MIDTERM PAPER: THE SOUTHERN SYSTEM
Stepan Serdiukov
AMST 465: The Culture of the American South
October 29, 2014
The antebellum South was home not to one, but to several peculiar institutions. According to Joel Williamson's book The Crucible of Race, Southerners strived to create and then maintain “an ideal, unitary order of masters and slaves, whites and blacks... an 'organic' society, in which people would know their own places.” This unitary order, as Heidi Beirich and Andy Hicks note in Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction (Uni. of Texas Press, 2009), was often compared to a human body, where “the head would not want to be the heart, and the hand would not pine to be the head” (Williamson). However, like the human organism, this system was hardly “unitary”—it consisted by many cultural practices and sub-institutions. The purpose of this paper is to study them, and to analyze their effectiveness in maintaining the desired order in the South.
Slavery, the cornerstone institution of the system, ceased to exist in 1865. However, it did not collapse under its own weight: economically, slavery was viable as long as the cotton industry of the South continued to be such. In the decades before the Civil War, the price of cotton was growing constantly, and it represented more than half of all US exports. Only the war put an end to it.
Of course, one can argue that slavery was living on borrowed time anyway, since in order to perpetuate the cotton trade, slaveholders had to acquire more land to start new plantations, and this would have required endless addition of the new territories to the slave system, which was already meeting staunch opposition in the face of abolitionists and the new Republican Party, representing free people who did not want to compete with free labor in the new territories. The pro-expansion sentiment was high enough even to encourage the conquest of other countries, such as Cuba and Nicaragua, as described in James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, and relatively recently satirized in a 2004 mockumentary C. S. A.: The Confederate States of America.
Still, slavery managed to persevere for more than two hundred years in North America, and for seventy-nine years in the United States. Slavery's direct legacy, the segregation, almost outlasted its “parent” in the South. What made the system last so long and gain so much advocates, some of whom were not even slaveholders? Part of the answer to this question lies within the system of slavery itself. Bondage amounted to social death. The dehumanizing effect of chattel principle is well-described by Walter Johnson in Soul By Soul: “Any slave's identity might be disrupted as easily as a price could be set and a piece of paper passed from one hand to another.” Johnson gives an astonishing statistic: of the two-thirds of interstate slave sales before the war, half involved the destruction of a family, and twenty-five percent destroyed a person's first marriage. Moreover, a slaveowner could threaten his property with such death in the form of sale. Physical death happens once, but the social death could come again and again, and finally result in an actual death, which was very likely if a slave was sold to a plantation in the deep South.
Such disruption of slave communities was well-suited to the purpose of making a human into a product and to deprive him of ability to organize—essentially, conspire—with other humans. Slave escapes were almost as rare as rebellions. As to the latter, another factor should be taken into account. White to slave population ratio in the United States was very high, unlike in British West Indies (7 slaves to 1 white person) or Haiti (11 to 1), or Latin America. According to John Blassingame, who offers this estimate in his 1972 book The Slave Community, American bondsmen were at a huge disadvantage because of it. Additionally, the better trained, better equipped and more numerous regular military forces and militias could always come to the planter's rescue in the US, using a transportation network far more developed than in Brazil or Cuba. Superior firepower of whites was a serious deterrent to any decisive mass action by slaves. Only nine revolts happened in America between 1692 and 1865.
“Through care and discipline, slaves' bodies were physically incorporated with their owners' standards of measure,” Johnson writes. He quotes several slave narratives that mention the masters taking special care of the slaves' physical well-being since the early age. One mistress “used to call us children up to the big house and give us a dose of garlic and rue to keep us “wholesome,” as an ex-slave John Brown remembered it. The reason for this was purely economic: so the children “grow likely for the market.” Denying a person his or her very personhood, one's “intelligibility” in the social relations system, had a devastating effect, and served the slavers' purposes well. A human being torn away from everything dear and committed to everyday mechanical scrutiny related to his or her “market likeliness” was supposed to be easier to manage, to reformat in many ways that a planter saw fit. Thus, a fear of sale was always a major concern for a slave, again, making it dangerous to form a meaningful network of interpersonal relationships, for he or she might get severed from it at any given moment.
