nipappayliou – U.S. to 1877

December 4, 2013

Lincoln’s Luck and Southern Denial

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

The last chapter of Inhuman Bondage focused on the sequence of events during the Civil War, the build up to the Emancipation Proclamation, the immediate aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation, and the state of the country after the war.
A major theme of this week’s reading that grabbed my attention was the state of denial that the South entered following their defeat to the North. Davis describes how the Southern people entered into a “dreamland of denial” where they held onto their “wartime triumphs and heroism” and claimed that the Union’s victory was not because of its military strength but because of a larger army and greater pool of resources (303). Davis also compares the post-Civil War South to the state of France in 1870 and Germany in 1918 because the South clung to the belief that their borders and territories would remain intact. More importantly, the war-ravaged South assumed that it would recover from the destruction it had experienced and “resume their former place in the Union as equal partners (with the North)” (303). Overall, Davis does an exceptional job illustrating the angst and frustration that plagued the South but he takes it one step further when he says that those hard feelings motivated the South to establish a land of white supremacy in the future.
An additional aspect of the reading that I found particularly interesting was how Davis shared his final thoughts on the emancipation of the slaves and Lincoln’s reelection. Davis said that “In retrospect…Lincoln and his commitment to slave emancipation were saved by a stunning military victory and a massive soldier vote for the Republicans” (321). To me, Davis essentially said that Lincoln was indeed very committed to a Union victory, an emancipation of the slaves, and continuing to be the President. However, I also interpret Davis’s comments to mean that Lincoln was only able to accomplish such feats with the help of Ulysses S. Grant, the tremendous support of the Union army, and some flat out luck. To an extent, I agree with Davis’s comments. President Lincoln and the Union army were quite close to losing the war, the election, and the country but were ultimately able to win thanks to some good fortune.
Lastly, I would like to address the actions of the North following their victory in the Civil War. As EVFARESE said, the North did show significant mercy on the South by allowing them to recover from the damage that they endured from the war. The Union could have easily decided to deliver a knock-out blow to the South and completely destroy the possibility of another threat. However, the North enabled the South to recuperate from the conflict and begin the lengthy process of reconstruction.

December 2, 2013

The Election of 1860 and a Nation in Disarray

In this section of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz discusses the events leading up to the election of 1860, the election itself, and the consequences of the crucial election.
One theme of this week’s readings that interested me was the South or Slaveholder’s increased confidence in secession or the threat of secession as the solution to nearly all political problems. For example, a movement in the late 1850s to reopen the slave trade attracted support from many prominent southern politicians. The politicians claimed that such an action would make slavery a much more efficient and profitable industry. However, Northern politicians and abolitionists rejected the idea of reopening the slave trade in America or satisfying the demand for a “federal slave code” in the United States. Unhappy Southern leaders like Barnwell Rhett and William Yancey began to declare that the South would secede from the Union if their desired legislation failed to be approved. In addition to issues like slave trade or the federal slave code, Southern politicians like Stephen A. Douglas were able to spread the belief that the South would secede if Abraham Lincoln won the Presidential election of 1860. Although the South did not end up leaving the Union until Lincoln was elected, the constant threat of dissolving the nation posed by the South struck fear and uneasiness in Northern politicians and citizens for years.
Another aspect of the reading that grabbed my attention was the way Wilentz portrays Lincoln’s rise to political prominence and the events of the election of 1860. At first, Wilentz depicts Lincoln as a name merely thrown into the conversation for the Republican nomination in order to defeat the “tainted” Seward and his “loyal wire-puller” Weed (Wilentz, 431). However, he builds up Lincoln’s political savvy and ability as a public speaker and ultimately portrays him as a pristine presidential candidate. Wilentz also illustrated how Lincoln’s “brilliant” political strategy to win the Republican nomination had worked almost flawlessly. Also, Wilentz introduced Lincoln to the audience as a talented underdog with an outside shot of winning the nomination, but as the election heats up Wilentz frames Lincoln into an unstoppable political force destined for the White House.
Lastly, I would like to comment on the debate of whether or not the election of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th President of the United States directly contributed to the immediate succession of the South. Although my classmate WIROBERTSON would disagree, I believe that the actions of Southern politicians (like Stephen A. Douglas) spread the fear of a Lincoln dominated White House among pro-slavery Americans and was a main cause of Southern secession. Once it became inevitable to slaveholders that Lincoln would become president, Lincoln’s political opponents worked to foster a “plot to stage a coup d’etat in November or December”, which eventually resulted in the secession of South Carolina in 1860 (Wilentz, 433).

