Masters of Small Worlds is a comprehensive study of the everyday lives of the yeoman farmer class of the South Carolina low country. Stephanie McCurry chooses to focus specifically on St. Peter’s Parish, which sits on the outside edge of the Beaufort District, though she does move out of this area somewhat to define her characters and present a complete picture of life in the Low Country. She looks at not only the life of the yeoman farmer, but also attempts to examine the complex relationship that existed between the independent yeoman farmer and his neighbor, the planter, who controlled a disproportionate amount of the wealth among the community. In 1850, the planter class of the Low Country controlled seventy percent of the state's wealth. This had a huge impact of the relationship between the farmers and planters, as the farmers struggled to be independent while living in a state of blatant inequality. McCurry investigates the yeoman’s motives behind both nullification and secession and offers a solid explanation as to why these two classes, who are at odds with one another a majority of the time, could come together and find a common ground within these issues.

 The life of the yeoman farmer was one of constant struggle. There were never really any aspirations for these farmers to become members of the planter class, but this class could become reasonably self-sufficient. McCurry defines this class as any self-working farmer, owning nine slaves or less. Normally, they would add to their work force by having an abundance of children. The concentration on these farms was put on the production of food for home consumption with only minor allotments for sale at market, such as rice or cotton.

 Gender, race, class, and regional relations shaped the political life of South Carolina. McCurry describes the power limits of the low country as based on the complex web of the household, relationships between households, and those between regions. These were the defining boundaries of the yeoman class. A discussion is presented concerning spatial boundaries between yeoman and planters on the use of unfenced land, both public and private and this establishes the interaction between these two classes for the remainder of the study. Though the planter appeared to control most of the politics dealing with the region, no law or custom could attack the household of the yeoman farmer. The yeoman’s independence was created by his rule over his household, while outside his household the planter class was the dominant political force in the low country.

 Religion in the Low Country  mirrored many of the other aspects of yeoman life. The evangelical churches grabbed hold of this part of the state. Revivals did occur, though they frightened much of the male population who chose to attend these meetings. There was a fear among this population that revivals led white women and both sexes of slaves “to orgasmic convulsion and liberating conversion.” (148) But this fear was resolved because like many other parts of their lives, there was a hierarchal system within the religious community in this area.

McCurry uses the issue of gender in her analysis of why the small farmer would follow the planter’s lead in nullification and secession. A constant struggle existed between these as classes as the yeoman asserted his own economic and political sovereignty, but there were common thread that ties them together. McCurry argues that this common goal was based on the preservation of public rights and the maintenance of supremacy over women and slaves. Before the Nullification Crisis, an almost aristocratic planter class ignored the yeoman farmer politically. The need for the yeoman vote pushed the planter class to court the farmers. They did this by putting the battle over the tariff in terms the yeoman could understand. The planter convinced the yeoman that their domination over household and property was at stake and this released a long held belief that the farmers had a legitimate stake in slavery.

There was no other issue as important as secession that required the yeoman farmers vote. For the yeoman farmer, secession had as much to do with keeping their women in a submissive position as it did with the issue of slavery and once again the planter class played off of this. The farmers feared expanded rights of women would grow out of the slavery debates and this allowed them as much concern as the planter class on the issue of secession. They felt the end of slavery would ultimately destroy the patriarchal system in which the small farmer was truly master of his world. She also asserts that the issue of secession became a greater fight for the yeoman farmer and it was this class that became the leading advocate of secession, even more so than the fire-eaters. The popular vote to leave the Union was cast by the yeoman as a direct response to a perceived threat towards the yeoman’s manhood. They did not share in the excitement and elegance in signing the Ordinance of Secession and were never perceived as equal’s of the planter class. But the yeoman farmer had as much to benefit from fighting for the Confederacy’s independence, as did his wealthy neighbor. The yeoman farmer was truly a “master of a small world” and in declaring independence in 1860, he was acting in defense of his own distinctive role. McCurry completes her study by describing the Civil War as a popular revolution, based on the yeoman farmer’s beliefs.

 Stephanie McCurry received her PhD from SUNY and is currently an associate professor of History at Northwestern University. Her areas of specialty include nineteenth century American women’s history and gender history, with a focus on southern and political history. Her book Masters of Small Worlds won five awards including best book in southern history and best book in American Studies.

Sharon Romero