Talk of the Future

Small Stock

This issue marks our last as the editors of Common-place. We founded the magazine five years ago in an effort to create a common place for historians, curators, archivists, journalists, and history buffs to share what they know about early America, and to teach each other to ask new questions. In that spirit, we’ve been proud to publish some exciting new voices, along with unusual contributions from luminaries in the field.

We know that the community of readers and writers that has coalesced around Common-place will thrive under the leadership of our successor editor, Edward G. Gray. Gray, a wonderfully creative historian of early American history and culture, is associate professor of history at Florida State University. And he has been a vital part of this publication since its inception, serving as an editorial board member and a column editor. From the very first issue his energy and creativity have made our Reviews section run and read smoothly. Now he’ll bring those same talents to bear at the top of the masthead. Our next issue, a special themed number on the early Pacific that will appear in January, will mark Ed’s debut (along with guest editor Alan Taylor). 

This new editorial leadership at Common-place comes with other exciting changes as well. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, a longtime patron of the publication, has withdrawn from the governance of Common-place but will contribute financially to the journal during this transition year. Florida State University, Ed Gray’s home institution, will now join the American Antiquarian Society as a nongoverning partner for the next four years, coincident with Ed’s term as editor. FSU will contribute important things to our enterprise, including course release time for the editor, graduate assistantships devoted to the publication, and technical support. The AAS, of course, will maintain its financial support as well. 

Thanks to all of you, it’s been a joy to see Common-place grow and prosper over the last half decade. Now we look forward to joining you as readers in this common place.

 

This article originally appeared in issue 5.1 (October, 2004).


 




Walking Moraley’s Streets: Philadelphia

 

 

Baltimore | Boston | Charleston | Chicago | Havana

| LimaLos Angeles | Mexico City | New Amsterdam | New Orleans
Paramaribo | Philadelphia | Potosi | Quebec City | Salt Lake City
Saint Louis | Santa Fe | San Francisco | Washington, D.C.

 

 

William Moraley disembarked from the ship Boneta in Philadelphia a week before Christmas, 1729. Like Benjamin Franklin who had arrived six years earlier, Moraley landed in the City of Brotherly Love as a poor man. While Franklin was a runaway apprentice, Moraley was a bound servant awaiting purchase. Wearing a dilapidated red coat, coarse checkered shirt, bad shoes, and a dirty wig, Moraley, like the similarly ill attired Franklin, bought bread with his last pennies, then explored the town on foot. After that, the two men’s initial hours and days in the city diverged sharply. Franklin gave his leftover bread to a friendless woman and child, attended a Quaker meeting, and sought out a reputable inn for lodging; the following day he applied for work. Moraley sold his clothes to buy rum and contemplated the wonders of Philadelphia. Franklin sought out “young people of the town that were lovers of reading, with whom I spent my evenings very pleasantly and gained money by my industry and frugality.” Moraley enjoyed the city’s “many Houses of Entertainment” where evening drinkers imbibed the “Product of this fertile Soil.”

 

Fig. 1. William Moraley arrived on the ship Boneta. The ship’s arrival was noted and Moraley’s indenture was advertised for sale in the Pennsylvania Gazette (Philadelphia), December 9-16, 1729.

 

Where did William Moraley walk–or more likely wobble, after thirteen weeks on a sailing vessel and several hours in taverns–on the streets of Philadelphia on the first day of his arrival? It is impossible to know for sure, but we can try to retrace his steps on a tour through a bustling city on the rim of the Atlantic world.

While the Boneta docked on Market Wharf, Moraley revised George Webb’s poem about “one of the most delightful Cities upon Earth.” At least forty more ships were docked along the Delaware River. In Philadelphia, the Boneta unloaded its cargo of servants and coal, took on a shipment of flour, and in early January set sail for Lisbon. Other vessels were just clearing the port for Barbados, Madeira, Antigua, and the Isle of Man. This sea traffic formed the foundation for Philadelphia’s economy. Lord Adam Gordon’s observation that “Everybody in Philadelphia deals more or less in trade” was only a slight exaggeration. The urban center was an entrepôt through which European manufactured goods flowed to be sold throughout the Delaware Valley, while the region’s abundant grain and livestock products were carried into the city for shipment abroad. Most residents, directly or indirectly, depended on commerce with people scattered throughout the Atlantic World, from Native Americans in the backcountry, to small farmers and storekeepers in the neighboring countryside, to planters, manufacturers, and merchants operating from the West Indies to Portugal to Britain. Mariners and merchants made money managing the trade, carters and stevedores stowed staples on ships, and coopers created barrels to contain flour bound for the sea. Housing construction likewise formed a vital component of the economy as carpenters and laborers built structures in response to the city’s rapid population growth, from a handful of people in 1682, to approximately five thousand inhabitants in 1720, to nearly seven thousand when Moraley arrived.

 

Fig. 2. Peter Cooper, The South East Prospect of the City of Philadelphia, c. 1720. The original, now in the Library Company of Philadelphia, likely is the oldest surviving painting of a North American city. Cooper distorts a few of the buildings, but the overall impression of a city anchored to maritime commerce is accurate.

 

Curious to explore the city and searching for a master to purchase his indenture, Moraley strolled westward from the wharf on High Street on Saturday, one of the two days each week when the market operated. He joined a crowd of people who sailed from New Jersey to Market Wharf, heading for the marketplace to shop for or sell food, and they immediately passed the area where women sold fish caught by their husbands. Crossing Front Street, Moraley proceeded by the London Coffee House, an impressive edifice where customers conducted all manner of business. Merchants, shopkeepers, and ship captains drank together here while making deals. Wealthier people congregated to sell and bid on land, buildings, and other property. Edward Horne–the merchant who owned both the ship on which Moraley had sailed as well as Moraley’s contract–auctioned property there in 1730. At Horne’s death six years later, his widow listed their 232-acre “plantation” near the city for public sale at the Coffee House. Not all merchants were as wealthy as Horne was, but many of them earned a great deal of money dealing in commerce and land.

Philadelphians also bartered bound people at the Coffee House. A “likely breeding Negroe Woman, and a Boy about two Years old” numbered among the many black people forcibly imported into the province, often from West Africa via the West Indies, and sold as slaves at auctions at the Coffee House and throughout the city. The demand for labor and the capital accumulation that accompanied the city’s early economic growth encouraged the importation of hundreds of slaves in the 1720s. They comprised approximately 15 percent of the population, working as laborers along the wharves, mariners on ships, skilled workers in artisans’ shops, and domestics in the homes of the affluent. While urban bondage usually was physically less grueling than plantation labor in the southern colonies, Philadelphia slaves were often more isolated, swimming in a sea of white faces. Although many absorbed Euro-American culture relatively quickly, urban bondpeople still suffered depression and despair resulting from their difficult circumstances, as evident in the several slave suicides that occurred shortly after Moraley’s arrival. Some resisted their bondage. In May 1733, George and Dick fled their Philadelphia owners, taking (according to the Pennsylvania Gazette) “two Pair of Pistols, two Muskets and a Cutlass, with a Quantity of Powder and Ball, with an Intent as is believed [by their masters] to do some Mischief.” Five months later, six male and female slaves absconded, carrying guns to aid their escape.

 

Fig. 3. Slaves are offered for sale in the American Weekly Mercury (Philadelphia), June 8-15, 1738.

 

Moraley was also not free, though his was a different kind of servitude; he characterized himself as a “voluntary slave” whose situation was temporary. Like at least half of European emigrants to North America during the eighteenth century, Moraley signed a contract of indenture. By this agreement, a person toiled as a servant for a master for three or four years in return for the cost of the Atlantic passage, daily maintenance, and, perhaps, freedom dues at the conclusion of their term. Moraley joined 3,400 other bound servants and free passengers who arrived in the port in 1729. An era of peace on the high seas, famine in Ireland, war in present-day Germany, and economic problems in Britain all galvanized Moraley and thousands of others to emigrate to the New World in the late 1720s and the 1730s. Approximately 73,000 Europeans traveled to British North America during the 1730s, nearly twice as many as the average during each of the century’s first three decades. With its temperate climate and generally healthy economy, the Delaware River Valley was an attractive destination; at least 17,000 migrants arrived in Philadelphia’s port in the 1730s. The condition of immigrants changed as poorer people began to account for a larger proportion of the new arrivals. Nearly one of every three passengers disembarking in Philadelphia during the 1730s was an indentured servant, and an additional five hundred imported slaves joined them at the bottom of the social ladder. A month after Moraley’s arrival, Franklin complained about “the great Increase of Vagrants and idle Persons” that had resulted from the “late large Importation of such from several Parts of Europe.”

Passing the Coffee House, Moraley walked along the covered market that stretched for two blocks in the middle of High Street. The fruit, herbs, and poultry impressed him, as did “all Kinds of Butchers Meat, as well cut and drest as at London.” As they affected so many other aspects of life, seasonal rhythms determined the availability of foodstuffs. “After the season for fowls,” one traveler noted, “comes the fisheries of the spring,” while “in the beginning and middle of summer it is difficult to procure fresh provisions of any kind.” On Friday night before market day, farmers’ wagons loaded with provisions rumbled down the western end of High Street, while boats stocked with firewood landed from New Jersey. People congregated in the market hall to meet friends and gossip, and a few even may have danced, although the Quakers who controlled the city discouraged such frivolity.

 

Fig. 4. A map of Philadelphia’s High Street, from Front to Third. Computer generated by Billy G. Smith.

