safunderburg – U.S. to 1877

December 4, 2013

The “Apocalyptic Success” of the Civil War

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

I found the most compelling aspect of the final chapter of “Inhuman Bondage” to be the vocabulary Davis used to describe the rationale behind both the Union’s and the Confederate’s wartime decisions. Davis successfully indicated the dangerous rhetoric used during the Civil War while simultaneously eliciting modern comparisons. For example, on page 302 Davis states, “Northerners repeatedly heard the argument that the war offered a transcendent opportunity for purification…” Furthermore, he quotes a Northerner named Josephine Shaw Lowell saying that “this war will purify the country” (302). Although we as readers can be confident that Davis is obviously not a proponent of slavery, this highlighting of dangerous, somewhat propaganda-reminiscent vocabulary used especially by the North may suggest that Davis is attempting to give a fuller picture of the logic of the Civil War rather than just political differences or pro-slavery versus anti-slavery. Davis clearly prefers to view the Civil War from an international perspective (perhaps to be less biased). As Matt said in his post, “the issue of “who” initiated conflict is also of some concern”–this preference is evidenced in that Davis questions all involved in the war, from Lincoln to confederate soldiers. He asks, “Why was it that a democratic nation that prided itself on rational moderation, peace, common sense, expediency, and compromise became the scene of the world’s first “modern” war, pursued by the North until its armies achieved unconditional victory, totally crushing the South?” (300). Again, we as readers have no reason to question that Davis didn’t support abolition, but it is clear that he is only sympathetic to the logical decision, and not the unnecessary psychological and physical destruction that occurred–no matter which side initiated it.

December 2, 2013

The divorce of North and South

In chapter 24, Wilentz successfully distills the complex political atmosphere of America at the dawn of the civil war by succinctly describing the Harpers Ferry affair and its political ramifications. Wilentz does not oversimplify the matter or simply make Brown a one-dimensional figure. For example, on page 425, Wilentz explains the following: “To allay fears that Brown’s sympathizer’s came even close to a northern majority, northern conservatives and businessmen sponsored their own public meetings condemning Brown and any who would trample the Constitution. Democrats, North and South, tried to tie Brown around the neck of the Republican party. Alarmed Republicans hastily distanced themselves from Brown.” Here, Wilentz aptly characterizes the complicated nature of Brown as a national figure while simultaneously illustrating the tangled relations that both Democrats and Republicans shared across regional lines.

In many ways, Brown could be read as the catalyst that split the North and South, but Wiletnz seems to avoid that interpretation by giving the reader more to think about; both in terms of North vs. South and the bipartisan relationship between the Republicans and Democrats of the era. As @romangone states in their post, the South saw Lincoln’s election as “the North’s embrace of John Brown,” further separating the two regions in what would eventually lead to the realization of irreconcilable differences.

November 13, 2013

The Modern Whigs: Destined for a comeback?

On November 5, a registered member of the Modern Whig party was elected to a relatively unimportant, albeit official and public office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Sources say that this is the first Whig to be elected to office in 160 to 150 years. When asked “Why the Whigs?” the electee, Robert “Heshy” Bucholz, responded that he found the party to be a sensible middle ground given America’s current bipartisan atmosphere. The party was founded, or re-founded, in 2007 and now has upwards of 30,000 members. Though it is interesting to consider that such an obscure party has secured public office, it is most likely just an unusual fluke in local politics and not at all indicative of a major change in thought. It seems far more likely that a more established socially liberal, financial conservative third-party political organization (ex: libertarians) will be the party to absorb potential voters for Modern Whigs and become successful on the national level.

Sources:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/philadelphia-voters-elect-whig-public-office
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/07/whigs-win-for-first-time-in-150-years.html

November 13, 2013

Wilentz’s treatment of Calhoun

The issue of Wilentz’s treatment of his historical “characters” rises once again in chapters 17-2o in The Rise of American Democracy. I think it is interesting to note the way in which Wilentz treats the “characters” in his book, specifically his vilification of John C. Calhoun. In many ways the archetypical Southern Democrat, it is clear that Calhoun was not Wilentz’s ideal political representative. However, Wilentz could do much more to disguise his bias for the purpose of creating an accurate and trustworthy historical narrative. The language with which Wilentz describes Calhoun’s actions is much more negatively connotated than the language he uses for Jackson, or virtually any other politician. For example, where other politicians “take action” or “attempt” to do something, Calhoun does much more negative things–for example, on page 241, Wilentz describes Calhoun’s actions in the following manner: “John C. Calhoun hatched a scheme that would again put him in contention for the presidency. He would not join the Whigs but instead find ways to manipulate the Democrats. His plan: ally with northern Democrats, beat down the Yankee financiers and manufacturers, and then capture the Democracy–and the national government–for the south” (emphasis mine). Here, Calhoun is portrayed as ill-willing, scheming, and untrustworthy. In Chris’s post, he manages to describe Calhoun and his allies fairly, avoiding the bias that Wilentz inserts into his writing. No other political figure is characterized as negatively as Calhoun in Wilentz’s work. Perhaps Calhoun deserves this treatment, but I would assert that these extreme descriptions do not have a place in academic writing intended to give a well-rounded view of the democracy and its rise in America.

October 1, 2013

The West and Unrest

In a post from September 30, @JELAWS says, “False rumors of the rate of Russian and British colonization caused the Spanish to panic and colonize California.” This is interesting because false rumors are a very critical part to both of the readings for this week. In the Taylor reading, the rumors spread between Russia and Spain are discussed at length. Obviously, neither were as close to each other as the news spreading would indicate. Spain was especially paranoid and exceptionally proactive in making sure to expand as much as possible lest Russia catch up to them. Russia, of course, as Taylor said, never had more than a few hundred settlers living in their barren, isolated colony (452). However, the rumor that the Russians were rapidly expanding their land-holdings (or establishing them at all) motivated the Spanish to increase their aggressive expansion. Additionally, though somewhat of a more minor detail, the long-lasting rumor of the “black legend” motivated the Russian promyshlenniki to treat the natives with special cruelty (Taylor 447).

