jelaws – U.S. to 1877

November 18, 2013

White Slavery

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

Roediger explained in his essay how and why white freemen, that were earning wages, compared themselves to the slaves in the South and said they were white slaves. The growing abolition movement made it a necessity to define the difference between slavery and freedom. Then came the consideration of ‘white slaver’ as a category as more and more urban laborers and especially artisans publicized their experiences. The workers looked to Britain as an example of reform, just as the abolitionists had done. The labor activists did have some evidence of work place incidents where the workers were subjected to slavery rhetoric. The textile manufacturers mostly employed young single women and called “their management practices as paternalistic.” This obviously led to slavery comparisons. Some employers were even accused of calling their textile workers “their slaves.” Some laborers claimed to have ‘masters’ and be ‘slaves.’ However, some tried to make some almost laughable comparisons about how the labor conditions were worse in the North than the conditions slaves experienced in the South. Activists claimed that the masters in the South were concerned with prolonging the life of the slave as long as possible, whereas northern employers did not care about their workers’ lives. What seems to me as a huge contradiction, many of the advocates for labor reform in the North were proslavery advocates at the same time. Proslavery advocates who were trying to end white slavery. As WIROBERTSON said his post, many of the proslavery advocates were scared of the African Americans slaves taking the jobs for lower pay. WIROBERTSON also said that the poorer whites had a fear of equality with the slaves. This statement agrees with one that Roediger made in his essay. Roediger said that the white workers didn’t want to relate too much with the slaves because that would suggest that they were unworthy of freedom. There was a fine line between comparing the northern workers and artisans to southern slaves and actually relating with them. The labor activists had to walk this tight rope, while still making strong and gripping argument for labor reform.

November 11, 2013

Everybody is Whiggin’ Out

Wilentz, in Chapter 16, discusses the Whig movement and the popularity of the Whigs in the mid 1830s to early 40s. These New School Whigs were a diverse combination of Anti-Masons, politicians from the Old Northwest and western states, former Jacksonians in the South, and northern Whigs. Although the regional differences of the Whig party were diverse the Whig party was able to establish a national system of anti-Jackson newspapers and campaigning. The Whigs attacked Jacksonian corruption. Whigs based their platform on self-improvement and reform. The self-reform/improvement aspect and emphasis of moral choice grew out of the Second Great Awakening. Whigs were most popular in the areas where the Second Great Awakening was most popular and intense. The Whigs abandoned the division between classes and turned the national debate into the struggle between basic morals and those who rejected them. Although Clay drew large crowds in New England and appealed to the southern Whigs, William Henry Harrison became the party’s go to candidate for the election of 1840. The Whigs attacked Van Buren and the Democrats during the 1840 presidential election campaign. Harrison traveled the country formally delivering campaign speeches, breaking the precedence. On page 263, Wilentz said, “the Whig campaign reformulated their broader economic, cultural, and moral precepts and packaged them for the voters.” To me, the Whig party and their campaign in the election of 1840 was more like a modern day campaign than any other in the Era of the New Republic. The Whigs worked to include all different demographics, including women, even though they didn’t have the right to vote. The Whigs understood women’s influence on the male voters. The extremely high voter turn out in the election of 1840 set a record (still unbroken). As WIROBERTSON said in his post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/dishevelled-democracy/), the triumph in the 1840 presidential election only delayed the sure downfall of the Whig party. The Whig party was a fragile unit, but held it together long enough to achieve greatness.

November 6, 2013

Abolition-Davis and Wilentz

Abolition in the Early Republic was a movement that created a new era of American history. It brought to light the ethical and moral issues of slavery, but also exposed how deeply intwined slavery was with the economy all over the U.S. The abolition movement was in part caused by the evangelism religious revivals present in New England, also known as the Second Great Awakening. The evangelism view was that the system of Negro slavery was the great national sin that must be removed so a new Eden or New Jerusalem could be established in America. SYSTRAUSS mentions Theodore Dwight Weld as an example of an abolitionist that has a deeply rooted set of religious ideals. Davis writes about two different groups that emerged within the abolitionist movement. The colonization movement and the immediatism movement. The colonizationists argued that the racial prejudices and differences present in America were too strong for the races to ever live together as equals. Many African-Americans saw this movement as disrespectful towards their ancestors who helped build America. They viewed this movement as taking their ‘American status’ away. The immediatism was triggered by an eruption of immediatism in Britain. Unlike the British abolition movement, the American movement had a larger participation of women. Unlike slavery in Britain, American slavery was deeply intwined into the interstate economy and virtually every aspect of not only southern, but also northern life. Wilentz also wrote about the abolition movement in chapter 13. Wilentz claims that abolitionism became a genuine popular movement in the U.S. The violence associated with the abolitionist movement in the North was surprising to me. I didn’t realize until Wilentz pointed it out that the violent hostility was located in the North most of the time. The abolitionist movement created hatred in the South, but not as many violent mobs as the North. The abolition movement spread from small farmers, shopkeepers, and businessmen in mostly small cities to a larger group of wage earners in major cities and factory towns. The growth of abolition was due to the Second Great Awakening and the abolition movement in Britian. However, abolition of slavery was hindered by the deep racial prejudices and the slave economy and further complicated the tense period of the Early Republic.

