The Problem of Dependency: African Americans, Labor Relations, and the Law in the Nineteenth-Century South

Agricultural History

Volumn 72, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 313-339

  Edwards, Laura F ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AFRICAN AMERICANS; AGRICULTURAL HISTORY; CULTURAL HISTORY; HISTORICAL STUDY; LABOUR RELATIONS; NINETEENTH CENTURY; RURAL HISTORY;

USA, NORTH CAROLINA; USA, SOUTH CAROLINA;

EID: 0346310891     PISSN: 00021482     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (135)

1. New York Tribune, 8 September 1865.
2. For summaries of this debate, see "AHR Forum: Class Structure and Economic Development in the American South, 1865-1955," American Historical Review 84 (October 1979): 970-1006; Harold D. Woodman, "Sequel to Slavery: The New History Views the Postbellum South," Journal of Southern History 48 (November 1977): 523-54. Although reorienting and refining the debate, subsequent work has not entirely escaped its central assumptions. See Stanley L. Engerman, "The Economic Response to Emancipation and Some Economic Aspects of the Meaning of Freedom," in The Meaning of Freedom: Economics, Politics, and Culture After Slavery, ed. Frank McGlynn and Seymour Drescher (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992); Barbara J. Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground: Maryland during the Nineteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); Thomas C. Holt, "An Empire over the Mind': Emancipation, Race, and Ideology in the British West Indies and the American South," in Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward, ed. J. Morgan Kousser and James McPherson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); Robert Tracy McKenzie, One South or Many?: Plantation Belt and Upcountry in Civil-War Era Tennessee (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Joseph P. Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism in the Cotton Plantation South: Central Georgia, 1800-1880 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Julie Saville, The Work of Reconstruction: From Slave to Wage Laborer in South Carolina, 1860-1870 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Loren Schweninger, Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
3. For summaries of this debate, see "AHR Forum: Class Structure and Economic Development in the American South, 1865-1955," American Historical Review 84 (October 1979): 970-1006; Harold D. Woodman, "Sequel to Slavery: The New History Views the Postbellum South," Journal of Southern History 48 (November 1977): 523-54. Although reorienting and refining the debate, subsequent work has not entirely escaped its central assumptions. See Stanley L. Engerman, "The Economic Response to Emancipation and Some Economic Aspects of the Meaning of Freedom," in The Meaning of Freedom: Economics, Politics, and Culture After Slavery, ed. Frank McGlynn and Seymour Drescher (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992); Barbara J. Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground: Maryland during the Nineteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); Thomas C. Holt, "An Empire over the Mind': Emancipation, Race, and Ideology in the British West Indies and the American South," in Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward, ed. J. Morgan Kousser and James McPherson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); Robert Tracy McKenzie, One South or Many?: Plantation Belt and Upcountry in Civil-War Era Tennessee (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Joseph P. Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism in the Cotton Plantation South: Central Georgia, 1800-1880 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Julie Saville, The Work of Reconstruction: From Slave to Wage Laborer in South Carolina, 1860-1870 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Loren Schweninger, Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
4. For summaries of this debate, see "AHR Forum: Class Structure and Economic Development in the American South, 1865-1955," American Historical Review 84 (October 1979): 970-1006; Harold D. Woodman, "Sequel to Slavery: The New History Views the Postbellum South," Journal of Southern History 48 (November 1977): 523-54. Although reorienting and refining the debate, subsequent work has not entirely escaped its central assumptions. See Stanley L. Engerman, "The Economic Response to Emancipation and Some Economic Aspects of the Meaning of Freedom," in The Meaning of Freedom: Economics, Politics, and Culture After Slavery, ed. Frank McGlynn and Seymour Drescher (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992); Barbara J. Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground: Maryland during the Nineteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); Thomas C. Holt, "An Empire over the Mind': Emancipation, Race, and Ideology in the British West Indies and the American South," in Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward, ed. J. Morgan Kousser and James McPherson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); Robert Tracy McKenzie, One South or Many?: Plantation Belt and Upcountry in Civil-War Era Tennessee (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Joseph P. Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism in the Cotton Plantation South: Central Georgia, 1800-1880 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Julie Saville, The Work of Reconstruction: From Slave to Wage Laborer in South Carolina, 1860-1870 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Loren Schweninger, Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
5. For summaries of this debate, see "AHR Forum: Class Structure and Economic Development in the American South, 1865-1955," American Historical Review 84 (October 1979): 970-1006; Harold D. Woodman, "Sequel to Slavery: The New History Views the Postbellum South," Journal of Southern History 48 (November 1977): 523-54. Although reorienting and refining the debate, subsequent work has not entirely escaped its central assumptions. See Stanley L. Engerman, "The Economic Response to Emancipation and Some Economic Aspects of the Meaning of Freedom," in The Meaning of Freedom: Economics, Politics, and Culture After Slavery, ed. Frank McGlynn and Seymour Drescher (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992); Barbara J. Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground: Maryland during the Nineteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); Thomas C. Holt, "An Empire over the Mind': Emancipation, Race, and Ideology in the British West Indies and the American South," in Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward, ed. J. Morgan Kousser and James McPherson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); Robert Tracy McKenzie, One South or Many?: Plantation Belt and Upcountry in Civil-War Era Tennessee (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Joseph P. Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism in the Cotton Plantation South: Central Georgia, 1800-1880 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Julie Saville, The Work of Reconstruction: From Slave to Wage Laborer in South Carolina, 1860-1870 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Loren Schweninger, Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
6. For summaries of this debate, see "AHR Forum: Class Structure and Economic Development in the American South, 1865-1955," American Historical Review 84 (October 1979): 970-1006; Harold D. Woodman, "Sequel to Slavery: The New History Views the Postbellum South," Journal of Southern History 48 (November 1977): 523-54. Although reorienting and refining the debate, subsequent work has not entirely escaped its central assumptions. See Stanley L. Engerman, "The Economic Response to Emancipation and Some Economic Aspects of the Meaning of Freedom," in The Meaning of Freedom: Economics, Politics, and Culture After Slavery, ed. Frank McGlynn and Seymour Drescher (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992); Barbara J. Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground: Maryland during the Nineteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); Thomas C. Holt, "An Empire over the Mind': Emancipation, Race, and Ideology in the British West Indies and the American South," in Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward, ed. J. Morgan Kousser and James McPherson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); Robert Tracy McKenzie, One South or Many?: Plantation Belt and Upcountry in Civil-War Era Tennessee (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Joseph P. Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism in the Cotton Plantation South: Central Georgia, 1800-1880 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Julie Saville, The Work of Reconstruction: From Slave to Wage Laborer in South Carolina, 1860-1870 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Loren Schweninger, Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
7. For summaries of this debate, see "AHR Forum: Class Structure and Economic Development in the American South, 1865-1955," American Historical Review 84 (October 1979): 970-1006; Harold D. Woodman, "Sequel to Slavery: The New History Views the Postbellum South," Journal of Southern History 48 (November 1977): 523-54. Although reorienting and refining the debate, subsequent work has not entirely escaped its central assumptions. See Stanley L. Engerman, "The Economic Response to Emancipation and Some Economic Aspects of the Meaning of Freedom," in The Meaning of Freedom: Economics, Politics, and Culture After Slavery, ed. Frank McGlynn and Seymour Drescher (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992); Barbara J. Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground: Maryland during the Nineteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); Thomas C. Holt, "An Empire over the Mind': Emancipation, Race, and Ideology in the British West Indies and the American South," in Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward, ed. J. Morgan Kousser and James McPherson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); Robert Tracy McKenzie, One South or Many?: Plantation Belt and Upcountry in Civil-War Era Tennessee (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Joseph P. Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism in the Cotton Plantation South: Central Georgia, 1800-1880 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Julie Saville, The Work of Reconstruction: From Slave to Wage Laborer in South Carolina, 1860-1870 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Loren Schweninger, Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
8. For summaries of this debate, see "AHR Forum: Class Structure and Economic Development in the American South, 1865-1955," American Historical Review 84 (October 1979): 970-1006; Harold D. Woodman, "Sequel to Slavery: The New History Views the Postbellum South," Journal of Southern History 48 (November 1977): 523-54. Although reorienting and refining the debate, subsequent work has not entirely escaped its central assumptions. See Stanley L. Engerman, "The Economic Response to Emancipation and Some Economic Aspects of the Meaning of Freedom," in The Meaning of Freedom: Economics, Politics, and Culture After Slavery, ed. Frank McGlynn and Seymour Drescher (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992); Barbara J. Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground: Maryland during the Nineteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); Thomas C. Holt, "An Empire over the Mind': Emancipation, Race, and Ideology in the British West Indies and the American South," in Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward, ed. J. Morgan Kousser and James McPherson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); Robert Tracy McKenzie, One South or Many?: Plantation Belt and Upcountry in Civil-War Era Tennessee (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Joseph P. Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism in the Cotton Plantation South: Central Georgia, 1800-1880 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Julie Saville, The Work of Reconstruction: From Slave to Wage Laborer in South Carolina, 1860-1870 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Loren Schweninger, Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
9. For summaries of this debate, see "AHR Forum: Class Structure and Economic Development in the American South, 1865-1955," American Historical Review 84 (October 1979): 970-1006; Harold D. Woodman, "Sequel to Slavery: The New History Views the Postbellum South," Journal of Southern History 48 (November 1977): 523-54. Although reorienting and refining the debate, subsequent work has not entirely escaped its central assumptions. See Stanley L. Engerman, "The Economic Response to Emancipation and Some Economic Aspects of the Meaning of Freedom," in The Meaning of Freedom: Economics, Politics, and Culture After Slavery, ed. Frank McGlynn and Seymour Drescher (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992); Barbara J. Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground: Maryland during the Nineteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); Thomas C. Holt, "An Empire over the Mind': Emancipation, Race, and Ideology in the British West Indies and the American South," in Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward, ed. J. Morgan Kousser and James McPherson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); Robert Tracy McKenzie, One South or Many?: Plantation Belt and Upcountry in Civil-War Era Tennessee (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Joseph P. Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism in the Cotton Plantation South: Central Georgia, 1800-1880 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Julie Saville, The Work of Reconstruction: From Slave to Wage Laborer in South Carolina, 1860-1870 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Loren Schweninger, Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
10. For summaries of this debate, see "AHR Forum: Class Structure and Economic Development in the American South, 1865-1955," American Historical Review 84 (October 1979): 970-1006; Harold D. Woodman, "Sequel to Slavery: The New History Views the Postbellum South," Journal of Southern History 48 (November 1977): 523-54. Although reorienting and refining the debate, subsequent work has not entirely escaped its central assumptions. See Stanley L. Engerman, "The Economic Response to Emancipation and Some Economic Aspects of the Meaning of Freedom," in The Meaning of Freedom: Economics, Politics, and Culture After Slavery, ed. Frank McGlynn and Seymour Drescher (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992); Barbara J. Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground: Maryland during the Nineteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); Thomas C. Holt, "An Empire over the Mind': Emancipation, Race, and Ideology in the British West Indies and the American South," in Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward, ed. J. Morgan Kousser and James McPherson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982); Robert Tracy McKenzie, One South or Many?: Plantation Belt and Upcountry in Civil-War Era Tennessee (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Joseph P. Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism in the Cotton Plantation South: Central Georgia, 1800-1880 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Julie Saville, The Work of Reconstruction: From Slave to Wage Laborer in South Carolina, 1860-1870 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Loren Schweninger, Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
11. This analysis draws on recent work on domestic dependency as well as critiques of free-labor ideology and nineteenth-century labor relations. See in particular: Jeanne Boydston, Home and Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Laura F. Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion: The Political Culture of Reconstruction (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997); William E. Forbath, "The Ambiguities of Free Labor: Labor and the Law in the Gilded Age," Wisconsin Law Review 4 (July 1985): 767-817; Linda Gordon and Nancy Fraser, "A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State," Signs 19 (December 1994): 309-36; Stephanie McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Mary Poovey, Uneven Developments: The Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); Amy Dru Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers: Compulsion and Contract in Postbellum America," Journal of American History 78 (March 1992): 1265-93; Harold D. Woodman, New South, New Law: The Legal Foundations of Credit and Labor Relations in the Postbellum Agricultural South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995).