 

Moraley purchased a three-penny loaf of bread at John Bryant’s bakery, a structure measuring 23 feet wide along High Street and stretching 72 feet in depth along Latetia Court. Francis Richardson, clockmaker and goldsmith, rented a shop next door, and Moraley, trained as a clockmaker, stopped in to see if Richardson might be interested in purchasing his indenture. As Moraley learned, Peter Stretch was the “eminent” watchmaker who dominated the profession in the city. Arriving in 1702 at the age of thirty-two, Stretch produced dozens of tall-case clocks that provided refinement to the homes of the affluent. Stretch was also prominent politically and religiously, serving for thirty-eight years as a city councilman and participating in Quaker affairs. However, where Stretch succeeded materially and socially, Moraley would fail. Moraley arrived in the city at an inauspicious time for men in his occupation since the number of clockmakers exceeded the local demand for their products. It was a prime reason why he was sold last among the group of servants with whom he arrived. It also proved a critical factor in Moraley’s subsequent struggle with unemployment and poverty once he gained his freedom.

Another ingredient necessary for artisans to realize success was access to capital to enable them to establish their own shop. In the next block of High Street, John Frost, a newly freed servant, began a partnership with Thomas Carter, renting a shop where they could sell the stays and coats they manufactured. Benjamin Franklin, whose printing office was nearby, illustrates the difficulty that many journeymen encountered. He agreed to collaborate with Hugh Meredith, an alcoholic with few printing skills, primarily because Meredith’s father financed the business. Franklin subsequently borrowed from his friends and even bargained for a marriage, if the dowry was sufficient to pay off his debt and establish him as an independent master printer. When the proposed dowry proved inadequate, Franklin declined the marriage. While many merchants like Edward Horne and some artisans like Stretch and Franklin could take advantage of the rapid economic development of the Delaware Valley, others, like Moraley, were unable even to survive financially, much less prosper.

Continuing along High across Second Street, Moraley paused to read some of the official notices–including new acts of the assembly, announcements of the assize (price) of bread, and broadsides of market regulations–posted on the courthouse in the middle of the market. One pressing political issue when Moraley arrived was the amount of paper currency the colony should print, and brochures about the topic were nailed to the courthouse. As in most British colonies, currency was scarce since the balance of trade favored Britain. Pennsylvania emitted £30,000 in 1729, and the funds were used, in part, to enable farmers to borrow against their land and to pay public officials. The amount of money in circulation concerned many Pennsylvanians since it helped shape the economy. Franklin had recently penned an anonymous pamphlet advocating a liberal paper money policy, and Moraley would write about the topic in his autobiography as well.

Criminals sometimes suffered public punishment at the courthouse, often on market days when a great number of people could watch. Six months after Moraley’s walk, according to the Pennsylvania Gazette, Richard Evans “received 39 Lashes at the publick Whipping-post, having been convicted of Bigamy.” A few weeks later, “Griffith Jones, and one Glascow an Indian, stood an hour in the Pillory together, and were afterwards whipt round the Town at the Carts Tail, both for Assaults with Intent to ravish” a woman and young girl. Five days after Moraley passed the courthouse, a jury sitting there found two servants, James Mitchel and James Prouse, guilty of stealing seven pounds (equivalent to three months income for a day laborer) from a barber’s house in Front Street. The judge sentenced them to death for a crime of such an “enormous Nature.” A month later, a large crowd gathered at the prison (at the west end of the market) “to see these unhappy young Men brought forth to suffer.” They were placed in a cart, “together with a Coffin for each of them,” and carried to “the fatal Tree” for hanging. At the last minute, with the ropes around their necks, the governor spared their lives with a pardon, thereby pleasing not only Mitchel and Prouse but also the “common People, who were unanimous in their loud Acclamations of God bless the Governor for his Mercy.”

The butchers’ shambles, where animals were slaughtered and sold on Sundays, abutted the courthouse. Moraley strolled along this smelly, fly-infested market, past Strawberry Alley and White Horse Alley. In 1682, William Penn had planned a “greene countrie towne” comprised of immense houses situated on large lots surrounded by orchards, which he expected would expand rapidly westward. However, Philadelphians soon ignored the design, instead carving up the grand blocks with numerous alleys and congregating densely along the Delaware River, the economy’s lifeline. William Stapler, tin man, peddled small metal goods in his store along High Street. Next door, shopkeeper John Le sold diverse items imported from London, ranging from diapers and tablecloths to gunpowder and snuff.

Members of the First Presbyterian Church adjacent to Le’s shop may have purchased some of their Bibles from him. The continual arrival of Scots and Scots-Irish immigrants expanded the Presbyterian congregation, which accounted for roughly one of every ten Philadelphians. William Penn’s liberal policy of toleration had encouraged settlement by people with various religious beliefs. Anglicans were the most numerous in the city, with Quakers a close second. Baptists, Swedish and Dutch Lutherans, Dutch Calvinists, and a handful of Catholics also worshiped there. African slaves practiced their own beliefs as best as they could. The medley of tongues that Moraley heard near the market matched this diversity of religions. Besides English, Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Gaelic, Philadelphians spoke a host of African and Native American languages. Indeed, Christ Church, the Anglican house of worship currently under construction, would hold sermons in “Welch” as well as English.

Across White Horse Alley on High Street was the Sign of the Conestoga Wagon, where the proprietor kept “good Entertainment for Man and Horses at reasonable rates.” Its “large Yard Room for Waggons and Cattle” made it a convenient place “for Killing and Dressing of Hogs” to be sold across the street at the shambles. Farmers often stayed there when bringing their livestock to market. A few paces further, Moraley came to the Sign of the Indian King, a prominent public house run by Owen Owen, a former city sheriff. The inn offered both lodging and alcohol. About one hundred licensed taverns–approximately one for every seventy-five residents–served a very hard-drinking population in the city. The Indian King was a substantial structure. It contained eighteen rooms, fourteen of which had fireplaces, a large brick kitchen, and a two-story stable that would accommodate one hundred horses and fifty tons of hay. The Society of Ancient Britons met there for a feast each year before attending the Welch sermon at Christ Church.

 

Fig. 5 Stone Prison, Corner View, 1723. This drawing currently is located in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

 

Crossing Third Street, Moraley discovered a large prison he described as a “neat Stone Building, having but little of that look.” Because it stood at the busy west end of the market, the block was filled with stores, including an apothecary, an onion seller, a wheelwright, a smith, and the “Crown & Shoe” that specialized in selling bacon and hog’s lard. At the next corner, Moraley had to wade through Dock Creek, which meandered in a southeast direction, eventually flowing into the Delaware River at Dock Wharf, where William Penn had originally landed. The area was boggy, and the buildings grew sparse, with the Black Bear Inn being one of the few notable structures in the next block.

 

Fig. 6. The Old Provincial State House, Philadelphia. From William H. Egle, An Illustrated History of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Gardiner, 1880), 1:71.

 

Moraley may have decided to walk south a few blocks to see the new state house (later to become Independence Hall) under construction. Nearby, at the western edge of the city, Philadelphians sometimes used the outdoors as “necessaries,” and Moraley may have taken that opportunity. A few months later, according to the newspaper, a “Countryman walking out behind the Town with a Design to ease himself . . . happened to set down in that Place where Hair is dried for the Saddlers,” and he gathered “some out of the Heap to make use of.”

Moraley returned to the ship for the evening. After three weeks, Isaac Pearson, a clockmaker and smith in Burlington, New Jersey, purchased Moraley’s indenture contract for five years. Moraley spent the following three years in Pearson’s household, fixing clocks, sweating at a smith’s forge, herding livestock, working in an iron foundry, and performing other miscellaneous jobs. Disgruntled and eager to live in Philadelphia, Moraley absconded but was quickly caught. Surprisingly, the Quaker City’s mayor mediated the dispute and convinced Pearson to forgive two years’ service. After completing his indenture, Moraley moved to Philadelphia, but could not find steady employment and was reduced to poverty and near starvation. He wandered the streets, slept in barns, and borrowed money and food from friends and acquaintances. He traveled the colonies, from New York to Maryland, cleaning timepieces, working as a tinsmith, and barely keeping beyond the reach of his creditors. Disheartened about his prospect in the “American plantations,” Moraley returned to England in 1734 and lived in Newcastle-on-Tyne until his death in 1762.

 

Fig. 7. Robert Feke, “Young Benjamin Franklin,” c. 1748.

 

Meanwhile, of course, Benjamin Franklin achieved fame, fortune, and more: running a printer’s shop, growing rich, inventing practical items, demonstrating that lightening is electricity, pursuing a political career, and becoming the most famous American both at home and abroad. While Franklin came to symbolize–to invent–the rags-to-riches American dream, he never abandoned his commitment to Philadelphia, helping found a library, hospital, fire company, and university. Moraley (like nearly all other people) surely was not as talented as Franklin. Yet the opportunities available in the Quaker City and the personal circumstances of each man varied enormously. What if competent printers had dominated the trade in Philadelphia when Franklin arrived, if his creditors had pursued him for his debts, if his wife’s first husband had charged him with bigamy, if disease or a large family had drained his resources, or if the city’s economy had stagnated completely at vital times in his career? Had any of these events occurred, Franklin may have found himself at the courthouse whipping post or in the stone prison, or, at best, he may have become another obscure artisan who, like William Moraley, struggled to make ends meet.

 

This article originally appeared in issue 3.4 (July, 2003).


Billy G. Smith, the Michael P. Malone Professor of History at Montana State University, has published a number of books and articles about early Philadelphia, including The “Lower Sort”: Philadelphia’s Laboring People, 1750-1800 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1990).




Federalist Chic

The late-breaking beatification of John Adams and his family, soon to be a major monument, forms one of the wonders of the present age. As David McCullough’s mammoth biography of Adams continues to ride the bestseller lists, the second president’s visage is on display and his merits are being extolled across the land, and in places that Adams could never have imagined: airport gift shops, radio talk shows, the aisles of Target, even holiday gatherings in the suburbs of Kansas City. Adams has not seen this kind of popularity for more than two hundred years, since the XYZ affair was headline news (if there had been headlines) and the song “Adams and Liberty” was leading the hit parade (if there had been a hit parade). Even more remarkable is the fact that the drive to immortalize the Adams family in stone is being co-led by a liberal Irish Catholic Democrat (Ted Kennedy), the type of man that the conservative John Adams administration tried to have thrown in jail or out of the country. Or both.

