REVOLUTION IN EATING
On a warm spring afternoon in 1650, Rebecca Cole stepped out of her garden, entered her kitchen, and began to cook. Maryland, where the Cole family had migrated from Middlesex, England, was becoming well known not only for its profitable tobacco crops but also for its ample corn, abundant garden vegetables, and healthy supply of meat. And that combination, as it did on most days, would make up the evening meal. Rebecca had started soaking corn kernels at the crack of dawn to soften them for pounding, an exhausting task made necessary by the lack of a local gristmill.
She knew that she needed about six cups of cornmeal to feed her husband, five children, and herself. So for the next couple of hours, Rebecca and her two daughters dutifully hunched over a large mortar, took wooden pestles in hand, and reduced a tub of white corn kernels into a gritty heap of meal. Meanwhile, out in the barn, Robert Cole and his son, Robert Jr., contemplated a decision: pork or beef? The fact that they even had a choice reflected Robert’s preparation as a husbandman. Two months earlier, when the weather was still cool, he had slaughtered two piglets and one calf.
The pigs were about seven months old, the age when their muscle density was low, fat content high, and stringy connective tissue still pleasantly soft to the palate. The calf was around two years old and similarly primed for consumption and preservation. Slaughtering a piglet was a turbulent task. It began with a rapid cut to the beast’s throat, followed by a prolonged period of squealing and bloodletting. The beast was then scalded in a vat of boiling water to loosen its sharp and wiry bristles so they could be easily brushed off. Robert gathered the offal (the word literally denotes the “off fall” after the slaughter) from the barn floor to make sausage. He then hacked the into two large chunks, called flitches, and placed them aside.
The cow met a similarly brutal fate, but its slaughter took longer, resulted in a louder and deeper death rattle, and required greater precision: Robert had to not only kill it but also find its joints and dissect it into clean cuts of chucks, ribs, loins, and rounds. For all the commotion and mess that ensued, however, the slaughter was the easy part.
Robert Jr. and his brother managed the more physically taxing jobs of smoking the pork and pickling the beef. Smoking pork was a procedure dating back to the Middle Ages that sealed in fat and protected freshly cut meat from spoilage. The boys tossed the pork flitches in a large tub of salt, turning them over repeatedly, and then hung the coated slabs on metal hooks in order to air them out. After a day or two, the boys hauled the salted pork to the chimney, which served as a substitute for a smokehouse.
With the pork hanging in the shaft, the wood smoke clogged the chimney and slowly coated the meat’s surface, enhancing its flavor while extending its shelf life. Pickling beef involved submerging the cuts in a brine and vinegar solution that the boys prepared with salt, spices, and saltpeter. The process took place in large wooden barrels and didn’t so much impart flavor as give the acid in the vinegar time to kill the enzymes that decomposed meat. The boys secured the barrels and rolled them to the corner of the barn. With the girls and Rebecca still pounding the corn in the kitchen, the boys stood in the barn, considered their inventory, and made their decision. They chose beef.
After placing three pounds of meat in a warming pan over the kitchen fire, Rebecca demanded that her servant, a trained dairymaid, quickly fetch some milk and butter. The dairymaid had spent the entire morning in the kitchen, where the dairy was housed, scalding milk pans, trays, pots, and churns in an eighteen-gallon copper pot. Whatever did not fit into the cauldron had to be cleaned individually. A colonial dairy had to be pristine.
Any residual milk that dried on the surface of a container or shelf might carry bacteria that would result not only in a soured product but very possibly in widespread and potentially fatal illness. The maid, who had learned her skill back in England, could milk a single cow in about ten minutes. Out in the barn, after cleaning the equipment, she did just that to seven of the Coles’ milk cows. She allowed the warm milk to cool in a tub and then strained it through a sieve concocted from a hollowed-out wooden bowl covered in a linen towel. The strained milk rested in earthenware milk trays for several hours, giving the cream a chance to coagulate at the top. The dairymaid then skimmed the thick cream with a slotted wooden paddle, leaving behind the thinner milk that Rebecca had requested.
The weather that day was dry and warm, so the churning of the cream into butter took only a couple of hours rather than several. Once the butter had formed, the dairymaid squeezed out the buttermilk and fed it to the hogs, a practice that improved the taste of the meat. As late afternoon set in, she covered the bottom of a butter dish with salt, spooned in the thick butter, patted it down, and sprinkled the top with another layer of salt. She then carried a chunk of it over to Rebecca, whose cornmeal awaited.
As Rebecca warmed the meat and folded the butter and milk into the boiling cornmeal, Robert sent his boys out to the cider house, a small structure adjacent to the barn. The boys had spent several long afternoons mashing hundreds of apples gathered from the Coles’ modest orchard into a gloppy pulp of apple meal. They placed the sweet mass of fruit in cider bags that the daughters had woven out of human and animal hair.
The boys then picked up the bags and proceeded to twist and squeeze them as quickly and as tightly as they could, pressing the apple juice into a vat called a Mobby tubb. The Coles were a family of modest means—capable, at least, of affording a servant—but they did not own a cider press, which traded for about two thousand pounds of tobacco. Nevertheless, the boys improvised well enough. After inserting a four-inch tap into the tub, they decanted the liquid into a second tub to separate the juice from the lees.
After bottling the apple juice in earthenware jugs and corking them, they placed the containers in a cool dugout beneath the barn. The boys now grabbed three of these bottles and rushed back to their two-room, six-hundred-squarefoot house, where they plunked the earthenware containers on the table alongside the root vegetables that Rebecca had picked from her garden and roasted in the wide hearth.
Placing jugs of cider on a table was a fairly remarkable thing for the boys to do, as the vast majority of seventeenth-century families in colonial America lacked such amenities as a dining table and chairs. The Coles were unusual in having both. But the luxuries ended there. The girls threw a worn tablecloth over the pine table, and, after Rebecca pulled a loaf of cornbread from the hearth, the family carried either rickety chairs or tree stumps to the table. They shared a few wooden and pewter utensils to serve their food into pewter bowls. Then everyone began to eat. It was an event that would have made Miss Manners’s head spin. The Coles ripped the meat off the bone with their dirty hands and shoved it in their mouths.
Food scraps were soon scattered across the table. There were no forks, spoons, or individual cups or tankards. The cider pots were passed upon request to the person who wanted a drink. No napkins civilized the scene, as the coarse wool that made the boys’ britches and the dark serge of the girls’ dresses served that purpose just fine, as did the tablecloth. And so, rapidly and with gusto, the Coles consumed beef, cornmeal with butter and milk, corn bread, carrots, beans, and cider. As the sun descended, as the shadows outside stretched across the farm, and as the embers glowing in the hearth turned ashen, Rebecca and the girls began to clean. The Coles lacked candles after all, and sleep beckoned.
Food Then, Food Now
The dinner table might seem like a strange place to begin exploring life in colonial America, but the Coles’ meal has much to teach us—and not only about America’s past but also about the way we eat and think about food today. What strikes me the most about the Coles’ meal is how intimately the family knew its food. In this respect, they were hardly alone. The settlers who migrated to the English colonies in America, much like the Native Americans who had been living off the land for tens of thousands of years, produced the food they consumed. Simple as this act might sound, it’s actually a hard reality for us to digest. Today our meat comes to us cut, cleaned, approved, and tightly bound in plastic wrap and Styrofoam. Vegetables are picked, washed, waxed, inspected, stickered, and displayed alongside one another in a shiny spectrum of commercial abundance. Our job is to choose, and the options are perpetual and endless.
In Austin, Texas, where I buy my food, I can find tomatoes from Holland, fish from Massachusetts, and melons from Mexico on any given day of the week and on any given day of the year. A shopper in Portland, Oregon, or Nashville, Tennessee, can do the same thing on the same day, no matter the season. None of this food is especially fresh. The fish is frozen, the tomatoes hothouse grown, and the vegetables, for all their sprucing up, a bit tired and pale. But it’s all there, all the time, and the toil and blood and dirt and sweat that brought that food to my plate remains conveniently beyond the sanitized frame of my shopping experience. Nothing, in fact, about the modern task of obtaining food reminds us that, before the American Revolution, the vast majority of Americans produced their own food.
