Reading Richard Henry Dana’s memoir of life as a sailor in the 1830s — Confused by the class politics of early 19th-century America — Not sure Melville and Dana were truly rebels, they might’ve just been American — These 19th-century American books show little evidence of the bizarre class system that structures most 19th-century British novels — Is Dana’s book worth reading?
Thank you for the kind endorsement. I think I have the opposite problem as you, when I read the classics I get stuck on the issue of well, no one needs me to recommend them, and anyway why would anyone would read me talking about this when they could read James Wood or Frank Kermode or Cynthia Ozick? When stuff is a little more offbeat, it's easier for me to feel as if I can stake my claim on it. You'll be happy to know I plan to write much more about salacious mid-20th century literary-intellectual gossip this year.
The thing about these professors and fancy critics who write about the classics is they're so austere. You get the sense they'll never admit to having read something for the first time or having just discovered something. They need to present themselves as the total master of everything they write about, and it kind of leads to the question...is reading these books actually fun? Or is it just something that fancy people do to show how smart they are? When someone like me writes about the classics, then you know
...oh, a regular person can actually get something out of these books.
That being said, I do like to make sure I always have an angle, and that can sometimes be quite difficult :)
The kind of class differences you're discussing were, at least according to what I've read, much more prevalent in the South than in the North and West, so maybe the lack of class distinction you're seeing is regional as well as national in nature. And although lots of these class differences were based on race, the divisions between the "white trash" southerners and the wealthy, educated, land-owning elite were stronger and more definite in the South, too. Northerners constantly criticized Southerners as excessively European or "feudal," a strategy that would be used against Northern industrialists in the Gilded Age. (The text to read here, which I haven't gotten around to reading, is Fitzhugh's Cannibals All!)
i loved reading this review!! it's really smart and written in a compelling, unpretentious way. i wonder about how different 19th-century america may have been from contemporary america. i haven't read any melville novels, but i have read "bartleby, the scrivener," which perhaps most explicitly exemplifies this disregard for authority that you discuss, taking it to the extreme. i find that we're wrestling with similar questions of free will and individual political power/responsibility, and sometimes it feels that the cards are stacked up against us (bartleby, after all, dies in prison).
on the other hand, in terms of social class, we're living in an era of extreme inequality that defines our society in myriad ways. this is perhaps more comparable to the gilded age fictionalized in books like the house of mirth, by edith wharton, which i read last year. it's also extreme and satirical and embraces some of the weird, off-putting roles and expectations defined by social class (and gender) that are commonplace in 19th-century british novels. it's not quite the same as the landed gentry, but the manifestations of the class system in the way characters relate to one another in the house of mirth are comparable.
so are we in a state of affairs more similar to the mid-19th century or the early 20th century? or both, or neither? it seems that american society has embraced a respect for the authority that is implicitly granted by wealth and entrepreneurship, the mythology of hard work leading to "success" defined in capitalistic terms. see: elon musk. i guess i have more questions than answers, but either way i enjoyed this essay and thinking through these ideas.
I am just now reading MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT -- or, actually, listening to it, speaking of audiobooks -- and significant parts of it are set in the US, in 1840 or so. So it gives Dickens' view, which is rather vicious, sometimes deservedly so (he vilifies American attitudes, north and south, towards black people) and sometimes a bit excessively (he seems not to realize that the fraudsters and such he depicts are not so very different from the fraudsters he recognizes in England.) At any rate, I should think of it in the context of the class system differences you mention.
What a great post this was - woman of Letters! Your insight is profound. This reminded me of an excellent book which describes the flavor of America and how it was different from Europe and how the regions of north America were different from each other, History of the United States, Volume 1, by Henry Adams. It’s on Project Gutenberg. It is really brilliant and well written and paints a picture pf the social, political, and economic state of America, covering the period of Thomas Jefferson’s first presidential term. Some may find it dry, and I thought it would be, but in small doses it is a gem. I recommend it be read in small doses – it isn’t fiction – it is not difficult reading, but it is weighty.
