Testing the Model of the Pre-Industrial City: The Case of Ante-Bellum Charleston, South

Carolina
Author(s): John P. Radford
Source: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 4, No. 3 (1979),
pp. 392-410
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the
Institute of British Geographers)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/622059
Accessed: 01/10/2008 11:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) and Blackwell Publishing are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org
 Testing the model of the pre-industrial
city: the case of ante-bellum Charleston,
South Carolina
JOHN P. RADFORD
Associate Professor of Geography, York University, Ontario

Revised MS received 23 November I978

ABSTRACT. It has becomeclearthatSjoberg'smuch criticizedbut highlyinfluentialmodelof the pre-industrialcity is not relevantto

all non-industrialcities. Its applicabilitywithinthe westernworldis likelyto be limitedto a minorityof cities which werenot only
dependentupon low levels of technology,but were also dominatedby non-mercantileelites. Some areasof the SouthernU.S.A.
before the Civil War appearto have possessedmany characteristicsof the rathether special social structurewhich Sjobergwrongly
arguedwere characteristicof all pre-industrialsocieties. In particular,Charlestonin South Carolinawas dominatedfor several
decadesof the nineteenthcenturyby an oligarchyof slave-owningplanterfamilies.A reviewof Charlestonhistoriographyreveals
close parallelswith Sjoberg'sdescriptionof the characteristicsof pre-industrialsociety.Some aspectsof the internalstructureof the
city deviated from the 'ecology' of the model, furtherqualifyingthe claims of its author. However, other spatialaspects, both
patternsandprocesses,showeda markedconformitywith the model,demonstratingthe usefulnessofSjoberg'sideasin interpreting
one majordimensionof Charlestons internalstructure.The contributionmade by the model towardsthe understandingof the
internaldynamicsof ante-bellumCharlestonis sufficientto justifyfurthertesting in similarsituationselsewhere.

DURINGalmost two decades since the publication of Thepre-industrialcity, Sjoberg's attempt to

develop a 'constructed type' of cities in non-industrial societies has attracted repeated criti-
cism. I Reviewers have, in particular, objected to the misleading simplicity of the pre-industrial-
industrial dichotomy upon which the argument largely rests and to the enormous spatial and
temporal claims for the validity of the model.2 In spite of this generally critical veiw, Sjoberg's
ideas continue to be invoked whenever social scientists search for generalizations on the nature
of cities in non-industrial societies. Indeed, as Janet Abu-Lughod observed in a recent essay,
The pre-industrial city is 'perhaps the most influential book to have come out in comparative
urbanism during the present generation'3.
Students of the internal structure of cities in the western world have not escaped Sjoberg's
influence. Again, much of the commentary has been critical, but there has nevertheless grown
up a widespread assumption that a type of 'pre-industrial city' existed in Europe and North
America before the onset of urban industrialization. The concept has, however, usually been
used loosely, and attempts to test the model systematically have been few. As Warnes has
written, 'firm evidence of Sjoberg's generalization holding for western cities before they were
industrialized has not been produced'4. It is also true, however, that hard evidence suggesting
that the model is irrelevant to western societies is only a little more plentiful. Testing by some
historical geographers of a few of the basic ideas in certain cities in England and North America
has contributed to the latter view. Warnes examined patterns of occupational status in Chorley
in I85I, and showed that the status gradient postulated by Sjoberg was not present. He
concluded that, 'hypotheses about pre-industrial cities cannot be simply transferred to early
nineteenth-century cities in western society'5. John Langton, in a study of seventeenth-century
Newcastle, concluded that the city's social geography was not merely more complicated than the
Sjoberg model, but 'fundamentally different' from it.6 Davey and Doucet found that the social
392
 Charlestonand the pre-industrial model 393
geography of Hamilton, Canada West, in 1853 did not conform to that of the Sjobergian city,
and stressed the need to recognize the North American commercial city as a distinct type to be
studied on its own terms.7
These conclusions are hardly surprising. As Langton acknowledges, a vital component of
the Sjoberg scheme is the control of the city by an elite whose dominance 'was derived from
non-economic and extra-urban sources'.8 Accounts of the domination of urban centres by local
elites abound in the literature on non-industrial cities, but, in England and North America at
least, these were usually mercantile elites, with a firm commercial-urban base. In seventeeth-
century Newcastle, it was 'a merchant clique which was pre-eminent in wealth and power.'9
Likewise, Hamilton, as the body of Katz's text makes clear, was governed by an entrepreneurial
elite which 'did not make up a traditional upper class ... Hamilton lacked a social hierarchy
governed by birth rather than achievement'.'0 Such cities were part of an emerging commer-
cial-urban system, and had little in common with the city as a sub-system of 'feudal' society.
Although Sjoberg's use of the term 'feudal' is open to criticism,'' his exploration of the impact
upon cities of elites which espoused traditional 'absolute' values deserves to be evaluated on its
own terms. More fertile ground than has so far been explored is available in which to test the
model. Although Sjoberg regarded the United States as the epitome of industrial society, parts
of the U.S. South in the ante-bellum period appear to have possessed many of the characteristics
which he believed to be the hallmarks of pre-industrialism. Before examining these in the case of
Charleston, South Carolina, it is necessary to clarify the major postulates of the model itself.
ELEMENTS OF SJOBERG'S MODEL

Sjoberg's main purpose was to provide a model of non-industrial cities to set against existing
models of the industrial city. His study was predicated on the belief that 'pre-industrial societies
everywhere display strikingly similar social and ecological structures ... certainly in basic
form'. 2 He wished to 'isolate . . . structural universals, those elements that transcend cultural
boundaries', and to compare 'the typical pre-industrial city with the typical industrial city'.'3
He therefore devoted considerable attention to the differences between pre-industrial and
industrial situations. The major distinguishing feature was technology, pre-industrial societies
being dependent largely upon animate energy. There were, however, other contrasts. Demogra-
phically, pre-industrial cities were said to have small populations and to include within their
boundaries only a tiny proportion of the population of the total society. Functionally, such cities
were said to perform mainly political and military roles, with economic, religious, educational
and cultural functions being largely supportive. Physically, these cities were usually surrounded
by walls, and divided internally into walled districts. Congestion, chaos and poor physical
facilities were typical. The institutional organization-social class, the family, economic,
political and religious structure-differed sharply from the industrial case.
The class structure of the pre-industrial city was said to consist of three groups-an upper
class, a lower class, and an outcaste group.'4 The upper class consisted of the small ruling elite
of the society, which was located in the city because of defence and proximity to the hub of
communications. Its most important members were the political leaders, but it also included
religious leaders, who provided moral justification for the political order, and educational
leaders, who propagated the formal religious norms. Other groups were occasionally included:
landlords (although these were normally members in some other capacity), some military
leaders and, very rarely, exceptionally wealthy and powerful merchants. The lower class
included government, educational and religious personnel, artisans and unskilled labourers, and
usually military leaders and merchants. The outcaste group consisted of slaves, certain minority
ethnic and religious groups, those engaged in low-status or noxious occupations-night-soil
394 JOHN P. RADFORD
carriers, butchers and prostitutes, and those afflicted with certain diseases. The gaps between
the classes were rigid, and the social distance was great, being reinforced by differences of dress,
speech and manners.
The distribution of these classes within the city was described in some detail and may be
represented by a diagram showing the class pyramid and the concentric zonation of these classes
within the city (Fig. I). There is a clear social gradient from the centre to the periphery.'5
Members of the elite occupy the central area, close to the political, religious and ceremonial
heart of the city. The outcastes are relegated to its edge. Yet such a gradient is only one of three
basic 'ecological' characteristics which were presented.'6 The second was the existence of finer
spatial differentiation according to occupational, ethnic and family ties. In most cases these
would provide the within-zone detailed differentiation of population (Fig. i), although certain

