‘What’s in a name?’ mused the Bard. ‘That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet’. Romeo and Juliet were certainly not fussed but broadly speaking society has frowned on the call to ‘doff thy name’. Names are fascinating. The study of names is a distinct academic field known as onomastics. We need a given name for a very obvious reason – it gives us an identity. Whether we have prison issued numbers or extravagant appellations, people need to distinguish us from the person next to us. Surnames are a bit different. Deeply symbolic and tied to history, a surname is seen as an inheritance. Have they retained their significance or in this enlightened, post-modern, deconstructionist world, are we free to change or even disregard surnames altogether?

The history of surnames differs from culture to culture but they generally arose as an administrative tool. Particularly as populations increased and the government census became more common, a surname or family name would help identify one group from another. The aristocracy was the first to employ surnames as a way of tracing their noble lineage. In my own case, Jones is a Welsh name meaning the son of John which, suitably enough, is my father’s name. Peasants would eventually take last names to indicate their clan or function. Jim the Baker eventually became Jim Baker. Richard the Blacksmith, became Richard Smith and so on. Occupations were originally as much an inheritance as any physical possessions. Before the Industrial Revolution, it was rare for young men to do anything besides what their father had done.

How important are surnames today? We are certinally past the point where they indicate either our noble lineage or our profession. They are still needed from an administrative point of view – especially if your tribe has blossomed like the Joneses! There is still a nice link to the past by carrying on the family name. It is a touch phallocentric as, generally speaking, women still forfeit their surname at marriage and the children carry on the father’s legacy. Surnames are clannish, tribal things that bring comfort, identity and a sense of continuity but what if your last name is awful? Is there not a point where the evolutionary nature of language means keeping an unfortunate last name is just silly?

There are many examples where evolutionary linguistics have left people with a surname that doesn’t quite sit right. Take, for example, rugby league legend, Johnny Raper, Apple CEO Tim Crook, singer Bruce Cockburn and American sprint star Tyson Gay. Now 100 years ago, all of these were perfectly normal surnames but by luck of the draw they all have very bad modern meanings. Johnny, let us be clear, is not a rapist. The jury is out whether Tim is a crook but, for the sake of argument, let’s presume his innocence. Bruce (presumably) does not suffer from a burning sensation down below and if he does there are things modern medicine can do to fix that. Finally, Tyson is not gay … not that there’s anything wrong with that!

These are a few celebrity examples but there are many more everyday people with surnames that are less than appealing. Often, in this globalised world, it is simply the result of different things sounding funny in different languages. Colon, for example, is a perfectly acceptable surname in Spain but it would not bode overly well in an English speaking country. Similarly, Ho is a fine name in China but if the family moves to Australia it is probably not what a young girl wants to be called repeatedly by students and teachers alike. Spare a thought for those who have inherited the surnames, Belch, Cuck, Dinkle, Gunts, Jerker, Pugh or, my personal favourite, Wildonger.

What would you do with an unfortunate surname? Is it as simple as going to court and having a name change? When would you do it? As a child, adolescent or adult? Are you letting down your parents and your ancestors or are you doing a wonderful favour to your children? As a Jones, I certainly don’t feel any need to carry on the family name but I do wonder how much it would hurt my parents if I changed my last name. Would it be a complete rejection of them? I think Muhammad Ali had the right idea. Our name is so central to our identity, it must ultimately be something that we can be proud of and we can love. Ali, like many African Americans, saw his surname as a slave name and rejected it. His new name reflected his faith and who he was as a free man. Malcolm X did the same thing. Our parents are important, our history is important but we have only one shot at this life. We must not cower under a name we do not love. Be who you want to be and love who you are. Let freedom reign.

Few of the mythologies in American history are as firmly entrenched in the modern psyche as that of the civil war. The American civil war has become synonymous with the anti-slavery movement. The head of the union, Abraham Lincoln, is known universally as the great emancipator. The circumstances leading up to the civil war suggest, however, that there were other factors motivating the North and that abolition came to dominate union policy only gradually, and only when it was beneficial to do so.

The election of 1860 caused a crisis of confidence in America. Whilst Lincoln and the Republicans clearly won the election, they enjoyed virtually no support in the South. Southern politician were highly fearful that the North would attempt to abolish slavery, which was the economic foundation of their society. Consequently, seven states, comprising the cotton belt, seceded from the union. The South’s “Declaration of the Immediate Causes of Secession placed the issue of slavery squarely at the centre of the crisis.” It is highly idealistic to presume that freedom for blacks was a high priority for Lincoln at this time. It seems far more rational to assume that the prospect of losing one third of the Union’s territory and population was the chief motivation to go to war.