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.

September 30, 2013

The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! and the Spanish Missionaries too

In Chapter 19, Taylor discusses the colonization in western America, mainly Alaska and California. The Spanish missionary work in California is more popular than the Russian colonization and trade efforts in Alaska. The Russian expeditions and treatment of the natives interested me. In 1741 Chirikov and Bering discovered Alaska, but Chirikov was quickly run off by natives, returning to Russia (Taylor, p. 448). Bering and his crew barely survived the winter on an island in the Bering Sea (p. 448). Bering was able to bring back sea otter pelts, which became the catalyst of Russian interest in America. Russians began hunting seals, sea otters, sea lions, and foxes. The promyshlenniki treated the natives horribly. They held the women and children as ransom until the Aleut men brought back a sufficient amount of fur (p. 451). The women and children would then be released back (p.451). It was a system of “forced commerce (p.451).” Women were often used as sex slaves during captivity only adding more fuel to the anger of the natives (p.451). The Aleuts on Umnak and Unalaska revolted, but the Russians retaliated and destroyed 18 villages (p.451). In the 1780s Shelikhov “tried to control, regulate, and reorganize the chaotic and destructive exploitation of the sea otter and the Aleut (p. 452).” Shelikhov did reduce the rape of women and increase the payment for pelts, he still used the forced commerce practice as did the promyshlenniki (p.452). The Aleuts were quickly depopulated due to “hunger, new diseases, labor exploitation, and violent retribution (p. 452).” Even though the Russians had a goal more similar to the French, I think the treatment of the natives by the Russians would have created a legend similar to the Black Legend in other parts of America.

False rumors of the rate of Russian and British colonization caused the Spanish to panic and colonize California. The Spanish colonization in California was primarily a mission expedition. By claiming that the missions benefited the natives, the Spanish took the land without any formal purchase (p.459). The growth of colonies was stunted by the lack of an overland route from Sonora to the San Gabriel mission. Some emigration did occur with the discovery of a route, but the Spanish broke their promises to the natives at the critical Yuma crossing. The Spanish took over fields for livestock, raped native women, and whipped the men who protested (p. 459). The natives eventually revolted, permanently closing of the crossing at the Yuma crossing. The emigration to the California colony was again halted.

Although the missions were more popular and successful in converting the natives than in Mexico, the corruption was still present, perhaps to a lesser degree. The neophytes had to work long hours at a steep pace. They were punished if they resisted. Many neophytes died rapidly due to disease and intense labor. The Spanish were able to sustain a mission-centered colony in California despite the high rate of native death and lack of emigration. Taylor describes the Spanish colonization in California well, but I wish he would have made the distinction between how the priests, soldiers, and colonists treated the natives instead of bundling them all under the ‘Spanish.’

In week 2 @JANEWTON made a point to recognize that “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.” I believe that in chapter 19 Taylor made a point to include the Russians to further emphasize the differences in colonization. The Spanish missionaries in California serve as an example to remind us that each colony was different even if it was controlled by the same country.

September 25, 2013

Leading up to the Revolution

In Chapter 18, Taylor describes the wars and subsequent effects leading up to the American Revolution. The two separate periods of conflicts before the Revolution primarily involved the British and French. The British far outnumbered the French in North America, but at the beginning the French did have one key advantage. The French developed many Indian allies that aided them in their wars against the British. Compared to the British, the French were friendlier and treated the natives with respect and as business partners. Throughout the chapter, Taylor portrays the British treatment of the natives as brutal compared to the French. I agree with Sylvia in her response to the overwhelmingly negative view of the British in Taylor. As she stated, Taylor should not have simply given a negative view of the British, but make the “reader consider the English reasoning behind their actions.” The natives repaid the kind French with fighting tactics suitable for North American warfare. This gave the French an advantage, but the British soon caught on. The “unprecedented numbers of British troops” eventually grew too much for the French and Spanish to handle (p. 429). British victories against the Spanish and French increased the expansion west pushing farther into Indian land. In response to the increase of colonists, the natives rebelled. The Indian rebellions in the late 1750s and early 1760s specifically in the Carolinas and Ohio Valley, increased the racial tensions already present between the colonists and the natives.