Which is to say that they killed their own game, caught their own fish, brewed their own beer, slaughtered their own livestock, sowed their own wheat, tilled their own fields, chopped down and burned their own fuel, grew their own vegetables, and reaped their own harvests. Men, women, and children—free and slave, indentured and independent, European and Native—tied themselves to the land in ways that Americans today would find gruesome, excruciating, and impossibly time consuming. If food, as one writer suggests, “is one of the means by which a society creates itself,” then I’d like to think that this difference between them and us matters.
Most of us, of course, would understandably be loath to give up the convenience of our local supermarket. Even so, many would still like to see this difference — that is, the gap between producing and consuming food — diminished.
Without in any way romanticizing the colonial era, one might suggest that there is something about the Coles’ effort to provide their own food that contemporary societies are finally beginning to regain. We increasingly hear the buzzwords “sustainability,” “organic farming,” and “slow food.” We’re constantly reminded about the importance of paying closer attention to the land and the particular foods that it’s most naturally suited to support. Highprofile chefs spend mornings visiting local farms, buying whatever happens to be available, and building menus around those ingredients. In France, an unlikely hero named Jose Bové became a national icon by ransacking the McDonalds that sprouted up in his tiny village, deeming the fast-food chain an affront to localism, fresh food, and general good taste. Home cooks routinely seek out farmers’ markets rather than relying exclusively on conventional retailers for their produce, cheese, and meat.
College students are spending summers interning on organic farms, where they not only pick pesticide-free vegetables but learn to slaughter animals with nothing more sophisticated than a sharp knife. (One student of mine recently returned from a Vermont farm where, he bragged, everything he ate over the entire summer was either harvested or killed that same day—often by him. He was having a hard time readjusting to cafeteria food.) Mainstream consumers are starting to become wary of genetically modified foods and pesticide use. It bothers many of us that the flavor of, say, a rack of lamb can be replicated in a lab and reduced to a capsule. In short, a quiet revolution in food is taking place in the Western, industrialized world, and it’s a revolution toward sustainability, slow food, and greater intimacy with what we eat. For these reasons, too, the Coles have much to teach us.
Food Frontiers
For all its contemporary relevance, though, this book concerns the past.As we study the history of colonial British America through food, as we consider the Coles’ experience, and as we recognize that food, as one historian writes, “shapes us and expresses us,” we must constantly remind ourselves that the colonists were first and foremost frontiersmen. Their geographical distance from home directly shaped the relationship that they nurtured with the land, and it was a relationship that relatively urbanized Europeans at the time would also have found gruesome, excruciating, and impossibly time consuming. The hands-on, workmanlike intimacy so evident in my reconstruction of the Coles’ meal proved especially true for poor and common colonists. Nevertheless, with rare exceptions, even wealthy Americans could not avoid getting their hands dirty in the production of their own food. Back home in Europe, food bustled through thriving markets, sophisticated commercial outlets, and well-established merchant warehouses.
Back home, Robert most likely would have bought meat from a market vendor, Rebecca would have obtained cheese and milk from a commercial dairy, and the boys would have hauled cider home from the local press. In such a specialized and diverse economy as Europe’s—and with England’s economy being perhaps the most advanced in the world at the time—these options would have been cheaper, easier, and more efficient. As a whole, the free migrants to colonial America came from a relatively modern economic system.
But America in the seventeenth century was primitive. It generally lacked shops and other commercial outlets for food and drink. It did not have an economic infrastructure comparable to England’s intricate networks of exchange. It was for a good reason that, as late as 1808, a popular American cookbook had to provide instructions on how to buy food in a market setting. “The large stall-fed ox beef is the best,” the writer explained. “Dent it with your finger and it will easily rise again; if old it will be rough and spongy and the dent remain.” For veal, she advised, “veal bro’t to market in panniers, or in carriages, is to be preferred to that bro’t in bags, and flouncing on a sweaty horse.” And for salmon, “strictly examine the gills—if a bright redness if exchanged for a dull brown, they are stale.”The point cannot be overstated: America throughout most of its colonial era was rough and, from the European perspective, woefully undeveloped.
