Harris

Plain Folk and Gentry in a Slave Society: White Liberty and Black Slavery in Augusta’s Hinterlands. By J. William Harris. (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1985.)

J. William Harris’ Plain Folk and Gentry in a Slave Society, published in 1985, is a social history focusing on Augusta, GA that investigates the three-tiered class structure of the Old South: the planter elite, the non-slaveholding whites, and slaves. Like other historians, Harris seeks to understand why slavery could exist even if it was not directly beneficial to a majority of the population, particularly non-slaveholders and the slaves themselves. He argues that common backgrounds and value systems as well as racism were responsible for binding southern society together and were responsible for slavery’s persistence.

The first section of the monograph is dedicated to the period before the Civil War and describes the society in which slavery existed parallel to liberty and the sinews that allowed that world to exist. These connections, sometimes tenuous and perpetually strained, were the fabric from which a slave society was woven. Republicanism was sacrosanct in Augusta, GA. The right to property and liberty was something that these southerners held dear. When confronted with the antithesis of this liberty, chattel slavery, the bonds that held the region together allowed it to exist parallel to liberty. Political, economic, and cultural cohesion paired with racism and fear of the other prompted the residents of Augusta to allow for the existence of the peculiar institution. The second section of Plain Folk and Gentry is dedicated to the decay of these bonds. The Civil War strained them beyond the point of reconciliation. The gap between rich and poor became evident as the plain folk were decimated by the conflict and the rich were left relatively untouched. When the Confederacy instituted conscription, seized property, and instituted policies causing massive inflation, the non-slaveholding whites would not endure those infringements on their liberties and the system buckled under the strain.

As a social historian, Harris draws on a plethora of sources local to Augusta including census records, letters, diaries, sermons, newspapers, political speeches, etc. Some historians find it difficult to strike a balance between the qualitative and quantitative aspects of their subject but Harris treads that line in a very eloquent manner. He seamlessly incorporates the words of his subjects into his narrative and augments his assertions with the judicious use of statistical analysis without bogging down the reader in too much detail. This book is a model which other social historians should follow.

Within the historiography, Plain Folk and Gentry builds upon the past work of other historians such as Owsley in describing the oft-forgotten majority of Southerners. He contributes a great deal to this area by investigating the dynamic between the three classes of Southern society rather than investigating one of them in particular. Particularly, his incorporation of the slave community and slave agency as an integral piece of this ebb and flow makes his study stand out amongst others.

Overall, this book is well researched and extremely well-written. Harris shifts mercurially from vignette, to historiography, to qualitative analysis, and quantitative analysis to paint a rich portrait of Augusta’s hinterlands. It is another useful addition to any historian seeking to understand how the peculiar institution could exist alongside the republicanism and could be used in whole or in part at the upper-division or graduate level.

Michael Green

Plain Folk and Gentry in a Slave Society: White Liberty and Black Slavery in Augusta’s Hinterlands. By J. William Harris. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1985.

Historians have long argued about the causes of unity between the white planter class and slaveholders in general and non-slaveholding whites. Some have approached it in a Marxist paradigm, stressing class differences and the use of propaganda to impel poor whites to follow the planters into Civil War. A second group of historians has stressed racism and the concept of a “herrenvolk democracy” to explain white unity. In Plain Folk and Gentry, Harris explores a microstudy of the areas around Augusta, Georgia in a social study of white Southern society to further explore the above stated theories about white Southern society.

The author comes down more on the side who have stressed white unity on fundamentals, the former school of thought. However, he also found that this unity was precarious, with black slavery allowing white liberty without anarchy, an ideal Southerners called “republican.” But Harris also states that this republicanism was very pessimistic, reminding Southerners that political equality did not mean economic equality. Harris postulates that planters initiated secession to protect their rights, especially the right to own slaves, against both potential internal and external threats. The Civil War destroyed this Southern white unity and by the end of the war slave resistance and the disunity of society had increased so much that Confederate victory was impossible.

In the antebellum years in “Augusta’s hinterlands” the gap between rich and poor became more and more pronounced, to the point that slaveholders began worrying about the loyalty of non-slaveholders in their cause to perpetuate slavery. Utilizing the census numbers for cotton production and self-sufficiency, Harris concludes that because most were unwilling to diversify away from cotton as a staple crop, dependence became increasingly pronounced among the poorer residents of the Augusta area. This also led to increased instability and uneasiness among the planters, so that plans were even circulated to increase slaveholding among white families. While none of these plans came to fruition, it shows the desperation of planters to shore up their position by appealing to non-slaveholding whites, without whom the system of slavery would crumble.

Furthermore, slaves did not accept their condition willingly. Too much Christianity had been imparted to them in the course of antebellum Southern evangelicalism to not want their freedom. The master and the slave both knew the truth: that a unified white community held down a black one, which simply brought into stark relief the need for complete white unity on the slavery issue. Masters needed the help of all whites in patrolling and suppressing slave insurrection if the system were to survive.

White masters had two main fears by which opposition to slavery might rear its head among non-slaveholding whites. The first revolved around the idea that racism, ever-present in the South, might somehow turn itself into antagonism against those who owned blacks. The other fear came from the fact that poor white laborers often performed the same tasks and held the same jobs as slaves, and as such might come to identify with them in a class struggle against the elites. This partially fueled the motives of proponents of reopening the international slave trade, so that more whites would be able to own slaves, but most poor whites resisted this temptation, fearing that they might have to compete with black laborers for their livelihood. In all, Harris argues that class tensions heightened with the onset of Civil War, a war to preserve slavery and the slaveholders’ way of life. War brought increased divisions to the Southern society around Augusta, even dividing the planter class into pro and anti-Davis factions. By 1864 the sinews of Southern society had completely broken apart and the citizens of southeast Georgia found themselves in an entirely new world, that of the freed slave.

Harris concludes that “The great irony is that the war itself produced within the South exactly those threats to liberty and slavery that slaveowners had most feared.” (pp. 190) The Confederate war effort had necessitated a breakdown of private ownership of property and even the slave system itself. According to the author the resulting internal dissentions were the primary reason for the downfall of the Confederacy.

In his book, Plain Folk and Gentry in a Slave Society, J. William Harris attempts to explain the reasons for solidarity among the white male population of the Old South and their long support for slavery. Included in this analysis is the support provided to the Confederate government and its army during the Civil War. He demonstrates that a strong homogeneous relationship among white Southerners was not particularly assured considering the conflicting interests among the various classes of farmers and plantation owners. The strength of his book is that it consistently shows the complexity of interests, actions, and view points between whites of various classes as well as the relations between whites and blacks. He does not make sweeping summary statements which reduce complex issues to simple explanations. This book is written with integrity and provides an honest evaluation of the various social forces affecting the power structure of an area which he considers to be representative of the Old South.

The geographical focus of Plain Folk and Gentry in a Slave Society is an area which he refers to as Augusta and its hinterlands. This could best be described as the parts of Georgia and South Carolina adjacent to the Savannah River north and south of Augusta, and along the Georgia and South Carolina Railroad which runs east and west through Augusta, Georgia. If you think of this as an imperfect +, there would be some area in all quadrants, but the bulk would be in the upper left. This was part of the 1773 cession of Creek and Cherokee land which Harris labels one of the “first duchies in cotton’s kingdom.” This land was initially settled by Quakers who were ultimately replaced by immigrants from Virginia and North Carolina. The Southerners brought their culture with them, of course, including the institution of slavery. The Quaker’s disgust of slavery soon forced them from the area leaving Augusta and its hinterlands to become firmly southern in both culture and economy.

One of the major themes that Harris addresses throughout the book is the ability of southern whites of reconcile the ideals of white liberty with that of black slavery. It is interesting that one of the strongest arguments in favor of Negro bondage was that it enhanced the equality of white people. In short, it eliminated the bottom strata from the white class structure thereby contributing to a more egalitarian white society. The justification for leaving blacks in this perpetual position of subjugation was based on the racist belief that they were naturally inferior. The theory also held that blacks were willing to accept their inferior status and were happy in their bondage. This is important because there was an underlying concern that poorer whites could become resentful of the superior status of large plantation owners and other southerners of great wealth. If this resentment were further exacerbated by abolitionist ideology there was potential for a common cause between poor whites and black slaves. One way to undercut this prospect was to maintain in the minds of all white southerners the natural inferiority of Africans and that their subjugation ensured greater equality—and thereby greater liberty—for all whites.
In addition to this ideological approach to achieving white solidarity, there were many other ways in which the wealthy planters and the plain folk were drawn together. The most significant of these include the ability of the large planters to assist their poorer neighbors in time of need, the need for political support from the plain folk, and the evangelical religion that was commonly practiced throughout the South. The ability of the large planter to withstand the adversities of nature and the economy is obvious. They had economies of scale which could better tide them over during difficult times. Their willingness to support their less successful neighbors during times of privation was very common, and was both an act of compassion and of cunning social manipulation. It went beyond providing food and material in time of need, and included such services as providing loans and credit sales. This created intertwining relationships that tended to bring the various elements of society into a form of interdependency. The effect was to strengthen the relationships among the various classes of whites. Interestingly, this support was not limited to relationship between rich and poor, but often included financial arrangements among the higher members of society. This generous support occurring among various levels within the white society was often never repaid, and in many cases was considered as a cost of doing business.

The political aspect of this society was another area where great interactions occurred among the various classes. The political structure of the South Carolina and Georgia sections of the hinterland were very different (counties in Georgia, and districts in South Carolina), but the need for the political leaders to appeal for votes was quite similar. Although the franchise was limited, the voter turnout was phenomenally high often reaching the 90 percent level. It even reached 100 percent in one critical election of 1858. When powerful planters or other men of wealth sought to hold political office, they needed the votes of their white neighbors. Also, political office was not limited to only the wealthy or elite of society. Even poorer whites could enter politics and it was possible for them to rise within the system. This would, in turn, require support from their richer neighbors thereby further integrating the relationship. Political activity in that time period was a major factor in the bonding together of the various classes within the Augusta hinterlands. The fact that both political and social mobility was possible contributed to the strengthening of white solidarity. The career of Alexander H. Stephens serves as an extreme example the availability of this opportunity.

Perhaps the most important, and most interesting, “ligament” of the community was that of religion. Not all white southerners in the Augusta hinterland were church members or attended church regularly. However, most southerners did participate in religion to some degree either casually or as an active church member. Almost all practicing Christians were Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian in the evangelical tradition of the Great Revival. Evangelical religion was perhaps the most egalitarian institution available in the Augusta hinterlands. It preached the equality of all people before God, held all members to the same standards, and created a mutual support society for its members. It is interesting that blacks were also strong believers and often were members of the same churches as whites. Although this religious associated had the positive effect of creating good will between whites and blacks, it did not have the effect of lessening support for the institution of slavery.
In summarizing the effect of these forces, Harris stated: “As neighbors, as Christians, and as citizens, white men met and talked, lent and borrowed, worshipped, campaigned and voted. This face-to-face interaction in small-scale communities helped give substance to white solidarity and forge ‘social and political ligaments’ among southern classes, … Churches brought together rich and poor as well as black and white to seek common salvation, but dissension sometimes wracked even these godly communities. Factionalism in and out of party politics could bitterly divide citizens. Counties and districts split over taxes, roads, or the location of the courthouse. But they did not fight over slavery. … In part, this was because slaveowners succeeded, most of the time, in getting poorer men to see themselves as part of a single white community, whose geographical and symbolic center was the courthouse.”

Harris continues his study to include an analysis of the causes of secession, the conditions under the Confederate government, and the impact of the Civil War on these relationships. He concedes that there continues to be a great disagreement on the fundamental impulse behind secession. However, he believes that regardless of the many complex reasons, it was clear that most southern leaders felt that white liberty and black slavery were inseparably bound together. Conditions had brought them to a point where bold steps were required to maintain these ideals under mounting challenges. For the most part, they did not expect an immediate impact from the election of Lincoln or the growing influence of abolitionists. But they believed these, and other forces at work, would create conditions which would ultimately undermine their culture and economic system. Their reaction to these concerns brought about secession, the Confederacy, and the Civil War. The demands of the war were to create the ultimate irony for southerners. Necessity forced the Confederacy to produce exactly those threats to liberty and slavery that secession had sought to prevent. Such actions as conscription, seizing property, suspension of habeas corpus, and ultimately recruiting slaves into military service with the promise of receiving their freedom were all unthinkable at the time of secession. Defeat was, of course, to change completely the social structure of Augusta and her hinterlands.

Plain Folk and Gentry in a Slave Society: While Liberty and Black Slavery in Augusta’s Hinterlands. By J. William Harris. (Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, c. 1985. Pp. xv, 274. E445 G3 H37 1985.

J. William Harris received a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins in 1982 and is an assistant professor of history at the University of New Hampshire. Plain Folk and Gentry, his dissertation, dealt with the area surrounding Augusta, Georgia, from 1850 to 1865, including counties in both Georgia and South Carolina. Harris relied heavily on local government records for analysis of wealth, distribution of slaveholding, and social and economic mobility, statistics presented in over thirty graphs and tables. Harris provided end notes, an index, and a bibliographical essay divided by sources.

