, who labored until they had paid off their dues.

I thought was most interesting about the reading was how the colonies changed from tensions between English colonists to tensions between English colonists and slaves. Bacon’s Rebellion exemplifies the strained relationship between English laborers and the elites, when a disgruntled colonist attacked the Virginia Governor, Governor Berkeley. Although this event did not lead to major changes in the colony, it showed the tensions between these two groups. But there was a lower supply for indentured servants, as well as no longer economically beneficial, so slaves started to become more common in the colonies. Along with the rising slave trade, the developing racism in the colonies created new power rankings. It was no longer elite versus laborer; it was English colonist versus slave.

As Charlotte says in her post, color of one’s skin became a major marker in identity, which led to unity between the colonists based on this common identifier. I agree with Charlotte that Taylor’s description of this process of “othering” is more complicated than what Taylor makes it out to be. Taylor described in detail the punishments against slaves if they were to step out of line, but he did not describe the more elitist attitude that white colonist had during this time. I think Taylor could have expanded more on this, as it creates an important distinction that leads to important events concerning the Civil War and the Reconstruction.

February 10, 2014

Introduction of Racism in the Chesapeake Colonies

In this week’s readings concerning the Chesapeake colonies, I found the section on slaves to be quite interesting. Especially after having read Inhuman Bondage and learning how badly the slaves were treated, reading about how some slaves in the Chesapeake colonies were able to own land and vote seems strange. The reading even discusses how the most successful freed black slave named Anthony Johnson took his white neighbors to court after they had lured away his slave (154).

The concept of racism was not fully developed yet during that time, and as Beth Wright described in her post “Power Dynamics in the Southern Colonies”, “slaves [became] a uniting factor with the idea of color rather than wealth [to be] the preliminary divider for status” after the surge of African slaves were imported into the colonies. Due to the increase, African culture became more conspicuous and alarmed the slave masters. Because of this, stricter laws were placed on slaves and the rights of freed slaves disappeared almost entirely. Slavery as we know it today appears, or at least in the Chesapeake colonies, to have come from a more economic view that then transitioned into racism, rather than purely out of hatred itself.

Although class distinction was a large part of the culture of the Chesapeake colonies, the difference between whites and blacks later became the “key marker of identity” (157). As the racial boundaries grew, so did the difference between the elite whites and the poor white. Ordinarily, the richest white families owned the majority of the land and the bottom third of the white population owned none (157). Because of this, the poor families could not compete with the rich white families in production of tobacco because the rich whites had slaves to do the job, only increasing the economic and racial divides.

February 10, 2014

Defining the “other” of the Chesapeake Colonies

Chapter 7 in Taylor’s American Colonies shows the continual “othering” within the Chesapeake colonies, and the different tensions that this led to. This chapter traces the different groups in power, and who they had power over. The chapter begins with describing the new-found independence many emigrants experienced. Many colonists came from “middling origins” (139), and were able to climb their way into powerful positions, regardless of their birth. This was very different from England, where power was determined by your birth, education, manners, land, and wealth. It therefore makes sense that we still see much of British culture as “proper” based on our historical relationships with it. It was often beggars, “unwanted orphans”, or “criminals punished for vagrancy and petty theft” that came in the early 1600s in waves of immigration. However, after coming as endowed servants, these servants then had freedom dues, where they were given land — an opportunity unheard of if they had stayed in England given their social status.

However, life in the new colony was not easy by any means. Many experienced early death in a combination of disease and overworking. Additionally, these indentured servants experienced brutal treatment by planters who often believed “that only fear and pain could motivate servants”.

Here we begin to see many of the tensions between new-found class distinctions in the new world. Newly freed indentured servants were forced to take worse land than already established wealthier farmers. In addition to this, the wealthier planters were able to make it through hard times and bad seasons, and would buy up many of the smaller properties and their workers. With this, the plantation community suffered from increasing poverty, while the wealthier continued to make more money.