12. This analysis draws on recent work on domestic dependency as well as critiques of free-labor ideology and nineteenth-century labor relations. See in particular: Jeanne Boydston, Home and Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Laura F. Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion: The Political Culture of Reconstruction (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997); William E. Forbath, "The Ambiguities of Free Labor: Labor and the Law in the Gilded Age," Wisconsin Law Review 4 (July 1985): 767-817; Linda Gordon and Nancy Fraser, "A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State," Signs 19 (December 1994): 309-36; Stephanie McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Mary Poovey, Uneven Developments: The Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); Amy Dru Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers: Compulsion and Contract in Postbellum America," Journal of American History 78 (March 1992): 1265-93; Harold D. Woodman, New South, New Law: The Legal Foundations of Credit and Labor Relations in the Postbellum Agricultural South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995).
13. This analysis draws on recent work on domestic dependency as well as critiques of free-labor ideology and nineteenth-century labor relations. See in particular: Jeanne Boydston, Home and Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Laura F. Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion: The Political Culture of Reconstruction (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997); William E. Forbath, "The Ambiguities of Free Labor: Labor and the Law in the Gilded Age," Wisconsin Law Review 4 (July 1985): 767-817; Linda Gordon and Nancy Fraser, "A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State," Signs 19 (December 1994): 309-36; Stephanie McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Mary Poovey, Uneven Developments: The Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); Amy Dru Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers: Compulsion and Contract in Postbellum America," Journal of American History 78 (March 1992): 1265-93; Harold D. Woodman, New South, New Law: The Legal Foundations of Credit and Labor Relations in the Postbellum Agricultural South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995).
14. This analysis draws on recent work on domestic dependency as well as critiques of free-labor ideology and nineteenth-century labor relations. See in particular: Jeanne Boydston, Home and Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Laura F. Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion: The Political Culture of Reconstruction (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997); William E. Forbath, "The Ambiguities of Free Labor: Labor and the Law in the Gilded Age," Wisconsin Law Review 4 (July 1985): 767-817; Linda Gordon and Nancy Fraser, "A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State," Signs 19 (December 1994): 309-36; Stephanie McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Mary Poovey, Uneven Developments: The Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); Amy Dru Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers: Compulsion and Contract in Postbellum America," Journal of American History 78 (March 1992): 1265-93; Harold D. Woodman, New South, New Law: The Legal Foundations of Credit and Labor Relations in the Postbellum Agricultural South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995).
15. This analysis draws on recent work on domestic dependency as well as critiques of free-labor ideology and nineteenth-century labor relations. See in particular: Jeanne Boydston, Home and Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Laura F. Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion: The Political Culture of Reconstruction (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997); William E. Forbath, "The Ambiguities of Free Labor: Labor and the Law in the Gilded Age," Wisconsin Law Review 4 (July 1985): 767-817; Linda Gordon and Nancy Fraser, "A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State," Signs 19 (December 1994): 309-36; Stephanie McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Mary Poovey, Uneven Developments: The Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); Amy Dru Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers: Compulsion and Contract in Postbellum America," Journal of American History 78 (March 1992): 1265-93; Harold D. Woodman, New South, New Law: The Legal Foundations of Credit and Labor Relations in the Postbellum Agricultural South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995).
16. This analysis draws on recent work on domestic dependency as well as critiques of free-labor ideology and nineteenth-century labor relations. See in particular: Jeanne Boydston, Home and Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Laura F. Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion: The Political Culture of Reconstruction (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997); William E. Forbath, "The Ambiguities of Free Labor: Labor and the Law in the Gilded Age," Wisconsin Law Review 4 (July 1985): 767-817; Linda Gordon and Nancy Fraser, "A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State," Signs 19 (December 1994): 309-36; Stephanie McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Mary Poovey, Uneven Developments: The Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); Amy Dru Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers: Compulsion and Contract in Postbellum America," Journal of American History 78 (March 1992): 1265-93; Harold D. Woodman, New South, New Law: The Legal Foundations of Credit and Labor Relations in the Postbellum Agricultural South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995).
17. This analysis draws on recent work on domestic dependency as well as critiques of free-labor ideology and nineteenth-century labor relations. See in particular: Jeanne Boydston, Home and Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Laura F. Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion: The Political Culture of Reconstruction (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997); William E. Forbath, "The Ambiguities of Free Labor: Labor and the Law in the Gilded Age," Wisconsin Law Review 4 (July 1985): 767-817; Linda Gordon and Nancy Fraser, "A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State," Signs 19 (December 1994): 309-36; Stephanie McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Mary Poovey, Uneven Developments: The Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); Amy Dru Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers: Compulsion and Contract in Postbellum America," Journal of American History 78 (March 1992): 1265-93; Harold D. Woodman, New South, New Law: The Legal Foundations of Credit and Labor Relations in the Postbellum Agricultural South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995).
18. This analysis draws on recent work on domestic dependency as well as critiques of free-labor ideology and nineteenth-century labor relations. See in particular: Jeanne Boydston, Home and Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Laura F. Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion: The Political Culture of Reconstruction (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997); William E. Forbath, "The Ambiguities of Free Labor: Labor and the Law in the Gilded Age," Wisconsin Law Review 4 (July 1985): 767-817; Linda Gordon and Nancy Fraser, "A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State," Signs 19 (December 1994): 309-36; Stephanie McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Mary Poovey, Uneven Developments: The Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); Amy Dru Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers: Compulsion and Contract in Postbellum America," Journal of American History 78 (March 1992): 1265-93; Harold D. Woodman, New South, New Law: The Legal Foundations of Credit and Labor Relations in the Postbellum Agricultural South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995).
19. This analysis draws heavily on Christopher L. Tomlins, Law, Labor and Ideology in the Early American Republic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), and Woodman, New South, New Law.
20. This analysis draws heavily on Christopher L. Tomlins, Law, Labor and Ideology in the Early American Republic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), and Woodman, New South, New Law.
21. The classic discussion of free-labor ideology in the North is Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970). Also see Eric Foner, Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). For discussions of the marginality of women and black workers and their exclusion from the category "labor," see: Boydston, Home and Work; Gary Nash and Jean R. Soderlund, Freedom by Degrees: Emancipation in Pennsylvania and Its Aftermath (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); Nell Irvin Painter, Sojourner Truth (New York: Norton, 1996); David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (New York: Verso, 1991); Alexander Saxton, The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Verso, 1990); Christine Stansell, City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789-1860 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987).
22. The classic discussion of free-labor ideology in the North is Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970). Also see Eric Foner, Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). For discussions of the marginality of women and black workers and their exclusion from the category "labor," see: Boydston, Home and Work; Gary Nash and Jean R. Soderlund, Freedom by Degrees: Emancipation in Pennsylvania and Its Aftermath (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); Nell Irvin Painter, Sojourner Truth (New York: Norton, 1996); David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (New York: Verso, 1991); Alexander Saxton, The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Verso, 1990); Christine Stansell, City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789-1860 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987).
23. The classic discussion of free-labor ideology in the North is Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970). Also see Eric Foner, Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). For discussions of the marginality of women and black workers and their exclusion from the category "labor," see: Boydston, Home and Work; Gary Nash and Jean R. Soderlund, Freedom by Degrees: Emancipation in Pennsylvania and Its Aftermath (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); Nell Irvin Painter, Sojourner Truth (New York: Norton, 1996); David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (New York: Verso, 1991); Alexander Saxton, The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Verso, 1990); Christine Stansell, City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789-1860 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987).
