janewton – U.S. to 1877

December 3, 2013

Effects of the Civil War

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

In Chapter 15 of Inhuman Bondage, David Davis writes about the Civil War and describes the lasting impact it had on the United States. The most interesting aspect of Davis’ writing in this chapter, was to me, how the country came to terms with the war after it was over. With the North winning, slavery was effectively finished in the U.S. and President Lincoln was heralded as a hero. Davis gives an example of an African American man kneeling to the President during an instance of slaves being freed. Lincoln responded by telling the man “don’t kneel to me”(298). This is the type of characterization of Lincoln that I have come to expect. He is often portrayed as a beacon of moral superiority and hero of sorts. Davis writing in this section is consistent with that narrative. Another interesting aspect of the chapter was how the North was able to keep the Civil War deemed a “good war” (299) by not decimating the south after it was over. This is in part because it was necessary in keeping the country together. Robbie Mangone discusses this more in his blog post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/a-necessary-evil/). In addition, Davis says that another reason it was deemed a good war is that the North didn’t unleash “full vengeance” on the states that had seceded and kept blacks from taking over parts of the south. He also goes on to explain that the North allowed the south to essentially recreate their own identity after the war was over which was huge in keeping tensions between the North and South at a minimum. This is something I hadn’t ever considered before. After a war of that magnitude, it is safe to assume that the South had deep-seated feelings of resentment and hatred for the North. Northerners had to act delicately in order to restore the country to where it needed to be. It was tremendously important that they handled the situation this way and I like that Davis included this in his writing.

Another important point Davis brings up in his writing is the shrewdness of President Lincoln during the war. He describes the President as “keenly aware” (309) of how delicate the issue of slavery still was during the war. The President was sure to act carefully and made sure that his Emancipation Proclamation did not include slaves from Union states like Maryland. This turned out to be a brilliant tactical move, helping the North assure victory. I think Davis did a very nice job throughout the chapter of characterizing the President, describing his impact on the outcome of the war and explaining exactly how significant this war was on the development of the country.

November 5, 2013

Northern Resistance to Abolitionists

Much of Chapter 13 in both The Rise of American Democracy and Inhuman Bondage focus on the gradual steps America took towards abolitionism during the mid 19^th century. The most interesting part of the reading, to me, was learning about the hardships that northern abolitionists faced from fellow northerners during the 1830’s. The fight for abolitionism in America is so often characterized as a North vs. South battle that it’s easy to forget that during the early stages of the battle, northern abolitionist faced extreme adversity from their northern neighbors. Sean Wilentz does a great job of describing the pattern of violence towards northern abolitionists, including William Lloyd Garrison, a tremendously important player in the movement, who was forced to flee from a scheduled address in New York in 1833 (211). Wells King talks more about Garrison and abolitionism in America in this blog post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/american-abolition-liberation-or-genocide/). Garrison was not the only one who faced aggression either. Wilentz explains that havoc wreaking mobs that fought abolitionism sprouted up in Philadelphia, Hartford, Utica, Washington, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati in 1834 and 1835 (212). It was interesting to learn that most of these mobs were ran by political and social elites who “abhorred the abolitionists’ challenge to their own social authority” (213). To me, this suggests that the anti-abolitionists were less concerned with the issue of slavery and more concerned with having their political power threatened. Looking forward, it’ll be interesting to learn how in just two decades, the sentiment towards slavery in the north became so collectively negative that the country split and went to war.

The role of the President in this situation is also notable. Both authors touch on it in their respective chapters. Wilentz chides President Jackson for his inability or unwillingness to enforce the 1836 Post Office Law. In not enforcing the law, southern postmasters often did not deliver abolitionists tracts that argued the merits of ending slavery. Davis, the author of Inhuman Bondage argues that Jackson failed to enforce the law because he “greatly valued the South’s electoral advantage in counting three-fifths for purposes of representation” (261). These sections of each chapter emphasize the importance of the President in regards to the issue of slavery. It also shows how impactful having a President who leaned one way or another on the issue could be.

October 30, 2013

Post-midterm Blog Post #2- Politics then and now

Before taking this class, I was under the impression that politics in America’s early years were vastly different than politics today. And to a degree, that seems to be true. After reading chapters 8-11 in The Rise in American Democracy by Sean Wilentz however, it is clear that there are striking similarities between politics in the early 1800’s and politics today. Andrew Jackson and his life before and during his presidency were the focus of the chapters. In reading about his rise to the Presidency, the challenges he faced during campaigning and the divide between him and his main political opponents, I couldn’t help think about how similar it sounded to politics today.

Wilentz describes in chapters 8, 9 and 10 how Andrew Jackson rose to the presidency and the type of hardships he faced on his way to office. On page 160 he describes how Jackson, on the outside, remained upstanding and conducted himself with t “etiquette” when running for President. He also says however, that Jackson “threw himself into the fray behind the scenes as no other presidential candidate before him had”. He also points out that Jackson used generalities when campaigning, and began clarifying those generalities almost as soon as he got into office. (166) I liked Wilentz’s writing in this part because I think it gives the reader a description of an early 19^th century politician that could easily be used for one today. That wasn’t something I would’ve thought before reading this. The propaganda and slander that Adams and his supporters used in the election against Jackson is also something that I drew parallels with to modern day campaigning. Anytime elections are going on, it is common to see negative ads, attacking a candidate. Before reading this, I had no idea that this type of campaigning was utilized in 1820’s America. Jackson dealt with disparaging rumors about his mother and sister however, showing that this was indeed commonplace during this time period.

My one critique of Wilentz’s writing in these chapters is the way he characterizes Jackson’s handling of “indian removal” (170). While it was a different time, meaning Jackson’s opinions regarding native peoples is far less offensive and inhuman in 1830 than it would be now; I believe Wilentz almost unfairly defends Jackson. He compares Jackson to Henry Clay, saying that Jackson was a “benevolent, if realistic paternalist”(170) compared to Clay. He argues that Jackson truly believed that “removal was the only way to safeguard both the Indians’ future and the Constitution of the United States”. In my opinion he does not give Jackson enough blame regarding the Trail of Tears and the death of thousands of native people (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1567.html)

October 22, 2013

Post-Midterm Blog Post #1- President Jefferson

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 1, 2013

Blog Post #5- Spanish Brutality In the West

The Spanish conquest of Alta California in the 1760‘s- 1780‘s was the most interesting aspect of Chapter 19 in American Colonies. What first struck me was that the Spanish had explored the region both in the 1540’s and early in the 17th century. They had decided that the land was not bountiful enough to be considered worthy of conquest and missions (p. 456-457). In fact, they were only motivated to claim the land as theirs after hearing reports that the Russians and British were looking to make their own colonies there. This is important because it shows Spain’s true motivation in claiming the land. It was less about conversion of natives and spreading Catholicism, and more about competition with other foreign powers and protecting their land in Mexico. Their complete lack of knowledge about the land they were attempting to colonize is also noteworthy. According to Taylor, the Spanish thought of Alta California as undeveloped wilderness and they thought of the natives who lived there as “gente sin razon (people without reason” (p. 460). In reality, the natives had positively “reshaped and enhanced” (p.455) the environment and the Spaniard’s conquest and assimilation of natives proved to negatively affect hunting and plant and tree growth.

In the grand scheme, it could be argued that a lot of these smaller details Taylor provides about Spanish conquest in Alta California aren’t that important. It seems as if Taylor goes out of his way to provide extra evidence of Spanish ignorance and arrogance when they conquered new lands. He also shares examples of shocking brutality from Spanish soldiers and commanders towards the Natives. This section of the chapter, which to me seemed like a scathing criticism of Spanish conquest tactics, is consistent with how Taylor describes them throughout this book.

In this blogpost (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-russians-are-coming-the-russians-are-coming-and-the-spanish-missionaries-too/), the author writes in more detail about how unfavorable life was for Natives after they were colonized and how they were essentially turned into slaves, even though the primary goal of colonization, according to the Spaniards, was conversion. While most, if not all European Nations who colonized in the New World were oppressive and nasty towards native people who already lived there when they arrived, it seems as thought the Spanish were far more blatantly uncivil and indecent in how they did things. I think Taylor and @jelaws would echo this point.

