This is an updated version of an earlier post. Most of this material comes from David Fischer’s Albion’s Seed. And a faily long entry, for me, got longer. And I do not pretend that this is all inclusive.
Well, I’m beginning to understand why a lot history got left out when I took US history. Twice. High school and university. :-P. Albion's Seed is a brick of a book that covers four main British migrations from the counties they came from to the houses they built, the food they ate, to how most of the emigrants defined liberty for themselves and others.
To be honest I believe that US history should be a two year course. Probably going back to the Norman Conquest. Then we just might realize that our American Revolution was one of a long line of British revolutions going back to the 13th century. Usually with a similar cause. Who decides who gets taxed. Who decides who gets taxed. And who decides how the tax money gets spent. At least a week could be spent on Charles I twelve year attempt to rule without Parliament by cobbling togethr forced loans, collecting excise taxes without parliamentary consent, and extending a tax originally laid on counties with coast lines with the money supposedly targeted to support the navy. What there was of it.
“How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?” Dr. Samuel Johnson. Died 1784.
“I am an aristocrat, I love liberty; I hate equality.” John Randolph of Roanoke Virginia
These quotes help to capture the paradox of the love of liberty expressed by the gentry of Virginia. The gentry, who controlled up to seventy five percent of the land and other productive assets including a growing population of African American slaves, had an exceptionally strong sense of their English liberties. While many Englishman from different parts of Britain turned out reams of prose and poetry celebrating their heritage of English liberty going back to Magna Charta those visions often contradicted each other. New England’s ordered liberty that emphasized a liberty that often subordinated individual liberty to the community and the church was much different from the hierarchical vision of liberty that grew up in colonial Virginia and the broad lands of the Chesapeake.
Hegemony and hierarchy, the uprights that held the rungs of Virginia’s social ladder. Hegemony was a condition of dominion over others and a dominion over themselves. When a traveler named Andrew Barnaby spoke of the colonial Virginian’s he observed “the public and political character of the Virginians corresponds with their private one: they are haughty and jealous of their liberties, impatient of restraint, and scarcely bear the thought of being controlled by any superior power.”
In Fischer’s opinion that was the key of Virginia colony’s definition of liberty; the power to rule. To rule over others, not to be ruled by them. The opposite of the power to rule was slavery. You didn’t have to actually be a slave, just have lost your power to rule over others.
When Britain first, at Heaven’s command,
Arose from out of the Azure main,
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain:
Rule, Britannia, rule the waves;
Britons never will be slaves. James Thomson
There’s almost innocent arrogance in this verse. Britain, protected by its namesake stormy Channel, has the right to rule; Heaven has spoken. Simply by being the sons of southern England’s landed gentry, Virginia’s gentry assumed the right to rule over others.
In Virginia’s hierarchical paradise, your status was determined by the liberties you possessed. The big land owners on the top rung of the ladder had the most liberty. They controlled most of the land and had enough power to negotiate favorable tax rates and limitations on the power of the colonial government from sympathetic governors. Granted the colonial government, at least in the first generations, didn’t have a lot of responsibilities. The patriarchal head of the new world manor regarded his dependents, those with less liberty as his responsibility. This protection could extend to immediate family, wards, house servants, visitors,indentured servants, farm workers, and slaves.
Next came the thirty percent or so of the population that were small farmers and tradesmen. They were expected to bend the knee to the gentry and the established church, but they could give orders to the indentured servants, landless laborers they employed. The small farmers may have been able to afford a few slaves or depended on indentured servants or employees. In theory indentured servants were drawn from the landless unemployed mainly from English cities.
In theory. They basically contracted to work for a set time in return for passage to the New World. Ususally seven years. In return they were promised a few acres of land, perhaps some starter livestock. Basically these individuals were auctioned off when they got colonies. Usually, but not always, in Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland.
The laborers seem to have had at least one liberty. They could quit and look for a job somewhere else. But in a colony with large separated land holdings and few towns that may not have counted for a lot.
At the bottom of the ladder were the slaves. They had no liberties that the law was obliged to recognize. Anything they were granted was dependent on their masters. The masters had the liberty. They had none. Fischer uses a term, laisser asservir. It literally means the “right to enslave.” He doesn’t explore where the basis of the belief of the planters that they had the right to enslave others. It may go back to the whole concept of “Britannia Rules the Waves.” We have the right to do this simply because we’re British and it’s mandated by Heaven. I feel another headache coming on.
And while the Spanish and Portuguese were the first to enslave Africans and sell them in their colonies in the west it didn't take long for the English and French to join the trade. Turns out that some of those brave captains of the ships that fought off the Spanish Armada were slavers. At least part of the time. Hawkins and Drake included.
The ideal of hegemony was not only public, but personal. The ideal colonial member of Virginia’s elite was a master not only of others but of himself. To be truly free, you must rule your thoughts and actions; not be ruled by them. And while they believed in minimal intervention by the colonial government they also believed that part of their personal liberty was the duty to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of their station. Well, that’s one saving grace I suppose.
I’d love to go back to the 1780’s and invite the likes of Jefferson, Adams, William Penn, and Washington to a little get together.
No comments:
Post a Comment