University of Nevada, Reno Mastery & Material Culture in Colonial Virginia

University of Nevada, Reno Mastery & Material Culture in Colonial Virginia A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History By Sara Garey-Sage Dr. Cameron Strang/Thesis Advisor May, 2020 Copyright by Sara Garey-Sage 2020 All Rights Reserved THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by entitled be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Advisor Committee Member Committee Member Graduate School Representative David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean Graduate School i Abstract Virginia in the early eighteenth-century was undergoing extensive change. Wealth had recently boomed in the colony due to rising tobacco prices and increased land holdings, slavery was becoming firmly entrenched, and the gentry class continued to cement their place at the top of Virginia society. Men like William Byrd II, Robert ‘King’ Carter, and Landon Carter experienced the wealth and access to goods similar to their counterparts in the later eighteenth century, but, given the more fluid social relations of the 1700s, felt the need to communicate their identities and authority far more emphatically and frequently. Challenges to planters’ authority and influence—such as when they failed to obtain political appointments or when enslaved individuals were disobedient—constantly threatened their sense of elite masculinity. In response, wealthy planters performed their elite male identities via a form of absolute authority that historians often term mastery. This mastery encompassed their control (or attempts at control) over themselves, their wives and other women, their children, dependents in the community, and enslaved populations. Material objects were essential to asserting this authority. Luxury items communicated their owner’s status, rationality, and wealth, while the utilitarian objects of plantation life functioned as material embodiments of the planter’s absolute authority. Focusing on the overlapping domains of self-mastery and mastery over enslaved populations, this project argues that in eighteenth-century Virginia, elite male planters communicated, pursued, and solidified their mastery through the utilitarian and luxury material objects of their daily lives. Table of Contents An Introductory Essay 1 Image Appendix 46 Bibliography 66 Mastery & Material Culture in Colonial Virginia 2 An Introductory Essay On June 17, 1711, William Byrd II wrote the day’s events in his diary, as he did most days. He recorded what time he woke, mentioned that he had read a few chapters in Hebrew in the morning and some French in the evening, commented on the weather and what he ate, and coyly noted that he gave his wife, Lucy Parke Byrd, “a flourish.”1 Keeping a daily diary was not uncommon in the eighteenth century. Byrd’s several line entries, however, reveal far more than most about the mindset, daily activities, and, crucially, material life of an eighteenth-century elite planter. In examining his and other elite Virginians’ diaries, letters, and personal writings, two things become apparent: first, wealthy Virginians in the eighteenth century often felt the need to perform and reassert their authority and, second, material objects were powerful tools in these displays of power. Through offhand mentions of material objects in diaries, letters, and other written documents, scholars gain considerable insight into objects’ daily use and significance in early America. Virginia in the early eighteenth-century was undergoing extensive change. Wealth had recently boomed in the colony as a result of rising tobacco prices and increased land holdings, slavery was becoming firmly entrenched, and the gentry class continued to cement their place at the top of Virginia society.2 The colony was increasingly connected to England and many wealthy Virginians spent time in both places. The individuals of this era experienced the wealth and access to goods similar to their counterparts in the later eighteenth century, but, given the more fluid social relations of the early 1700s, felt the need to communicate their identities and authority far more emphatically and frequently. Men like William Byrd II, Robert ‘King’ Carter, and Landon Carter were typically born into wealth that had been accumulated by the previous generation; they inherited large tracts of land and grew their holdings throughout their lifetimes. 3 They built and lived in fine Georgian homes on their plantations, using these spaces to display their wealth and entertain other elites.3 They grew tobacco and owned slaves, acquiring more throughout their lives. After shipping their tobacco to England for sale, they purchased imported items, including fine fabrics, clothing, accoutrements of dining, and plantation supplies. They were educated in England or at one of the newer institutions in the colonies, most often studying law. When finished with their education, they served on the colonial government in the House of Burgesses or in another official position. They married another member of the colonial gentry, ensuring their family’s legacy and building the interconnected dynasty that would become one of the hallmarks of colonial Virginia.4 Yet challenges to planters’ authority and influence—such as when they failed to obtain political appointments or when enslaved individuals were disobedient—constantly threatened their sense of elite masculinity. In response, wealthy planters performed their elite male identities via a form of absolute authority that historians often term mastery. This mastery encompassed their control (or attempts at control) over themselves, their wives and other women, their children, dependents in the community, and enslaved populations. Rationality and self-control (or self-mastery) were considered to be a hallmark of the gentry classes and used to justify the immense authority of these individuals.5 Further, in the late seventeenth and the early eighteenth centuries, mastery over enslaved individuals (and slavery as a race based institution) was codified into law in Virginia. Material objects were essential to asserting this authority. Luxury items communicated their owner’s status, rationality, and wealth, while the utilitarian objects of plantation life functioned as material embodiments of the planter’s absolute authority. Focusing on the overlapping domains of self-mastery and mastery over enslaved populations, this project argues 4 that in eighteenth-century Virginia, elite male planters communicated, pursued, and solidified their mastery through the utilitarian and luxury material objects of their daily lives. In opposition to the long-standing narrative of increasing refinement in the eighteenth century, the gentility expressed via imported luxury items was buttressed by the brutal authority embodied in the utilitarian objects of an eighteenth-century plantation. In other words, gentility was built on the mastery and violence inherent to the slave economy. Through the exploitation of enslaved labor, these colonial planters obtained the wealth and status necessary to purchase the objects of refinement and rationality. The violent culture of mastery provided the foundation for gentility. Gentility, its associated objects, and its definitive role in elite identity have been studied extensively.6 However, the role of objects in mastery has been broadly neglected and the connection between gentility and mastery has been overlooked. Despite the expansion of the field in the last quarter of the twentieth century into the material lives of middle class, lower class, and enslaved populations, the scholarship continues to focus on how objects communicated class status in the eighteenth century, building upon the existing narrative of an increased desire for and access to the goods of refinement.7 In the past few years, scholars of early American material culture, like Zara Anishanlin and Jennifer van Horn, have begun to engage with the true nature of refinement in early America even as they continue to focus on the objects typically associated with gentility and upper class identity.8 And yet, despite these developments in the field, little work has been done examining the material culture of mastery. In part, this stems from the field’s continued focus on northern and urban areas in early America – while slavery certainly existed in these areas, they were culturally very different than the plantation South. Further, in acknowledging that white, elite identity was structured in opposition 5 to that of enslaved Africans/African-Americans, Native Americans, and the lower classes, scholars inadvertently treat these identities as separate rather than recognizing how elite identity, particularly in the Southern colonies, was built on the backs of these dependent and exploited groups. Utilizing both written and material sources, this project explores the material lives of Robert Carter, Landon Carter, William Byrd II, and other wealthy Virginians to demonstrate how the material culture of gentility and the material culture of mastery over enslaved individuals worked in concert to strengthen, communicate, and assert elite authority and identity. Because material objects are central to this analysis, this essay is paired with a digital exhibit – allowing the material objects (and their images) to be front and center in the analysis. The argument and analysis presented in this paper are embodied in the objects themselves and elaborated through the exhibit’s labels. Because this essay and

Load more