systrauss – U.S. to 1877

November 29, 2013

Abraham Lincoln: The Final Straw for Southerners

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 country had been steadily moving toward Civil War arguably since the Missouri Compromise, which first prolonged the fight over slavery in the United States. In these chapters, Wilentz discusses how Lincoln won his party’s nomination and why his election was the breaking point for most Southerners. The Southern Democrats had been fighting a more radical Republican opponent in William Seward in the years leading up to the 1860 election. After John Brown’s raid of Harpers Ferry, the Republicans realized that radical Republicans could ruin their chance of winning an election. Seward, while not as radical as the Democrats made him out to be, seemed to be driving votes away as people attached Brown’s actions to him. This connection between Seward and Brown helped give the primary to Lincoln, who received his nomination after focusing his campaign in Chicago, near his hometown of Springfield. While other western-born candidates had won the presidency, Lincoln’s base in the lower north became even more integral to this election, since the Border States, or the Lower North, had the important swing votes from non-slaveholders who still benefited from a slave-holding economy. Lincoln was then able to win the general election mostly because the Democratic Party split during the nomination process and chose two candidates, splitting the party’s voters. Wilentz writes about Lincoln just as Davis does and backs up Mac’s point (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/lincoln-moral-idol-yet-still-a-politician/) that while “historically, we see Lincoln as the just idol,” he still had to be a politician. He was not as radical as other Republicans of the time, and he won the Presidency by playing off the split in the Democratic Party. While Lincoln did run a politician’s campaign, he was committed to his platform of halting the spread of slavery, but at the same time would not interfere with slavery in the slave states or the Fugitive Slave Law. What seemed to scare Southerners the most about Lincoln was his commitment to the law. He would not do anything outside of the powers stated in the Constitution, whether they would benefit his party’s motives or not. Therefore, the Democrats could not fight him as easily because he never said he would use his powers illegally. His pledge to this platform is where the image of a “just idol” comes from.

November 10, 2013

A Party for the People

Jackson came into office with the platform to return the power, which had long been in the hands of the elite, to the people. The Jacksonians prided themselves on majoritarian politics, but as Jackson would see, being president meant trying to please many different groups of people, and in doing so, not always protecting the common man. While historians often represent Jackson as a man who stood by his own beliefs no matter what others said, Wilentz describes how even Jackson got caught up in trying to please too many people. For example, abolitionists thought Jackson was trying to annex Texas in order to spread slavery and help the planter elite, while on the other hand the southern elite were angry about Jackson’s attacks on the Bank and on their appeals for a nullification law. I agree with Nate’s point (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/an-era-of-uncertainty/) that Jackson tried to balance his own beliefs with the beliefs of all the different groups he was trying to appease. In doing this, he ended up being attacked by most people and left office with the country on the brink of financial disaster and a sectional battle still brewing. Van Buren, like Jackson, spent his presidency attempting to satisfy as many people as possible, but in the end, he was also attacked from both sides and was not able to accomplish much during his presidency because of it.

While Jacksonians took power with the idea of a party for majoritarian politics, they did not truly stick to that notion. The party constantly tried to maintain their bases of elite voters while not worrying as much about the common man. This could be seen as a misstep in the fight to return the government to the people, but I like Wilentz’s opinion that Jacksonians actually helped advance the people’s struggle. By not actually staying true to their promise to the people, it allowed for the Whig party to develop with a platform that attacked Jacksonians on the basis that they were not for the common man. Future party developments, then, were based on which party could appeal to the common man more, which actually propelled majoritarian politics to the front of the minds of party leaders and government officials.

November 5, 2013

Abolition and the Second Great Awakening

The abolition movement has roots in the Second Great Awakening and the ideas those religious revivals spurred. Davis discusses abolitionists from the 1830s, like Theodore Dwight Weld who did noble work in trying to eliminate the evils of slavery, but while also considering religious ideals. The problem with this connection to the Church, which Davis notes, is that “most abolitionists and other radical reformers yearned to merge themselves in a righteous crusade that they saw as a prerequisite to the liberty of both blacks and whites” (Davis 254). In connecting the religious ideal of redeeming sins to ending slavery makes it seem that these kinds of abolitionists were advocating abolition, not completely without the idea of helping the slaves, but still with the idea of helping themselves and other whites by looking more redeemable to God. As Caitlin said in her post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-second-great-awakening/) the Second Great Awakening, “formed a basis for the treatment of the enslaved rather than a protection for their freedom.” Those abolitionists who used the words of the evangelists in the Second Great Awakening did not always appear to have the best interests of the slaves in mind. This theory also connects to the American Colonization Society and their idea to liberate the slaves and then make them resettle outside of America. These white ACS members thought this would benefit the slaves, but they were also trying to rid the country of the African race. As the abolition movement advanced past the time of the Second Great Awakening, more white abolitionists begin to focus less on redeeming the sins of other whites and more on fully liberating blacks from enslavement. At this same time, free and escaped blacks became involved in the abolition movement and organized their own campaigns, because, with William Lloyd Garrison being the exception, “few white abolitionists could escape sounding patronizing to blacks” (Wilentz 213). The abolition movement that began to spread did help propel the idea of ending slavery in America to the forefront of everyone’s minds, but both Davis and Wilentz note the difference between those who truly believed in liberating the slaves so they could live equally among whites and those abolitionists who worked to free the slaves in the hopes that they could have a closer connection to God.

October 21, 2013

The Beginnings of Western Expansion

Western expansion gave people more power to own their own land and confidently create their own lives, but it the people’s independence had to then be balanced with a growing Presidential supremacy.

While the new nation was trying to feel more equal in a world of ancient empires, the Founding Fathers agreed that the mastodon, a giant prehistoric skeleton found by naturalist Charles Peale, would be a “symbol of dominance” to inspire the people to support the budding government in their attempts to legitimize the country (Semonin 2). When Peale first discovered the skeleton, he placed the teeth in a way to show the animal was a carnivore. Having a fierce symbol, like the mastodon, gave Americans the idea that in the past the natural world was shaped by violent conquests. This idea transferred to western expansion, where Americans felt it was their calling to gain more land and power, and by moving west, decimated the wilderness and even Indian tribes. What I found interesting in this story of the mastodon was that Peale’s initial placement of the teeth, the detail that made the animal more ferocious, was incorrect. Instead, later naturalists discovered the mastodon was actually an herbivore. At this point, the myth of the powerful mastodon had already swept the nation, but it begs the question that if Peale had correctly identified the mastodon’s eating patterns from the beginning, would this animal ever have become such a symbol for the nation? Would the American people have had the confidence to expand westward, and by doing that strengthen the nation?

When Western expansion became even more possible with the Louisiana Purchase, President Jefferson had to struggle with balancing his ideals of people’s individual rights and giving more control to the Presidential role. Jefferson accepted the Louisiana Purchase without asking the citizens for a vote, going against what TaSimmons notes in her post as the importance of the people’s expression of opinions as a way to affect the government. Instead, the move exemplifies Jefferson’s realization that the President has to hold a certain degree of power over the people. While it is undeniable that the people should have a say in the government and be able to change it when it is not working in favor of the masses, it is also important to remember that the President has a responsibility to make certain difficult and complex decisions without putting everything to a vote. In other books, I’ve seen the authors criticize this move by Jefferson as a power grab or a distancing from what he claimed were his principles. Wilentz, though, describes this move and Jefferson’s presidency more sympathetically. I liked Wilentz description of his presidency because it reminds readers that sometimes the President has to upset people when he believes his choice will benefit the country as a whole in the long run. Without Jefferson’s decision to accept the Louisiana Purchase, our country would be very different today, so his choice to use the power of the Presidency was warranted.

October 15, 2013

The Constitution: the intentions of the framers and the realities of the new government

Alfred F. Young’s essay “The Pressure of the People on the Framers of the Constitution” focuses on the factors that the framers dealt with in order to create the document that governed the country. Most of the hard decisions the framers had to make came down to balancing the knowledge that these elite men had with the voice the Revolution had promised the people. Certain delegates, like Hamilton, wanted the government to benefit themselves more, which was exemplified in his proposal for a president and senate who served for life, the model of the English government that had helped his family gain wealth and prominence. James Madison fought more for the people, making sure the Constitution would reflect the “genius” of the people in order for the document to last well into the future (Young 149). While we often see Madison as the hero of the common people, I liked how Young also described how he could not always accommodate the people, and how his elite place in society sometimes affected his ideas. In an effort to curb the power of the state legislatures, Madison wanted a national veto over the states. This gave a lot of power to the federal government, not necessarily typical to Madison’s goals of giving the people a voice. As an educated man, Madison saw the problems that could come if the people had too much power. This decision was not one of a greedy elitist, like Hamilton, but one of an educated elitist looking out for the best of the country as a whole.

The framers of the Constitution had expectations for the country, but even just a few years after the document’s ratification, the emergence of political parties used those ideals differently than intended. Wilentz notes the importance of linking the political societies who were upset with the Federalist ideas and the growing Republican interest within the government. As a classmate notes (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/what-is-this-europe/), Wilentz writes of the class struggle for people both in the city and the country. With the establishment of the Constitution, however, these disgruntled people could affect the government by forming political societies and working with government insiders. This connection between the people and the government officials who were both upset with the way the government was working, provided the basis for the start of future political parties. We have to remember, though, how radical the idea of uniting the common people with the government elite still was at the time. In his essay, Jack N. Rakove notes the change from the intended government structure that came with the beginning of the political parties. He writes of Madison’s argument for ambition to “counteract ambition” in the legislatures so the people would benefit in the end (Rakove 158). Yet as the first political parties started to develop, this ambition Madison thought he would see, manifested instead in the representative’s hope for power in the party and society, instead of helping their constituents.

September 24, 2013

The beginning of the end of English control in North America

In this chapter, Taylor outlines some causes that brought on the Revolution and also compares the English attitude to colonization versus that of the French and the English colonists living in North America.

Taylor again paints the English as a larger enemy to Indians as compared to the French. In the description of the Seven Years War, Taylor emphasizes a kinder relationship in Indian-French affairs and more of a conqueror-conquered relationship between the Indians and the English. As he did in his descriptions of the first imperial takeovers in the Americas, Taylor makes the French look like the ideal colonizers and the English as greedy land-takers. Taylor does this to emphasize why the colonists would want to break away from the overpowering and cruel English nation. This, however, can generalize the French as the “good guys” and the English as the “bad guys” which is not entirely true. As was mentioned in a classmate’s previous blog post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/history-trumps-childhood-chapters-3-5/), Taylor often commended the French for their kinder tactics when dealing with the Indians, but they were not completely harmless to the Indians. The French still took advantage of the Indian fur trade, and mainly did not fight the Indians so they would not lose any profit.

Taylor also notes the split between the colonists that lived in North America, and the English government, still trying to keep control of the distant colonies. During the imperial wars in North America, the colonists had minor victories that they took pride in, but when the empires drew the treaties, the English allowed the other nations to strip the colonists of their conquests, causing a rift between the colonists and the crown. While explaining the reasons for colonial dissatisfaction with the homeland, Taylor again makes the English look imposing and the colonists look helpless. The constant taxing, the increase in troops, and the British feeling of superiority, drove the colonists to revolt against the larger, more powerful, and malicious English. While the English were still an overbearing imperial power, they did have some reasoning for taxing the colonists – repayment for a costly colonial war – and sending over British troops – to enforce these taxes to restore their economy. The crown’s intentions were warranted, but the execution of these actions was not as fair, a point I agree with Taylor on.

I understand Taylor’s reasoning for making the British appear like the enemies to all other groups in North America, but a more nuanced description of the good and bad aspects of the British crown’s role would force a reader to consider the English reasoning behind their actions, and not just the a negative view.

September 17, 2013

Contrasting Slave Systems in Colonial America (Inhuman Bondage Ch. 6)

Most history books focus on slavery as a Southern colony decision, a system where wealthy plantation owners use harsh techniques to keep their slaves obedient. Davis, however, explains the use of slaves in the other colonies, and the difference between the slave systems in the Southern colonies.

I had never heard of the rather large slave culture in the Middle Colonies, as Davis describes. While the English on the mainland may have been leery of slavery, the Dutch influence in New York allowed for slavery to develop. The Dutch, lacking the rush of emigrants that other countries had, needed laborers, and turned to free and enslaved blacks for that force. Some worked in fields, but many blacks worked in factories, too. Since there was no one staple crop in the North, those colonies did not rely on an entirely slave labor economy. Many blacks worked side-by-side with indentured servants and other whites, as well, making it a more preferable life.

Even though there were slaves in Northern colonies, the slaves in the South still lived a harsher life, with far less of a chance of ever finding freedom. Davis mentions how many Southern planters feared buying slaves from the West Indies and preferred to buy directly from Africa. This reminded me of Davis’s point from the earlier chapter that in the West Indies, the Africans had a stronger culture and a more tight-knit community. This would cause fear in plantation owners’ minds that these slaves would be more likely to organize a revolt. Just as Matt mentioned in his last post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/inhuman-bondage-4-5/), I also had never thought of the slave culture in South America and the Caribbean. That culture, however, is important in the reasoning behind the slave trade in the American colonies. If the colonists had not feared these revolts, most slaves would have probably come from the Caribbean, which would have changed the culture of the slave-labor colonies.

Davis also comments on the difference in slave systems in Virginia and South Carolina. Although South Carolina was the only colony that intended to have slaves, they had a more open system. More blacks had a chance of gaining their freedom. When the whites and the blacks mixed, the white owners would sometimes free their mixed children. Just as Davis compared the slave lifestyle between the West Indies and North America, he hints that slave life in South Carolina would be more preferable than life in Virginia, where plantation owners controlled with the whip. The Stono Rebellion caused slave life in South Carolina to change, but in early colonial life the slave systems in the Southern colonies were not as similarly harsh as I previously thought.

September 10, 2013

Chapters 9 & 12 Response

In the two chapters in American Colonies, Taylor phrases his sentences to make readers think the Puritans were unjust to the Indians, while the colonists who lived in the Middle Colonies, because of the way they treated others, lived the best colonial life. I agree with Matt’s last post when he describes how Taylor tends to share his own opinion on certain groups of people in colonial America. It was definitely apparent in this section that Taylor thought the Puritans should have been more accepting of the Indians around them. He also seems so impressed with colonial life in the Middle Colonies, misleading his readers, because life was not always perfect there either.

When Taylor writes about the Puritan and Indian societies, I noticed that he tries to compare the different ways of life, more than he does contrast. For example, when he explains how the New Englanders, “cut off [Metacom’s] head for display on a post atop a brick watchtower,” an act most would think Indians would do, readers see how hypocritical the Puritans were in their quest to extinguish the “savages” (Taylor 201). Taylor also describes the gender roles in the two different societies similarly: the men do the tougher labor of harvesting or hunting, while the women usually take care of the children and tend to household duties. He shows these comparisons so readers can see that the Puritans may not have been so different from the Indians, yet they thought they were so above them. I had never thought about the English colonists being similar to the native tribes, but both the Puritans and the Indians in the area lived in communities and worked together. Because of this comparison, when Taylor writes about the Puritan destruction of Indian villages, readers view New Englanders as unjust invaders.

On the other hand, Taylor emphasizes the civility of life in the Middle Colonies because of the acceptance of all ethnicities and religions. Taylor describes William Penn in a new way, as the connection between the elite and the outcasts. Although I knew that he was raised wealthy, but was different because of his Quaker conversion, Taylor shows how necessary it was for Penn to have ties to both types of people. Without him, the colony, and possibly even the future country, would never have been able to survive. Taylor also emphasizes the peace between the middle colonists and the Indians, differing them from the Chesapeake and New England colonists. Without the fear of Indian attacks, the middle colonists were able to thrive and Taylor describes a seemingly ideal colony, filled with accepting people.

Just as he did while comparing the Spanish and French colonizers, Taylor writes with some bias, making readers see certain English colonists as better people than others.

September 1, 2013

Chapters 3 & 5 Reading

Taylor aims to show the more complex side of early American life and not display it so one-sided as many other accounts do. Robbie notes in his post that, Taylor recognizes many groups of people contributed to the colonization of America, not just Europeans, but Natives and Africans, too. I agree with Robbie’s point that the history of America “cannot be developed through a single story line,” because there are too many different groups of people that contributed to the colonization of the New World to only focus on one. More importantly, the path the English took to colonize hinged on the actions of the other European colonizers and the Indians. Taylor forces his readers to consider that the Natives are not always weak and subordinate, and the Europeans do not always easily conquer and colonize.

For example, Taylor portrays the French as more of a tool of the Natives instead of the other way around, as I previously would think. Once the French and Indians established a trade of furs and European goods, the Indians began to dominate the exchange. They “became adept at driving a hard bargain” and when they received higher payment for their furs, the Indians became lazier with their work, while the French still had to hunt and fish to supply the trade (Taylor 97). The French, in starting trade relations with different Indian tribes, were also forced into an unspoken alliance with these tribes. As a result, the Indians expected the French to help in intertribal wars, and the French had to deal with their own casualties as the enemy Indians attacked French villages in retaliation.

In his account of the history of New Spain, Taylor is thorough in his descriptions of the failures of this colonization, not just its successes. While many Spaniards, like tailor Diego de San Lorente, thought they would have a life of riches in Mexico, most early Spanish settlements failed. Eventually, the Spanish began to establish more successful towns and develop strong military protection. Taylor still mentions, however, the opinion of the Spanish king’s prime minister in 1631, who questioned whether the difficulties that came with New World colonization actually strengthened the Spanish empire or only made the homeland weaker (Taylor 66).

Taylor writes one of the more powerful accounts of early American history because he does not write solely from the perspective of the successful European colonizers. He notes the powerful role some Indians did have at the time, details the many failures of the first colonizers, and makes readers notice that the early days of colonization created cultural conflicts that still exist in our country.