Adams writes about how British visitors to America, whether prominent or not were shocked by Americans and could not understand them. They seemed very independent and rude at the same time that they were friendly and cooperative. There was evidently a lot of writing by the British about Americans, trying to figure them out - but they remained an enigma, unfathomable.
The book was written in 1889 but often reads very modern, and focuses both on a microcosm, specific view of people and places as well as an overarching, social, political, ad economic view. The later volumes mostly discuss the foreign policy, intrigues, schemes, and cabals of the Jefferson and Madison administrations and the key players on the stage at the time. All 9 volumes are a fascinating read.
written by Christopher Klein (9/26/2019), shows how relatively fluid the social classes were in America at the time of the American Revolution
Apparently, 10 sailors, some of whom were officers, manned an American ship holding British prisoners of war. Their commanding officer, the most powerful man in the navy, a brother of a member of the Continental Congress at that moment, was a sadist and tortured British prisoners for sport. These men were career sailors, this was their calling, they had pride in their new navy, and they would not let this situation stand. They got together, wrote out a petition, all signed it, and one of them abandoned ship in Rhode Island, rode all the way to Philadelphia, by horse of course, and delivered the petition to the Continental Congress in person. “Lacking any legal protections for speaking out, the men understood that they could be branded as traitors for denouncing the highest-ranking American naval officer in the midst of war.” (C. Klein.)
Amazingly the continental congress relieved the commander of duty – in disgrace. He immediately lashed out and brought a criminal libel suit. Two of the men who happened to be natives of Rhode island were arrested and jailed with no money to defend themselves. They wrote Congress asking for help and reminded the congressmen that they acted out of a sense of duty.
This is from the article:
“The U.S. government has long made protecting whistleblowers a priority. In fact, just seven months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress passed what Allison Stanger, author of Whistleblowers: Honesty in America from Washington to Trump, called the “world’s first whistleblower protection law.
The Continental Congress responded by passing a law to protect the men—and future whistleblowers. “It is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge,” read the resolution approved on July 30, 1778, with no recorded dissent.
Although cash-strapped, the Continental Congress further supported Marven and Shaw by agreeing to defray the costs of their defense, in order to ensure they had adequate legal representation. The Founding Fathers also aided the defendants by authorizing the full and public release of records relating to the removal of Hopkins. Marven and Shaw prevailed in court, and the Continental Congress paid their $1,418 legal bill.”
It is a weird contradiction that the home of such egalitarianism and democracy is also home to corrupt government and cronyism, often mingling descendants of royalty with the descendants of peasants, as equal bedfellows in keeping with the “democratic” tradition.
It is a fact that many men who were shop keepers or artisans or of lower status were made officers by Washington when he took command of the Continental Army and the militias during the revolutionary war, for their talents and abilities, not family rank. Many articles and books also state that these men gained success because they were ass kissers and nothing more. It is hard to tell what is true.
You mentioned the customs house in New York City being a den of corruption at the time Dana wrote his book and that gave such men as him status as men of the world. By the 1830s New York City was already under the thumb of Tammany Hall – the corrupt political crony machine. that lasted for nearly 100 years.
But many regions in America, going back to the colonies were ruled by cronyism. Samuel Adams was very egalitarian, he hobnobbed with everyone, and was also the biggest crony of them all. Town meetings in Boston were held in secret and only selectmen could attend. Men were chosen for public office and then pamphlets were printed and given out to the townsfolk telling them who was running and praising them to the sky of course. If you were not in the inner circle, you didn’t have a chance of rising to hold public office and serving your community. Clubs and meetings were of vital importance to community minded men in the 17th and 18th century on a local level. I guess that is still true today. But even amid the cronyism and corruption, those town meetings in Boston included wainwrights, rope makers, shoemakers, carpenters, shopkeepers, as well as rich merchants and old prominent moneyed families all treating each other as “gentlemen” with the utmost respect. That would never happen in Britain
Books like Burr and 1876 by Gore Vidal overthrow the idea of American greatness for one of conniving greedy mediocrities securing power. (But I love those books! I guess I am an American.)
