Defining the “other” of the Chesapeake 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

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.