thjarrell – U.S. to 1877

December 2, 2013

Lincoln and 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

In Chapter’s 23 and 24 of Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz spends a good deal of time characterizing Lincoln’s political and moral stance specifically surrounding the issue of slavery. And after reading Wilentz’s portrayal, I feel that my perception of Lincoln’s platform has changed. Generally, Lincoln is portrayed as the figure head for the abolitionist movement, leading the charge against slavery. However, as Wilentz explains in the end of Chapter 23 and throughout Chapter 24, Lincoln’s campaigning was different than his moral standing. Wilentz makes it very clear that Lincoln’s “hatred for slavery ran deep,”(Wilentz 413). On the other hand, Lincoln realized that strong polarization to the abolitionist movement was not the best political move. So he instead simply stood for “a house divided against itself cannot stand,”(Wilentz 414, nomination address). The stance essentially stated that a divided nation is ultimately dysfunctional, which the majority of Americans understood through current political disputes. This brilliant political move quickly became very influential, not only because it divided the Democratic party, but it also gained support from some moderates. I agree with SPEDWARDS post in that “Lincoln’s directness lead to a heightened public interest nation-wide,” yet I propose that perhaps it also simultaneously deepened the divide between abolitionists and pro-slavery activists—the exact cause that Lincoln was trying to eradicate. Because Lincoln advocated for a homogeneous position on slavery, the American people wanted their own position on slavery (for or against slavery) for the whole country. The talk of an all free or all slave America could have sparked the seeds for secession from the Union, as Lincoln brought abolitionist perceptions with him into the presidency. The perceived last effort by the southerners was secession. I feel that Wilentz does not fully include the possibility of Lincoln’s campaign and political scheme, to deepen the divide between the North and South.

November 20, 2013

British Tensions

In the book Inhuman Bondage, Davis in chapter 14 talks a good deal about Anglophobia and Britain’s effect on domestic policy surrounding slavery. Davis explains how the majority Americans saw the british empire as a “natural enemy… ruled by selfish interest, lusting for domination of the world, and filled with a deep rooted hatred for everything America represented,”(Davis 272). Through this worldview, Americans started to recognize every part of the British entity as “evil,” including slavery. As Davis explains, slavery in the early to mid 1800’s, was a fairly heated political topic that shaped a large part of the identity of American policy in this time period. Because of Britain’s anti-slavery policy and influence in the United States, many Americans began to lose support for the abolitionist cause because Britain’s ways must be evil. This in turn not only gave the South a great political strength nationally, but also gave them a boost in confidence. Meanwhile, British American tensions grew throughout the 1830’s and 40’s through territorial boundaries, the slave ship Caroline, and the Annexation of Texas (Davis 284). Britain’s attack on slavery in particularly worsened the Anglophobia which subsequently divided America even further. Davis seems to put much focus on the impact of Britain’s actions during this time to such an extent that he almost insinuates that British presence in political issues that deepened the divide that sparked the Civil War. I feel that Davis’s analysis here may be correct, yet I feel that this was not the only issue that sparked serious debate leading up to the civil war. David eludes here that this political debate started to become a serious issue only after the strong Anglophobia was influencing politics. I disagree to an extent, I feel that policies such as the gag rule, or the Missouri Crisis of 1819 are examples of where slavery was a very serious issue; however these issues were merely covered up instead of dealt with directly. Overall Davis has a strong argument on why it the slavery issue erupted later in the season, but in my opinion slavery was always a serious issue that politicians simple chose to act indecisively about.

As a side note I found that MASPEED made a good point about how Lincoln is alway portrayed as this great idol, often times we don’t see the over all picture of Lincoln’s life—the good and the bad. I also agree with MASPEED in that Lincoln was an overall admirable morally sound figure, even though he wasn’t the perfect idol that our middle school history teachers portrayed him as. Although Lincoln should not be the epitome of an honest person, his life is one of admiration and good example.