September 17, 2013

Blog Post #4- Differences in English Colonies (Chapter 7 and 11)

What struck me most in reading chapters 7 and 11 in American Colonies were some of the vast differences between the British’s Chesapeake colonies (mainly Virginia) and Carolina during the late 1600’s through the mid 1700’s. Differences are prevalent in the economies, social life, slave labor, politics and so on.

In chapter 7, Taylor discusses the Chesapeake colonies from 1650-1750. We learn that the colonies were essentially governed by “competitive, ruthless, avaricious, crude, callous and insecure men” (p. 139) who abused their power and reaped big rewards while a much larger lower class struggled to keep up. So overbearing and controlling was the ruling class that it even caused rebellion in the colonies. It’s also noted that the colonists in Virginia worked almost year round because of the time and attention tobacco required. Rest was scarce for working men in Virginia as they built an economy off of hard work and tobacco production. Things in Carolina were very different. While Carolina was also ruled by a select group of powerful men, their control and corruption was not nearly as widespread as in Virginia; allowing for a greater sense of balance and fairness amongst the colonists. An economic dependency on rice rather than tobacco and a more widespread, harsher use of slaves were also differences amongst the colonies. Virginia used slaves but the Carolinians adopted the West Indian slave system (after slave revolts), which treated slaves worse and got more labor out of them. The bottom paragraph of the top blogpost in this link gives a solid description of how slavery varied from Virginia and Carolina– ( http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/author/systrauss/ ). It started off worse in Virgina but after slave rebellion in South Carolina and stricter racial lines drawn throughout English colonies, it became much worse further south. This created a society that feared what potential uprisings from slaves. It also created a culture that was far more relaxed than that of Virginia. Taylor describes Carolina elite as “more gracious, polite, genteel, and lavish than the gentlemen of Virginia” (p.238).

To me, it was interesting to learn that even though the inhabitants of these colonies had originally came from the same country, each colony had created an identity that was solely its’ own. I think Taylor highlights these differences as a way to show that even though the original settlers of each of these colonies had at one time considered themselves Englishmen, their identity was now more heavily tied to what colony they belonged to. By 1750 a colonist in Virginia was more of a Virginian than an Englishman. I have to believe that these type of changes in social identity were a key part in kickstarting the American Revolution.

September 10, 2013

Blog Post #3- Chapter 4 in Inhuman Bondage

In chapter 4 of Inhuman Bondage author David Davis explains how the African slave trade became prevalent and the tremendous affect it had on the European nations involved and in the development of the “new world”. In the chapter he focuses heavily on the motives behind these countries in becoming part of the slave trade and how these nations justified enslaving others, black Africans specifically. He suggests that while selfish motives drove the slave trade, there were also legitimate reasons as to why this atrocity became so popular in the 16^th, 17^th and 18^th centuries- “I do not mean to minimize the importance of greed, economic self interest, and an increasing desire for greater productivity and profit. All of which lay at the heart of early modern and modern slavery. But these economic desires were also fused with issues of identity, ideology, and power.” (Davis, 78). He makes the argument that while selfishness was part of the reason various European countries began using Africans as slaves, they were also driven by a need to compete and make their colonies in the Americas as successful as possible. What stuck out to me the most in reading this chapter was the multitude of ways in which Europeans went about justifying these actions.

David argues that a revival in classical learning drove a wave of support for slavery. Except that people in modern Europe were against enslaving other white Europeans; even those who were at the bottom of the social ladder. Africans however, we’re different. Being from outside Europe, they were different enough in the eyes of Europeans to justify their enslavement. For beginners, their different skin color somehow made them inferior. At the time, Europeans held severely negative connotations of the color black, often associating it with demons, devils and torturers (Davis, 79). Africans also practiced different religions from that of mostly Christian Europe. This only further widened the divide between Africans and Europeans, making them seem more different. It’s arguable that in the eyes of the Europeans this made slavery even more justifiable. I think the Europeans felt so disconnected and separate from the Africans, partly because of the difference in culture and religion that in their minds, enslaving Africans was much more acceptable than enslaving others who were more closely tied to them when it came to the intricacies of society.

