spedwards – U.S. to 1877

December 2, 2013

A House Divided…

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 the final chapters, Wilentz describes the series of events leading to the first shots of the Civil War. One of the main political debates explained in the text is that between Lincoln and Douglas during the 1858 Senate elections in Illinois. Douglas arose victorious in the polls, but Lincoln definitely won all facets other than the election. He gained great popularity for his strong morals concerning the issue of slavery.

A main topic of blog posts in earlier weeks has been the somewhat futile effects of the many compromises made in the years leading up to the Civil War. CHMASONE’s post on November 20 explains this point by stating that political negotiations such as the Compromise of 1850 “all failed and only delayed the unavoidable conflict.” I believe this same principle was the main difference in Douglas’ and Lincoln’s platforms and ultimately, led to Douglas’ demise and Lincoln’s success in politics. Like many before him, Douglas constantly was on the fence concerning the issue of slavery. He supported popular sovereignty, which in itself can be seen as a cop-out because instead of dealing with an issue as a nation, it allowed particular sects to decide for themselves, thus widening the gap between northern and southern thought. Senator Douglas also went back and forth with his backing of the Dred Scott case, showing his lack of certainty in the area. On the other hand, Lincoln used a strong and assertive moral high ground stance throughout the debates. He condemned “the monstrous injustice of slavery itself” (414). Although he knew he would receive disapproval from southerners nationally, he stood by his morals no matter the opposition. I believe Lincoln’s directness in this situation led to heightened public interest nation-wide, and eventually led to his presidency in 1860.

As Lincoln moved on to the presidential election of 1860, he kept his beliefs of stopping the spread of slavery. Wilentz describes Lincoln as a politician during this time and how he had to express his views, but also attract votes from southern states. TASIMMONS’ blog post on December 1^st draws a parallel to this point and states that Lincoln had to “remain moderate” in order to win the presidential race. I agree with this point to an extent. Lincoln definitely had to tone down some of his views in the midst of the election, but Lincoln had always been considered a moderate republican. His views did not change from the debates in 1858 to the election of 1860. I think people often make the mistake of thinking Lincoln was quite radical with his beliefs concerning slavery but in reality, his main goal was to only stop slavery’s spread and then to eventually eradicate it. Lincoln was very against the institution of slavery based on his strong morals, but his plan to stop it was actually quite moderate all along.

November 19, 2013

Hostility Turns to Violence

In chapters 21 and 22, Wilentz outlines many controversial events leading up to the Civil War. As new states continued to be annexed into the Union, the same recurring theme of slavery followed each one. It seems as though compromise after compromise were passed and none left both the north and south satisfied. In his blog post on 11/19, MIHAN seems to agree with this thought and characterizes the strategy for settling regional differences as “avoiding the question of slavery instead of trying to solve it.” These multiple compromises on slavery only widened the divide between north and south. At this point, it seemed as though the United States was far down the “road” leading to civil war.

I found the Craft affair of 1850 to be one of the most interesting events during this hostile time. After the Compromise of 1850 strengthened slaveowners’ rights to retrieve runaway slaves, a skirmish broke out in Christiana, Pennsylvania between a slaveholder and his posse and multiple slaves. The slaveholder was killed during the fight and his son was critically injured. A Pennsylvania newspaper headlined the story as “Civil War—The First Blow Struck” (351). First, it is quite surprising that a newspaper would categorize a skirmish with only 20 or 30 participants as a “civil war.” Countless larger slave revolts had occurred in previous years and I can guarantee very few people believed a war would ensue. I believe Wilentz presents this title to the reader in order to show that tensions between northern and southern sentiment were rising. A subtitle in chapter 22 reads “on the tip-toe of revolution” (389). At this time, people all around the country knew that the United States was coming to a brink. And with each “compromise” that passed, the United States was practically tip-toeing, slowly but surely, towards a real civil war.

After the slave leaders of the skirmish had been captured, President Fillmore sent a large force of soldiers to Christiana and captured most of the assumed “black resisters” (351). Fillmore’s administration then attempted to accuse the perpetrators of treason in order to stop other black abolitionist from defying the compromise of 1850. This plan did not hold up in court and the government eventually dropped its charges. When I think of Fillmore’s actions, I can’t help but think about George Washington and his powerful actions to putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. It seems as though Fillmore had a similar plan in maintaining the new laws of the United States through the power of the United States army and judicial system. Unfortunately for Fillmore, the plan did not find the same success as Washington’s. Instead it showed the ineffectiveness of the United States Government at quelling slavery and tensions. It also failed to change the sentiment or actions of abolitionists and anti-abolitionists in the years leading up to the Civil War.