CLASS PYRAMID RESIDENTIALPATTERNS

Domestic
Servants

LOWE;" ...... i_Occupational

Districts
LOWER
CLASS

OUTCASTES

FIGURE i. Relationship between class structure and the pre-industrial city (after Sjoberg)

occupational groups might apparently transcend the layers of the class pyramid and the class
ring boundaries. Domestic servants would frequently be found in the core, providing readily
accessible service to the elite, while merchants might be found in any of the rings, but most
commonly among the lower class and outcastes. The third characteristic was held to be the lack
of functional specialization of land use according to other principles. In direct contrast with the
industrial case, where residential, manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing, religious, social and
educational functions of the city were sharply segregated, in the pre-industrial case there was
considerable overlap. Individual plots of land were not linked with one specialized parcel of
activities at any given time, as was true of the more rational spatial allocation of land use in the
modern city.
Above all, the pre-industrial city was said to be the 'dependent variable' of 'feudal'
society,7 to be studied as a part of the social order which enveloped it. Although Sjoberg
defined pre-industrial society on the basis of its technology, he also emphasized the role of
cultural values and social power in evolving the internal structure of the pre-industrial city, a
city culturally enclosed by its rural environs. The notion of the dependent city, its domination
are
by a leisured elite stressing traditional values, and a peculiar internal spatial arrangement
three fundamental constituents of the Sjobergian view of the 'pre-industrial city'. The plausibi-
between
lity of the model rests largely on the validity of Sjoberg's view of the inter-relationship
these three elements.
 Charlestonand the pre-industrial model 395
A PLANTERS' CITY
Charleston, South Carolina, has long enjoyed a reputation as a city dominated by traditional
values, and governed by a landed elite. The sixth largest city in the United States until I830, it
was one of a handful of important cities in the slave society of the ante-bellum South. Even
historians intent on discrediting the 'plantation legend' have usually exempted from their
observations on the 'plainness' of Southern society what Wilbur Cash, perhaps the greatest of
the South's iconoclasts, called the 'little aristocracies' of certain coastal areas.18 Although
surrounded in the nineteenth century by the 'new master class' of cotton, these areas retained
and in some cases reasserted what their leaders took to be the values of an earlier age. Nowhere
was this more true than in Tidewater, South Carolina, where the planters viewed political,
economic and social trends with alarm and idealized the 'golden age' of the eighteenth
century. I 9 Few historians of the South, of South Carolina, or of Charleston itself have denied
the importance of the influence of wealthy Tidewater planters upon the city.2 'Nowhere else in
America', wrote Constance Green 'was life so truly urbane as in Charleston ... It was a society
rooted in a leisure unknown in Northern cities.'2' The close ties between the Tidewater
plantation area and its urban focus, and the relative isolation from other parts of the nation have
prompted use of the term 'city state' to describe the region.22 Charleston was the 'capital of the
plantations',23 an urban focus which 're-emphasized the agrarian nature of South Carolina.'24

The evolution of the South Carolina elite

Following the siting of the first permanent settlement in I670, South Carolina was settled
largely from England and the English Caribbean. The latter group came mainly from Barbados,
'a medley of rich and poor ... a cross section of big and middling planters, merchants, artisans,
small farmers and slaves'.25 Further diversity was added with the arrival shortly afterwards of
groups of Huguenots. The evolution of a substantial upper class was related to the development,
beginning in the i68os, of the production of South Carolina rice. Capital requirements for the
construction of levees, dams and reservoirs imposed severe conditions of entry into commercial
rice production. In addition, tight control of land distribution and the importance of establish-
ing good market connections ensured that the large profits obtained would be retained by a
relatively small number of large property holders. It was rice cultivation, therefore, which, in
Wertenbaker's words, 'built up an aristocracy of planters and merchants, fastened the slave
system upon the region, [and] studded the countryside and the streets of Charleston with fine
residences'.26
Thus established, this upper class, particularly the planter element, retained effective control
of South Carolina up to the Civil War. The greatest challenge to its authority, the wave of
constitutional reforms which swept the South during the i830os, was successfully resisted
because of the power of the planters and a stronger tradition of class distinction within South
Carolina society. By 1840, according to Sydnor, the 'broad plateau of aristocratic government'
over the eastern and upper South had been eroded, leaving only South Carolina, and to a
slightly lesser extent Virginia, standing 'like two peaks'.27 Retaining high property qualifica-
tions for office holding and legislative apportionment on the basis of taxes as well as the
distribution of the white population, South Carolina continued to be 'ruled through an efficient,
unified, and highly centralized governmental system that was almost devoid of checks and
balances'.28 The ante-bellum political structure of the State has been succinctly described by
Freehling in a major study of Nullification:
throughout the pre-Civil War era, South Carolina's political order reflected the high-toned
conservatism of an entrenched landed aristocracy. The planters' political ideal was the
396 JOHN P.RADFORD
House of Lords rather than the Halls of Congress and their political assumptions derived
from the elitist cult of the English country gentry. Nowhere else in America did the
wealthy class so successfully conspire to keep power away from the common man.29
The dominance of the 'militant aristocracy' was not confined to politics, but also pervaded the
social life of the State.30 The elite included members of the professions, especially physicians
and lawyers, but it was the planter who topped the pinnacle of social status. Indeed, successful
lawyers and physicians often retired from practice to become planters. The social distance
between the elite and the remainder of the white population was maintained through marriage
patterns, and reinforced by religious affiliation and society membership. 3 At no time was the
upper class completely closed to upward mobility, but in the later ante-bellum years it was
notoriously difficult for an outsider to break into the tight-knit elite. The notion of aristocracy
was shrouded in myth,32 but the planter oligarchy itself was a definite reality. As 'the station of
planter became the ne plus ultra of social achievement',33 and as the remainder of this
predominantly rural society retained many of the trappings of a 'folk' society,34 South Carolina
in the last 2 or 3 ante-bellum decades was approaching a state of neo-feudalism.35

