Culture and Liberty in the Age of the American Revolution

II. Fear of Levelling and Licentiousness

64 culture and liberty in the age of the american revolution know Dos not agree with the great Spiritt of the Northern Gentry.’’ Charles Thomson was appalled by the corrupting e√ects of slavery on the Southern elite, and worried that it might impede the creation of a federal state, because, ‘‘such is the fiery pride of South Carolina, such a dissipation in her morals & her insolence occasioned by the multitude of slaves that she will not cordially join in any Union.’’ It is important to note, however, that all of these authors were merely pointing to di√erences that existed among members of same class, one to which they felt they all unshakably belonged. Their shared status as members of the elite was stronger than their regional or political alliances. This was not the case between elites in the metropole and those in the colonies: during the War of Independence, a British gentleman o≈cer did not hesitate to characterize the Loyalist groups who fought for his royal cause in the Southern backcountry of America as ‘‘mere rabble.’’∞∞ II. Fear of Levelling and Licentiousness Since every Commonwealth consists of Two Orders of Men, the People properly so called, and the Populace, or Inferior Multitude; we may accordingly reckon two orders only of Citizens, the Noble and the Plebeian. —Wawrzyniec Goślicki, The Accomplished Senator, 1773 One of the reasons for the colonials’ urge to reproduce familiar and recognizable social structures was their fear of chaos—the antithesis of a well-ordered society, traditionally understood as one based on a harmonious balance between its unequal ranks. The provincial intelligentsia was genuinely worried that the excessive social homogeneity posed a threat to the stability of the colonies, and they persistently called for the reinstatement of some semblance of hierarchy. A recurring theme in New England sermons was the fear of social ‘‘levelling,’’ which was seen as the route to anarchy. The same concern was behind the early eighteenth-century voices who opposed the creation of a land bank, arguing that it would cause ‘‘levelling and licentiousness ’’ among the poorer sort. The lack of readily identifiable social classes in early Maryland appeared to Lord Baltimore to be such a serious the transmission of restricted liberty 65 threat to the survival of that colony that he urged Governor Charles Calvert to come up with a device ‘‘for the making of some visible distinction’’ between people. The Proprietor’s suggestion that ‘‘the Best of the People’’ wear some sort of ‘‘habbits, Medals, or otherwise’’ may seem a bit grotesque, but it was motivated by a sincere concern that without at least a symbolic distinction between classes, an orderly society would not be possible. Baltimore’s proposal helps us understand why American colonials attached such importance to imitating metropolitan styles. In Europe the elements of one’s clothing and lifestyle immediately signaled rank and authority, but few such symbolic indicators were available to the colonists. Thus, emulating the dress, lifestyle, and residential architecture of the metropolis became crucial—not so much for their aesthetics, but for their practical ability to signal the stratifications within a society where few other means to do so existed. This phenomenon was also present throughout the nineteenth century, when imitating genteel styles continued to be enormously popular among Americans busily engaged in upward mobility. More democratization and prosperity produced more, not less, emulation of the upper classes as the newly rich sought higher social status and respectability.∞≤ The fact that the eighteenth-century American ruling class faced contempt and the rejection of their legitimacy as true gentry by the English upper classes in no way slowed their pursuit of such ambitions or weakened their faith in natural inequality of social classes. The opposite seemed to be the case: because of their relatively fragile nature as a new elite, they stressed social distance, set themselves o√ from ordinary folk wherever possible, and embraced a traditional, restricted sense of freedom. In this, they willingly pursued a pattern that was fairly common in early modern history: once an exclusive set of liberties was successfully obtained, their newly empowered owners—usually a group rather than individuals—became staunchly motivated to close ranks in order to make their privilege secure and permanent. This was achieved not only by political maneuvering and legal enactments but also through developing certain institutional structures, as well as distinctive identities. As long as these were exclusively held, attributes such as honor, virtue, lifestyle, and taste all contributed to this...