| Line 26: |
Line 26: |
| | | | |
| | The stockade village, named "[[Jamestown]]" after King James I, was poorly sited in a grassy swamp filled with malaria-bearing mosquitos. There was a shortage of fresh water or good soil. Malaria and other diseases, "starving times" of low food supplies, low morale, poor leadership, and repeated Indian attacks left Jamestown on the verge of extinction. In 1624 the company was bankrupt and the king revoked the charter; the colony thus came under the direct administration of the crown until 1775. | | The stockade village, named "[[Jamestown]]" after King James I, was poorly sited in a grassy swamp filled with malaria-bearing mosquitos. There was a shortage of fresh water or good soil. Malaria and other diseases, "starving times" of low food supplies, low morale, poor leadership, and repeated Indian attacks left Jamestown on the verge of extinction. In 1624 the company was bankrupt and the king revoked the charter; the colony thus came under the direct administration of the crown until 1775. |
| | + | |
| | + | The second Tidewater War of 1644-46 was a decisive struggle between a vigorous colonial society and a declining Indian civilization. After the initial Indian attack led by Opechancanough, the Virginians launched a three-pronged campaign that dealt a heavy blow to the Powhatan Indian confederation. As a result of the 1646 treaty, Indians were sent to small reservations. Most white Virginia men were willing enough to serve or support the militia and cooperated with the demands of the military system; success also came from the demographic nature of the colony. Virginia's victory was a major step toward the Anglo-American domination of the continent. |
| | | | |
| | ==Colonial Era== | | ==Colonial Era== |
| Line 32: |
Line 34: |
| | Demographic conditions after 1660 were increasingly favorable. Malaria was not fatal to people born in Virginia, and the food supply was ample. Both the white and black population grew rapidly. Wars were uncommon and small-scale. Immigration comprised mostly middle class families, plus poor teenagers who came as "indentured servants" and became fully independent at age 21. Between 1718 and 1775, Britain dumped about 20,000 convicts in Virginia (after the Revolution it sent them to Australia). | | Demographic conditions after 1660 were increasingly favorable. Malaria was not fatal to people born in Virginia, and the food supply was ample. Both the white and black population grew rapidly. Wars were uncommon and small-scale. Immigration comprised mostly middle class families, plus poor teenagers who came as "indentured servants" and became fully independent at age 21. Between 1718 and 1775, Britain dumped about 20,000 convicts in Virginia (after the Revolution it sent them to Australia). |
| | | | |
| − | Politically the planters controlled local government through their control of the Anglican parishes and county government; neither was elected. The planters also controlled elections to the the colonial legislature, the House of Burgesses. English institutions were changed into a system of democracy--most white men owned property so they could and did vote, and usually voted for their "betters". (In England, by contrast, fewer than 10% of the men could vote.) | + | Politically the planters controlled local government through their control of the Anglican parishes and county government; neither was elected. The planters also controlled elections to the the colonial legislature, the House of Burgesses. English institutions were changed into a system of democracy--most white men owned property so they could and did vote, and usually voted for their "betters". (In England, by contrast, fewer than 10% of the men could vote.) The genrty tried to emulate the life style of British gentlemen; their favorite pastimes were gambling, billiards, cards, bowling, cockfighting, and especially horse racing. |
| | + | |
| | ===Women=== | | ===Women=== |
| | It was a patriarchal society ruled exclusively by men. However, if a man overstepped the boundaries of local norms, the county court could intervene and punish him. Thus in 1668-70 a rich planter named Henry Smith was charged several times in court--he was accused of concubinage, wife beating, adultery, child abuse, fathering bastards, sexual harassment, rape, and brutality toward servants. The court heard damning testimony from his wife and from his mistress and other local women. Illiterate and isolated but well versed in their legal and customary rights and duties, the women knew how to handle Smith, who was found guilty.<ref> Irmina Wawrzyczek, "The Women of Accomack Versus Henry Smith: Gender, Legal Recourse, and the Social Order in Seventeenth-Century Virginia," ''Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,'' 1997 105(1): 5-26; on patriarchy, see by Kathleen M. Brown, ''Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia'' (1996). </ref> | | It was a patriarchal society ruled exclusively by men. However, if a man overstepped the boundaries of local norms, the county court could intervene and punish him. Thus in 1668-70 a rich planter named Henry Smith was charged several times in court--he was accused of concubinage, wife beating, adultery, child abuse, fathering bastards, sexual harassment, rape, and brutality toward servants. The court heard damning testimony from his wife and from his mistress and other local women. Illiterate and isolated but well versed in their legal and customary rights and duties, the women knew how to handle Smith, who was found guilty.<ref> Irmina Wawrzyczek, "The Women of Accomack Versus Henry Smith: Gender, Legal Recourse, and the Social Order in Seventeenth-Century Virginia," ''Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,'' 1997 105(1): 5-26; on patriarchy, see by Kathleen M. Brown, ''Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia'' (1996). </ref> |
