And she stressed the elaborate preparations made by the partic.i.p.ants: For a month previous they are composing songs, which are sung on this occasion. These companies, of a hundred each, turn out early in the morning, and are allowed to go around till twelve o"clock, begging for contributions. Not a door is left unvisited where there is the least chance of obtaining a penny or a gla.s.s of rum. They do not drink while they are out, but carry the rum home in jugs, to have a carousal [there]. These Christmas donations frequently amount to twenty or thirty dollars.60 I would love to see the texts of the songs that the John Canoe bands spent a month preparing. But we do have something that"s every bit as good, thanks to Harriet Jacobs. In her account of the John Canoe bands, Jacobs notes that "[i]t is seldom that any white man or child refuses to give them a trifle." But she adds that "[i]f he does [refuse], they regale his ears with the following song"-and here she records words to a song that ridicules the ungenerous individual by making him out to be a poor man (that is, poor rather than stingy) stingy). The strategy is brilliant, as is its tactical execution (especially the sarcastic refrain so dey say): so dey say): Poor ma.s.sa, so dey say; Down in de heel, so dey say; Got no money, so dey say; Not one shillin, so dey say; G.o.d Amighty bress you, so dey say.61 In fact, a twentieth-century folklorist has retrieved another such verse, and it is identical in its tactic of employing ridicule to shame the object of its attention: Run, Jinnie, run! I"m gwine away, Gwine away, to come no mo".
Dis am de?" house, Glory habbilulum! [i.e., hallelujah]62 Such tactics may even cast some light on an ostensibly very different begging song, one from the British wa.s.sail tradition. It is the familiar song that concludes with the lines: "If you haven"t got a penny, a ha"penny will do; / If you haven"t got a ha"penny, then G.o.d bless you!" In the context of the John Canoe songs, it is possible that this final "blessing" was intended to convey similar sarcasm-that it was, in effect, a curse.
Anthropologists have argued inconclusively about the origin of the John Canoe ritual. The general nature of the debate is whether John Canoe was an African ritual or an English (or American) one.631 would argue that it was both, and that what is striking is how many elements were shared by African and English traditions. One contemporary observer casually referred to the band as "mummers." The John Canoe ritual may well have been African in origin, but it surely found its mark in antebellum America, where Christmas begging was still commonplace, and specifically in the South, where the wa.s.sail tradition itself was still being practiced by those roving bands of young white males who startled prosperous householders with nocturnal gunfire and entered their houses demanding food, drink, and money. At the very least, there was a convergence of African and European traditions, and the John Canoers understood that convergence and exploited it. Its origins and "exotic" content aside, what makes the John Canoe ritual so fascinating is the degree to which its structure and its content were almost wholly comprehensible to the white people who were its immediate objects.
Winslow Homer, Dressing/or the Carnival Dressing/or the Carnival (1877) (1877). American artist Winslow Homer painted this oil canvas in southern Virginia at the very end of Reconstruction. An immensely respectful and dignified representation, it shows John Canoe being dressed by his wife and another woman as the children watch in fascination. Behind the group stands a picket fence-presumably there for the same purpose as the picket fence in the ill.u.s.tration, to divide black s.p.a.ce from white s.p.a.ce. (Homer made this painting in the summer-thus the leafing trees-but records suggest that it was a Christmas ritual that the black family was reenacting for the artist.) (All rights reserved, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Lazarus Fund, 1922 (All rights reserved, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Lazarus Fund, 1922. [22.220]) Take, for example, the "ridicule song" that was recorded by Harriet Jacobs. In writing about this very song, one folklorist argues that "the parallel with African songs of derision is evident."64 But so is the parallel with the wa.s.sail songs of English begging bands, or at least the part of those songs that contained a threat ("Down will come butler, bowl, and all"). To be sure, instead of the threat of physical damage characteristic of the wa.s.sail songs, the John Canoe songs resorted to But so is the parallel with the wa.s.sail songs of English begging bands, or at least the part of those songs that contained a threat ("Down will come butler, bowl, and all"). To be sure, instead of the threat of physical damage characteristic of the wa.s.sail songs, the John Canoe songs resorted to ridicule ridicule. But it is easy to see why. The ridiculing strategy could be (as this folklorist implies) an expression of ongoing African traditions, but it could also indicate that the John Canoers knew that they were not in a position to threaten their white patrons with physical harm. Ridicule was as far as they could go. In any event, it is easy to see how songs of ridicule would have been not merely understood but even brilliantly effective in white Southern society, where generosity was a sign of gentility (and the lack of it a sign of vulgarity). The overt message of such a song was not that its object was stingy but that he was poor. And such an announcement, even if it was meant sarcastically, amounted to a direct charge of low social status. In any case, the very prospect prospect of being subjected to ridicule was an implicit threat, a threat that could have been just as effective as the threat to do damage. In that sense, the song of ridicule of being subjected to ridicule was an implicit threat, a threat that could have been just as effective as the threat to do damage. In that sense, the song of ridicule was was a threat song. The song (like the entire John Canoe ritual) const.i.tuted behavior that must have marked the very limit of what was acceptable among slaves. a threat song. The song (like the entire John Canoe ritual) const.i.tuted behavior that must have marked the very limit of what was acceptable among slaves.
WAITING FOR THE J JUBILEE: T THE "C "CHRISTMAS R RIOTS" OF 1865 1865 John Canoe marked the limits of what was permissible, but not of what was possible. On occasion slaves used Christmas to take control of their lives in ways that were far from symbolic. For example, the season offered them unique opportunities to escape slavery altogether by running away, taking advantage of the common Christmas privilege of traveling freely (and along roads that might now be crowded with unfamiliar black faces).65 Christmas also presented a tempting occasion for more aggressive forms of resistance. Sanctioned disorders could always overstep the bounds and edge into violence, riot, or even revolt. A striking number of actual or rumored slave revolts were planned for the Christmas season-nearly one-third the known total, according to one historian. Accounts of Christmas insurrections were especially rampant in 1856, when they were reported in almost every slave state. Christmas also presented a tempting occasion for more aggressive forms of resistance. Sanctioned disorders could always overstep the bounds and edge into violence, riot, or even revolt. A striking number of actual or rumored slave revolts were planned for the Christmas season-nearly one-third the known total, according to one historian. Accounts of Christmas insurrections were especially rampant in 1856, when they were reported in almost every slave state.66 But the most serious rumors of planned insurrections at Christmas-rumors that amounted, in the end, to very little-came just after after the slaves were finally emanc.i.p.ated, with the end of the Civil War, in December 1865. That is the point at which the memory of the traditional rituals of the Southern Christmas converged with a moment of serious political crisis in the lives of both black and white Southerners. the slaves were finally emanc.i.p.ated, with the end of the Civil War, in December 1865. That is the point at which the memory of the traditional rituals of the Southern Christmas converged with a moment of serious political crisis in the lives of both black and white Southerners.
Some political history, then. If ever there was a time when the hopes of African-Americans were at fever pitch, it was in 1865. Those hopes had been raised by a set of executive orders and congressional acts, pa.s.sed during the war itself, and for essentially military purposes. The Union army of General William Tec.u.mseh Sherman had marched irresistibly through Georgia late in 1864, finally taking Savannah in late December. (Sherman telegraphed President Lincoln a famous message offering him Savannah as a "Christmas present.") Sherman"s march had created a refugee army of slaves, tens of thousands of newly liberated people who were now impoverished and homeless, and who turned for a.s.sistance to the Northern troops. To deal with this army of refugees, General Sherman issued, in January 1865, a proclamation that would have important consequences: Special Field Order No. 15. This proclamation set aside for the freedmen any lands (in the area of his recent march) that had been confiscated by the Union army or abandoned by their white owners. These lands, to be divided into forty-acre lots, included some of the best real estate in Georgia and South Carolina.
Two months later, in March, the United States Congress established a new federal agency, the Freedmen"s Bureau, designed to deal more systematically with the slaves" difficult but imminent transition to freedom. The Freedmen"s Bureau adopted Sherman"s policy and extended it to the entire Confederacy. In late July, the head of the Freedmen"s Bureau, General Oliver O. Howard, issued to his staff "Circular No. 13" (a circular was a memorandum intended to circulate to all agents of an organization). The circular contained a set of procedures that would divide abandoned or confiscated Southern plantations into forty-acre lots and distribute them to black families. Each of these families would receive a written certificate of possession. (The policy became a.s.sociated with the catch phrase "forty acres and a mule.") But in the summer of 1865, with the war over, Lincoln dead, and Andrew Johnson in the White House, federal priorities in Washington underwent a significant change. President Johnson decided that the most important task facing the United States was not that of dealing with the freed slaves but rather that of reestablishing the loyalty of white Southerners. To accomplish this it was necessary to "restore" abandoned lands to their former owners. The President now instructed General Howard to reverse his policy and to withdraw Circular No. 13. The Freedmen"s Bureau was ordered to persuade the former slaves to abandon their hopes for land-and instead to sign labor contracts for the coming year with their former masters.
Both blacks and whites knew this was a crucial issue. Each side knew that the key to the future lay not just in legal freedom from slavery but also in the linked questions of land and labor. Whoever was able to own the one would also be able to control the other. Without working on land that belonged to them (or that they could later purchase), the freedmen and their families would be at the mercy of their former owners. And both sides knew that plantation owners would never voluntarily sell their land to blacks. Without land reform, the freedmen could never control their own labor. They would be working under conditions that were almost identical to those imposed under slavery.
The situation was profoundly muddled during the fall of 1865. Most agents of the Freedmens Bureau-though not all-were then dutifully engaged in trying to extinguish the very hopes they had earlier helped to spread.67 In reality the cause of land reform was lost. But many freedmen could not bring themselves to believe that they were being betrayed by the very people who had just liberated them. In reality the cause of land reform was lost. But many freedmen could not bring themselves to believe that they were being betrayed by the very people who had just liberated them.
At this time of mixed and confusing messages, large numbers of Southern blacks came to pin their lingering hopes on the coming Christmas season. Word pa.s.sed through the African-American community, often spread by Union soldiers, that when Christmas arrived the government would provide them with land and the other necessities of economic independence. An ex-slaveholder from Greensboro, Alabama, wrote to his daughter that the Union troops who were stationed near his plantation had a.s.sured his former slaves "that our lands were to be divided among them at Christmas," and he added in frustration that they had already ceased doing any work: "Almost all are living along thoughtless of the future [and paying no attention to] what they will do after Christmas, when all will be turned adrift."68 It should not be surprising that the freedmen chose to hold such high hopes for the Christmas season, since for African-Americans Christmas had long been a.s.sociated with a symbolic inversion of the social hierarchy-with grand gestures of paternalist generosity by the white patrons who had always governed their lives.69 In 1865 those white patrons happened to be the government of the United States. To intensify black hopes still further, the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Const.i.tution (abolishing slavery) was due to take effect on December 18, one week to the day before Christmas. In 1865 those white patrons happened to be the government of the United States. To intensify black hopes still further, the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Const.i.tution (abolishing slavery) was due to take effect on December 18, one week to the day before Christmas.
By mid-November of 1865, Southern newspapers were publishing stories about these Christmas dreams. One story insisted that blacks throughout the South continued to believe "that about Christmas they were to have lands part.i.tioned among them; and their imaginations have been heated with the expectation of becoming landholders, and living as their old masters used to do without personal labor." Another story (t.i.tled "The Negroes at Christmas Time") reported that blacks throughout the South entertained expectations of "being furnished, about Christmas, by the Government, with the necessities of "housekeeping"... waiting in a life of ease and idleness, for the jubilee...." And a newspaper in Mississippi reported that "wildly credulous and wildly hopeful men are ... awaiting the millennium of the 25th of December, who expect a big division of land and plunder on that day."70 Without personal labor... a life of ease and idleness ... awaiting the millennium ... waiting for the jubilee. For white Southerners these were also code words. What they meant was that many blacks had not returned to work for their old masters at war"s end (in fact, the crops of the 1865 season had largely gone unharvested), and that they were refusing to sign degrading labor contracts with their former masters for the coming season. Alabama landowner Henry Watson reported that "Not a solitary negro in the country has made a contract for next year. The soldiers told them not to make them, that if they did they would be branded and become slaves again!"71 Their refusal posed a serious threat to the regional economy and especially to the well-being of the planter cla.s.s. Their refusal posed a serious threat to the regional economy and especially to the well-being of the planter cla.s.s.
It also indicated that the freedmen might be politically organized. Whites tended to interpret the hopes of the freedmen as aggressive and threatening, a sign that they were ready to turn to violence. And whites, like blacks, looked to the Christmas season as the time when matters would finally come to a head. Interpretations varied as to precisely how, and for what reason, violence would break out. Some whites thought it would happen spontaneously.72 An Atlanta newspaper warned that the holiday might start out as a "frolic," but that it would soon turn into something considerably more menacing. Emboldened by alcohol and encouraged by "bad white men," the blacks could be easily "persuaded to ... commit outrage and violence." A planter from South Carolina told a visiting reporter that "some families will be murdered and some property destroyed," and he concluded ominously, An Atlanta newspaper warned that the holiday might start out as a "frolic," but that it would soon turn into something considerably more menacing. Emboldened by alcohol and encouraged by "bad white men," the blacks could be easily "persuaded to ... commit outrage and violence." A planter from South Carolina told a visiting reporter that "some families will be murdered and some property destroyed," and he concluded ominously, "It will begin the work of extermination." "It will begin the work of extermination."73 The fears of the one race commingled in a volatile fashion with the hopes of the other. As December approached, an increasing number of Southern whites became convinced that the freedmen were actively plotting an organized insurrection. All across the South, "apprehensions" of such an insurrection during the Christmas holidays were reported (and spread) by newspapers. In mid-November a Louisiana newspaper reported that "there is an increasing dread of what may turn up in the future. The negroes are, by some means, procuring arms, and are daily becoming more insolent." Toward the end of the month the Cincinnati Daily Enquirer Cincinnati Daily Enquirer headlined a story " headlined a story "A NEGRO CONSPIRACY DISCOVERED IN MISSISSIPPI" and explained that "a conspiracy had been organized among the blacks, extending from the Mississippi River to South Carolina, and that an insurrection was contemplated about Christmas."74 Such stories were printed and reprinted by newspapers throughout the South. Some of the rumors were quite detailed. A letter printed in the Such stories were printed and reprinted by newspapers throughout the South. Some of the rumors were quite detailed. A letter printed in the New Orleans True Delta New Orleans True Delta cited a "reliable" report that blacks would collectively revolt "on the night before Christmas" and "wreak their vengeance" on whites whose names had already been chosen. The victims were to be identified to their attackers "by signs and marks placed on each house and place of business"-these marks would consist of coded numbers, as well as the letters cited a "reliable" report that blacks would collectively revolt "on the night before Christmas" and "wreak their vengeance" on whites whose names had already been chosen. The victims were to be identified to their attackers "by signs and marks placed on each house and place of business"-these marks would consist of coded numbers, as well as the letters X X and O "set in chalk marks." and O "set in chalk marks."75 IT WAS largely to the Freedmen"s Bureau that there fell the task of persuading the freedmen that Christmas would not be ushering in the "jubilee," that further disruption of the Southern economy would harm them as well as whites, that the signing of labor contracts was now their best available recourse-and that insurrection would be futile. Under orders from President Johnson himself, the head of the Freedmen"s Bureau, General O. O. Howard, spent the late fall touring the South in order to communicate these points. On November 12, General Howard sent a policy statement to his staff: largely to the Freedmen"s Bureau that there fell the task of persuading the freedmen that Christmas would not be ushering in the "jubilee," that further disruption of the Southern economy would harm them as well as whites, that the signing of labor contracts was now their best available recourse-and that insurrection would be futile. Under orders from President Johnson himself, the head of the Freedmen"s Bureau, General O. O. Howard, spent the late fall touring the South in order to communicate these points. On November 12, General Howard sent a policy statement to his staff: It is constantly reported to the Commissioner and his agents that the free [d] men have been deceived as to the intentions of the Government. It is said that lands will be taken from the present holders and be divided among them on next Christmas or New Year"s. This impression, wherever it exists, is wrong. All officers and agents of the Bureau are hereby directed to take every possible means to remove so erroneous and injurious an impression. They will further endeavor to overcome other false reports that have been industriously spread abroad, with a purpose to unsettle labor and give rise to disorder and suffering. Every proper means will be taken to secure fair written agreements or contracts for the coming year, and the freedmen instructed that it is for their best interests to look to the property-holders for employment....76 On another occasion, General Howard warned the freedmen directly that there would be "no division of lands, that nothing is going to happen at Christmas, that... [you] must go to work [and] make contracts for next year.... [I]nsurrection will lead to nothing but [your] destruction." Most agents of the Bureau dutifully (if reluctantly) pa.s.sed along the word that the freedmens Christmas hopes were nothing but a pipe dream-or, as a Memphis newspaper put it, "a la mode Santa Claus." Colonel William E. Strong, the bureaus inspector general, addressed a group of Texas freedmen in plain language: I have been sent here from Washington, to make a speech to the colored people. I have little to say, and that is in plain words. Winter is coming on-go back to your former masters, work, be obedient, and show that you are worthy of freedom. You expect the Government to divide your late master"s lands out to you, and about the first of January you will get buggies and carriages; but you are mistaken. You will not get a cent. It all belongs to the former owners, and you will not get anything unless you work for it. It is true that rations have been given to some of you, but you will not get any more. You have had good masters, I know. I have been through here long enough to find out for myself.77 But white Southerners were skeptical about whether such a cautionary message would be heeded by the black community. What was needed, one newspaper argued (in a sarcastic reference to the abolitionist leanings and the New England background of many Freedmen"s Bureau officials) was straight talk from "imposing" men "who were born at least one thousand miles distant from Cape Cod." Of course, the planters themselves reiterated the message to their ex-slaves. But the slaves would not heed their warnings, either. As one Mississippi newspaper conceded, "It amounts to nothing for former masters and mistresses to read these orders to negroes.... They do not believe anything we can tell them."78 Some whites consciously manipulated the fear of an insurrection as a way of convincing state and federal authorities to allow Southern whites to rearm themselves-and to disarm (and hara.s.s) the freedmen. An Alabama official used just such an argument in a letter to the governor of that state: "I am anxious to organize the local company. It is feared the negroes will be troublesome about Christmas unless there is some organization that can keep them in subjection."79 But many whites were truly fearful. The mistress of one plantation near Columbia, South Carolina, later recalled how she was terrified by the nocturnal singing that came from what until recently had been her slave cabins-singing that evoked "expectations of a horde pouring into our houses to cut our throats and dance like fiends over our remains."80 It is possible that some African-Americans were indeed harboring thoughts (if not making plans) of a Christmas revolt. But those plans could hardly have amounted to a coordinated conspiracy. What is far more likely is an explanation that places both white fears and black hopes in the context of the intense expectations that normally surrounded Christmas on the slave plantarions. For if Christmas was a time when slaves expected gestures of paternalist largesse, it was also a time when they were used to "acting up." (In that sense, the Atlanta paper may have been shrewd in suggesting that the Christmas insurrection might begin as a "frolic") What was happening in late 1865 was that a serious, contested set of political and economic issues-issues involving the radical redistribution of property and the radical realignment of power-chanced to converge with a holiday season whose ordinary rituals had always pointed, however symbolically, to just such a redistribution of property and just such a realignment of power. On both sides of the color line there was a shared mythos about Christmas that made the holiday loom with ominous weight in the watershed year of white defeat and black emanc.i.p.ation.
THERE WAS no insurrection. Confrontations, yes-even, in a number of cities, violent riots. The most serious of these was in Alexandria, Virginia, where two people were killed. But it soon transpired that the Alexandria riot was actually initiated by whites, and that both victims were black. By December 28 or 29, it was clear that the danger had subsided. "The no insurrection. Confrontations, yes-even, in a number of cities, violent riots. The most serious of these was in Alexandria, Virginia, where two people were killed. But it soon transpired that the Alexandria riot was actually initiated by whites, and that both victims were black. By December 28 or 29, it was clear that the danger had subsided. "The ides ides of Christmas are past," one Southern paper proclaimed, "without any insurrection of the colored population of the late slave holding states. There is no probability of any combination of freedmen for hostile purposes; neither are they likely to combine, at present, for political or industrial objects." Another paper simply reported that "some cases of collision between blacks and whites occurred on Christmas, but there was no organized demonstration on the part of the former." of Christmas are past," one Southern paper proclaimed, "without any insurrection of the colored population of the late slave holding states. There is no probability of any combination of freedmen for hostile purposes; neither are they likely to combine, at present, for political or industrial objects." Another paper simply reported that "some cases of collision between blacks and whites occurred on Christmas, but there was no organized demonstration on the part of the former."81 It was now possible to reinterpret the events of December 25, to put them back into the old, familiar antebellum categories. Newspapers rea.s.sured their readers that such "collisions" as did occur were "isolated" events, and that they were not even political in nature but merely a function of old-fashioned Christmas rowdiness-occasioned by alcohol, not ideology. The Virginia correspondent of a Washington newspaper reported with relief that "a few brawls in Norfolk and Portsmouth were the result of whiskey, and had no political significance whatever." "Too much whiskey," claimed one paper; "much bad whiskey," added another; "some colored men, very much under the influence of bad whiskey," chimed in a third.82 And the newspapers now reported arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct by placing their notices in the police log, not the political columns. The racial ident.i.ty of the offenders now hardly mattered. On December 27, the And the newspapers now reported arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct by placing their notices in the police log, not the political columns. The racial ident.i.ty of the offenders now hardly mattered. On December 27, the Richmond Daily Whig Richmond Daily Whig reported that "Christmas was celebrated in this city with unprecedented hilarity." reported that "Christmas was celebrated in this city with unprecedented hilarity."
It was more a street than a home celebration. "King Alcohol" a.s.serted his sway and held possession of the town from Christmas eve until yesterday morning. Liquor and fire-crackers had everything their own way. A disposition was manifested to make up for lost time. This was the first real old fashioned Christmas frolic that has been enjoyed in the South for four years. The pent up dissipations and festivities of four Christmas days were crowded into this one day....83 By December 29, the New Orleans Picayune New Orleans Picayune even chose to use humor as a way of marginalizing the racial content of the violence that had indeed erupted in that city on Christmas Day. Under the heading " even chose to use humor as a way of marginalizing the racial content of the violence that had indeed erupted in that city on Christmas Day. Under the heading "EVERY ONE OUGHT? BE ELOQUENT IN HIS OWN DEFENSE BE ELOQUENT IN HIS OWN DEFENSE," the paper reported that one white man, arrested on Christmas for rowdy behavior, testified in his defense: ""Your honor, I am charged with being a disturber of the peace. It is a mistake, your honor. I have kept more than a hundred n.i.g.g.e.rs off the streets these Christmas times. May it please your honor, I have a bad cold.""The man"s case was dismissed.84 ?HE CRISIS had pa.s.sed, and it was now possible for white Southerners to return to the underlying problem-the collective refusal of the freedmen to work for their old masters. That would take care of itself, the New Orleans had pa.s.sed, and it was now possible for white Southerners to return to the underlying problem-the collective refusal of the freedmen to work for their old masters. That would take care of itself, the New Orleans Daily Picayune Daily Picayune explained, as the freedmen came to understand that their "true friends" were the Southern planter cla.s.s and not the Northern demagogues who had falsely promised them land. When that truth at last dawned upon them-as it inevitably would-"they will learn where to learn their own true interest and duty." explained, as the freedmen came to understand that their "true friends" were the Southern planter cla.s.s and not the Northern demagogues who had falsely promised them land. When that truth at last dawned upon them-as it inevitably would-"they will learn where to learn their own true interest and duty."
The same editorial went on to explain bluntly just what that would mean: As the season pa.s.ses by without bringing them the possessions they coveted, and the license to be idle, which they expected with them, and they learn that they must look for support to themselves-for the government will decline to help those who do not help themselves-the relations of labor to capital will begin to be freed from one of the most perplexing of the elements that have kept them unsettled; and to adjust themselves upon the natural basis of the mutual dependence of planter and freedmen on justice to each other for their mutual prosperity.85 In other words, the freedmen would soon be forced back into virtual slavery. A newspaper in Richmond even resorted to a nostalgic evocation of the old interracial Christmas rituals, along with a rueful acknowledgment that the planters were unable to perform the role of patrons in the gift exchange. Not only would the freedmen fail to receive their masters" land, but they might even have to do without the "usual presents" they customarily received on this occasion. But that was an aberration, indicating only that the planters were temporarily impoverished and not that race relations had changed: Heretofore every one of these four millions of beings expected and received a Christmas present, and partook of the master"s good cheer. Now, alas, that former master is penniless, and he who depended upon his bounty is a homeless wanderer. The warm blanket, the cheerful fire, the substantial fare, the affectionate greetings, and the gifts they have been accustomed to receive at the hands of old and young will, we fear, be sadly missed.
The Richmond editor summed up the prospect by referring to the eclipse of an old tradition: "The familiar salutation of"Christmas gift, master," will not be heard." But the real object of this nostalgia was the master"s loss, not the disappointment of his former slaves. That point came across clearly enough in the editor"s concluding shot, an expression of hope that in another year or so things would be back to normal for the freedmen-"that their future condition may be better than their condition is at present, and that the next Christmas may dawn upon a thrifty, contented and well regulated negro peasantry."86 Even now, with the Civil War lost and the black population legally free, the capital city of the Confederacy continued to link rituals of Christmas misrule with the maintenance of the antebellum racial hierarchy. A "contented and well regulated negro peasantry" was, after all, just what was needed to sustain a prosperous cla.s.s of white planters. The cry of "Christmas gift!" would be music to their ears.
* On the other hand, Charles Ball, a freed black who had for many years been a slave in South Carolina, suggested in 1831 that masters had the upper hand, and that slaves had lost their traditional privileges as a result of the introduction of large-scale cotton production in the early nineteenth century. Ball observed that in South Carolina, Christmas "comes in the very midst of cotton picking. The richest and best part of the crop has been secured ... but large quant.i.ties of cotton still remain in the field, and every pound that can be saved from the winds, or the plough of the next spring, is a gain of its value, to the owner of the estate. For these reasons, which are very powerful on the side of the master, there is [ca. 1830] but little Christmas on a large cotton plantation. In lieu of the week of holiday, which formerly prevailed even in Carolina, before cotton was cultivated as a crop, the master now gives the people a dinner of meat, on Christmas-day, and distributes among them their annual allowance of winter clothes...." Ball remembered exactly how and when the change had come about: "As Christmas of the year 1805 approached, we were all big with hope of obtaining three or four days, at least, if not a week of holliday [sic]; but when the day at length arrived, we were sorely disappointed, for on Christmas eve, when we had come from the field with out cotton, the overseer fell into a furious pa.s.sion, and swore at us all for our laziness, and many other bad qualities. He then told us that he had intended to give us three days, if we had worked well, but that we had been so idle, and had left so much cotton yet to be picked in the field, that he found it impossible to give us more than one day; but that he would go to the house, and endeavor to procure a meat dinner for us, and a dram in the morning.... We went to work as usual the next morning, and continued our labor through the week, as if Christmas had been stricken from the calendar." Charles Ball, On the other hand, Charles Ball, a freed black who had for many years been a slave in South Carolina, suggested in 1831 that masters had the upper hand, and that slaves had lost their traditional privileges as a result of the introduction of large-scale cotton production in the early nineteenth century. Ball observed that in South Carolina, Christmas "comes in the very midst of cotton picking. The richest and best part of the crop has been secured ... but large quant.i.ties of cotton still remain in the field, and every pound that can be saved from the winds, or the plough of the next spring, is a gain of its value, to the owner of the estate. For these reasons, which are very powerful on the side of the master, there is [ca. 1830] but little Christmas on a large cotton plantation. In lieu of the week of holiday, which formerly prevailed even in Carolina, before cotton was cultivated as a crop, the master now gives the people a dinner of meat, on Christmas-day, and distributes among them their annual allowance of winter clothes...." Ball remembered exactly how and when the change had come about: "As Christmas of the year 1805 approached, we were all big with hope of obtaining three or four days, at least, if not a week of holliday [sic]; but when the day at length arrived, we were sorely disappointed, for on Christmas eve, when we had come from the field with out cotton, the overseer fell into a furious pa.s.sion, and swore at us all for our laziness, and many other bad qualities. He then told us that he had intended to give us three days, if we had worked well, but that we had been so idle, and had left so much cotton yet to be picked in the field, that he found it impossible to give us more than one day; but that he would go to the house, and endeavor to procure a meat dinner for us, and a dram in the morning.... We went to work as usual the next morning, and continued our labor through the week, as if Christmas had been stricken from the calendar." Charles Ball, Slavery in the United States: A Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Charles Ball, A Black Man Slavery in the United States: A Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Charles Ball, A Black Man (Lewiston, Pa., 1836), 206208. (Lewiston, Pa., 1836), 206208.
* Francis Fedric, an escaped slave, claimed that his master actually forced his slaves to get drunk, and that he explicitly told them he did so in order to force them to internalize their enslavement: "About Christmas, my master would give four or five days" holiday to his slaves; during which time, he supplied them plentifully with new whiskey, which kept them in a continual state of beastly intoxication. He often absolutely forced them to drink more, when they had told him they had had enough. He would call them together, and say, "Now, you slaves, don"t you see what bad use you have been making of your liberty? Don"t you think you had better have a master, to look after you, to make you work, and keep you from such a brutal state, which is a disgrace to you, and would ultimately be an injury to the community at large?" Some of the slaves, in that whining, cringing manner, which is one of the baneful effects of slavery, would reply, "Yees, Ma.s.sa; if we go on in dis way, no good at all." Thus, by an artfully-contrived plan, the slaves themselves are made to put the seal upon their own servitude." (Francis Fedric, Francis Fedric, an escaped slave, claimed that his master actually forced his slaves to get drunk, and that he explicitly told them he did so in order to force them to internalize their enslavement: "About Christmas, my master would give four or five days" holiday to his slaves; during which time, he supplied them plentifully with new whiskey, which kept them in a continual state of beastly intoxication. He often absolutely forced them to drink more, when they had told him they had had enough. He would call them together, and say, "Now, you slaves, don"t you see what bad use you have been making of your liberty? Don"t you think you had better have a master, to look after you, to make you work, and keep you from such a brutal state, which is a disgrace to you, and would ultimately be an injury to the community at large?" Some of the slaves, in that whining, cringing manner, which is one of the baneful effects of slavery, would reply, "Yees, Ma.s.sa; if we go on in dis way, no good at all." Thus, by an artfully-contrived plan, the slaves themselves are made to put the seal upon their own servitude." (Francis Fedric, Slave Life in Virginia and Kentucky; or, Fifty Years of Slavery in the Southern States of America. By Francis Fedric, an Escaped Slave Slave Life in Virginia and Kentucky; or, Fifty Years of Slavery in the Southern States of America. By Francis Fedric, an Escaped Slave (London, 1863), 28. (London, 1863), 28.
EPILOGUE:.
The Ghosts of Christmas Past CHRISTMAS IN T TUSKEGEE.
IT WAS the cry of "Christmas gift!" that awakened Booker T. Washington one night in 1880, that first winter in Tuskegee, Alabama. But the cry was not music to his ears. Washington and his wife first realized that the holiday season had arrived when, past midnight on Christmas Eve, local black children began "rapping at our doors, asking for "Chris"mus gifts! Chris"mus gifts!"" The visits continued almost without pause until dawn: "Between the hours of two o"clock and five o"clock in the morning I presume we must have had a half-hundred such calls." the cry of "Christmas gift!" that awakened Booker T. Washington one night in 1880, that first winter in Tuskegee, Alabama. But the cry was not music to his ears. Washington and his wife first realized that the holiday season had arrived when, past midnight on Christmas Eve, local black children began "rapping at our doors, asking for "Chris"mus gifts! Chris"mus gifts!"" The visits continued almost without pause until dawn: "Between the hours of two o"clock and five o"clock in the morning I presume we must have had a half-hundred such calls."1 Those calls were merely a foretaste of the holiday week to come-a week that, as Washington put it, "gave us an opportunity to get a farther insight into the real life of the people." And Booker T. Washington did not like what he learned: We found that for a whole week the coloured people in and around Tuskegee dropped work the day before Christmas, and that it was difficult to get any one to perform any service from the time they stopped work until after the New Year. Persons who at other times did not use strong drink thought it quite the proper thing to indulge in it freely during the Christmas week. There was a widespread hilarity, and a free use of guns, pistols, and gunpowder generally.
Then there were the frolics, held every night of Christmas week in one of the cabins that once had served as slave quarters on the local plantation. Washington described the frolics as "a kind of rough dance, where there was likely to be a good deal of whiskey used, and where there might be some shooting or cutting with razors." Perhaps redundantly, he added, "The sacredness of the season seemed to have been almost wholly lost sight of."
In one cabin I noticed that all that the five children had to remind them of the coming of Christ was a single bunch of firecrackers, which they had divided among them.... In still another family I found nothing but a new jug of whiskey, which the husband and wife were making free use of, notwithstanding the fact that the husband was one of the local ministers.... In other homes some member of the family had bought a new pistol. In the majority of cases there was nothing to be seen in the cabin to remind one of the coming of the Saviour, except that the people had ceased work in the fields and were lounging about their homes.
The "lounging about" may have bothered Washington more than anything else. He even encountered an old local black preacher "who tried to convince me, from the experience Adam had in the Garden of Eden, that G.o.d had cursed all labor, and that, therefore, it was a sin for any man to work." Washington recognized the irony of the situation: The old preacher was "supremely happy" during Christmas week, "because he was living, as he expressed it, through one week that was free from sin."
Familiar material. Nor was Booker T. Washington the first African-American to criticize it. In slavery days, many black people, from pious Baptists and Methodists to secular radicals like Frederick Dougla.s.s, had decried the carnival aspects of the slave Christmas, arguing that it demeaned those who engaged in it.
Washington, too, understood that these practices were the lingering residue of slavery. But he managed to conclude the story he told on a happier note. In fact, Washington used his account of that first Christmas in Tuskegee to introduce a chapter devoted to the profound change he was able to produce in the character and habits of poor young black men who attended the famous college he established there. Washington went on to show the contrast between what he experienced in 1880 and the kind of Christmas celebration that he introduced to his students at Tuskegee. The transformation of Christmas was a paradigm of the larger changes he had set out to accomplish.
In the school we made a special effort to teach our students the meaning of Christmas, and to give them lessons in its proper observance. In this we have been successful to a degree that makes me feel safe in saying that the season now has a new meaning, not only through all that immediate region, but, in a measure, wherever our graduates have gone.At the present time one of the most satisfactory features of the Christmas and Thanksgiving seasons at Tuskegee is the unselfish and beautiful way our graduates and students spend their time in ministering to the comfort and happiness of others, especially the unfortunate.
Booker T. Washington may have been exaggerating a little, but his success as an educator and administrator leaves little room to doubt the fundamental reality of his claim. A Tuskegee education meant both a change of behavior and an interior change of spirit, a reformation that Washington hoped would allow his students to integrate into mainstream American society. As Washington understood when he wrote his 1901 autobiography, Up from Slavery Up from Slavery, Christmas provided an apt and powerful symbol of that very reformation.
And it provides us with an interesting reminder, a reminder that such a reform could and did originate within the African-American community itself. It is easy to think of the suppression of the carnival Christmas only as something that was imposed from outside. But this wasn"t the case. The suppression also came from within. Booker T. Washington"s students came to Tuskegee, in the depressing post-Reconstruction years that witnessed the emergence of Jim Crow, as members of a demeaned and betrayed group of Americans. They had little to risk, and a world to gain, by learning the skills and the values a.s.sociated with respectable white society, including an appreciation of a "new meaning" for Christmas. In hindsight, there is something poignant about their efforts; we now know that even educated African-Americans were unable to achieve the respect and security that Booker T. Washington staked his career on providing, and to us what they lost in the process of reforming themselves may be more valuable than what they gained. But we should not doubt that for Washington and his students, learning a new meaning for Christmas seemed a form of empowerment. Suppression from outside was the most dramatic vehicle by which the old Christmas traditions came to an end. But it was not the only one.
JOHN C CANOE AND THE W WREN B BOYS.
John Canoe, too, eventually disappeared from the American mainland. It was still going strong in North Carolina as late as the 1880s, but by the turn of the twentieth century the old ritual had pretty much disappeared. Its ultimate suppression closely mirrors what we have just seen. According to interviews with elderly black residents of Wilmington, North Carolina, taken by a folklorist around 1940, the decline of the ritual was the result of new pressures both from whites and from within the black community.
What seems to have played the decisive role in suppressing the John Canoe bands was the emergence of a new political culture among the white people of Wilmington, a reformist culture that was unwilling to tolerate public drunkenness and the rowdy behavior that accompanied it. One black resident later recalled: ""De policemen usta run the kooners because dey would get drunk and kick up a lot of fuss."" Another"s a.n.a.lysis was more elaborate: Kooner was ragin" here "bout 1882 but hit done died out "bout 1900. De reason hit died out was dat different city mayors came in to hold office and dey stopped all dat. Each Christmas. .h.i.t got less and less and finally the city officers stopped dem from marching down de main street.
A key event may have been a serious riot that occurred during the 1898 John Canoe parade. In any event, one woman reported simply that ""de whites finally run all de kooners away.""
But the folklorist who conducted these interviews also reported that John Canoe began to be opposed by black ministers who felt that the custom "tended to degrade the Negroes in the eyes of the white people of the community," together with members of the emergent black middle cla.s.s, who "began to look upon the exhibition as one that lowered their status in the eyes of the whites. They disliked to see "their folks making a fool of themselves."" And apparently some of the John Canoers themselves began to feel the same way. One old unreconstructed Wilmington black man reported that the "kooner folk got dicty [i.e., sn.o.bbish, high-cla.s.s] sn.o.bbish, high-cla.s.s]. Then dey gave up ruffian"s ways. Dey got educated." Booker T. Washington might have phrased it differently, but he would have been delighted with the result.2 All in all, then, the John Canoe ceremony fell victim to a combination of external suppression and internal reform. In its essentials, that was just what became of similar forms of Christmas revelry within white communities throughout Western culture. And it provides a model for exploring the transformation of Christmas in the white working-cla.s.s culture of the nineteenth century as well.
Consider the Irish. In the 1840s Ireland const.i.tuted the major source of immigration to America, and that land was the major source of new membership in the American industrial working cla.s.s. In those very years, as it happens, there was a major battle within the Irish community over the use of alcohol-even when it was used as part of the Christmas festivities.
Irish Christmas rituals in the early nineteenth century will be familiar to readers of this book, as they are reminiscent of both the English practices described in Chapter 1 Chapter 1 and the slave practices described in and the slave practices described in Chapter 7 Chapter 7. Even when the Irish rituals were religious, they retained the rowdy old carnival note-alcohol, s.e.x, and aggressive begging. Take the midnight Ma.s.s on Christmas Eve, for example. This event (it was held outdoors, illuminated by great bonfires) was usually preceded and followed by what a nineteenth-century Irish writer termed "jovial orgies," perambulating groups who engaged in heavy drinking that often led to illicit s.e.xual couplings.3 By the 1830s, the church itself had largely abolished the midnight Ma.s.s. By the 1830s, the church itself had largely abolished the midnight Ma.s.s.
Other Irish Christmas rituals lacked even the veneer of religion. In one urban version of the English wa.s.sail, during the weeks before Christmas, several hours before daybreak each night, a group of serenaders would stop at the houses of all the prosperous residents, calling out the hour of the morning and declaring the state of the weather (this ritual was known as "Calling the Waits"). The serenaders waited until Christmas Day to go around to every door, collecting "the expected remuneration." In one instance, in Kilkenny, the lead performer was accompanied each year by a dozen youths in blackface (a "retinue of young negroes," as they were termed in the original account), who stopped at the house of "every respectable family in the city;" there they would drink a holiday toast and be given a half crown in return. (According to this account, the members of the group often became so drunk that they had to be carried back to their own houses.)4 The best-known wa.s.sail ritual in rural Ireland involved groups of youths known as the Wren Boys. Dressed up in rags, ribbons and bits of colored paper (reminiscent of the John Canoers), the Wren Boys would march noisily through their village-stopping, of course, to sing in front of rich people"s houses. (One of their songs is virtually identical to the "Gloustershire Wa.s.sail," quoted in Chapter 1 Chapter 1. After asking for beer, this group of Wren Boys proceeded to p.r.o.nounce the familiar mix of promise and threat: "And if you dhraw it ov the best, /I hope in heaven yer sowl will rest; / But if you dhraw it ov the small, / It won"t agree wid"de wran boys at all.")5 But here, too, there was a change, a change initiated and spread from within. Beginning in the late 1830s, Ireland was swept by its own indigenous temperance movement, led by a Roman Catholic priest who was locally born and bred, Father Theobald Mathew (17901856). Father Mathew demanded total abstinence (or teetotalism), and he called on people to sign a written pledge that they would give up all forms of alcohol, in any amount. His movement swept through the Irish countryside like the religious revival it actually was, resonating deeply in both rural and urban areas. By 1842 an astonishing five million people had signed the temperance pledge.6 Much like Booker T. Washington"s more systematic program of personal reform at Tuskegee, the Irish temperance movement took hold because it held out the promise of restoring dignity and self-respect to a conquered and oppressed people. In fact, Father Mathew"s movement was deeply intertwined with the political movement for Irish independence from England. And Father Mathew himself promised his potential followers that sobriety would be a means of achieving social advancement for themselves and their children.7 Needless to say, Father Mathew"s temperance crusade had an effect on the old Christmas rituals. For this there exists a wonderful account, in the form of a diary kept by a wealthy English gentlewoman, Elizabeth Smith, who, together with her husband, managed a large estate in the Irish countryside in the years around 1840. The husband seems to have played the part of country squire to his dependents (she called them his "pensioners"), offering them gifts and forgiving their debts at Christmastime.8 Elizabeth Smith did not object to the begging, and her diary shows that she was quite happy to play her own part in the ritual. What troubled her was that many of these dependents had chosen to give up drinking! On Christmas morning, 1840, she made a mistake that haunted her throughout the day: "I forgot teetotalism when I mixed the puddings," she wrote, "and not one of the outside men would taste them." Mrs. Smith expressed grudging (and condescending) pleasure with the reformation-that "these unruly people have such self-command where they think it a sin to yield to temptation." But she was also disappointed that the old ways were changing. "What a pity," she mused, referring to her oversight-or was it to her tenants" new-found sobriety? Elizabeth Smith did not object to the begging, and her diary shows that she was quite happy to play her own part in the ritual. What troubled her was that many of these dependents had chosen to give up drinking! On Christmas morning, 1840, she made a mistake that haunted her throughout the day: "I forgot teetotalism when I mixed the puddings," she wrote, "and not one of the outside men would taste them." Mrs. Smith expressed grudging (and condescending) pleasure with the reformation-that "these unruly people have such self-command where they think it a sin to yield to temptation." But she was also disappointed that the old ways were changing. "What a pity," she mused, referring to her oversight-or was it to her tenants" new-found sobriety?
In any case, early the following morning the Smiths were awakened by a group of Wren Boys shouting "a regular reveilee-the Wren-under our windows." The Wren boys, too, were keeping sober, and once again Mrs. Smith took note of the dampening effects: "This morning there were no young women of the party as there used to be. Maybe they don"t find it merry enough now that whiskey a"n"t in fashion."9 It"s a fascinating reversal. Here in rural Ireland, we can witness a mid-nineteenth-century instance of exactly what both Frederick Dougla.s.s and Booker T. Washington claimed was true of the American South-a representative of the ruling cla.s.ses who wished to see the Christmas drinking continue, and her dependents, who decided to stop it themselves.
From the mid-1840s on, just after Father Mathew"s movement reached its peak, Irish people began to emigrate in ma.s.sive numbers to the United States. Many of these immigrants had been affected by the movement, and others joined it after they arrived in America. Father Mathew himself spent two and a half years (from 1849 to 1851) touring the United States, spreading the total-abstinence pledge chiefly among his newly arrived countrymen. (This was the very time the American temperance movement was. .h.i.tting a crest of its own, one that would inspire a wave of prohibitionist legislation in several American states. All six New England states, for example, pa.s.sed temperance laws between 1851 and 1855). Eventually, Irish-American newspapers that supported the cause of independence from England also began to print Clement Clarke Moore"s "Visit from St. Nicholas" on Christmas Day.10 A LEGAL H HOLIDAY.
