October 2013 – Page 3 – U.S. to 1877

October 22, 2013

Post-Midterm Blog Post #1- President Jefferson

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Sean Wilientz focuses heavily on the political career of Thomas Jefferson and his Presidency in chapter 4 of The Rise of American Democracy. Jefferson, while no doubt a great political figure who played a tremendous role in the development of the United States of America in its early years, is sometimes considered a somewhat controversial figure. In learning about him in the past, I knew that his strategy for dealing with Native Americans in his pre-presidential days, relationships with slaves and the somewhat aggressive style in which he often dealt with the opposing Federalist Party made him a polarizing political figure. On top of that, he has also been accused of being a hypocrite because of his decision to go through with the Louisiana Purchase without a vote after years of fighting for individual citizen rights. Wilentz, however, seems to be a big fan of Jefferson. He negatively describes Jefferson’s main political opponent John Adams and positively describes the way Jefferson fought against the Alien and Sedition Acts that he believed were certainly “unconstitutional” while Adams was President. Throughout chapter 3, Wilienz seems to admire the way Jefferson battled against the Federalists, ultimately winning and taking the Presidency in the election of 1800.

In chapter 4, Wilenz further approves of the job Jefferson does as President, highlighting the diplomatic way Jefferson dealt with the French to avoid war, the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Louisiana Purchase. His emphasis on westward expansion was huge, something that greatly benefited the United States in the long run. @systrauss talks about this more in her blog post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-beginnings-of-western-expansion/). Wilentz’s most glowing description of Jefferson comes on page 66 when he describes him as a man who had the “intellectual breadth and the personal prestige that helped [him] hold together the querulous Republicans and sink Federalism into the abyss” (Wilentz). I liked Wilentz’s writing, but personally I thought he was too biased towards President Jefferson. While he highlights the goods of his presidency he barely touches on some of the bad. In the bottom paragraph of page 65 he gives Jefferson credit for his handling of the government and how successful he was in having his legislation passed by Congress. He doesn’t mention however that some of that legislation had adverse affects on the country. For instance, the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809 only further irritated the British and drew the two nations closer to war (Wilentz, 69). Ultimately, the two countries would go to war just three years after Jefferson left office. I think Wilientz could have done a better job of addressing the impact Jefferson’s presidency had on the War of 1812, a war he divulges into in Chapter 5.

October 21, 2013

The Beginnings of Western Expansion

Western expansion gave people more power to own their own land and confidently create their own lives, but it the people’s independence had to then be balanced with a growing Presidential supremacy.

While the new nation was trying to feel more equal in a world of ancient empires, the Founding Fathers agreed that the mastodon, a giant prehistoric skeleton found by naturalist Charles Peale, would be a “symbol of dominance” to inspire the people to support the budding government in their attempts to legitimize the country (Semonin 2). When Peale first discovered the skeleton, he placed the teeth in a way to show the animal was a carnivore. Having a fierce symbol, like the mastodon, gave Americans the idea that in the past the natural world was shaped by violent conquests. This idea transferred to western expansion, where Americans felt it was their calling to gain more land and power, and by moving west, decimated the wilderness and even Indian tribes. What I found interesting in this story of the mastodon was that Peale’s initial placement of the teeth, the detail that made the animal more ferocious, was incorrect. Instead, later naturalists discovered the mastodon was actually an herbivore. At this point, the myth of the powerful mastodon had already swept the nation, but it begs the question that if Peale had correctly identified the mastodon’s eating patterns from the beginning, would this animal ever have become such a symbol for the nation? Would the American people have had the confidence to expand westward, and by doing that strengthen the nation?

When Western expansion became even more possible with the Louisiana Purchase, President Jefferson had to struggle with balancing his ideals of people’s individual rights and giving more control to the Presidential role. Jefferson accepted the Louisiana Purchase without asking the citizens for a vote, going against what TaSimmons notes in her post as the importance of the people’s expression of opinions as a way to affect the government. Instead, the move exemplifies Jefferson’s realization that the President has to hold a certain degree of power over the people. While it is undeniable that the people should have a say in the government and be able to change it when it is not working in favor of the masses, it is also important to remember that the President has a responsibility to make certain difficult and complex decisions without putting everything to a vote. In other books, I’ve seen the authors criticize this move by Jefferson as a power grab or a distancing from what he claimed were his principles. Wilentz, though, describes this move and Jefferson’s presidency more sympathetically. I liked Wilentz description of his presidency because it reminds readers that sometimes the President has to upset people when he believes his choice will benefit the country as a whole in the long run. Without Jefferson’s decision to accept the Louisiana Purchase, our country would be very different today, so his choice to use the power of the Presidency was warranted.

