mihan – U.S. to 1877

November 19, 2013

The Road to Emancipation

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

After multiple compromises between northern and southern Whigs and Democrats, President Fillmore falsely assumed that, “Congress had achieved a final settlement of sectional discord” (Wilentz, 349). Wilentz emphasizes how the truce of 1850 was in fact fruitless, for it once again avoided the question of slavery instead of trying to solve it. One of the compromises included a much more stringent Fugitive Slave Act, which inadvertently led to intensifying tensions between northerners and southerners. “By denying the fugitives jury trials, it attacked the most democratic aspect of American jurisprudence…and brazenly violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause” (353). Slavery had marred the reputation of the Democratic Party, challenging the egalitarian doctrine and democratic principles that the party was originally founded upon. In the Republicans’ eyes, a true democracy could not exist where the institution of slavery existed and denied people their basic human right of freedom.

Wilentz also highlights a different side of the 1850’s nativist movement, one that opposed the expansion of slavery and the bloody consequences of the Kansas-Nebraska conflict. Based on our class discussion and the online article about Charleston’s Irish laborers, the main reason poor Irish immigrants supported the slave system was because they were no longer stuck at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. The massive influx of Irish immigrants during the 1850’s led to increased antipathy towards both free and enslaved blacks by immigrants who wanted to fit in to slave-societies. I believe that nativism, in a way, helped reduce the number of pro-slavery Irish in the South who would eventually side with the Confederates in their fight for slavery.

Davis links the British emancipation of slaves to the growing paranoia of southerners over abolitionism. The southern slaveholders’ defense was that the British were the ones who tried to oppress the American people, and the emancipation of slaves had greatly reduced profit from colonies in the Caribbean. However, the British were also the ones who took the initiative in freeing hundreds of thousands of slaves in the West Indies, which was undeniable evidence that the abolishment of slavery in the United States would be the ultimate test of American freedom and democracy. Britain’s emancipation of slavery confirmed the southerners’ senseless fear of northerners allying with Britain to ensure the destruction of slavery in the South. “The overreaction of Southern extremists had made it much easier for moderate Northerners to rally in a political campaign against a home-grown tyranny that threatened the very survival of democracy in America” (Davis 286).

November 11, 2013

A Divided Democracy

Beginning with the Nullification Crises, the Tariff of 1828, and the Bank War, Wilentz illustrates the growing internal rifts within the Democratic Party, especially between Andrew Jackson and his Vice President, John C. Calhoun. United opposition against Jackson resulted in the emergence of the Whig Party, which would eventually overtake the Democratic Party in the election of 1840.

Chris argues in his post, “This idea of inherited guilt attempts to relieve Van Buren of blame, even though the panic of 1837 happened directly under Van Buren’s leadership.” I do not necessarily agree with this statement, for Wilentz is right in that Jackson’s Specie Circular led to the financial crash of 1837, just as Martin Van Buren happened to take office. The requirement of gold or silver payments to purchase federal land resulted in the loss of millions of dollars worth of paper money; land sales called for a shift to hard money that speculators just did not have. “The largest New York City banks lost more than ten million dollars in federal deposits and saw their specie reserves drop from 5.9 million dollars in August 1835 to 1.5 million dollars by May 1837” (Wilentz 231). Similar to the way George Bush left President Obama to deal with immense financial issues exacerbated by Bush’s presidency, I believe Wilentz is correct in characterizing the Panic of 1837 as Van Buren’s inherited dilemma from Jackson’s presidency.

Martin Van Buren’s attempt to compromise and gain supporters ultimately backfired as it further fueled the antislavery movement. Calhoun returning to the Democratic Party had pressured Van Buren into appeasing him and the proslavery southern Democrats. To the antislavery northern Whigs and abolitionists, Martin Van Buren appeared to be an advocate of slavery, something he was trying to avoid the entire time. His willingness to support slave-owners presents a contradictory image of Democracy as the party of the common farmer, yet that still defends the interests of the wealthy slave-owners. “Van Buren’s and the Democrats’ political difficulties exposed, once again, the deepening contradictions and dilemmas of Jacksonian egalitarianism” (252). This brings us back to the political debate over not only racial divisions, but also over socioeconomic divisions fueling the abolitionist movement.