| | + | |
| | + | Despite male political control, women had some economic power. Men generally believed their wives were competent to control their estates and to wield economic power, and widows proved self-reliant and able managers of their property and wealth. Running farms without the help of a son, widows often delayed giving children their inheritance, wielding their economic power for personal and familial ends. However, whereas male opportunity for independence and power increased with age, it decreased with age for women. Older men were much less likely than younger men to transfer their economic power to their wives, instead passing it along to adult children. |
| | + | |
| | | | |
| | ===Slaves=== | | ===Slaves=== |
| Line 42: |
Line 48: |
| | | | |
| | ===Religion=== | | ===Religion=== |
| − | The Anglican religion was established--meaning that taxes were collected to support the church and the parish handled poor relief. Most Virginians were not very religious, but most also believed in a spirit world. The supernatural world of the settlers involved belief in benevolent and demonic forces, divine judgment, omens, magic, witchcraft, combat with the devil, and other ideas brought over from England. This complex supernatural world functioned to explain the unknown, sanction colonization, demonize the native population, control the colonists, and provide a defense against internal and external enemies.<ref> Edward L. Bond, "Source of Knowledge, Source of Power: The Supernatural World of English Virginia, 1607-1624." ''Virginia Magazine of History and Biography'' 2000 108(2): 105-138. 0042-6636 </ref>
| + | Most Virginians were not very religious, but most also believed in a spirit world. The supernatural world of the settlers involved belief in benevolent and demonic forces, divine judgment, omens, magic, witchcraft, combat with the devil, and other ideas brought over from England. This complex supernatural world functioned to explain the unknown, sanction colonization, demonize the native population, control the colonists, and provide a defense against internal and external enemies.<ref> Edward L. Bond, "Source of Knowledge, Source of Power: The Supernatural World of English Virginia, 1607-1624." ''Virginia Magazine of History and Biography'' 2000 108(2): 105-138. 0042-6636 </ref> |
| | | | |
| − | . Scattered settlements and the lack of trained Anglican ministers meant that piety was practiced mostly at home. Itinerant ministers encouraged parishioners to use the ''Book of Common Prayer'' for private prayer and devotion. This allowed Anglicans to lead an active and sincere religious life apart from formal church services. Private piety, however, weakened the Anglican Church, and what clergy there were were controlled by the laymen in the vestry. As a result Anglicans were unable to counter the [[First Great Awakening]], which created a large Baptist denomination. | + | The Anglican religion was established--meaning that taxes were collected to support the church and the parish handled poor relief. Scattered settlements and the lack of trained Anglican ministers --there were only 109 Anglican ministers in 1775--meant that piety was practiced mostly at home. Itinerant ministers encouraged parishioners to use the ''Book of Common Prayer'' for private prayer and devotion. This allowed Anglicans to lead an active and sincere religious life apart from formal church services. Private piety, however, weakened the Anglican Church, and what clergy there were were controlled by the laymen in the vestry. As a result Anglicans were unable to counter the [[First Great Awakening]], which created a large Baptist denomination. |
| | | | |
| | ===Rise of the Baptists=== | | ===Rise of the Baptists=== |
| Line 54: |
Line 60: |
| | | | |
| | ==American Revolution== | | ==American Revolution== |
| | + | The Stamp Act of 1765 outraged Viginians. Their historic rights of Englishmen had been trampled because they were not consulted regarded the new tax. [[Patrick Henry]] persuaded the Virginia House of Burgesses to adopt in May, 1765, the Virginia Resolves against the Stamp Act: not only did Henry deliver the famous Caesar-Brutus speech; he wrote the Resolves, planned with George Johnston the strategies for debate on the house floor, and spoke at several points in the debate which initiated colonial resistance to the Act, resistance which culminated in the Act's repeal in 1766. |
| | | | |
| | Physician, planter, patriot, soldier, legislator, Theodorick Bland (1742-1790) was an active participant in the major events of his time. Born into a prominent family at the zenith of Virginia's golden age, Bland was trained in medicine in Scotland, London and Paris. He gave up his medical practice in 1771, becoming a tobacco planter and politician. His public career was spent in the defense of the gentry's power and position. His principal motivation was his desire to enable the world of his birth to survive and prosper in the wake of the massive political, economic, and social upheavals that occurred during the 1770s-90s. he raised a regiment and fought alongside [[George Washington]]. Most of Washington’s officers became federalists who supported the Constitution in 1788, but not Bland. Bland's antifederalist views were the ultimate manifestation of his devotion to the world of the tobacco aristocracy. Like [[Patrick Henry]] and [[George Mason]], Bland voted