October 21, 2013

Democratic Divisions

In Chapters 3-5, Wilentz describes the political unrest present in the early decades of the United States. The parties were severely divided throughout Adams’, Jefferson’s, and Madison’s Presidencies. The Federalists were in control of the national political scene during Adams’ Presidency. Adams was a Federalist, and Congress was controlled by the Federalists as well. The Federalist majority passed anti-alien bills targeting their Republican enemies. The sedition bill passed “that outlawed and heavily penalized all statements…construed as contemptuous of the president or the Congress” (Wilentz, p. 33). As TASIMMONS stated last week, “the ability of the people to express their opinions shaped the political practices of the time.” The sedition bills hindered political practices of Republicans and any other people who disagreed with the national politicians. Republicans, led by Jefferson, went to the state governments to oppose the new federal laws. Republicans were hurt even more by the almost-slave revolt near Richmond. Jefferson convinced Monroe to pass a policy of the deportation of rebels outside the U.S. to help ease the embarrassment (Wilentz, p. 39). Despite these set backs, Jefferson was narrowly able to gain the Presidential seat in the election of 1800. Adams, however, would take advantage of his last ten weeks in office by passing the Judiciary Act of 1801 and creating sixteen new federal judgeships which he filled with Federalists. While in office Jefferson tried to be as neutral as possible when filling his political appointments. He made them based on the merit of the politician, not on the party he associated with. Jefferson was able to convince Congress to repeal almost all of the naturalization laws of 1798. He avoided armed conflicts at all costs even with the British attacking the U.S.’s ships. Instead Jefferson proposed an embargo, but that ended up hurting the Americans. The Non-Intercourse Acts were largely ineffective, but did delay any serious conflicts until Jefferson was out of office. With Jefferson’s support Madison was able to win the election of 1808. The war was inevitable. Although the Republicans were divided on the declaration of war, Congress declared war in 1812. The new anti-British Republican nationalists helped tip the scale. The Republicans divided into the younger nationalists and the southern Old Republicans. Even though the nationalists blamed the British for the entirety of the war, the natives substantially contributed to the cause of the War of 1812. The war created many heroes, none of which were Federalists. The War of 1812 marked the decline and eventual disappearance of the Federalist party.

On a personal note, Wilentz’s style and organization is very different from the other authors we have read. I find the short histories on the important people sometimes distracting. I think they make it hard to find the overall themes and subject of the chapters.

October 16, 2013

Pollitical Division in a New Government

In chapter two of “The Rise of American Democracy,” Wilentz focuses on the influence Democratic-Republican societies had on the political landscape in the United Sates soon after the Constitution was ratified. I found this emphasis on the ideological divide between the common people particularly interesting, because in the past the emphasis has always been placed on important national figures such as Jefferson and Hamilton. While political leaders are undoubtedly extremely important to the early political development of the United States, it is important to keep the ideas and divides of the common man during this time period in mind, like Wilentz does, because the founding fathers had just created and ratified the most radically democratic government in history. The implications of such a government cannot be understood without looking to the people.

The formation of Democratic-Republican societies demonstrates the monumental importance of the Bill of Rights to the political evolution of the United States, because without the rights it guaranteed, specifically freedom of speech, these societies would probably not have gained the broad influence they did. The ability of the people to express their opinions shaped the political practices of the time. For example, the formation of the National Gazette in opposition to the Gazette of the United States and the governmental policies it supported set the precedent of “…organiz[ing] a wide but gentlemanly opposition…” against the Federalists which continues, to some extent, today (Wilentz 22).

As AmGaither notes in her post, “the delegates had to balance their own political views with the needs and desires of the people” when writing the Constitution, but making everyone in the nation completely satisfied with the document was simply impossible. The formation of Democratic-Republican societies and the growing Federalist-Republican divide are evidence of this. The federalists believed a more centralized government would be best for the nation while the republicans wanted the government to give more power to the people. In describing the two opinions, SyStrauss refers to Hamilton as a “greedy elitist” Jefferson as an “educated elitist.” While the two views are different, I don’t believe it is right to claim that one is morally better than the other. Both schools of political thought could be supported and justified, the formation of political parties for both sides demonstrates this, so neither can truly be inherently better than the other.