October 30, 2013

Bringing Slavery to Light

Wilentz portrays President John Quincy Adams as weak-willed and lacking a certain charisma that defined most presidents at the time. There is a definite truth to Robbie’s assertion that, “The 1824 election, won by John Quincy Adams, resulted in an almost stagnant presidency, an exception for the time period.” However, I wouldn’t quite say it was a “stagnant” presidency, as this new Era of Bad Feelings was also filled with much political turmoil and shifting powers in American government. One of the most evident examples of Adams’ ineffective presidency was his failure to stand up to Governor Troup and the Georgia legislature. He simply submitted to the Georgians as they forced the Creeks and Cherokees off their legally occupied land. Not only did this conflict make Adams seem weak, it also made the federal government appear powerless, something the South used to their advantage when advocating stronger state governments. “In the first menacing assertion of what came to be known as southern state-rights sectionalism, Adams permitted the nation to surrender to state” (Wilentz, p. 139). John Quincy Adam’s presidency was not stagnant during this time, for there was a greater development of southern sectionalism and much more tension between federal government and country democratic movements.
As Andrew Jackson assumed presidency, another issue emerged alongside state-rights and would become the main catalyst in the split between North and South. Beginning with the Missouri Compromise, the question over slavery’s constitutionality in America was more apparent in national affairs than ever before. “The nub of the matter was, as ever, political: either American democracy could tolerate slavery or it could not” (Wilentz, p. 165). By removing the Cherokee Indians from their land, Andrew Jackson inadvertently reinforced the notion that whites were superior to nonwhites, which included blacks as well. This was also demonstrated by the fact that he owned slaves himself. The issue of slavery in national affairs gave rise to an abolitionist movement led by free blacks in the North. However, as the abolitionist movement grew, it only further threatened the national unity of the country. “The rise of the abolitionist radicals aggravated divisions within the North and the South as well as between them” (Wilentz, p.179).

October 23, 2013

A Split Between Parties

In his most recent post, Robbie states how the election of 1800 was a turning point in American politics because “It showed that the Republican model of government could function in America.” I agree with Robbie, but I also consider the election of 1796 to be a major turning point as well; it marked the first time a two party system existed in early American government. Throughout the early chapters of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz describes a constant struggle between Federalists and Republicans, the result of greater suffrage and contrasting views among the American people. A major question that emerges is whether elections for either Republican and Federalist parties were shaped more by split views between the elite and the common people, or by the conventional differences between North and South. Many government officials in both Republican and Federalist parties believed that only the wealthy and educated deserved to hold office.

Wilentz does not appear very favorable towards the Federalists; he portrays them as hypocritical and especially troublesome during the Republican presidency. For example, Federalists in New England and throughout the North were ironically the ones to propose the idea of seceding from the Union. Usually when we think about secession in America, we just assume Southerners were the ones who wanted to secede from the Union. Under John Adams, the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to prevent Republicans from criticizing the government. However, during the War of 1812 “paradoxically, the most inflammatory criticisms of the government came from conservative New England Federalists—with no Sedition Law raining down on their heads” (Wilentz, p. 89). I felt almost as though the Federalists were against Americans forming their own identity, as they intensely opposed nationalism and the war against Great Britain.

Wilentz focuses heavily on Jefferson’s actions and character as vice president and eventually president. Already faced with the debts and taxes from Federalist enactment, Jefferson favored a more passive form of treaty involving money instead of engaging in wars that would only lead to more debt. This approach was demonstrated by his purchase of the Louisiana territory to end French threat in North America, as well as his proposition of an embargo of British and French goods in order to avoid war. Although many argue that Jefferson was extremely hypocritical, he was still able to help fuel the American economy and keep the United States out of war. “After 1801, the federal government ran a deficit in only one year before 1809 and accumulated a net surplus of more than twenty million dollars” (Wilentz, p. 65).

