Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
More from durantheseldine
More from durantheseldine (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
ANAThe Article Review by Jeanette Keith on Book by Stephanie McCu.docx
- 1. ANAThe Article Review by Jeanette Keith on Book by Stephanie McCurry Stephanie McCurry.Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. 320 pp. $39.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-19- 507236-5. Reviewed byJeanette Keith (Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania) Published on H-CivWar (February, 1996) FOR DISCUSSION - Analyze this article as a myth regarding TOPIC“The Enslave South”! Stephanie McCurry's superb study of antebellum South Carolina deserves a place on the shelves and reading lists of all historians of the South and the Civil War. In lucid prose, backed up by careful and sophisticated research, she provides an answer to one of the most basic questions about the war and the region, a question best posed in the terms many professors have heard from freshmen students: "If most Southerners didn't own slaves, then why did they fight for the Confederacy?" For her answer, McCurry looks at the South Carolina Low Country. The Low Country represents the Slave South carried to extremes, characterized as it was by huge plantations, a majority slave population, and a political system unique in the South for its elitism. South Carolina was not "the South" any more than Massachusetts was "the North," but its very nature as the extreme example of "Southern-ness" makes it an excellent place to ask some basic questions about the nature of antebellum society and its relationship to the political system. McCurry's answers demolish some deeply cherished myths about the Low Country and cast new light on some very old questions in the historiography of the South. McCurry's book is about yeoman farmers, their families, their religion, and their relationships (political and otherwise) with
- 2. the planters. McCurry notes that the very presence of yeoman farmers in the Low Country has been written out of history: they exist only as "the people" in the discourse of planter politicians. Ironically, two opposing groups are responsible for this -- the descendants of planters, who have found their self- created myth of the aristocratic Low Country both soothing and a lucrative tourist attraction, and antebellum travelers like Frederick Law Olmsted, who assumed the degredation of the non-planter white population and who usually saw in the South what he wished to see. Through the use of quantified data, McCurry establishes the existence of yeoman farmers in the Low Country and demonstrates that they were the majority of the white male population in the region. According to McCurry, these farmers owned small amounts of land and possibly a few slaves. Their strategy for survival, as described by McCurry, will be familiar to any student of the new rural social history. They produced food first for family sustenance and then grew cotton for the market. Farmers were masters of small households and controlled the labor of their wives, their children and (if they had them) their slaves. Farm women worked the land alongside the men -- a fact of particular historical significance, given the pro- slavery advocates' insistence that slavery kept white women out of the fields. To this point, Low Country farmers may sound rather like farmers anywhere else in the South, or in parts of the Midwest for that matter. But McCurry understands the political significance of the household economy she describes and never lets the reader forget it. Low Country yeoman farmers were "masters" in a slave society where that word had deep meaning. As masters, albeit of small farms and families rather than plantations and slaves, yeoman farmers controlled their small worlds and their dependents just as the planters did theirs. As threats to slavery loomed, planter politicians developed a rhetoric of mastery that could be made to include non- slaveholders as well. Students of antebellum proslavery rhetoric
- 3. will be familiar with the use of the family metaphor to describe slavery: slaves were family, they were dependent, and so were women and children, and to strike at slavery was to strike at -- shall I say it? -- family values. Proslavery rhetoric frequently tied abolitionism together with feminism as challenges to the God-ordained authority of white men. McCurry makes it clear that this rhetoric was pitched to yeoman farmers, to whom the meaning was clear: an end to slavery meant an end to the privileges of the master for them as well as for their planter neighbors. McCurry debunks the idea that southern whites of whatever class were united in a herrenvolk democracy based on race. Rather, yeoman farmers made common cause with planters in defense of the privileges of mastery, but never deluded themselves that they and the planters were equal in power. Yet, according to McCurry, yeoman did not defer to planters or exist in a client-patron relationship with them. Planters had to