The prospect of forfeiting such a significant and vital section of the home market was clearly unacceptable to Lincoln and the Republicans. The notion of allowing slavery to continue in the South was clearly an acceptable policy. It is with no small irony that, just prior to the war, the great emancipator “went so far as to push through congress and start ratification by the states of an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing southern slavery forever. That would have been the thirteenth amendment!”

Whilst Lincoln was willing to protect southern slavery, he was firmly opposed to its expansion. It is curious to note, however, that the source of Lincoln’s vehement opposition to the expansion of slavery lay not in a desire to protect blacks but to protect the existing democracy and governmental institutions. A Kentucky senator, John Crittenden, proposed a popular compromise which could have avoided the conflict so dreaded by Lincoln. Crittenden’s plan guaranteed southern states the right to continue slavery and “extended the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean.” Foner notes Lincoln’s response:

We have just carried an election … on principles fairly stated to the people. Now we are told in advance that the government shall be broken up unless we surrender to those we have beaten, before we take the offices … If we surrender, it is the end of us and the end of government.

Lincoln’s objection makes no mention of slavery and concerns itself entirely with the ethos that, the elected government must be allowed to rule.

Even after hostilities broke out, emancipation was not a policy or even a high concern for Lincoln. The Republicans continued to court the pro-Union slave owners in border states. For the first year of the civil war “Northern military commanders even returned fugitive slaves to their owners, a policy that raised an outcry in antislavery circles.” The eventual decision to assume an abolition policy was forced upon Lincoln, not adopted.

The war did not begin well for the Union. Peter Camejo offers reasons as to why the north was initially balked by her, seemingly inferior, southern neighbour:

The Northern capitalists were incapable of subordinating their individual greed to the needs of the struggle, and the whole war was a saturnalia of corruption … Incompetents were given army commissions – generals were appointed by the hundreds on the basis of bribes or their connection to the ruling class. The top command was totally disorganized for a period … Such errors were paid for in blood by the plebian farmers and workers in uniform and caused widespread demoralization.

After several rushed and disastrous battles, the Union found itself being invaded by an increasingly confident Confederate army. It was during, and perhaps because, of this setback that Lincoln began to look for new potential allies. The African Americans, had already surprised many by their unwavering enthusiasm for, what they considered, a war for freedom. Consequently, at some point “during the summer of 1862, Lincoln concluded that emancipation had become a political and military necessity.”

The question of who should be credited with the triumph of emancipation is incredibly blurred. Despite the historical temptation to honour a single leader as the banner bearer of freedom, this paradigm ignores the enormity of the contribution from other quarters. Lincoln, despite his contributions, was never a passionate emancipist. Lincoln was far more concerned with preserving the Union and occupied a mediatory role between the two wings of the Republican Party. Hofstadter notes that Lincoln’s “program flowed from his conception that his role was to be a moderator of extremes in public sentiment.”

When conceptualising the American civil war, historians should hold the theme of inclusion as a vital tool in forming a rounded understanding. The role of blacks and anti-slavery groups has been somewhat marginalised in comparison to the mythology lavished upon Lincoln. It was, however, the efforts and reactions of these two groups which, effectively, forced Lincoln’s hand. As Foner explains, “slaves themselves took actions that helped propel a reluctant white America down the road of emancipation.”

The final myth which shall be discussed in this article is concerning the lot of African Americans after the civil war. It is commonly held that 1865 brought about the birth of black freedom in America. This article, however, throws into question the very meaning of freedom. Congressman James Garfield asked in 1865, “Is it the bare privilege of not being chained? If this is all, then freedom is a bitter mockery, a cruel delusion.” Freedom for blacks meant, not only the absence of oppression but, the provision of opportunity. In a practical sense, “like rural people throughout the world, former slaves’ ideas of freedom were directly related to land ownership.” African Americans wanted a redistribution of land after the war. They argued that in order to be truly free they must be allotted some of the land which they had been slaves on for nearly two and a half centuries. In the summer of 1865, however, President Andrew Johnson ordered nearly all land to be returned to its original southern owners.

The failure of Johnson to come to the aid of the former slaves should come as no surprise. The Republicans had not entered the war to benefit blacks, and now it was over they remained indifferent to their plight. The northern politicians were far more concerned with appeasing the South. Consequently, Johnson only required a pledge of allegiance to the Union for southern whites to receive amnesty. The desire to reconcile the southern states to the North and restore a sense of unity and nationhood outweighed the cry of justice for blacks. The resulting situation for freedmen was that practically all of them “entered upon their new life with no advantages of any kind. These people had no learning except the lore of plantation, no property except the rags on their backs, no experience except in following orders.”

It is not to be suggested that the black community did not benefit following the end of hostilities in 1865. Black churches and schools were greatly strengthened and many families were reunited. Yet, even small gains for blacks were strongly opposed by southern whites. The fifteenth amendment, for example, provides that, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Whilst the states could not deny the vote to former slaves, they could, and did, create non-racial voting laws aimed at excluding blacks. As the majority of freed blacks were poor and illiterate, many southern states introduced poll taxes and literacy tests. So it can be seen that although African Americans were free, they did not, and arguably still do not, enjoy the same kind of freedom as whites.

Piercing the veil of mythology is arguably the most difficult obstacle in regard to American history. Groups, such as the colonial pioneers and founding fathers, and historical figures, such as Jefferson and Lincoln, have reached such iconic stature in the American psyche that the myths have a taken on a life of their own. Similarly, certain themes, especially freedom and liberty, have become so sacred in the modern American imagination that their original meaning is often overlooked. 

It is crucial, therefore, in conceptualising American history to keep a keen eye on the facts. The meaning of freedom and liberty today, and to whom it includes, is vastly different to the meaning understood by figures in American history. Historians must read the primary records within the context from which they were written. When the modern paradigm of thought is forced upon isolated quotes from American history a breeding ground for mythology and half truths is created. Finally, the historian must endeavour to be inclusive of the black, Indian and female stories in American history. For without these a rounded understanding of American history can never be achieved.

American history can be seen as a hive for historiography. The defining events have been interpreted in vastly different ways by various interest groups and historians. One of the great challenges is to use the primary sources to see through the various myths which have evolved in the popular American imagination. It is critical to shift from the traditional Eurocentric paradigm in order to form a complete understanding of American history. Consequently, inclusion is a vital, yet sorely overlooked, theme. The forced amalgamation of four continents must be the backdrop to an independent inquiry. Similarly the theme of liberty, sacred within the American psyche, must be seen through correct historical context. The parasitic relationship of freedom and unfreedom is a central element in deciphering what the forefathers understood liberty to mean. Similarly, when researching grandiose themes like freedom, the question must be asked; what kind of freedom and for whom does it apply? An honest and inclusive study into American history can reveal new dimensions concerning the colonial, revolutionary and civil war periods.

The roots of modern America are entrenched in fifteenth century Europe. The popular myth that America was founded by peaceful settlers seeking religious freedom ignores several key facts. Although there were groups attempting to escape religious persecution, this motive is hardly adequate to explain the powerful surge of European contact. A more plausible and practical explanation is greed and imperial rivalry. What began as a chance discovery in the age of exploration soon escalated into an imperial tug-of-war. There were varying reasons for Europeans to come to America, however, the single greatest driving force was the desire to colonise the new world and harness her resources.

The first permanent English settlement in North America was created in 1607 with the establishment of Jamestown. It is with rose colored glasses that many Americans recall this event. The myth of Jamestown can be summarised as a combination of hard work and friendly Indians creating a successful colony. The slightly bizarre fact of the matter is that Jamestown’s earliest white colonist seemed to prefer to starve to death rather than occupy themselves with strenuous work. Distinguished colonial historian Edmund Morgan attributes this fatally absurd decision to the English paradigm of thought concerning work. The English conceptualisation of colonialism in the new world was shaped largely by the Spanish experience. Consequently, the settlers expected to find natural abundance and a source of cheap labour in the indigenous population to help exploit it.

The reality of life in Jamestown was in stark contrast to the expectations carried by her phantasm charged founders. The incongruous collection of specialist gold miners, artisans, wood cutters and farmers were curiously slow in coming to the realisation that the local Indian population would not provide a suitable work force. Morgan concludes that the introduction of black slavery was seen to be the solution to Virginia’s labour crisis. This conclusion, however, disturbs another myth concerning colonial America; that racism was an already existing notion which domineered in the new world from the beginning. If slavery was only introduced gradually as a solution to an economic problem, the implication is that racism was a learned attitude of the southern colonies not a pre-existing condition.

It is important to realise that the common association of black with slavery and white with freedom was gradually developed. Freedom, as we understand it today, was not the lot of most Englishmen in America. Eric Foner estimates that in the seventeenth century “nearly two-thirds of English settlers came as indentured servants, who voluntarily surrendered their freedom for a specific time (usually five to seven years) in exchange for passage to America.” When the first Africans arrived in America in 1619 several of them were free and some were even assigned land. Many of the earliest Africans in America appear to have been servants as opposed to slaves. The first documented sentence of slavery doesn’t appear until 1640. Even in this situation, however, the “grounds for this harsh sentence presumably lay in the fact that he was non-Christian rather than in the fact that he was physically dark.” It can be deduced, therefore, that southern racism, as we now understand it, evolved gradually between 1650 and 1750.

