maspeed – U.S. to 1877

November 20, 2013

Lincoln, Moral Idol, Yet Still A Politician

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 Inhumane Bondage, Davis gives a broader, less detailed account of history than Wilentz ever does. Although arguably more objective, one can find points to analyze and break down. One thing that stood out to me was the characterization of Lincoln and his stance while running against Douglas. Historically, we see Lincoln as the just idol, always behind equal rights and abolition. One would not think he considered the African American race as inferior morally and intellectually. In reality, Lincoln might have been the perfectly moral character we are taught about in elementary school. But when standing behind the podium or on the political stump, he did not speak in absolutes and extremes. Though he claimed slavery was wrong, he “repeatedly acknowledged that the federal government could not interfere with slavery in the existing states” (Davis 290). So did Lincoln think the Deep South should immediately rid itself of slavery? No. He supported gradual abolition and “…wholly rejected the idea of ‘perfect social and political equality with the negro'” (Davis 290). Is this the Abe Lincoln we all know and revere as a man to model your moral standards after? Among these factors, I still say yes. These questionable quotes don’t necessarily reflect Lincoln’s heart. He is a politician after all and politicians that take extreme stances very rarely are successful. As a politician, especially a Senate and Presidential candidate, Lincoln had to attempt to appeal to more people than those who mirrored his views exactly. If he had run on a promise for the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln would not have an enormous copy of himself sitting in a chair in DC today. Since I am taking a political science class this semester, I recognized and considered the way politicians must be vague and avoid absolutes while running. Lincoln obviously did this and later, stimulated by the secessions all over the south, let out his true, deeply embedded moral motivations.

I look forward to seeing what else Davis has to say about Lincoln’s actions and positions on racial equality because I know we haven’t seen the end at the conclusion of chapter fourteen.

*Note: With the new way we are doing blogs, there are none with similar subjects to mine. I found no way to connect my blog to another’s. I will, however, state that I agree with SPEDWARDS in their post that it was quite interesting that the press would characterize the Craft Affair as a start to a civil war. That seems very extreme and not well placed by the press.

November 13, 2013

The Foreshadowing of the Proviso

In The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz describes the birth and effects of the Wilmot Proviso. This Proviso was introduced to the House by a representative from Pennsylvania. It would create a law that decreed, “‘neither slavery nor involuntary service shall ever exist’ in any territories acquired from Mexico as a result of the war”(Wilentz 316). Obviously this stirred controversy with anyone and everyone supporting slavery and its spread westward. If this were to make it through as a bill, not only would slavery be confined to the southeastern United States, but eventually, slaveholders would lose a considerable amount of power in Congress. Abolitionists would score a major win and the fall of slavery would be accelerated. The Senate did not manage to pass the Proviso in the same session but the House passed a more extensive version during the next session and the Senate again had the chance to vote on it. Calhoun introduced legislation combating the anti slavery bill and declared that it discriminated against states. Soon, the entire nation and all of the parties and smaller factions took stands for or against the Proviso. Both the Democrats and Whigs had to divide North to South because of their interests in slavery.

The reason these divisions are so important lies in future events we already know will happen. Real lines were drawn between free and slave states and the same lines cut through united parties in Washington. Because of Wilmot’s Proviso, “Calhoun…launched a movement for southern rights and unity, which inspired anti-Proviso mass meetings across the South” (Wilentz 319). Did these meetings foreshadow a very real threat of a Confederacy? Though it’d be over another decade before the Civil War, an argument could be made that this movement is one of the first real signs of the South versus North hostile attitude. In Spedwards’s post, it is recognized that westward expansion and the expansion are linked and gravely debated in Congress. I agree that the two cannot be easily separated, if at all. By expanding, the US has to decide, slavery or no slavery. Another decision could be to continue kicking the can down the road and pairing every free state with a slave state. But the Proviso ignited tensions and lit the path ahead that was destined for a split between those who depended on slavery and those who would stop at nothing to end it.