November 20, 2013

The Troublesome British and Not so Honest Abe

In Chapter 14 of Inhuman Bondage, Davis discusses American foreign policy, the Missouri Crisis, the impact of Britain’s emancipation in the Caribbean on the United States, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the late 1850s. A major theme of the chapter that stood out to me was Davis’s description of Britain’s emancipation and its impact on the South. As the abolitionist movement in Britain gained momentum emancipation seemed evident, Southerns became paranoid that the British emancipation in the Caribbean could spread to parts of North America (Davis, 269). In fact, many Southerns believed that Britain was attempting to spread their abolitionist ideas throughout the world as a new form of imperialism. The newfound American animosity toward Britain at this time is demonstrated best by people who unintentionally supported political movements that were deemed to be in the best interest of Britain being condemned for preventing the “westward expansion of the United States” (Davis, 271). Although it is possible for certain political movements to spread across national borders, it was highly unlikely for British lawmaking to have a significant impact on a country that very invested in a slave society as well as country where slavery was deeply engrained in its culture. Despite this, Southerns were almost certain that the “monumental emancipation bill” would foster a swift and severe revolution by the blacks (Davis, 283). Of course, no such revolution came but Southerns began blaming the British emancipation for the slaves’ refusal to work plantations and the negative impact it had on the cotton and sugar production in the South. Even after the pro-slavery Southerners’ greatest fear was eliminated, they irrationally explained their additional problems on those awful British.
Although I usually find most of Davis’s writing to be dense, I consider Davis’s discussion of the British emancipation of slavery in the Caribbean to be interesting and insightful. He provides numerous details to enhance his argument through the use of direct quotes and the citation of a primary source. Moreover, Davis is able to convey to the reader that the South was in no position to accept abolition in their own country or in neighboring territories and that they would go to war to prevent such a thing from happening. Overall, I would say that Davis’s argument of Southern paranoia of and opposition to abolition at all costs is a reasonable one and is quite effective.
Another aspect from Davis’s writing that I found interesting was his section on Abraham Lincoln. As my classmate MASPEED said, Lincoln is remembered as a man who believed in the equality of all men and the destruction of slavery. However, Davis is able to demonstrate how Lincoln’s words and tone were changed when he found himself running for political office. Rather than haphazardly speaking of a nation where blacks and whites are politically equal, he diluted his message to one of blacks and whites deserving the natural rights guaranteed by the declaration of independence. Davis is able to show Lincoln’s skill as politician as well as his awareness that some of his inner convictions could cause him lose him an election.

October 23, 2013

The Rise and Fall of Federalism, America’s first Crucial Election, and the War of 1812

A major theme of this week’s reading is the examination of American government structure immediately following the Revolutionary War. After gaining independence, the founding fathers aimed to control individual states, prevent division among states, and manage unorganized territories in the west. As the first official president of the United States, George Washington led the young nation as the symbol of the Federalist Party. The two major political parties during the time period were drastically different; the Federalists supported a strong and centralized federal government while the Anti- Federalists favored a decentralized federal government that gave most of its power to the states. Moreover, Federalists believed that an overly-liberal democracy would breed disorder and possibly revolution. In contrast, the Anti-Federalists believed that an overly powerful central government would develop into an oppressive monarchy much like the one in England. Despite holding an early advantage over the Anti-Federalists with the presidencies of Washington and Adams, the Federalist Party began to lose support as America entered the 19th century.
The presidential election of 1800 marked a significant turning point in early American history because the balance of power among the two major political parties shifted for the first time. Disputes between John Adams and Alexander Hamilton (two of the remaining leaders of the Federalist Party due to the death of George Washington) exemplified that “Federalist solidarity had collapsed” (Wilentz, 39). In contrast, Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson emerged as a political force for the Democratic- Republicans by attracting support in both the North and South and then soundly defeating the Federalist incumbent John Adams to take control of the White House. As my classmate ROMANGONE pointed out, the American people became detracted from the Federalist Party as well as the idea of Federalism following the election of 1800. Also, Americans began to favor Thomas Jefferson’s republican form of government. The ramifications of the election of 1800 were far-reaching not only because it was the first shift in power between parties but because it represented a shift in the political ideals of Americans.
In Chapter 5, Wilentz discusses the consequences of the War of 1812 for politics in the United States. At first, the war appeared to be a meaningless yet costly use of American resources, however, the war ended up providing James Madison with a ton of political momentum and producing future political mavericks like Andrew Jackson. In addition, the war sparked the support of the Republican Party and essentially buried the Federalists. Wilentz emphasized that the United States did not gain copious amounts of land through the war but acquired respect from nations around the world as well as the confidence that they could operate independently. I know that some of my classmates have argued over when exactly the Federalist Party should be pronounced dead, some have said after the crucial election of 1800 and some have said during eruption of Republican support that followed the War of 1812. I believe that the Federalist Party began its steady decline after losing the White House in 1800 but did not completely implode until America was in strong support of Jefferson ideals and Republican government after their victory over Britain.

October 2, 2013

The Island of California, Spanish hysteria, and Russian Oppression

A major theme in this week’s reading is the presence of paranoia among the Spanish and their uneasy feelings toward British (Hudson Bay Company) as well as the Russians. By the early 1600s, the Spanish had built a true empire in North America with its core centered in Mexico. With such a large empire and vast amount of territory, the Spanish had been stretched relatively thin and decided not solidify their presence in California despite multiple explorations in the 1540s. They did, however, create New Spain as a buffer zone between their crown jewel of Mexico and other foreign nation establishments. Contrary to Spanish beliefs, the British and Russians were much further away from Spanish settlements and did not seek to significantly expand their western territories. In fact, the Russian settlements were confined to a small portion of Alaska and the British owned Hudson Bay Company had not surpassed the Rocky Mountain area. In response to this invented pressure, the Spanish established permanent settlements in California in order to solidify power via religious missions with the first one being constructed in 1697. Also, Taylor points out that during the 18th century Enlightenment, the Spanish were even skeptical of the efforts made by European nations to explore western territories to create maps and discover new wildlife. I find the sense of suspicion that swept through the Spanish Empire in North America unwarranted and entertaining in a way.
The most interesting aspect of the reading to me was the way Taylor includes information of Russians persecuting Siberians as well as other foreign groups throughout their conquest of eastern Asia and settlement of Alaska. Over the course of the semester, we have read and discussed numerous accounts of Spanish and English persecution of native peoples (such as the Aztecs, various Native America groups, and slaves). Taylor, for once, provides information (although scant) suggesting that other power hungry groups oppressed people when possible. Although I appreciate Taylor’s decision to include Russian mistreatment of Siberians, I am disappointed that he did not elaborate on it further. Taylor has gone into great and even gruesome detail when describing the living conditions of slaves, massacring of Aztecs, or systematic persecution of the Indians by the Spanish conquistadors or English colonizers. However, Taylor fails to give the Siberians or Aleutians comparable attention in this reading.
Lastly, I would like to discuss the Spanish’s absence of knowledge of western North America and their stellar map-making in regard to California. As my classmate JaNewton pointed out, the Spanish’s true motivation for settling California was not in the name of Catholicism but in fear of Russian colonization in the Pacific Northwest. Along with labeling California as a desolate wasteland filled with wilderness, the Spanish decided to make it an island as well. The actions of the Spanish empire in western North America and especially California truly convey their paranoia and unrest during the 17th century.

September 25, 2013

Religious Passion in the North, Religious Apathy in the South, and Witchcraft

A major theme of this week’s reading is the spread of religious fervor in the New England and Mid-Atlantic areas throughout the 18th century and its impact on colonial life. Although previous religious movements had taken place all over the world, the one in the British Colonies is unique. Rather than spreading across the entire east coast, the Awakening was confined to areas where places of worship and people were closer together and overall, more likely to interact. While the Northern people were captivated by the speeches of George Whitefield and the pamphlets and papers distributed by people like Benjamin Franklin, Southern people were noticeably less moved. Communities in the South were much more spread out, which made spreading the religious movement throughout the region an extremely difficult task. This movement was also original because it involved people forming many different strands of a religious belief. Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists each separated from Protestantism yet all of them remained connected because they all had branched off of Catholicism. Rather than the groups becoming homogenized with each other they became homogenized against the British homeland, which is what makes the Great Awakening so revolutionary.
Taylor depicts the Great Awakening’s appeal to Northern people most effectively through primary sources. Benjamin Franklin’s refusal to donate money followed by his sudden willingness to empty his pockets (348) along with Nathan Cole’s recollection of a “heart wound” (349) were both extremely helpful in demonstrating the power that orators held over colonists who were both educated and uneducated. Massachusetts Reverend Peter Thacher’s account of the newfound appreciation and involvement in religion by males also strengthens Taylor’s argument of a formidable religious presence in the North and religious indifference in the South. Although succinctly, Taylor does an exceptional job explaining why speakers like Whitefield did not experience the level of success in the South as he did in the North.
In conclusion, I would like to comment on the ongoing debate over whether or not the Great Awakening in colonial New England and the witch hunts of the late 17th century have a cause-and-effect relationship. As my classmate Amgaither pointed out, the New England area was composed of more educated, community oriented, and religiously active people. These factors primed the area for such momentous religious occurrences in both cases but one did not cause the other.

