In 1622, the famous poetand clergyman John Donne wrote of Virginia in this fashion, describing thenew colony as the nation’s spleen and liver, draining the “ill humours of thebody . . . to breed good bloud.”

History of the United States (1834)

Male orphans were taught to hold a musket as soon as they werephysically able.44

As Reverend Bolzius had observed, if slaves were encouraged to“breed like animals,” then poor whites could not reproduce at the same rateand hold on to their land or their freedom.

By 1760, only 5 percent of white Georgians owned even a singleslave, while a handful of families possessed them in the hundreds. JonathanBryan was the perfect embodiment of the “Slave Merchants” whoOglethorpe had warned would dominate the colony.59

In 1750, settlers were formally granted the right toown slaves.58

Georgia also instituted a policy of keeping the land “tail-male,”which meant that land descended to the eldest male child. This feudal rulebound men to their families. The tail-male provision protected heirs whosepoor fathers might otherwise feel pressure to sell their land.53

In the largerscheme of things, his reform philosophy recognized that weak anddesperate men could be led to choose a path that dictated against their owninterests. A man might sell his land for a glass of rum; debt and idlenesswere always a temptation.52

ProslaveryGeorgians were not above accusing Oglethorpe of running a prisoncolony.50

trustees: “to relieve the distressed.” Instead of offering a sanctuary forhonest laborers, Georgia would become an oppressive regime, promoting“the misery of thousands in Africa” by permitting a “free people” to be“sold into perpetual Slavery.”48

A NorthCarolina proprietor, John Colleton, observed in Barbados that poor whiteswere called “white slaves” by black slaves; it struck him that the samecontempt for white field hands prevailed in the southern colonies in NorthAmerica.47

Many contemporaries connected slavery to English idleness. WilliamByrd weighed in on the ban against slavery in Georgia in a letter to aGeorgia trustee. He saw how slavery had sparked discontent among poorwhites in Virginia, who routinely refused to “dirty their hands with Labourof any kind,” preferring to steal or starve rather than work in the fields.Slavery ruined the “industry of our White People,” he confessed, for theysaw a “Rank of Poor Creatures below them,” and detested the thought ofwork out of a perverse pride, lest they might “look like slaves.”

Slavery, however, could not be kept apart from future projections inGeorgia. After allowing South Carolina to send over slaves to fell trees andclear the land for the town of Savannah, Oglethorpe came to regret thedecision. He made a brief trip to Charles Town, and returned to discoverthat in the interim the white settlers had grown “impatient of Labour andDiscipline.” Some had sold good food for rum punch. With drunkenesscame disease. And so, Oglethorpe wrote, the “Negroes who sawed for us”and encouraged white “Idleness” were sent back.46

Oglethorpe felt the disadvantaged could bereclaimed if they were given a fair chance.

He marveled at how the SouthCarolinians deluded themselves in believing they were safe, burdened asthey were with a large slave population—“stupid security,” he called it.

Having foughtas an officer under Prince Eugene of Savoy in the Austro–Turkish War of1716–18, he understood military discipline. This was how he came to trustin the power of emulation; he believed that people could be conditioned todo the right thing by observing good leaders. He shared food with thosewho were ill or deprived. Visiting a Scottish community north of Savannah,he refused a soft bed and slept outside on the hard ground with the men.More than any other colonial founder, Oglethorpe made himself one of thepeople, promoting collective effort.43

the colony’s motto, Non sibi sed aliis (Not for themselves, but for others)

According to Francis Moore, who visited the settlement in its secondyear of operation, two “peculiar” customs stood out: both alcohol and dark-skinned people were prohibited. “No slavery is allowed, nor negroes,”Moore wrote. As a sanctuary for “free white people,” Georgia “would notpermit slaves, for slaves starve the poor laborer.” Free labor encouragedpoor white men in sober cultivation and steeled them in the event they hadto defend the land from outside aggression. It also promised to cure settlersof that most deadly of English diseases, idleness.41

Conservative land policies limited individual settlers to a maximum offive hundred acres, thus discouraging the growth of a large-scale plantationeconomy and slave-based oligarchy such as existed in neighboring SouthCarolina. North Carolina squatters would not be found here either. Poorsettlers coming from England, Scotland, and other parts of Europe weregranted fifty acres of land, free of charge, plus a home and a garden.Distinct from its neighbors to the north, Georgia experimented with a socialorder that neither exploited the lower classes nor favored the rich. Itsfounders deliberately sought to convert the territory into a haven forhardworking families. They aimed to do something completelyunprecedented: to build a “free labor” colony.

under the direction of anambitious projector.

