The subject of my microhistory paper is the 1798 Virginia case of Pleasants v. Pleasants.
The story begins with the 1771 will of John Pleasants, a wealthy Quaker who owned over 200 slaves. On his deathbed, John decided to free his slaves, but unfortunately for the slaves, private manumissions, or emancipations, were not legal in 1771. So John wrote in his will that, if the law changed, his slaves would be free. In 1782 the law changed to allow private manumissions, but by then John's slaves had been dispersed to a number of family members who preferred the wealth of having slaves rather than following the moral values of the family patriarch. By the 1790s, John's son Robert, his executor, gave up on attempting to persuade his family to free his father's slaves and instead sued sixteen of his relatives for the freedom of the remaining slaves and their children, by then totaling 430 slaves.
I was attracted to this case because it reflects an interesting period of Virginia history in which views on slavery after the Revolution initially liberalized to allow manumissions but thereafter suffered a backlash. I thought that it was a small enough event to qualify as a microhistory but that it could also be a "lens" to examine the larger societal issues of the time with regard to attitudes about natural rights and slavery. My largest problem has been that the case materials that I've found have been more about ideas than personalities, and I think that from what we've seen, it seems that the most successful microhistories have emphasized the personal and emotional experiences of their main characters (perhaps this is why the best microhistories we've read involve diaries). Additionally, this case is not about any one character, but features a number of personalities. However, the more I've researched, the more information I've found on the characters involved in this case. The most prominent character, Robert Pleasants, was a well known Quaker, and apparently many Quakers were careful to keep their letters and the minutes of their meetings. As a result, I think I'll be able to get to the point where half of my microhistory will be about the personalities and half will be about the ideas. Does anyone have any ideas for me about how to best present ideas as the major subject of a microhistory?
I think a good comparison for you is Carlo Ginzburg, who provides a similar mixture of personality and ideas of Menochio. Perhaps you can use some of the historiography on Quakerism and manumission as well as perhaps sermons from Quakers to fill out the intellectual world in which they were operating--including the issues of manumission after death. I think GMU library has access to databases focused on American sermons, but I'm not sure. These might be helpful to flesh out the mentality that might have influenced each them in a similar way as Ginzburg used Menocchio's readings.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like an interesting story. I think a good way to approach ideas is to think about context. What were the view points being expressed? Were they religious or economic?. My understanding is that Quaker influence was weakening in the revolutionary period. As your research shows there was a fissure within this one family. Perhaps you could place their troubles within the context of what the Quakers were going through as a whole? This way the audience can gain a sense of how these individuals were engaged with the intellectual currents of their day.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a wonderful source for a microhistory. It is true that most of what we have read thus far in class deal more with personalities and personal events. Microhistories, in my opinion, don't have to be tied to this at its core. Seems like you have plenty to work with in terms of events and proceedings to tell the story, or spirit, of the trials. Robert Durand, in the Diligiant, you got some of his personality but not his deep intimate thoughts. Same could be said for Martin Guerre and Montaillou. Do you think there is enough there to present a coherent narrative? Also, is there other primary sources on some of the characters like Robert Pleasants? That could help fill in the gaps as you see fit.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you should definitely look into getting a head start on our reading Scandal At Bizarre. It deals with very similar subject matters (slaves not being central but still relevant especially in relation to Virginian gentry and changing ideas).