Planters and merchants in Charleston

The direct impact of this rural society upon Charleston was at first largely a seasonal one as Low
Country planters built town houses in the city and spent part of the year in residence. The
biggest social event of the year was the February horse races, and many planters spent that
month in the city. But the longest period of residence in Charleston was usually during the
summer, when planting families wished to escape from the 'country fever' of the plantation.36
Between May and October, the 'miasma' of the rice swamps gave rise, so it was supposed by
planters and physicians, to malaria. This disease apparently became more prevalent after about
1790, and the planters increasingly escaped to coastal resorts. Many of the most prominent
planters were attracted to Charleston which was already an important social and economic
centre. The field hands, who were believed to be immune to feverous conditions, were left
behind to continue the work of the plantation. But a full retinue of domestic servants was
brought by many planting families to the city during both 'seasons'.37 The city was thus at least
partly transformed from a seaport into a leisure capital, as the pace of city life responded to the
seasonal migrations of the rural elite. In Brewster's words:
The planter families contributed to the development of Charleston, the metropolis, by
erecting handsome townhouses, by fostering and patronizing its institutions, by supplying
its ruling class, and by giving to its society a tone that the commercial artisan elements
alone could not have given it.38
Subsequently, the planter presence in Charleston became less of a seasonal matter as plantation
affairs were left in the hands of resident managers, or handled on occasional visits by the planter
while his family and retinue remained in town, and as 'retired' planters increasingly found life in
Charleston more agreeable than on the remote plantations. Well before the Civil War, the
planter presence was deeply entrenched, and Charleston had become in many respects a
'planters' city'.
The intimacy of contact between city and plantation rested not only on the social life of the
planting families, but also on the ties between the planter and his factor. The factor arranged for
the shipping and marketing of the crop, and performed a whole range of wholesale activities,
including storage, for the planter. He also arranged for supplies of various kinds to be sent up to
the plantations, often transmitting the latest in European fashions and ideas, for which the
 Charlestonandthepre-industrialmodel 397
planter seems to have had an insatiable appetite.39 The social relationship between landowner
and merchant within the city underwent an important change in the ante-bellum period. With
the strengthening of the ideal of the agricultural gentleman in the nineteenth century the trader
was relegated to a lower class, a situation which did not pertain in the colonial era, when the
distribution between the two was imprecisely drawn.40 The merchants were pushed out of, or in
some cases to the edge of, the lite, so that by the he era of Nullification 'even wealthy new
merchants failed to attain the top rank in the social hierarchy'.4' The planters increasingly
expressed a belief in the nobility of ownership of land and slaves, and a distaste for the
'vulgarity' of money, trade and industry. Even early in the nineteenth century, none of the
leading commercial houses of the city was owned or managed by native South Carolinians.42
Indeed, the increasing tendency to exclude merchants from social intercourse among the elite
has been attributed to suspicions about their loyalties, given their strong British, and later
Yankee connections.43 No better demonstration of the moral authority of planter over mercan-
tile interests can be given than the success of this reactionary landed elite in forcing the
unilateral secession of South Carolina from the Union o in the
t final days of i860.

SOCIAL GEOGRAPHY OF CHARLESTON IN i86o

The above account suggests the existence of close parallels between the society of late
ante-bellum Charleston and the kind of 'pre-industrial' society which Sjoberg had in mind.
Charleston was dominated by a leisured, literate elite which espoused traditional rural ('feudal')
values, including firm views on class, race and slavery, and a professed distaste for commerce.
Well before I860, merchants had been excluded from this elite. Further, Charleston had a small
population (about 40 ooo in 860) and contained only a small proportion of the population of the
region. The city was not walled (though some of the Revolutionary fortifications were still
visible), but judging from contemporary accounts, there was enough 'chaos and confusion' to
lend a definite 'pre-industrial' flavour. There were almost no sewerage facilities, and night-soil
was collected for distribution over the surrounding countryside. The most efficient municipal
scavengers were the dozens of turkey buzzards which frequented the marketplace. The level of
technology was low. Steam engines were banned from the city; the steam-powered Charleston
Cotton Factory had been permitted to open in i850 but had failed 2 years later. Of twelve grist
mills listed in I848 only two used inanimate power.44 The four rice mills on the Ashley and
Cooper rivers depended heavily on substantial slave labour forces. A railway had been built to
Hamburg as early as 1833, but it had not been allowed to penetrate the city limits, did not link up
with the wharves, and was therefore of limited utility.45 There was no street railway until i866,
and Charleston remained a pedestrian city throughout the ante-bellum era. On the face of it
there can be few more favourable environments in western urbanism in which to test the spatial
aspects of the Sjoberg model.
Dominance of centre over periphery
The decline of status from centre to periphery is the pattern most commonly associated with the
'pre-industrial city', and most frequently used to test Sjoberg's ideas. The centre of Charleston
is the intersection of Broad and Meeting streets (Fig. 2), and the most sought-after residential
area has been 'South of Broad', between Broad Street and the tip of the peninsula. The four
'Upper Wards', north of Calhoun Street, were annexed to the city in 1850. The best surrogate
measure of status for which data are readily available is occupation. The occupations of a io per
cent systematic sample of heads of households taken from the manuscripts of the eighth census
of the United States (i860) were classified into seven categories; planter-professional, wholesale
merchant, shopkeeper, clerical and supervisory, skilled manual, unskilled manual and desti-
398 JOHN P.RADFORD

0 250 600
METRES

FIGURE2. Charleston in I86o. Source: Directory, i86o

 Charlestonand thepre-industrialmodel 399
tute.46 The frequencies were plotted over the set of six concentric zones shown in Figure 2.47
Figure 3 shows the gradients of the two highest and two lowest groups (excluding the category
'destitute'in whichnumbersaretoo smallforreliability).
The occupational statusgradientstendin the directionspostulatedin the Sjobergmodel.
The most regular trends are found in the merchant and skilled manual categories: merchants
declinedsteadilyfromZone2 outwards, whiletheincidenceof skilledworkersincreased rapidly
towards the edge of the city. The gradients of the extreme categories (planter-professional and
skilled manual) were slightly less pronounced. This can be at least partly accounted for in
Sjobergian terms. Close inspection of the census manuscripts shows that many unskilled
workers near the centre of the city were engaged in domestic service occupations, as allowed for
in the model.This wasespeciallytrueof the femalelabourforce,as washerwomen,
nurses,
seamstresses and domestic servants abounded. However, the free male labour force, especially
near to the wharves on the eastern side of the city, was predominantly engaged in port-related
activities: wharfingers, stevedores, fishermen, watchmen, porters and draymen. Indeed, if one
were to sample individuals rather than households, the large numbers of Irish labourers found
in boarding houses near the wharves would produce an even less pronounced unskilled gradient
than that depicted in Figure 3.
One aspect of the occupational status gradient emphasized by Sjoberg was the relegation to
the city's outskirts of workers engaged in malodorous occupations, notably butchers and
tanners.48 In ante-bellum Charleston such tasks were mainly performed by slaves, for whom
detailed occupational data do not exist. A tally of the unskilled occupations listed in the census
(Table I) shows that the small numbers of the free population who were engaged in these
50 - 50 -
FREQUENCY PERCENTAGECOMPOSITION
OF ZONES
40 - 40 -

