U.S. to 1877 – Fall 2013 – Page 11 – Just another My blog Sites site

October 27, 2013

Paternalism in the American South

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

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 23, 2013

The Rise and Fall of Federalism, America’s first Crucial Election, and the War of 1812

A major theme of this week’s reading is the examination of American government structure immediately following the Revolutionary War. After gaining independence, the founding fathers aimed to control individual states, prevent division among states, and manage unorganized territories in the west. As the first official president of the United States, George Washington led the young nation as the symbol of the Federalist Party. The two major political parties during the time period were drastically different; the Federalists supported a strong and centralized federal government while the Anti- Federalists favored a decentralized federal government that gave most of its power to the states. Moreover, Federalists believed that an overly-liberal democracy would breed disorder and possibly revolution. In contrast, the Anti-Federalists believed that an overly powerful central government would develop into an oppressive monarchy much like the one in England. Despite holding an early advantage over the Anti-Federalists with the presidencies of Washington and Adams, the Federalist Party began to lose support as America entered the 19th century.
The presidential election of 1800 marked a significant turning point in early American history because the balance of power among the two major political parties shifted for the first time. Disputes between John Adams and Alexander Hamilton (two of the remaining leaders of the Federalist Party due to the death of George Washington) exemplified that “Federalist solidarity had collapsed” (Wilentz, 39). In contrast, Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson emerged as a political force for the Democratic- Republicans by attracting support in both the North and South and then soundly defeating the Federalist incumbent John Adams to take control of the White House. As my classmate ROMANGONE pointed out, the American people became detracted from the Federalist Party as well as the idea of Federalism following the election of 1800. Also, Americans began to favor Thomas Jefferson’s republican form of government. The ramifications of the election of 1800 were far-reaching not only because it was the first shift in power between parties but because it represented a shift in the political ideals of Americans.
In Chapter 5, Wilentz discusses the consequences of the War of 1812 for politics in the United States. At first, the war appeared to be a meaningless yet costly use of American resources, however, the war ended up providing James Madison with a ton of political momentum and producing future political mavericks like Andrew Jackson. In addition, the war sparked the support of the Republican Party and essentially buried the Federalists. Wilentz emphasized that the United States did not gain copious amounts of land through the war but acquired respect from nations around the world as well as the confidence that they could operate independently. I know that some of my classmates have argued over when exactly the Federalist Party should be pronounced dead, some have said after the crucial election of 1800 and some have said during eruption of Republican support that followed the War of 1812. I believe that the Federalist Party began its steady decline after losing the White House in 1800 but did not completely implode until America was in strong support of Jefferson ideals and Republican government after their victory over Britain.

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 23, 2013

Blog post Oct. 23

This semester, I am taking both this history class and American Politics. Many subjects overlap when we begin to discuss American democracy. Consequently, The Rise of American Democracy has been a slightly boring read for me personally. However, historical details not mentioned in political science add to the knowledge I already have and help to fill in gaps and explain motives. The struggle between Federalists and Democratic Republicans in particular is an event I have now read much about. Though I wish Wilentz talked less about politics and more about history, I understand that leaving one side out could deplete the value of the chapter.

I agree with Mitch Han when he discusses Wilentz’s demonstrated dislike of the Federalists. Though historically, the Federalist party sputters and falls, Wilentz does not give them too much credit. He describes Adams as a “pudgy”, “short”, and “anxious”, and speaks very admiringly of Burr (Wilentz 32). Also, By highlighting the Alien and Sedition Acts as much as he did, Wilentz throws a negative light upon the methods used by Adams’s party. The Mastodon article puts the Republicans further ahead by crediting Jefferson with a symbol of continental domination and power. The Federalists never sent an exploration out West to possibly find an enormous, man-eating carnivore.