Underneath the subheading of “Imperial Crisis” Taylor describes an increased sense of pride in the colonies for being a part of the British empire. Then, he goes on to say all of the reasons the colonies began to dislike the crown. This confuses the reader. The victory in the war did increase allegiance to the crown, but Taylor explains the reasons for the Revolution as “strains initiated by winning the Seven Years War (p.438).” I think he should have made the transition from pride to a revolution clearer. Taylor is very clear in describing the strains brought on by the victory. He lists reasons ranging from no common enemy to the prosperity in the colonies causing an increase in taxes (p. 438-439). Many of the reasons for the Revolution came as a result of the British army seeing the prosperity and disregard for British laws (Molasses Act) in the colonies during the Seven Years War. Without the Seven Years War, the colonies would have most likely continued to prosper while the oblivious Parliament continued to ignore them. Taylor points out that the colonies had a “good deal– and they knew it (p. 442).” Many of the strains that eventually caused the Revolution were created because Parliament and the Crown finally realized how good of a deal the colonies had.

September 18, 2013

Transformation of Labor in Virginia

In Chapter 7, Taylor writes about the Chesapeake colonies from 1650-1750. The part of this chapter that stuck out to me the most was how labor transformed from indentured servitude to the concept of slavery usually associated with the South. Most indentured servants before 1620 were forcibly brought over, but after 1620 it was a mostly voluntary choice. The emigration of servants fluctuated accordingly with the tobacco prices and wages in England (142). Although the first Africans were brought over as salves in 1619, it was not a profitable decision. Many of the early Africans were treated as indentured servants and were freed after their allotted labor time. There were no colonial laws against blacks, so “black freedmen and women could move as they pleased, baptize their children, procure firearms, testify in court, buy and sell property, and even vote (p. 154).” There were even instances of interracial marriage. These examples are in stark contrast to the way blacks were treated even up until the 1960s and 70s.

As Will said in his post after Bacon’s Rebellion a decrease in white indentured servants caused many of the planters to seek African labor. Even as late as 1650, enslaved Africans still only comprised 2% of the Chesapeake colonial population (142). Taylor says, “At the end of the seventeenth century, slaves became a better investment, as servants became scarcer and more expensive (p. 153).” The decrease in diseases increased slave life expectancy and allowed slave traders to come to the Chesapeake. Surprisingly, Taylor says that the change from indentured servants to salves protected the planters against rebellions by angry freedmen (p. 154). The only problem was, that the planters now had to worry about slave rebellions. The colonial militia began as a safeguard against slave rebellion. This was the beginning of whites grouping themselves together, not based on class, but by race. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, the Chesapeake colonies started placing stricter legal codes in regard to both slaves and freed Africans (p.155). Masters also started believing that “only pain and fear could motivate them (slaves) (p.155).” They considered the Africans as non-humans and this justified their despicable treatment of the slaves.

Laws passed in 1680 and 1705 further divided the races and set out punishments for blacks that broke the racial boundaries (p.156). Previously freed slaves were also discriminated against, and many of them left the Chesapeake colonies (p. 156-157). As racial slavery grew, Taylor says that “Virginia became both more stable and more distinctive from England (p. 157).” The racial divide continued to grow and your identity was the connotation associated with your skin color. Although whites were more united than ever once slavery was introduced, the classes within the white race were extremely unequal.

September 3, 2013

Reading-Second Week Chapter 3 and 5

In Chapter 3, Taylor writes not only of the initial conquest of the land known as New Spain, but also of the development and regulation of the new empire. I had previously not known about how far the drastic decrease in population spread into North America due to the Spanish. To find slaves, Spanish went from Venezuela to Florida to South Carolina (Taylor, p. 52). This, coupled with disease, devastated the surrounding areas. Another topic I found interesting in this chapter was the thought and actions associated with consolidation and the Mexican natives’ attitude toward the Spanish. The conquistadores were good at conquering, but not at ruling a long lasting colony. The monarchs wanted to control, tax, and establish Spanish institutes in New Spain (Taylor, p. 59). Trying to manage the colonies from across the Atlantic proved extremely difficult. The priests wanted to convert the natives through peaceful relations, unlike the the conquistadores (Taylor, p. 59). Some Mexican Natives thought they could “outlast their Spanish masters” just as they had done with previous invasions, but the Spanish were far too technologically advanced (Taylor, p. 60). The bullion influenced the Spanish economy and the rest of Europe. The influx of gold and silver caused inflation, which was exacerbated by the weakened manufacturing industry. (Taylor, p. 63).

In Chapter 5, Taylor mainly focuses on the French involvement in Canada and their relationship with the Natives. The French and the Natives were both dependent on the fur trade. The Natives were dependent on the modern materials the French produced and traded. The French were dependent on the fur for profit, but the trade also provided protection from the Natives. Taylor portrays the French as being taken of advantage of by the Natives. The Natives “negotiated from a position of strength (Taylor, p. 93). The Natives took advantage of different fur traders and would travel to find the best price. As Sylvia pointed out, the Natives expected the French to be their allies in intertribal wars. The fur traders kept their posts small, to discourage more traders in the area.