False rumors similarly impacted the British treatment of colonial Americans following the Seven Years War. Upon returning to Britain, the soldiers who fought in American spread the word that colonial Americans were living a disproportionately luxurious lifestyle when compared to their European peers. These rumors may have had an impact on Parliament’s decision to pass increased taxes–they believed that this was a fair measure given that the colonists were doing so well. This taxation was not solely because of the rumors of success, but also in conjunction with the fact that the colonists had not been paying taxes for many years now. I find it interesting that in an era where communication was so slow and difficult, especially when across such large land masses, rumors had an impact on legislature and colonization practices. It does beg the question of how colonization would go today, in our era of instant communication.

September 25, 2013

Death and Divides: From Religion to War

I think that an interesting connection can be made between the Great Awakening and the content of the second reading (American Colonies, ch 18). AJ said in his post, ” it was becoming clear that the British would dominate the majority of the North America region of the New World,” referring to the British victory over the French and Indians. I find this ironic, because as we know, the end of the Seven Years War is often seen as the beginning of the revolution. The war actually renewed long-waning British involvement in the colonies, and the tightening hold of the British government post-war made colonists realize that they had become their own entity, separate from British rule. This concept, which Taylor invokes in his introduction to the chapter, referencing “shift in imperial policy” as “shocking” to the colonists (421), can be linked back to Chapter 15 in Taylor, in which he discusses the Great Awakening.

The Great Awakening was very complex, and as we discussed in class, there are many different derivations of Protestants beyond that, Evangelists. We could go into even more detail and discuss the differences between Old Light and New Light Evangelists, but my point is this: they’re all the same to the British government–not Anglican. Taylor discusses the misreading of American history as a quest for religious freedom (339), but it is important to note that these separate religious institutions represent a more fundamental split from the British government than the original Protestant/Puritan one. The extent of the multifaceted religious life in colonial America serves to indicate that ties and times were changing long before 1776.

September 16, 2013

Inhuman Bondage (ch 6)

In this chapter of Inhuman Bondage, Davis is sure to emphasize the complexity of the institution of colonial slavery. Davis is always careful of traditional boundaries and conceptions, and nothing changes in his conception of the colonist’s treatment of enslaved peoples. One of Davis’s more interesting points was that “the lives of white workers who did emigrate, and who were typically bound to work for a master for seven years, were not significantly different from the lives of most slaves.” (127). Additionally, Davis makes sure to point out the discrepancies between slavery in the different regions while also maintaining that it is inaccurate to think of slavery not existing in the north—for example, “black slaves performed one-third of all physical labor in New York city.”

Another interesting argument Davis makes in this chapter is that the origins of racism happened when slavery become more exclusively black. This, when combined with “white workers increasingly [resenting] the competition from slave workers” (131) made for a dangerous mentality. Later on, racial solidarity would allow for racism against black people in full force, despite the somewhat more tolerant treatment slaves had experienced at the outset of their use in American colonies.

Sperry wrote a blog post that talked about our first reading in Inhuman Bondage and the cruel treatment that slaves faced when being brought the North America. I find it very interesting that the same enslaved people that faced such bad treatment on the way over may have found better treatment in their new “master’s” home depending on where they ended up. I had never considered the regional differences in slave treatment prior to this reading. Davis is similar to Taylor in that he does not use very many long quotes from primary sources, but rather shorter examples in the form of quotes.

September 16, 2013

American Colonies (ch 7 & 11)

In this reading, Taylor emphasizes the increased politicization of the colonies and the ironic social mobility that planters experienced in Virginia at the expense of increasing popularity of using African slaves. Racial solidarity was the common theme throughout both chapters. In Virginia, the Common Planters and Great Planters forgot their differences as Great Planters adopted the customs of “condescension” in order to secure political office. In addition, after Bacon’s rebellion, white immigrants became less common in the Chesapeake, meaning that African Slaves were more utilized. Racial solidarity occurred between the Great Planters and Common Planters in order to attempt to quell a potential rebellion from the African Slaves. Taylor described the Chesapeake whites as “newly obsessed with racial difference.”

Meanwhile, in the Carolinas, something similar was happening on a racial level. The white planters attempted to pit the Indians and the African Slaves against one another; Indians were often paid to bounty hunt escaped slaves, and according to Taylor, “Ultimately, the colonists hoped to pit the Africans against the Indians.” The concept of white solidarity is important in realizing the increased exclusive “Africanization” of slavery as Indian slaves become much used.

This Taylor reading also struck me as focused on the politicization of the colonies. Although Taylor does not have too many primary-source quotes to support it, it appears as though Taylor thinks it important to note that the colonies are no longer merely religious or even religiously focused. For example, the Lords Proprietor in Carolina “assured religious tolerance” in order to attract people. This means that colonies have become more businesses than anything else. Even Georgia, which started out as an idealistic, planned colony, eventually succumbed to the economic pressure to use slavery. Taylor Simmon’s post on 9/11 about the week three readings referenced the two main focuses of chapters 7 and 11. Taylor mentions the “city on a hill” the Puritans attempted to create with their colony. This clear, religious purpose has obviously faded by the time Carolina was established. Additionally, Taylor also says that the relationship with the Indians was not a fearful one, which has also clearly changed by the contentious time period of the 1690’s.