November 5, 2013

November 5th Post

The Rise of American Democracy disappointed me again this week. Wilentz plowed through an analyzation of the struggle between Jackson and Biddle over the national bank that was bland and not easy to follow for a student without a background in finance. I could comprehend the gist of the battle and who was on each side but I was not familiar with the processes and tactics used by the politicians. I would suggest a more simple approach with language and/or explanations for readers without experience and knowledge in the field. I recognize however, I may just have a low understanding of the way the national bank works and need to increase this. Luckily, the economic jargon gave way eventually to a more historical account of the events dealing with abolition.

I found it shocking that the anti-abolitionists could get away with, if only for a time, censoring the post to disallow the circulation of anti-slavery publication. This is obviously an issue of the freedom of speech, explicitly given to citizens in the Constitution. Censorship of a minorities opinion is censorship all the same and should be against the law. I can only assume that the reason this infringement upon the rights of American citizens was allowed only because of how serious slave insurrections were. Southern planters and mostly all whites for that matter would be terrified of just the notion of rebellious, angry slaves roaming the country side, possibly armed with plenty reason to do harm to their oppressors. The fear implanted in the white citizenry, as discussed in class, definitely stemmed from rebellions like the ones lead by Cato, Nat Turner, and others. The literate slaves and sympathetic whites, capable of producing anti-slavery literature, were stopped by unconstitutional laws even the President had a part in proposing.

In janewton’s post, the political motivation of elites against abolitionists stands in stark contrast with the fearful motivation of the South. I find it interesting that the two geographical regions differ in their reasons to hate abolition but agree in standing against it. (Admittedly, elites in the South definitely had similar motivations to the Northern elites.)

One very interesting point I found in Inhumane Bondage was about the divisive splits experienced by anti-slavery groups. Davis states that, “…Antislavery groups could hardly have been more querulous and divisive”(261). One would, at face value, think that with all the political or literal fire aimed at them, these groups would bond together and work tirelessly towards their collective goal. The American Anti-Slavery Society apparently split in 1840 for differences in opinion about women’s rights. I think this shows that though major reform was being demanded and soon to come, the country had still a while to go in terms of human rights. After all, it would not be until 1920 that our nation’s leaders decided to ratify the amendment allowing women to vote.

October 23, 2013

Blog post Oct. 23

This semester, I am taking both this history class and American Politics. Many subjects overlap when we begin to discuss American democracy. Consequently, The Rise of American Democracy has been a slightly boring read for me personally. However, historical details not mentioned in political science add to the knowledge I already have and help to fill in gaps and explain motives. The struggle between Federalists and Democratic Republicans in particular is an event I have now read much about. Though I wish Wilentz talked less about politics and more about history, I understand that leaving one side out could deplete the value of the chapter.

I agree with Mitch Han when he discusses Wilentz’s demonstrated dislike of the Federalists. Though historically, the Federalist party sputters and falls, Wilentz does not give them too much credit. He describes Adams as a “pudgy”, “short”, and “anxious”, and speaks very admiringly of Burr (Wilentz 32). Also, By highlighting the Alien and Sedition Acts as much as he did, Wilentz throws a negative light upon the methods used by Adams’s party. The Mastodon article puts the Republicans further ahead by crediting Jefferson with a symbol of continental domination and power. The Federalists never sent an exploration out West to possibly find an enormous, man-eating carnivore.

Luckily for me, Chapter 5 and the Turner article proved to be more historical and less like my political science class. I liked how in the Turner article, he described the frontier as constantly being moved back from, first, the Atlantic coast of North America, to the Mississippi valley and Appalachian Mountain Range, and then deeper into the continent. I wonder if this is an ethnocentric way of seeing the “unexplored” land, because the indigenous tribes had existed on the continent for quite a while. However, I did like the way the article lead me to think of where our frontier is now. Is it possibly the arctic? Or, since we’ve landed on the moon, is it outer space and the far reaches of our solar system? Beyond? I don’t believe history repeats itself but I can imagine a campaign into the unknown similar to Columbus’s or Louis and Clark’s.