defer to the rights of yeoman farmers as property owners and masters, since the farmer's rights derived from the same value system that justified slavery. No one in South Carolina could afford to challenge the supremacy of a master (of whatever class) in his home or cast doubt on the legitimacy of his control over his dependents and his property. Planters also had to court yeoman votes. Even though South Carolina was the most un- democratic of Southern states, vesting unusual power in the state legislature, no one could get elected to that legislature without the vote of "the people." Master of Small Worlds uses gender as a category of analysis in a very sophisticated way. As noted above, gender relations help explain much about support for slavery. Gender roles -- the parts played by men and women -- also factor into McCurry's discussion of class relations and religion. One of the most amusing, and at the same time saddening, parts of the book is McCurry's description of the "gendered" relationships between planters and yeoman families. Men from both classes met in the militia and at political rallies (although their different status
- 4. was marked at such places), but planter women and farmers' wives rarely met at all. When they did, their interactions as described by McCurry give the lie to any notions of cross-class sisterhood. Religion, McCurry says, acted as a powerful unifying force in South Carolina -- a force that was firmly pro-slavery. Beginning in the early 19th century, revivals converted much of the white population of the Low Country to evangelical Christianity. Planters and yeomen worshipped at the same churches, although seating indicated the man's status. McCurry does not believe that the evangelical impulse in the Low Country was ever seriously anti-slavery. From the first, evangelical preachers upheld the mastery of God and white men. Churches exhorted dependents to be obedient and submissive to their masters, whether those dependents were women, children or slaves. Although congregations occasionally intervened to discipline men whose treatment of their wives was truly awful, ministers asserted that emancipation for women or slaves was unnatural and would end Christian civilization. When Lincoln's election forced the secession crisis in South Carolina, evangelical ministers led their flocks out of the Union. McCurry points out that the insistence from the pulpit that God was on the side of the South was a critical factor in rallying cross-class support for the Confederacy. So was violence. Yeomen, in particular, suffered a crisis of fear in 1860 that led them to be suspicious of all strangers and to threaten Unionist neighbors and Yankee visitors to the region. When South Carolina's men went to war, McCurry concludes, they did not go as equals. Everyone understood that planters had more power than yeomen. But yeomen and planters shared "a definition of manhood rooted in the inviolability of the household, the command of dependents, and the public prerogatives manhood conferred. When they struck for independence in the fall of 1860, when they contributed their part to tearing the Union asunder, lowcountry yeomen acted in defense of their own identity, as masters of small worlds" (p.
- 5. 304). Not the least of the virtues of this book is that it is written very well, in clear and entertaining prose. My criticisms are very few. I wish the book had a bibliography. Although McCurry's notes are clear and indicate the depth of her research, a bibliography is still a great convenience to the reader. On a more substantive level, I wish that this book had more to say about the relationship of yeoman farmers to slaves. McCurry reminds us that planters and yeomen were always conscious of the presence of the black majority, but this is a book mostly about whites. Nonetheless, this is simply one of the best books on Southern social history I have ever read. Sophisticated in technique and subtle in analysis, MASTERS OF SMALL WORLDS carries that analysis into politics to produce strikingly original insights that will have an impact on Southern historiography for years to come. Copyright (c) 1996 by H-Net, all rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact [email protected] If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at: https://networks.h-net.org/h-civwar. Citation: Jeanette Keith. Review of McCurry, Stephanie, Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country. H-CivWar, H-Net Reviews. February, 1996. URL:http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=284 ANALYZE THS JoURNAL ARTICLE CITATED BY JEANETTE KEITH ON A MYTH Of The SOUTH &UnStack &DataIndices &DataCopy &GraphData