30- -/ 30 /

20- / 20-. ./

~~1~~~~~02
~10 _

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Zones Zones
50 -
PERCENTAGEDISTRIBUTION
OVER ZONES
40 -

30 - - --- Planter/Professional
"""""'" Wholesale
(^ /'
\ - --\ / Merchant/Managerial
?) 20/ . -Skilled --- - Manual
\ \ **'''/*
2...........
Unskilled Manual

10

1 2 3 4 5 6
Zones
FIGURE
3. Distribution of occupational status groups by concentric zones, I86o
400 JOHN P.RADFORD
TABLE i
Locationof unskilledworkers,by ward,I860

Total
Occupation WardsI E 2 Wards3 & 4 LowerWards UpperWards Total

Butcher o 5 5 30 35
Tanner o o o I I
Soap-maker o o o 2 2
Scavenger o o o I I
Pedlarand huckster o o o I6 I6
Draymanand cater 4 44 48 92 140
Labourer 00oo 176 276 365 641
Watchman 6 7 13 8 21
Porter 3 32 35 17 52

activities had a marked bias towards the edge of the city. This pattern is also found among other
low-status occupations: all of the pedlars and hucksters, the two free soap-makers and the sole
free black scavenger were located in the Upper Wards. It is less marked among the service and
port-related occupations (drayman, labourer and watchman) and is actually reversed in the case
of porters, though very few of these are in the two southernmost wards.
The major anomaly in the downward trend of the planter-professional group away from
the centre occurs in Zone 4 which includes an area whereher large numbers of planters had chosen
sites near the Ashley River for summer houses, as the area South of Broad filled up. Many of the
houses were permanently occupied, but whether year-round or seasonal urban residents, most
of the planters would be found in Charleston when the census enumerator called in June, I860.
Sjoberg mentions briefly the summer houses of the 'pre-industrial' elite, but places them well
outside the city, and regards them as the rural summer retreats of urban residents.49 Because of
the climatic regime of South Carolina, and the etiology of its most dreaded disease, this seasonal
pattern was reversed: the planters came to the city for the summer months. The number of
planters permanently resident in Charleston by I860 is, however, sufficient to render this
distinction of little theoretical significance.
Occupational status gradients from centre to periphery can thus be demonstrated in
Charleston in I860, but they are less sharply defined than in the Sjoberg model. Poor as well as
rich lived in thethe
centre of
ene ofe city, especially in the area near the Cooper River wharves. Equally,
some members of the upper class lived away from the central area, notably on carefully selected
sites close to the Ashley River. As a result, the occupational gradient from west to east across the
Lower Wards was almost as marked as that outwards from the city centre.
A gradient from centre to periphery is also visible in some aspects of Charleston's racial
geography, and there is, moreover, some evidence of the kinds of processes which operated to
produce it. The racial patterns of Charleston have been analysed in a previous paper, 50 and it is
necessary here only to outline the implications of that study for the relevance to the city of the
Sjoberg model. The high degree of intermixture in the residential pattern of white, black,
mulatto and slave found in I860 are what one would expect in an ante-bellum Southern city, but
it is noteworthy that the free black population was substantially confined to the 'Neck', the area
north of Calhoun Street which had been outside the city until 1850. In the old city, the free black
population declined sharply between 1840 and i860, and while cheaper lots and lower taxes in
the four Upper Wards may have been an attraction, there is also evidence of a tendency for free
blacks to be pushed out to the Neck. The ideology of the elite seems to have been directly
manifested in the racial geography of the city through physical improvement schemes such as
 Charlestonandthepre-industrialmodel 40 I
the clearing of inhabited alleys. The peripheral free blacks thus appear to have been neither
rural in-migrants nor suburbanites, but a genuine outcaste group. Such a situation provides an
excellent illustration of the close relationship between social power and spatial pattern which
Sjobergbelieved to be at the root of the decline in status from centreto periphery.
A furtheraspectof ante-bellumCharlestonwhich appearsto correspondclosely with the
Sjobergmodel is the importancein the life of the city of its institutionalcentre.The dominance
of centre over peripheryin the pre-industrialcity was not confined, in Sjoberg's view, to
residentialpatterns.The centre also containedthe chief public buildings, and was the main
orientationpoint and centre of social control. In Charleston,the intersectionof Broad and
Meetingstreetsperformedthese rolesadmirably.St Michael'sChurch u on the south-eastcorner
was in many ways the major emotive symbol of the city. Built in the Wren style, it had
symbolized the 'visible ascendencyof English culture in Charlestonin the eighteenth cen-
tury',5' and in the late ante-bellum period it remained the place of worship of a sizeable
proportionof the upperclass.52In it, the incumbent,the ReverendPaulTrapier,preached'the
glorious cause of the South . . from the pulpit. . . and prayed for its success'.53 Contemporary
accountsof the signing of the Ordinance of Secession rarelyomit referenceto the
initbells of St
Michael's.On a more mundanelevel, the bells measuredthe rhythmof daily life, and werethe
signalsof emergency.They soundedthe curfeweach evening.Betweencurfewand daybreaka
sentrystationedon the steeplecalledout thequarterhous s they struck.In a slavecity, where
firewasevermoreto be fearedthanelsewhere,he keptthe firewatch.On sightinga firehe would
call for the bells to alertthe guardandhanga warninglight on the side of the spirenearestto the
fire.54It was judgedimportantin ante-bellumCharlestonto live within sight of the spire and
within earshotof the bells.
St Michael's spire overlookedthe guard-houseon the south-westcornerof the intersec-
tion, to which blacks found on the streets after curfew, and whites committing a disturbance at
night were taken. The following morning charges were laid at the Court House opposite, in
which daily sessions were held. The fourth corner of the intersection was occupied by the centre
of municipal administration, the city hall. Thus, on the four corners of the intersection of Broad
and Meeting streets were situated the buildings which housed the major institutions of social
control in the city. Here then was the nerve centre of Charleston, quite distinct from the
mercantile centre near Broad and East Bay streets (Fig. 4). It was the orientation point for
Charleston's residents and the area which, during a period of intensifying sectional antagonisms
and racial threats, became a symbol of order and continuity in the minds of the city's rulers.