The colonists were richer than the English working and poor classes. They had more freedoms and more opportunity – removed from the stultifying power of the crown. They were good at finding creative ways to trade, produce goods – Early industrial espionage was conducted by Paul Revere in 1803 when he sent his son to Europe on a “vacation” to steal the method of rolling copper from the British. The result was the first war ship for the United States Navy to be sheathed in rolled copper produced in the United States. Americans were good at taking brazen action to better themselves. I think the booming economy after World War II spoiled Americans.
It still freaks me out how oppressed women and people of color were – They still are – but in those times it was...there is no word for it! That makes reading American History painful and makes me want to move to a different country!
One uplifting story I discovered was about Deborah Sampson, a girl who dressed up as a man during the Revolutionary war and joined a regiment. She was a courageous and able soldier and a credit to her regiment. Her secret was revealed when she came down with a fever and she was kicked out of the army. Years later when she was sick and poor, Paul Revere (who did not do very well as a soldier) petitioned congress on her behalf and she was awarded a pension just like any other soldier. Stories like that give me some hope for the human race.
One more take away: In the colonies, widows could legally inherit their husband’s property and often did, as well as continuing to run the family business. That was not common in Britain.
I’m sure this has been suggested before, but you may like Patrick O’Brien’s Aubrey-Maturin series, which may be a blend of Dana’s life on a ship with the British class system (plus cannons).
If you're interested in a British sailor griping about the officers, check out Jack Nasty-face's memoir (of course he felt compelled to write under a pseudonym): https://books.google.com/books?id=WXp_ZHPuQDkC
(P.S. I love Typee, and sometimes pretend it's my favorite Melville book, although of course that's not actually true.)
Two Years Before The Mast was one my Dad's all-time favorite books that he always wanted me to read. But by the time I got bored with sci-fi as a teenager I was too busy with schoolwork, and never got around to it. Thanks for the reminder!
Thank you for the kind endorsement. I think I have the opposite problem as you, when I read the classics I get stuck on the issue of well, no one needs me to recommend them, and anyway why would anyone would read me talking about this when they could read James Wood or Frank Kermode or Cynthia Ozick? When stuff is a little more offbeat, it's easier for me to feel as if I can stake my claim on it. You'll be happy to know I plan to write much more about salacious mid-20th century literary-intellectual gossip this year.
Same. But tbh I would read your commentary on a classic before James Wood's.
I actually don't even like Wood or Kermode very much, I just needed synonyms for "tremendous + intimidating erudition" haha.
The thing about these professors and fancy critics who write about the classics is they're so austere. You get the sense they'll never admit to having read something for the first time or having just discovered something. They need to present themselves as the total master of everything they write about, and it kind of leads to the question...is reading these books actually fun? Or is it just something that fancy people do to show how smart they are? When someone like me writes about the classics, then you know
...oh, a regular person can actually get something out of these books.
That being said, I do like to make sure I always have an angle, and that can sometimes be quite difficult :)
The kind of class differences you're discussing were, at least according to what I've read, much more prevalent in the South than in the North and West, so maybe the lack of class distinction you're seeing is regional as well as national in nature. And although lots of these class differences were based on race, the divisions between the "white trash" southerners and the wealthy, educated, land-owning elite were stronger and more definite in the South, too. Northerners constantly criticized Southerners as excessively European or "feudal," a strategy that would be used against Northern industrialists in the Gilded Age. (The text to read here, which I haven't gotten around to reading, is Fitzhugh's Cannibals All!)
i loved reading this review!! it's really smart and written in a compelling, unpretentious way. i wonder about how different 19th-century america may have been from contemporary america. i haven't read any melville novels, but i have read "bartleby, the scrivener," which perhaps most explicitly exemplifies this disregard for authority that you discuss, taking it to the extreme. i find that we're wrestling with similar questions of free will and individual political power/responsibility, and sometimes it feels that the cards are stacked up against us (bartleby, after all, dies in prison).