- 6. &WorkArea &Miscel_Area DataCustomerType of CustomerItemsNet SalesMethod of PaymentGenderMarital StatusAge1Regular139.50DiscoverMaleMarried322Promotional 1102.40Proprietary CardFemaleMarried363Regular122.50Proprietary CardFemaleMarried324Promotional5153.50Proprietary CardFemaleSingle285Regular254.00MasterCardFemaleMarried3 46Regular144.50MasterCardFemaleMarried447Promotional278. 00Proprietary CardFemaleMarried308Regular122.50VisaFemaleMarried409Pr omotional256.52Proprietary CardFemaleMarried4610Regular144.50Proprietary CardFemaleMarried3611Regular1107.40MasterCardFemaleSingl e4812Promotional131.60Proprietary CardFemaleMarried4013Promotional9160.40VisaFemaleMarried 4014Promotional264.50VisaFemaleMarried4615Regular149.50V isaMaleSingle2416Promotional271.40Proprietary CardMaleSingle3617Promotional394.00Proprietary CardFemaleSingle2218Regular354.50DiscoverFemaleMarried40 19Promotional238.50MasterCardFemaleMarried3220Promotiona l644.80Proprietary CardFemaleMarried5621Promotional131.60Proprietary CardFemaleSingle2822Promotional470.82Proprietary CardFemaleMarried3823Promotional7266.00American ExpressFemaleMarried5024Regular274.00Proprietary CardFemaleMarried4225Promotional239.50VisaMaleMarried48 26Promotional130.02Proprietary CardFemaleMarried6027Regular144.50Proprietary CardFemaleMarried5428Promotional5192.80Proprietary CardFemaleSingle4229Regular371.20VisaMaleMarried4830Pro motional118.00Proprietary CardFemaleMarried7031Promotional263.20MasterCardFemaleM arried2832Regular175.00Proprietary CardFemaleMarried5233Promotional377.69VisaFemaleSingle26
- 9. economy after the legalization of servitude law that was part of the English common law. Both Billings (1991) and Morgan (1972) believed that modern racism originated from traditional Neither of them address the origins of modern racism. Both are discussing the origins of the system of slavery in Virginia, however. (Englishmen superior attitudes towards the both servants and slaves, that forced them to find solutions to the frequent labor upheavals that caused a loss of property which disrupted the Virginia plantation economy. Slavery provided the best solution to the frequent political changes within the Virginian British influenced dynasty, the frequent wars within Frequent wars? Neither of them mention this. Also which “state” are you referring to? the state and the lengthy process of procuring British bond servants. The Morgan and Billings explanation According to Morgan (1972) the high population growth in England from 3 million to 4.5 million in 1650 led to a slavery and servitude culture within Britain. According to Fletcher, there were more than 20,000 idle men in Scotland who were roaming around the country aimlessly, stealing, drinking and cursing at hard working people in the society (Morgan, 1972, 11). These idle populations were rounded up and put to work in factories Some were later on as bond slaves to property owners. The children to these landless poor were also introduced to compulsory labor system based on the working school system. This school system taught young children workmanship skills such as spinning and knitting from the ages of three onwards (Morgan, 1972, 10). These children were paid by being provided with basic human services such as food and water. This new cure to poverty brought with it the future of capitalism in the system known as the economy ? awkward Billings (1991) on the other hand diverts from Morgan’s (1972)
- 10. argument by claiming that the enslavement of black people in Virginia came as a result of the British servitude laws against its male servants And female…. . According to Billings (1991) the legalization of the British servitude laws in Virginia helped define a new slave culture. The servitude culture evolved from the seventeenth century British culture that forced the poor to serve in the homes of the rich and affluent members of the society. But doesn’t Billings show the differences between the indentured servant laws and apprenticeships? The most common type of British servitude was the apprenticeship. In 1907 a young craftsman served under the leadership of his skilled master. The apprenticeship of servitude was used in the middle ages to curb competition among craftsmen. The difference in explanation Morgan (1972) explains that the unemployed British youth contributed to the Virginia slave culture because a large number of them were sent to these new world colonies where they found limitless opportunities for work, own land and prosper. States such as Virginia Virginia was a colony at the time. became a haven for the British landless poor who found relief from the workhouses, prisons and gallows that awaited them at home. A huge number of the British poor were recruited into the Virginian free labor force in exchange for But the poor came in as servants…. They could become free after a time of servitude. land as a way of gaining access into more British colonies. The British poor viewed owning land as a sure way to gaining wealth and power within the Virginian state. Their civil freedoms and liberties were protected within these colonies to allow them participate in developing the British economy. The impoverished British men contracted and served the existing American planters for one year while carving out their own plantations aspirations along the Virginian River. Consequently they were able to live comfortable lives cultivated from their own crops of corn fields rearing a few cattle and planting