24. The classic discussion of free-labor ideology in the North is Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970). Also see Eric Foner, Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). For discussions of the marginality of women and black workers and their exclusion from the category "labor," see: Boydston, Home and Work; Gary Nash and Jean R. Soderlund, Freedom by Degrees: Emancipation in Pennsylvania and Its Aftermath (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); Nell Irvin Painter, Sojourner Truth (New York: Norton, 1996); David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (New York: Verso, 1991); Alexander Saxton, The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Verso, 1990); Christine Stansell, City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789-1860 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987).
25. The classic discussion of free-labor ideology in the North is Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970). Also see Eric Foner, Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). For discussions of the marginality of women and black workers and their exclusion from the category "labor," see: Boydston, Home and Work; Gary Nash and Jean R. Soderlund, Freedom by Degrees: Emancipation in Pennsylvania and Its Aftermath (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); Nell Irvin Painter, Sojourner Truth (New York: Norton, 1996); David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (New York: Verso, 1991); Alexander Saxton, The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Verso, 1990); Christine Stansell, City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789-1860 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987).
26. The classic discussion of free-labor ideology in the North is Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970). Also see Eric Foner, Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). For discussions of the marginality of women and black workers and their exclusion from the category "labor," see: Boydston, Home and Work; Gary Nash and Jean R. Soderlund, Freedom by Degrees: Emancipation in Pennsylvania and Its Aftermath (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); Nell Irvin Painter, Sojourner Truth (New York: Norton, 1996); David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (New York: Verso, 1991); Alexander Saxton, The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Verso, 1990); Christine Stansell, City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789-1860 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987).
27. The classic discussion of free-labor ideology in the North is Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970). Also see Eric Foner, Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). For discussions of the marginality of women and black workers and their exclusion from the category "labor," see: Boydston, Home and Work; Gary Nash and Jean R. Soderlund, Freedom by Degrees: Emancipation in Pennsylvania and Its Aftermath (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); Nell Irvin Painter, Sojourner Truth (New York: Norton, 1996); David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (New York: Verso, 1991); Alexander Saxton, The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Verso, 1990); Christine Stansell, City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789-1860 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987).
28. The classic discussion of free-labor ideology in the North is Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970). Also see Eric Foner, Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). For discussions of the marginality of women and black workers and their exclusion from the category "labor," see: Boydston, Home and Work; Gary Nash and Jean R. Soderlund, Freedom by Degrees: Emancipation in Pennsylvania and Its Aftermath (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); Nell Irvin Painter, Sojourner Truth (New York: Norton, 1996); David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (New York: Verso, 1991); Alexander Saxton, The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Verso, 1990); Christine Stansell, City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 1789-1860 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987).
29. Recent work calls into question key historiographical assumptions about southern labor relations: Stephanie Cole, "Servants and Slaves: Domestic Service in the Border Cities, 1800-1850" (Ph.D. diss., University of Florida, 1994); Cindy Hahamovitch, The Fruits of Their Labor: Atlantic Coast Farmworkers and the Making of Migrant Poverty, 1870-1945 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997); Alex Lichtenstein, Twice the Work of Free Labor: The Political Economy of Convict Labor in the New South (New York: Verso, 1996); Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism; Woodman, New South, New Law.
30. Recent work calls into question key historiographical assumptions about southern labor relations: Stephanie Cole, "Servants and Slaves: Domestic Service in the Border Cities, 1800-1850" (Ph.D. diss., University of Florida, 1994); Cindy Hahamovitch, The Fruits of Their Labor: Atlantic Coast Farmworkers and the Making of Migrant Poverty, 1870-1945 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997); Alex Lichtenstein, Twice the Work of Free Labor: The Political Economy of Convict Labor in the New South (New York: Verso, 1996); Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism; Woodman, New South, New Law.
31. Recent work calls into question key historiographical assumptions about southern labor relations: Stephanie Cole, "Servants and Slaves: Domestic Service in the Border Cities, 1800-1850" (Ph.D. diss., University of Florida, 1994); Cindy Hahamovitch, The Fruits of Their Labor: Atlantic Coast Farmworkers and the Making of Migrant Poverty, 1870-1945 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997); Alex Lichtenstein, Twice the Work of Free Labor: The Political Economy of Convict Labor in the New South (New York: Verso, 1996); Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism; Woodman, New South, New Law.
32. Recent work calls into question key historiographical assumptions about southern labor relations: Stephanie Cole, "Servants and Slaves: Domestic Service in the Border Cities, 1800-1850" (Ph.D. diss., University of Florida, 1994); Cindy Hahamovitch, The Fruits of Their Labor: Atlantic Coast Farmworkers and the Making of Migrant Poverty, 1870-1945 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997); Alex Lichtenstein, Twice the Work of Free Labor: The Political Economy of Convict Labor in the New South (New York: Verso, 1996); Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism; Woodman, New South, New Law.
33. Recent work calls into question key historiographical assumptions about southern labor relations: Stephanie Cole, "Servants and Slaves: Domestic Service in the Border Cities, 1800-1850" (Ph.D. diss., University of Florida, 1994); Cindy Hahamovitch, The Fruits of Their Labor: Atlantic Coast Farmworkers and the Making of Migrant Poverty, 1870-1945 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997); Alex Lichtenstein, Twice the Work of Free Labor: The Political Economy of Convict Labor in the New South (New York: Verso, 1996); Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism; Woodman, New South, New Law.
34. See especially Boydston, Home and Work; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds; Christopher L. Tomlins, "Why Wait for Industrialism: An Historiographical Argument," Labor History (1998, forthcoming).
35. See especially Boydston, Home and Work; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds; Christopher L. Tomlins, "Why Wait for Industrialism: An Historiographical Argument," Labor History (1998, forthcoming).
36. See especially Boydston, Home and Work; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds; Christopher L. Tomlins, "Why Wait for Industrialism: An Historiographical Argument," Labor History (1998, forthcoming).
37. Tomlins, Law, Labor, and Ideology, and Christopher L. Tomlins, "Exploring the Legal Culture of Work in Early British America," paper presented at the Early American History and Culture Seminar, Newberry Library, May 1997; Robert J. Steinfeld, The Invention of Free Labor: The Employment Relation in English and American Law and Culture, 1350-1870 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 15-54.
38. Tomlins, Law, Labor, and Ideology, and Christopher L. Tomlins, "Exploring the Legal Culture of Work in Early British America," paper presented at the Early American History and Culture Seminar, Newberry Library, May 1997; Robert J. Steinfeld, The Invention of Free Labor: The Employment Relation in English and American Law and Culture, 1350-1870 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 15-54.
39. Tomlins, Law, Labor, and Ideology, and Christopher L. Tomlins, "Exploring the Legal Culture of Work in Early British America," paper presented at the Early American History and Culture Seminar, Newberry Library, May 1997; Robert J. Steinfeld, The Invention of Free Labor: The Employment Relation in English and American Law and Culture, 1350-1870 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 15-54.
40. Tomlins, Law, Labor, and Ideology; Steinfeld, Invention of Free Labor.
41. Tomlins, Law, Labor, and Ideology; Steinfeld, Invention of Free Labor.
42. Forbath, "The Ambiguities of Free Labor," 787. See also Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. The literature on labor conflicts in the workplace and in party politics is vast; see David Montgomery, Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862-1872 (New York: Knopf, 1967); David Montgomery, Citizen Worker: The Experience of Workers in the United States with Democracy and the Free Market during the Nineteenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788-1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).
43. Forbath, "The Ambiguities of Free Labor," 787. See also Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. The literature on labor conflicts in the workplace and in party politics is vast; see David Montgomery, Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862-1872 (New York: Knopf, 1967); David Montgomery, Citizen Worker: The Experience of Workers in the United States with Democracy and the Free Market during the Nineteenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788-1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).
44. Forbath, "The Ambiguities of Free Labor," 787. See also Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. The literature on labor conflicts in the workplace and in party politics is vast; see David Montgomery, Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862-1872 (New York: Knopf, 1967); David Montgomery, Citizen Worker: The Experience of Workers in the United States with Democracy and the Free Market during the Nineteenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788-1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).
45. Forbath, "The Ambiguities of Free Labor," 787. See also Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. The literature on labor conflicts in the workplace and in party politics is vast; see David Montgomery, Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862-1872 (New York: Knopf, 1967); David Montgomery, Citizen Worker: The Experience of Workers in the United States with Democracy and the Free Market during the Nineteenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788-1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).
46. Forbath, "The Ambiguities of Free Labor," 787. See also Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. The literature on labor conflicts in the workplace and in party politics is vast; see David Montgomery, Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862-1872 (New York: Knopf, 1967); David Montgomery, Citizen Worker: The Experience of Workers in the United States with Democracy and the Free Market during the Nineteenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788-1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).
47. Zephariah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham, Conn.: Printed by John Byrne for the author, 1795), 1: 218. See also Tapping Reeve, The Law of Baron and Femme, of Parent and Child, Guardian and Ward, Master and Servant, 3rd ed. (Albany, N.Y.: William Gould, 1862), 492-93. The separation of "domestics" and "menials" in this way was possible because women, minors, African Americans, and other ethnic minorities clustered in such occupations; in turn, the separation reinforced the dependence already attached to these people because of the gender, race, age, and ethnicity.
48. Zephariah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham, Conn.: Printed by John Byrne for the author, 1795), 1: 218. See also Tapping Reeve, The Law of Baron and Femme, of Parent and Child, Guardian and Ward, Master and Servant, 3rd ed. (Albany, N.Y.: William Gould, 1862), 492-93. The separation of "domestics" and "menials" in this way was possible because women, minors, African Americans, and other ethnic minorities clustered in such occupations; in turn, the separation reinforced the dependence already attached to these people because of the gender, race, age, and ethnicity.
