Chalfant: ‘Society:' Not just finances

In February 1886, The Sedalia Democrat initiated a “society column” intended to describe the affairs of Sedalia’s society folk for the benefit of the paper’s readers. The editor of the column, Mary Annetta Jones, wrote that a society column was “called forth by the state of society.” She clarified her statement by noting that “those who are written about” constitute one of the “two general classes of humanity.”

Jones included in Sedalia’s society the 135 recipients of an invitation to a party attended “by all the society people.” These folks were written about in columns describing the card parties, weddings, balls, luncheons, musicales and open houses they hosted and attended. The columns focused on the visible evidence of the wealth of those attending by providing elaborate descriptions of the dresses worn by the ladies, the table decorations, the refreshments served, and any gifts given or received by the hostess.

Defining “society” in Sedalia was actually a more difficult task than simply identifying who went to parties. Historian Michael Cassity described the “well placed individuals” who made up Sedalia’s “ruling class” as a group of men and women (the wives and daughters of those men) who “had its own system, however, informal, of enforcing and perpetuating its values, as well as systems for separating itself from those it deemed inferior. The ‘ruling class’ ” considered itself Sedalia’s “society folk.”

Difficulties in distinguishing Sedalia’s “society” from those not so favored came about because certain criteria had to be considered. The writer had to be aware of the difference between “respectable folks” and “society folks,” as well as be aware that a family’s income and the source of that income also determined who was “society.”
Being a respectable person was a part of being a member of “society,” but it was not all that was required.

Respectability included such habits as ambition, hard work, obedience to law, education, cleanliness and mannerliness. A respectable man, while he might start out with a limited amount of wealth, should be able to achieve wealth. In fact, Russell Conwell in his “Acres of Diamonds” speech postulated that a man had a “Christian duty to become rich.”

Historian Stuart Blumin analyzed 19th century American economic status and noted that wealth was actually a more important determiner of “society” status than respectability. Based on accumulated wealth, Sedalia “society” was indeed very small. According to Jones’ definition, “society” constituted less than 1 percent of Sedalia’s population.

Between the few who constituted the “ruling class” and the bottom of the social ladder, occupied by the flagrant disregarders of propriety and the law, were those who earned little and the “worthy poor.”

Sedalia’s white small businessmen, clerks, teachers and shopkeepers might consider themselves respectable, but they were denied admittance into the ranks of “society” because of their limited incomes.

In the 1880s, for example, male high school teachers earned $55 per month for each of the nine months school was in session. Sedalia policemen received the same per month, but worked year-round. In 1890, the U.S. Census determined that the average white-collar male worker in Sedalia earned $637 ($12,869 in today’s dollars) per year.

The working-class, white Sedalians who valued hard work, an orderly life, moral behavior and education might consider themselves respectable, but they were not part of Sedalia “society” because of their income, which was even lower than that of the white collar workers. According to the Census, these male factory workers and railroad men earned an average of $469 ($8,396 today) per year, and female workers earned an average of $224 ($4,522 today).

African Americans, no matter how hard they worked, how respectably they behaved, and how much money they accumulated, would not have been considered “society” in Sedalia because of their ethnicity.

The “worthy poor” made up another of Sedalia’s economic classes. Poor people were considered “worthy” if they maintained the behaviors required for respectability, and if they displayed an appropriate deference to the “ruling class.” Sedalia’s middle class, however, had difficulty dealing with the visible evidence of poverty.

Sedalia Bazoo editor J. West Goodwin criticized those who gave moldy meat and worn-out clothing to the annual charity drive. Writer and “society” member Elizabeth Dugan, in her anti-union paper, The Earth, blamed the poor for their poverty, declaring that even the working poor lived in poverty because they wasted money on extravagant living and alcohol.

In another writing, Dugan condemned those who, “because of a little prosperity … pride themselves on their exclusiveness.” Ironically, Dugan failed to realize that she, as a member of the less than 1 percent who constituted Sedalia “society,” was a part of the group she condemned.