This puts in place the final large element in the process by which a carnival Christmas was replaced by a domestic one. Victory in the battle for Christmas in America resulted from a convergence of interests that melded a variety of groups and cla.s.ses. In the first place, as we have seen, the domestic reform of Christmas was an enterprise of patricians, fearful for their authority. (In New York, the reform was part of a larger project that was a response to the democratization and commercialization of the city-a strategic shift from the use of politics politics to that of to that of culture culture as a way of retaining control of urban life.) That domestic reform, examined in as a way of retaining control of urban life.) That domestic reform, examined in Chapters 2 Chapters 2 and and 3 3, led to (and was part of) the development of a commercial Christmas trade (examined in Chapter 4 Chapter 4). As such a trade developed, merchants needed the streets to be free of drunks and rowdies in order to secure them for Christmas shoppers. And shoppers themselves needed to feel secure in the streets.
But finally, especially in the 1840s and afterward, the development that I have just traced occurred-a reform from within the working cla.s.ses themselves. With at least some working-cla.s.s support for a domestic Christmas added to the existing (and growing) enthusiasm of the middle cla.s.ses and the remnants of the old elite, something new began to happen. Christmas Day became officially recognized as a legal holiday in the United States. It was the individual states, one by one, that pa.s.sed the necessary legislation. The movement swept the nation during the two decades that began in the mid-1840S. By 1865, twenty-seven out of thirty-six states (along with four territories) had set December 25 apart as a day when certain kinds of ordinary business could not legally be transacted.
There was an intriguing pattern to this legalization process, a pattern that can be detected by focusing on those states that were relatively late in granting legal recognition to Christmas Day. Of the twenty-four states that joined the United States no later than 1820 (the "first generation" of states, as we might think of them), by 1865 all but five had made December 25 a legal holiday. What is striking about the list is that four of the five states that had not not done so were done so were slave states slave states-the two Carolinas, Mississippi, and Missouri. (Two other slave states, Texas and Florida-both admitted to the Union in 1845-waited until 1879 and 1881, respectively, to legalize Christmas.) The slave South seems to have been the laggard in this matter. Not New England, surely-all six states in that supposedly Puritan region of the country had recognized Christmas between 1845 and 1861 (Connecticut being the first to do so, and New Hampshire the last).11 To be sure, the pattern was not universal. The first three states to legalize Christmas all permitted slavery, while the final member of the "first generation" to do so-Indiana, in 1875-was a free state. And the Civil War itself may have had something to do with the South"s relative recalcitrance (though the war did not stop Northern states from proceeding on this score). In any case, the meaning of the pattern is not fully evident, but there is one possible explanation. It has to do with how much pressure there was in any given state for a formal, legislatively mandated release from work at Christmas. Such pressure was strongest in New England, the most heavily industrialized part of the United States, but less so in the slave South, an agricultural region that was still governed (as we have seen) by a seasonal rhythm that may have made it unnecessary to dictate a holiday by force of law.
This hypothesis is partly borne out by looking at the Christmas legislation in a single, highly industrialized state-Ma.s.sachusetts.12 Christmas achieved legal recognition in Ma.s.sachusetts in a pair of laws, pa.s.sed in 1855 and 1856, respectively, during two turbulent sessions of a reform-minded legislature that was under the majority control of an insurgent "third party," the American Party-better known as the "Know-Nothings." The Know-Nothings are best remembered today for a single plank in their platform, a nativist hostility to the immigrants who were flocking to New England. But just as important, the Know-Nothings were a party that represented native-born urban workers (who actually held almost 25 percent of the total seats in 1855). The legislation pa.s.sed by the Ma.s.sachusetts Know-Nothing legislatures included measures to suppress gambling, prost.i.tution, and-especially-the use of alcohol (the penalty for selling a single gla.s.s of liquor was six months" imprisonment). It also included a set of antislavery laws, as well as laws related to industrial welfare and safety in the workplace. The Know-Nothings almost succeeded in pa.s.sing a bill that would have ensured factory workers a maximum ten-hour day. A recent study of the Ma.s.sachusetts Know-Nothing legislature concludes that most of its legislation "specifically addressed the needs of an industrial society." Christmas achieved legal recognition in Ma.s.sachusetts in a pair of laws, pa.s.sed in 1855 and 1856, respectively, during two turbulent sessions of a reform-minded legislature that was under the majority control of an insurgent "third party," the American Party-better known as the "Know-Nothings." The Know-Nothings are best remembered today for a single plank in their platform, a nativist hostility to the immigrants who were flocking to New England. But just as important, the Know-Nothings were a party that represented native-born urban workers (who actually held almost 25 percent of the total seats in 1855). The legislation pa.s.sed by the Ma.s.sachusetts Know-Nothing legislatures included measures to suppress gambling, prost.i.tution, and-especially-the use of alcohol (the penalty for selling a single gla.s.s of liquor was six months" imprisonment). It also included a set of antislavery laws, as well as laws related to industrial welfare and safety in the workplace. The Know-Nothings almost succeeded in pa.s.sing a bill that would have ensured factory workers a maximum ten-hour day. A recent study of the Ma.s.sachusetts Know-Nothing legislature concludes that most of its legislation "specifically addressed the needs of an industrial society."13 The pro-labor sympathies of the 185556 Ma.s.sachusetts legislature are suggested by the terms of the pair of laws that recognized Christmas Day. The 1855 law simply barred the collection of commercial paper on Christmas (as well as July 4), with the intention of putting a stop to large-scale commercial transactions. The 1856 law went further. It established Christmas and July 4, along with Washington"s Birthday (previously unrecognized), as holidays for state workers, closing down "all public offices" on those days. (The expectation was that closing state offices would have a domino effect, leading to the closing of other businesses as well.) The import of this gesture is underlined by a further provision of the law, one that established a Monday holiday when any of the three dates fell on the Sabbath. Such a provision ensured that state workers would always receive a separate day off on these three annual occasions. In other words, Washington"s Birthday was not afforded legal recognition simply for "patriotic" reasons, nor was Christmas afforded that recognition simply out of "religious" considerations.
The point is underscored when we examine the actual legislative debate that took place over the 1856 holiday bill. While the inclusion of Christmas as a