Charleston masters from employing Negroes or other slaves as mechanics or in handicraft trades.
Middle-class Americans might be invited to join a new elite by attacks against the corruption of the established rich. The New Yorker Cadwallader Colden, in his Address to the Freeholders in 1747, attacked the wealthy as tax dodgers unconcerned with the welfare of others (although he himself was wealthy) and spoke for the honesty and dependability of âthe midling rank of mankindâ in whom citizens could best trust âour liberty & Property.â This was to become a critically important rhetorical device for the rule of the few, who would speak to the many of âourâ liberty, âourâ property, âourâ country.
Similarly, in Boston, the rich James Otis could appeal to the Boston middle class by attacking the Tory Thomas Hutchinson. James Henretta has shown that while it was the rich who ruled Boston, there were political jobs available for the moderately well-off, as âcullers of staves,â âmeasurer of Coal Baskets,â âFence Viewer.â Aubrey Land found in Maryland a class of small planters who were not âthe beneficiaryâ of the planting society as the rich were, but who had the distinction of being called planters, and who were ârespectable citizens with community obligations to act as overseers of roads, appraisers of estates and similar duties.â It helped the alliance to accept the middle class socially in âa round of activities that included local politics . . . dances, horseracing, and cockfights, occasionally punctuated with drinking brawls. . . .â
The Pennsylvania Journal wrote in 1756: âThe people of this province are generally of the middling sort, and at present pretty much upon a level. They are chiefly industrious farmers, artificers or men in trade; they enjoy and are fond of freedom, and the meanest among them thinks he has a right to civility from the greatest.â Indeed, there was a substantial middle class fitting that description. To call them âthe peopleâ was to omit black slaves, white servants, displaced Indians. And the term âmiddle classâ concealed a fact long true about this country, that, as Richard Hofstadter said: âIt was . . . a middle-class society governed for the most part by its upper classes.â
Those upper classes, to rule, needed to make concessions to the middle class, without damage to their own wealth or power, at the expense of slaves, Indians, and poor whites. This bought loyalty. And to bind that loyalty with something more powerful even than material advantage, the ruling group found, in the 1760s and 1770s, a wonderfully useful device. That device was the language of liberty and equality, which could unite just enough whites to fight a Revolution against England, without ending either slavery or inequality.
Chapter 4
Tyranny Is Tyranny
Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.
When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.
Starting with Baconâs Rebellion in Virginia, by 1760, there had been eighteen uprisings aimed at overthrowing colonial governments. There had also been six black rebellions, from South Carolina to New York,
Middle-class Americans might be invited to join a new elite by attacks against the corruption of the established rich. The New Yorker Cadwallader Colden, in his Address to the Freeholders in 1747, attacked the wealthy as tax dodgers unconcerned with the welfare of others (although he himself was wealthy) and spoke for the honesty and dependability of âthe midling rank of mankindâ in whom citizens could best trust âour liberty & Property.â This was to become a critically important rhetorical device for the rule of the few, who would speak to the many of âourâ liberty, âourâ property, âourâ country.
Similarly, in Boston, the rich James Otis could appeal to the Boston middle class by attacking the Tory Thomas Hutchinson. James Henretta has shown that while it was the rich who ruled Boston, there were political jobs available for the moderately well-off, as âcullers of staves,â âmeasurer of Coal Baskets,â âFence Viewer.â Aubrey Land found in Maryland a class of small planters who were not âthe beneficiaryâ of the planting society as the rich were, but who had the distinction of being called planters, and who were ârespectable citizens with community obligations to act as overseers of roads, appraisers of estates and similar duties.â It helped the alliance to accept the middle class socially in âa round of activities that included local politics . . . dances, horseracing, and cockfights, occasionally punctuated with drinking brawls. . . .â
The Pennsylvania Journal wrote in 1756: âThe people of this province are generally of the middling sort, and at present pretty much upon a level. They are chiefly industrious farmers, artificers or men in trade; they enjoy and are fond of freedom, and the meanest among them thinks he has a right to civility from the greatest.â Indeed, there was a substantial middle class fitting that description. To call them âthe peopleâ was to omit black slaves, white servants, displaced Indians. And the term âmiddle classâ concealed a fact long true about this country, that, as Richard Hofstadter said: âIt was . . . a middle-class society governed for the most part by its upper classes.â
Those upper classes, to rule, needed to make concessions to the middle class, without damage to their own wealth or power, at the expense of slaves, Indians, and poor whites. This bought loyalty. And to bind that loyalty with something more powerful even than material advantage, the ruling group found, in the 1760s and 1770s, a wonderfully useful device. That device was the language of liberty and equality, which could unite just enough whites to fight a Revolution against England, without ending either slavery or inequality.
Chapter 4
Tyranny Is Tyranny
Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.
When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.
Starting with Baconâs Rebellion in Virginia, by 1760, there had been eighteen uprisings aimed at overthrowing colonial governments. There had also been six black rebellions, from South Carolina to New York,
Similar Books