So slavery was held together by a series of means of psychological coercion via threats of social death, and physical abuse directed at its subjects, the bondsmen and women. But it is important to pay attention to a different brick in a Southern pyramid—or, rather, the cement that held the larger construction together. Bertram Wyatt-Brown, a prominent historian of the American South, calls it the rule of honor, and maintains that it long preceded the slave system in the region. Rule of honor was “inseparable from hierarchy and entitlement,” and thus “required the rejection of the lowly, the alien, and the shamed” (Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South.) To illustrate this point, Wyatt-Brown turns to a literary source, Hawthorne's short story “My Kinsman, Major Molineux,” in which a young man named Robin, hoping to find advancement under the protection of the eponymous kinsman, comes to see him in Boston, only to find that the man was dishonored and is being given a ride of shame out of town. Robin finds himself coerced in laughing at the major, and thus is accepted into society. The story is set in 1732, so according to Wyatt-Brown, the honor system, with its importance of self-worth, the public evaluation of this self-image, and the triumph of the primal ritual over codified law, was once present in all the Colonies, and not exclusive to South. “The South was not founded to create slavery; slavery was recruited to perpetuate the South,” thus to create a permanent category of the lowly, of those who have no honor and therefore no worth as human beings. Wyatt-Brown's theory is supported by the findings of Edmund S. Morgan in The Labor Problem of Jamestown, 1607-18. The settlement was suffering from labor shortage, and even at the brink of extinction, the colonists were made to work only four to six hours a day, because industry was discouraged through the policy of labor conservation. Additionally, the Virginia Company viewed the colonization process as a military expedition. Contemporary armies consisted of nobility and their servicemen, living by plunder in the times of war, and “absorbed in slothful and parasitic personal service” during peacetime. Many settlers had skills that were still unnecessary in the wilderness of Virginia: too many blacksmiths and not enough plowmen.
So these factors contributed to the formation of society in which every person believed to have occupied one's rightful place, to which one was entitled, and wished not to “encroach” on the places of others, as it was in England, where virtually all the residents of Virginia came from at the time. African slavery was, then, a perfect solution to the labor problem and the honor problem.
However, the capitalist economic relations still played a huge role in the establishment of the Southern system. Rhys Isaac, in his seminal work The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790, points out that the influence of a patriarch in Chesapeake colony always depended on how much slaves and land he owned, and on how well the said land was suited for growing and selling tobacco. Gentleman status in the South, no matter how rigid the “Indo-European” (W.-B.) honor system was, could still be bought. This was the critical connection between the Southern castes and slavery, this was what kept poor white folks in check with their superiors. Andrew Hahn, in his 1984 American Quarterly review of Southern Honor, correctly points out that most of Wyatt-Brown's evidence pertains to the upper classes, so the yeomanry and the lower classes appear “through the lenses of their betters.”
Why would poor whites support the system that subjected them to endless bowing and hat-tipping to those above them, with no end in sight? The answer is the transformative possibilities that the slave market held. Walter Johnson calls this phenomenon “men made out of slaves.” John M. Tibeats, a free white man who bought Solomon Northup in 1842, thus struggled to buy his way into the masters' class, because, as Northup notes, before he had had no respect neither of his peers, nor even of slaves. Had he succeeded in this, he would be able to develop some good standing among other free whites. Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for Northup, that did not go well: after the master and the slave had a fight in which Northup had an upper hand, Tibeats prepared to kill him, but it turned out that he didn't have a right to do so: Northup (then known as Platt) was still mortgaged to another man. Tibeats' “assertion of the rights of mastery,” Johnson writes, was “constrained by his incomplete transition from nonslaveholder to slaveholder.” The more lucky new slaveholders, like Jefferson McKinney, were the ones who perpetuated this particular means of social mobility in the South: according to Johnson, McKinney chose to buy a young, “verry wel grone” woman, so she could bear children who would automatically become new slaves and the guarantors of his wealth and respectability.