October 1, 2013

Yet Another…

To be honest, when I began the reading about the “Final Frontier”, (appropriately named by Mitch Han) I had hope that at least one European nation was relatively benevolent and respectful to their fellow humans. As we’ve discussed, an argument could be made for the French but they had their fair share of cultural imposition. As I should have foreseen, the Russians were arguably as bad as the rest if not worse than even the Spanish. Taylor argues the Russian were brutal, viscous adversaries with specific goals to make as much money as possible and to show the world that they belonged in the elite European nation group. Taylor the Russian promyshlenniki as “…notorious for their brutality to native peoples and for the rapidity with which their operations harvested wild animals to local extinction” (Taylor 447). The statistics he provides would be shocking to anyone who hasn’t read the rest of the chapters of this book. I am numb to the numbers because of all of the decimation we’ve read about in Mexico but in reality, the decline of population experienced would easily rank as genocide-like in today’s world. The Russians, like the other Europeans, brought many diseases that killed off the Natives but Taylor stressed the venereal diseases given to Native women more than in other chapters. The Russian explorers, “held the native women and children [at gunpoint] for ransom, while releasing the Aleut men to fill a large quota of furs (which took months). Once the furs were delivered, the promyshlenniki released the children and the women. In the interim, the Russians exploited the Aleut women as sex slaves. Upon departing, the traders left behind venereal diseases and some trade goods…” (Taylor 451). Though we can be almost sure that this is not the first time such practices had occurred (the Siberian natives come to mind), Taylor chooses to describe this instance specifically and in detail. This makes me think that this interaction ranked as one of the worst on the North American continent.

The Spanish arrival in California contrasted with the Russians in that they put more money into the operation than what they ever expected to get out. As we mentioned in class today, the missions had to be constantly re-supplied and invested in. As Mitch Han discussed, the Spanish were spread thin and tried to create somewhat of an agriculture based, mission directed colony. They built permanent housing and brought in livestock. The Russians did the opposite, simply exploiting the natives hunting skills and leaving once they could fill the hulls of their ships and satisfy their hunger and pleasure. This stark difference can probably be easily attributed to the landscape of Alaska and the surrounding areas but the Russians also didn’t have the Catholic Church and an enormous amount of claimed land already producing profit for the home country.

September 25, 2013

Witchcraft and Religion in the Colonies

The Salem Witch Trials have long been discussed by many historians and, no doubt, many history classes before ours. The beauty of historical analysis however, allows us to form our own opinions and voice unique thoughts either bouncing off previous theories or creating an amalgam of different thoughts. I read Sherwood’s(http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/taylor-chapter-15-norton-witchcraft-a-supernatural-inclination/) post and agree that the witch trials and evangelical movement cannot be completely independent of each other. Anyone can see the spiritual similarities and make a guess that there was correlation if not causation. In class, someone (I sadly have no idea who it was) mentioned Taylor’s point about women’s roles in societies in New England. They created networks of information that could be better identified as gossip (the same we all know and love in today’s society as well). I believe that the Salem debacle evolved from what EVFARESE (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/author/evfarese/) described as “social warfare”. I’m not sure if this phrase is original or not but I like it. My views may be misconstrued by Hollywood’s The Crucible, but I believe the social aspect of Puritan society, mixed with a strong desire to be holy and good, started the entire unfortunate sequence of events. The girls were in small, strict towns and rarely travelled. Some might even spend an entire lifetime (if you weren’t hanged for black magic) in the same colony. In any small community, people have disputes and some simply do not get along. Whether hallucinogens acted as a catalyst or not, I believe this was in fact “social warfare” that ignited the powder keg that was evangelicals’ spiritual paranoia. Witch accusations, hangings, and mass hysteria can all be listed as results. As Sherwood mentioned, Evangelism definitely had a hand in what happened. The spiritual intensity fits like a perfect puzzle piece into the story of Salem’s witches.