 

Illustration © John McCoy

 

Though long popular with historians for the wonderfully honest, acerbic, and introspective sources they left behind in their letters and diaries, the Adamses are tough to feature as twenty-first-century icons, especially when one considers the elder John’s post-independence career. David McCullough claimed in a New York Times profile that “so much of what [Adams] wrote dealt with the ideas and ideals that are the basis of our whole way of life; of our society as Americans.” That Adams played a powerful role in bringing about independence is true–our lack of maple leaves on the flag and freeways named after the queen owe as much to Adams as to anybody. But the political content of the new republic that the Revolution created, and of the popular aspirations that were unleashed, pretty well eluded Adams. While his fellow Americans thrilled to the democratic, egalitarian message of Paine’s Common Sense, Adams sat down to write a rebuttal. After the Revolution, Adams spent most of his time on what would come to be seen as the wrong side of history, railing against the “ideas and ideals” that became the basis of American life and politics. And with one huge exception, his breaking with hardline Federalists to avoid a war with France, he did not exactly cover himself with glory as a leader either.

As vice president, Adams was a laughingstock who was invited to two or three Cabinet meetings (tops) in eight years, and became best known for his wordy and poorly received arguments for extending various aspects of Europe’s more hierarchical political culture to the United States. Taking an increasingly dark view of popular morals and capacities as he got older, Adams proposed and defended ideas that mercifully did not become part of the American political tradition: royal titles and life tenures for senators and chief executives, the open maintenance of an aristocracy. (He was also a vociferous, and unlike Jefferson, sincere and committed, opponent of political parties and campaigning, developments that did become part of our political tradition.) Adams was even willing to consider the idea of calling the chief executive a king. And while he usually seemed willing to leave his aristocracy “natural,” elective, and relatively meritocratic, the last of his “Discourses on Davila” (the newspaper essay series that precipitated the break with Thomas Jefferson), opined that “hereditary succession was attended with fewer evils than frequent elections.”

While not the “avowed monarchist” of Jeffersonian propaganda, Adams did call the English constitution “the most stupendous fabric of human invention” (an often-parodied turn of phrase in its day) and hewed to older political ideas that most of his fellow Americans were abandoning or repudiating. Believing that a proper republican constitution should balance different orders of society–the monarch, the aristocracy, and the people–rather than just institutions of government, Adams worried that American constitutions did not have enough of the good stuff, being too heavily skewed toward democracy. He believed it was far better to err in the other direction: the people were “as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous, and cruel, as any king or senate,” and more prone to “intemperance and excess.” Democracy without aristocratic power to keep it in check would lead to “profligacy, vice, and corruption,” while the reverse would be merely unjust, without public order and morals being threatened. As president, the long-time advocate of strong executive power acted with characteristic perversity by refusing to use any in managing his own administration. Adams retained the Washington Cabinet for years despite the fact that they held him in relatively open contempt and consistently flouted or subverted his orders. Yet at the same time, the Adams administration seized some executive powers that were stronger than any before or since. One of the few areas where Adams and his Cabinet agreed was in the promulgation of what remains–if only barely–the nation’s only peacetime sedition law, one that was openly intended to suppress and silence a nascent opposition party. The Sedition Act was coupled with the nation’s first crackdown on politically suspicious immigrants–people from such deeply alien places as England, Ireland, and Scotland–in a case where the dangers they posed to American liberty were much more theoretical than they are in the case of today’s Osamists. Adams sometimes seemed to shy away from the Alien and Sedition Acts, but he signed them, and was not sorry to see his detractors suffer. (His wife and memorial-mate Abigail was positively eager for it.) Whatever his other virtues, John Adams stands out rather boldly in our history as the only president not dealing with armed rebellion who got to have his critics in the press arrested, jailed, or driven into hiding. Many others, from Washington to Nixon to Clinton, would have enjoyed similar privileges, but forbore seeking them.

As little sense as it seems to make, the origins of the Adams craze are not mysterious. It is a by-product of the celebrity culture that is coming to dominate American history publishing as thoroughly as it does most other aspects of our society. Celebrity historian David McCullough cast his gaze on Adams, and “His Rotundity” suddenly became both a national hero and corporate profit center. With his PBS-ready voice and grandpa-with-gravitas demeanor (sort of a cross between John Houseman and Matlock), McCullough is exactly what television producers and popular audiences want their historians to look and sound like. People love him, especially college-educated people who feel like they should have paid more attention in that freshman survey class now that they are older and more serious. (This means the McCullough fan base is especially well represented in the media and politics.) Ted Kennedy rushed up to get the national treasure’s autograph after a congressional hearing, quipping that he could “grovel with the best of them.” McCullough matches his genially distinguished persona with exactly consonant subjects and writing style: great men and events that most people have heard of, described in lively, human, but stately prose that tastes full-bodied but goes down smooth. After his bestselling paean to Harry Truman and heavy exposure on television and the distinguished lecture circuit, McCullough could probably have inspired a monument to the Millard Fillmore family if he had chosen differently. As it was, McCullough turned his sights to the second president, deciding that Adams was “unfairly maligned”–this despite the many usually admiring biographies and exegeses that scholars have produced over the years.

The terms of the reinterpretation that McCullough offers are very revealing of the narrowness of his intellectual compass. Chiefly, McCullough seems to have been concerned with the charge (lodged by Adams himself) that he was an obnoxious man. Not so, says the biographer: Adams was “full of life, high-spirited, affectionate, loyal to friends, a kind and a dedicated father and husband.” Abigail liked him and so should we. A contributor to the pompously reductionist PBS program and tie-in book series on political leadership, Character Above All, McCullough seems to ask only one real question about his subjects: was he a good, likable, morally virtuous person? This is dressed up with some rhetoric about the importance of the subject’s political career. Yet in practice any defects in the public career are explained away by the good intentions and sterling qualities of the private man. Or they are left vague, or left out.

McCullough leaves Adams’s views so vague, in fact, that our present Congress seems to think he was Jefferson. The Adams memorial legislation that had Ted Kennedy groveling actually mentions the honorees’ “abiding belief in the perfectibility of the Nation’s democracy” as one of the justifications for memorializing the Adams family. The breathtaking counterfactuality of this argument is compounded by the fact that the new monument will also include not only Sedition Act John, but also his son John Quincy Adams, the president whose commitment to perfecting democracy was so strong that he told Congress not to be “palsied by the will of [their] constituents,” and their descendant Henry Adams, author of The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma.

McCullough and Kennedy fail to realize that there was a reason for earlier generations of leaders not turning the Adamses into monuments of democracy: earlier generations of leaders actually understood the Adamses. Our own willful failure to do so suggests that there may be more at work here than historical ignorance and star power.

Especially among our political, business, and media elites, genuine feeling for democracy seems to have ebbed very low, while comfort levels with autocracy, inequality, and concentrated power seem to be rather high. Corporate CEOs, essentially princes wielding absolute power in their realms, have emerged as cultural heroes, while each successive president (Jimmy Carter excepted) has gotten a little bit better at playing the role of elective monarch. During the 2000 election crisis, it seemed that media commentators and citizens who were genuinely alarmed at the possibility of the people’s will not being done were drowned out by throngs who just wanted a decision made, to see an “endgame,” as the appropriately dynastic buzzword had it.

Upon close inspection, the current vogue for the Founders is politically right-handed, heavily favoring the conservatives of the founding era, figures such as Adams, Hamilton, and Washington who stood against or above the rise of democratic politics and the further expansion of individual rights. “Founders chic,” as Newsweek called the phenomenon last summer, is really “Federalist chic.” Since then, even long before September 11, the political restraints one might have expected to limit a court-ordered president rejected by a majority of voters nationwide have simply not existed. (Approval ratings based on a few hundred phone calls seem to be given more democratic weight than millions of votes.) Likewise there has been only a little more outcry, and no serious congressional resistance, as President Bush and his retainers have seized police powers not seen since World War II and claimed sweeping wartime exemptions from public scrutiny and criticism of their actions all without the need of, say, a major, declared war involving millions of Americans against genocidal modern states. That such world-war-like authority has been so easily taken speaks depressing volumes about the health of our political system. So John Adams may be a man for our times after all. The democratic tradition that swamped him and his son is not what it used to be.

Further Reading:

For additional, late-breaking comments on this and other historical-political topics, see “Publick Occurrences Extra.”

The Adams craze was only part of a larger boom in celebratory ruminations on the Founders, dubbed “Founder chic” by Newsweek. (For a time this fall, it even threatened to extend to Adams’s archenemy Alexander Hamilton.) The boom gained prominent coverage in national publications during 2000 and 2001, and was slowed only a little by September 11 and the Joseph Ellis scandal. At least two forceful critiques of the trend have appeared: Sean Wilentz’s New Republic review of McCullough’s Adams, “America Made Easy”; and Andrew Burstein’s article, “The Politics of Memory: Taking the measure of the ever more popular demand for historical greatness,” Washington Post Book World, 14 October 2001.

David McCullough’s conviction that John Adams has somehow been neglected by historians is one the strangest aspects of the craze. In fact, there are numerous admiring, well-written Adams books by historians, and they all do a more thorough and even-handed job than McCullough of analyzing Adams’s political ideas and career, without stinting on the love. For just a selection, see John Ferling, John Adams: A Life (New York, 1996); Joseph J. Ellis, Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams (New York, 1993); Peter Shaw, The Character of John Adams (Chapel Hill, 1976). Middlebrow pop culture has not left Adams behind either. While depicted as priggish and difficult, he is clearly the hero of the popular musical 1776. Those readers old enough to remember the Bicentennial may also recall the PBS miniseries of that time, The Adams Chronicles, the tie-in book for which is still pretty widely available in used book stores.

Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of the journalistic accounts of “Founder chic” is the degree to which it has been mistaken for a dominant trend in historical scholarship (as opposed to historical publishing), the essence of a new “new political history.” While there is now a fairly substantial group of early American historians working in political history again, the thrust of this work is quite different, as I hope will be demonstrated by the forthcoming volume I am co-editing with David Waldstreicher and Andrew Robertson, Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic (University of North Carolina Press). No one ever said that pundits had to be objective!

 

This article originally appeared in issue 2.2 (January, 2002).


 




Lampi’s Election Notes

Retro

Phil and I just got back from Philadelphia. We did a presentation at the Society of Historians of the Early American Republic annual meeting. We were super excited to have so many attend the last session on the last day. Thank you to all of you! The conference was a little retro. Everyone read papers and there wasn’t even a projector on site. I was not aware of this retro theme and made a power point presentation to show off the database. I thought about having everyone gather around my computer but I thought this would be easier.

 

How Much Do We Really Know About the 1824 Election?

The 1824 Presidential Election  is one of the most well remembered, primarily because it is the only election ever forced into the House of Representatives because no candidate succeeded in getting a majority of electoral votes (different from the 1800 Presidential Election in which two candidates got a majority, thus forcing the passing of the 12th Amendment).

It’s well described in history:  Andrew Jackson got the most votes (electoral and popular) and won the most states, yet when the House voted, John Quincy Adams won on the first ballot.  Because Henry Clay wasn’t one of the top 3 candidates, he was not in consideration from the House and he threw his support behind Adams, whose politics were not too terribly different from his, and against Jackson (who he personally despised) and after Adams won, he made Clay his Secretary of State, then position then most likely to catapult him into the presidency (Adams had gone from one to the other, as had his two predecessors, Monroe and Madison).  Jackson supporters screamed about a “corrupt bargain” and used that as their slogan four years later and succeeded in getting Jackson into the White House.

However, we might not know quite as much as we think we do.  North Carolina provides some valuable insight into the election in a variety of ways:

1 – At the time several states, including New York, had their electors chosen by the Legislature, thus there was no popular vote.

2 – This is the first election where the popular vote was well tallied and we have individual states’ results readily available, but is that data accurate?  The official data currently found lists Andrew Jackson with 20,231 votes in North Carolina and J.Q. Adams with 0.  However, a careful study of the actual voting sheets from North Carolina and newspapers at the time show that many supporters would have voted for a J.Q. Adams ticket had their been one, and instead voted for the People’s Ticket, a slate of 15 electors, several of whom they hoped would vote for J.Q. Adams in the Electoral College.  Many papers at the time noted that if the Ticket was accurate, 5 of them would vote for Adams instead of Jackson.

3 – Voters back then voted for electors directly, instead of voting for a particular candidate.  But electors could vote for whom they pleased in the actual Electoral College (in Delaware that year, 6 newspapers listed one elector as being a Clay man, and 5 other newspapers listed him as a Crawford man – the elector in question actually voted for Crawford).  In spite of ample support from Adams supporters, all 15 electors elected on the People’s Ticket voted for Jackson.

4 – If Adams supporters had not gone for the People’s Ticket, William Crawford likely would have won the state (his ticket received 15,622 votes).  A switch of those 15 votes ties Adams and Jackson with 84 and takes away Jackson’s argument for having won more electoral votes.  He reached 99 with the help of at least some Adams supporters.

5 – When the election was thrown into the House, North Carolina voted for Crawford.  This was not a surprise, as newspapers were touting that if the election came to the House, then North Carolina would go whole-heartedly for Crawford back when that Congressional Delegation was elected in August, 1823, well over a year before the actual presidential election.

Because of state legislatures electing electors and because of the kind of thing we see in North Carolina, we can not see for certain without more data exactly how the will of the voters played out in 1824.   But we can see that it is not quite the story we have always assumed.

 

Littleberry Bush

For a spring entry we have Littleberry Bush. He ran for Georgia State Representative from Richmond County in 1823 but lost.

http://elections.lib.tufts.edu/aas_portal/view-election.xq?id=MS115.002.GA.1823.00005

After a some digging I found out that his first name was actually his mother’s maiden name. His father Richard P. Bush married Sara Littleberry in 1786. Littleberry Bush was born in 1788, dies in 1829. I honestly can’t picture an old man with such a cute name.

 

This article originally appeared in issue 8.4 (July, 2008).


 




Shouldering Independence

As the day begins at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, I join Laura, one of our most experienced interpreters, as she organizes the first tour of the day. Moving along the line of waiting visitors, sharing information, talking to our guests, passing out maps, Laura and I overhear snippets of conversation. The startlingly bright orange tee shirts in line this morning belong to students from Middleburg Middle School. Their teachers undoubtedly brought a carefully prepared lesson plan for the day. The students, on the other hand, worry about food. “I’m hungry, why can’t we get ice cream? Why do we have to stand here?” Cheerfully, Laura engages the teenagers in a discussion of ice cream flavors and manages to weave in the fact that Thomas Jefferson brought the recipe for ice cream to the United States.

 

Fig 1. Independence Hall. Courtesy of Independence National Historical Park.
Fig 1. Independence Hall. Courtesy of Independence National Historical Park.

Farther down the line, we find a small group of men and women in business suits. A closer look reveals that they all wear nametags from a convention of lawyers that is in town this week. This group is apparently on a subcommittee on “Constitutional Rights v. the Fight against Terrorism.” As they wait, they debate the constitutional issues involved in criminal profiling. Obviously, they have more serious matters on their minds than ice cream flavors.

 

Fig 2. Visitors begin the tour. Courtesy of Independence National Historical Park.
Fig 2. Visitors begin the tour. Courtesy of Independence National Historical Park.

The first tour of the day will be completed by a group of senior citizens from Kansas. As the National Park Service District Ranger, I explain to this and every other group visiting Independence Hall that because of antiterrorism measures the visitors will pass through a metal detector before entering the building. One of the women expresses concern: “Is this a target?” As Laura tries to reassure her, one elderly visitor proclaims “We lived through Pearl Harbor and D-Day, they can’t scare us away now.” The nervous woman doesn’t look convinced.

Quickly assessing her group, Laura leads the senior citizens, the lawyers, and the middle schoolers into the Assembly Room, where tables covered in green baize, soft gray walls, and authentic furnishings wait quietly for our visitors. Once this room rang with raised voices, the sound of walking sticks pounding on the floor, and maybe even doors slamming as irate delegates stormed out. The United States was not born in silence.

 

Fig 3. Independence Hall Assembly Room. Courtesy of Independence National Historical Park.
Fig 3. Independence Hall Assembly Room. Courtesy of Independence National Historical Park.

Here, in the Assembly Room, Laura begins her narrative. Using the individuals who participated in the tumult of the Second Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention she weaves a story of human emotion, conflict, compromise, and achievement. She’s careful to reach out to all visitors: for her hungry students, she points out that much of the business of the Convention occurred during meals; for the lawyers, she shares the legal backgrounds of many of the delegates. James Madison and George Mason also worried about individual rights. For everyone, she points out that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 knew fear and uncertainty. In some cases, they fretted about personal safety; but, more frequently, they worried about the possibility that their country would not live up to its potential.

The success of this tour is made obvious by the questions visitors raise at the end. “If George Washington was the peace maker of the convention, who was the trouble maker?” What happened to George Mason after he refused to sign the Constitution?” “What do you think these men would feel if they came back and learned about September 11?” Laura solemnly replies, “The technology to build and destroy the World Trade Center would amaze them; the evil in human hearts would not.” She points out that many of the provisions in the Constitution, such as the balance of power, come from an understanding of human fallibility. On the way out the door, the middle-school students debate whether ice cream or the Declaration of Independence represents Thomas Jefferson’s greatest achievement.

Unfortunately, not every tour goes this smoothly. Those occasions when visitors proclaim historical “truths” that we can not document as accurate sometimes present insurmountable challenges. Recently, a group of visitors insisted that the National Park Service ignores the influence of Christianity on United States history. As soon as their tour entered the Assembly Room, this group began bombarding the ranger with questions. “Originally each table held a Bible. Why did you remove them?” “The members of both the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention began each day’s session on their knees in prayer. Why don’t you mention that?” At first, the ranger attempted to answer their questions. He explained that the furnishings in the room reflect the research done by our curators. The curators labor over diaries and letters and contemporary recollections to identify furnishings and books that were in the room. In answer to the second question, he acknowledged the possibility that the visitor has information that we don’t have. “We are always interested in learning more about what happened here. Our records don’t show that the delegates prayed. If you can tell me where you learned about the delegates praying, I would like to consult that source.”

Unfortunately, in this case the ranger’s approach failed. These particular visitors appeared unwilling to enter into a dialogue; they seemed only interested in sharing their particular point of view.

Eventually, the ranger asked them to hold their questions to the end of the tour and tried to finish his presentation for the rest of the tour. At this point, the group began singing “God Bless America” making further interpretation impossible. Sadly, this tour ended with this group being escorted from the building.

 

Fig 4. A ranger answers questions. Courtesy of Independence National Historical Park.
Fig 4. A ranger answers questions. Courtesy of Independence National Historical Park.

Fortunately, confrontations at this level rarely occur. But interpreters trained to use their skills to connect the visitors, the resource, and the story of American Independence occasionally have difficulty realizing that not all visitors need their matchmaking skills. Many individuals arriving from former Soviet-block nations and from underdeveloped nations come with a powerful understanding of Independence Hall. We frequently hear from visitors who tell us about unofficial, or in some cases, illegal schools where they learned as children about America’s quest for freedom. As adults, they relate our eighteenth-century story to their nation’s twentieth- or twenty-first century struggles. I tell my staff that we have nothing to teach a survivor of the Soviet gulag about freedom.