Other 'ecological' characteristics

In addition to the dominance of centre over periphery, Sjoberg postulated the existence within
the pre-industrial city of finer spatial differences according to ethnic, occupational and family
ties, and an absence of the marked differentiation of function found in the industrial city. The
relevance to Charleston of these observations can be briefly surveyed. Unlike those in most
American cities, ethnic differences among Charleston's white population have never been
viewed as an important theme in its social history. The white population was of diverse origin,
but the differences were eclipsed by a massive preoccupation with race and class. The ethnic
history has been seen as one of assimilation of the various groups into a society which was
perceived by its leaders as essentially English in character. The Huguenots, who played a vital
part in founding the social order, quickly blended with inhabitants of English and Barbadian
origin, and were soon distinguishable only by their names. In the Jewish community, one of the
oldest in the United States, the emphasis was on integration, if not assimilation.55 The same is
true of other European groups. Perhaps only the Irish, who arrived in large numbers after I840,
402 JOHN P.RADFORD

I \ \

BANKS
1 Bankof Charleston
2 Bankof S.C.
3 Bankof State of S.C.
Farmersand Exchange
Bank
5Peoples Bank
6 Planters & Mechanics
Bank of S.C.
7 Union Bankof S.C.
South Western
8 RailroadBank
METRES MERCHANTS 9 State Bank

FIGURE4. The symbolicand commercialcentresof Charleston,I860. Source:Directory, I860

 Charlestonand the pre-industrialmodel 403
stood out as a self-conscious group defined on the basis of ethnic origins. No ethnic group
completely dominated any occupation, and none contained a full range of occupations. Most
importantly, far from being confined to particular quarters, members of all ethnic groups were
found throughout the city.
The walled ethnic quarters of Sjoberg's city had their equivalents in Charleston's slave
yards. Both were morphological expressions of social status, and instruments of social and
residential control. The slave yards which adjoined most of the largest houses in the city were
surrounded by high walls and iron gates, both prominent features of the urban landscape. These
'compounds' were designed to form isolated units, divorced as far as possible from the
mainstream of urban life.56 They commonly housed as many as a dozen slaves, and, together
with a large upper-class family living in the main house, resulted in households of twenty or
more people. Such households dominated the parts of the city which they occupied, their
visibility being enhanced in several cases by the adoption of distinctive liveries for the slaves. 57
The values in evidence here are very close to those characterized by Sjoberg as 'pre-industrial',
but their manifestation in the city was considerably modified by local circumstances. The model
of the pre-industrial city, while it postulates the existence of a discrete and inflexible stratifica-
tion of society does not allow for the sharpness and simplicity of the racial polarization which
had developed in Charleston by i860. Nevertheless, the use of Sjoberg's observations on ethnic
containment as a basis for investigating the racial geography of ante-bellum Charleston
contributes substantially to our understanding of the processes of racial residential control
within the city.
No evidence can be found for the existence of occupational districts in ante-bellum
Charleston. It is true that certain occupations showed a high degree of clustering-lawyers on
Law Range and Court House Square, commission merchants near the wharves-but, except in
rare instances, place of work and place of residence were sharply separated.58 Inspection of the
city directories shows that only shopkeepers invariably lived at their places of work. Among a
group of occupations selected to represent different levels in the class structure, only doctors
commonly practised at their places of residence (Table II). Skilled workers did not form
workshop districts. The prevalence of the journey to work throughout the occupational
hierarchy is indicative of a high degree of separation between residential and commercial land
uses. Further, the level of commercial land-use specialization was much more advanced than is
allowed for in the model (Fig. 5). The industrial organization, however, despite the earnest
efforts of a few entrepreneurs to convince the elite that Charleston's salvation lay in manufactur-

TABLE II
Separation of workplace and residence, i860

Average length
Occupational Per centage having ofjourney to
Occupation category journeys to work work (km)

Doctors I 15'7 0-42

Lawyers I 94 9 0'77
Commission
merchants 2 95'00?77
Employeesof commission
merchants 4,5,6 100 0 0?94
Book-keepers 4 91'7 0o-69
Smiths 5 91-5 0?45
Porters 6 88-6 0-42
 404 JOHN P.RADFORD

__ I

* Retail clothing establishrrents

o Brokers
\ Commission merchants
1:, Lawyers

METRES

5. Distributionof selectedfunctions,i860. Source:Directory, i860

FIGURE
 Charlestonand the pre-industrial model 405
ing, remained, for the most part,primitive.The ricemills on the Ashleyand Cooperriverswere
cellular,almost self-containedunits with their own labourforce,most of it suppliedby slaves,
and ancillaryworkshopslocated on the same lot. Specializationhere was by product, not
process. A census of i86i lists I27 inhabitants of Chisholm's mill-fifteen whites, and 12
slaveslivingin shantyhouses.59Bennett'smills housednine whitesand76 slaves.60A notice for
sale of West Point Mills in
in86 describedthe propertyas includinga cooperageestablishment,
a carpenter'sshop, a blacksmith'sshop and I60 Negroes.6' By the standardsof the U.S. as a
whole in 1860, such an arrangementwas anachronistic.

Interpretation
Late ante-bellumCharlestonconformedto Sjoberg'smodelin some respects,but deviatedfrom
it in others.The overalldegreeof conformitycan be readilyassessedby compilinga checklistof
the pertinentcharacteristicsof the pre-industrialcity (Table III). Obviouslysucha tablecannot
be all-inclusive,neithercan it takeinto accountthe relativity
relatiit ofo most of the
otattributes. It does,
however,provide a convenient summary. Since the Sjoberg scheme is an ideal type one would
not expect to findall of the attributesrepresentedin anyone city. Yet almostall of the important
social and technological attributes of the pre-industrial city (1-22) are to be found in Charles-
ton. Indeed, they are for the most partthe very characteristicswhich its historianshavetended
to stress.The only departuresof any consequenceare the existenceof more than threeclasses,
the fairlyclose attentionto time, and generallyavailablecredit facilities.Even these deviations
arenot extreme.Comparedwith the cities of the North, for example,the paceof Charlestonlife
was notoriouslycasual,and credit facilitiesmore restricted.Yet Sjoberg'sdescriptionof these
factorsis so extremeas to renderit incompatiblewith the Charlestonsituation.When we come
to the 'ecological' variables, however (26-34) there are important discrepancies: Charleston had
no ethnic quarters or occupational-residential districts, and its level of functional specialization
of land use was considerably greater than that presented in the Sjoberg model.
Sjoberg's claim that, 'ecology mirrors the social structure and vice versa', therefore seems
much too optimistic. First, it assumes a one-to-one correspondence between social traits and
spatial form. Yet certain of the 'feudal' characteristics of Charleston society were expressed
spatially in ways which departed from the patterns postulated in the model. Secondly, the model
does not allow for a 'mix' of value systems within a city, nor for changes in the relative
importance of different sets of values over time. Although Charleston came increasingly under
the influence of a traditional elite in the ante-bellum era, it was not transformed overnight into
the planters' ideal city. Other forces were at work which also influenced decisions shaping the
city, and there is, in any case, a built-in inertia in urban morphology, and even in demographic
patterns, which ensures that spatial change will usually lag behind social change.
The key to the understanding of the patterns found in Charleston in I860 is the recognition
that it was, in effect, two cities. Referring to the colonial era, Wertenbaker wrote, 'In Virginia,
Williamsburg was the center of the planter civilization, Norfolk the center of the mercantile
interests, but Charleston was both ... Here the agricultural section merged with the mercan-
tile.'62 By I860, after a period of extreme political and social tension, the agricultural and
mercantile sections, rather than being intertwined, were engaged in a competition which
affected all levels of society. At the top of the social hierarchy the supremacy of planter over
merchant seemed assured, but however much the planter spurned commerce, his position
ultimately depended upon mercantile activities.63 This paradox within ante-bellum Charleston
society was never fully resolved. Further down the social scale the institution of slavery was in
direct conflict with more enlightened forms of labour organization. In addition, free Negro
struggled with Irish immigrant for domination of particular trades. No city with the sophisti-
406 JOHN P.RADFORD
TABLE III
Charlestonandthepre-industrial
model

Presentin Charleston
'Pre-industrial'characteristics Yes Partly No

I. Inanimatepower base x
2. Economicand social dependenceon
slave labour x
3. City has small population x
4. City has smallproportionof population
of society x
5. City surroundedby a wall x
6. Importanceof internalwalls x
7. 'Feudal' elite dominates x
8. Elite espousestraditional,absolute
values x
9. Elite isolatesitself though common
lifestyle x
0o. Elite difficultto penetrate,compiles
genealogies x
I . Large elite households x
12. Elite glorifiesleisure,deprecatestrade
and industry x
13. Elite women idle x
14. Educationconfinedto elite x
I5. Merchantsoutsideelite x
I6. Merchantsforeignand suspectedof
spreadinghereticalideas x
17. Successfulmerchantsuse wealthto acquire
elite symbols x
I8. Only three classes x
I9. Existenceof a sovereignruler x
20. Rigid class structure x
21. Existenceof an outcastegroup x
22. Manners,dress, speech reinforceclass x
23. Importanceof craftand merchantguilds x
24. Time not regulated x
25. Creditpoorlydeveloped x
26. Residentialstatusgradientfromcore to
periphery x
27. Elite occupiescentreof city x
28. Importanceof symboliccentre x
29. Outcastegroupat the periphery x
30. Noxious occupationsat the periphery x
31. Peripherallocationsfor part-timefarmers x
32. Existenceof ethnic quarters x
33. Residentialareasdifferentiatedby
occupation x
34. Lack of functionalspecializationof land
use x

cated mercantile traditions of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Charleston could

quickly lose the stamp of its successful commercial functions. Indeed, the commercial decline
was relative, not absolute, and the wharves and offices remained the important and specialized
loci of mercantile activity. Yet as the South turned inwards, and as Charleston became a symbol,
this function was held in check, the relative status of the merchant declined, the authority of the
 Charlestonand the pre-industrial model 407
elite was intensified, and certain spatial patterns, identified by Sjoberg as symptomatic of such
circumstances, could be traced within the city.

CONCLUSION

Sjoberg assumed that what he called 'feudal' values would dominate all cities which were not
industrial in nature, and dominate them completely. Except where based upon the use of
inanimate power, cities were inevitably the 'dependent variables' of feudal society. It is clear,
however, that non-industrial cities have been influenced by more than one set of forces, and
cannot be regarded as conforming to one type. A particular city might experience the effects of
domination by a traditional elite for a period in its history, but it is unlikely that other forces
would be completely nullified. Sjoberg further assumed that when feudal values impinge upon
cities they always tend to induce the same spatial ('ecological') patterns. However, even if it is
possible to recognize a set of universal feudal values, there can be little doubt that local
circumstances have often modified the ways in which such values have been manifested within
cities. Sjoberg's model is therefore clearly not a general model for all non-industrial cities at all
times. If it has assumed this status, it is because the exaggerated claims of heauthe or have been
reinforced by a tendency in some quarters to equate the idea of the city before industrialization
with the Sjoberg ideal type per e. The
ityterm 'pre-industrial city' as applied to the Sjoberg model
is clearly a misnomer. Sjoberg's insights were much more partial than this term implies.
Investigation of pattern and process in one ante-bellum Southern city, however, suggests
that Sjoberg's arguments are plausible within certain closely circumscribed limits. It supports
the view that Sjoberg's major error lay in exaggeration and overgeneralization, and not in a
fundamental misunderstanding of the effects of 'feudal' society upon cities. Charleston in I860
was far from being an exact replica of the Sjoberg model. Sjoberg's thesis accounts for only a
part of the total matrix of the city's physical and social structure. Yet there are clear indications
that some of the forces identified by Sjoberg were operating within ante-bellum Charleston, and
their influence can be traced, in specific instances, in the spatial structure of the city. Sjoberg's
arguments provide a deeper insight into the relationship between values and urban space in
Charleston than would otherwise be possible. Moreover, they allow some of the trends found
within the city to be cast in a more general framework, thereby establishing a basis for
comparison with cities elsewhere.
Indeed, this study provides sufficient evidence of the plausibility of the model within a
limited set of circumstances to indicate the desirability of testing its spatial aspects in cities
where a non-mercantile elite has retained effective control for a significant period of time. Such
instances may be sufficiently rare in the western world to be regarded as deviations from the
normal pattern of commercial and industrial evolution. Yet it is unlikely that Charleston is
unique. Its attributes were probably shared with certain other cities of the ante-bellum South,
especially those in the coastal 'hearth' areas.64 The slave cities of the Caribbean might also repay
close attention. On the other hand most of the available evidence on English towns suggests that
they were dominated by merchant oligarchies from an early date, the country gentry remaining
rural in orientation.65
Non-industrial cities are a diverse group, and, unless we are content with idiographic
studies alone, we undoubtedly need, as one critic of Sjoberg has argued, 'more models'.66 But
we also need to examine more intensively the few we already have. A more realistic appreciation
of the limited validity of the Sjoberg model in the western world is likely to prove more useful to
us in the long run than its outright rejection. Only when the model has been carefully evaluated
in several other contexts, however, will there emerge a clearer understanding of the extent of its
plausiblity and the limits of its utility.
408 JOHN P.RADFORD
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was completedwhile the authorwas the recipientof a CanadaCouncilLeave Fellowship.The authoris gratefulto the
staff of the CartographicOffice of the Departmentof Geography,YorkUniversity, who draftedthe figures.

NOTES
I. SJOBERG, G. (i960) Thepre-industrialcity:past andpresent(Glencoe,Ill.). An earlierstatementappearedin Am.J. Sociol.
60, 438-45.
2. Initialreviewswererelativelymild, forexamplethoseby LERNER, D. (196I) Am.J. Sociol.67, 2 10-, and MUMFORD, L.
(196I) Am.Sociol.Rev.26, 656-7. Somelatercritiqueswerelittle shortof devastatingto certainaspectsof the book;see forexample,
Cox, 0. C. (1964)'The pre-industrialcity reconsidered'Sociol.Q. 5, I133-44 andWHEATLEY, P. ( I963) 'Whatthe greatnessof a city
is said to be', Pacific Viewpoint4, 163-88. More recent commentary,while no more tolerant of the work's many faults, has
neverthelessadopteda somewhatmore constructiveapproachto Sjoberg'sobjectives;see, for example,CLARK, P. and SLACK, P.
(1976) English towns in transition I500-7o00 (London) pp. 3-4. Also, BURKE,P. (1975) 'Some reflections on the pre-industrial city',
Urban History Yearbook(Leicester) pp. 13-20, has critically examined Sjoberg's generalizations and stressed the need for additional
models.
3. ABU-LUGHOD, J. (976) 'The legitimacyof comparisonsin comparativeurbanstudies'in WALTON, J. andMASOTTI,L. H.
The city in comparative perspective(New York)p. 19.
4. WARNES, A. M. (1973)'Residentialpatternsin anemergingindustrialtown'in Socialpatternsin cities,Instituteof British
GeographersSpecial PublicationNo. 5, p. I71. Warneswas referringparticularlyto the generalizationthat status in such cities
declines from the centretowardsthe periphery
5. Ibid. p. I86
6. LANGTON, J. (1975) 'Residentialpatternsin pre-industrialcities: some case studies from seventeenth-centuryBritain',
Trans.Inst. Br. Geogr.65, 21.
7. DAVEY, I. andDOUCET, M. (975) 'The socialgeographyof a commercialcity, c. I853',Appendixto KATZ, M. Thepeople
of Hamilton,CanadaWest:family and classin a mid-nineteenth centurycity (Cambridge,Mass.) p. 341
8. LANGTON, op. cit. p. 22. Sjobergmade much of the urbanorientationof the pre-industrialelite in orderto correctthe
mistakenview thatmembersof the elite livedalmostexclusivelyon ruralestates.The pre-industrialelite lived, seasonallyat least,in
cities, which provided defence, fostered communicationand hence social control, and gave access to merchantsand services
op. cit. pp. 113-15).
(SJOBERG, But it was a social, not just an urban elite, espousing the values of 'feudal' society, and maintaining
close contactswith the hinterlandthroughlandholdings,extractionof tribute,etc. (ibid. pp. 68, 120). 'The upperclasssets the pace
for the total society'(ibid. p. i i)
9. LANGTON, op. cit. p. 21. This findingis, of course,consistentwith the author'sconclusionthatVance'spre-capitalistcity
is a slightly less unsatisfactorymodel than Sjoberg'spre-industrialcity as a basis for interpretingthe residentialpatternsof
seventeenth-centuryNewcastle.See also his commenton Gloucester, Trans.Inst. Br. Geogr.,N.S. 2, 275
io. KATZ,op. cit. pp. I86-7
i i. Sjoberganticipatedcriticismof the use of this term (SJOBERG, op. cit. p. 9), and was justifiedin this; see for example,
WHEATLEY,op. cit. p. i65. However,he preferredit to 'gentry','agrarian','Asiatic',or 'traditional'
I2. SJOBERG,
op cit. p. 5
13. Ibid. pp. 5-6
14. Ibid. pp. 108-42
15. Ibid. pp. 97-8
i6. Ibid. pp. 95-6
17. Sjobergarguedthat both industrialand pre-industrialcities were dependentupon the contrastingsocieties in which
they existed (op. cit. p. 15). This view was his ultimatedefencein responseto the criticismsof Cox: SJOBERG,G. (I964) 'Further
commentson the pre-industrialcity' Sociol.Q. 5, 144-7
i8. CASH, W. J. (1949) Themindof the South(New York)p. 5
I9. ROGERS, G. C. (I969) Charlestonin the age of thePinckneys(Norman,Oklahoma)i62-5
20. The only major exception is a group of Southern urban historians who, with some justification,argue that the
preoccupationof Southernhistorianswith slaveryand the plantationhas led to the neglectof the historyof Southerncities. In their
anxietyto study Southerncities withinthe contextof an expandingnationalsystem, however,they may well be over-emphasizing
the similaritiesbetween North and South. On the ante-bellumcity in particular,see GOLDFIELD, D. R. (1977) 'Pursuingthe
D. R. (eds) The city in Southern history (Port
B. A. and GOLDFIELD,
American dream: cities in the Old South' in BROWNELL,
Washington,N.Y.) pp. 52-91.
2I. GREEN, C. M. (1957) Americancitiesin thegrowthof thenation(London) p. 25
22. For examplein PHILLIPS, U. B. (1929) Life and laborin the old South (New York)p. 52; and WARING, T. R. (1931)
'Charleston:the capitalof the plantations'in SMYTHE, A. T. et al. TheCarolinalow country(New York)p. 132
23. EATON, C. (1949) A historyof the old South(New York),508
24. FREEHLING, W. W. (I965) Preludeto Civil War:the Nullificationcontroversyin South Carolina(New York)p. 15
25. DUNN,R. S. (1971) 'The Englishsugarislandsandthe foundingof South Carolina'SouthCarolinahist.Mag. 72, 83-4
26. WERTENBAKER, T. J. (1957) TheoldSouth: thefoundingof Americancivilization(New Haven, Conn.)p. 257. A curious
parallelexists herewith the 'hydraulicelites'describedby K. WITTFOGEL a workwhich Sjobergregarded
(I957) Orientaldespotism,
as appealingbut much too limited(SJOBERG, op cit. p. 177)
27. SYDNOR, C. S. (1948) Thedevelopment of Southernsectionalism,I81i-1848 (BatonRouge, La.) p. 288-9
 Charlestonand thepre-industrialmodel 409
28. Ibid. p. 288
op cit. p. 89
29. FREEHLING,
R. H. (i942) Ante-bellumSouth Carolina:a socialand culturalhistory(ChapelHill, N.C.), 8
30. TAYLOR,
3I. ROGERS, op cit. p. 23; South Carolinain I860 has been describedas, 'almost... an Anglicanpreserve,sociallyand
economically,if not alwayspolitically',DAVIDSON, C. G. (197I) Thelastforay: theSouthCarolinaplantersof i860 (Columbia,S.C.)
