Boats, Bikinis, and Brittle Paper

[Lavabe]

Eureka moments (or moments of clarity) are good, scary feelings. You hope you catch fire, you hope it focuses things, and you work feverishly. ILJ & LL will tell you that when it happens, they have trouble with me, because I just can't talk with them. I shut out everyone. It's best to stay as far away from me as possible, because I need the isolation and removal of distraction. When I'm in the field and it happens, the adrenaline just bolts up, and I simply can not eat, as I race with ideas. At least in the field, however, you have that isolation, and you can strike fast.

What I am finding now is that many of my moments of clarity were derived from so many of my interactions with local people here in Madagascar... and from discussions with people involved in agriculture (i.e., my father-in-law). I'll find myself discussing issues with him about local farmers, and then ... OH MAN. DROP EVERYTHING.

Those moments are priceless. Glad you're getting them, Dude. May you have many more. Don't forget to celebrate them. I wish I had done that a little more.
Cheers,
Lavabe

[wilson]

Eureka moments (or moments of clarity) are good, scary feelings. You hope you catch fire, you hope it focuses things, and you work feverishly.

*snip*

...OH MAN. DROP EVERYTHING.

Those moments are priceless. Glad you're getting them, Dude. May you have many more. Don't forget to celebrate them. I wish I had done that a little more.
Cheers,
Lavabe

I'm totally baggin' what you're rakin', dude. ;)
As I said yesterday, I pretty well dropped what I was doing in the archive yesterday when lightning struck, and as luck would have it (as I mentioned), it's closed today. For me, the proper response varies. Sometimes, I'm thunderstruck in the midst of writing a paper, and I jot down some notes and keep working. When that happens, I can frequently bang out 5 or 6 good pages in 60-90 minutes (love those days).
For a larger, slower-developing, in-progress project like this, though, it's best for me to, as I've said, let things marinate (that really is the perfect metaphor here). It's really convenient (although I'm one of those people who "doesn't believe in coincidence") that I couldn't go back into the archive today and "muddy the picture," so to speak, even if I wanted to. Tomorrow morning, when I get back in and look back over the notes I made yesterday, along with the added perspective of ~48 hours' rumination (another word I love), I'll know exactly which papers to look at next (from a long, albeit partial, list I've already made), and exactly which reading strategy to adopt when I get into them. By the end of the week, I'll have a good clear picture of where things are headed, with a nice sojourn in Atlanta to recharge, see friends & family (and Walter), celebrate Greg Maddux, and just generally be excited about where I am right now.
A phrase that has been running through my mind for the past week-plus is that I feel like, after a year of some fairly protracted existential crisis, I have "fallen in love all over again" (hackneyed, I know) with what I do.
What a great feeling.

[DevilAlumna]

So Wilson, have the thoughts marinated? Are you making good progress in the archives?

Strange question, but as you're looking through shipping/trading inventories, do you see trade in what may have been considered 'women's items,' such as fabric, fineries, china/household goods? I'm just curious what sort of influence women may have had in 'da biz.'

[wilson]

So Wilson, have the thoughts marinated? Are you making good progress in the archives?

Strange question, but as you're looking through shipping/trading inventories, do you see trade in what may have been considered 'women's items,' such as fabric, fineries, china/household goods? I'm just curious what sort of influence women may have had in 'da biz.'

I have indeed made good progress in the past week. The overall project is really starting to take shape in my head, and I have plenty of good leads on stuff in Columbia to keep me busy next month. I've also found at least one resource that I definitely need to use in the Library of Congress, which is exciting for a host of reasons.
As for "women's items," yes; these people trafficked a number of the kinds of things you list above very heavily. Textiles, in fact, were perhaps the single largest category of good imported to the colony (although cloth and the like had far less gendered a connotation in those days as they do now). I have also been interested to see that a number of women kept extensive accounts with merchants. While they weren't necessarily the "heads of the household," these women did have a large role to play with regard to administering its daily workings, etc. (this notion of women's "duty" is one of the places where my project has some things to say to the traditions of Southern history). I have also found at least one estate inventory for a woman, listing all of her possessions and account balances at her death. This implies that she was indeed the head of a household. I plan to have a couple of chapters in my dissertation discussing gender dynamics in a developing society. Especially in a heavily maritime society, women had important roles to play when and where men were absent.

[craziecat]

Sounds like you have made a lot of progress and have learned quite a lot from your research. History, especially Southern History is so fasinating to me. Best wishes to you.

[DukieInKansas]

I'm glad things are stil going well. I enjoy reading your insights into the culture in the past. I always wonder what it was really like to live back then. You see what the people wore and remember that there was no AC - I admire them. I especially think about the folks in Kansas pre-AC when we are having the 90 degree days with 90% humidity.

[wilson]

Very exciting news out of the archive this week. I met a guy who works at the Charleston County Public Library, and he was in the Historical Society archive looking through some things while on vacation. No, seriously. Three minutes after meeting the guy, it was all I could do not to call him a fucking weirdo to his face. According to a couple of my friends at the Historical Society, this is what he always does...just constantly sifts through the available source material by way of cataloging SC historical resources. "Always digging" was the way my new friend Jane described him.
Anyway, we got to talking about the history of Charleston as a city. Though it was one of the largest cities in North America throughout the 18th century, commanding more maritime traffic than any other port on the continent (even Boston) by about 1740, the city was not officially incorporated until 1783.
This wasn't for lack of trying, though. The South Carolina House of Commons actually passed articles of incorporation in 1722, but they got shot down. Turns out, this happened largely because the most prominent merchants appealed to their buddies in London to have the measure defeated. I find this curious, as do many other historians of this place and that era. However, the question as to why they would want to defeat that measure remains unanswered. Many have assumed that it was unanswerable, because the journals for the House of Commons are scattered and in highly varied states of integrity at this point. Some years have been published, while others simply remain buried in the state archives in Columbia.
Back to this guy, Nick, who is "always digging." Turns out, he unearthed the old microfilm rolls of the said journals from the 1720s the last time he was in Columbia, a few weeks back. They're quite difficult to read, he says, but by no means unreadable.
So, that means that I have a really important unanswered question to answer with my dissertation: Why didn't the merchants want Charleston to incorporate? It will be a fascinating way to understand where their loyalties lay, what their goals were, etc. It will also demonstrate the nature of political participation and leadership in the era (the House of Commons was composed pretty much entirely of planters and merchants).
In other words, this big question mark that happens to strike right at the heart of my project is sitting right in front of my face, and a benevolent older scholar has pointed me straight in the direction of what I need to (at least try to) answer it. If I can offer even a reasonable, cogent answer to the question, which I think I can, it will truly be a huge accomplishment for my first major piece of scholarship. Chances are, any answer I offer will spark more debate, but if I become a progenitor of sorts for an important, ongoing discussion, then I'll have resoundingly done my job with my dissertation. It's immensely exciting.

[Bostondevil]

I'm excited for you just reading this post! Can't wait to hear what you find out. Fingers crossed for you that it's a big winner.

[devildeac]

Very exciting news out of the archive this week. I met a guy who works at the Charleston County Public Library, and he was in the Historical Society archive looking through some things while on vacation. No, seriously. Three minutes after meeting the guy, it was all I could do not to call him a fucking weirdo to his face. According to a couple of my friends at the Historical Society, this is what he always does...just constantly sifts through the available source material by way of cataloging SC historical resources. "Always digging" was the way my new friend Jane described him.
Anyway, we got to talking about the history of Charleston as a city. Though it was one of the largest cities in North America throughout the 18th century, commanding more maritime traffic than any other port on the continent (even Boston) by about 1740, the city was not officially incorporated until 1783.
This wasn't for lack of trying, though. The South Carolina House of Commons actually passed articles of incorporation in 1722, but they got shot down. Turns out, this happened largely because the most prominent merchants appealed to their buddies in London to have the measure defeated. I find this curious, as do many other historians of this place and that era. However, the question as to why they would want to defeat that measure remains unanswered. Many have assumed that it was unanswerable, because the journals for the House of Commons are scattered and in highly varied states of integrity at this point. Some years have been published, while others simply remain buried in the state archives in Columbia.
Back to this guy, Nick, who is "always digging." Turns out, he unearthed the old microfilm rolls of the said journals from the 1720s the last time he was in Columbia, a few weeks back. They're quite difficult to read, he says, but by no means unreadable.
So, that means that I have a really important unanswered question to answer with my dissertation: Why didn't the merchants want Charleston to incorporate? It will be a fascinating way to understand where their loyalties lay, what their goals were, etc. It will also demonstrate the nature of political participation and leadership in the era (the House of Commons was composed pretty much entirely of planters and merchants).
In other words, this big question mark that happens to strike right at the heart of my project is sitting right in front of my face, and a benevolent older scholar has pointed me straight in the direction of what I need to (at least try to) answer it. If I can offer even a reasonable, cogent answer to the question, which I think I can, it will truly be a huge accomplishment for my first major piece of scholarship. Chances are, any answer I offer will spark more debate, but if I become a progenitor of sorts for an important, ongoing discussion, then I'll have resoundingly done my job with my dissertation. It's immensely exciting.

More great information/knowledge. Seriously.