against the new constitution, viewing the document as a serious threat to their power and position. When it was adopted, he ran for and was elected to Congress, but died before he made his mark there. | | Physician, planter, patriot, soldier, legislator, Theodorick Bland (1742-1790) was an active participant in the major events of his time. Born into a prominent family at the zenith of Virginia's golden age, Bland was trained in medicine in Scotland, London and Paris. He gave up his medical practice in 1771, becoming a tobacco planter and politician. His public career was spent in the defense of the gentry's power and position. His principal motivation was his desire to enable the world of his birth to survive and prosper in the wake of the massive political, economic, and social upheavals that occurred during the 1770s-90s. he raised a regiment and fought alongside [[George Washington]]. Most of Washington’s officers became federalists who supported the Constitution in 1788, but not Bland. Bland's antifederalist views were the ultimate manifestation of his devotion to the world of the tobacco aristocracy. Like [[Patrick Henry]] and [[George Mason]], Bland voted against the new constitution, viewing the document as a serious threat to their power and position. When it was adopted, he ran for and was elected to Congress, but died before he made his mark there. |
| Line 105: |
Line 112: |
| | *Freeman, Douglas Southall; ''George Washington: A Biography'' Volume: 1-7. (1948). Pulitzer Prize. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=62946671 vol 1 online] | | *Freeman, Douglas Southall; ''George Washington: A Biography'' Volume: 1-7. (1948). Pulitzer Prize. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=62946671 vol 1 online] |
| | * Gleach; Frederic W. ''Powhatan's World and Colonial Virginia: A Conflict of Cultures'' University of Nebraska Press. 1997. | | * Gleach; Frederic W. ''Powhatan's World and Colonial Virginia: A Conflict of Cultures'' University of Nebraska Press. 1997. |
| − | *[http://www.shop-vahistorical.org/landoncarter.html Isaac, Rhys. ''Landon Carter's Uneasy Kingdom: Revolution and Rebellion on a Virginia Plantation'' (2004)] | + | *[http://www.shop-vahistorical.org/landoncarter.html Rhys Isaac, ''Landon Carter's Uneasy Kingdom: Revolution and Rebellion on a Virginia Plantation'' (2004)] |
| − | *Isaac, Rhys. ''The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790'' (1982, 1999)] Pulitzer Prize winner, dealing with religion and morality [[http://jsr.fsu.edu/hall.htm online review] | + | *Isaac, Rhys. ''The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790'' (1982, 1999)] Pulitzer Prize winner, dealing with religion and morality [[http://jsr.fsu.edu/hall.htm online review] |
| | *Lebsock, Suzanne D. ''A Share of Honour: Virginia Women, 1600-1945'' (1984) | | *Lebsock, Suzanne D. ''A Share of Honour: Virginia Women, 1600-1945'' (1984) |
| | * Majewski, John. ''A House Dividing: Economic Development in Pennsylvania and Virginia before the Civil War'' (2000) | | * Majewski, John. ''A House Dividing: Economic Development in Pennsylvania and Virginia before the Civil War'' (2000) |
| | + | * Menard, Russell R. "The Tobacco Industry in the Chesapeake Colonies, 1617-1730: An Interpretation." ''Research In Economic History'' 1980 5: 109-177. 0363-3268 the standard scholarly study |
| | *Morgan, Edmund S. ''Virginians at Home: Family Life in the Eighteenth Century'' (1952). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=22950387 online edition] | | *Morgan, Edmund S. ''Virginians at Home: Family Life in the Eighteenth Century'' (1952). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=22950387 online edition] |
| | *Morgan, Edmund S. ''American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia'' (1975) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/american-slavery-american-freedom-the-ordeal-of-colonial-virginia-by-edmund-s-morgan.jsp online edition] highly influential study | | *Morgan, Edmund S. ''American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia'' (1975) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/american-slavery-american-freedom-the-ordeal-of-colonial-virginia-by-edmund-s-morgan.jsp online edition] highly influential study |
| Line 117: |
Line 125: |
| | *Roeber, A. G. ''Faithful Magistrates and Republican Lawyers: Creators of Virginia Legal Culture, 1680-1810'' (1981) | | *Roeber, A. G. ''Faithful Magistrates and Republican Lawyers: Creators of Virginia Legal Culture, 1680-1810'' (1981) |
| | *Selby, John E. ''The Revolution in Virginia, 1775-1783'' (1988) | | *Selby, John E. ''The Revolution in Virginia, 1775-1783'' (1988) |
| | + | * Rutman, Darrett B., and Anita H. Rutman. ''A Place in Time: Middlesex County, Virginia, 1650-1750'' (1984), new social history |
| | *Shade, William G. ''Democratizing the Old Dominion: Virginia and the Second Party System 1824-1861'' (1996) | | *Shade, William G. ''Democratizing the Old Dominion: Virginia and the Second Party System 1824-1861'' (1996) |
| | *Shanks, Henry T. ''The Secession Movement in Virginia, 1847-1861'' (1934) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-secession-movement-in-virginia-1847-1861-by-henry-t-shanks.jsp online edition] | | *Shanks, Henry T. ''The Secession Movement in Virginia, 1847-1861'' (1934) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-secession-movement-in-virginia-1847-1861-by-henry-t-shanks.jsp online edition] |
| Line 171: |
Line 180: |
| | [[Category:United States History]] | | [[Category:United States History]] |
| | [[Category:The South]] | | [[Category:The South]] |
| | + | [[Category:Black History]] |