September 17, 2013

Discussing British Aggression and the Overlooking of Georgia

A major theme in American Colonies in this week’s reading is England’s emergence as a major imperial power in the mid-17th century. Two of England’s earliest attempts at colonizing the “New World”, Jamestown and Roanoke, were relatively low risk endeavors and went widely unnoticed by the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch. Although Roanoke failed miserably, Jamestown’s survival followed by moderate success and establishment of additional settlements in Virginia officially marked England’s entrance into the “New World”. When compared to the empire the Spanish had forged in present day Mexico and Florida, England’s territory in Virginia and Massachusetts was diminutive. However, England’s confidence grew significantly as the 17th century drew onward and in 1670 they founded Charles Town on the mouth of the Ashley River in present day South Carolina. This was a bold statement by the English because it defied Spanish claims to the coast and was much closer to the major Spanish city of San Agustin than the English settlement of Jamestown.
As Taylor describes the Lords Proprietor that controlled the Carolina territory and their methods of attracting settlers and actually settling the massive amount of land they impulsively “claimed”, he portrays the English as these daring up-starts who are directly challenging the Spanish for superiority in the Americas. Taylor also depicts the English as a country determined to thrive in the Americas and through their relentless recruitment of Englishmen to the Carolina territory, they were able to construct a colony formidable enough to prevent the Spanish from continuing their attacks. I consider Taylor’s representation of the English’s sharp rise in aggressiveness toward claiming and settling land in the Americas relatively easy to comprehend and overall quite effective. However, I found Taylor’s section regarding the establishment of Georgia less than adequate.
I understand there is tremendous skill required to write concisely but I found Taylor’s section on the colony of Georgia to be lacking significant depth. Despite providing a history (even a brief one) of Native people and their experiences prior to European arrival in previous areas of focus, Taylor offered no information about Native people and their existence in Georgia before it became a British colony. Despite Taylor’s decision to leave Natives out, I did not find his section on Georgia completely distasteful. I appreciate the distinctions he made between Georgia and the rest of the British colonies. For example, he discussed the trustees’ decision to forbid the importation or possession of slaves until 1751. He also described the difference in crop cultivation, most colonies grew tobacco, indigo, or rice but Georgia produced hemp, flax, mulberry, and grapes during the early years of the colony. Perhaps the most noticeable difference he described was the colony of Georgia’s attempt to prohibit rum consumption on the grounds that it “deterred hard work and moral uplift”.
Lastly, I would like to comment on a Georgia’s role as a British colony in the 17th century. As my classmate Evan Farese mentioned, Carolina was initially intended as a buffer zone between Virginia and Florida. Following the economic success in the Carolinas, the crowned deemed it necessary to create Georgia as a buffer zone between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida. Although it was not a glamorous one at the start, Georgia did play a very important role in the English expansion in the Americas.

September 10, 2013

Inhuman Bondage, Chapters 4 and 5:

While reading chapters 4 and 5 of David Brion Davis’s Inhuman Bondage, I found that I was able to appreciate Davis’s style and delivery of information more than the passages from Alan Taylor’s American Colonies. Although several of my classmates may disagree, I believe that Davis’s writing is easier to read and absorb than Taylor’s.

One of the topics included in the reading that stood out to me was that not all forms of slavery were equal. While learning about the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery in the “new world” in high school, there was little emphasis placed on the sharp differences between picking cotton, making sugar, or growing tobacco. Through this generalization of labor, it was difficult to understand which tasks were particularly arduous. In chapter 5, however, Taylor depicts the painstaking process of sugar cultivation in vivid detail. Taylor describes sugar production as having “far exceeded anything slaves encountered when cultivating tobacco, cotton, rice, or indigo” (108-109). Taylor essentially said that if slaves could pick their job, working in the sugar industry would be their last choice.

Another portion of the reading that stood out to me was how the Europeans justified the enslavement of other people. One particular way is the fact that Africans did not practice traditional European religions led Europeans to view them as inferior and worthy of being enslaved. Some people believed that by enslaving Africans and converting them to Christianity, the African people became civilized. Perhaps the most obvious difference between Africans and Europeans was race. Africans dark complexion was seen negatively in the eyes of Europeans, who associated black with “demons, devils, and tortures.” This simple but blatant difference enabled Europeans to frame Africans as the “ultimate outsiders” (79). Perceptions of Africans as inferior and foreign led to the acceptance of their roles as slaves by Europeans and resulted in African slaves becoming a social normality.