November 6, 2013

Abolition, the Bank, and Jackson

Wilentz in chapter thirteen divides this chapter into three sections: the Bank, Abolition, and Unions. May I start by saying I feel that Wilentz’s combination of these three topics takes away from their significance and in a way confuses me. The differing time periods and the attempt to tie these instances together seem unnecessary.
However, in the beginning of the chapter Wilentz focuses on Jackson’s forceful hand in getting his way, yet does not comment on whether Jackson had the authority to do so or not. Jackson appointed a new secretary of the treasury “after the cabinet reshuffle” in response to the House of Representative’s obstruction to Jackson’s bank deposit removal plan. Because Jackson could not pass this plan through the House, he appointed William John Duane to Secretary of Treasury to attempt to fix this problem. Again upset at not getting his will, Jackson promptly fired Duane and appointed yet another Secretary of Treasury to carry out his orders. Finally, Roger Taney the next Secretary of Treasury removed the federal deposits as Jackson ordered (Wilentz 207-209). Wilentz in this portion of the chapter refrains from commenting too harshly on Jackson’s debatable use of his presidential powers. Which poses the question “Did Jackson overstep his presidential powers?”
Next, I found it was interesting how systrauss (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/abolition-and-the-second-great-awakening/) points out Wilentz’s statement about the free black men separating themselves from the regular abolitionist movement. This in my opinion sets apart the abolitionists who believed in abolition based upon moral background and those who did not. Thus, as Davis stated, it is important to differentiate between the moral abolitionist and the spiritual abolitionists. Thus, the abolitionist movement may have been hindered in this way that the abolitionist movement was divided in itself. If the party came to agreement to collaborate together then there may have been a more effective abolitionist movement.

October 23, 2013

Jefferson, Reality vs Actuality

In chapters 3 and 4 in The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz focuses on the battle between the Federalists and the anti-federalists/Republicans. Early on in chapter 3 wilentz starts with the Adams presidency, yet ultimately spends much of his time giving background into Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, rather than focusing on the presidency of John Adams. This choice of spotlight reveals the perceived importance of Jefferson by Wilentz. The election of 1800 was a significant election for Jefferson in that because of the division of the national government and of the people of the united states, he had to prove himself worthy of presiding over all people of America. The discrepancy between Jefferson’s writings and Jefferson’s actions is usually the main focal point for many historians when analyzing Jefferson’s presidency. But Wilentz points out that Jefferson’s actions, specifically with the Louisiana Purchase and the judiciary scenario involving the repeal of the Judiciary act of 1801, were generally the correct and rational decision, rather than the hypothetical decision noted in Jeffersons writings. Jacob Newton talks about this in his post about how Wilentz “seems to be a big fan of Jefferson.” In this sense, Wilentz is almost protecting Jefferson from much scrutiny. I think Wilentz’s stance on Jefferson’s presidency is affective in that shows the other side of the coin, yet I do not think that this softer political scrutiny is justified simply by the fact that his writings differ from his actions. Sure, Jefferson may have made more passive practical decisions than his writings, but that does not give him a pass from stringent political examination.

In chapter 5 of The Rise of American Democracy, the War of 1812 is Wilentz’s main focus. What is surprising to me in this chapter is how close America was to loosing its independence from Britain. Wilentz spends much time focusing on the weak points of our young nation that I had not seen before in respect to the War of 1812. In 1814, after the total destruction of Washington, many New England states “were talking openly of secession and a seperate peace with the British” (Wilentz 80). I believe Wilentz is purposefully pointing out that America was not as strong of a country that the majority of people assume it to be today—even in the early years of independence. Although, Wilentz does not address very thoroughly the British side of the War of 1812. Maybe Wilentz is trying to draw more attention to the struggles and successes in America, but I feel like some deeper analysis of Britain’s mindset in the war may be beneficial (even though this is an American History book).

October 2, 2013

Mutual Fear Ignites Western Exploration

Taylor, in his last chapter of American Colonies, provides several interesting points. First, Taylor brings in another interesting viewpoint to the table that he has spoken little about before–the Russians. In this chapter Taylor explains how the Russians, in search of new lands as well as animal hides, encountered many native peoples. The Russian fur traders, known as promyshlenniki, “became notorious for their brutality to native peoples” (Taylor 447). As these fur traders moved south-eastward, they destroyed any rebellion in their path. I find it interesting that Taylor only brings up the Russians in the last chapter of his book, as almost insignificant, when in fact, the Russians brutality paralleled that of the Spanish conquistadors. Perhaps, Taylor could have placed more emphasis on this treatment as he did with most of the other great massacres in early North American History.

Secondly, Taylor states that the main cause for the exploration and attempted colonization of the Pacific coastal area was because of mutual fear of the opposing European countries’ colonization–mainly Spanish fear of the British fur traders (Taylor 454). This claim has only some partial truth. As ROMANGONE http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/winning-the-west/ expressed earlier, the reasons for expansion have greater motives than simply to beat the British or Russians to the land. Spanish Missions contributed to a large part of the expansion, which was ultimately funded by the Catholic church instead of the Spanish government. If the government wanted to truly prevent British conquering, then a more concrete plan of action funded by the Spanish government would have been appropriate and probably more effective. However, because the Spanish and Natives relied upon each other for survival, the colonization attempts prevented further British colonization (if there ever was a serious attempt west during this time). The fear of British expansion certainly created an interest in further exploration in the West, but overall the driving exploration force rested in the Spanish missions.

September 25, 2013

Frontier Disputes Between French Indians and British

At the beginning of Chapter 18 of American Colonies, Taylor describes the Seven Years War. As a background, Taylor explains how the fight for Indian alliances tore the North American settlements apart—especially the British and the French. After the conquer of Louisburg by British colonists, the French immediately proceeded to build “tow new forts at the head of the bay of Fundy to hem in Nova Scotia to the west” (428). Britain then saw this movement as well as French movement in the frontier in Ohio as an encroachment upon their territory, which ultimately led to small skirmishes in the Ohio territory (429). Retaliation by both sides led to what is now known as the Seven Years War. After a few British defeats (Washington, and Braddock) Britain launched a full scale attack on the French (under the leadership of Montcalm) with “45,000 troops” and eventually captured Quebec from the French causing them to surrender.
Now, both Jennifer and Sylvia both thought that Taylor’s account of the economic and geographical disputes between France and Britian, as a pre cursor to the war were “overwhelmingly negative [in the] view of the British.” I tend to disagree with this statement, although I understand why it may seem this way. Taylor provides several primary sources to account for this dispute between countries, some of which are Indians (somewhat neutral POV)(426-427). I think that Taylor may simply be embodying the tone of British colonists—one of disrespect and distrust of foreigners. As Taylor explains the British so vastly out numbered the French, it became hard to have an incentive to be amiable to the Indians or the French. Thus, Taylor rightly accuses the British. Overall, though Taylor would benefit from having a more neutral stance, by further explaining the French side, to prove his point about the instigations and negative points of the British.

September 11, 2013

Chapters 9 and 12 Reading Week 3

Taylor writes in chapter 9 about the relationship between the Puritans and Indians throughout the seventeenth century. In the beginning of this chapter Taylor explains how many of the Puritans saw the New world and its inhabitants as a horrible place whose inhabitants as wild uncivilized people. However, Taylor reveals the Natives as simply different culturally and socially. The Natives way of horticulture was ingenious and very practical, as well as there ways of survival. Sadly, the Puritans immediately dismissed the natives simply because of the differences in culture and living. Which poses the question “Why did the Puritans not acknowledge the natives’ way of life as, at least, acceptable?” At first, the Puritans attempted to barter and share knowledge with the natives in the form of land as well as discovered that it was most difficult to interact peacefully because of the culture barrier. Eventually, the immobility of the colonists’ ideals eventually led to conquer, despite the Puritan’s initial goals of colonization. Taylor states “Determined to extend their authority…the colonial leaders demanded that the resident Pequot pay heavy tribute in wampum, give up several children as hostages, and surrender suspects accused of killing a trader,” (Taylor 194–195). Taylor proposes in his wording that the Puritans instigated the natives only based on “authority.” This instigation eventually led to war. Similar actions, Taylor implies, generally instigated by the colonists spark other conflicts throughout the seventeenth century. On page 199 he states “Plymouth colonists provoked the confrontation by seizing, trying and hanging three Wampanoag for murdering a praying town Indian who had served as a colonial informant.” There are several other implications in the reading that the colonists generally began most of the conflict. Did the colonists generally begin the violence in most of these conflicts or did the Indians instigate just as the colonists did? Taylor seems to have a slightly one sided account during this reading.

In chapter 12, Taylor focuses on the founding of the middle colonies. I found parts of this reading interesting as at first the English had little power in the New World. However as other countries, specifically the dutch colonized and began to grow as an international superpower, the English knew they had to catch up. Thus Taylor states on page 258 they enacted the Navigation Acts that attempted to put England back into the national trade market. These acts seem almost like a mandate to prevent the Dutch from becoming too powerful. And to the Dutch surprise it prevailed and eventually the English conquered New Netherlands The English, in roughly 10 years, successfully reestablished themselves as an international powerhouse and continued to reconquer much of the New World—all because of the spark of the Navigation Acts. Although it may seem that England’s control dwindled, they still remained the main force of colonization in the 17th century.