Chesapeake Colony – 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.