October 16, 2013

Influential Ghosts and Coercion

In Alfred Young’s essay, “The Pressure of the People on the Framers of the Constitution,” he wrote about the influences from people that were not present at the Constitutional Convention. Young related the influences to the “ghosts” of Thomas Paine, Abraham Yates, Daniel Shays, and Thomas Peters (150). At the convention, radical democracy, new men in power, rebellion, and slaves were all current issues that the delegates were familiar with and that needed to be addressed. Young says that the delegates dealt with these issues either with coercion or accommodation. Additionally, the delegates had to balance their own political views with the needs and desires of the people, as mentioned in the post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-constitution-the-intentions-of-the-framers-and-the-realities-of-the-new-government/). The concerns of farmers and slave rebellions were handled with coercion, and the delegates “gave the national government the power to ‘suppress insurrections’ and protect the states from ‘domestic violence’” (Young 151). This method of approaching slave revolts and other rebellions does not seem to have changed much over time. The difference is that now the federal government can use force to “suppress insurrections,” whereas before, the task was delegated to individual slave owners or British officials. The federal government later abuses this power during the Whiskey Rebellion, and they use full force to put down a relatively small revolt.

Also, I found the concept of a “”mixed government”” interesting (Young 150). It seems that the founding fathers were still attempting to remain connected to their British roots by striving for “a perfect blend of ‘aristocracy’ and ‘democracy’” (Young 151). Even after the revolution, the delegates showed through the Constitution that they did not perceive Britain’s system as completely flawed when they strove to keep the idea of aristocracy alive.

October 15, 2013

The Constitution: the intentions of the framers and the realities of the new government

Alfred F. Young’s essay “The Pressure of the People on the Framers of the Constitution” focuses on the factors that the framers dealt with in order to create the document that governed the country. Most of the hard decisions the framers had to make came down to balancing the knowledge that these elite men had with the voice the Revolution had promised the people. Certain delegates, like Hamilton, wanted the government to benefit themselves more, which was exemplified in his proposal for a president and senate who served for life, the model of the English government that had helped his family gain wealth and prominence. James Madison fought more for the people, making sure the Constitution would reflect the “genius” of the people in order for the document to last well into the future (Young 149). While we often see Madison as the hero of the common people, I liked how Young also described how he could not always accommodate the people, and how his elite place in society sometimes affected his ideas. In an effort to curb the power of the state legislatures, Madison wanted a national veto over the states. This gave a lot of power to the federal government, not necessarily typical to Madison’s goals of giving the people a voice. As an educated man, Madison saw the problems that could come if the people had too much power. This decision was not one of a greedy elitist, like Hamilton, but one of an educated elitist looking out for the best of the country as a whole.

The framers of the Constitution had expectations for the country, but even just a few years after the document’s ratification, the emergence of political parties used those ideals differently than intended. Wilentz notes the importance of linking the political societies who were upset with the Federalist ideas and the growing Republican interest within the government. As a classmate notes (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/what-is-this-europe/), Wilentz writes of the class struggle for people both in the city and the country. With the establishment of the Constitution, however, these disgruntled people could affect the government by forming political societies and working with government insiders. This connection between the people and the government officials who were both upset with the way the government was working, provided the basis for the start of future political parties. We have to remember, though, how radical the idea of uniting the common people with the government elite still was at the time. In his essay, Jack N. Rakove notes the change from the intended government structure that came with the beginning of the political parties. He writes of Madison’s argument for ambition to “counteract ambition” in the legislatures so the people would benefit in the end (Rakove 158). Yet as the first political parties started to develop, this ambition Madison thought he would see, manifested instead in the representative’s hope for power in the party and society, instead of helping their constituents.

October 10, 2013

Good luck everyone!

October 3, 2013

Witchery and the Great Awakening

The Salem Witch Trials, and other witch trials though out the early American colonial period, were a terrible tragedy, the reasons of which are still debated. A variety of possible reasons have been claimed, but one stands out to me as the most likely reason. Many of my classmates have put forward one argument or another, and I think most of the reasons put forward did, to an extent, have an effect on the witch trials. Overall I agree with Kindig that the primary reasoning behind the witch trials were religious, however I would expand on that assertion.

