Racism and Social Stability in the Southeastern 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

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.

‘Opportunity for All’


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

President Obama’s State of the Union Address was largely centered on employment, economic growth, and “opportunity for all” in America.  In light of our class discussion on Davis today, I found myself comparing the job creation mentioned in the speech to the enslavement of Africans in colonial America.  In modern-day America, many writers and critics claim that there are still leaps and bounds to cover before everyone is provided with equal opportunities.  Leading me to my next point of comparison surrounding inequality.  As ‘opportunity for all’ is a major pillar of the Democratic Party and for Obama himself, the President spoke mostly to the middle-class American—a class today that makes up the majority of our population.

In comparing this to the socioeconomic demographics of colonial times, the middle class seemed much more present in the North based upon descriptions in our readings.  As Dana mentioned in his post on January 26, life did not seem that bad for enslaved peoples (in comparison).  Many were able to gain freedom and even employ their own slaves one day, which I guess could be similar to Obama’s idea of working hard, taking responsibility and getting ahead because of it.  This idea of ‘opportunity for all’ may have been more realistic in the North for both enslaved Africans and lower-middle class craftsmen.   However, in the South it seems as though the opportunity existed only for the select few at the top—i.e. the white landowning males.

Income inequality in the south was much greater due to the obvious reason of the white farmer becoming immensely rich from cash crops like tobacco while the enslaved Africans underwent subjugation, cruel conditions, and unequal treatment.  This notion of hard work being the only thing necessary to get ahead may have been more true for slave-owning landholders of Virginia and South Carolina colonists.  Yet, for enslaved Africans their fate seemed ultimately sealed by the time they took their first steps on American soil.  It is an interesting parallel to consider Davis’ notion that freedom was achieved through slavery in colonial times mentioning “black slavery was basic and integral to the entire phenomenon we call ‘America'”(Davis 102).  Yet the consistent treachery of morals and lack of compassion for human beings of a different color begs the question of how much was too much.

I think the obvious answer, by most standards, is that slavery went too far in its subjugation of Africans creating an immense disadvantage for the entire race.  Furthermore, the sheer magnitude of the divide between the rich and the poor is astounding.  Moreover, modern day protests like Occupy Wall Street in 2011 demonstrate our contemporary view of inequality, which looks quite meager in comparison to the class disparity in southern Colonial America.  Although black slave labor was “indispensable” to the successful boom in growth for America, the short-term costs came at the hand of the black men and women.  However, the argument presents itself that the unbearable costs paid by the colonial slaves led not just to the freedom of the white man, but eventually of the African slaves as well—after all, is it not enormously impressive that the man delivering the State of the Union is black.  The fundamental aspect of our country, which makes it so great, is the fact that our fates are not sealed, but rather it is indeed a land of opportunity.

The Necessary Evil


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

Different from American Colonies that discusses the general colonial approaches of how various European powers conquered parts of America, Inhuman Bondage focuses on a specific aspect of the colonial life—slavery. These chapters provide the historical context and economic reasoning that the Atlantic Slavery System was able to thrive in the Americas. Moreover, Davis examines different models of slavery trade in North America and the Caribbean to demonstrate that the slavery system was operated differently in different American colonies.

In addition to commodity trading such as fur and tobacco, Europeans also captured their economic interests in slave trade. The Atlantic Slavery System exemplified an early form of international trade system that is based on international capital investment and regional comparative advantage. The successful slave trade resulted in low labor costs; so slave-produced goods had a distinct price advantage in the global market. Interestingly enough, under the principle of profit maximization, there should have been white slaves from the very beginning of international trade. Davis explains that the poor white Christians were protected due to their religious affiliations with the church, which have protected the poor from being taken as slaves. At the same time, sugar gradually became one of the most popular products consumed in Western societies, which resulted in transporting millions of Africans to the New World. Driven by economic interests, European colonists imported a large amount of African slaves to replace Native American labors. The colonists agreed that the productivity of one black was worth that of several Native Americans. Black slavery was indispensible to the rapid economic development in America.

Due to waves of African slaves being shipped to the New World, there were more frequent slave insurrections in the Caribbean because slaves often outnumbered whites as much as nine to one. The slaves from the Caribbean often engaged in negotiations with their masters and they managed to create an African-Caribbean culture. Unfortunately, their counterparts in North America would be outnumbered by whites and placed under their constant supervision and control. Nonetheless, within the North American region, there were also variations about the evolution of slavery.  Slaves in the North were treated in a much more humane way than in the South. Slaves across different regions in North America have mastered different skillsets due to regional development. Compared to the slaves who lived on the Deep South farms, blacks in the North lived together with their masters. Consequently, there was far less racial segregation by residence in the mid18th century than in the early 21st century. Under supervision, the slaves could work alongside white farmers. Unlike in the Caribbean or Brazil, slaves did not have to transport privileged whites in sedan chairs. Moreover, during holy holidays, New Amsterdam blacks and whites dunk wine together and danced to African as well as Dutch music. There was also a kind of paternalism that existed in which masters supervised black life and give them advice. The great majority of Southern slaves were subjected to a harsh regimen of labor, and they had far less social and cultural autonomy in the colonial period than slaves in the North.

The history of slavery and detailed evolution in different parts of America was not new to me. However, it is interesting to think about the notion of “American free society” was made possible by black slave labors. No other society has been able to commit to a full set of contradictory ideas of oppression and liberty for decades. Without Atlantic Slave System, North America’s trade with the West Indies and export of Southern agricultural products would not have been possible. The American economic and political supremacy was created at the expenses of slavery despite its modern embodiment of freedom and liberty.