on the other hand, in terms of social class, we're living in an era of extreme inequality that defines our society in myriad ways. this is perhaps more comparable to the gilded age fictionalized in books like the house of mirth, by edith wharton, which i read last year. it's also extreme and satirical and embraces some of the weird, off-putting roles and expectations defined by social class (and gender) that are commonplace in 19th-century british novels. it's not quite the same as the landed gentry, but the manifestations of the class system in the way characters relate to one another in the house of mirth are comparable.
so are we in a state of affairs more similar to the mid-19th century or the early 20th century? or both, or neither? it seems that american society has embraced a respect for the authority that is implicitly granted by wealth and entrepreneurship, the mythology of hard work leading to "success" defined in capitalistic terms. see: elon musk. i guess i have more questions than answers, but either way i enjoyed this essay and thinking through these ideas.
I am just now reading MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT -- or, actually, listening to it, speaking of audiobooks -- and significant parts of it are set in the US, in 1840 or so. So it gives Dickens' view, which is rather vicious, sometimes deservedly so (he vilifies American attitudes, north and south, towards black people) and sometimes a bit excessively (he seems not to realize that the fraudsters and such he depicts are not so very different from the fraudsters he recognizes in England.) At any rate, I should think of it in the context of the class system differences you mention.
What a great post this was - woman of Letters! Your insight is profound. This reminded me of an excellent book which describes the flavor of America and how it was different from Europe and how the regions of north America were different from each other, History of the United States, Volume 1, by Henry Adams. It’s on Project Gutenberg. It is really brilliant and well written and paints a picture pf the social, political, and economic state of America, covering the period of Thomas Jefferson’s first presidential term. Some may find it dry, and I thought it would be, but in small doses it is a gem. I recommend it be read in small doses – it isn’t fiction – it is not difficult reading, but it is weighty.
Adams writes about how British visitors to America, whether prominent or not were shocked by Americans and could not understand them. They seemed very independent and rude at the same time that they were friendly and cooperative. There was evidently a lot of writing by the British about Americans, trying to figure them out - but they remained an enigma, unfathomable.
The book was written in 1889 but often reads very modern, and focuses both on a microcosm, specific view of people and places as well as an overarching, social, political, ad economic view. The later volumes mostly discuss the foreign policy, intrigues, schemes, and cabals of the Jefferson and Madison administrations and the key players on the stage at the time. All 9 volumes are a fascinating read.
This article from History,
https://www.history.com/news/whistleblowers-law-founding-fathers
written by Christopher Klein (9/26/2019), shows how relatively fluid the social classes were in America at the time of the American Revolution
Apparently, 10 sailors, some of whom were officers, manned an American ship holding British prisoners of war. Their commanding officer, the most powerful man in the navy, a brother of a member of the Continental Congress at that moment, was a sadist and tortured British prisoners for sport. These men were career sailors, this was their calling, they had pride in their new navy, and they would not let this situation stand. They got together, wrote out a petition, all signed it, and one of them abandoned ship in Rhode Island, rode all the way to Philadelphia, by horse of course, and delivered the petition to the Continental Congress in person. “Lacking any legal protections for speaking out, the men understood that they could be branded as traitors for denouncing the highest-ranking American naval officer in the midst of war.” (C. Klein.)
Amazingly the continental congress relieved the commander of duty – in disgrace. He immediately lashed out and brought a criminal libel suit. Two of the men who happened to be natives of Rhode island were arrested and jailed with no money to defend themselves. They wrote Congress asking for help and reminded the congressmen that they acted out of a sense of duty.
This is from the article:
“The U.S. government has long made protecting whistleblowers a priority. In fact, just seven months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress passed what Allison Stanger, author of Whistleblowers: Honesty in America from Washington to Trump, called the “world’s first whistleblower protection law.
The Continental Congress responded by passing a law to protect the men—and future whistleblowers. “It is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge,” read the resolution approved on July 30, 1778, with no recorded dissent.
Although cash-strapped, the Continental Congress further supported Marven and Shaw by agreeing to defray the costs of their defense, in order to ensure they had adequate legal representation. The Founding Fathers also aided the defendants by authorizing the full and public release of records relating to the removal of Hopkins. Marven and Shaw prevailed in court, and the Continental Congress paid their $1,418 legal bill.”
