Class consciousness

[bcgermany]

Class consciousness definitely existed in both colonial America and in England. Englishmen on both sides of the Atlantic “bragged of their independence” (pg. 14) and both the colonists and the Englishmen knew that they were ultimately subjects of the King. The English definitely had their Aristocracy, but there was nothing to keep the peasant/ plebian class from mingling with one another and barring interaction. Even though this was the case, no one really questioned the fact that a clearly defined hierarchy was needed for a civilized society to exist. In both England and the colonies, everyone had and knew their “place.” In England, only “gentlemen” could display coats of arms and be officers in the army or navy and their treatment in law was different (pg 29). What was special about the colonists was the definite distinction between “Patricians/gentry” and the “Plebeians/commoners.” The colonists who were the “landed gentry” thought very highly of their gentlemanly status and looked down on the “commoners.” All “gentlemen” in the colonies owned land but would never do any actual physical labor and they held the lower class in very low esteem. “Ordinary people were made only to be born and eat and sleep and die, and be forgotten.” (pg 27)

[jdavid]

Much like the classes that in England, American colonies took on the model of the mother country. Yet unlike the classes in the England, America was full of second and third sons that did not inherit land or title in England. Due to the underdeveloped societies in the Americas; the great inequality that existed in England was not as built-up in the colonies (20). The colonies had first classes, middle, and lower class, but unlike the mother country it was on a smaller scale. Colonist saw class when land was awarded to military veterans, those with high ranks got more (20).Social rank was seen in titles like “Mr.” “Esq.” and “Yeoman.”

[ccpender]

The colonial idea of class and class consciousness paralleled the English conception of these very closely. A hierarchy existed in both places where subjection to the king formed the basis of class. (pg. 11) Titles designating social rank became synonymous with person’s name to explicitly reinforce social class. (pg. 21) Expectations of behavior even existed in how to relate to the those above and below yourself “ with Superiors, courteous and fair-spoken; not over familiar nor surly, with inferiors.” (pg.22) The ordinary people were thought to be different because of varying diets and living conditions. (pg. 27) The most important measure of class was birth and parentage (pg. 31). The ideas varied closer to the revolution where the lines began blurring in the colonies in respect to class distinctions.

[dwhannah]

Both the colonist and the mother country believed in a hierarchy as stated by Jonathan Edwards, “all have their appointed office, place and station, according to their several capacities and talent” (20). However, one was not necessarily born into the place as was the monarchy of England. Although as time passed, many of these tight knit communities began to contain themselves by marrying within their own groups. Although mobility was attainable in the colonies, it was with reservation. One must prove themselves because it was not enough to just think that one belonged in this new rank, but one had to prove their place by their talents, deeds, and capabilities.

[Sherryd]

The colonies and England both believed in a Monarchy. They believed that every person had his place in society, and "It was unnatural to pretend to be something that one was not equipped to be"(pg. 19). People in the colonies accepted this because of the reasoning that each person, no matter how low in society, had his place. Everyone depended on everyone else. They were also unlike in the fact that the colonies were less complicated, and their inequalities were much less than those of England. They were "without nobility, or orders of gentry" (pg. 20).

[cboynton]

The concept of class was similar to England in many ways. As in England, wealth was a major determining factor in the social status of Colonial Americans. In the Chesapeake region, the Great Planters were in most cases at the top of the social hierarchy. They owned the most land and controlled many of the decisions for the area. One of the major differences was the balance of wealth. “The distribution of wealth in the eighteenth century colonial society was far more equal than it would become in the nineteenth century.”(22) Each class of the colonies was dependent upon the other for success. “Every service or help which one man affords another, requires its corresponding return.”(57) The different classes were much more intertwined with each other socially and economically in the colonies as compared to England.

[jasuwi]

Wood says, “The colonies were simple, underdeveloped provincial societies, and they lacked the great inequalities and the intricate calibrations of the more complicated society of the mother country.” They did, however, have their on social hierarchy. England had titled nobility and masses of extremely poor citizens crowding their large cities. These classes were almost absent in the colonies. The wealthiest of those in the colonies paled in comparison to their counterparts in the mother country. In America, the lower classes consisted of indentured servants and slaves. Even those without wealth often had property in America, while the common citizens in England often were tenant farmers.

[nicolesmith]

Eighteenth century Americans did not have the nobility or the orders of gentry however, it was evident in many colonies that there were differences in ranks and there was some inequality in every society. All had some sense of where they stood and how they ought to behave toward others in this social hiearchy (20). For example, church pews were assigned on the basis of family heads' age and social position.