October 1, 2013

North America’s Final Frontier

The final chapter of Taylor’s American Colonies coincides with the colonization of America’s final frontier, the western seaboard and Alaska. It is also the first time Taylor mentions anything about Russian colonization in North America. “By joining the competition for knowledge and commerce in North America, the Russians hoped to prove that they belonged, culturally and politically, to Europe” (Taylor, p. 447). In my opinion, the Russians always seemed like the odd ones out when it came to European colonial power; this definitely reminded me of all the “Mean Girls” references we made in class. Russia tried extremely hard to fit in with Europe, but prominent countries such as, England, France, and even the Netherlands never viewed Russia as either a formidable competitor, or a civilized European nation.

The promyshlenniki were Russian fur traders who spread into the Aleutian islands of Alaska looking for new trade routes and fur markets. I agree with @JELAWS’ comparison of Russian economic goals to those of the French, while the manner in which Russians treated natives more resembled that of the Spanish “Black Legend” in other parts of America. However, I do believe the promyshlenniki’s cruel treatment of natives in Siberia and Alaska also paralleled the way English settlers treated Native Americans along the eastern seaboard. Excessive hunting of local animals, brutal oppression of their people, and exposure to deadly diseases were all misfortunes natives dealt with in the face of European colonization on both the east and west coast.

In the much earlier chapters of American Colonies, Taylor paints this picture of a menacing Spanish empire known as the “Black Legend.” At the end of American Colonies, Taylor emphasizes the excessive paranoia and fear expressed by the Spanish in response to only minor Russian advancement into Alaska and the Pacific. This gives reason to believe Spain was no longer the colonial power it used to be; Spanish control in North America had been diminished greatly by this point. The thinly spread Spanish population in California relied heavily on the constant import of supplies from Spain. Needing more colonists to support these colonies in California, the Spanish tried establishing missions to convert the natives and force them to adopt the colonists’ agricultural lifestyle. Taylor explains in great detail the environmental consequences of extensive livestock grazing that the Spanish had introduced to California. Because their food source declined rapidly as a result, the natives had no choice but to rely on the missions for survival.

September 25, 2013

An American Identity Rooted in Religious Revival

To explain the difficulty colonies had finding official ministers, Chris stated in his most recent post, “Costly and time-consuming, I assume that many priests either lacked the funding or didn’t want to risk the long journey.” I definitely agree with Chris and would like to add that the colonists did not really try to train new ministers in America either. Geography also contributed to the decline in full church membership, since churches were often long distances away from southern communities separated by miles and miles of farmland. Although full church membership decreased, church attendance still increased, demonstrating how religion still played a large role in the colonists’ lives.
The dwindling church membership cultivated a split between evangelicals and rationalists, between the old and the new. The evangelicals aimed to convert as many people as they possibly could, as well as revive religious fervor among the colonists in what was known as the Great Awakening. “To stimulate revivals, energetic ministers preached “soul-searching” sermons meant to shock their listeners into recognizing their impending and eternal sentence in hell” (Taylor, p. 345). Taylor emphasizes how evangelicals used fear and despair in their revivals, which were often dangerous and caused harm to the weak-hearted. It was shocking to discover some people actually resorted to suicide to escape the anguish they experienced after an evangelical revival. The fear of not attaining salvation that evangelical ministers employed in their revivals could have its origins in the witchcraft trials, which took place a few decades earlier. The New England colonists believed witches were connected to the devil, fostering this fear of hell in place of salvation.
Perhaps the greatest outcome of the Great Awakening was the large-scale dissent from traditional English Anglicanism. Some looked at America as a religious mess with all the different churches that split into different religions. Conversely, America was finally able to distinguish itself from England as a land that fostered many religions and backgrounds; I believe this religious pluralism was the beginning of a common American identity among the colonies. In the end, the Great Awakening had succeeded in reviving faith and religion in America, while fueling a revolutionary break from England that would occur a few decades later.