At the most basic level, the origins of American cooking are deeply rooted in this roughness, in this dire necessity imposed by frontier conditions, in the fact that Americans had no choice but to produce their own food. The intimacy and familiarity with food that the frontier demanded of all Americans shaped their lives in fundamental and lasting ways, and its impact was furthered by the fact that the frontier never closed throughout the colonial era. Such a literal and nearly universal hand-to-mouth relationship with the food they ate, a connection much tighter than it was in Europe at the time, became emblematic of life for all colonial Americans.
Luckily, the roughness of colonial life was tempered by the profusion of natural resources in British America. For all the challenges that the colonists faced, they rarely starved. English visitors were astonished at the region’s material abundance. Officials of the Virginia Company, the English joint-stock company that underwrote Virginia’s settlement, chose an apt metaphor when it asked, “Why should not the rich harvest of our hopes be seasonably expected?”
It was a fair question. Richard Haklyut, an active promoter of English colonization of North America, looked at the colonial landscape and predicted, not unreasonably, that the colonies, once established, would “yelde unto us all the commodities of Europe, Africa, and Asia . . . and supply the wantes of all our decayed trades.” His father, Hakluyt the Elder, never visited America but still had praise for its “excellent soile,” waxing effusive about “many other sundry kinds of hides there now presently to be had, the trade of Whale and Seale fishing, and of divers other fishings in the great rivers, great bayes, and seas there.” He gushed over “the knowen plentie and varietie of Flesh, of divers kind of beasts at land there,” touting the “sufficient victuall” that the land would surely provide with minimal effort.
Immediately after reaching the Massachusetts Bay in 1630, John Winthrop ventured out in a small boat and, much to his surprise, “tooke in less than 2 howers, with a few hooks, 67 coddfishe most of them very great fishe some 1 yard and 1/2 longe.” Later in the century, in the same region, an English settler praised the area as “an apt place for the keeping of cattle and swine, in which respect this people are the best stored.” Land promoters and settlers alike agreed that the American landscape yielded a cornucopia of material wealth. A family like the Coles didn’t have to travel far to grub up the ingredients for their meal. This abundance on the frontier was a perpetual aspect of the colonial condition and thus a solid foundation of American cooking.
The “Melting Pot”
It was not, however, the only foundation of American food. A search for the origins of American cooking brings us into a melting pot roiling with racial and ethnic interaction. The term “melting pot” can be misleading in the context of colonial America. Normally, the expression optimistically refers to the assimilation of nineteenth- and twentieth-century immigrants into the dominant American culture. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, the idea of a melting pot implies something more complicated and unfinished. At this time, people were not so much assimilating into a dominant culture as they were trying to figure out precisely what the dominant culture would be. Sometimes they blended, at other times they clashed, but more often than not the colonists managed a compromised negotiation of traditional habits. There is perhaps no clearer lens through which to view this process than that of food.
And, as the Coles suggest, there is perhaps no food more symbolic of this cultural interaction than Indian corn. The first white settlers to North America arrived with customary dietary habits in place, and they explicitly excluded what herbalist John Gerard called “a heathan graine.” Through the explorations of sixteenth-century adventurers and Spanish traders, the English had come to know Indian corn before settling colonial North America in the early seventeenth century. Their knowledge of it, however, was as a food more fit for swine than for people.
Literally, the English fed Indian corn to pigs. But for the Native Americans who called North America home, corn was life. It grew easily and abundantly, required little labor, and could be planted alongside beans and squash throughout the forest, among the trees, in space unbound by fences or tilled fields. Indian corn yielded a crop several times greater than English wheat. It freed time up for other work, not to mention leisure activities. It was versatile. In every respect, Indian corn made sense. It was, for all of these reasons, fully commensurate with and integrated into the Native Americans’ economic and social systems of production. The English, however, just didn’t understand.
The cultural contrast was unavoidable and stark. And what especially bewildered the English settlers even more than the actual consumption of corn was that Indian women worked it while the men hunted. Women, first off, were not supposed to work in the field. And hunting, as the English saw it, may have served a purpose in rare times of need, but ultimately it was a sport, a diversion, a luxurious distraction from real work, an activity that, as John Winthrop explained, “toyles a man’s bodye overmuch.” No image could have cut more sharply against the grain of English civilization than that of women farming the land while men hunted the woods.
Voices of disapproval thus echoed through the colonies. Upon arriving in Virginia in 1615 and observing the local inhabitants, John Smith remarked how “the women be verie painefull [hard working] and the men often idle,” an assessment based on the cultural norm that working essentially meant cultivating crops and tending livestock. Francis Higginson observed of the Indians in 1630 that “men for the most part live idly, they doe nothing but hunt and fish. Their wives set their corn and doe all their other worke.” Edward Johnson, another New Englander, agreed. He noted that “women were generally very laborious at their planting time, and the Men extraordinarily idle.” This popular condemnation evidently stuck, for even in the next century, a young Yale graduate wrote of Native Americans that “the superior strength of the man is used, not in protecting & lightening the burdens of the weaker sex, but in depressing them.”
This apparent perversion of what the English believed to be the crux of civilized behavior— husbandry—further discouraged their acceptance of a food popularly deemed the epitome of barbarity.
Nevertheless, here were the Coles in 1650, sitting at their pine table and eating Indian cornmeal. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a colonial American who did not eventually incorporate Indian corn into his diet.
Every English family in the Chesapeake Bay region and the Lower South, and most families in New England, overcame their prejudices, grew the crop, and consumed it regularly. Even the American gentry came around to Indian corn. A hundred years after the Coles’ meal, a recipe published in Williamsburg, Virginia, geared toward upper-class women, featured “Indian Meal Pudding.” It instructed: “Take eight ounces of mush [cornmeal], six Ounces butter, six Ounces sugar, the Yolks of six Eggs, and White of one. Mix the Butter in the Mush while still warm, beat the Eggs light, mix the Sugar with them, and add to the Mush when cool. Put Mace, Nutmeg, and Wine to your Taste".
”The presence of such a recipe raises critical questions: How did a food fit for swine evolve into haute cuisine? How did the English finally come to accept Indian corn? Did this acceptance convey cultural cooperation or dominance? The ways in which colonists answered these questions tell us a lot about early American food.
The cultural negotiation of food wasn’t, of course, limited to the English and the Native Americans.
The sharing of food traditions has been endemic to every human society’s culinary development. At no time in modern history, however, have so many cultures with so many culinary possibilities at their disposal found themselves vying for space in the same geographical region as they were in colonial British America. Not only had thousands of Native American cultures already established and developed societies in North America, but the same area would also become home—willingly or not—to English, French, Dutch, German, Swedish, Scottish, Scotch-Irish, Irish, and African settlers, among others. As tens of thousands of Europeans moved to this New World, as colonial Americans moved up and down the coast of North America (and then from the coast to the interior), as Africans endured the Middle Passage, and as Native Americans interacted with these new peoples, cooking techniques and habits intermingled and influenced one another in exciting ways.
The origins of American cooking and culture can thus be further explored in this second foundation of American cooking—the often tense, often peaceful, blending of customary habits, beliefs, and cooking traditions in a new and very strange world. The diversification of America was endless and dynamic. Food was always at the vital center of this process.
Distinctions
On these foundations, colonial British Americans built a culinary tradition. Initially, however, it was a patchwork of regional cuisines characterized by discrete qualities. Throughout the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, each region of colonial British America developed precise ways of working the land. Each region also developed precise labor arrangements to carry out that work.
A detailed investigation into American food, therefore, demands a careful look at the way that colonial and early Americans chose to do something that too often we take for granted: use the land. What people grew, how they grew it, and who grew it all contributed to the unique cooking and eating habits of each colonial region. Each factor helps us answer the even more important question of why they ate what they ate. Every region, it turns out, had its own answer.
More than any other region of colonial British America, New England mastered the art of feeding itself. Residents prized their mixed economy as a judicious system of food production that protected them from dangerous fluctuations in the temperamental transatlantic market. Their work spread the gamut. They grew Indian corn; grazed livestock; cultivated squash; produced cider, beer, and rum; and maintained extensive vegetable gardens both for their own subsistence and for sale in other markets.
New Englanders exploited the region’s ample supply of cod, mackerel, and shellfish that thrived in the coast’s especially rich waters. New England settlers hunted game when the beef and pork supplies ran low. They kept a few chickens, churned their own butter, pressed their own cheese. And they did it all with family labor. Rather than rely on slaves or indentured servants, sons helped fathers out at sea and in the field while daughters assisted mothers in the garden and around the hearth.
These arrangements and pursuits did not generate tremendous wealth, but rarely (if ever) did New Englanders to look beyond their own borders for food. New England never turned its land over to a single, dominant crop for sale in international markets, and, because of this decision, it was able to pour its resources into a healthy, diversified range of agricultural pursuits. Rather than purchasing the expensive labor to grow a staple crop, New England achieved the remarkable accomplishment of feeding itself by itself. Driven by the love of God and England, it developed a cuisine of abundance that stayed more loyal to traditional cooking habits than did that of any other region of British America.
To even better appreciate New England’s success, one need only look at the West Indies. Not unlike New England, the British West Indies began as small, mixed economies, but it wasn’t long before sugar became king. By the 1650s, Barbados, St. Kitts, Antigua, and a dozen or so other islands had turned over virtually all of their land to sugar. And, as the Spanish precedent had shown throughout the sixteenth century, sugar not only meant great wealth. It also meant slavery.
Indeed, hundreds of thousands of West Africans were transported to the West Indies against their will to toil in sugar fields that proved to be killing fields. Sugar, coinciding as it did with the rise of Europe’s café culture, sold so well that English planters often became wealthy enough on the backs of their slaves to leave the disease-plagued islands altogether, entrusting their estate to an overseer.
Blacks came to comprise more than 75 percent of an island’s population and often as high as 90 percent. The British West Indies could not have stood in sharper contrast to the English society that was simultaneously developing in New England. Profits were immense compared with New England’s modest earnings, and they all went back into sugar and slavery.Diversification was unheard of; exploitation, the norm. Food in this environment was a virtual afterthought—but it couldn’t be ignored. In a twist that ensured the prevalence of African cooking habits in early America, masters determined that it was cheaper to allot scrubby patches of land to their chattel than to import ample supplies of food. Slaves were rarely able to feed themselves well enough to stay healthy, especially Nevertheless, their cooking traditions came to dominate the West Indian foodways and, in so doing, imparted a strong African flavor to the region’s food while establishing alongside New England another model of food production for other colonial regions to consider as they evolved into their own societies. New England’s was a cuisine of abundance, but the West Indies’ was a cuisine of survival, and while most individual African slaves did not survive into maturity, their foodways certainly did.
In foodways as well as geography, the rest of colonial British America fell somewhere between. The Middle Colonies—New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware—generally gravitated toward the New England model, but with important differences. The Middle Colonies devoted a great deal of time to growing wheat for export. Although it never approached the status of a cash crop such as sugar, wheat did occupy enough of the region’s resources to shape its labor force into a mixture of servant, family, and slave labor.
This ethnically and religiously diverse stretch of colonial America also raised livestock to sell overseas, eat at home, and trade with families and merchants in New York City and Philadelphia. Pennsylvania maintained thousands of milk cows that became the basis of a thriving dairy industry; cheese and butter became readily available products from this region. Distilleries and breweries fueled tavern life in Philadelphia and New York, as farmers could easily grow barley alongside wheat, purchase molasses from visiting merchants, and build distilleries, breweries, and hop houses on their relatively large plantations. Rockfish and perch pulled from the Delaware, Hudson, and Susquehanna Rivers became dietary staples. Venison was a very popular source of meat, due to the Middle Colonies’ extensive woodlands. Some areas within the Middle Colonies managed to build larger versions of the mixed farms that marked the New England landscape.
And like their northern counterparts, they rarely had to import food. Others specialized, using slaves and servants to operate commercial wheat plantations, sophisticated dairy farms, or even ironworks and distilleries. As a result, settlers depended on other areas of the Middle Colonies or other regions of British America— mainly New England—for corn, beef, beer, and whatever else they could not provide on their own. If New England’s was a cuisine of abundance, the Middle Colonies’ cooking habits was a cuisine of diverse moderation.
The southern colonies—Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia—hewed closer to the West Indian example. But here, too, there are important qualifications. By growing a staple crop primarily with slave labor, the South most obviously approximated West Indian ways.
Slaves working tobacco in the Upper South and rice in the Lower South cultivated crops that allowed them to play critical roles in shaping the foodways of these two regions. As in the West Indies, planters typically minimized costs by allowing slaves to produce their own food, sometimes with ingredients that the masters provided, other times with whatever slaves could obtain and cultivate through their own efforts. This arrangement profoundly influenced the way that all Southerners ate, whites and blacks included. Unlike in the West Indies, however, the Upper South never reached levels of slavery exceeding more than 40 percent while parts of the Lower South often approached 60 percent. The slave system in the South was obviously brutal, but not nearly as indifferent to life as it was in the West Indies.
Malnourishment and disease didn’t cripple slave life in the South, as it did on the islands. The effort to preserve African cooking traditions in the South may not have been as extensive as it was in the West Indies, but neither was it as stunted. Rice and tobacco planters rarely generated enough cash to leave their plantations and live as absentee landlords.
And because planters did form a strong culture of their own, they, too, developed a cuisine that did
its best to approximate their traditional habits. It wasn’t easy. For with a significant portion of the Upper South’s labor being indentured servants, with poor whites intermingling with African slaves, and with Native Americans never far from the English periphery of settlement, the South pioneered a cooking style that wavered somewhere between a cuisine of adaptation and one of preservation. In so doing, the South constituted yet another distinct culinary model in British America, further enhancing the patchwork of cuisines that developed well into the 1740s.
The British Invasion
Unique as these traditions became, however, these regional cooking habits began to converge by the middle of the eighteenth century. The first factor blending regional cooking habits into a discrete American culinary style ironically involved the pervasive embrace of all things British in the three decades before the Revolution. Americans have a (bad) habit of looking at their early history as an inevitable movement toward independence and democracy. We understandably tend to favor a kind of “American exceptionalism” approach to our past whereby the founders’ appeal for an antimonarchical government came to fruition inexorably and according to some natural law of justice.
It might come as a surprise, therefore, to learn that as the Revolution approached, colonial Americans were actually becoming increasingly English in the way that they thought, dressed, spoke, entertained, and, of course, cooked and ate. As the political system that they had identified with since the Glorious Revolution fell into irreparable disrepair, American colonists were consuming more English goods, following more English styles, and trying to behave in a more English fashion than ever before. Insofar as there was a dominant cultural influence on American cooking prior to the Revolution, it was—despite all the ethnic and racial diversification—undoubtedly English.
Central to what one historian has labeled a thorough “Anglicization” of American cultural life in the mid-eighteenth century was a “commercial revolution” that captivated the colonies in the 1740s. The American economy had become so strong through the cultivation and exportation of cod, tobacco, wheat, and rice that, for the first time in its history, common people could finally afford to purchase common English imports.
Nowhere was this transformation more obvious than in the kitchen. Within a decade, primitive colonial kitchens had become well stocked not only with conveniences, including forks, spoons, knives, cups, and bowls, but also with finery, including colanders, funnels, flour dredges, teakettles, fish kettles, stewpots, posnets, saucepans, drinking pots, salvers, and, perhaps most notable, cookbooks. The widespread acquisition of these cooking-related goods imposed a unity of sorts on the polyglot regional differences that otherwise prevailed throughout colonial British America.
To be sure, colonists continued to follow regional habits, but they now cooked with similar utensils in similarly designed kitchens. The popularity of these goods up and down the coast, as well as in the hinterlands, became an important precondition for the emergence of an identifiable American style of food.
The Alcoholic Republic
Americans drank, and they drank a lot. It’s in that pervasive habit, moreover, that a second factor driving the convergence of regional foodways emerged. Early in the colonial era, settlers consumed mainly homemade beverages such as beer and cider because these drinks were relatively easy to make and were cooked during production, an essential requirement when water was often tainted. Colonists young and old, male and female, black and white, and from all regions drank throughout the day, moderately, as a form of nourishment and, at times, entertainment. Initially, the vast majority of the beer and cider consumed was produced by women and children who worked the task of beverage production into their regular rounds of food preparation. By the end of the seventeenth century, however, farms had started to specialize production to the point that taverns arose to produce drinks in much larger quantities than individual homes were able to do. Eventually, taverns responded to the demand for more diverse menus by importing a variety of drinks that were not produced locally.
The most notable of these drinks—at least in terms of colonial American food—was rum. Rum became so popular that it soon outpaced beer and cider as the colonywide beverage of choice. In so doing, rum helped pioneer a systematic intercoastal trade that brought the various regions of British America into routine contact. By the 1740s, American merchants were trading regularly within the colonies as well as the empire.
Colonists eager to sample the foods of other regions were soon placing orders for bread and beer from Philadelphia, beef from New England, okra and rice from Carolina, and ham from Virginia. The more systematic this trade became, the more the colonies’ culinary habits became less and less foreign to one another. And, in an especially tragic twist, rum helped weaken the cultures of Native Americans as it brought those of white settlers together, thus furthering the convergence of an American cuisine.
This Land Is My Land
A third and final precondition behind the convergence of regional cooking styles involved the rise of a republican political ideology throughout the American colonies. By the 1770s, as the Revolution approached, the cultural transition from a fragmented to a more unified approach to cooking culminated not so much in a particular dish or group of foods—as regions continued to rely on local ingredients—but, rather, in the way Americans thought about food. And, strange as it might seem, the way they thought about food was integral to the way they thought about politics.
It’s a fairly complicated connection, but it goes something like this: The emerging political notion that “the people” should elect virtuous leaders, and that those virtuous leaders should make decisions that benefit the common good as well as the individual pursuit of happiness, had its deepest roots in America’s widespread ownership of land. Proportionally, more white men owned land in colonial British America than in any other colony or country in early modern Europe. America’s vast availability of land, in addition to the relatively egalitarian way in which Americans distributed it, predisposed them to embrace republican principles in a way that the mother country never could.
Why? As historians regularly point out, land tied colonists into transatlantic markets and ultimately made British America an impressively stable and wealthy place. But that’s not all. We must never overlook the fact that Americans’ deep ties to the land also did something far more basic and sustaining: it fed them. British America was remarkable in never having to import food. Thomas Jefferson perhaps best understood the connection among land, food, and political ideology. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he famously explained that “dependence . . . prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” But the larger context of this quotation is often overlooked: “We have an immensity of land courting the industry of the husbandman. Is it best then that all our citizens should be employed in its improvement, or that one half should be called off from that to exercise manufactures and handicraft arts for the other?” His answer: “Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue.” Food, in short, became one obvious manifestation of this virtue, a virtue critical to the political philosophy that carried America toward revolution.
It would be a truism to say that an ample and independent food source was a basic requirement for political independence. But the process whereby regular Americans such as the Coles sustained themselves did much more than just enable colonists to pursue radical political notions. It directly shaped what those political notions were.
Getting to the Guts
In the process of cooking a basic meal, the Coles vividly remind us that the British American origins of American cooking are many. These origins can be glimpsed in the intimacy that colonial Americans had with their food, in their cultural exchange with Native Americans, in colonial British America’s growing ethnic diversity, in the emergence of regional foodways, in colonial Americans’ adoption of English consumer goods, and, finally, in the melding of political ideology and food production.
I will be elaborating on all these topics in the pages ahead. In so doing, though, I hope to move the field of American culinary history to another level. We currently know a lot about what colonial Americans ate, and I reliably go over that common ground. More important, however, I will also attempt to explain not only what colonial Americans ate but also why they ate it. Therein, I believe, lies the true story of America’s culinary origins. Therein one grabs its guts.
There’s a saying that only a historian could make a topic like sex seem boring. I hope, as I search America’s cooking origins, that I don’t do the same for food. After all, it’s so common as to seem mundane, and, like sleep and sex, it’s also ubiquitous to the point of blending into the historical scenery. Perhaps that’s why we’ve overlooked it as long as we have in our ongoing effort to understand our complex and constantly changing heritage. But by no longer allowing food to remain “hidden in plain sight,” by remembering that history is also about “the animal reality of our living existence,” and by shining the spotlight on it during an especially transitional time in American history, I want not only to tell a story about how we once were but to provide some insight into who we are today. And—however immodest the goal might be—why.
By James E. McWilliams in the book 'A Revolution in Eating: How the Quest for Food Shaped America', Columbia University Press,New York, 2005- p. 1-17- Adapted and edited to be posted by Leopoldo Costa.
0 Response to "REVOLUTION IN EATING"
Post a Comment