In addition to this, with heavy tax laid on plantations by Governor Berkeley, farms had to give up about a tenth of their annual crop. While wealthy plantations could afford this tax, this was a huge burden to the smaller, common person’s farm.

This middle working class therefore cherished their independence, which seemed to be more and more fleeting during hard times. This is one of the reasons why there was a lot of backlash when the governor began to limit trade with Indians, and therefore why Bacon had many followers. Again we see how Bacon’s followers pitted themselves against both the Indians and governor Berkeley, thinking this “othering” would secure their independence.

However, after this fiasco and crown intervention, the plantation owners of Virginia felt they needed to work together by building a stronger political base through the representation of “all free, white Virginians against innovative intrusions of crown power” (151). This brought together the big plantation owners with the smaller farm owners, which seemed to coincide with the influx of African slaves due to a diminishing indentured servant population. This then pitted all free, white Virginians against the newest, most threatening “other” — African slaves, which Willie MacDade touches on in his post below. It is interesting to see how the extreme racism seen later on in history was something developed over time, and how this was another reason to “cultivate the common white men” (154). I was shocked to read the story of a black freedman, Anthony Johnson, and his owning of land and even a slave. Knowing the later future of people of African descent in plantation societies, I was shocked to learn that Johnson won a case in court against whites.

However, with their numbers growing, and with more propaganda of the newest “other”, skin color became an physical marker of identity, which brought together the small/common planters and the great planters in racial solidarity. “Newly obsessed with racial difference, Chesapeake whites felt more equal despite the growing inequality of their economic circumstances” (157). I agree with Willie MacDade here that Taylor’s explanation of “othering” might be oversimplified, however, it provides a nice segway into the later narrative that we are more familiar with.

February 10, 2014

Power Dynamics in the Southern Colonies

The hierarchical relationships between groups is heavily analyzed throughout these two chapters, largely through interactions with primary sources and comments from elites of the time. The economic and political relationships between the poor and wealthy whites is of particular interest to me. Due to the fact that many poor whites owned land in Carolina and on the frontier, they had a vote in politics. A mutually beneficial relationship formed between the large planters and small famers as a result of the small farmers’ struggles and the elite desire for power. The large planters gained votes into office in exchange for protecting the interests of small famers. Social mobility was also a societal factor present in the colonies, at least for a time, that was largely unheard of for the period. Though Chesapeake later grew to have a stricter social structure, both colonies originally had a fluid society. These points together created a complex power dynamic where each section of the ladder was mobile and dependent upon the others for extensive support. I also found it interesting that these relationships fostered the creation of famous Southern manners. Southern elites had to convince the common farmer of their merits, and this system perpetuated itself into one intense politeness and Taylor’s “condescension” (pg. 153).

The Chesapeake elites discovered during this era that there were tremendous political gains from lowering taxes, uniting all white colonists against a common enemy, and providing a common lower class. These elites lowered taxes to transfer economic discontent from the local governments to the crown. The establishment of an enemy in the Indians provided an evil to lash out against when times were difficult. Finally, the slaves were a uniting factor with the idea of color rather than wealth was the preliminary divider for status. As Willie discusses in his post “Class and Color in the Chesapeake,” racism developed as a result of economic incentives, a shortage of white immigrants, and the need for the development of a “kinship” between whites. The poor whites were eager to have a subordinate in order to raise themselves up on the social ladder, and the elite whites were eager to exploit a cheaper, more controllable, and more sustainable form of labor. The whites all had a common enemy and subordinate that manipulated a positive connection of poor whites to elite whites. Socially, these decisions kept the elites in good standing with the poor whites and provided the elites with power and higher levels of income. Economically, (at least in Carolina and on the frontier) the possibility of independence with elite protection encouraged development and the growth of a sustainable mid-tier white class. This middle group supported the elites through taxation. The system worked well, but could not provide the profits that the elites pursued, and thus the system, in Chesapeake in particular, moved to one of larger plantations with many black slaves and fewer free, land-owning whites or indentured servants.