The challenging, yet glorious, differences among visitors’ expectations when they come to Independence Hall constitute a unique opportunity for learning. In the months since September 11, it has become clear that our visitors reflect the world situation. When things seem relatively calm, we experience routine visits. When the situation in the Middle East gets worse, we greet visitors who come seeking tranquillity and a reconnection to this country’s founding as a measure of solace and comfort in a disturbing new world. For some of these visitors, it is troubling to encounter protesters–massing in front of the Liberty Bell Pavilion–complaining about the United States’ military actions in Afghanistan. One gentleman who lost a relative in the World Trade Center broke down in tears at the sound of a small group chanting antiwar slogans directly outside the Liberty Bell. The sensitive ranger on duty engaged this gentleman in conversation and helped him to understand that the freedoms given by the Constitution, the symbol of the Liberty Bell, and the unpleasant protest all join together to protect this nation from suffering the fate of Afghanistan. As long as this freedom prevailed, as long as Americans understand the reality of the Constitution, his daughter did not die in vain.  

 

This article originally appeared in issue 2.4 (July, 2002).


Frances Delmar is a District Ranger at Independence National Historical Park. She has an M.A. in American history and museum studies from the University of Delaware. In her spare time, she plots ways to interest her children in visiting historic sites.




Hearing Slavery: Recovering the role of sound in African American slave culture

Small Stock

While wandering home to his lodgings in New Orleans, early in the evening of May 4, 1819, Benjamin Latrobe, the famous architect, happened upon some two hundred African Americans taking part in the funeral procession of a very old Congo-born woman. Curious and with time on his hands, the Frenchman tagged along to the cemetery and secured a vantage spot very close to the grave. The chanting, the prayers, and even the “very loud lamentations” of the “great croud of women press[ing] close to the grave” were all familiar enough; sounds to be expected on an occasion such as this. But what followed soon after was alien to the visitor’s experiences. The deceased’s grandsons and great-grandsons picked up bones and even skulls lying around the graveyard and pelted them at the simple casket, making “a loud report on the hollow Coffin.” By the time the service was completed the “noise and laughter was general” amongst the mourners. For Latrobe, the funeral had degenerated from tragedy into “a sort of farce.”

Some two years later, on October 18, 1821, before a crowd of some seven hundred whites and fifteen hundred blacks, the sheriff of Princess Ann, in Somerset County, Maryland, executed Jenny, a seventy-year-old African American woman. Seconds before Jenny was hung, a bemused white observer recorded that “several hundreds of the colored people” turned their backs to the gallows, squatted on the ground, “covered their faces with their hands, and uttered a simultaneous groan, which while it expressed their feelings, added not a little to the horror of the scene.”

In these two almost random cases, the sounds created by African Americans induced in white observers a sense of cultural dissonance, prompting feelings of confusion, disgust, and even horror. This study aims, as far as the sources will allow, to turn up the volume on such sounds, to “hear” the world as the slaves heard it, and in so doing, to gain deeper insights into the culture African Americans created in these years. Here, we aim to begin the necessarily speculative process of examining the role of sound in African American slave culture, to show how we can begin to recover some of the ways in which slaves experienced their environment differently from their Euro-American owners.

Although most scholars teaching or writing about slavery at least mention the fact that slaves often sang, our concern is to use not only song, but all manner of other sounds as well, to gain new insight into African American culture. Frederick Douglass, easily the most famous survivor of the horrors of the “peculiar institution,” was well aware of the importance of such culturally evocative sounds. He observed that “apparently incoherent” slave songs actually held “deep meanings.” In saying this, Douglass was not alluding primarily to their lyrics. The meanings to which he referred were to be found, rather, in what he termed the “wild notes” of the singers, the “tones, loud, long and deep,” every one of which constituted “a testimony against slavery, and a prayer to God for deliverance from chains.” Those who wished “to be impressed with a sense of the soul-killing power of slavery,” Douglass suggested, should “go to Col. Lloyd’s [Douglass’s Maryland owner’s] plantation, and, on allowance day,” as the slaves, singing all the while, passed by on their journey to collect their rations, “place [themselves] in the deep, pine woods, and there . . . in silence, thoughtfully analyze the sounds that shall pass through the chambers of [their] soul.”

Unfortunately, of course, we cannot take Douglass’s advice. But every now and again, we have come across the writings of someone who has, metaphorically at least, stood in those woods and listened, an observer particularly attuned to the sonic world. Perhaps the best example is Thomas Wentworth Higginson, an idealistic New England abolitionist who took command of the First Regiment, South Carolina Volunteers, the Union’s first black military unit, and who possessed an unusual sensitivity to sound. Higginson’s memoir entitled Army Life in a Black Regiment, and the diary and the letters to his mother on which it is based, are saturated with detailed and sharply observed depictions of the strange and intriguing soundscape of black camplife. On one of his “evening strolls among my own camp fires,” Higginson came upon black soldiers “telling stories with laughter over the broadest mimicry,” mimicry in which the unit’s white officers were “not always spared.” Somewhere in the distance “the everlasting ‘shout'” was underway, “with its mixture of piety & polka.” And here and there “quieter prayer meetings” were in progress, “with ardent & often touching invocations; & slower psalms deaconed out . . . by the leader . . . in a wailing chant.” At one fire, men danced to the accompaniment of “a quite artistic fiddle.” At another, a “stump orator perched on his barrel, pour[ed] out his mingling of liberty & Methodism in quaint eloquence.” Details such as these eluded the ears of virtually every other observer of black military life.

Higginson listened keenly not merely to this aural world of shouts and song, but to the ways his men spoke. Though bemused by certain peculiarities of syntax, he admired his troops’ ready eloquence, their striking use of imagery, their pithily expressed abstract thought, their sheer verbal facility and power. One night he heard one of his soldiers deliver a “perfectly thrilling” impromptu speech which contained “the most impressive sentence about the American flag I ever heard,” a sentence he went on to render in dialect: “Our mas’rs dey hab lib under de flag, dey got dere wealth under it, & ebery ting beautiful for dere chil’en & under it dey hab grind us into money & put us in dere pocket; & dat minute dey tink dat ole flag mean freedom for us dey pull it down & run up de rag ob dere own; but we’ll nebber desert it boys, nebber; we hab lib under it for 1862 years (!!!) & we’ll die for it now.” Higginson doubted that any of his officers “could have spoken on the spur of the moment with such easy eloquence and such telling effect.” Again and again, the New Englander would be struck by his men’s verbal inventiveness, their ability to invest images drawn from everyday life with deep and pertinent meaning. In July 1863, as he left the regiment for a twenty-day furlough to recover from war wounds, Higginson was especially touched when a soldier told him, “You’s a mighty big rail out ob de fence, sa.”

Yet for every Higginson or William Francis Allen and the other compilers of Slave Songs of the United States (New York,1867), there were scores if not hundreds of observers journeying through the South who were seemingly oblivious to, or laconically dismissive of, all that they heard. And even had these travelers been as aurally sensitive as we might wish, there is the obvious problem that sound does not reduce well to the printed page. There is, however, another possible source. As part of the documentary impulse of the 1930s, a number of collectors, most notably John and Alan Lomax, travelled through the South recording all manner of African American sounds for the Library of Congress’s Archive of American Folk-Song. The fruits of these collecting trips are still deposited in the Library of Congress, indeed some of the material is available online.

The African Americans whom the Lomaxes auditioned and then recorded on their “portable” tape recorder–on the 1933 trip the machine weighed 350 pounds–were the children and grandchildren of slaves. Unlike earlier collectors, whose transcriptions of performances depended on the transcriber’s skill and judgement, the Lomaxes relied on technology to secure what they believed was the unmediated original. After one field trip, John Lomax described the 150 tunes with which he had returned as “sound photographs of Negro songs, rendered in their own element, unrestrained, uninfluenced and undirected by anyone who has had his own notions of how the songs should be rendered.”

But like the photographs to which Lomax compared his recordings, these tapes too contain ambivalences. Recordings, too, can strike a pose. For, even though the Lomaxes used machines, they saw themselves as being in pursuit of subjects whom modernity had passed by. And this vision, in turn, shaped both their journeys and the sounds they enshrined. In search of an older, more “authentic” African American culture–in our terms, one closer to the time of slavery–the Lomaxes rummaged through the “eddies of human society” in remote cotton plantations, lumber camps, and, most famously, segregated southern prisons. Part of the reason why they were so excited by their “discovery” of the talent of Lead Belly was that they felt his “eleven years of confinement had cut him off both from the phonograph and from the radio”–the fact that the black singer felt differently was beside the point. What is exciting about listening to the tapes from the field trips into the South of the 1930s is that the folk artists whose voices one hears revealed ways of singing and talking that had been learned from the lips of former slaves. It most definitely is not as if a tape recorder had been left on in the woods near the plantation on which Frederick Douglass toiled as a slave, but listening to these tapes brings us about as close as we are ever going to get to hearing some of slavery’s familiar sounds.

In some ways, the songs recorded by the Lomaxes, and the manner in which they are sung, are familiar enough–the music of artists such as Lead Belly and Robert Johnson is still listened to today. But what is most interesting in the material these collectors gathered is the other sounds they were able to record–occasionally without trying. When Minerva Grubs, an ex-slave from Mississippi, was interviewed in the 1930s, she recalled that she and the other slaves went to the white church on Sundays but “didnt jine in de worship.” The problem was that “de white folks dont git in de spirit, dey don’t shout, pray, hum, and sing all through de services lak us do.” On his 1939 trip through the South, John Lomax recorded a prayer given by the Reverend Henry Ward, at the Johnson Plains Baptist Church, Livingston, Alabama, and if you listen carefully what is obvious is a constant undercurrent of noise from members of the congregation–foot-tapping, moaning, responsive cries–noise of precisely the type that Minerva Grubs was describing to her WPA interviewer at almost the same time in nearby Mississippi.