It is a weird contradiction that the home of such egalitarianism and democracy is also home to corrupt government and cronyism, often mingling descendants of royalty with the descendants of peasants, as equal bedfellows in keeping with the “democratic” tradition.
It is a fact that many men who were shop keepers or artisans or of lower status were made officers by Washington when he took command of the Continental Army and the militias during the revolutionary war, for their talents and abilities, not family rank. Many articles and books also state that these men gained success because they were ass kissers and nothing more. It is hard to tell what is true.
You mentioned the customs house in New York City being a den of corruption at the time Dana wrote his book and that gave such men as him status as men of the world. By the 1830s New York City was already under the thumb of Tammany Hall – the corrupt political crony machine. that lasted for nearly 100 years.
But many regions in America, going back to the colonies were ruled by cronyism. Samuel Adams was very egalitarian, he hobnobbed with everyone, and was also the biggest crony of them all. Town meetings in Boston were held in secret and only selectmen could attend. Men were chosen for public office and then pamphlets were printed and given out to the townsfolk telling them who was running and praising them to the sky of course. If you were not in the inner circle, you didn’t have a chance of rising to hold public office and serving your community. Clubs and meetings were of vital importance to community minded men in the 17th and 18th century on a local level. I guess that is still true today. But even amid the cronyism and corruption, those town meetings in Boston included wainwrights, rope makers, shoemakers, carpenters, shopkeepers, as well as rich merchants and old prominent moneyed families all treating each other as “gentlemen” with the utmost respect. That would never happen in Britain
Books like Burr and 1876 by Gore Vidal overthrow the idea of American greatness for one of conniving greedy mediocrities securing power. (But I love those books! I guess I am an American.)
The colonists were richer than the English working and poor classes. They had more freedoms and more opportunity – removed from the stultifying power of the crown. They were good at finding creative ways to trade, produce goods – Early industrial espionage was conducted by Paul Revere in 1803 when he sent his son to Europe on a “vacation” to steal the method of rolling copper from the British. The result was the first war ship for the United States Navy to be sheathed in rolled copper produced in the United States. Americans were good at taking brazen action to better themselves. I think the booming economy after World War II spoiled Americans.
It still freaks me out how oppressed women and people of color were – They still are – but in those times it was...there is no word for it! That makes reading American History painful and makes me want to move to a different country!
One uplifting story I discovered was about Deborah Sampson, a girl who dressed up as a man during the Revolutionary war and joined a regiment. She was a courageous and able soldier and a credit to her regiment. Her secret was revealed when she came down with a fever and she was kicked out of the army. Years later when she was sick and poor, Paul Revere (who did not do very well as a soldier) petitioned congress on her behalf and she was awarded a pension just like any other soldier. Stories like that give me some hope for the human race.
One more take away: In the colonies, widows could legally inherit their husband’s property and often did, as well as continuing to run the family business. That was not common in Britain.
Henry is great.
Hiya. I don't like the bolded passages in this article - it makes me skim read it.
America was born in rebellion. Bunch of Puritans and criminals telling the lords, princes, kings, and popes of the world to shove off.
I hope to see the return of that spirit.
I’m sure this has been suggested before, but you may like Patrick O’Brien’s Aubrey-Maturin series, which may be a blend of Dana’s life on a ship with the British class system (plus cannons).
Excellent piece. You're style is perfectly suited for these reviews. You are really good at this!
If you're interested in a British sailor griping about the officers, check out Jack Nasty-face's memoir (of course he felt compelled to write under a pseudonym): https://books.google.com/books?id=WXp_ZHPuQDkC
(P.S. I love Typee, and sometimes pretend it's my favorite Melville book, although of course that's not actually true.)
Two Years Before The Mast was one my Dad's all-time favorite books that he always wanted me to read. But by the time I got bored with sci-fi as a teenager I was too busy with schoolwork, and never got around to it. Thanks for the reminder!
Everyone should read Nickeled and Dimed.” Especially now that we have no more pennies.
I'm very fond of Conrad! Should reread at some point. Have also been meaning to read Stevenson