I would also like to comment that these two chapters further unveil Taylor’s extreme distaste for the Southern elites through his word choice and the information that he selects to display to the reader. I believe that he is losing objectivity when discussing them. History has almost always been written from the point of view of the elites, and I feel that Taylor is attempting to push back against this norm by portraying their class as imperfect, entitled, and harsh.

February 10, 2014

Religious Revival in the American Colonies

Thursday’s reading in Taylor covers the tensions that led to, shaped, and perpetuated the Great Awakening of the 1730s. Up until this chapter, Taylor has not given religion more than the necessary coverage, and so the first conflict he introduces—evangelists vs. rationalists—precedes the Great Awakening. Yet, the tension between those who prefer a more logical approach to religion and those who seek an emotional experience clearly translates into the main divide of the Great Awakening: the Old Lights vs. the New Lights.

Fundamentally, the New Lights, who “believed in new dispensations of divine grace,” and the Old Lights, who “defended venerable institutions and scriptural traditions,” divided on the issue of religion. However, it is important to note that such a difference was the manifestation of other important distinctions, namely wealth, influence, and age. These are not the first time we’ve seen issues divide the colonies. Recall, for example, Bacon’s Rebellion, where the disillusioned frontiersmen violently protested against the aristocratic regime of Governor Berkeley. Therefore, the Great Awakening cannot be seen as purely a religious movement, but rather as an amalgamation of religious and social tensions. Taylor should have certainly made this clearer.

This does not mean, however, that Taylor ignores the role that societal conflicts played in the Great Awakening. To show their extent, he points out that the evangelists were themselves split between moderates and radicals. While the moderates wanted to reconcile existing authority with evangelical preaching, the radicals rejected any prior establishment, choosing to focus on the individual. As Taylor says, such notions had “radical implications” for a society “that demanded a social hierarchy in which…deference” was key.

The result of such unprecedentedly large religious/social movement was both revivalism and diversification. Churches, some of which had almost twice the amount of full female members as full male members before 1740, were flooded again as people sought to hear a new, electric breed of preachers. The emotion was so high that several leaders from different branches of Christianity, from Presbyterian to Lutheran, cooperated “across denominational lines.” At the same time, differences between the North and South became more pronounced. Due to a less centralized society, worse roads, and inferior printing infrastructure, the South experienced a later and less pronounced religious revival.

In compliment to Taylor, the essays regarding witchcraft in New England help illustrate other colonial tensions that manifested themselves in religious movements. Elizabeth Reis’ essay, for example, points to the different, more stringent standard of morality that women were held to. Considering Kurt’s post about President Obama’s State of the Union, we can see that different standards for men and women are still an issue. Also, I share Kurt’s hesitation to call English colonial society more equal to women, as Reis’ essay clearly illustrates a disparity in treatment. Another interesting contrast to Taylor can be found from Walter Woodward, who asserts that the social elite was some of the most zealous instigators of emotional witch trials. Taylor, on the other hand, notes that the social elite was staunchly rationalist, detesting any possible threat to the existing power structure.

February 9, 2014

Class and Color in the Chesapeake

Taylor’s piece on the Chesapeake in Chapter 7 definitively traces the emergence of racism in the early colonies. Beginning with an account of the class tensions among settlers in Virginia, the chapter exposes the subjugation of people based on social status rather than race. Among the four levels of hierarchy in society—the king, the provincial government, the county court and the family household—there was an underlying class order whereby the few land elite at the top controlled an enormous portion of the wealth. White landowning men retained a great deal of patriarchal power in the household and also governing power in the community.