One final thing that stood out to me, was how even hundreds of years later, scholars still are far apart in the debate regarding what role the Africans played in allowing the slave trade to escalate to the levels it did. On page 91, Davis gives a quote from a 16^th century Kongonian King. In the quote, King Alfonzo claims that “merchants are taking every day our natives….” and that “…our country is being completely depopulated”. Davis goes on to explain however, that different scholars have varying interpretations of what Alfonzo’s words mean. Before reading, I truly had no idea that the Africans participated in the slave trade at all. I was under the assumption that Europeans simply captured African men and woman against their will and lugged them onto boats. It was interesting to learn that not only did they play a role, but also that scholars still have not reached a consensus on how big that role was.

September 3, 2013

Blog Post #2- Chapters 3 and 5

The shocking brutality of the Spanish conquistadores was the thing that stood out to me most in reading Chapter 3. So brutal were the Spanish, in their “conquering and colonization [of] vast stretches of the Americas” (Taylor, 51) that even the other European nations who were also colonizing American lands during that time period were shocked and appalled by their actions. The English, who were competitors with the Spanish when it came to colonizing the “new world”, even came up with the term “Black Legend” to describe the horrifying ways in which the Spanish treated the natives. Now, the English clearly weren’t upstanding in their treatment of the natives who had been living independently for hundreds of years before British arrival, but it says something that even they drew a more appropriate line as to what was acceptable in the treatment of natives than the Spanish.

Before reading these chapters and discussing them in class, it was my understanding that most European nations who were involved in the early colonization of the Americas had the same motivation for being there and mostly went about colonization in the same way. It is clear however, that this is not the case. There were varying levels of violence, peaceful interaction with natives, trade, implementation of religion, etc with almost every European nation that attempted to colonize the land. Taylor made it known early that part of his reason for writing this book was to give a more comprehensive and complete overview of this history; almost as a way to fill in the gaps that are so often left there when American history is told. Him more indepthly describing the differences in which various nations went along in colonizing these lands better gives the reader an understanding of how and why things developed the way they did during early colonization.

August 30, 2013

Introduction-Chapter 1 Post (#1)

Author Alan Taylor has a very interesting line on the first page of the Introduction that, in my opinion, gives early insight into what this book will discuss. After shortly describing white Europeans’ motivation for immigrating to what is the present day United States, Taylor opens his fourth paragraph with a captivating person opinion- “But the traditional story of American uplift excludes too many people” (Taylor, Introduction) To me, this line immediately informs the reader that the purpose of this book is to give a more complete description of American History, one that fills in the holes and gives credit to those often forgotten in less “detailed” accounts of American History. The first chapter in the book immediately shows that Taylor does indeed intend to fill in those blanks. In it he gives brief overviews of the history of a number of Native American tribes who called the lands home way before Christopher Columbus or any other Europeans set foot in the “new world”.

Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed the first chapter as it informed me about much I had never even heard regarding early life in the Americas. I had known that Christopher Columbus did not in fact “discover” these lands but I was unaware of the deep history that so many different native tribes had on the land. Taylor also gives a description of the natives that does not mesh with the way they are often portrayed today. Modern day filmmakers have painted an image of these early natives in moves (which is admittedly the extent of my previous study on this topic) as a supremely spiritual and peaceful people who were unjustifiably taken advantage of by the Europeans. While Taylor does not defend the Europeans, he makes sure to inform the reader that the Natives were not completely innocent, peaceful tribes who wished only to be left alone. They were just as violent and war-prone as the people they fought, they simply did not have the technology and weaponry to seriously compete. I appreciated Taylor giving this perspective here. It assures me that he did his best to stay completely objective. I can only assume that the rest of the book is written in the same manor.