September 11, 2013

Inhuman Bondage, Chapter 4 Reading

Throughout Chapter 4 of Inhumane Bondage, David Brion Davis outlines the origins of slave trade and its spread across the Atlantic into the New World. He maintains that slavery played an integral part in the foundation of America itself. It is a moral dilemma we must all face and accept, as the institution of slavery goes against every principle this country was founded upon; freedom, liberty, and equality.
I found that Davis uses a lot of religious ideologies when describing the precedents to slavery in the New World. For example, he explains how racist European interpretations of the biblical “Curse of Ham” translated into the belief that African slaves and their black skin color resembled the devil. Many Europeans also believed white Christians could not be enslaved because they shared the same freedoms as other Europeans. These religious and physical differences acted as justifications for Europeans to turn towards enslaving Africans, whom they viewed as culturally inferior. A very interesting comparison Davis makes is how the New World “…came to resemble the Death Furnace of the ancient god Moloch—consuming African slaves so increasing numbers of Europeans could consume sugar, coffee, rice, and tobacco” (Davis, p. 99).
In a way, I feel that Davis tries to defend, or at least help us understand, where European slave traders were coming from in respect to the world they lived in at the time. Thomas Hobbes and Davis both describe life in 16th century Europe as poor, brutal, nasty, and short. Violence and death were a part of everyday life, so it is no wonder why many Europeans were indifferent to the cruel enslavement of Africans. “Until the late 18th century, the Europeans public was not only insensitive, but rushed to witness the most terrible spectacles of torture, dismemberment, and death” (Davis, p. 96).
Were Africans that much different from Europeans in the way they turned slaves into commodities? Basing their wealth on the large number of slaves they owned, the African elites sought to sell their slaves to Europeans. This led to sustained slave trade and further decimation of African populations. The high prices Europeans offered for slaves encouraged violence and betrayal, as African traders turned against their own people to make money. Both the African and European traders changed the African market with their demand for slaves, although the slave trade only benefitted a small handful of high-ranking officials and not the overall African economy itself. Even the African King of Kongo, Alfonso I, actively engaged in slave trade. “It was as if each [such African] person walked around with a price on his or her head” (Robert Harms, p.100).

September 4, 2013

American Colonies, Chapters 3 & 5

Throughout Chapter 3, Taylor highlights the increasingly powerful, as well as brutal Spanish presence in the New World. We see that Spain’s expansion through the Americas was largely due to an intense demand in slave labor. I was definitely taken aback by how ruthless the Spaniards acted towards the natives they had conquered. I found the requerimiento to be completely ridiculous, as if reading a decree that justifies death and punishment to Native Americans in an alien language makes any sense at all. I do believe Spain lives up to its reputation as the “Black Legend,” because the way in which it claimed New World territory was just crueler than that of other European powers at the time. As @JANEWTON explained in his post, the English were not angels either, but at least they drew a line as to how the Indians should be dealt with.
Taylor really puts into perspective the sheer size and complexity that some societies had already achieved in the New World, especially with the Aztecs and their kingdom of Tenochtitlan. “The population of about 200,000 dwarfed the largest city in Spain, Seville, which had only 70,000 inhabitants” (Taylor, p.53). Through the eyes of some Spaniards in Central America, they did not show contempt, but instead marveled at the complexity and magnificence of these native civilizations. Both Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés and soldier Bernal Diaz del Castillo appeared genuinely in awe when introduced to the kingdom of Tenochtitlan. Unfortunately, it was clear that greed, rather than admiration, had won the conquistadors over, as they plundered and burned the beautiful city down to the ground.
I found a major theme in chapters 3 and 5 to be the continuous growth and decay of powerful nations. Throughout the 1500s, Spain had created the largest empire of its time, conquering vast territories throughout the Americas and Caribbean. Yet, the immense amount of gold and silver Spain had garnered from its lands in the New World were the very things that led to their downfall. “The infusion expanded the money supply faster than the growth of goods and services, contributing to a dramatic inflation of prices that spilled over into the rest of Europe” (Taylor, p. 63). By uniting together, the Five Nations Iroquois became the most formidable Native American nation at the time. However, their constant feuds with rival native peoples, coupled with disease from Europeans, led to a dramatic decrease in their populations. To cope with this decrease, the Five Nations needed more captives than ever before to repopulate, which only led to more wars and bloodshed. “The internal violence threatened to destroy the Five Nations” (Taylor, p. 103).