In addition to letting us eavesdrop on the sonic background behind “slave” songs, the Lomax recordings also captured a type of slave vocal music that frequently assumed the character of “pure sound,” music that contained no words at all. Since at least the nineteenth century, many of the calls, cries, and hollers that echoed throughout the rural and urban South wherever African Americans were held captive had been of this broad type. Eight decades earlier Frederick Law Olmsted heard one of these hollers. In the course of his journey through South Carolina in the years before the Civil War, Olmsted encountered a group of African American slaves, members of a railroad work gang gathered around a fire. Suddenly, one of the men “raised such a sound as I never heard before, a long, loud, musical shout, rising and falling, and breaking into falsetto, his voice ringing through the woods in the clear, frosty night air, like a bugle call.” The cry sounded, Olmsted would later write, like “Negro jodling.” Sounds of this general type, which persisted even into the Lomaxes’ day, were ubiquitous throughout the slave South, certainly from the mid-eighteenth century.

Not surprisingly, the West African practice of using a variety of calls to announce important events, greet friends, summon meetings, and so on, was carried over to the New World. As deployed by North American slaves, these elemental kinds of musical expression took various forms, ranging from the relatively simple to the complex, and served a range of purposes not all of them readily appreciated by outsiders. Particularly when African influences were strong–in the early years of slavery, for example, or wherever groups of newly-arrived slaves were kept together–calls functioned as an alternative communication system, conveying information through the medium of sounds that whites could neither confidently understand nor easily jam. Calls constructed from the languages of the slaves’ homelands were, of course, unintelligible to whites. Moreover, just as West African drums could “talk” by imitating the rhythmic and tonal characteristics of speech, so too, in all probability, could the wordless calls of North American slaves.

As slaves became acculturated, their calls incorporated English-language words, a development that would have made them intelligible to whites, at least in some degree. Such calls were often simple expressions of loneliness, pain, or despair. The call might be a phrase like “I’m hot and hungry,” or could, as in the case of the following Alabama cry, noted in one of the WPA interviews with ex-slaves, contain a more detailed, even if inconsequential, message:

Ay-oh-hoh!
I’m goin’ up the river!

Oh, couldn’t stay here!
For I’m goin’ home!

Other calls had a more obvious practical purpose. Yach Stringfellow, formerly a field slave in Texas, told his WPA interviewer how, “ef de oberseer wuz comin,” a slave named Ole man Jim, the possessor of “a big boom voice,” would “wail out loud like an say: ‘Look-a long black man, look-a long; dere’s trouble comin shore.'” Calls were also commonly used to aid work routines. Soon after the “strange cry” of the black railroad worker whom Olmsted encountered had died away, Olmsted heard another member of the work gang “urging the rest to come to work again, and soon he stepped towards the cotton bales, saying, ‘Come, brederen, come; let’s go at it; come now, eoho! roll away! eeoho-eeoho-weeioho-i!’–and all the rest taking it up as before, in a few moments they all had their shoulders to a bale of cotton and were rolling it up the embankment.”

But even after slaves had become relatively well acculturated, they continued to employ calls that contained either no or very few English words; if a few such words were included, they tended to function as do syllables in scat singing, as pure sound, rather than as vehicles for the conveying of information. The former slave Julia Frances Daniels revealed that her brother, a skilled hunter, used a celebratory but wordless call to broadcast his success. “We would know when we hear him callin’, ‘OoooooOOOooo-da-dah-dah-ske-e-e-e-t-t-t-ttt,’ that he had sumpin’. That was just a make-up of his own, but we knowed they was rabbits for the pot.” The boastful Hector Godbold incorporated some English words into the call he reproduced for his WPA interviewer, but those words were obviously valued for sound rather than sense. “I was one of de grandest hollerers you ever hear tell bout . . . Here how one go: O – OU – OU – O – OU, DO – MI – NICI – O, BLACK – GA – LE – LO, O – OU – OU – O – OU, WHO – O – OU – OU. Great King, dat ain’ nothin.”

It is important to realize here that contemporary white observers of the peculiar institution, as well as those who managed later to interview former slaves, were able to give only a very imperfect representation of the calls they heard. On many occasions, interviewers appear to have recorded only or mainly the words of a particular cry. African American voices could, however, transform such words into richly detailed patterns of sound. As visually represented by Yach Stringfellow’s interviewer, Ole man Jim’s warning call, “Look-a long black man, look-a long; dere’s trouble comin shore,” seems simple in form and straightforward in meaning, but rich melismatic embellishment (by which one syllable of a word is carried over several notes), which the interviewer may have lacked the time or ability to represent, could easily have translated this call into a complex, vocal utterance. Again, the wordless “plantation holler” that ex-Texas slave Jeff Calhoun performed for his interviewer, was merely written down as “Uh, . . . . Uh . . Uh . . . . Uh . . . .Uh . . Uh.” However, as Harold Courlander points out, apparently simple wordless calls of this type–he instances a call consisting merely of a long “Hoo-Hoo”–could be “filled with exuberance or melancholy,” and “stretched out and embellished with intricate ornamentation of a kind virtually impossible to notate.” Of course, this was not the kind of detail that most interviewers employed by the WPA were seeking.

It is the impossibility of rendering these calls and hollers onto paper, combined with the fact that very few scholars nowadays would be familiar with anything quite like them, that makes the Lomax tapes so useful, that helps us understand what “Uh, . . . . Uh . . Uh . . . . Uh . . . .Uh . . Uh” could have sounded like. On their swing through Alabama and Arkansas, in May 1939, John and Ruby Lomax recorded several field and levee hollers, some of which we have included here: sample holler one, sample holler two,sample holler three. Usually only a minute or two in length, these short sound bites provide us with a link back to slave times, and potentially, can help us flesh out our understanding of an important dimension of African American slave culture.

In fact, wordless or near-wordless slave calls were often elaborate vocal creations which drew heavily, as Ashenafi Kebede points out, on “many African vocal devices, such as yodels, echolike falsetto, tonal glides, embellished melismas, and microtonal inflections that are often impossible to indicate in European staff notation.” In Willis Lawrence James’s estimation, these more complex or “coloratura” calls rank “among the most amazing and remarkable vocal feats in folk music.” It was a coloratura call that had attracted Olmsted’s attention as he came upon the group of African American railroad workers; the yodeling sounds that so intrigued him originated with the rainforest Pygmies of Central Africa, whose musical styles influenced, in turn, the Kongo peoples of West Africa, and, ultimately, broad segments of the North American slave population. As we have seen, Olmsted had been puzzled by the lone railroad worker’s richly filigreed cry; the more interesting issue, however, is what meanings that cry had communicated to those African Americans who heard it.

At the deepest cultural level, coloratura slave calls were emblematic African (and African American) sounds, and deeply evocative on that account. Robert Farris Thompson’s comment that “[t]he textlessness of [Pygmy] yodeling, unshackling sound from words, unlock[ed] extraordinary freedom of voice” is applicable to many of the more complex New World calls as well. These, too, were free musical forms, allowing virtually limitless scope for improvisation, for the admixture of the vocal leaps, glides, moans, yells, and elisions that gave to African American musical expression its characteristic rhythmic and tonal complexity, its perennial inventiveness and love of surprise. Slave calls exemplified, that is to say, what Olly Wilson has termed “the heterogeneous sound ideal,” defined by Wilson as an “approach to music making” that deploys “a kaleidoscopic range of dramatically contrasting qualities of sound [which is to say, timbres],” qualities that characterized the West African tonal languages from which that music was derived.

In this article we have tried to tease the meaning out of just a few of the sounds that have either been ignored or dismissed as relatively unimportant. The raucous sounds that so shocked Benjamin Latrobe at the New Orleans funeral in 1819 meant something very different to the black participants. What had horrified the traveler was in fact a ritual moment now known as “cutting the body loose,” a process which, as Joseph Roach has pointed out, “joyously affirm[ed] the continuity of community” and triggered a “wave of lively music and motion.” As far as the blacks who attended the burying were concerned it was the appropriate way to bury the African-born matriarch. Similarly, although slave hollers were simply background noise for whites, for African Americans these cries were emblematic and evocative, a familiar and reassuring part of the soundscape that they had created, as they tried to survive the brutalities of slavery.

In a brief piece such as this all we can really do is try and make a few points about the usefulness of material such as the Lomax field recordings. We have concentrated on hollers, because they were a part of the Southern soundscape that seems to have slipped through the cracks. In a fashion that parallels the way scholars failed to exploit the WPA ex-slave interviews, for the most part the material collected by the Lomaxes and others has been left undisturbed, mentioned in passing as a curiosity rather than being closely analyzed. It is not the easiest material for scholars to use, but it can offer an imaginative way forward to those who are attempting, in some measure, to reconstitute the auditory environment of slavery’s hitherto largely soundless world.

Further Reading:

On Higginson, see the excellent Christopher Looby, ed., The Complete Civil War Journal and Selected Letters of Thomas Wentworth Higginson (Chicago and London, 2000). On the collections made in the 1930s, see Benjamin Filene, Romancing the Folk: Public Memory & American Roots Music (Chapel Hill, 2000). Other works used include Robert Farris Thompson, Flash of the Spirit (New York, 1984); Olly Wilson, “The Heterogeneous Sound Ideal in African American Music,” in Josephine Wright, ed., New Perspectives on Music: Essays in Honor of Eileen Southern (Warren, Mich., 1992); Ashenafi Kebede, Roots of Black Music (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1982); and the Roach essay is at Joseph R. Roach, “Deep Skin: Reconstructing Congo Square,” in Harry J. Elam Jr. and David Krasner, eds., African American Performance and Theater History: A Critical Reader (New York, 2001): 111-14.

 

This article originally appeared in issue 1.4 (July, 2001).


Shane White is an associate professor and Graham White an honorary associate in the history department at the University of Sydney. Together they have written Stylin’: African American Expressive Culture From Its Beginnings to the Zoot Suit (Ithaca: 1998) and have half completed The Sounds of Slavery, which will be a book and a twenty-four-track CD. Contrary to the strange assumption of a surprising number of reviewers, they are neither brothers nor even related.




Publick Occurrences 2.0 January 2008

January 31, 2008

Goody Bags Bad

The eloquently nasty James Wolcott made a sharp comment on the historical contribution to what he called “the Charlie Rose post-[State of the Union] all-star cud-chew” Monday night. Actually I would have generalized Wolcott’s point to most of the people I have seen on supposedly serious TV talk shows labeled as a “presidential historian.” Panelist Doris Kearns Goodwin, Wolcott wrote, has

become a major irritant with her . . . goody bag of presidential anecdotes that she dispenses to humanize everybody on the same glorious continuum, as if the crimes and calamities of Vietnam and Iraq were crucibles of character-building for our chief executives, the crowded backdrops to personal tragedy and greatness. (So many faraway nobodies have to die so that History can come alive.)

 

This is not a new irritant at all, of course, as Goodwin and a number of her pop history colleagues have been handing out these sugary snacks regularly ever since the great Founder Chic eruption of 2001. It would be nice if the middlebrow media and popular political history would work on their addiction to this kind of thing, but somehow I doubt we will be seeing Charlie Rose in intellectual rehab anytime soon.

January 30, 2008

“Less Jobs, More Wars”

That’s the message some Republican commentators are expecting the GOP to have to run with in the fall if John McCain wins the nomination, as seems increasingly likely. Watch this video of Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan chortling blackly about McCain’s Florida win:

There would be a platform that John Adams could have run on, or, to be fair, James Madison or Martin Van Buren, too. But they would not have enjoyed it like the self-loathing Adams.

If only those Massachusetts farmers had some credit card offers with great introductory rates . . .

 

Leaders of Shays' RebellionFrom John Quiggin in Australia (via Crooked Timber and Matthew Yglesias) comes the interesting suggestion that the relatively easy credit in the United States, especially as regards the comparatively lenient terms on which people can get credit, may help explain the general lack of political traction that increasing income inequality seems to get here. (Just ask John Edwards, again.)

Quiggin wrote, in a late 2005 post:

1. Wage inequality in the US has grown greatly since 1970. Income inequality has also grown, but not as much since low-wage households have increased hours worked.
2. (Annual) Consumption inequality has not changed much since 1970. In my judgement, this reflects increased use of credit markets to smooth out short term fluctuations in income, which offsets increased long-run inequality. . .
4. Bankruptcy laws act as a kind of income insurance, and generous (to debtors) bankruptcy laws are a substitute for redistributive taxation.

I bolded what seemed the key points to me. In a new post today (1-30-08), Quiggin laments the current U.S. mortgage foreclosure crisis, but makes a similar point about the relatively lenient (compared to other countries) terms of U.S. mortgages: “Most [U.S.] mortgages are non-recourse, meaning that the lender can take the house but cannot recover the debt from the borrowers income or other assets. That means that once the value of the house falls below the amount owing (equity becomes negative) the borrower can walk away from the house and the debt.” The parochial, debt-fueled American inside me blanches at the idea that it is common in other places for lenders to have rights over your money after they have taken your house. That would definitely damp down the old housing bubbles.

Of course, credit was not always so easy in the U.S., and the notable association of rural political unrest and rebellion in U.S. history with harsh credit contractions (and threatened property loss to creditors or taxing authorities) makes Quibbin’s suggestion fairly convincing. The most obvious example would be that central Massachusetts favorite, Shays’ Rebellion. It makes you wonder whether the credit-card companies really understood what they were playing with when they pushed through the bankruptcy “reform” legislation a while back. I am guessing not.

 

January 29, 2008

Florida’s Unsettling Influence

I don’t live in Florida any more — Common-Place editor Ed Gray is in a better position than me to comment — but it was unsettling to read our fellow early American historian (turned super-blogger) Josh Marshall’s  opinion that the Sunshine State might decide the Republican nomination later today. Politics in Florida always puzzled me. I will never forget the guys standing outside a lecture hall handing out anti-tax literature — in a state with no income tax!

 

January 26, 2008

Welcome to the new “Publick Occurrences”

I have been writing a (very) sporadic political column on Common-Place since 2001, but I realized a while back that I would prefer to do “Publick Occurrences” as a blog instead of a column, since frankly not every single thought that passes through my head is worth developing into a whole essay. Probably more to the point, many observations I could have made over past few years would have long passed their sell-by date by the time they reached Common-Place through the usual editorial process. So now John McCoy and Ed Gray have been so kind as to set up this space where the world can once more have the horror of direct, largely unedited access to my thoughts on politics, history, and other (sometimes loosely) related matters. I hope to be posting at least once a week, especially on Sunday evening/Monday morning. Comments are enabled, but they will be moderated, at least for the time being.

While I can’t promise that this new “Publick Occurrences” blog will stick completely to the American history/current American politics intersection that was the focus of the columns, but since that perspective informs just about everything I do and say — ask my poor family who get world events and whatever we happen to be watching on television tiresomely contextualized every night — I doubt this space will stray too far. I will try to keep my teaching separate. Students who get this site accidentally through a search engine should check the links on my main home page for the course they are taking.

Finally, I certainly hope it would go without saying that the opinions expressed here are mine alone and not those of Common-Place, the American Antiquarian Society, or the University of Missouri, my actual employer.

 

This article originally appeared in issue 8.2 (January, 2008).


Jeffrey L. Pasley is associate professor of history at the University of Missouri and the author of “The Tyranny of Printers”: Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic (2001), along with numerous articles and book chapters, most recently the entry on Philip Freneau in Greil Marcus’s forthcoming New Literary History of America. He is currently completing a book on the presidential election of 1796 for the University Press of Kansas and also writes the blog Publick Occurrences 2.0 for some Website called Common-place.




The Online Writings of Jeffrey L. Pasley — UPDATED

Large Stock

This page presents some of the same links that appear on my original home page, along with some new ones, in a more compact format. These are all scholarly or quasi-scholarly pieces, either never published in print or published in much shorter versions or just plain are not very easily accessible. The order is reverse chronological, or newest first.

… more to come

 

This article originally appeared in issue 8.4 (July, 2008).


Jeffrey L. Pasley is associate professor of history at the University of Missouri and the author of “The Tyranny of Printers”: Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic (2001), along with numerous articles and book chapters, most recently the entry on Philip Freneau in Greil Marcus’s forthcoming New Literary History of America. He is currently completing a book on the presidential election of 1796 for the University Press of Kansas and also writes the blog Publick Occurrences 2.0 for some Website called Common-place.




Venturing Out

There was a time in my life when I fell asleep at night reading Penelope Leach’s childrearing bible, Your Baby and Child (New York, 1978). “Housework can seem like a pleasant play all over the house if the baby is bounced on the bed that is being made, plays peek-a-boo around the furniture and has a duster to wave,” Leach cheerfully advised. Shopping, too, “can be a treat. He will enjoy riding in a cart, helping himself to things off the shelves, opening the packages and sampling the contents . . . Accept the inevitable and let him help himself to something innocuous, like a small box of raisins.”

Right. Now try three dusters and three boxes of raisins.

Since taking three babies grocery shopping is far from “pleasant play,” I spent much of the first two years of my triplets’ lives hanging out in our house or in the backyard, in our Olympic-sized sandbox. But after that, little by little, we began venturing out. When the kids turned two and wanted to walk, rather than be walked, around the block, I mustered my courage and opened the front door. A ten-minute stroll turned into an hour’s scramble. But before long we found ourselves “hiking” up local hills (it was years before we made it to the top).

Still, however much fun, none of these early outings was about anything except the present: the bee sting avoided, the skinned knee bandaged, the snack consumed. On a trip to the Bridgeport Zoo, I tried to get Lily to focus on an impressive array of barnyard animals. What held her fascination did not flap, bleat, or moo. She was most interested in the water fountain, of course.

Of course, because, for many years, young children–whether they are triplets or not–are focused on their bodies and on what those bodies can do in the world. They want to move, to climb, to test the limits of their own locomotion. Eventually, they ask questions about how things have gotten to be the way they are. In about their eighth year, children develop a sense of time and an ability to abstract that connect stories with pasts. They begin, that is, to think historically.

I admit that I was impatient for this stage to arrive. Though I have loved all the phases through which my children have moved, I was hungry for a chance to explore the world beyond our yard and the immediate present. In the back of my mind, I held Laura Trim, the mother of a childhood friend, as a model of historian and parent. “Mrs. Trim,” a woman with an unquenchable passion for life and fun, pursued her interest in place and past as a nonteaching, lay historian. She recruited her kids and their friends to evaluate “outings and adventures within a one-hundred mile radius of Dallas.” Not satisfied with sitting around and watching TV, Laura wrote a local cult classic, North Texas, Every Nook and Cranny. She did the research, identifying spots such as the “Knights of Pythias Castle Hall” in Fort Worth (“There’s a knight in shining armor right in the middle of downtown!”) and had the kids illustrate. I wanted to be able to venture out, to load my car and explore, Trim-style. Feather dusters and bed bouncing be damned.

We moved to Boston, epicenter of historical tourism, just as Lily, Max, and Sam were on the verge of being ready to think historically. Since we arrived in 1998, we have sampled Boston’s historical offerings liberally, visiting among others, the Freedom Trail, Lowell Mills, Old Sturbridge Village, Plimoth Plantation, Blue Hills Trail Museum, the Essex Shipbuilding Museum, Hammond Castle, the U.S.S. Constitution, Battleship Cove, the New Bedford Whaling Museum, the Sandwich Glass Museum, Provincetown Tower and Museum, and a host of small, local historical museums and societies. Though we have enjoyed these immensely, best of all has been a little-known spot, a model of historical and environmental preservation that explains how people and place changed each other.

 

Fig. 1. Halibut Point State Park. Photo by John Nove, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management.
Fig. 1. Halibut Point State Park. Photo by John Nove, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management.