In looking at the witch trials in the context of the great awakening, it bares an obvious resemblance to the witch trials which took place in Europe following the reformation. But what is the uniting factor which explains why both these periods of religious change should cause witch trials? As I see it, the witch hunts came about as a result of a shift of religious authority from the educated elite to a more personal or grassroots religiosity. This change in who controlled the religious power could have moved the concept of witchcraft into the forefront as the more superstitious religion of less educated common folk moved to the fore. This i think is the most logical explanation for the trend itself, however each individual trial was most likely caused by different individual factors, which played into the trend.

October 2, 2013

The Island of California, Spanish hysteria, and Russian Oppression

A major theme in this week’s reading is the presence of paranoia among the Spanish and their uneasy feelings toward British (Hudson Bay Company) as well as the Russians. By the early 1600s, the Spanish had built a true empire in North America with its core centered in Mexico. With such a large empire and vast amount of territory, the Spanish had been stretched relatively thin and decided not solidify their presence in California despite multiple explorations in the 1540s. They did, however, create New Spain as a buffer zone between their crown jewel of Mexico and other foreign nation establishments. Contrary to Spanish beliefs, the British and Russians were much further away from Spanish settlements and did not seek to significantly expand their western territories. In fact, the Russian settlements were confined to a small portion of Alaska and the British owned Hudson Bay Company had not surpassed the Rocky Mountain area. In response to this invented pressure, the Spanish established permanent settlements in California in order to solidify power via religious missions with the first one being constructed in 1697. Also, Taylor points out that during the 18th century Enlightenment, the Spanish were even skeptical of the efforts made by European nations to explore western territories to create maps and discover new wildlife. I find the sense of suspicion that swept through the Spanish Empire in North America unwarranted and entertaining in a way.
The most interesting aspect of the reading to me was the way Taylor includes information of Russians persecuting Siberians as well as other foreign groups throughout their conquest of eastern Asia and settlement of Alaska. Over the course of the semester, we have read and discussed numerous accounts of Spanish and English persecution of native peoples (such as the Aztecs, various Native America groups, and slaves). Taylor, for once, provides information (although scant) suggesting that other power hungry groups oppressed people when possible. Although I appreciate Taylor’s decision to include Russian mistreatment of Siberians, I am disappointed that he did not elaborate on it further. Taylor has gone into great and even gruesome detail when describing the living conditions of slaves, massacring of Aztecs, or systematic persecution of the Indians by the Spanish conquistadors or English colonizers. However, Taylor fails to give the Siberians or Aleutians comparable attention in this reading.
Lastly, I would like to discuss the Spanish’s absence of knowledge of western North America and their stellar map-making in regard to California. As my classmate JaNewton pointed out, the Spanish’s true motivation for settling California was not in the name of Catholicism but in fear of Russian colonization in the Pacific Northwest. Along with labeling California as a desolate wasteland filled with wilderness, the Spanish decided to make it an island as well. The actions of the Spanish empire in western North America and especially California truly convey their paranoia and unrest during the 17th century.

October 2, 2013

Maybe the Spanish Really Are a Black Legend

In Chapter 19, Taylor again portrays the Spanish as much worse than the British. As Janewton mentioned, the Spanish brutality appears to be a recurring theme. Similar to their earlier colonization, the Spanish focus on converting the natives more than any other imperial power. I found Taylor’s description of Fray Junipero Serra on page 457 interesting. Serra practiced self-mutilation as a means of furthering his faith: “He wore rough hair shirts augmented with metal wire points, periodically flagellated his bare back until it was bloody, and burned the hair on his chest with a lighted candle.” Furthermore, he refused treatment of a wound on his leg. I think that having Serra as a leader of a mission helps to explain why the Spanish were so brutal to the natives. If Serra despised his own mortal body to this extent, he must have had much less respect for the lives of natives who were not even Christian.

On the other hand, Taylor presents a stark contrast between the Spanish missions the British explorer James Cook. Taylor says, “Cook was no conquistador come to plunder, conquer, enslave, and convert” (469). Instead, Cook appeared to hold himself to the higher standards of the Enlightenment. He treated the natives with respect, but inadvertedly could not avoid infecting them with disease. Earlier in colonization, the British used “The Black Legend” to describe the Spanish brutality and minimize their own damages. But this sentiment does not seem to be held by the British alone. Throughout the book, Taylor portrays the Spanish as consistently more devastating to native life and culture. Perhaps the British were right, and the Spanish were truly more cruel than the other countries.