The more slaves a person had, the more was he or she dependent on them. Politicians like Thomas Jefferson could not free their bondsmen and women in their lifetimes, if they wanted to maintain influence, even if they came to personally oppose slavery. For an average slaveholder in the South, slaves represented not only his fantasies about himself, but very well reflected the good (or bad) order of his business and his household. Healthy, polite, skillful slaves greeting the master's guests, catering to their every caprice, were upholding their owner's reputation. So this is how the “unitary order of masters and slaves” was constructed. Indeed, the positions of the masters in it were as rigid as their slaves', because if the slaves could be freed (or, in some cases, work to buy their freedom), the masters still would have to buy new ones, which they did. Moreover, slaves were a prime investment—expensive property that could be moved virtually anywhere. Johnson mentions that in antebellum East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, slaves made up 80 percent of the security in recorded mortgages. They were also used as collateral in credit transactions. The value of the “order” was very tangible, and additionally supported by the honor codes, which evolved from simple patriarchy to paternalism.
The cultural significance of the latter could not be understated. Alexander Saxton, in Blackface Minstrelsy and Jacksonian Ideology documents the rise and the incredible popularity of the blackface acts in the nineteenth century. It is true that the audience of the blackface performers was primarily in the free Northern states, and consisted of free working-class whites who neither had any exposure to the Southern system nor actually wished to own black people as property. But it is impossible to deny that a) blackface was built entirely on the paternalistic image of slavery, portraying it as a benevolent institution; b) such depiction and the popularity of minstrelsy amounted to the stereotype of blacks as inferior beings. Thus, slavery in a mindset of a mid-century Northerner well may have been registered as something the Negroes deserved, and the hypothetical number of outside opponents to the institution may have diminished as the result of the public acclaim that the blackface acts enjoyed.
However, the stability of the “unitary order” was perfect at no time. Moral opposition to slavery and the hierarchical honor codes was already present as early as the eighteenth century. Rhys Isaac's The Transformation of Virginia describes the impact that the evangelical movement had on the Southern society during that period. New Light Separate Baptists, settling in parts of Virginia beginning in 1765, brought with them the egalitarian ideology, where the social organism of the colony was not represented as God's natural order, but as an abomination, a constraint on a person's liberty, which could be achieved through what the higher-ups perceived as the act of dishonoring. Isaac gives an account of a Baptist preacher being dragged off the stage and whipped by the sheriff, only to return to speaking with even greater determination, “Singing praise to God.” Poor whites and slaves alike flocked to Southern Baptists in the next decades, siphoning off parts of support for the dominant system. People in the Baptist communities referred to each other as “brothers” and “sisters,” giving a person a sense of family apart from his own one. This was greatly disapproved by the gentry authority, and many preachers were imprisoned for spreading “dissent,” that is, sentiments that might have wrought slaves, poor whites (and, occasionally, some masters) out of the “natural” order.
Rebellions, as rarely as they happened considering the aforementioned circumstances, still did happen, and they had a great cultural impact in the slaveholding circles, as they undermined the paternalistic myth. Could any Negro be trusted after Nat Turner's rebellion? Blassingame states that most of the times, slave revolts were led by quite genteel, intelligent, and well-treated slaves such as Nat Turner himself. So, practically every slave quarter harbored potential trouble. Slaves who ran away also fomented sense of anxiety in the masters: just how cunning they were, those people believed to be faithful Sambos? The fugitive slave notices that Blassingame provides sometimes seem to provoke cognitive dissonance. Some of the slaves are described as very industrious and faithful, very trusted and completely subdued to their masters: but they still ran away, and prepared themselves for this task with great meticulousness. Most of the slaves were adopting a social persona that would protect them from their masters' anger, and to support their paternalistic delusions. The slave communities were so extensive that they received the name of “The Underground Railroad,” providing shelter and help to those who managed to escape the bondage. Even if slaves were termed property, they still were human beings, and they put every effort in thwarting their possible sale, reuniting with family members through sale they could facilitate by behaving appropriately, and otherwise manipulating the system that was designed to manipulate them.
No system in the history of mankind was perfect, especially the ones that were based upon involuntary servitude. Considering the interdependency between the slave economy and the honor hierarchy in the antebellum South, one arrives at a curiously circular-like logic: this symbiosis of two systems was relatively stable and fundamentally unstable at the same time precisely because of its nature. It expired in due time, due both to growing outside resistance (Northern abolitionism and evangelical movement, which opposed slavery as much as inequality among whites, thus rejecting the honor code), economic constraints (industrialization of the United States and the finiteness of the land expansion for slaveholders' needs), and to the foundational moral fault of human bondage that was at its core.
Stepan Serdiukov
AMST 465: The Culture of the American South
October 29, 2014
The antebellum South was home not to one, but to several peculiar institutions. According to Joel Williamson's book The Crucible of Race, Southerners strived to create and then maintain “an ideal, unitary order of masters and slaves, whites and blacks... an 'organic' society, in which people would know their own places.” This unitary order, as Heidi Beirich and Andy Hicks note in Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction (Uni. of Texas Press, 2009), was often compared to a human body, where “the head would not want to be the heart, and the hand would not pine to be the head” (Williamson). However, like the human organism, this system was hardly “unitary”—it consisted by many cultural practices and sub-institutions. The purpose of this paper is to study them, and to analyze their effectiveness in maintaining the desired order in the South.
Slavery, the cornerstone institution of the system, ceased to exist in 1865. However, it did not collapse under its own weight: economically, slavery was viable as long as the cotton industry of the South continued to be such. In the decades before the Civil War, the price of cotton was growing constantly, and it represented more than half of all US exports. Only the war put an end to it.
Of course, one can argue that slavery was living on borrowed time anyway, since in order to perpetuate the cotton trade, slaveholders had to acquire more land to start new plantations, and this would have required endless addition of the new territories to the slave system, which was already meeting staunch opposition in the face of abolitionists and the new Republican Party, representing free people who did not want to compete with free labor in the new territories. The pro-expansion sentiment was high enough even to encourage the conquest of other countries, such as Cuba and Nicaragua, as described in James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, and relatively recently satirized in a 2004 mockumentary C. S. A.: The Confederate States of America.
Still, slavery managed to persevere for more than two hundred years in North America, and for seventy-nine years in the United States. Slavery's direct legacy, the segregation, almost outlasted its “parent” in the South. What made the system last so long and gain so much advocates, some of whom were not even slaveholders? Part of the answer to this question lies within the system of slavery itself. Bondage amounted to social death. The dehumanizing effect of chattel principle is well-described by Walter Johnson in Soul By Soul: “Any slave's identity might be disrupted as easily as a price could be set and a piece of paper passed from one hand to another.” Johnson gives an astonishing statistic: of the two-thirds of interstate slave sales before the war, half involved the destruction of a family, and twenty-five percent destroyed a person's first marriage. Moreover, a slaveowner could threaten his property with such death in the form of sale. Physical death happens once, but the social death could come again and again, and finally result in an actual death, which was very likely if a slave was sold to a plantation in the deep South.
Such disruption of slave communities was well-suited to the purpose of making a human into a product and to deprive him of ability to organize—essentially, conspire—with other humans. Slave escapes were almost as rare as rebellions. As to the latter, another factor should be taken into account. White to slave population ratio in the United States was very high, unlike in British West Indies (7 slaves to 1 white person) or Haiti (11 to 1), or Latin America. According to John Blassingame, who offers this estimate in his 1972 book The Slave Community, American bondsmen were at a huge disadvantage because of it. Additionally, the better trained, better equipped and more numerous regular military forces and militias could always come to the planter's rescue in the US, using a transportation network far more developed than in Brazil or Cuba. Superior firepower of whites was a serious deterrent to any decisive mass action by slaves. Only nine revolts happened in America between 1692 and 1865.
“Through care and discipline, slaves' bodies were physically incorporated with their owners' standards of measure,” Johnson writes. He quotes several slave narratives that mention the masters taking special care of the slaves' physical well-being since the early age. One mistress “used to call us children up to the big house and give us a dose of garlic and rue to keep us “wholesome,” as an ex-slave John Brown remembered it. The reason for this was purely economic: so the children “grow likely for the market.” Denying a person his or her very personhood, one's “intelligibility” in the social relations system, had a devastating effect, and served the slavers' purposes well. A human being torn away from everything dear and committed to everyday mechanical scrutiny related to his or her “market likeliness” was supposed to be easier to manage, to reformat in many ways that a planter saw fit. Thus, a fear of sale was always a major concern for a slave, again, making it dangerous to form a meaningful network of interpersonal relationships, for he or she might get severed from it at any given moment.