- 11. tobacco to earn at least 12 pounds per person (Morgan, 1972, 17). West Indian tobacco plantations also improved the economic conditions of the British servants because the products were shipped directly to Britain. I do not understand this sentence. But the poor came in as servants…. They could become free after a time of servitude. Billings (1991) on the other hand focuses on the statute of artificers as the root cause of the Virginia slavery culture. The statute of artificers was implemented in 1563 allowed all apprentices and house servants to be bound to their agreement, bonded by a legal contract called the indenture. This Stuart Englishman deed also known as a ‘covenant merely personal’ was a written consent between two parties allowing one party to be trained for a specific time period in exchange for maintenance during training (Billings, 1991, 46). A written release was given at the end of the service as a legal proof for the completion of the indenture. This form of servitude led to a loss of certain personal freedoms such as the ability to marry and the risk of being sold off or passed down through wills to other family members. The apprentice was also prone to corporal punishment from his master as restitution for harm or an attempt to escape. However, these bond servants could gain their freedom by seeking restitution from the courts by proving evidence of a lack of training, maintenance or support. These customs became As he also says, the law classified servants as chattel property – a basis for the legal status of slaves later on. part of the labor culture in the Virginia plantation economy. The best plausible explanation for the slave upheavals The disenfranchisement of the overpopulated British servants and promise of serving under the apprentice servitude turned into a death trap for these poor bond servants in Virginia, most likely due to the ruthless labor system that favored the plantation owners while oppressing the poor British settlers.
- 12. According to Billings (1991) British laborers worked for long hours with no breaks, subjected to mental, physical and sexual exploitation. There were no shelters to house these workers and tropical diseases led to many of their deaths. Ultimately, British born servants took the first opportunity to become free from this harsh environment by any means necessary, attempting to escape, steal or attack their owners. However Morgan (1972) gives a better explanation to these upheavals using his agrarian plantation model. According to Morgan the indenture servitude led to the legalization of slave trade. He continues to give examples of a new tide of disenfranchised and armed British youth which led to numerous uprising such as the bacon rebellion and the tobacco cutting riots in There were not numerous rebellions. Bacon’s Rebellion was a major one. Morgan thinks it so significant that it led to a change in policy regarding labor. 1682 (Morgan, 1972, 23). This forced Virginia to restrict the liberties of the landless and free British servants. The terms of service was extended from 21 years to 24 years for all youths who came into the state with no legal agreements. These new laws were enacted to limit the freedoms of these servants. WHY - analysis of this explanation A continued analysis to the Morgan (1972) argument reveals that the English law was amended in Virginia to manage troublesome British servants. The cropping of the hair was one form of corporal punishment given to problematic servants. Killing a hog, attempting to run away or asking for a three week holiday led to one year of extra service as compensation. This made it more difficult for servants to gain freedom from their masters. In 1670 the young armed British servants were restricted from voting or owning property such as land or houses (Morgan, 1972, 24). new legislative laws This sentence does not really make sense. that could only be implemented by the affluent land owners. Billings (1991) on the other hand gives an example of a
- 13. situation in March 1642 where the general assembly amended the law for the un-indentured servants extending their time of service from one year to 5 years. The children and adolescents were to be held in service until they were 21 years of age (Billings, 1991, 49). This new indenture system turned these bond servants into chattels or property. They became properties to the planters who used them as security during debt negotiations, marriage and inheritance. They lost their legal rights to gain their freedoms through the court system and could be traded like commodities such as clothes or livestock (Billings, 1991, 51). The African slaves proved to be more economical than acquiring British servants under paid contracts. This sentence does not really make sense. So when did this happen according to Billings…..? Billings (1991) therefore gives a more elaborate explanation to the root cause of the Virginia slave culture. He explains that the slave culture was used to counter the fear of another slave insurrection and armed servants. This