The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 57, July 1953 - April, 1954 Page: 251

Book Reviews

Chesapeake society embracing the Tidewater and Piedmont of
Maryland and Virginia and the lower valleys of the North Caro-
lina rivers flowing into Albemarle Sound; the Carolina society
of the Low Country of South Carolina with Charles Town as its
hub and the adjacent area of Georgia with Savannah as a lesser
center; finally, the back settlements, extending from upper Mary-
land, through the Great Valley of Virginia, and across the Pied-
mont of the Carolinas and Georgia. It is worth noting how in
every case these areas disregard colonial political boundaries and
how, as a result, the understanding of their historical develop-
ment is enriched. The subject matter of each chapter follows
approximately the same scheme of organization, beginning with
a description of the geographic and demographic features and
then analyzing and evaluating in turn the economic, political,
social, and intellectual manifestations of the society during the
half century.
Comparisons between the two Tidewater societies are left
largely to the reader. Having recognized certain basic similarities
in the staple-crop agriculture and use of slave labor, in political
control by the landed aristocracy of middle-class origin, in the
love of outdoor life and innate spirit of hospitality, and in the
laissez faire attitude toward education and superficial interest in
the arts, the reader will find the contrasts between the Chesapeake
and Carolina societies even more arresting. The typical Chesa-
peake planter's wealth was more apparent than real, burdened
as he was with debts accumulated by generations of wasteful
tobacco growing, while the Carolina planters in a much younger
economy were the richest group per capita in the American
colonies, displaying in Charles Town the paradox of "the un-
acquisitive spending standards of an acquisitive society." Theirs
was an irresponsible aristocracy-economically in its absentee
landlordism, politically in its selfish control of provincial and
local government which precipitated the Regulator movement.
Virginia, however, developed a responsible aristocracy who
learned on their plantations how to deal with human beings and
applied the lesson in the field of politics. Their college did not
produce scholars, but it did train gentlemen who, with a liberal
outlook, provided superior leadership during the critical years
of the Revolution. In these respects Bridenbaugh's judgments

251