This one wasn't quit ready to send, but the main points seem clear enough. On Thu, May 13, 2021, 12:54 PM Mark Lause <markala...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The planters not only tended to be the most wealthy, but were the most > conservative, and tied more closely to the empire, including the most > private debt to the British, from which independence ultimately freed > them. (That would be a more immediate and conscious incentive for the > planters to favor the Revolution. Nevertheless, the British strategists > and the hardcore colonial separatists saw the plantation owners as being > the most pro-British, having the most to lose. > > As to the character of the class that ruled the Southern states . . . . > If you went through a county seat anywhere in the settled parts of the > U.S., you'd see a courthouse and some kind of public space surrounded by > law offices. You'd have hotels for people in town for legal business or > shopping. The place might have eateries or saloons, but the hotel could > usually provide these as well. Unless the county had just gone through one > of its financial panics, you'd have a bank of some sorts, as well as > stores, with the postmaster usually working out of one of them. A > blacksmith shop and livery would be essential, but so were some small scale > artisan workshops produced and/or repaired items like shoes. Many had > printing offices that issued newspapers. You'd have churches, of course, > with the brands and mix of denominations varying with the area--but all not > that different either, mostly variations of Protestant Christianity. Oh, > you'd likely also have a local masonic lodge. If it's been around for a > while, the town may have grown its bad side with cheaper alcohol, brothers, > gambling, etc. > > Most days, you could identify social class by what they were wearing, > though not so much as would be the case in a large city, but class > distinctions became more overt around election time. Even any plebs > involved in it dressed up. State governments in capital cities knit these > together into a coherent governing force. If it were a national election, > the parties that contended would almost always be the same in any corner of > the country. These were centers of power, even where allowing peculiar > local circumstances in which the rural areas politically rebelled against > their dominance. Rarely did these communities (at least outside of New > England) not include individuals from other parts of the country. > > So what was the class nature of that rule? > > In communities like this north or south of the Mason-Dixon line or the > Ohio river, the businessmen, lawyers, shopkeepers, etc. often owned > > I agree with E.P. Thompson that the working class was present at its own > making. > > They tried the same thing in 1861.) > > In the > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#8547): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/8547 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/82563203/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