*NOTE: I couldn’t find the passage from Taylor mentioned in class and was unsure how to cite someones comment in class.

September 18, 2013

In this week’s reading, chapters 7 and 11, Taylor discussed the colonial practices of Georgia, the Carolinas, and the Chesapeake. To start, I disliked the lack of information the author gave about Georgia. Granted, as mentioned in class, Georgia history is boring. But I am from Atlanta, and I am biased. I want my state to be represented as much as the others. My suggestion to the author, without any credibility of course, would be to include more detail about the issues in Georgia and the native peoples involved. However, I was born in Greenville and also lived 9 years in York, SC so I was moderately pleased with the history of the Carolinas. One of the main arguments Taylor presents includes the white sense of solidarity versus the fractioned Indian identities. I found this particularly interesting and wondered the outcome had the Native peoples banded together and fought as an American nation. Would we all still be in Europe? Would it have taken decades or centuries more to conquer the “New World”? In just about all of the cases on the eastern coast of the North American mainland, Indians fought side by side with colonists against rival tribes. The Europeans would play the nations against each other and take advantage of the rivalries. Later, when convenient, the colonists would find an excuse to massacre the former partners. One of the very few chiefs to promote a nation combining tribes was executed for his ideas, not by a European, but by a fellow native. A few differences between the colonies include the attempt by Georgians to create a colony without slave while the Chesapeake and Carolinas relied heavily on slave trade and labor to prosper. The explanation about trying to keep whites motivated to work by avoiding slave labor rang bells in my head because I have taken AP US history but this idea was never addresses in the textbook I read before. It makes sense that whites would find physical labor degrading because it made them feel like slaves and that was definitely depressing in the time period.

September 4, 2013

Chapters 3 and 5 Readings

In chapters three and five, Taylor focuses on New Spain in Central and South America and contact in the Canadian region, where the Iroquoia met the French, respectively. The questions fueling the majority of the chapters include, “Who did the Europeans come in contact with? What were the goals of each party? How did each party go about trying to achieve these goals? If anyone was successful, who and how? What did these successes mean for the future of the region?” Taylor does an efficient job in answering these questions in an informative way including facts and evidence to support. The chapters are organized in a way that separates different European countries and their separate colonization efforts. By concentrating specifically on one power, then another, Taylor makes an argument that the French and Spanish contrasted greatly in the way they interacted with the American continent and its people. By showing the Spanish initiative to conquer and convert, the Taylor characterized the Spaniards as powerful, hungry for land and wealth, and devoted in a religious sense. By showing the French as a people who prioritized trade and peace, he stressed their economical goals and desire for harmony. To support this position, Taylor uses specific evidence. The journal entries from Spanish soldiers and officers give a vivid sense of what happened to the Aztec empire. The historical facts about battles and plots to take the largest city in all of Central America illustrate the plan the Spanish had in mind when they arrived. The French, on the other hand, had only small trading posts in this time period. They did not grow much food on their own and kept their numbers small. Beaver pelts, rather than vast stretches of land, were in high demand and the area was too cold for much agriculture anyway. They did their best not to fight the local tribes and even helped their trading partners fend off the dangerous Five Nations from the south. The kept it to a small operation with economic priority.

When reading a previous post by “chmasone”, I came across an observation that discussed Europeans’ respect for the Natives’ talent in growing maize. They called it ingenious and disputed the popular belief that all Natives are savage beasts. This viewpoint reminded me particularly of the French experience with the Huron tribe. The Native traders possessed a certain wit and intelligence when acting as a middle man for the Europeans and tribes further west. The used inflated prices to make a profit and had even a upper hand on the French in many circumstances. This evidence shows the Native’s ability to be, at least, equals in trade with Europeans and not to mention far superior in agriculture.