49. Tomlins, Law, Labor, and Ideology.
50. William D. Valentine Diaries, 13 July, 8 August, and 27 July 1837, vol. 1, Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Although exaggerated, Valentine's equation of teaching with servile labor was not without foundation. See State v. William Washington Gray (1808) and State v. James Dillard (1819), Vagrancy Trials, Pendleton District, Magistrates and Freeholders Court, South Carolina Department of Archives and History (hereafter SCDAH). The dependence he attached to common labor was widespread. See note 24.
51. Drew Gilpin Faust, A Sacred Circle: The Dilemma of the Intellectual in the Old South, 1840-1860 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). See also George M. Frederickson, The White Image in the Black Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817-1914 (New York: Harper and Row, 1971); Eugene D. Genovese, The Slaveholders' Dilemma: Freedom and Progress in Southern Conservative Thought, 1820-1860 (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1992); Larry E. Tise, Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavtry in America (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1987).
52. Drew Gilpin Faust, A Sacred Circle: The Dilemma of the Intellectual in the Old South, 1840-1860 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). See also George M. Frederickson, The White Image in the Black Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817-1914 (New York: Harper and Row, 1971); Eugene D. Genovese, The Slaveholders' Dilemma: Freedom and Progress in Southern Conservative Thought, 1820-1860 (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1992); Larry E. Tise, Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavtry in America (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1987).
53. Drew Gilpin Faust, A Sacred Circle: The Dilemma of the Intellectual in the Old South, 1840-1860 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). See also George M. Frederickson, The White Image in the Black Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817-1914 (New York: Harper and Row, 1971); Eugene D. Genovese, The Slaveholders' Dilemma: Freedom and Progress in Southern Conservative Thought, 1820-1860 (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1992); Larry E. Tise, Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavtry in America (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1987).
54. Drew Gilpin Faust, A Sacred Circle: The Dilemma of the Intellectual in the Old South, 1840-1860 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). See also George M. Frederickson, The White Image in the Black Mind: The Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817-1914 (New York: Harper and Row, 1971); Eugene D. Genovese, The Slaveholders' Dilemma: Freedom and Progress in Southern Conservative Thought, 1820-1860 (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1992); Larry E. Tise, Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavtry in America (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1987).
55. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
56. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
57. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
58. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
59. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry,
60. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
61. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
62. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
63. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
64. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
65. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
66. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
67. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
68. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
69. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
70. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
71. Wiswall v. Brinson, 32 N.C. 554 (1849). There were very few antebellum cases that dealt with free laborers. Most cases discussed either very specific events or specific categories of workers, particularly overseers. Generally, the courts did not attempt to define the term "laborer" or categorize their rights. For North Carolina, see also Lane v. Dudley, 6 N.C. 119 (1812); Harriss v. Mabry, 23 N.C. 240 (1840); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843); Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848). For South Carolina, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Boone v. Lyde, 3 Strobhart S.C. 77 (1848); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852). When North Carolina's Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with the status of servants after emancipation, it did so with the self-consciousness that this was a new issue as yet unclearly defined; see Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874). South Carolina's postbellum Supreme Court was so unfamiliar with the issue that it was not sure whether or not the relation of master and servant had ever governed antebellum free laborers. See Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). The laws governing free laborers in the South have received little notice from historians because they affected so few people. The goal of economic independence through either landownership or artisan work described the reality of most southern whites, who either headed or lived within such households. See Lacy K. Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 44-95; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 21-24; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 37-91. As McCurry notes, tenancy and wage labor were not permanent conditions, but stages in the life cycle for white men.
72. In 1837, the North Carolina legislature codified for overseers what appears to have been standard practice for common laborers, stating that "if any person shall hire or contract himself to serve as an overseer, either upon wages or share of the produce, with any person or planter whatsoever, and shall absent himself or depart from the service of his employer, before the time mentioned in his agreement or contract shall be expired, he shall, for such offence, forfeit his right and title to his wages or share of the crop." See Revised Statutes of the State of North Carolina, 1836-37 (Raleigh, 1837), chap. 83. For the law as developed through the court, see Steed v. McRae, 18 N.C. 435 (1836); Coxe v. Skeen, 25 N.C. 443 (1843). In Dover v. Plemmons, 32 N.C. 23 (1848), the court took a more liberal tack, granting back wages to a laborer who completed only four months of a six-month contract, but the specifics of the case limited its applicability. For South Carolina, see Suber v. Vanlew, 2 Spears S.C. 106 (1843). For similar cases, see McCracken v. Hare, 2 Spears S.C. 215 (1843); Craig v. Pride, 2 Spears S.C. 102 (1843); Hunter v. Gibson, 3 Richardson S.C. 161 (1846); Atkinston v. Fraser, 5 Richardson S.C. 519 (1852).
73. State v. James Chastain (1846), Vagrancy Trials, Magistrates and Freeholders Court, Anderson District, SCDAH. State v. Spencer Bolton and Mary Bolton (1828), Vagrancy Trials, Magistrates and Freeholders Court, Spartanburg District, SCDAH; Boone v. Lyde; Craig v. Pride. Edward Isham became so irate that he ended up killing his employer. See "Biography of Edward Isham alias Hardaway Bone" in the notebook of David Schenck, David Schenck Papers, North Carolina Division of Archives and History (hereafter NCDAH).
74. Hunter v. Gibson; Boone v. Lyde; Craig v. Pride. Employers' testimony in vagrancy cases indicates that employers regularly dismissed workers for drinking, talking back, and any other behavior deemed objectionable, without writing it into their contracts. Overseers were more likely to have written contracts than other workers since they were more responsible, received higher wages, and were hired for the entire year. The fact that such clauses were written into their contracts also suggests that overseers were presumed to retain more autonomy over their lives than more menial workers.
75. State v. Joseph Campbell, 1833, Vagrancy Trials, Magistrates and Freeholders Court, Anderson District, SCDAH.
76. Although unusual, the state's vagrancy laws throw widely accepted assumptions about labor and dependency into sharp relief. For the statute, adopted in 1787, see Benjamin James, A Digest of the Laws of South Carolina (Columbia, 1814), chap. 80. In 1836 several new classes of vagrants were added, but the treatment of vagrants remained essentially the same; the constitutionality of the law was challenged but upheld by the state supreme court in 1837. See State v. Maxcy, Arthur, et al., 1 McMullen S.C. 501 (1840). Although North Carolina did not prosecute whites for vagrancy, it carried out the same kinds of discussions and accomplished the same results under different guises. The state prosecuted vagrant men for nonsupport of their families and for nonmaintenance of illegitimate offspring, thereby forcing the men to pay the imposed fees through work. The state also forcibly institutionalized paupers in county poor houses, where they were forced to labor for their living. See Minutes and Accounts, Wardens of the Poor, 1832-1855, Ashe County, NCDAH; Minutes, Wardens of the Poor, 1838-1851, Bertie County, NCDAH; Minutes of the Wardens of the Poor, 1844-1866, Carteret County, NCDAH; Minutes of the Wardens of the Poor, 1837-1871, Craven County, NCDAH; Minutes of the Wardens of the Poor, 1820-1868, Lincoln County, NCDAH; Wardens of the Poor, Records, Person County, Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
77. State v. Henry Tie (1855), Vagrancy Trials, Magistrates and Freeholders Court, Kershaw District, SCDAH; State v. Fred Wilbanks (1851) and State v. Marvel Littlefield (1841), Vagrancy Trials, Magistrates and Freeholders Court, Spartanburg District, SCDAH; State v. Edmond Thacker (1852), Vagrancy Trials, Magistrates and Freeholders Court, Anderson District, SCDAH.
78. State v. Henry Sizemore (1841), State v. Temperance Sizemore or Temperance Crow (1841), and State v. Catherine Rinehart and Sabrina Duncan (1839), Vagrancy Trials, Magistrates and Freeholders Court, Anderson District, SCDAH.
79. James, A Digest of the Laws of South Carolina, 432. William McMurray of Anderson District articulated the indignity that other whites must have felt at being tried in the magistrates and freeholders courts - commonly referred to as the slave courts. Accused of assault, he insisted that the court had no jurisdiction over him because he was "a free white man" (State v. William McMurray [1857], Vagrancy Trials, Magistrates and Freeholders Court, Anderson District, SCDAH). There are numerous examples of propertied people committing offenses leveled at vagrants and getting off more lightly. See Anderson County, Court of General Sessions, Session Rolls, SCDAH. Church disciplinary hearings contain similar accounts as seen in Big Creek Baptist Church, Williamston, Anderson County, Records, 1801-1936; Baptist Church, Barnwell County, Minutes, 1803-1912; Black Creek Baptist Church (Primitive), Beaufort County, Church Book, 1828-1922; Bethabara Baptist Church, Laurens County, Records, 1801-1881; South Carolina Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
80. Stafford quoted in Paul D. Escott, Many Excellent People: Power and Privilege in North Carolina, 1850-1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 22; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 47-48. For the ways yeoman whites linked independence to control over productive property, also see: Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism; Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds; J. Mills Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, 1800-1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978); Harry L. Watson, "Conflict and Collaboration: Yeomen, Slaveholders, and Politics in the Antebellum South," Social History 10 (October 1985): 273-98.
81. Stafford quoted in Paul D. Escott, Many Excellent People: Power and Privilege in North Carolina, 1850-1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 22; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 47-48. For the ways yeoman whites linked independence to control over productive property, also see: Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism; Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds; J. Mills Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, 1800-1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978); Harry L. Watson, "Conflict and Collaboration: Yeomen, Slaveholders, and Politics in the Antebellum South," Social History 10 (October 1985): 273-98.
82. Stafford quoted in Paul D. Escott, Many Excellent People: Power and Privilege in North Carolina, 1850-1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 22; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 47-48. For the ways yeoman whites linked independence to control over productive property, also see: Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism; Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds; J. Mills Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, 1800-1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978); Harry L. Watson, "Conflict and Collaboration: Yeomen, Slaveholders, and Politics in the Antebellum South," Social History 10 (October 1985): 273-98.
83. Stafford quoted in Paul D. Escott, Many Excellent People: Power and Privilege in North Carolina, 1850-1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 22; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 47-48. For the ways yeoman whites linked independence to control over productive property, also see: Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism; Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds; J. Mills Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, 1800-1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978); Harry L. Watson, "Conflict and Collaboration: Yeomen, Slaveholders, and Politics in the Antebellum South," Social History 10 (October 1985): 273-98.
84. Stafford quoted in Paul D. Escott, Many Excellent People: Power and Privilege in North Carolina, 1850-1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 22; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 47-48. For the ways yeoman whites linked independence to control over productive property, also see: Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism; Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds; J. Mills Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, 1800-1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978); Harry L. Watson, "Conflict and Collaboration: Yeomen, Slaveholders, and Politics in the Antebellum South," Social History 10 (October 1985): 273-98.
85. Stafford quoted in Paul D. Escott, Many Excellent People: Power and Privilege in North Carolina, 1850-1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 22; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 47-48. For the ways yeoman whites linked independence to control over productive property, also see: Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism; Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds; J. Mills Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, 1800-1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978); Harry L. Watson, "Conflict and Collaboration: Yeomen, Slaveholders, and Politics in the Antebellum South," Social History 10 (October 1985): 273-98.
86. Stafford quoted in Paul D. Escott, Many Excellent People: Power and Privilege in North Carolina, 1850-1900 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 22; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 47-48. For the ways yeoman whites linked independence to control over productive property, also see: Ford, Origins of Southern Radicalism; Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism; McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds; J. Mills Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, 1800-1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978); Harry L. Watson, "Conflict and Collaboration: Yeomen, Slaveholders, and Politics in the Antebellum South," Social History 10 (October 1985): 273-98.
87. For North Carolina, see Bill Cecil-Fronsman, Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1992), 55-66; Escott, Many Excellent People, 85-112. The situation was similar in South Carolina; see McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 240-51. Whites in other states enjoyed a much more democratic system, see Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society. But although southern conservatives acquiesced to universal white manhood suffrage, as Reidy notes in From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism, 177, many did so grudgingly and with the conviction that hirelings - propertyless wage laborers - could never exercise suffrage independently. For the connection between free-labor ideology and the expansion of suffrage to propertyless white men, see Montgomery, Citizen Worker, 13-25; Steinfeld, Inention of Free Labor, 185-87.
88. For North Carolina, see Bill Cecil-Fronsman, Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1992), 55-66; Escott, Many Excellent People, 85-112. The situation was similar in South Carolina; see McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 240-51. Whites in other states enjoyed a much more democratic system, see Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society. But although southern conservatives acquiesced to universal white manhood suffrage, as Reidy notes in From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism, 177, many did so grudgingly and with the conviction that hirelings - propertyless wage laborers - could never exercise suffrage independently. For the connection between free-labor ideology and the expansion of suffrage to propertyless white men, see Montgomery, Citizen Worker, 13-25; Steinfeld, Inention of Free Labor, 185-87.
89. For North Carolina, see Bill Cecil-Fronsman, Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1992), 55-66; Escott, Many Excellent People, 85-112. The situation was similar in South Carolina; see McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 240-51. Whites in other states enjoyed a much more democratic system, see Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society. But although southern conservatives acquiesced to universal white manhood suffrage, as Reidy notes in From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism, 177, many did so grudgingly and with the conviction that hirelings - propertyless wage laborers - could never exercise suffrage independently. For the connection between free-labor ideology and the expansion of suffrage to propertyless white men, see Montgomery, Citizen Worker, 13-25; Steinfeld, Inention of Free Labor, 185-87.
90. For North Carolina, see Bill Cecil-Fronsman, Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1992), 55-66; Escott, Many Excellent People, 85-112. The situation was similar in South Carolina; see McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 240-51. Whites in other states enjoyed a much more democratic system, see Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society. But although southern conservatives acquiesced to universal white manhood suffrage, as Reidy notes in From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism, 177, many did so grudgingly and with the conviction that hirelings - propertyless wage laborers - could never exercise suffrage independently. For the connection between free-labor ideology and the expansion of suffrage to propertyless white men, see Montgomery, Citizen Worker, 13-25; Steinfeld, Inention of Free Labor, 185-87.
91. For North Carolina, see Bill Cecil-Fronsman, Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1992), 55-66; Escott, Many Excellent People, 85-112. The situation was similar in South Carolina; see McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 240-51. Whites in other states enjoyed a much more democratic system, see Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society. But although southern conservatives acquiesced to universal white manhood suffrage, as Reidy notes in From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism, 177, many did so grudgingly and with the conviction that hirelings - propertyless wage laborers - could never exercise suffrage independently. For the connection between free-labor ideology and the expansion of suffrage to propertyless white men, see Montgomery, Citizen Worker, 13-25; Steinfeld, Inention of Free Labor, 185-87.
92. For North Carolina, see Bill Cecil-Fronsman, Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1992), 55-66; Escott, Many Excellent People, 85-112. The situation was similar in South Carolina; see McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 240-51. Whites in other states enjoyed a much more democratic system, see Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society. But although southern conservatives acquiesced to universal white manhood suffrage, as Reidy notes in From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism, 177, many did so grudgingly and with the conviction that hirelings - propertyless wage laborers - could never exercise suffrage independently. For the connection between free-labor ideology and the expansion of suffrage to propertyless white men, see Montgomery, Citizen Worker, 13-25; Steinfeld, Inention of Free Labor, 185-87.
93. For North Carolina, see Bill Cecil-Fronsman, Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1992), 55-66; Escott, Many Excellent People, 85-112. The situation was similar in South Carolina; see McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds, 240-51. Whites in other states enjoyed a much more democratic system, see Thornton, Politics and Power in a Slave Society. But although southern conservatives acquiesced to universal white manhood suffrage, as Reidy notes in From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism, 177, many did so grudgingly and with the conviction that hirelings - propertyless wage laborers - could never exercise suffrage independently. For the connection between free-labor ideology and the expansion of suffrage to propertyless white men, see Montgomery, Citizen Worker, 13-25; Steinfeld, Inention of Free Labor, 185-87.
94. "Report of the Commission . . . to Prepare a Code for the Freedmen of this State," Raleigh Sentinel, 31 January 1866; Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866 (Raleigh, 1866), chaps. 58-59. In 1867, the North Carolina legislature increased the distance between workers and employers by establishing penalties for workers who left before the end of their contracts and weakened agricultural laborers' claims to the crop with new lien laws favoring suppliers; see Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866-67 (Raleigh, 1867), chap. 124, 1. For South Carolina's black code, see The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, vol. 13 (Columbia, 1875), 245-85. Although the language in South Carolina's law tended to be more racially specific, the intent was similar, see Woodman, New South, New Law, especially page 49. For cases dealing with the restrictions on antebellum laborers' mobility, see note 16. Northern vagrancy laws were actually similar to those in South Carolina, see Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers." There were also legal precedents reaching back to early modern England to support such actions as in Steinfeld, Invention of Free Labor, 27-34. As Steinfeld points out, agricultural laborers were the archetypical "servants," traditionally held more closely to the households of their masters and allowed less freedom than other workers. In both England and the colonies, close regulation had been considered more crucial for agricultural workers than for other hired hands because their departure at crucial moments in the growing cycle could result in the loss of the entire crop.
95. "Report of the Commission . . . to Prepare a Code for the Freedmen of this State," Raleigh Sentinel, 31 January 1866; Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866 (Raleigh, 1866), chaps. 58-59. In 1867, the North Carolina legislature increased the distance between workers and employers by establishing penalties for workers who left before the end of their contracts and weakened agricultural laborers' claims to the crop with new lien laws favoring suppliers; see Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866-67 (Raleigh, 1867), chap. 124, 1. For South Carolina's black code, see The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, vol. 13 (Columbia, 1875), 245-85. Although the language in South Carolina's law tended to be more racially specific, the intent was similar, see Woodman, New South, New Law, especially page 49. For cases dealing with the restrictions on antebellum laborers' mobility, see note 16. Northern vagrancy laws were actually similar to those in South Carolina, see Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers." There were also legal precedents reaching back to early modern England to support such actions as in Steinfeld, Invention of Free Labor, 27-34. As Steinfeld points out, agricultural laborers were the archetypical "servants," traditionally held more closely to the households of their masters and allowed less freedom than other workers. In both England and the colonies, close regulation had been considered more crucial for agricultural workers than for other hired hands because their departure at crucial moments in the growing cycle could result in the loss of the entire crop.
96. "Report of the Commission . . . to Prepare a Code for the Freedmen of this State," Raleigh Sentinel, 31 January 1866; Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866 (Raleigh, 1866), chaps. 58-59. In 1867, the North Carolina legislature increased the distance between workers and employers by establishing penalties for workers who left before the end of their contracts and weakened agricultural laborers' claims to the crop with new lien laws favoring suppliers; see Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866-67 (Raleigh, 1867), chap. 124, 1. For South Carolina's black code, see The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, vol. 13 (Columbia, 1875), 245-85. Although the language in South Carolina's law tended to be more racially specific, the intent was similar, see Woodman, New South, New Law, especially page 49. For cases dealing with the restrictions on antebellum laborers' mobility, see note 16. Northern vagrancy laws were actually similar to those in South Carolina, see Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers." There were also legal precedents reaching back to early modern England to support such actions as in Steinfeld, Invention of Free Labor, 27-34. As Steinfeld points out, agricultural laborers were the archetypical "servants," traditionally held more closely to the households of their masters and allowed less freedom than other workers. In both England and the colonies, close regulation had been considered more crucial for agricultural workers than for other hired hands because their departure at crucial moments in the growing cycle could result in the loss of the entire crop.
97. "Report of the Commission . . . to Prepare a Code for the Freedmen of this State," Raleigh Sentinel, 31 January 1866; Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866 (Raleigh, 1866), chaps. 58-59. In 1867, the North Carolina legislature increased the distance between workers and employers by establishing penalties for workers who left before the end of their contracts and weakened agricultural laborers' claims to the crop with new lien laws favoring suppliers; see Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866-67 (Raleigh, 1867), chap. 124, 1. For South Carolina's black code, see The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, vol. 13 (Columbia, 1875), 245-85. Although the language in South Carolina's law tended to be more racially specific, the intent was similar, see Woodman, New South, New Law, especially page 49. For cases dealing with the restrictions on antebellum laborers' mobility, see note 16. Northern vagrancy laws were actually similar to those in South Carolina, see Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers." There were also legal precedents reaching back to early modern England to support such actions as in Steinfeld, Invention of Free Labor, 27-34. As Steinfeld points out, agricultural laborers were the archetypical "servants," traditionally held more closely to the households of their masters and allowed less freedom than other workers. In both England and the colonies, close regulation had been considered more crucial for agricultural workers than for other hired hands because their departure at crucial moments in the growing cycle could result in the loss of the entire crop.
98. "Report of the Commission . . . to Prepare a Code for the Freedmen of this State," Raleigh Sentinel, 31 January 1866; Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866 (Raleigh, 1866), chaps. 58-59. In 1867, the North Carolina legislature increased the distance between workers and employers by establishing penalties for workers who left before the end of their contracts and weakened agricultural laborers' claims to the crop with new lien laws favoring suppliers; see Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866-67 (Raleigh, 1867), chap. 124, 1. For South Carolina's black code, see The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, vol. 13 (Columbia, 1875), 245-85. Although the language in South Carolina's law tended to be more racially specific, the intent was similar, see Woodman, New South, New Law, especially page 49. For cases dealing with the restrictions on antebellum laborers' mobility, see note 16. Northern vagrancy laws were actually similar to those in South Carolina, see Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers." There were also legal precedents reaching back to early modern England to support such actions as in Steinfeld, Invention of Free Labor, 27-34. As Steinfeld points out, agricultural laborers were the archetypical "servants," traditionally held more closely to the households of their masters and allowed less freedom than other workers. In both England and the colonies, close regulation had been considered more crucial for agricultural workers than for other hired hands because their departure at crucial moments in the growing cycle could result in the loss of the entire crop.
99. "Report of the Commission . . . to Prepare a Code for the Freedmen of this State," Raleigh Sentinel, 31 January 1866; Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866 (Raleigh, 1866), chaps. 58-59. In 1867, the North Carolina legislature increased the distance between workers and employers by establishing penalties for workers who left before the end of their contracts and weakened agricultural laborers' claims to the crop with new lien laws favoring suppliers; see Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866-67 (Raleigh, 1867), chap. 124, 1. For South Carolina's black code, see The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, vol. 13 (Columbia, 1875), 245-85. Although the language in South Carolina's law tended to be more racially specific, the intent was similar, see Woodman, New South, New Law, especially page 49. For cases dealing with the restrictions on antebellum laborers' mobility, see note 16. Northern vagrancy laws were actually similar to those in South Carolina, see Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers." There were also legal precedents reaching back to early modern England to support such actions as in Steinfeld, Invention of Free Labor, 27-34. As Steinfeld points out, agricultural laborers were the archetypical "servants," traditionally held more closely to the households of their masters and allowed less freedom than other workers. In both England and the colonies, close regulation had been considered more crucial for agricultural workers than for other hired hands because their departure at crucial moments in the growing cycle could result in the loss of the entire crop.
100. "Report of the Commission . . . to Prepare a Code for the Freedmen of this State," Raleigh Sentinel, 31 January 1866; Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866 (Raleigh, 1866), chaps. 58-59. In 1867, the North Carolina legislature increased the distance between workers and employers by establishing penalties for workers who left before the end of their contracts and weakened agricultural laborers' claims to the crop with new lien laws favoring suppliers; see Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . of 1866-67 (Raleigh, 1867), chap. 124, 1. For South Carolina's black code, see The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, vol. 13 (Columbia, 1875), 245-85. Although the language in South Carolina's law tended to be more racially specific, the intent was similar, see Woodman, New South, New Law, especially page 49. For cases dealing with the restrictions on antebellum laborers' mobility, see note 16. Northern vagrancy laws were actually similar to those in South Carolina, see Stanley, "Beggars Can't Be Choosers." There were also legal precedents reaching back to early modern England to support such actions as in Steinfeld, Invention of Free Labor, 27-34. As Steinfeld points out, agricultural laborers were the archetypical "servants," traditionally held more closely to the households of their masters and allowed less freedom than other workers. In both England and the colonies, close regulation had been considered more crucial for agricultural workers than for other hired hands because their departure at crucial moments in the growing cycle could result in the loss of the entire crop.
101. Quotes from Sidney Andrews, The South Since the War: As Shown by Fourteen Weeks of Travel and Observation in Georgia and the Carolinas (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1866), 183. Many other wealthy whites in both states regularly conveyed their fear of "the masses," by which they meant all propertyless people. Such references were common among conservative whites throughout the late nineteenth century, for instance J. G. DeRoulhac Hamilton, ed., The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth (Raleigh: North Carolina Historical Commission; Edwards and Broughton Printing Co., 1909), 2: 860, 1004, 1045, 1048, 1156, 1215. Conservatives also resisted extending political power to whites after the Civil War. See Escott, Many Excellent People; Michael Perman, Reunion Without Compromise: The South and Reconstruction, 1865-1868 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973); and Michael Perman, The Road to Redemption: Southern Politics, 1869-1879 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984).
102. Quotes from Sidney Andrews, The South Since the War: As Shown by Fourteen Weeks of Travel and Observation in Georgia and the Carolinas (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1866), 183. Many other wealthy whites in both states regularly conveyed their fear of "the masses," by which they meant all propertyless people. Such references were common among conservative whites throughout the late nineteenth century, for instance J. G. DeRoulhac Hamilton, ed., The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth (Raleigh: North Carolina Historical Commission; Edwards and Broughton Printing Co., 1909), 2: 860, 1004, 1045, 1048, 1156, 1215. Conservatives also resisted extending political power to whites after the Civil War. See Escott, Many Excellent People; Michael Perman, Reunion Without Compromise: The South and Reconstruction, 1865-1868 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973); and Michael Perman, The Road to Redemption: Southern Politics, 1869-1879 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984).
103. Quotes from Sidney Andrews, The South Since the War: As Shown by Fourteen Weeks of Travel and Observation in Georgia and the Carolinas (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1866), 183. Many other wealthy whites in both states regularly conveyed their fear of "the masses," by which they meant all propertyless people. Such references were common among conservative whites throughout the late nineteenth century, for instance J. G. DeRoulhac Hamilton, ed., The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth (Raleigh: North Carolina Historical Commission; Edwards and Broughton Printing Co., 1909), 2: 860, 1004, 1045, 1048, 1156, 1215. Conservatives also resisted extending political power to whites after the Civil War. See Escott, Many Excellent People; Michael Perman, Reunion Without Compromise: The South and Reconstruction, 1865-1868 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973); and Michael Perman, The Road to Redemption: Southern Politics, 1869-1879 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984).
104. Quotes from Sidney Andrews, The South Since the War: As Shown by Fourteen Weeks of Travel and Observation in Georgia and the Carolinas (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1866), 183. Many other wealthy whites in both states regularly conveyed their fear of "the masses," by which they meant all propertyless people. Such references were common among conservative whites throughout the late nineteenth century, for instance J. G. DeRoulhac Hamilton, ed., The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth (Raleigh: North Carolina Historical Commission; Edwards and Broughton Printing Co., 1909), 2: 860, 1004, 1045, 1048, 1156, 1215. Conservatives also resisted extending political power to whites after the Civil War. See Escott, Many Excellent People; Michael Perman, Reunion Without Compromise: The South and Reconstruction, 1865-1868 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973); and Michael Perman, The Road to Redemption: Southern Politics, 1869-1879 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984).
105. Quotes from Sidney Andrews, The South Since the War: As Shown by Fourteen Weeks of Travel and Observation in Georgia and the Carolinas (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1866), 183. Many other wealthy whites in both states regularly conveyed their fear of "the masses," by which they meant all propertyless people. Such references were common among conservative whites throughout the late nineteenth century, for instance J. G. DeRoulhac Hamilton, ed., The Correspondence of Jonathan Worth (Raleigh: North Carolina Historical Commission; Edwards and Broughton Printing Co., 1909), 2: 860, 1004, 1045, 1048, 1156, 1215. Conservatives also resisted extending political power to whites after the Civil War. See Escott, Many Excellent People; Michael Perman, Reunion Without Compromise: The South and Reconstruction, 1865-1868 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973); and Michael Perman, The Road to Redemption: Southern Politics, 1869-1879 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984).
106. For an elaboration of these points, see Laura F. Edwards, "The Disappearance of Susan Daniel and Henderson Cooper: Gender and Narratives of Political Conflict in the Reconstruction-Era U.S. South," Feminist Studies 22 (Summer 1996): 363-86; and Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion. For the way race and class mixed to cast African Americans as permanent dependents, see also Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground; and Thomas C. Holt, The
107. For an elaboration of these points, see Laura F. Edwards, "The Disappearance of Susan Daniel and Henderson Cooper: Gender and Narratives of Political Conflict in the Reconstruction-Era U.S. South," Feminist Studies 22 (Summer 1996): 363-86; and Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion. For the way race and class mixed to cast African Americans as permanent dependents, see also Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground; and Thomas C. Holt, The Problem of Freedom: Race, Labor, and Politics in Jamaica and Britain (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). For the expectation among planters that African Americans would work as wage laborers, see Gerald David Jaynes, Branches Without Roots: Genesis of the Black Working Class in the American South, 1862-1882 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); and Woodman, New South, New Law.
108. For an elaboration of these points, see Laura F. Edwards, "The Disappearance of Susan Daniel and Henderson Cooper: Gender and Narratives of Political Conflict in the Reconstruction-Era U.S. South," Feminist Studies 22 (Summer 1996): 363-86; and Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion. For the way race and class mixed to cast African Americans as permanent dependents, see also Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground; and Thomas C. Holt, The Problem of Freedom: Race, Labor, and Politics in Jamaica and Britain (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). For the expectation among planters that African Americans would work as wage laborers, see Gerald David Jaynes, Branches Without Roots: Genesis of the Black Working Class in the American South, 1862-1882 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); and Woodman, New South, New Law.
109. For an elaboration of these points, see Laura F. Edwards, "The Disappearance of Susan Daniel and Henderson Cooper: Gender and Narratives of Political Conflict in the Reconstruction-Era U.S. South," Feminist Studies 22 (Summer 1996): 363-86; and Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion. For the way race and class mixed to cast African Americans as permanent dependents, see also Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground; and Thomas C. Holt, The Problem of Freedom: Race, Labor, and Politics in Jamaica and Britain (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). For the expectation among planters that African Americans would work as wage laborers, see Gerald David Jaynes, Branches Without Roots: Genesis of the Black Working Class in the American South, 1862-1882 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); and Woodman, New South, New Law.
110. For an elaboration of these points, see Laura F. Edwards, "The Disappearance of Susan Daniel and Henderson Cooper: Gender and Narratives of Political Conflict in the Reconstruction-Era U.S. South," Feminist Studies 22 (Summer 1996): 363-86; and Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion. For the way race and class mixed to cast African Americans as permanent dependents, see also Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground; and Thomas C. Holt, The Problem of Freedom: Race, Labor, and Politics in Jamaica and Britain (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). For the expectation among planters that African Americans would work as wage laborers, see Gerald David Jaynes, Branches Without Roots: Genesis of the Black Working Class in the American South, 1862-1882 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); and Woodman, New South, New Law.
111. For an elaboration of these points, see Laura F. Edwards, "The Disappearance of Susan Daniel and Henderson Cooper: Gender and Narratives of Political Conflict in the Reconstruction-Era U.S. South," Feminist Studies 22 (Summer 1996): 363-86; and Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion. For the way race and class mixed to cast African Americans as permanent dependents, see also Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground; and Thomas C. Holt, The Problem of Freedom: Race, Labor, and Politics in Jamaica and Britain (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). For the expectation among planters that African Americans would work as wage laborers, see Gerald David Jaynes, Branches Without Roots: Genesis of the Black Working Class in the American South, 1862-1882 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); and Woodman, New South, New Law.
112. Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chaps. 117 and 156. The laborers' lien laws include Laws and Resolutions . . . of North Carolina . . . Special Session . . . 1868 (Raleigh, 1868), chap. 41; and Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chap. 206. The Revised Statutes of the State of South Carolina . . . 1869 (Columbia, 1873), chaps. 70, 103. Southern historians have tended to emphasize the progressive effect of Republican-authored legislation on labor relations and ignore its more restrictive aspects, accepting nineteenth-century free-labor ideology too uncritically and thus assuming that all free laborers were equally "free." Exceptions to this trend are Hahamovitch, The Fruits of Their Labor; Lichtenstein, Twice the Work of Free Labor; and Woodman, New South, New Law.
113. Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chaps. 117 and 156. The laborers' lien laws include Laws and Resolutions . . . of North Carolina . . . Special Session . . . 1868 (Raleigh, 1868), chap. 41; and Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chap. 206. The Revised Statutes of the State of South Carolina . . . 1869 (Columbia, 1873), chaps. 70, 103. Southern historians have tended to emphasize the progressive effect of Republican-authored legislation on labor relations and ignore its more restrictive aspects, accepting nineteenth-century free-labor ideology too uncritically and thus assuming that all free laborers were equally "free." Exceptions to this trend are Hahamovitch, The Fruits of Their Labor; Lichtenstein, Twice the Work of Free Labor; and Woodman, New South, New Law.
114. Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chaps. 117 and 156. The laborers' lien laws include Laws and Resolutions . . . of North Carolina . . . Special Session . . . 1868 (Raleigh, 1868), chap. 41; and Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chap. 206. The Revised Statutes of the State of South Carolina . . . 1869 (Columbia, 1873), chaps. 70, 103. Southern historians have tended to emphasize the progressive effect of Republican-authored legislation on labor relations and ignore its more restrictive aspects, accepting nineteenth-century free-labor ideology too uncritically and thus assuming that all free laborers were equally "free." Exceptions to this trend are Hahamovitch, The Fruits of Their Labor; Lichtenstein, Twice the Work of Free Labor; and Woodman, New South, New Law.
115. Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chaps. 117 and 156. The laborers' lien laws include Laws and Resolutions . . . of North Carolina . . . Special Session . . . 1868 (Raleigh, 1868), chap. 41; and Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chap. 206. The Revised Statutes of the State of South Carolina . . . 1869 (Columbia, 1873), chaps. 70, 103. Southern historians have tended to emphasize the progressive effect of Republican-authored legislation on labor relations and ignore its more restrictive aspects, accepting nineteenth-century free-labor ideology too uncritically and thus assuming that all free laborers were equally "free." Exceptions to this trend are Hahamovitch, The Fruits of Their Labor; Lichtenstein, Twice the Work of Free Labor; and Woodman, New South, New Law.
116. Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chaps. 117 and 156. The laborers' lien laws include Laws and Resolutions . . . of North Carolina . . . Special Session . . . 1868 (Raleigh, 1868), chap. 41; and Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chap. 206. The Revised Statutes of the State of South Carolina . . . 1869 (Columbia, 1873), chaps. 70, 103. Southern historians have tended to emphasize the progressive effect of Republican-authored legislation on labor relations and ignore its more restrictive aspects, accepting nineteenth-century free-labor ideology too uncritically and thus assuming that all free laborers were equally "free." Exceptions to this trend are Hahamovitch, The Fruits of Their Labor; Lichtenstein, Twice the Work of Free Labor; and Woodman, New South, New Law.
117. Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chaps. 117 and 156. The laborers' lien laws include Laws and Resolutions . . . of North Carolina . . . Special Session . . . 1868 (Raleigh, 1868), chap. 41; and Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chap. 206. The Revised Statutes of the State of South Carolina . . . 1869 (Columbia, 1873), chaps. 70, 103. Southern historians have tended to emphasize the progressive effect of Republican-authored legislation on labor relations and ignore its more restrictive aspects, accepting nineteenth-century free-labor ideology too uncritically and thus assuming that all free laborers were equally "free." Exceptions to this trend are Hahamovitch, The Fruits of Their Labor; Lichtenstein, Twice the Work of Free Labor; and Woodman, New South, New Law.
118. Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chaps. 117 and 156. The laborers' lien laws include Laws and Resolutions . . . of North Carolina . . . Special Session . . . 1868 (Raleigh, 1868), chap. 41; and Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1868-1869 (Raleigh, 1869), chap. 206. The Revised Statutes of the State of South Carolina . . . 1869 (Columbia, 1873), chaps. 70, 103. Southern historians have tended to emphasize the progressive effect of Republican-authored legislation on labor relations and ignore its more restrictive aspects, accepting nineteenth-century free-labor ideology too uncritically and thus assuming that all free laborers were equally "free." Exceptions to this trend are Hahamovitch, The Fruits of Their Labor; Lichtenstein, Twice the Work of Free Labor; and Woodman, New South, New Law.
119. Woodman, New South, New Law, especially 67-94; Jaynes, Branches Without Roots; and Marjorie Mendenhall Applewhite, "Sharecropper and Tenant in the Courts of North Carolina," North Carolina Historical Review 31 (April 1954): 134-49. In antebellum North Carolina, the courts often determined the status of the party in question only after the fact in order to settle a conflict between the renter and the landlord. As Woodman points out, the status of sharecroppers has generated confusion among historians because of the disjuncture between law and practice. Legally, sharecroppers did not control their own labor or its product, but in practice, many southerners defined renters as those who owned their own mules and other farm equipment. Sharecroppers, by contrast, did not. Woodman argues that the latter definitions predominated in the upcountry, where an older definition of tenancy still retained meaning in practice, particularly for whites, despite the changes in the law. Nonetheless, the legal categories still applied when conflicts arose and propelled tenants into court, where the customary rights they might have enjoyed in practice were subordinated to the law.
120. Woodman, New South, New Law, especially 67-94; Jaynes, Branches Without Roots; and Marjorie Mendenhall Applewhite, "Sharecropper and Tenant in the Courts of North Carolina," North Carolina Historical Review 31 (April 1954): 134-49. In antebellum North Carolina, the courts often determined the status of the party in question only after the fact in order to settle a conflict between the renter and the landlord. As Woodman points out, the status of sharecroppers has generated confusion among historians because of the disjuncture between law and practice. Legally, sharecroppers did not control their own labor or its product, but in practice, many southerners defined renters as those who owned their own mules and other farm equipment. Sharecroppers, by contrast, did not. Woodman argues that the latter definitions predominated in the upcountry, where an older definition of tenancy still retained meaning in practice, particularly for whites, despite the changes in the law. Nonetheless, the legal categories still applied when conflicts arose and propelled tenants into court, where the customary rights they might have enjoyed in practice were subordinated to the law.
121. Woodman, New South, New Law, especially 67-94; Jaynes, Branches Without Roots; and Marjorie Mendenhall Applewhite, "Sharecropper and Tenant in the Courts of North Carolina," North Carolina Historical Review 31 (April 1954): 134-49. In antebellum North Carolina, the courts often determined the status of the party in question only after the fact in order to settle a conflict between the renter and the landlord. As Woodman points out, the status of sharecroppers has generated confusion among historians because of the disjuncture between law and practice. Legally, sharecroppers did not control their own labor or its product, but in practice, many southerners defined renters as those who owned their own mules and other farm equipment. Sharecroppers, by contrast, did not. Woodman argues that the latter definitions predominated in the upcountry, where an older definition of tenancy still retained meaning in practice, particularly for whites, despite the changes in the law. Nonetheless, the legal categories still applied when conflicts arose and propelled tenants into court, where the customary rights they might have enjoyed in practice were subordinated to the law.
122. Applewhite, "Sharecropper and Tenant in the Courts of North Carolina"; William Cohen, At Freedom's Edge: Black Mobility and the Southern White Quest for Racial Control, 1861-1915 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1991); Perman, The Road to Redemption, 237-63; Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism, 221-27, 232-33; Woodman, New South, New Law; Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1876-77 (Raleigh, 1877), chap. 283.
123. Applewhite, "Sharecropper and Tenant in the Courts of North Carolina"; William Cohen, At Freedom's Edge: Black Mobility and the Southern White Quest for Racial Control, 1861-1915 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1991); Perman, The Road to Redemption, 237-63; Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism, 221-27, 232-33; Woodman, New South, New Law; Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1876-77 (Raleigh, 1877), chap. 283.
124. Applewhite, "Sharecropper and Tenant in the Courts of North Carolina"; William Cohen, At Freedom's Edge: Black Mobility and the Southern White Quest for Racial Control, 1861-1915 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1991); Perman, The Road to Redemption, 237-63; Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism, 221-27, 232-33; Woodman, New South, New Law; Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1876-77 (Raleigh, 1877), chap. 283.
125. Applewhite, "Sharecropper and Tenant in the Courts of North Carolina"; William Cohen, At Freedom's Edge: Black Mobility and the Southern White Quest for Racial Control, 1861-1915 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1991); Perman, The Road to Redemption, 237-63; Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism, 221-27, 232-33; Woodman, New South, New Law; Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1876-77 (Raleigh, 1877), chap. 283.
126. Applewhite, "Sharecropper and Tenant in the Courts of North Carolina"; William Cohen, At Freedom's Edge: Black Mobility and the Southern White Quest for Racial Control, 1861-1915 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1991); Perman, The Road to Redemption, 237-63; Reidy, From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism, 221-27, 232-33; Woodman, New South, New Law; Public Laws of the State of North Carolina . . . 1876-77 (Raleigh, 1877), chap. 283.
127. Haskins v. Royster; Morgan v. Smith, 77 N.C. 37 (1877); Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S.C. 297 (1875). Just five years earlier, in Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S.C. 7 (1870), the South Carolina court declared that "relation of master and servant, as it existed in England, was wholly different from the relation of employer and employed as it exists in this country." It did not, however, disavow that relation completely, but restricted it to menials who worked around the houses of their employers. The court took this definition and expanded it in Daniel v. Swearengen, arguing that the underlying reasons for allowing employers of domestics such control were legitimate and should be applied more generally to a broader category of workers.
128. For an elaboration of these points, see Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion. This analysis is based on my reading of two groups of sources that contain numerous labor-related conflicts. Criminal Action Papers, Edgecombe, Granville, and Orange Counties, 1865-1890, NCDAH; the various local records for the Sub-District of Granville, North Carolina, Records of United States Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, RG 105, National Archives (hereafter Records of USBRFAL, NA); and Records of the Assistant Commissioner for the State of North Carolina, National Archives Microfilm Publication, M43 (hereafter Records of the Assistant Commissioner). For an expanded discussion of these issues, see Jonathan M. Bryant, How Curious a Land: Conflict and Change in Greene County, Georgia, 1850-1885 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996); Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground; Eric Foner, Nothing But Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983); Saville, The Work of Reconstruction; Leslie A. Schwalm, A Hard Fight for We: Women's Transition from Slavery to Freedom in South Carolina (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997).
129. For an elaboration of these points, see Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion. This analysis is based on my reading of two groups of sources that contain numerous labor-related conflicts. Criminal Action Papers, Edgecombe, Granville, and Orange Counties, 1865-1890, NCDAH; the various local records for the Sub-District of Granville, North Carolina, Records of United States Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, RG 105, National Archives (hereafter Records of USBRFAL, NA); and Records of the Assistant Commissioner for the State of North Carolina, National Archives Microfilm Publication, M43 (hereafter Records of the Assistant Commissioner). For an expanded discussion of these issues, see Jonathan M. Bryant, How Curious a Land: Conflict and Change in Greene County, Georgia, 1850-1885 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996); Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground; Eric Foner, Nothing But Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983); Saville, The Work of Reconstruction; Leslie A. Schwalm, A Hard Fight for We: Women's Transition from Slavery to Freedom in South Carolina (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997).
130. For an elaboration of these points, see Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion. This analysis is based on my reading of two groups of sources that contain numerous labor-related conflicts. Criminal Action Papers, Edgecombe, Granville, and Orange Counties, 1865-1890, NCDAH; the various local records for the Sub-District of Granville, North Carolina, Records of United States Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, RG 105, National Archives (hereafter Records of USBRFAL, NA); and Records of the Assistant Commissioner for the State of North Carolina, National Archives Microfilm Publication, M43 (hereafter Records of the Assistant Commissioner). For an expanded discussion of these issues, see Jonathan M. Bryant, How Curious a Land: Conflict and Change in Greene County, Georgia, 1850-1885 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996); Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground; Eric Foner, Nothing But Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983); Saville, The Work of Reconstruction; Leslie A. Schwalm, A Hard Fight for We: Women's Transition from Slavery to Freedom in South Carolina (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997).
131. For an elaboration of these points, see Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion. This analysis is based on my reading of two groups of sources that contain numerous labor-related conflicts. Criminal Action Papers, Edgecombe, Granville, and Orange Counties, 1865-1890, NCDAH; the various local records for the Sub-District of Granville, North Carolina, Records of United States Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, RG 105, National Archives (hereafter Records of USBRFAL, NA); and Records of the Assistant Commissioner for the State of North Carolina, National Archives Microfilm Publication, M43 (hereafter Records of the Assistant Commissioner). For an expanded discussion of these issues, see Jonathan M. Bryant, How Curious a Land: Conflict and Change in Greene County, Georgia, 1850-1885 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996); Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground; Eric Foner, Nothing But Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983); Saville, The Work of Reconstruction; Leslie A. Schwalm, A Hard Fight for We: Women's Transition from Slavery to Freedom in South Carolina (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997).
132. For an elaboration of these points, see Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion. This analysis is based on my reading of two groups of sources that contain numerous labor-related conflicts. Criminal Action Papers, Edgecombe, Granville, and Orange Counties, 1865-1890, NCDAH; the various local records for the Sub-District of Granville, North Carolina, Records of United States Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, RG 105, National Archives (hereafter Records of USBRFAL, NA); and Records of the Assistant Commissioner for the State of North Carolina, National Archives Microfilm Publication, M43 (hereafter Records of the Assistant Commissioner). For an expanded discussion of these issues, see Jonathan M. Bryant, How Curious a Land: Conflict and Change in Greene County, Georgia, 1850-1885 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996); Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground; Eric Foner, Nothing But Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983); Saville, The Work of Reconstruction; Leslie A. Schwalm, A Hard Fight for We: Women's Transition from Slavery to Freedom in South Carolina (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997).
133. For an elaboration of these points, see Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion. This analysis is based on my reading of two groups of sources that contain numerous labor-related conflicts. Criminal Action Papers, Edgecombe, Granville, and Orange Counties, 1865-1890, NCDAH; the various local records for the Sub-District of Granville, North Carolina, Records of United States Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, RG 105, National Archives (hereafter Records of USBRFAL, NA); and Records of the Assistant Commissioner for the State of North Carolina, National Archives Microfilm Publication, M43 (hereafter Records of the Assistant Commissioner). For an expanded discussion of these issues, see Jonathan M. Bryant, How Curious a Land: Conflict and Change in Greene County, Georgia, 1850-1885 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996); Fields, Slavery and Freedom on the Middle Ground; Eric Foner, Nothing But Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983); Saville, The Work of Reconstruction; Leslie A. Schwalm, A Hard Fight for We: Women's Transition from Slavery to Freedom in South Carolina (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997).
134. Criminal Action Papers, Edgecombe, Granville, and Orange Counties, 1865-1890, NCDAH; Sub-District of Granville, North Carolina, Records of USBRFAL, NA; Records of the Assistant Commissioner.
135. Hannibal Young to Freedmen's Bureau, 4 September 1867, Letters Received, Raleigh Headquarters, Records of USBRFAL, NA; Warren Allen to N. A. Miles, 10 July 1867, and Robert Hunt to Lieutenant Colonel Jacob Chur, 27 July 1867, Letters Received, Records of the Assistant Commissioner. Also see Rawlins Royster to General Miles, 19 September 1867, Jordan Overby to General Miles, 30 August 1867, and Mark Overby to Freedmen's Bureau, 30 August 1867 (letter filed with a letter written by Jordan Overby on the same date), Records of the Assistant Commissioner. For further elaboration of this point, see Edwards, Gendered Strife and Confusion. 36. Haskins v. Royster.