[DukieInKansas]

Very exciting news out of the archive this week. I met a guy who works at the Charleston County Public Library, and he was in the Historical Society archive looking through some things while on vacation. No, seriously. Three minutes after meeting the guy, it was all I could do not to call him a fucking weirdo to his face. According to a couple of my friends at the Historical Society, this is what he always does...just constantly sifts through the available source material by way of cataloging SC historical resources. "Always digging" was the way my new friend Jane described him.
Anyway, we got to talking about the history of Charleston as a city. Though it was one of the largest cities in North America throughout the 18th century, commanding more maritime traffic than any other port on the continent (even Boston) by about 1740, the city was not officially incorporated until 1783.
This wasn't for lack of trying, though. The South Carolina House of Commons actually passed articles of incorporation in 1722, but they got shot down. Turns out, this happened largely because the most prominent merchants appealed to their buddies in London to have the measure defeated. I find this curious, as do many other historians of this place and that era. However, the question as to why they would want to defeat that measure remains unanswered. Many have assumed that it was unanswerable, because the journals for the House of Commons are scattered and in highly varied states of integrity at this point. Some years have been published, while others simply remain buried in the state archives in Columbia.
Back to this guy, Nick, who is "always digging." Turns out, he unearthed the old microfilm rolls of the said journals from the 1720s the last time he was in Columbia, a few weeks back. They're quite difficult to read, he says, but by no means unreadable.
So, that means that I have a really important unanswered question to answer with my dissertation: Why didn't the merchants want Charleston to incorporate? It will be a fascinating way to understand where their loyalties lay, what their goals were, etc. It will also demonstrate the nature of political participation and leadership in the era (the House of Commons was composed pretty much entirely of planters and merchants).
In other words, this big question mark that happens to strike right at the heart of my project is sitting right in front of my face, and a benevolent older scholar has pointed me straight in the direction of what I need to (at least try to) answer it. If I can offer even a reasonable, cogent answer to the question, which I think I can, it will truly be a huge accomplishment for my first major piece of scholarship. Chances are, any answer I offer will spark more debate, but if I become a progenitor of sorts for an important, ongoing discussion, then I'll have resoundingly done my job with my dissertation. It's immensely exciting.

Drunken posting here - Cathy CA says that you should look at taxing. Once incorporated, they would be subject to more taxes.

[DukieInKansas]

By the way, we need your phone number.

DukieInKansas, TillyGalore, DukePA, & CathyCA

[cl15876]

Very exciting news out of the archive this week. I met a guy who works at the Charleston County Public Library, and he was in the Historical Society archive looking through some things while on vacation. No, seriously. Three minutes after meeting the guy, it was all I could do not to call him a fucking weirdo to his face. According to a couple of my friends at the Historical Society, this is what he always does...just constantly sifts through the available source material by way of cataloging SC historical resources. "Always digging" was the way my new friend Jane described him.
Anyway, we got to talking about the history of Charleston as a city. Though it was one of the largest cities in North America throughout the 18th century, commanding more maritime traffic than any other port on the continent (even Boston) by about 1740, the city was not officially incorporated until 1783.
This wasn't for lack of trying, though. The South Carolina House of Commons actually passed articles of incorporation in 1722, but they got shot down. Turns out, this happened largely because the most prominent merchants appealed to their buddies in London to have the measure defeated. I find this curious, as do many other historians of this place and that era. However, the question as to why they would want to defeat that measure remains unanswered. Many have assumed that it was unanswerable, because the journals for the House of Commons are scattered and in highly varied states of integrity at this point. Some years have been published, while others simply remain buried in the state archives in Columbia.
Back to this guy, Nick, who is "always digging." Turns out, he unearthed the old microfilm rolls of the said journals from the 1720s the last time he was in Columbia, a few weeks back. They're quite difficult to read, he says, but by no means unreadable.
So, that means that I have a really important unanswered question to answer with my dissertation: Why didn't the merchants want Charleston to incorporate? It will be a fascinating way to understand where their loyalties lay, what their goals were, etc. It will also demonstrate the nature of political participation and leadership in the era (the House of Commons was composed pretty much entirely of planters and merchants).
In other words, this big question mark that happens to strike right at the heart of my project is sitting right in front of my face, and a benevolent older scholar has pointed me straight in the direction of what I need to (at least try to) answer it. If I can offer even a reasonable, cogent answer to the question, which I think I can, it will truly be a huge accomplishment for my first major piece of scholarship. Chances are, any answer I offer will spark more debate, but if I become a progenitor of sorts for an important, ongoing discussion, then I'll have resoundingly done my job with my dissertation. It's immensely exciting.

Drunken posting here - Cathy CA says that you should look at taxing. Once incorporated, they would be subject to more taxes.

