Uncategorized – Page 13 – American History to 1877

February 10, 2014

Power Tensions in the Chesapeake Colony

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

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.

February 9, 2014

Racism and Social Stability in the Southeastern Colonies

As he describes the development of the Chesapeake and Carolina colonies, Alan Taylor asserts that the rise of racial slavery allowed for improved social stability even as class differences grew exponentially. I had not made this connection explicitly before, but I agree with Taylor’s argument and believe it accurately explains the events that took place in southeastern colonies.

Before African slavery became economically advantageous, planters relied heavily on indentured servants from England, in the case of Chesapeake, and from Barbados and the West Indies, in the case of Carolina. These servants were poor and desperate for work, and they hoped that they might survive their term of indenture and benefit from the generous headright system. As Thomas explained in his post, a society rooted in indentured servitude was often a fragile one, and social rest became common in incidents like Bacon’s Rebellion.

Even before the rise of vast economic inequalities, in the Chesapeake colonies, Taylor describes how the insecurity of those in power led to increased violence and hostility in relations with the lower class. Because so many, regardless of race, had to work for others in harsh conditions, those who achieved some success anxiously regarded independence as a “cherished and vulnerable status” (Taylor 139). My mind associated plantations with the genteel, incredibly wealthy men Taylor later describes, ruling over hundreds of slaves, and I didn’t realize that, initially, the leaders of Chesapeake felt anxious about their “origins, qualifications, and conduct” (139). As Taylor points out, this insecurity engendered brutal responses to criticism and protest. Society stood divided, and the rise of a figure such as Berkeley in this context could only lead to trouble.

Berkeley, as Emma described in her blog post, took the position of governor with the intent of favoring all of his elitist friends. He created a system that bestowed the wealthy with substantial power and wealth, and when the Navigation Acts combined with economic difficulties put a strain on smalltime planters, he refused, for his own personal interests, to support their plan to attack Indians. While I was familiar with the flow of these events beforehand, the context Taylor creates enhanced my understanding of this time period. I agree with the connections that he draws between tension among classes and the resulting instability. Bacon’s Rebellion did arise from the Navigation Acts, but even without the Acts, the uneasiness present in society dictated some level of conflict.

The Chesapeake colonies eventually adopted African slavery in favor of indentured servants for economic, not social or moral, reasons. The economic improvements in England resulted in fewer emigrants to America, more slave traders were present in the colonies, life expectancy of African slaves increased substantially, and Parliament had lifted a monopoly on the slave trade, resulting in more suppliers and lower costs. Although the incorporation of African slaves rose purely out of economic reasons, it dramatically transformed the social landscape of the Chesapeake colonies.

Thomas described how the rise of African slavery and new legislation “encouraged racism and facilitated white cohesion.” In the event of a slave uprising, the support of “armed whites” proved fundamental for the great planters (Taylor 154), and indeed, planters feared a rebellion so greatly that they felt compelled to maintain order with pain and fear. Racism became a tool to justify this brutality, and as it became widespread, the racial solidarity of the colonists created critical social stability. Taylor traces this pattern both in the Chesapeake colonies and in Carolina. I think it’s an insightful observation, and it aptly explains why colonies became more stable despite the large growth of an economic gap in white society.

February 8, 2014

Early Forms of Racism in the Chesapeake Colonies

While disease, access to clean sustenance and Indian interactions certainly played a role in the Chesapeake colonies’ vitality, Taylor stresses that the production of and English demand for tobacco was the most important determinant of the region’s overall success. With the incredible amount of labor necessary for the production of tobacco and the relatively high costs of enslaving Africans in the mid-seventeenth century, wealthy Chesapeake colonists relied on indentured servants to tend to their land. Theses servants were initially drawn to the Chesapeake area due to “unemployment and hunger in England combined with the pull of Virginia opportunity” (142). Taylor notes further that both the prices of tobacco and the economic conditions in England greatly affected the emigration of indentured servants to the Chesapeake colonies throughout the seventeenth century.

