malandini – U.S. to 1877

December 4, 2013

A Farewell to Davis

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

Throughout this course we have discussed the significance of slaves in the New World. As such, it is fitting that the final reading wrap up this discussion by hypothesizing on the importance and profound significance of emancipation.

Davis concludes his writing by stipulating that while emancipation was a clear turning point in U.S. history, it did not mean that African Americans were free from suffering. Moreover, he concludes that African Americans are still under persecution and must continually fight against the subjection of their civil rights. While Davis ends shortly after discussing emancipation’s effects, I would have liked to read his opinion on Jim Crow, particularly in how it served as an extension of slavery by relegating African Americans to an even lesser existence.

I have to agree with Matt StLawrence as well, concerning Davis’ treatment of Lincoln. I too often think of Lincoln with a classical mythos. We frequently represent him as a selfless individual, striving for humanitarianism and the just treatment of all peoples. In fact, if Lincoln isn’t in your top three favorite presidents list, you’re probably doing something wrong. That being said, it is still important to understand that Lincoln was a pragmatist, not a foolhardy idealist. He was honorable and his death was tragic, but he was still just a man sworn to live the will of the people. Perhaps his ability to so aptly defy the populace – or at least approximately half of the country – is what makes him so memorable and distinctive.

Ultimately, Davis’ handling of slavery was excellent. He aptly summarized both northern passions and southern rationalizations for the peculiar institution, while trying not to inject any bias – an incredibly difficult, but still well executed undertaking.

December 3, 2013

“The War of Northern Aggression” – Victimizing the Challengers

Today’s class discussion sparked several interesting dialogues, which I think warrant further debate. Hopefully the blog will help spur continued discourse.

First and foremost I’d like to address the issue of “renaming” the Civil War. As a northerner, I have never encountered, or even considered the need for, alternative names for the Civil War. Thus, as it would appear, the need to rename the conflict stems largely from lingering southern anxieties about what motivated secession. While many affirm that the Civil War was primarily an economic conflict, the dissent concerning slavery and blatant, unfettered racism is undeniable.

There seems to be a stigma in the South to retain a sense of pride for one’s ancestors and heritage. While such sentiments are honorable and often warranted, it is surprising that we continually whitewash history, rather than accepting past mistakes. I understand that this opinion is controversial – I intend it to be – but history cannot be represented accurately until we detach ourselves from previous biases that, by and large, were wholly misinformed.

That being said, many argued in class that southerners should not be reprimanded for protecting their economic livelihood. In fact, Evan observed in his recent blog post that southerners could not come to terms with the end of the war because of emancipation’s economic impact. While there is some validity to such thought, I would argue that southern industrialization was inevitable. In fact, one could even make the case (and many have) that the idea of “holding onto southern tradition” was unsustainable and would have floundered regardless of the war.

Finally, the issue of “who” initiated conflict is also of some concern. While there is certainly fault to be had on both sides, the act of determining blame is largely unnecessary if we are to accurately represent history. Lincoln stimulated conflict by supporting troops, while southerners fired the first shots – such discourse is arbitrary save for establishing a concrete timeline. That being said, the question of whether or not secession is unconstitutional is of some interest. Because there is no method for seceding from the Union – as intended by the Founders – any extrapolation or deviation from established processes is unconstitutional. Although this idea goes against my belief that the Constitution is a living, changing document, such a radical break clearly exemplifies unconstitutionality.

As evidenced by class discussion, the repercussions of the Civil War are still felt today. Not unexpectedly, the most violent conflict in the U.S. still fuels passions – and will continue to for generations.

December 2, 2013

A Farewell to Wilentz

In the final chapters of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz discusses the final developments in the national powder keg, which inevitably exploded, thereby prompting the Civil War. While most other posts have thoroughly discussed the finer points leading up to this conflict, I found Wilentz’s analysis of the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision to be particularly notable.

Rather than solely focusing on the political tension between the North and South, Wilentz rightfully acknowledges the Supreme Court’s role in spurring conflict. Dred Scott v. Sandford focused on Scott’s attempt to buy himself (and his family) from slavery after living in Wisconsin, which was a free territory. Despite Scott’s previous condition of servitude, such a change presumably gave him standing in the fight for his freedom. Ultimately, the Court ruled that slaves were not citizens and thus they had no claim to citizenship. As such, Scott had no standing in the case. This meant that because he was not a citizen, he could not bring his plea to a courtroom. This distinct use of judicial review clearly reaffirms the Supreme Court’s role regarding the separation of political powers in the federal government. The Court’s ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, which had previously offset tensions concerning slavery. Furthermore, the Court also stripped power from Congress, as it dictated that Congress had no right to regulate slavery.

As we can see, the Court’s ruling meant that the issue of slavery could no longer be resolved politically. Unintentionally or not, their ruling had serious consequences.

Although many have already written eloquently about it, particularly Alia and Andrew, John Brown also played a role in contributing to the advent of the Civil War through non-political means. His use of direct force, although brief and futile, brought him to the forefront of tension over slavery. Ultimately, as others have stated, he encouraged military action to resolve slavery. However, more than that, he became a martyr in the North – giving a name and face to the cause.

November 20, 2013

1850s: The Era of Impending Crisis

After the Mexican War, the United States was stuck in a period of impending crisis. Tensions concerning the introduction of slavery into new territories continually spurned bitter debate between southerners and northerners. As such, several sects developed all promoting particular ideas concerning slavery and the acquisition of new lands. Although Sherwood already aptly summarized the various groups, I still find it helpful to briefly restate them.

First, many supported popular sovereignty, which dictated that the people in the territories should decide whether or not they wanted to be slave states or free states. As Wilentz previously discussed in earlier chapters, Lewis Cass was a strong purporter of popular sovereignty, although it proved ineffective in his run for the White House. Next, some individuals, like Henry Clay, encouraged the reinstatement of geographical boundaries to define slave states versus free states. In theory, had this principle been adopted, it would have extended the border previously defined in the Missouri Compromise. Thus, many northerners discarded the idea, as it would have ceded too much land to the South. In contrast to such compromises, individuals like John C. Calhoun emphasized non-exclusion, which laid out a rigorous argument that any act by Congress to impair the right to take property, i.e. slaves, into a territory would be unconstitutional. Finally, in response to such harsh disputes, many also favored exclusion policies. Exclusionists generally favored the Wilmot Proviso, which would have mandated that all new territories would join as free states. Not surprisingly, the bill did not pass in the Senate, even though it passed through sectional lines in the House.

After thorough debate concerning the continuation of slavery, Congress passed the Compromise of 1850. Essentially, the bill marked Clay’s, Webster’s, and Calhoun’s final legislative battle and sought to please different sections of the country. Although the bill struggled initially, Stephen Douglas eventually helped in breaking apart the bill and passing individual sections. Ultimately it stipulated that California would enter the Union as a free state, that there would be clear borders between Texas, that the the U.S. would assume Texas’ debt, that the sale of slaves in the District of Colombia would be abolished, and that there would be a stronger fugitive slave law instated.*

As A.J. accurately observed, the Compromise of 1850 hardly confronted the issue of slavery as it only delayed conflict, rather than settling the issue entirely. That being said, the larger question becomes whether or not the Civil War was inevitable. That is to say, had the Compromise of 1850 truly confronted slavery in the United States, would the conflict have been entirely avoidable?

*Incidentally, Wilentz’s discussion of abolitionist literature in the middle of the chapter reminds the reader that the Compromise of 1850 inspired Harriet Beecher Stowe to write Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

October 2, 2013

An Interesting Goodbye

Although I’m saddened to be done with Taylor (I’m only being somewhat sarcastic), his conclusion, like much of his work, challenged traditional historians’ conceptualizations of colonization in North America. Although most of the blog posts this week have already extensively covered how interesting it is to conclude with stories of island colonization, I found Taylor’s descriptions of Spanish and Russian interests in California even more compelling.