Explorers, amateurscientists, and early ethnologists like William Byrd all assumed—andunabashedly professed—that inferior or mismanaged lands bred inferior,ungovernable people.

He mused that colonization would have had a better outcomeif male settlers had been encouraged to intermarry with Indian women.Over two generations, the Indian stock would have improved, as a speciesof flower or tree might; dark skin blanched white, heathen ways dimmed.Here, Byrd was borrowing from the author John Lawson, who wrote in ANew Voyage to Carolina that men of lower rank gained an economicadvantage by marrying Native women who brought land to the union.

In a “porcivorous” country, people spent their days foragingand fornicating; when upset, they could be heard yelling out, “Flesh aliveand tear it.” It was their “favorite exclamation,” Byrd said. This bizarrecolloquialism suggested cannibalism, or perhaps hyenas surrounding a freshkill and devouring it. How could these carnivorous swamp monsters bethought of as English?37

The Mapp of Lubberland or the Ile of Lazye (ca. 1670) portrayed an imaginaryterritory in which sloth is contagious and normal men lack the will to work.British Print, #1953.0411.69AN48846001, The British Museum, London, England

When Byrd identified the Carolinians as residents of “Lubberland,” hedrew upon a familiar English folktale that featured one “Lawrence Lazy,”born in the county of Sloth near the town of Neverwork.

In milder weather they got as far as thinking aboutplunging a hoe into the ground.

Evenbefore his betrayal, though, he felt little identification with the colonists,writing that North Carolinians were the most “cowardly Blockheads[another word for lubber] that ever God created & must be used likenegro[e]s if you expect any good of them.”29

In an unexpected development, the proprietor Lord Shaftesbury came toCulpeper’s defense. He delivered an eloquent oration before the Court ofKing’s Bench, arguing that a stable government had never legally existed inNorth Carolina. Anticipating Locke’s Two Treatises of Government,Shaftesbury concluded that the colony remained effectively in a state ofnature. Without a genuine government, there could be no rebellion.Commentary like this merely underscored northern Carolina’s outlierstatus.26

The misnamed Culpeper’s Rebellion (1677–79) isparticularly instructive. In a contest with Thomas Miller, an ambitioustrader and tobacco planter who wanted to crack down on smugglers, collectcustoms duties, and gain favor with proprietors, Thomas Culpeper, asurveyor, sided with the poorer settlers.

By 1700, we should note, slaves comprised half the population of thesouthern portion of the Carolina colony, an imbalance that widened to 72percent by 1740. Beginning in 1714, a series of laws required that for everysix slaves an owner purchased, he had to acquire one white servant.Lamenting that the “white population do not proportionally multiply,”South Carolina lawmakers had one more reason to wish that a corps ofLeet-men and women had actually been formed. Encouraged to marry andmultiply, tied to the land, they might have provided a racial and class barrierbetween the slaves and the landed elites.13

“lazy lubbers,” meaning stupid, clumsy oafs,the word that came to describe the vagrant poor of Carolina.11

The Fundamental Constitutions was really a declaration of war againstpoor settlers.

unemployed men entitled to poor relief.

“Leet-men,” who were encouraged to marry andhave children but were tied to the land and to their lord.

A court of heraldry was added to this strange brew: in overseeingmarriages and maintaining pedigree, it provided further evidence of theintention to fix (and police) class identity.

The Fundamental Constitutions did more than endorse slavery. It was amanifesto promoting a semifeudalistic and wholly aristocratic society.

Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury,

Albemarle County, named after one of the proprietors, GeorgeMonck, Duke of Albemarle.

he authoredthe Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (1669), which granted that“every Freeman in Carolina shall have ABSOLUTE POWER ANDAUTHORITY over his Negro Slaves.”

Slavery was thus a logicaloutgrowth of the colonial class system imagined by Hakluyt. It emergedfrom three interrelated phenomena: harsh labor conditions, the treatment ofindentures as commodities, and, most of all, the deliberate choice to breedchildren so that they should become an exploitable pool of workers.

Slavery was thus a logicaloutgrowth of the colonial class system imagined by Hakluyt. It emergedfrom three interrelated phenomena: harsh labor conditions, the treatment ofindentures as commodities, and, most of all, the deliberate choice to breedchildren so that they should become an exploitable pool of workers.

His rescue story perfectly mimicked a popular Scottish ballad ofthe day in which the beautiful daughter of a Turkish prince rescues anEnglish adventurer who is about to lose his head.

a farsexier fable in the dramatic rescue of John Smith by the “Indian princess”Pocahontas.

The best-known, most recent version of the story is the 1995 WaltDisney animated film. Strikingly beautiful, unnervingly buxom, and morelike a pop culture diva than a member of the Tsenacommacah tribe,Disney’s Pocahontas fabulously communes with nature, befriending araccoon, talking to a tree;

The word “Pilgrim” was not even popularized until1794.

The master of ceremonies was their Indian interpreter, Squanto, who hadhelped the English survive a difficult winter. Left out of this story is thedetail (not so minor) that Squanto only knew English because he had beenkidnapped and sold as a slave to an English ship’s captain.

we have the Pilgrims (a people who are celebrated atThanksgiving, a holiday that did not exist until the Civil War), who cameashore at Plymouth Rock (a place only designated as such in the lateeighteenth century). The quintessential American holiday was associatedwith the native turkey to help promote the struggling poultry industryduring the Civil War.

Exceptionalism emerges from a host of earlier myths of redemption andgood intentions. Pilgrims, persecuted in the Old World, brave the Atlanticdreaming of finding religious freedom on America’s shores; wagon trains ofhopeful pioneer families head west to start a new life. Nowhere else, we aremeant to understand, was personal freedom so treasured as it was in theAmerican experience. The very act of migration claims to equalize thepeople involved, molding them into a homogeneous, effectively classlesssociety.

And so the great American saga,as taught, excludes the very pertinent fact that after the 1630s, less than halfcame to Massachusetts for religious reasons.

The compression of history, the winnowing of history, may seem naturaland neutral, but it is decidedly not. It is the means by which grade schoolhistory becomes our standard adult history.

progress on the march

Monuments imperfectly record the past

These efforts were magnified as a result of promotional skillsdemonstrated by such organizations as the Colonial Dames, who worked toelevate the Mayflower Pilgrims and Winthrop’s Puritans into some of theforemost figures in our national memory.

History of the United States (1834)

the first volume of GeorgeBancroft’s widely praised History of the United States (1834) may be thebest example of how the Mayflower and Arbella washed ashore and seededthe ground where love of liberty bore its ripest fruit

Beyond the web of stories the founding generation itself wove, ourmodern beliefs have most to do with the grand mythmakers of thenineteenth century. The inspired historians of that period were nearly allNew Englanders; they outpaced all others in shaping the historicalnarrative, so that the dominant story of origins worked in their favor. That ishow we got the primordial Puritan narrative of a sentimental communityand a commendable work ethic.

most colonizing schemesthat took root in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century British America werebuilt on privilege and subordination, not any kind of proto-democracy.

John Adams,heralded the first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop, asan earlier and stronger model for an American patrician-patriarch.

Historical mythmaking is made possible only by forgetting.

waste people

And then themedia giants find new crises and the nation’s inherited disregard for classreboots, as the subject recedes into the background again.

Because of how history is taught, Americans tend toassociate Plymouth and Jamestown with cooperation rather than classdivision.

Wary investors and state officials had to beconvinced to take the plunge into a risky overseas venture. But mostimportant, it was a place into which they could export their ownmarginalized people.

promoters imagined America not as an Eden of opportunity but as a giantrubbish heap that could be transformed into productive terrain.

America’s class language and thinking began with the forceful imprint leftby English colonization.

How does a culture that prizes equality of opportunity explain, or indeedaccommodate, its persistently marginalized people?

How does a culture that prizes equality of opportunity explain, or indeedaccommodate, its persistently marginalized people?

Lest the reader misconstrue the book’s purpose, I want to make the pointunambiguously: by reevaluating the American historical experience in classterms, I expose what is too often ignored about American identity. But I’mnot just pointing out what we’ve gotten wrong about the past; I also want tomake it possible to better appreciate the gnawing contradictions still presentin modern American society.

It starts withthe rich and potent meaning that came with the different names given theAmerican underclass. Long before they were today’s “trailer trash” and“rednecks,” they were called “lubbers” and “rubbish” and “clay-eaters” and“crackers”—and that’s just scratching the surface.

Britishcolonists promoted a dual agenda: one involved reducing poverty back inEngland, and the other called for transporting the idle and unproductive tothe New World.

The hallowed American dream is thegold standard by which politicians and voters alike are meant to measurequality of life as each generation pursues its own definition of happinessunfettered by the restraints of birth (who your parents are) or station (theposition you start out from in the class system).

economic stratification createdby wealth and privilege.

eugenics

American exceptionalism, 7, 69, 190, 310, 318