Autumn Woods

Autumn Woods, by Albert Bierstadt. 1886

 

Reading a very inter­est­ing col­lec­tion of essays, The Genuine Article, by Edmund S. Morgan. It’s an his­tor­i­cal look at early American life, taken pri­mar­ily from his arti­cles for the New York Review of Books.

Lots of food for thought. He tells us (indi­rectly) that his­to­ri­ans of that early period have spent most of their time with New England, not because of bias, but because of avail­able records. We are blessed with a huge amount and vari­ety of jour­nals, let­ters, pub­lic records, and assorted writ­ten indi­ca­tions of life for the early set­tlers in the north, but very lit­tle for those in Virginia and south of that colony. There was also a dif­fer­ence in fam­ily life, ratio of male to female and life expectancy that favored New England. More fam­i­lies set­tled in the north ini­tially. Virginia and other south­ern colonies seemed to get far more inden­tured ser­vants, and then slaves, and far fewer intact fam­i­lies. This seems to have had an impact of writ­ten records from the point of view of the set­tlers them­selves. The Civil War also played a destruc­tive role in preser­va­tion. The records housed in Richmond, Virginia were mostly destroyed dur­ing the war.

Morgan also tries his hand at his­tor­i­cal analy­sis of The Crucible, Arthur Miller’s play about the Salem Witch Trials, and the movie made from that play in 1996. He’s highly impressed with both, though he tells us of the his­tor­i­cal inac­cu­ra­cies, but does so gen­tly. It’s inter­est­ing to think of Miller’s play in the con­text of the Communist witch hunts of the time of his writ­ing, and how it impacted his own bat­tle with McCarthyism.

There is also dis­cus­sion of gen­der roles in early America and a review of sev­eral books on the sub­ject. Without hav­ing read the books under review, it’s hard to know if Morgan’s crit­i­cism is just or fair, but his points make sense. As when he ques­tions whether it is accu­rate to paint New England with the brush of a thinker (Robert Filmer) whose major work (Patriarcha) was pub­lished in 1680, after the period in ques­tion. Or, that the author set up a fair dichotomy between north and south when it came to gen­der roles. Filmerian for New England, Lockean for Virginia and parts fur­ther south.

There is also some dis­cus­sion of the rel­a­tive merit involved in con­cen­trat­ing on “ordi­nary” peo­ple (in the south­ern colonies), their every­day lives, at the expense of big events. Morgan makes the log­i­cal crit­i­cism that it is one thing to bring those who have been neglected by pre­vi­ous his­to­ri­ans into the fore­front, and still another to make assump­tions based upon very sketchy records. The case in point being Bacon’s Rebellion (1676) and its impact on ordi­nary folks in Middlesex County, Virginia. The authors under review opine that the rebel­lion was of very lit­tle con­se­quence to aver­age Virginians. Morgan coun­ters with the fact that his­to­ri­ans have lit­tle to go on in the way of actual, writ­ten records for that con­clu­sion. He con­cedes it may be true. But because of scant evi­dence, it is con­jec­ture, rather than fac­tual deduction.

The writ­ing is solid. Morgan gets in and out of his sub­jects quickly, directly. I’m look­ing for­ward to fin­ish­ing it up and return­ing to it from time to time.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts