I just responded to a comment on my post from yesterday, and thought that I should raise my thoughts to the level of a post.
Who can we point to (among Southern writers/authors of the 19th century), for having had the most influence on defining the ideology of the 19th century South as it existed prior to 1865? Are there any who could not be counted among the socially elite?
I suggest, the imagery that we have of the typical Southerner, is something passed down to us by the socially elite… often of the slaveholding class. Sadly, I believe it has defined (among too many) how Civil War-era Southerners are considered.
Take the examples of the postwar writings of John Esten Cooke, and then the children of the war (those born in the 1850s)… such as Thomas Nelson Page, Philip Alexander Bruce, and Lyon Gardiner Tyler.
All were from the upper social class… the Southern elite.
In part, I think this comes from my time considering my own Civil War-era Southern ancestry. Most were among the common man… the working class. Only a few might be considered somewhere in the middle class range. Before the war (1850 and earlier), a few (not many) owned slaves… not large numbers, but between 1-3. By 1860, none owned slaves. All of my direct ancestors from that era lived below the Mason-Dixon Line, in both the Shenandoah Valley (Page, Rockingham, and Warren counties) and lower Cumberland Valley (Washington Co., Md.). When I look back at them (some supported the Confederacy, some were leave-aloners, some were Southern Unionists), I don’t see them as being defined by the ideology that the socially elites pushed on us, as descendants (and upon others who might consider Southerners from that era, with those writers in mind). I don’t see my ancestors as being under the tight grip of the Sir Walter Scott mentality.
So, again, is there anyone, who lived in that era and wrote about the Southern mindset, who was not from among the socially elite? Did any focus on the Southerner outside that defined by those who are often considered in the Sir Walter Scott crowd?
Follow-up: I’ll add to this that, dominance by writers from the socially elite reminds me of the dominance (or dedicated efforts in pursuading others) of that same class in the secession movement in the Southern states. There is no mistaking their influence in both situations.
Cenantua's Blog 
acwresearcher
September 3, 2013
The Southerners in my ancestry include at least one journalist. (That information is courtesy of Professor Bynum over at Renegade South and my granduncle, O.L. Collins.) From what I have gathered about the middle-class writers of the post-war era (and presumably the antebellum era as well) is that words were a means to make a living. Does that mean they expressed opinions and shaped ideas with their writing? Of course! Any writer that doesn’t look to do that is wasting time. What I see is the elites had the funds to market their works to a much broader audience than the local community, leading to the most influential writers in the South being those whose ideas have shaped a large portion of public perception of the Southerner, stretching from the antebellum period to the present. I include the present because many have not gone back to challenge the perceptions presented by these elites through study of contemporary, but lesser known, works or the few studies that have been conducted since.
acwresearcher
September 3, 2013
The sentence should have been, “What I see is the elites had the funds to market their works to a much broader audience than the local community, leading to the most influential writers in the South being those who had the most money for marketing and whose ideas have shaped a large portion of public perception of the Southerner, stretching from the antebellum period to the present.
Robert Moore
September 3, 2013
Here’s something else that comes to mind… if an objective is to distance the role of the common Southern man, as a Confederate soldier, from the practices and mindset of slaveholding elites, why is it that the legacy of the slaveholding elites continues to define the manner in which many Southerners reflect on the past? It’s almost as if the elites have a foothold in some, even this many years after. It seems to be counterproductive. Just a thought, but it seems that those who do this are simply unaware of the awkward connection.
Robert Moore
September 3, 2013
“many have not gone back to challenge the perceptions presented by these elites”
This is the direction in which I’m leaning (to challenge the perceptions of the South, which have become part of our “historical memory”). Of course, digging through the writers who were less high in the social strata presents another series of problems. For one, most from the working class simply didn’t have the education or social connections that helped to get them a place in the literary community. When I look at writers from the Valley before the war (the most successful, that is), the social connections and social status are clear.
Bringing about an awareness that “the story of the Civil War era Southerner as presented by the social elites isn’t necessarily your gg grandaddy’s story” is just a tough egg to crack. That memory, collaterally passed along to us by the socially elite, and embedding itself in subsequent generations since the war, is something that has only gone deeper, over the years. I’ll add… it also serves a purpose for those who wish to stereotype the antebellum Southerner, and subsequently judge based on that.
Thanks for commenting, Greg!
acwresearcher
September 3, 2013
And common Southerners do not fit Hollywood’s mold. In referencing your previous post, what would Mark Twain think about the long-term proliferation of this imagery?
Robert Moore
September 3, 2013
I think Twain would have much to say, and it would be even more pointed.
stampdxer
September 4, 2013
Logged into my RSS reader .. Don’t know if this post made it..
Repost here
Antebellum era the south was essentially illiterate . In contrast the north, especially the norheast was totally literate. The city of Cincinnati had more newspapers than all of South Carolina . So perhaps your beating a dead horse.
Robert Moore
September 4, 2013
“Antebellum era the south was essentially illiterate. In contrast the north, especially the northeast was totally literate. The city of Cincinnati had more newspapers than all of South Carolina.”
I’m afraid you missed the point of my post. I recommend reading from the start of this series and understand how I got to this point.
Additionally, you should reconsider your approach of broad-brushing literacy in the antebellum South, as a whole, by making a comparison between newspapers found in Cincinnati and South Carolina. Areas within the South varied, and, therefore, antebellum levels of literacy should only be assessed by areas within the South.
“So perhaps your beating a dead horse.”
No, not at all.
Richard Williams
September 10, 2013
“Antebellum era the south was essentially illiterate.” ??
That kinda reads like an oxymoron, doesn’t it?
Richard G. Williams, Jr.
September 9, 2013
Robert – I don’t know why I didn’t think of this earlier. I have a book in my library titled, “Southern Literature.” It was published in 1895 (B.F. Johnson, Richmond) and was written by Louise Manly. It covers the period from 1579 to 1895. It is an excellent resource, particularly on this topic that you’re exploring. The author writes in the preface:
“The primary object of this book is to furnish our children with material for becoming acquainted with the development of American life and history as found in Southern writers and their works. It may serve . . . for serious study of Southern life and letters . . .”
5×7, 540 pages. Electronic version (free) here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27279/27279-h/27279-h.htm
I think you’ll find it well worth your time.
Robert Moore
September 10, 2013
Thanks, Richard! I’ll take a look.
stampdxer
September 10, 2013
Haven’t read this.. Recent Grad level book on the subject of history southern literature . Available on amazon. Used – 1 cent plus shipping.
History of Southern Literature [Hardcover]
Louis D. Rubin (Editor)
Hardcover: 608 pages
Publisher: Louisiana State University Press; First Edition edition (December 1985)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0807112518
ISBN-13: 978-0807112519
Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6.4 x 1.8 inches
Edited by several of the important scholars in the field, this is the only up-to-date survey that presents Southern literature from its beginnings to the present. Its chapters, covering such subjects as “Antebellum Fiction” and “The Agrarians” as well as such individuals as Simms and Faulkner, are clearly written and authoritative.
Richard Williams
September 10, 2013
In regards to the one comment which states (with very poor syntax), that the South was illiterate, I would offer the following:
“The south has produced the world’s best literature. It dominates world culture. Southern culture is the most powerful and expressive in the world.” ~ Timothy Tyson
How did an “illiterate culture” produce many (if not most) of America’s finest writers – and historians?
Robert Moore
September 10, 2013
I know… that just doesn’t add up… even if we don’t venture beyond the antebellum era. While I think that there were portions of the South that were more illiterate than others (again, keeping in mind, it’s specifically the time before the war that I’m considering), I see nothing that demonstrates this was the case for the South as a whole. I would think there is some sort of class literacy study for the South, prior to 1860… but I haven’t seen one.
Speaking specifically about the Valley, however, I think the literacy rate appears good. While I haven’t finished my list of Valley newspapers, I do see that there were quite a few… usually directed specifically at the local population (it will be interesting, once I finish compiling the list, to see some sort of newspaper to population volume stats). What I can’t find, however, are the circulation rates.
Additionally, for the central Valley, we have the Henkel Press, which printed a good deal… much of it being directed to the Lutheran communities… and several of them speaking both English and German.