sentence does not make sense African born slaves were therefore subject to severe forms of punishment compared to their British counterparts. The black slaves who walked around without their passes were whipped or punished severely. Black slaves were allowed to be sentenced to death under the testimony of a single witness instead of the traditional minimum of two witnesses. Such was the fate of Tom Cary, a slave who stole and set fire to his master’s property, his trial lasted just a few hours resulting in his execution (Billings, 1991, 60). These new laws allegedly were specifically aimed at protecting the safety and property of the planters against obsessively paranoid and a well-organized feared Negro insurgence as slaves represented one fifth of the population. Very awkward. OK, Here is the deal. The problem with the essay is a lack of focus. The essay needs a proper introduction and an accurate
- 14. comparative analysis of the two articles. Much of the information you relate in the paper is correct. But some of it is not well stated or leaves out some important details that the authors include. The writing needs to be focused, accurate, and concise. It needs to be organized in a traditional essay form with a proper introduction and conclusion. Grade: POOR References Billings, W. M. (1991). The Law of Servants and Slaves in Seventeenth-Century Virginia. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 99(1), 45-62. Morgan, E. S. (1972). Slavery and freedom: The American paradox. The Journal of American History, 59(1), 5-29. TWO –PART OLD SOUTH HIST DISCUSSION QUESTION #2 & PAPER ASSIGNMENT#2 SET UP QUESTIONS, INSTRUCTIONS & negative feedback regarding the former Discussion # 1 assignment, here (see FYI) and negative feedback for PAPER # ONE in a separate attachment?? Please review BOTH? FYI - DISCUSSION #1 received an F score, please review the feedback to avoid repeating what is not acceptable. If this assignment is acceptable, please commit to the (2) TBD - responses to 2 posts of others at a later date, in separate handshake, must be equally scholarly detailed? FYI -THE NEGATIVE FEEDBACK From discussion #1 & now DONE, please make note! Professor said, your (my) response was marginal. To receive
- 15. credit you must first analyze the evidence – using both primary and secondary scholarly sources -- in both the original post to the discussions and the responses (2) to others? FYI (The responses will be another assignment, TBD later after the original post) Providing random opinions on modern politics or making sweeping claims with no legitimate academic evidence will not win you points and fail the course. The discipline of history requires that you analyze evidence closely in order to demonstrate your main points. New DISCUSSION # 2 Assignment In 5-7 detailed scholarly paragraphs, professionally written, utilizing the resource material only, properly cited and referenced, respond to question 2 in grad level content. DISCUSSION #2 THE ONE RESOURSE to be used & cited for discussion #2 (ONLY)! Jeanette Keith, “The South: A concise History, VOL 1 QUESTION: Jeanette Keith exposes numerous myths about the society of the Old South told by southerners as well as non-southerners. Many of these myths serve political and cultural purposes. In this discussion each of you should find one myth that she (or the other authors in this section of the course) exposes. Comment on that ONE myth, precisely, intellectually and factually competent in professionally graduate level written content? Properly citing? INSTRUCTIONS for PART TWO - PAPER TWO New Paper #2 PROPOSED TITLE: The Society of the Old South History Use the following listed; (3) readings & two books resources ONLY (but Northup’s “Twelve Years A Slave” primarily):
- 16. Twelve Years A Slave, by Solomon Northrup, (BOOK) “The South: A Concise History, VOL 1, by Jeanette Keith, chapter 2. (BOOK) Select documents: Letters of William Gilmore Simms, 1826 (READING) Forrest McDonald and Grady McWhiney, “The Antebellum Southern Herdsman: A Reinterpretation,” Journal of Southern History 41, no. 2 (May 1975): 147-166. (READING) Dennis C. Rousey, “Aliens in the WASP Nest: Ethnocultural Diversity in the Antebellum Urban South,” Journal of American History 79, no. 1 (June 1992): 152- 164.(READING) ASSIGNMENT 1. What details about the society of the Old South, at least in Louisiana, does Solomon Northup reveal in his narrative Twelve Years a Slave? Please make note of the geographical location of Louisiana?? 2. Pick three from among the subjects discussed in the readings (listed above) for this part of the course: Agriculture Economy Life of slaves Life of southern whites Class distinctions among whites The urban-rural divide Transportation in the South, Culture Religion Honor For each of the three subjects you choose, utilizing and citing the historical information of the content in the articles/ readings, discuss how Northup portrays each of those 3 subjects (of your choice), in his narrative? Citing its placement in the assignmed resources for this assignment? 4-6 pages