The labor necessary to sustain a reasonable crop production for these landowners was dependent on the class of white indentured servants. The cost for a white indentured servant was significantly less than that of an African slave. Therefore, in the beginning of the 17^th century, white indentured servants were almost exclusively the laborers of tobacco and maize farms in the Chesapeake colonies. However, the short terms of these servants (usually only a couple of years) were sufficient to pay off their passage from England to the New World. When the servant completed their term, they were often granted “freedom dues” which were settlement packages of land. Therefore, the name servitude is an apt way of distinguishing this type of work from slavery—which became a lifelong period of service around the second half of the 16^th century.

Due to greater incentives to remain in England, namely higher real wages, the demand of servants in the Chesapeake region went unfulfilled. The farmers had to look elsewhere for laborers and quickly found an alternative in the slave trade. I thought the inclusion of Anthony Johnson’s story provided an effective preface to the drastic change in race relations. This often-overlooked account of a black slave-owner becomes quickly overshadowed by the subjugation of black people in America to a position below even the lowest classes of white colonists. The shift in the servant class, as Dana mentions in his post on February 9^th, permitted all whites to be unified based upon skin color. In using the word “kinship”, Dana seems to illuminate the traces of a central divide contributing to the Civil War. As I expect to see in the later part of this class, many supporters of the Confederacy were united as kin in this acceptance of racism and slavery. Furthermore, Taylor reminds us that racial solidarity accompanied the growing inequality among whites Virginia. To a certain extent, this sense of unification by race diminished the common class white colonists’ concern with class disparity.

This reading provides a very nice foundation for our study of slavery in this class. As Taylor mentions, “A dark skin became synonymous with slavery, just as freedom became equated with whiteness” (Taylor 157). As simple as this observation may seem, it is very telling of the emergence of a new people placed under subjugation. Also it is interesting to trace the underpinnings of racism in America back to this change in servitude caused by a strengthening English economy (see above—real wages increase).

February 9, 2014

Racial Unity and Segregation

Taylor talks about the unity formed between whites of all economic standing once slavery is introduced. Prior to the introduction of large scale African slavery color did not mater. All freedmen were treated the same and had essentially the same rights. Once the African slave population increased, a new form a racism began to take root in the colonies. The wealthy elite took advantage of this racism to maintain their control over the colonies.

The gap between the rich and poor grew with the increase of African slavery. The African slaves did not have to be treated as well as the previously used indentured servants. They may have cost more, but they worked for life, however short that may be. They did not have to be paid the freedom dues given to the freedmen. These benefits helped to maximize the profit of plantations, but it also meant likely rebellion from the slaves. This was a constant fear and led masters to use brutality to deter rebellion. As said in the last post this brutality could be justified by the racism that took hold in the colonies.

As racism grew all whites were joined as kin. This kinship helped to diminish hatred between the wealthy and poor whites. Taylor talks of the kindness of the wealthy elite to travelers and the poor, something that is still attributed to the south. But it was not kindness for the sake of being a good person. The elite used kindness to keep people in line. It helped gain them votes, kept the poor content, and strengthened the “bond” between whites. Not only did the elite use racism to allow brutal treatment of slaves, but also to keep whites around them from rebelling.

Taylor also talked about how the elite had to keep the native’s and slaves from joining up together. Natives were paid to capture runaway slaves, as well as other natives of different tribes. This payment ensured a connection with the natives, kept the runaways and natives from joining up, and got the masters their slaves back. Paying for capture also helped to increase the racism against the African slaves. I think Taylor could have made a connection with the fact that the elite also had to subdue the poor whites. They had to keep three groups of people from joining up to rebel. Had the racism not grown, and whites held Africans as equals, the elite would not have been able to defend their positions.

The natives joining with the slaves would have proven brutal to the colonies. Had the poor whites joined the cause the elite would have no way to defend their lifestyle. That is why the growing racism proved so useful for the elite. To maintain control over the colonies, the elite needed to keep three groups from rebelling. The intelligent use of racism was able to keep all whites together, and kept natives from joining with the slaves.