Then, as I’ve demonstrated, we have antebellum-era writers in the Valley,
On the other hand, there is something that appears in a E.A. Poe biography which has drawn my attention… something about Poe being bored as an editor of the Southern Literary Messenger. He apparently received several poorly written manuscripts. I’d like to know the source of that. Then again… it was Poe, and he was very critical of works (but he did like the Valley’s own Philip Pendleton Cooke).
Richard Williams
September 10, 2013
Robert – you may already know about this, but if not, you might find it relevant:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/land/landsout.html
stampdxer
September 10, 2013
Hi
Know I don’t type well. I was responding to this part of original post .
>>>€there any who could not be counted among the socially elite?
Point I was trying to make was here in the Deep South and tidewater.. People not in the social elite couldn’t read or write. Especially write. Some people could read signs etc., so they were thought to be literate.
I think the valley is perhaps different and unique in the south as it was settled from the north.
As far as historians, pretty bad till van Woodward. Today historians at UNC SC Mississipi state, are a breath of fresh air. At one time it was thought to write about southern history you had to be born in the south. Here in SC been some great works on the rice culture.
A really interesting southern writer is Joel Chandler Harris. He was born poor with no father etc in the late antebellum time frame. During the war lived worked on plantation. His uncle Remus has been reinterpretated in last few years. Literary genius.. Wrens nest blog has pretty good five part series. Uncle Remus Exposed😀
http://www.wrensnest.org/everything-youve-heard-about-uncle-remus-is-wrong-part-1/
Robert Moore
September 10, 2013
“I think the valley is perhaps different and unique in the south as it was settled from the north.”
Not necessarily in the manner in which you seem to suggest. The majority who made their way into the Valley from that direction did not linger long enough in the North to gain better positioning (in regard to education and culture, for example) from their time there. Additionally, while the Great Valley Road served as the corridor into the Shenandoah, settlers also made their way into the Valley from the east. Clarke County is, for example, a major settlement area for several from the Tidewater elite (and it shows in Clarke County’s record of slave-holding), yet there are also those from Tidewater descent who made their way into the Valley via social circles connected to Lynchburg. Also, the German element wasn’t exclusively “Pa-German”, but also included descendants from those who were part of the Germanna Colony.
Overall, the approach to the Valley shouldn’t be any different than an approach to any other region in the South. Each region needs to be examined as part of… and yet unique from… the whole.
stampdxer
September 10, 2013
Forgot to mention.. Really good online set of lectures at NYU. History of American literature up to the civil war. Skip the moby dick lectures. Rest are pretty good. Two lectures on uncle toms cabin. Mostly northern writers tho Poe is mentioned a couple of times. The lectures are more about american history than one would think.
http://www.nyu.edu/academics/open-education/coursesnew/american-literature.html
Janet
September 10, 2013
The “circulation of the Dispatch” in Richmond is given in their Jan. 25, 1861 issue online. They say it is 10,000 per day. They claim to have the greatest circulation in the South. They compare it to 2,000 per day around 1851. This will give a frame of reference. The Richmond Daily Dispatch had many articles submitted by correspondents in the Valley. Citizens read about when to vote, when the militia had to muster, how to pay Taxes in Kind, etc. I never saw an article that encouraged readers to relay messages to their illiterate neighbors.
Robert Moore
September 10, 2013
No, I’m afraid it really doesn’t give a frame of reference, because the Valley papers weren’t as widely circulated. Even though there were many different newspapers in the Valley, many there still turned to larger papers from the “big cities”. I still recall seeing an account of a person in Rockingham County receiving the Baltimore Sun, in 1861. One of the things I really want to see is the list of subscribers to the Virginia Free Press. It’s located at UNC-Chapel Hill.
That’s a good one about messages to the illiterate neighbors! 🙂
Janet
September 10, 2013
A search for — “Virginia Free Press” + circulation — gives some results. Without spending a lot of time, the number 1,040 comes up on a couple of results in various “newspaper directories.”
Robert Moore
September 10, 2013
I know, but, for what I hope to do (a careful look at population density comparison to circulation rates), I need circulation rates for all Valley newspapers prior to 1870. I seriously doubt I’ll find those numbers.
Janet
September 11, 2013
I have a scan of the “Rockingham Register” for January 2, 1863. It says it has “a larger circulation than any country paper in the state.” So this, for one, evidently does not give circulation rates in each issue.