Based on the economics of the Chesapeake colonies, and tobacco production being central to its overall success, the opportunities given to indentured servants varied between periods of relative prosperity and financial hardship. As Thomas alludes to in his most recent blog post, however, by 1700 there was a clear gap in economic opportunity between Virginia’s rich and poor, as a very small percentage of wealthy white families controlled a majority of the area’s land. Despite this distinct economic division among whites in the Chesapeake colonies, they were unified socially as the eventual influx of African slaves led to the beginnings of racism and an overall sentiment of racial superiority shared by whites.

Although Taylor observes that racism was not initially noticed in the Chesapeake colonies, he clearly highlights how the increased number of slaves in the area led to legislative changes that ultimately encouraged racism and facilitated white cohesion. An example of legally justified racism was that, “After 1691 no Virginia planter could free slaves unless he paid for their transportation beyond the colony” (156). By providing a financial incentive for owners not to free their slaves, the Chesapeake colonies further divided blacks and whites by keeping blacks enslaved for longer periods of time. Taylor highlights that legislation geared towards restricting the rights of blacks meant that, “A dark skin became synonymous with slavery, just as freedom became equated with whiteness” (157). Therefore, despite the economic inequality that existed between poor and wealthy whites in the late seventeenth century, a sense of racial superiority united all whites and immediately gave them, regardless of their financial status, an elevated position in Chesapeake’s social hierarchy.

Taylor’s description of how the economic conditions in England led the Chesapeake colonies to be based on labor provided by African slaves rather than indentured servants illustrates racism’s roots in the American colonies.

February 8, 2014

Going South

Chapters 7 and 11 in American Colonies focused on the English colonies to the south which included Carolina, Virginia (Chesapeake) and Georgia. As Thomas mentioned in his most recent blog post, the south focused on single cash crops instead of a variety of crops. Virginia’s crop was tobacco, and the importance placed on tobacco greatly shaped the development of the colony. Unlike England, “the Chesapeake demanded too much labor from too few colonists.” (142) What I found ironic is that at this time, the colonists believed it was more profitable to buy English indentured servants for a few years than African slaves for life. This theory would change drastically soon. In Virginia, the government became corrupt when a leader by the name of Berkeley came to power. He appointed his friends to positions of power, and created hefty taxes to benefit the wealthy. This lead to Bacon’s rebellion, a failed attempt by planters who resented his leadership.

What was interesting to me was the fact that in the Chesapeake, slavery and racism were not mixed. Before Africans were enslaved, black men in the colony had the same rights as white men. When slavery became abundant, the colonists were terrified of a rebellion, and made strict rules objectifying these people.

Carolina officially belonged to the “the Lords Proprietor” which consists of English aristocrats. (223) Carolina was created with the intent to serve as a place of religious toleration, low taxes, and large tracts of land. This attracted a lot of common colonists, but also larger planters. One way Carolina kept control was through exploitation of Indians. They created a cycle of enslavement where they supported a tribe, that tribe would capture and enslave another tribe, and then the colonists would find another tribe to enslave the first tribe. I was honestly disgusted by this constant exploitation, and even more disappointed in the Indians. The fact that they all turned on each other whenever presented a possibility just displays how desperate they were. Economically, Carolina became a hub for cash crops. Since it primarily consisted of huge plantations, it could develop crops like rice, tar, cattle and indigo in large amounts to trade in England. This made the elite in Carolina the wealthiest on the Atlantic Coast.

Georgia was created solely for a place to ship “miserable wretches and drones” in hopes that manual labor would transform them. (241) Because of this, it was the only colony that outlawed slavery, due to the fact that it was created to be many compact farms. Georgia’s cash crops consisted of hemp, flax, mulberry, and grapes. Many of the colonists were angered by the strict rules especially against slavery. They felt “unfree” without having the right to own slaves. (243) Eventually they caved and permitted slavery, which changed Georgia into a plantation society.