Excellent point! Here is a wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston,_South_Carolina that seems to support the politics of taxation and it appears that Charleston was the winter retreat for the well to-do Bostonians of the time, not to mention that Charleston locals (so to speak) had huge export comodities such as cotton, rice, and indigo were huge profitable items as mentioned (in addition to several other items). Although the Charleston communities of the time appear to have supported the federal government, a meeting about making it the capital occurred and a fire destroyed it apparently, thus it was decided to make Columbia the capital. Wilson - see if you buddy can speak to that, that sounds like a story there correlated to politics and taxation as Dink and CathyCA mentioned. Also interesting from the wiki article, was the ethnicity majority rule of the time which didn't seem to make sense, but got me thinking a bit deeper on that subject and where we were then and where we have come! Thank god!

[colchar]

Very exciting news out of the archive this week. I met a guy who works at the Charleston County Public Library, and he was in the Historical Society archive looking through some things while on vacation. No, seriously. Three minutes after meeting the guy, it was all I could do not to call him a fucking weirdo to his face. According to a couple of my friends at the Historical Society, this is what he always does...just constantly sifts through the available source material by way of cataloging SC historical resources. "Always digging" was the way my new friend Jane described him.
Anyway, we got to talking about the history of Charleston as a city. Though it was one of the largest cities in North America throughout the 18th century, commanding more maritime traffic than any other port on the continent (even Boston) by about 1740, the city was not officially incorporated until 1783.
This wasn't for lack of trying, though. The South Carolina House of Commons actually passed articles of incorporation in 1722, but they got shot down. Turns out, this happened largely because the most prominent merchants appealed to their buddies in London to have the measure defeated. I find this curious, as do many other historians of this place and that era. However, the question as to why they would want to defeat that measure remains unanswered. Many have assumed that it was unanswerable, because the journals for the House of Commons are scattered and in highly varied states of integrity at this point. Some years have been published, while others simply remain buried in the state archives in Columbia.
Back to this guy, Nick, who is "always digging." Turns out, he unearthed the old microfilm rolls of the said journals from the 1720s the last time he was in Columbia, a few weeks back. They're quite difficult to read, he says, but by no means unreadable.
So, that means that I have a really important unanswered question to answer with my dissertation: Why didn't the merchants want Charleston to incorporate? It will be a fascinating way to understand where their loyalties lay, what their goals were, etc. It will also demonstrate the nature of political participation and leadership in the era (the House of Commons was composed pretty much entirely of planters and merchants).
In other words, this big question mark that happens to strike right at the heart of my project is sitting right in front of my face, and a benevolent older scholar has pointed me straight in the direction of what I need to (at least try to) answer it. If I can offer even a reasonable, cogent answer to the question, which I think I can, it will truly be a huge accomplishment for my first major piece of scholarship. Chances are, any answer I offer will spark more debate, but if I become a progenitor of sorts for an important, ongoing discussion, then I'll have resoundingly done my job with my dissertation. It's immensely exciting.

Drunken posting here - Cathy CA says that you should look at taxing. Once incorporated, they would be subject to more taxes.

That was the first thing that popped into my mind when I read Wilson's earlier post but I just assumed he had already considered that and that the historiography will have addressed the issue to some degree.

[cl15876]

It's all about the bottom line, bebe!!!!! Ka-ching, Ka-ching! No taxes, enormous profits!!!! Everyone always wants a cut or a piece of the action! I think we are due for another tax revolution! ;)

[DukieInKansas]

That was the first thing that popped into my mind when I read Wilson's earlier post but I just assumed he had already considered that and that the historiography will have addressed the issue to some degree.

We didn't say it was an original idea - just a drunk one. ;) Ok - not so drunk, since there are no typos and I haven't figured out how to add spell check.

[cl15876]

That was the first thing that popped into my mind when I read Wilson's earlier post but I just assumed he had already considered that and that the historiography will have addressed the issue to some degree.

We didn't say it was an original idea - just a drunk one. ;) Ok - not so drunk, since there are no typos and I haven't figured out how to add spell check.

I'll have what she is having!!!!

[wilson]

It's all about the bottom line, bebe!!!!! Ka-ching, Ka-ching! No taxes, enormous profits!!!! Everyone always wants a cut or a piece of the action! I think we are due for another tax revolution! ;)

You've all got a great point, and that's undoubtedly part of it; but here's the deal...I just spent the better part of the week reading through 18th-century South Carolina laws, and there were still plenty of levies/duties/taxes passed by the Commons for all sorts of purposes without any incorporated municipality in the region. Tax burdens were almost definitely part of the story, but definitely not the whole story. I've got lots of reading and thinking to do, and will pass my next thoughts along.

[EarlJam]

I like donuts.


-EarlJam

[wilson]

Today's my last research day here in Charleston. I'm pretty bummed to be leaving the place, but on the other hand, this last collection of letters I'm looking at is perhaps the most exciting one yet, in that it most completely demonstrates all the intertwined threads of my working argument.
More later.

[DukePA]

Oh man! I'm going to miss your Charleston posts. btw, loved the pics on facebook.