p. 85
32. The fullestexaminationof the myth of the Cavalierin the literatureof the ante-bellumSouth is to be foundin TAYLOR,
W. R. (1969) Cavalierand Yankee:the old Southand Americannationalcharacter(New York)
33. TAYLOR,R. H., op. cit. pp. 42-3
34 POTTER, D. M. (1961) 'The enigmaof the South', YaleReview5I, 150;EATON, C. (I968) The waningof the old South
civilization(Athens, Ga.) p. i
35. LOFTON, J. (I964) Insurrectionin SouthCarolina(Yellow Springs,Ohio) p. 112. There may be objectionsto the use of
the term 'feudal' or 'neo-feudal' in this context, but if it is taken to mean the social and political dominationof society by a
rural-basedgentry, its use is appropriate.Other historians,notablyEugeneGenovese,have found it an apt descriptionof the late
ante-bellumSouth. Also Vancehas recentlyused 'neo-feudal'to describeeighteenth-centurySouth Carolinasociety:See VANCE J.
E. (1977) Thissceneof man(New York)p. 262. See also note iI
36. BREWSTER, L. F. (1947) Summermigrationsof South Carolinaplanters(Durham,N.C.) p. 4
37. Ibid. p. I I: LOFTONop cit. p. 97
38. BREWSTER, op cit. p. 113
H. D. (I968) King cottonand his retainers
39. The most comprehensivestudy of the Southerncotton factoris WOODMAN,
(Lexington, Ky.)
40. WERTENBAKER, op. cit. p. 279
41. FREEHLING,op. cit. p. 13
42. TAYLOR,R. H., op. cit. p. 44
43. ROGERS, op. cit. p. 184
op. cit. p. 52; cf. SJOBERG,
44. DAWSON, J. L. and DESAUSSURE, H. W. (I848) Censusof the city of Charleston,South Carolina,for the year 1848
(Charleston)p. 172; Seventh censusof the U.S. (I850), Abstractof the statisticsof manufactures.On possibleunder-enumeration
in the federalcensuses,see LANDER,E. M., JR(I951) 'Ante-bellummilling in South Carolina',South Carolinahist. Mag. 52, 127
G. C. op. cit. p. 161
45. ROGERS,
46. AlthoughSjobergrecognizedthe existenceof only threeclasses,objectivityseemsto demanda finerlevel of analysisat
this stage of the discussion.Sjoberg'sview of socialclass is essentiallyParsonian.The criteriafor sharedvalueobjectivitywhichhe
specifies(p. o09)are undoubtedlymet by Charleston'selite, and probablyby its outcastes.The situationis less clearin the case of
the lowerclass, partlybecauseof the scarcityof detailedevidenceand partlybecauseSjoberg'sown discussionof this groupis less
thanprecise.It wouldperhapsbe an overstatementto claimthatthe internaldifferenceswithinthe 'lower-class'occupationalgroup
of Charleston'pale to insignificance'(p. 123)when comparedto the contrastsbetweenthe three majorstrataof the pre-industrial
model
47. The zonal division is that regularset of concentriczones resultingin the most even distributionof sample heads of
households
op. cit. p. 99
48. SJOBERG,
49. Ibid. p. 98
50. RADFORD, J. P. (1976)'Race,residenceandideology:Charleston,SouthCarolinain the mid-nineteenthcentury',J. hist.
Geogr.2, 329-46. This paperalsocontainsevidenceof a pronouncedsouthto northdeclinein housesbuilt of brickratherthanwood;
see Table 2, p. 340
5 . WERTENBAKER, op. cit. p. 300
52. MOLLOY, R. (1947) Charleston:a graciousheritage(New York)p. 19
53. WILLIAMS, G. W. (1954) (ed.) Autobiography of the ReverendPaul Trapier(Charleston),34
54. HUGER SMITH, D. E. (1950) A Charlestonian's recollections, op. cit. p. 17
I846-I913 (Charleston)p. 63; FREEHLING,
55. According to Reznikoff, The Jews in nineteenth-centuryCharleston not only participatedin a wide range of
occupations, but were also members of the same philanthropicand charitablesocieties as the rest of the white population.
REZNIKOFF, C. (1950) TheJews of Charleston:A historyof an AmericanJewishcommunity(Philadelphia)pp. 76-9, 90-0 o
56. WADE, R. C. (1964) Slavery in the cities:the South, 1820-1860 (New York)p. 56
57. HUGER SMITH,op. cit. p. 60. This authorlists by name nineteen servants(not including numerouschildren),in his
'grandmotherSmith'syard',and fifteenbelongingto his grandmotherHuger.The two grandmotherslived'on MeetingStreetthree
doors fromeach other', and each presidedover a largefamilyin additionto the servants(op. cit. pp. 58-9)
58. A moredetailedanalysisof journeyto workand functionalspecializationin Charlestoncan be found in RADFORD, J. P.
(1974) 'Culture, economy and urban structure in Charleston, S. C. I86o0-880', unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Clark University, 177-89
59. FORD,F. A. Censusof the city of Charleston,South Carolinafor theyear I86i (Charleston)p. 8
60. Ibid. p. I8
61. CharlestonCourier,14 Februaryi860
62. WERTENBAKER, op. cit. p. 14
63. cf. SJOBERG,
op. cit. pp. I83-4
64. Most ante-bellumSoutherntowns felt the influenceof the planters.In a few cases on the marginsof the region this
influence was overwhelmedby mercantileforces which produced the South's only large cities. At the other end of the scale,
410 JOHN P.RADFORD
countless towns (Beaufort,Georgetown and Columbia are the most prominent examples in South Carolina)were primarily
plantation-administrative centreswhoseeconomicroleneitherrequirednor supportedmorethan severalhundredpeople. It is the
cities betweenthese two extremes(e.g. Savannahand Mobile)whicharedirectlycomparablewith Charleston.The latterremained
throughout,however,the largestand most importantmemberof this group.
65. For example,CLARK and SLACK,
op. cit. pp. I 5-I7, I28-3 I; but for evidenceof some influenceof the gentry on the
townssee pp. 109, 134-6, andalsoHOSKINS, W. G. (1963)ProvincialEngland(London)pp. 86-7. Pahlhascited Miller'sfindingthat
Yorkwas ruledby a mercantileoligarchyas earlyas the fourteenthcenturyas evidenceof the inappropriateness of Sjoberg'smodel
to pre-industrialEngland(PAHL,R. E. (I970) Patternsof urbanlife (London) pp. 6-12)
66. BURKE,P. op. cit. p. 20