Both Sperry and Wells discussed the differences between Spanish and Russian practices in “civilizing” locals; however, I think it’s important to further examine the modes of brutality that both nations enforced. There seems to be an understanding that the Russians were significantly more brutal in their efforts to colonize than the Spanish. However, Taylor never claims such a bias, rather he describes the atrocities that both nations contributed to and allows readers to take a stance.

Although Russian abuse sounds more damaging, as it’s characterized by ransom and rape, that doesn’t mean that Spanish abuse was any less significant. It seems like we are forgetting that the destruction of landscape, culture, language, and lifestyle has just as harsh of an effect as more direct brutality – even if it doesn’t immediately jump out at a reader.

In discussing disparities between brutalities, I am reminded of the “Black Legend,” which I described in more detail in an earlier blog post. Any instance whereby we try and rationalize brutality by saying that one country was worse than another does history a great disservice. Almost every European countries interested in North America had some lasting, damaging effect, which was brutal and significant, although perhaps in different ways.

September 11, 2013

Inhuman Bondage 4 & 5

Although I enjoyed the content that Davis presented in Inhuman Bondage, I disagree with many of my classmates, in that I did not particularly enjoy his writing. While he frequently reaches thoughtful, provocative conclusions, following his thought process is often strenuous. Davis tends to jump between time periods and places frequently, and often introduces new subject matter with little to no explanation. Although perhaps his content is more protracted than Taylor, by and large I find Taylor easier to read.

Despite his writing style, much of what Davis relayed in chapters four and five was incredibly shocking. The suggestion that the atrocities committed during the slave trade were too horrible to describe with words was incredibly powerful. Additionally, although Davis never explicitly makes such a claim, the implied comparison between slaves and cattle was also enlightening. Upon further study, I found the linked artist’s rendition to be incredibly revealing and eye-opening. We often have a tendency to whitewash our own history, perhaps to protect our own consciousnesses from guilt, or perhaps to absolve past figures of their indecencies; however, Davis does an excellent job of presenting the unfiltered truths of the slave trade. In approaching this task, Davis writes like a journalist – he, to a certain degree, is free of bias and presents facts at face value. As such, he allows the reader to pass judgement.

I was also interested to learn about slavery in different parts of the “New World.” Traditionally, mostly in high school environments, we focus on plantation farming in the English colonies. However, I was intrigued to learn about the larger use of enslaved peoples in the Caribbean and Brazil. Up until that point, my understanding of the brutality of slave labor was somewhat limited, as I was really only familiar with slavery as it’s portrayed in media. As such, Davis’ accounts have made me interested to learn more about the brutality of that “peculiar institution” in those regions.

September 4, 2013

American Colonies 3 & 5

In the given reading, Taylor has, again, helped to reshape my understanding of early colonization in the New World. In particular, I was shocked at how bluntly Taylor tried to describe Spanish interactions with native peoples. The way by which the Spanish were so brutal (albeit successful) was made even more apparent by Taylor’s descriptions of the civilizations that they conquered. For instance, after describing the magnificence of the Aztecs and the city Tenochtitlán, Taylor bluntly states, “after four months of fighting, the Spanish and their native allies reduced the city to a bloody rubble” (Taylor 53). In a sense, this is another instance of Taylor’s tongue-in-cheek attitude when writing about colonization. His bluntness may appear ridiculous to some, but it allows for the reader to from their own opinions on morality and justification, although Taylor may subtly advocate his own opinion from time to time.

Upon reading chapter 5, I gained a better understanding of different practices of colonization between European countries. In particular, this made me more conscious of the fabled “Black Legend,” which served to condemn the brutish way that the Spanish treated the natives. However, in response to several classmates, I felt that it was important to remember that the “Black Legend,” as perpetrated by the English, did not solely condemn Spain. Rather, it was also an attempt to whitewash their own practices towards natives. As such, almost all European countries treated natives poorly – save for perhaps the French, but only out of necessity. However, the “Black Legend” only pushed guilt onto others.

All in all, I enjoyed this section of American Colonies and am now more interested in learning about English acquisition in the New World, having already thoroughly examined the French and Spanish.