So slavery was held together by a series of means of psychological coercion via threats of social death, and physical abuse directed at its subjects, the bondsmen and women. But it is important to pay attention to a different brick in a Southern pyramid—or, rather, the cement that held the larger construction together. Bertram Wyatt-Brown, a prominent historian of the American South, calls it the rule of honor, and maintains that it long preceded the slave system in the region. Rule of honor was “inseparable from hierarchy and entitlement,” and thus “required the rejection of the lowly, the alien, and the shamed” (Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South.) To illustrate this point, Wyatt-Brown turns to a literary source, Hawthorne's short story “My Kinsman, Major Molineux,” in which a young man named Robin, hoping to find advancement under the protection of the eponymous kinsman, comes to see him in Boston, only to find that the man was dishonored and is being given a ride of shame out of town. Robin finds himself coerced in laughing at the major, and thus is accepted into society. The story is set in 1732, so according to Wyatt-Brown, the honor system, with its importance of self-worth, the public evaluation of this self-image, and the triumph of the primal ritual over codified law, was once present in all the Colonies, and not exclusive to South. “The South was not founded to create slavery; slavery was recruited to perpetuate the South,” thus to create a permanent category of the lowly, of those who have no honor and therefore no worth as human beings. Wyatt-Brown's theory is supported by the findings of Edmund S. Morgan in The Labor Problem of Jamestown, 1607-18. The settlement was suffering from labor shortage, and even at the brink of extinction, the colonists were made to work only four to six hours a day, because industry was discouraged through the policy of labor conservation. Additionally, the Virginia Company viewed the colonization process as a military expedition. Contemporary armies consisted of nobility and their servicemen, living by plunder in the times of war, and “absorbed in slothful and parasitic personal service” during peacetime. Many settlers had skills that were still unnecessary in the wilderness of Virginia: too many blacksmiths and not enough plowmen.
So these factors contributed to the formation of society in which every person believed to have occupied one's rightful place, to which one was entitled, and wished not to “encroach” on the places of others, as it was in England, where virtually all the residents of Virginia came from at the time. African slavery was, then, a perfect solution to the labor problem and the honor problem.
However, the capitalist economic relations still played a huge role in the establishment of the Southern system. Rhys Isaac, in his seminal work The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790, points out that the influence of a patriarch in Chesapeake colony always depended on how much slaves and land he owned, and on how well the said land was suited for growing and selling tobacco. Gentleman status in the South, no matter how rigid the “Indo-European” (W.-B.) honor system was, could still be bought. This was the critical connection between the Southern castes and slavery, this was what kept poor white folks in check with their superiors. Andrew Hahn, in his 1984 American Quarterly review of Southern Honor, correctly points out that most of Wyatt-Brown's evidence pertains to the upper classes, so the yeomanry and the lower classes appear “through the lenses of their betters.”
Why would poor whites support the system that subjected them to endless bowing and hat-tipping to those above them, with no end in sight? The answer is the transformative possibilities that the slave market held. Walter Johnson calls this phenomenon “men made out of slaves.” John M. Tibeats, a free white man who bought Solomon Northup in 1842, thus struggled to buy his way into the masters' class, because, as Northup notes, before he had had no respect neither of his peers, nor even of slaves. Had he succeeded in this, he would be able to develop some good standing among other free whites. Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for Northup, that did not go well: after the master and the slave had a fight in which Northup had an upper hand, Tibeats prepared to kill him, but it turned out that he didn't have a right to do so: Northup (then known as Platt) was still mortgaged to another man. Tibeats' “assertion of the rights of mastery,” Johnson writes, was “constrained by his incomplete transition from nonslaveholder to slaveholder.” The more lucky new slaveholders, like Jefferson McKinney, were the ones who perpetuated this particular means of social mobility in the South: according to Johnson, McKinney chose to buy a young, “verry wel grone” woman, so she could bear children who would automatically become new slaves and the guarantors of his wealth and respectability.
The more slaves a person had, the more was he or she dependent on them. Politicians like Thomas Jefferson could not free their bondsmen and women in their lifetimes, if they wanted to maintain influence, even if they came to personally oppose slavery. For an average slaveholder in the South, slaves represented not only his fantasies about himself, but very well reflected the good (or bad) order of his business and his household. Healthy, polite, skillful slaves greeting the master's guests, catering to their every caprice, were upholding their owner's reputation. So this is how the “unitary order of masters and slaves” was constructed. Indeed, the positions of the masters in it were as rigid as their slaves', because if the slaves could be freed (or, in some cases, work to buy their freedom), the masters still would have to buy new ones, which they did. Moreover, slaves were a prime investment—expensive property that could be moved virtually anywhere. Johnson mentions that in antebellum East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, slaves made up 80 percent of the security in recorded mortgages. They were also used as collateral in credit transactions. The value of the “order” was very tangible, and additionally supported by the honor codes, which evolved from simple patriarchy to paternalism.
The cultural significance of the latter could not be understated. Alexander Saxton, in Blackface Minstrelsy and Jacksonian Ideology documents the rise and the incredible popularity of the blackface acts in the nineteenth century. It is true that the audience of the blackface performers was primarily in the free Northern states, and consisted of free working-class whites who neither had any exposure to the Southern system nor actually wished to own black people as property. But it is impossible to deny that a) blackface was built entirely on the paternalistic image of slavery, portraying it as a benevolent institution; b) such depiction and the popularity of minstrelsy amounted to the stereotype of blacks as inferior beings. Thus, slavery in a mindset of a mid-century Northerner well may have been registered as something the Negroes deserved, and the hypothetical number of outside opponents to the institution may have diminished as the result of the public acclaim that the blackface acts enjoyed.
However, the stability of the “unitary order” was perfect at no time. Moral opposition to slavery and the hierarchical honor codes was already present as early as the eighteenth century. Rhys Isaac's The Transformation of Virginia describes the impact that the evangelical movement had on the Southern society during that period. New Light Separate Baptists, settling in parts of Virginia beginning in 1765, brought with them the egalitarian ideology, where the social organism of the colony was not represented as God's natural order, but as an abomination, a constraint on a person's liberty, which could be achieved through what the higher-ups perceived as the act of dishonoring. Isaac gives an account of a Baptist preacher being dragged off the stage and whipped by the sheriff, only to return to speaking with even greater determination, “Singing praise to God.” Poor whites and slaves alike flocked to Southern Baptists in the next decades, siphoning off parts of support for the dominant system. People in the Baptist communities referred to each other as “brothers” and “sisters,” giving a person a sense of family apart from his own one. This was greatly disapproved by the gentry authority, and many preachers were imprisoned for spreading “dissent,” that is, sentiments that might have wrought slaves, poor whites (and, occasionally, some masters) out of the “natural” order.
Rebellions, as rarely as they happened considering the aforementioned circumstances, still did happen, and they had a great cultural impact in the slaveholding circles, as they undermined the paternalistic myth. Could any Negro be trusted after Nat Turner's rebellion? Blassingame states that most of the times, slave revolts were led by quite genteel, intelligent, and well-treated slaves such as Nat Turner himself. So, practically every slave quarter harbored potential trouble. Slaves who ran away also fomented sense of anxiety in the masters: just how cunning they were, those people believed to be faithful Sambos? The fugitive slave notices that Blassingame provides sometimes seem to provoke cognitive dissonance. Some of the slaves are described as very industrious and faithful, very trusted and completely subdued to their masters: but they still ran away, and prepared themselves for this task with great meticulousness. Most of the slaves were adopting a social persona that would protect them from their masters' anger, and to support their paternalistic delusions. The slave communities were so extensive that they received the name of “The Underground Railroad,” providing shelter and help to those who managed to escape the bondage. Even if slaves were termed property, they still were human beings, and they put every effort in thwarting their possible sale, reuniting with family members through sale they could facilitate by behaving appropriately, and otherwise manipulating the system that was designed to manipulate them.
No system in the history of mankind was perfect, especially the ones that were based upon involuntary servitude. Considering the interdependency between the slave economy and the honor hierarchy in the antebellum South, one arrives at a curiously circular-like logic: this symbiosis of two systems was relatively stable and fundamentally unstable at the same time precisely because of its nature. It expired in due time, due both to growing outside resistance (Northern abolitionism and evangelical movement, which opposed slavery as much as inequality among whites, thus rejecting the honor code), economic constraints (industrialization of the United States and the finiteness of the land expansion for slaveholders' needs), and to the foundational moral fault of human bondage that was at its core.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий