tasimmons – U.S. to 1877

December 1, 2013

Politics of Secession

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 politics surrounding the rapid secession of southern states seems at first to be fairly simple. The south wanted to protect the institution of slavery which they felt the north was attempting to eradicate from the United States. The fallout of Lincoln’s election as president, however reveals a level of complexity which is often overlooked in textbooks. For example, many non-slaveholders in the south were opposed to immediate secession and there was even division among secessionists about the best way to go about seceding from the union. Some radicals wanted to secede immediately while others wanted to give Lincoln’s moderate stance a chance. Clearly the south was not united, at least in the beginning, in secession. It was surprising that the radical fire eaters were able to successfully manipulate the convention delegate elections of so many southern states to ensure that secession occurred. The explanation for this, one newspaper stated was in the “hopelessness of preserving the union,” which “made disunionists, since the election, of thousands of Conservative and Union men” (Wilentz 438). But even so, with the wide variety of opinions both in the north and the south, how was it that the fire-eaters were able to gain such great influence over the session of the southern states?

I also found Wilentz’s treatment of Lincoln interesting, because he emphasized the political side of Lincoln which is often left out in descriptions of him. Although he is often idealized today, Lincoln had to be politically savvy and moderate in order to function effectively during this highly divided period of American history. As Sylvia points out, despite the idealization of Lincoln as a moral political figure in our history, “he still had to be a politician” (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/abraham-lincoln-the-final-straw-for-southerners/). Just like southern secessionists strove to appear more moderate in order to appease and win over moderates, especially in border states, so to did Lincoln have to remain moderate in his political stances.

November 11, 2013

Political Power and the People

Jackson ran on a platform of populism. Being from the west and making his own success, as opposed to the eastern elites who traditionally won the presidency, he appeared to be the common man’s man. However, as Jackson himself learned, it was impossible to satisfy every common man in a country so large as the United States. Eventually the president has to take sides and, in the process alienate some of the common people he claimed to support. During his second presidency, Jackson seemed to have given up on attempting to appease the majority and instead stood firmly in support of his own ideas whether many people were in support of them or not. This was clearly demonstrated by his determination to experiment in hard money economics, a policy which created a lot of conflict throughout the country.

I agree with Sylvia’s point that one of the legacies of Jacksonian Democracy was its role in the development of the Whig party and populism at large (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/a-party-for-the-people/). The contrasting way in which Wilentz presented the Democratic Party and the Whig party during this time period was very interesting. Under Jackson and Van Buren, the Democratic party’s policies were mainly shaped by economic concerns such as the battle over the national bank and the experimentation in hard money policy. There was also some concern over slavery, however Wilentz emphasized the influence of economics during this time more. The Whig party that rose in opposition to Jacksonians, on the other hand, was driven mainly by a very Christian humanitarian way of thinking. The Whigs’ focus on improving the individual through institutions such as schools and insane asylums seems to sharply contrast the way in which the Jacksonians approached politics. Perhaps, Wilentz presented these two parties as being so different in order to emphasize the degree of change American politics went through during this time period as more and more people turned toward the political process as a way to elicit change.

October 27, 2013

Paternalism in the American South

After the American Revolution, American society was characterized by strong ideas about and pride in their widespread freedom and yet the South was still home to thousands of slaves. The so called Peculiar Institution was, no doubt, economically imperative for the region through the nineteenth century; over 60 percent of cotton was grown in the American South (Davis 184). However as the debate between supporters of slavery and abolitionists intensified during the nineteenth century, slave owning southerners began to attempt to justify slavery by using the principles of the new nation.

People who supported slavery used ethnology in order to support the morality of slavery, claiming that the naturally inferior black race depended on the regulatory influence of whites to prevent the “progressive decline and decay” which would result if slaves were emancipated and left to fend for themselves (Davis 189-190). Slavery, therefore, possessed a quasi-paternalistic aspect which was unique to the American South. In fact, “several traders noted that American masters wanted above all to be ‘popular’ with their slaves – a characteristically American need that was probably rare in Brazil and the Caribbean” (Davis 195). I would argue that the American preoccupation with being liked by their slaves and being “paternalistic” was a result of the disparity between the institution of slavery and the principles of liberty and freedom which took hold of the nation during the revolution. Abolitionists in Great Britain often exploited this disparity in order to renounce slavery and the validity of Americas claims of being an equal society. The paternalism of southern slavery was a defensive reaction against this, attempting to integrate slavery into the new national rhetoric.

I found it interesting that Davis occasionally pulled from modern society in analogies dealing with slavery in nineteenth century America. These projections into the modern day sometimes clarified claims, such as Davis’ comment that “If slavery had persisted into the later twentieth century…one can only…imagine large corporate planters passing out ‘overseer evaluation forms’ to the slaves” (Davis 195-196). However, I question the applicability of these comparisons. In class we discussed the danger of applying modern systems of beliefs to peoples from the past who possessed completely different systems of beliefs and different circumstances. By drawing comparisons between nineteenth century America and modern America, without taking into account the evolution in moral thought which occurred, Davis is in danger of drawing conclusions from faulty evidence.

October 16, 2013

Pollitical Division in a New Government

In chapter two of “The Rise of American Democracy,” Wilentz focuses on the influence Democratic-Republican societies had on the political landscape in the United Sates soon after the Constitution was ratified. I found this emphasis on the ideological divide between the common people particularly interesting, because in the past the emphasis has always been placed on important national figures such as Jefferson and Hamilton. While political leaders are undoubtedly extremely important to the early political development of the United States, it is important to keep the ideas and divides of the common man during this time period in mind, like Wilentz does, because the founding fathers had just created and ratified the most radically democratic government in history. The implications of such a government cannot be understood without looking to the people.

The formation of Democratic-Republican societies demonstrates the monumental importance of the Bill of Rights to the political evolution of the United States, because without the rights it guaranteed, specifically freedom of speech, these societies would probably not have gained the broad influence they did. The ability of the people to express their opinions shaped the political practices of the time. For example, the formation of the National Gazette in opposition to the Gazette of the United States and the governmental policies it supported set the precedent of “…organiz[ing] a wide but gentlemanly opposition…” against the Federalists which continues, to some extent, today (Wilentz 22).

As AmGaither notes in her post, “the delegates had to balance their own political views with the needs and desires of the people” when writing the Constitution, but making everyone in the nation completely satisfied with the document was simply impossible. The formation of Democratic-Republican societies and the growing Federalist-Republican divide are evidence of this. The federalists believed a more centralized government would be best for the nation while the republicans wanted the government to give more power to the people. In describing the two opinions, SyStrauss refers to Hamilton as a “greedy elitist” Jefferson as an “educated elitist.” While the two views are different, I don’t believe it is right to claim that one is morally better than the other. Both schools of political thought could be supported and justified, the formation of political parties for both sides demonstrates this, so neither can truly be inherently better than the other.

September 25, 2013

Witchcraft and the Religious Divide

In his latest post, Sherwood explores the possibility of a relationship between evangicalism and the witch trials of colonial New England. I agree with his conclusion that the relationship is most likely one of contribution on the part of evangicalism. The nature of the sermons at this time pertified churchgoers by evoking a sense of inpending doom and of the closeness of the devil (think of “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”) which would have made the presence of witches in their communities seem more plausible. In combination with the uncertainty and turmoil of the region at this time which we discussed in class, the religious fervour could have easily led a New England colonist to see an illness or the death of an important farm animal as a result of witchcraft than of simple misfortune.

I also think that it is important to look at the effects that the outbreak of witch trials had on the development of the Great Awakening which occured several years later. In chapter 15 of American Colonies, Taylor describes the divide between evangelicals and rationalists which accompanied the proliferation of religious dominations at this time. He writes that reationalists “…rejected the supernatural mysteries and overt emotionalism of evangelical worship” (Taylor 344). Rather than seeing God’s wrath or the Devil’s work in any misfortune, the rationalists looked to science and reason. As the antithesis to evangelical thought, rationalists didn’t believe that God interfered in the world. Therefore, I contend that the witch paranoia of the late 1600s was at least partially responsible for the divide that began to form during the Great Awakening. After the flurry of convictions and executions, government officials were likely embarrassed and wanted to distance themselves from the influence of such intensely emotional religion. As a result they, and others who disapproved of the witch hunting, could have gravitated toward rationalism. In addition, the witch hunting could have been used as support against evangicalism, furthering the opposition to its spread and helping to develop the more moderate and conservative sect of the movement. The relationship between the witch trials and evangicalism is a complex one in which both the witch paranoia and evangicalism influenced the other. It is important not to overlook one’s influence on the other and I would be interested to hear what other people think about this relationship.

September 18, 2013

Development of slavery

Like Alia Karout states in her blog post, I was surprised by the amount of change slavery underwent in America; I had never considered the process through which it developed either. While completing the reading for this week in Inhuman Bondage, I was struck to learn the degree to which slavery evolved in America from a system based on economic and labor needs to one integral to the economy (especially in the more southern colonies) which is based on racism. In my other history classes, slavery in America was talked about in a way that made it seem like a very static, unchanging aspect of American society. It seemed as if it had been a part of the colonies since the beginning, however, as Davis shows, this is not the case. Like Davis points out, “…no British founders of North American colonies, except for South Carolina, intended to create slave societies,” therefore slavery developed gradually in different regions (the north, Chesapeake and south) as a solution to economic and labor conditions (Davis 126). For example, in the Chesapeake colonies slavery didn’t begin to take hold until the mid-1670s when improving economic conditions in England meant fewer emigrants were arriving in Virginia and Maryland as indentured servants. Slavery developed according to need

While it may seem obvious that slavery would develop differently in different regions according to economic need, the degree of diversification described both by Davis and Taylor in this week’s readings came as a surprise to me. Slaves in northern urban centers were working in specialized jobs such as carpenters, stoneworkers, and weaving. Most surprising, was the specialization of slaves in the Chesapeake and southern colonies who were bought specifically for their expertise in areas such as rice farming (in the Carolinas).

September 11, 2013

Week Three Readings

Taylor’s main focus in chapters nine and twelve is the development of the New England and Middle colonies, especially how their development determined the treatment of the Indians. The Puritans came to America for religious reasons, to create a “city on a hill,” so the marked differences between their culture and the culture of the Indians led the Puritans to cultivate a deep dislike and distrust for them. On the other hand the Dutch founded New Netherland purely as a trade outpost which depended on the Indians for furs. Because of this the Dutch couldn’t afford to mistreat the Indians. This type of relationship is also seen later, in Pennsylvania as the weakened peoples of the area didn’t present much of a threat or competition for land. I agree with Sylvia’s point as well, that in describing the different interactions between Indians and colonists in different areas, Taylor tends to show bias and favoritism. However, I also think that the focus on motive and primary support which acknowledges, at least to some extent, the perceived positive and negative aspect of Indian relations in both regions, acts to negate some of the bias presented in his writing. For example, Taylor demonstrates that not everyone in New England completely overlooked the merits of Indian culture by including a quotation by colonist, Roger Williams, saying “It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, than amongst thousands that call themselves Christians” (Taylor 191). While this quotation does not, by any stretch of the mind, demonstrate a wholehearted love or even acceptance of the Indians, it does show that the colonists of New England weren’t driven by a mindless animosity toward them. Taylor also makes it very clear that William Penn’s Indian policy was not simply formed out of good will. It was also a strategic move which created a “security screen” of displaced Indians to act as a buffer between the Pennsylvanian colonists and the French and it’s allies (Taylor 269). While some bias clearly does exist, inclusion of these details prevents Taylor prom painting either region as completely good or completely bad and provides readers with the information they need to form their own conclusions.