Harris suggested that historians are divided into two major groups on the question of why the three-quarters of Southern Whites who did not own slaves followed slaveholders into a war to defend slavery. Many, such as Hesseltine and Genovese, believed that slave owners dominated the lower classes through deception and by violent opposition to any suggestion of compromise. Others argued that Whites, despite distinctions as to wealth and ownership of slaves, remained unified. Owsley and Craven believed that racism and a common agrarian background bound all Whites together while others, such as Wyatt-Brown, emphasized the unifying themes of Southern attitudes, ethics, and a unique honor system. Harris agreed with historians who emphasized Southern unity based on shared fundamentals of agrarianism, racism, and cotton production but argued that that unity was precarious and planters could never be certain that the bonds of unity would survive assaults from abolitionists and Southern class divisions between owners and non owners of slaves.

Clear class distinctions remained in the South but they were never a threat to slavery. Poor Whites with less than $250 in wealth constituted thirty to forty percent of the population of one county while twenty-five percent had $10,000 or more. The prevailing trend, a reduction in the number of slave owners but an increase in the average number of slaves per owner, made owners anxious. They feared that the widening economic gap would lead to a realization of a commonality of interests between Blacks and poor Whites and instituted tax breaks to spread slave ownership but the effort never accomplished much.

Harris believed that personal ties were the ligaments that bound society together but that dissensions still existed. Those relationships were evident in the widespread use of credit. Although debts had a divisive potential they were not a problem because of general prosperity. Religion, which was largely without social distinctions, also served to unify. Politics was a unifying force in that many officeholders were men of moderate means and all candidates had to appeal to a wide voter spectrum. While those interactions forged White solidarity other forces created disagreements. Public and bitter debates occurred over religion, debts, and political issues but never over slavery, largely because slave owners succeeded in having the poor see themselves as part of a single White community.

Initially the war accelerated class unity but strains quickly developed. Disputes arose in the military between the infantry and the more elite cavalry and between soldiers and the officer corps made up largely of elites. As the war raged the Confederacy severely restricted liberties; imposing a draft and impressing property and slaves. Those measures affected the poor more because they did not have slaves to work their farms when called away and were less able to absorb losses from impressments. Other divisive measures included the draft exemption of any man who owned twenty slaves or more and the ability of the upper classes to secure safe staff positions. In addition, financing the war created runaway inflation that fell harder on the poor than the more resourceful planters.

By 1863 the South was reeling from military losses and class divisions that sapped the will to fight while slave resistance grew. Class tensions were exacerbated by slavery because it divided Southern society into slave owners and non-owners, leading poor Southerners to view the war as a rich man’s quarrel but a poor man’s fight. Consequently, the army suffered a growing rate of desertion fueled mostly by the poor; only one in nine deserters owned slaves. On the home front the underpinnings of society seemed to be overwhelmed by an increasing crime rate. The Confederacy, facing a retreating army and growing internal dissensions, became more and more despotic, a move which further attacked the will to fight. Harris suggested that South could have prevailed by dropping tyrannical policies and mounting a military campaign based on equality.

Secession happened because planters feared that Republicans would spread their anti-slavery agenda among both Blacks and the plain folk. They then pulled the poor into a war to preserve both liberty and slavery but the supreme irony was that the war produced the threats to liberty and slavery that planters feared. The Confederacy conscripted men, seized property, and suspended habeas corpus while the gap widened between rich and poor, destroying White unity. The war undermined slavery by making Blacks aware of liberty and therefore, more rebellious. Attempts to control slaves by exempting planters and overseers from the draft only increased class divisions. The combination of internal conflicts were a principal cause of the collapse of the Confederacy.

Harris’ study was interesting but not compelling. He seemed to have amalgamated several prevailing themes into vague and unsupported arguments that run from the obvious to the unsupported. His argument that Southern unity was precarious hardly offered a significant departure from previous ideas. Likewise, his assertion that the war strained the ties between planter and plain folk failed to meet the test of new and important. I would argue that all losing conflicts create disruption of community. The argument that class conflicts were a principal cause of Confederate collapse is poorly defined and the suggestion that the South could have triumphed if it had somehow overcome class divisions is bare of serious scholarship or thought. Could any government in a conflict of the magnitude of the Civil War not use conscription? What were the South’s options to the draft and impressments? That Harris neither asked nor answered those questions indicated the shallowness of his effort.