November 13, 2013

James K. Polk: Expanding Land and Sectionalism

As President, James K. Polk was a devout Jacksonian democrat with a steadfast goal to annex new land into the Union. By expanding territory, Polk believed that a nation-wide belief in manifest destiny could eradicate the sectional disagreements that had recently emerged. Unfortunately for Polk, this plan backfired. Northern abolitionists believed that an expansion in land, also meant an expansion of the “slaveholder’s democracy” (311). This dispute led to even more tension between northern and southern states concerning the debate on slavery. In these chapters, Wilentz seems to always pair expansion and slavery together. The nation had become much more political than in earlier years and many debates arose regarding the governance of new land (slavery being the most debated topic). Because the United States was a democratic society, citizens wanted the new states to have characteristics were parallel to their beliefs. Soon, the debate on slavery enveloped the nation’s goals to expand and widened the gap between north and south. It is ironic that the frontier used to be a uniting feature of the United States, giving citizens a common goal of settling the lesser-known areas of continent and an overall feeling of nationalism. Now, people were so sectionalized and stubborn that expansion only led to more debates.

Wilentz characterizes the increased hostility between north and south during this time as a “mutual misunderstanding between Polk and his critics” (311). I agree with this statement. Polk had no intention to favor a side with his expansion policies. He was just following his Jacksonian democratic ideals of expanding the nation’s territory, and by doing so, its scope. I do think Polk could have tried harder to settle political tensions instead of focusing so much on foreign policy. But at this point in American history, I believe there was too much tension built up over regional practices that a president at this time could not do anything to successfully end the sectionalism in the states. At this point, the north and south were divided and no particular plan could appease both sides.

November 4, 2013

Settler Colonialism: If Not Genocide, Then What?

The settlement of Western America was a long and harsh process in the history of the United States. During this time, settlers displaced thousands of native tribes while attempting to establish new civilizations in relatively unknown places. Although the frontiersman committed countless inhumane acts, Patrick Wolfe states in his essay that this process cannot be categorized as genocide. Instead, he makes the point that the actions performed during colonization were in fact “contests for land” and not the direct targeting for the extinction of a certain group (1).

Wolfe uses the Indian Removal Act in the early 1800s to exhibit his point. He explains that the fact that settlers first turned to removal policies shows a stress for the advancement of modernity within their nation and not a genocidal course of action. While reading this, I could not help to notice a correlation between both Wolfe’s and Willentz’s categorization of Jackson’s policies. Both sided with Jackson’s reform measures and strayed away from placing the blame of the cruel measures on the administration. Wolfe does state that the removal was “brutal” but that “it did not affect each member equally” in that many natives were able to find refuge within the United States (396). Similarly, Jacob Newton’s post on 10/30 quotes Willentz of saying Jackson was a “benevolent, if realistic paternalist” in his view of natives. Jacob goes on to refute Willentz’s description of Jackson. I agree with this claim, and in doing so, disagree with both Wolfe’s and Willentz’s account of Indian removal. Although it was probably the best option for citizens of the United States at the time as they attempted to modernize their civilization, settlers had no right to treat these people like mere objects. Although it may not be categorized as genocide in Wolfe’s dictionary, that does not take away from it as being as bad or worse than a genocidal procedure.

This essay also made me think of Jackson Turner’s Frontier Thesis (1893), which stated that the frontier was a defining feature of American democracy and identity and that American procedures would surely change with the closing of the frontier. When the frontier was still intact, settlers focused on the deportation of Indian tribes. But when the frontier was fully settled, “elimination turned inwards” (399). Cruel assimilation processes were put into place to make Indians’ lives harder until civil liberties were realized in the 1920s. But although the lack of a frontier changed the American processes like Turner predicted, both time frames still culminated an overall feeling of resentment and neglect for the Indian tribes in the United States.

October 2, 2013

Stretched Too Thin

Alan Taylor’s final chapter explains the colonization procedures performed in the West. Both Russia and Spain attempted to colonize this vast and generally unknown expanse of land during the mid to late 1700s. During this process, both nations partook in oppressive behavior towards the natives. Russians kidnapped women and children for ransoms as well as raped many of the native women during the affair. The Spanish took a different course by creating missions throughout California. In his recent blog post, Well’s describes these missions as “forced assimilation.” (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-other-cold-war-imperial-paranoia-in-pacific-north-america/) I completely agree with his terminology. Not only did Spanish make the natives adapt to most facets of their lifestyle, but they didn’t give them any choice in the matter. It didn’t make matters any better that the Spanish destroyed the native land with their farming procedures and abused many native women.

But the question that arises is why did the Spanish create these missions? The answer relates back to why the Spanish settled California in the first place. Because of substandard communication in the 18^th century, Spain believed the Russians were a danger to their small settlements on the west coast. The fear of losing settlements made Spain send more people to colonize California. The only problem was that Spain did not have many people to send. The Spanish citizens were generally happy with their lifestyles in both Spain and Mexico and did not want to travel many miles to a place they knew virtually nothing about. So, instead of forcing people to migrate, Spanish authorities did the next best thing: they converted Indians into Spanish colonists. This way the land could have Spanish support and would protect against Russian interaction.

The Spanish mass conversion was a desperate maneuver to colonize a vast land with very few colonists. This was an example of a nation wanting to expand more so than the colonists who inhabited the land. This process seems quite foolish but it was one of the reasons why the Spanish failed to successfully keep much of their land in the New World. They claimed too much land and thus, could not develop their settlements as effectively as other nations.

September 24, 2013

Religion Against Society: The Relationship Between the Witch Trials and the Great Awakening

Religion in the early colonial era took on many forms. Although different, the beliefs caused a surge of membership and support from the colonists. New institutions were built and people showed up by the thousands to be mesmerized by the speeches of various preachers. Unfortunately, only a few decades before this time, witch trials in northern communities erupted. The correlation between these two has been in debate in previous blog posts.

In Amgaither’s post, she explains that she does not believe that these two events have a cause and effect relationship. Instead, she writes that both were caused by the small town structure and powerful religious prowess in the areas. I agree and disagree with her post. I do believe that the factors stated above did have monumental effects on the emotional proliferation as well as the intemperate actions of the colonists during the witch trials and the Great Awakening. But I also think there was also cause effect driving the scenarios.

During the witch trials of the late 1600s, hysteria broke out as people wrongly accused others of being controlled by the devil. Innocent people were put to death without the rightful use of jurisdiction and the accusers clung to their religious beliefs to determine the victims’ fates. This phenomenon is extremely similar to the beliefs of followers of the evangelical revivals years later. Taylor explains that they believed “that no worldly authority could legitimately obstruct religious choice” (354). Much like the accusers of the witch trials, evangelical converts believed that they should always obey their religious values before that of society. This connection is far too substantial to not be a direct cause of the all-righteous view of religion.

Moving to another issue, I find it interesting that beliefs during this period of religious escalation caused extreme paranoia and conviction. In the witch trials, people were convinced every variation of behavior was controlled by the devil. During the Awakenings, people chose their religious faction and disagreed with choices and the societal standards of others in society. Although these people found god to reach an ethical understanding of life, their actions caused a mass amount of turmoil in the early stages of the colonies. I would like to hear other people’s opinions on either of these two issues I have discussed.

September 11, 2013

Slavery in New World

Sperry Edwards

Blog Post 2

In Inhuman Bondage, David Davis uses the term, “economic determinism” to describe the emergence of enslaving humans. This term suggests that humans prioritized the economy before other factors, such as the rights and beliefs of other people. But Davis does not only give this reason for slavery’s origins. He goes on to describe religious as well as symbolic reasons, in order to present a well-rounded argument for why a cruel exercise like slavery occurred. The most interesting of these reasons being how the unfavorable connotation of the color black caused Europeans to segregate themselves from the newfound people. As Andrew Burton stated in his post, it is strange that a simple color can cause humans to label their own people as “others.” To add to his point, I believe that once this label was established, Europeans believed that their actions were outside of societal guidelines. People lost complete sense of morality and took advantage of these outsiders for their own gain.

In Chapter 4, Davis goes on to describe the beginnings of the slave trade in Africa. He mentions a crucial point, in that European countries were able to take advantage of a great number of Africans because of a “lack of any pan-African consciousness.” 16^th century Africa was extremely divided with many kingdoms with different cultures and beliefs. With no common African thought, African people could not collectively fight against slavery procedures. This reminds me a lot of how the colonies in America were controlled by Great Britain. Once the colonists began to recognize themselves as a whole, they were then able to identify and fight against Britain’s control. This phenomenon of consciousness leads to the question of whether or not slavery would have occurred at all if Europeans had traded with a united Africa during the 16^th Century.

Davis also describes how many Europeans believed that slavery was beneficial to Africans because they were in a sense, saved from a dangerous and divided continent of Africa. Davis goes on to refute this claim very effectively by describing the cruel treatment on the slave ships and farms. But he does comment that a collective slave culture developed on islands, such as Jamaica. White owners were often outnumbered and isolated from the slave lifestyle on these islands. Instead, black slaves dominated these islands with their customs and traditions. Although slavery was extremely barbaric, it did supply many Africans with a sense of unity on the Caribbean islands, which they could not grasp in Africa.