It is clear that European prejudice is an inadequate answer as to how a sophisticated system of racism and slavery developed in America. It does not appear that racism was the reason Africans were brought to America and enslaved. It is, however, plausible that racism was a specifically developed and nurtured paradigm, created to justify the existence and expansion of African slavery. So the question still remains why did the southern colonies change from a society with slaves to a slave society? There is, of course, no single answer to this complex question, however, a culmination of social economic and political factors indicate that slavery became an increasing attractive alternative to white indentured servitude.

Whilst Jamestown had a notoriously high mortality rate during its earliest period, by the last quarter of the seventeenth century this trend had significantly stabilised. Consequently, southern planters were discovering that a lifelong slave was a more profitable investment than a temporal servant. Significantly, England lost her monopoly on the slave trade during this same period. The opening of the slave market caused increased competition and eventually prices fell. So it can be seen that black slavery was in many ways a sensible economic alternative to white servitude.  

The reliance of the southern colonies on agrarian production, especially rice, tobacco and later cotton, made access to labour a key concern for land owners. Following the restoration of the English monarchy in 1660, however, fewer Englishmen were willing to become indentured servants in the new world. Servitude in England did not mean the same thing as it did in America. An English master had obligations to his servant which were protected by the law. In Virginia, by contrast, the distinction between servitude and slavery was notoriously vague. News of this harsh treatment trickled back to England and “the supply of English servants declined sharply at just the time that the demand for labor was increasing in many of the colonies.” Part of the reason for black slavery taking root in the South after 1660 can be traced to the scant availability of white indentured servants.

There were, however, social factors also which combined with the economic incentives in fuelling the change from a society with slaves to a slave society. Following the successful harvest of tobacco crops, class lines developed very quickly in Virginia. Small farmers found it increasingly difficult to compete against large land owners. The situation was further exasperated by the corrupt policies of the governor, William Berkley. The plight of small farmers was made bleak by Berkley’s unjust land distribution, heavy taxes on tobacco and falling prices due to overproduction. Berkley’s refusal to upset the peaceful relationship he enjoyed with the local Indians by allowing white settlement in their lands further enraged many land-hungry colonists. Eventually this list of grievances manifested themselves in the form of Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676. Led by wealthy planter, Nathaniel Bacon, a group of small farmers, landless men, indentured servants and even some slaves marched on Jamestown, plundered and burnt it.

This act of defiance by the giddy multitude sent shockwaves through the South. It became clear that former indentured servants, small farmers and the landless must be given some opportunities to compete in the market for otherwise they can become dangerous and revolutionary. English liberty demanded that freemen be afforded the chance to participate in the economy and thus control their own destiny. This period produced a landmark shift in American history. The authorities actively sought to increase liberty. There is, however, a direct correlation between the increase of freedom for whites and the increase of unfreedom for Africans and Indians. Many whites were able to secure land and farming benefits as a result of new aggressive policies dispossessing Indians. Black slavery was rapidly increased in order to reduce the need for white indentured servants who, once free, could become rebellious or revolutionary. It seems clear, within this context, that references to liberty in the colonial period originally meant only for a select group of whites but was later expanded to include all white males.

The development of a slave society in the south can be interpreted as a conscience choice, at least on behalf of the lawmakers. The laws and court decisions between 1650 and 1750 show a clear progression from vague, individualistic decisions to concentrated, explicit racism. Many slaves successfully represented themselves in court as there were no laws in early seventeenth century Virginia that defined the rights, or lack of rights, of blacks. In 1641, for example, “John Graweere appeared before the court, asking for permission to buy the freedom of his child in order that he could raise the child as a Christian.” The fact that the court sided with Graweere shows the racial flexibility of the time. This was a trend, however, which would not continue.

By the late seventeenth century several laws were introduced in the South which contributed to the development of a slave society. Africans were banned from owning white servants, interracial sex became a serious crime and an African could not strike a white under any circumstances. Other laws were introduced to make freedom more difficult to obtain for Africans. Accepting the Christian faith was no longer an avenue to freedom. One of the more chilling new racial laws was Virginia’s 1669 ‘Act Concerning the Casual Killing of Slaves’. This law stated that a white could not be convicted of killing a slave as he could not be presumed to destroy his own property. This law is indicative of the racial binary which was developing in the South. White was becoming synonymous, not only with freedom, but with logic and reason also. Similarly, the mindset was becoming firmly established that blacks were primitive and naturally suited to manual labour.

Part two will look at popular mythology in American history concerning the revolutionary period. Stay tuned.