About a forty-five minute drive north of Boston in Rockport, on Cape Ann, Halibut Point State Park is an unusual example of a brilliantly conceived historical site. A slice of dramatic New England coast, Halibut Point (so-named because eighteenth-century sailing ships had to “haul about” to clear the rocky coast) is home to an abandoned nineteenth-century granite quarry, a modest visitors’ center, and a World War II-era watchtower. The State Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and a private land trust jointly administer the seventy-acre site. About twenty years ago, real estate developers eyed the spectacularly beautiful spot for home construction. A local citizens’ group successfully pressured the state to buy and preserve the property, keeping it out of developers’ hands. What they saved were the remains of Babson Farm Quarry, a place riddled with clues hinting at more than a century of stories about geology, ecology, and industry. The site was home to crusty New Englanders who employed increasingly mechanized machinery to wrest granite–grainyhardened, molten magma made of quartz, feldspar, and hornblende–from the ground. As early as the late seventeenth century, farmers and fisher folk using iron hand tools crudely cut wheels of the stuff to serve as mooring stones, slabs of rock combined with sturdy tree trunks that they sunk in harbors to tie up boats. In the 1840s, Rockport Granite Company began quarrying at the site. By the 1880s, workers on Cape Ann–as in so many parts of the world–adopted the latest explosives and steam-driven power tools to quarry on an unprecedented scale, linking the region to distant markets, including Havana and New Orleans. By the Great Depression, granite quarrying on the site had all but ended.

Thinking more about the area’s fragile environment and beauty than its history, the DEM chose the site to install a domestic-scale renewable energy system. The state constructed a visitors’ center powered by solar panels and a wind turbine. The park opened in 1981 but the very same neighbors who had lobbied to preserve Halibut Point complained bitterly about the turbine’s look and noise, so the state dismantled the turbine, leaving the center more or less without a cause.

In the late 1990s, the DEM hired John Nove, a Tufts-trained biologist with a background in education, to direct Halibut Point’s visitor services. Nove, who recently left DEM to pursue private research, wanted to create a setting where children and adults would be provoked to talk about the wealth of clues left from the old quarrying days. “I didn’t just want them reading stuff off of a wall,” Nove said. With a total budget of about $25,000, he wrote a self-guided tour and hand built brief exhibits in the visitors’ center that focus on renewable energy, the watchtower, geology, and the human history of the area. Finding and arranging abandoned granite blocks in various stages of refinement, Nove made it possible for visitors to see and touch the process of nineteenth-century quarrying. Kids who arrive never before having thought about the way slabs of rock become paving stones or curbs leave Halibut Point with a visceral understanding of chipping, cutting, and polishing. They also learn to contemplate questions about the basic mechanics of leverage: in times when workers didn’t have access to hydraulic cranes and front-end loaders, how did they move tons of stone from quarry to shore? Nove wisely incorporated a brief film demonstrating the use of clever, low-tech hand tools to emphasize the answers. In the 1970s, Walter Johnson, the elderly son of a former quarry foreman, taught himself the old techniques he’d seen his father employ in cutting and splitting rectangular blocks of the heathery gray granite that runs in seams along the shore. Nove featured the film, which plays throughout the day inside the visitors’ center, alongside a small exhibit of turn-of-the-century hand tools, including dog-hole drills, derricks, and deadmen. No matter how many times we tour the visitors’ center, my kids insist on watching the short film. No matter how many times they have seen Johnson chalk and mark his stone, tap his mallet, and break the stone evenly and neatly down the center, they let out audible gasps. “I was interested,” Nove told me, “in helping people make sense of the world.”

 

Fig. 2. Visitor's center, Halibut Point State Park. Photo by John Nove, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management.
Fig. 2. Visitor’s center, Halibut Point State Park. Photo by John Nove, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management.

Nove’s genius rests on his ability to get children to think about this one particular place as it is now and as it has been over the course of the past two hundred years. His low-budget but nonetheless inspired curatorship encourages visitors to appreciate Halibut Point from a time before human inhabitants of Cape Ann became interested in granite through a time when they could think of little else. “Certain sites speak to us,” editor Peter Ginna observes in his essay, “Taking Place,” “because in visiting them, we confront the past in a tangible, immediate way.” Nove’s exhibits on local birds and animals, as well as his explanations of quarrying allow us to know this spot on the Atlantic Coast, this edge of America, tangibly, immediately. Some places, Ginna explains, stimulate “the historical imagination,” because they help us see that we can’t separate events and actors from their location. Nove’s enhancements make Halibut Point a place where children can sensitively imagine relationships between people and place. Visiting Halibut Point, my kids feel and smell what it was like to work stone out of the ground, to cut it by hand, and to load it into ships. Walking in downtown Boston, if they spot gray stone with distinctive parallel grooves, they wonder aloud if they’re looking at granite quarried from Cape Ann.

When we spill out of the van into Halibut Point’s parking lot, Lily, Max, and Sam sprint down a wide, shady path toward the visitors’ center. Sometimes, I can barely believe I’ve reached a stage in parenting where the only thing I need to yell is “Look out for poison ivy!” No matter their mood when they get in the van, by the time they are running down that path, the kids are excited and ready to explore. They know they can tour the visitors’ center, climb the watchtower, take part in an historical scavenger hunt, or just ramble down to the coast, where we all scramble over upended slabs of quarried granite pockmarked by tide pools filled with sea anemones, starfish, hermit crabs, and snails. On clear days, we eat sandwiches, gazing up the coast to New Hampshire. Legs and minds stretched, the kids have ventured so far from home that the whole world is their backyard. If they want a water fountain, it’s because they’re thirsty.

Halibut State Park is open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The rest of the year it’s open sunrise to sunset but since the tide pools do freeze in winter and the granite along the coast gets slippery, winter isn’t a great time to scramble along the shore.

Further Reading:  Laura Trim, North Texas, Every Nook and Cranny (Dallas, Tex., 1975). William E. Leuchtenburg, ed., American Places: Encounters with History, a Celebration of Sheldon Meyer (New York, 2000).

 

This article originally appeared in issue 2.3 (April, 2002).


Assistant Professor of History at Harvard University, Cathy Corman is author of Reading, Writing, and Removal, forthcoming from University of California Press. When she isn’t teaching courses on early America, the American West, and the history of the book, she is scheming to find ways to travel with her family.




A Hard Act is Good to Follow

Changing of the guard at Common-place

There have been some changes here at Common-place. As of January 1, founding editors Jane Kamensky and Jill Lepore have passed on their editorial duties to me (they remain active members of our editorial board). In turn, Stephen Mihm, a historian of nineteenth-century America who teaches at the University of Georgia, has taken my place as editor of our “Reviews” column. And Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, who teaches early American history at Harvard University, has replaced John Demos (who also remains a member of our board) as the new “Ask the Author” editor. The sponsorship of the journal has also changed. The history department at my home institution, Florida State University, has replaced the Gilder Lehrman Institute as the journal’s co-sponsor.

So much change presents a number of challenges. Greatest among these is insuring that you notice very little difference—at least for now. We plan to maintain the same passion for innovative writing, the same high editorial standards, and the same interest in creative, substantive research that Jane and Jill brought to Common-place. We also expect Common-place to maintain its much-coveted ability to reach beyond the usual bounds of historical scholarship. And I mean this in all its various implications: Common-place has been, and will remain, a place for writing that reaches into multiple disciplines and that challenges readers to think across the familiar boundaries of academic history. Similarly, we will uphold Jane and Jill’s initial ambition of reaching the broadest possible audience, from academic historians, teachers, archivists, curators, and public historians to students, genealogists, and the generally interested reader. 

When it comes to Common-place, continuity is a good thing. But when it comes to the Internet, continuity is something else altogether. No need to rehearse all the familiar platitudes about technology and modern life; suffice it to say that much about our medium has changed in the five years since Common-place’s inception. As we pursue our mission, the evolution of Internet technologies presents us with some exciting new opportunities. In particular, the word “interactive” has acquired a much more literal meaning. It is now more economical for us to build a truly interactive Website that is visited less by readers than by participants.

In coming months we plan to strengthen the interactive qualities of Common-place. You will see this first in a revamped version of “Object Lessons,” our popular material culture column. Using Flash technology, it is now possible for authors to do much more than simply write about an object. They will be able to provide virtual tours, integrating text and image to afford a truly multidimensional excursion into past material worlds. 

We are also exploring ways to strengthen our classroom presence. It has become routine in my own classes for students, unprompted by yours truly, to rely on Common-place as a reference. When they begin their research on Ben Franklin or New World slavery, their search engines regularly point them to Common-place. This is all well and good. But I often wish my students would look beyond whatever essay they happen to light upon and spend a bit more time using our site. One way to accomplish this is—once again—to provide more interactive content. To this end, we are developing a column that presents a specific document or set of documents and that, through a series of prompts, takes the reader on a tour of the document. Such tours will offer commentary and interpretation, so that a document such as a probate inventory, for example, will reveal to students the sorts of things it has revealed to historians. 

In our July issue, you will see a new, full-length column entitled “Common-Reading.” The idea for the column is to provide a more flexible forum for writing about books than the usual book review. In “Common-Reading,” authors will discuss a book or books—old or new, good or not so good—that, for some reason, have influenced their thinking. As the column evolves, we plan to add an interactive component that allows readers to add their own additional reflections. 

Some other things to look forward to are a special issue on money, to appear next spring, and, in the spring of 2007, one on the early history of the cartoon. Among my own editorial leanings is an interest in the ways contemporary artists represent and interpret the American past. As our capacity to incorporate sound, video, and other media into our site grows, so grows our ability to present the American past, and representations of the American past, in ever-more innovative ways. We can now bring film, performance, multimedia, and other modes of expression to our viewers. Look for features that do this and look for more contributions from the makers of these art forms. 

In sum, Common-place is as vigorous and innovative as ever. We hope you will agree that it promises to continue on the same exciting path blazed by the founding editors five years ago.

 

This article originally appeared in issue 5.3 (April, 2005).