Luckily for me, Chapter 5 and the Turner article proved to be more historical and less like my political science class. I liked how in the Turner article, he described the frontier as constantly being moved back from, first, the Atlantic coast of North America, to the Mississippi valley and Appalachian Mountain Range, and then deeper into the continent. I wonder if this is an ethnocentric way of seeing the “unexplored” land, because the indigenous tribes had existed on the continent for quite a while. However, I did like the way the article lead me to think of where our frontier is now. Is it possibly the arctic? Or, since we’ve landed on the moon, is it outer space and the far reaches of our solar system? Beyond? I don’t believe history repeats itself but I can imagine a campaign into the unknown similar to Columbus’s or Louis and Clark’s.

October 23, 2013

Alright Guys, Let’s Make a Government

For the first time, I was not bored while reading about how we made our government (which is arguably the most important time in American History). Willentz does an excellent job of making politics more appealing. I don’t entirely agree with his portrayal of Adams, though. He illustrates that he “believed that political leadership should come from America’s aristocracy” (Willentz 32), but he fails to stress the importance of how Adams believed that he was doing what was best for the country. Although his views were not egalitarian, he did have a heart for the good of the country. I love Willentz’s explanation of the person of Jefferson. He iterates that although Jefferson made decisions that increased federal power, he always made decisions based on the good for his people, down to creating a national symbol of the mastodon for the American people. Who wouldn’t double the size of their country at 3 cents an acre? I do agree with Willentz when he argues about the importance of the War of 1812; for the first time, the new country garnered international respect. I also like his characterization of the wild Andrew Jackson, a very emotionally motivated man.

Environment also played a huge role on early American History. Willentz alludes to its importance on politics when describing the Federalists’ fear that the Democratic-Republicans would make an innumerable amount of rural states composed of citizens more likely to support the Democratic-Republican platform. Turner explains many different facets of the importance of the frontier and American history. Not only did the frontier shape early American politics, but, as AJ pointed out, Americans were able to create a new identity through expansion. The increased national identity was even helped by the gradual changed of state-federal relations over time. “In 1789 the States were the creators of the Federal Government; in 1861 the Federal Government was the creator of a large majority of the States” (Mr. Lamar, quoted by Turner). Although American land was expanding rapidly, the national identity became more cohesive even though the distances between American citizens became greater and greater. Expansion also helped lead to the Civil War, which further increased the number of American citizens via the 14th Amendment.

October 23, 2013

Mastodon: Myth or Symbol?

The making of a Jeffersonian democracy was a big deal and had an immense impact on American history and the development and advancement of American politics. Jefferson was considered an anti-federalist and his views sided with those of the Republicans, which favored states rights and a decentralized federal government. Ideally for Jefferson, states would have the biggest impact on its’ citizens while the federal government would have very little impact. In fact, Jefferson was one of the major proponents in forming the Democratic-Republican Party. When faced against John Adams in the election of 1800, Jefferson came away with the victory and became the third president of the United States in what is known as the revolution of 1800.

Jefferson had some major events occur in his presidency from his infamous inauguration speech to the Louisiana Purchase as well as the Embargo Act of 1807. These are events that we hear of most when defining Jefferson’s presidency, yet one that tends to get neglected, even from an impartial Wilentz, is Jefferson’s interest in the Mastodon. As CATHOMSON mentions in their blog post, Jefferson among others are often criticized for their unscientific-like behavior. Yet this high interest that Jefferson displays for the Mastodon is a direct opposition to this criticism. In fact, Jefferson goes as far as to send Lewis and Clark on an expedition in the newly purchased Louisiana territory to explore and search for one of these beastly creatures. This creature is often neglected from many history writings when analyzing the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The question that arises with this is why is the Mastodon often left out of our history?

One possible theory or argument that one could make is that history is trying to wipe away the remnants of this beast. Or the negligence simply alludes to the failure of a symbol that the Mastodon was. When the bones of the Mastodon were first discovered many including Jefferson used it as a symbol of the great American spirit. This big and powerful creature that was thought to be carnivorous and ferocious was used to symbolize America’s newly found independence and resemble their dominance and power of the Americas. Yet, one thing piled on top of another and with more information it was concluded that the original depictions of the carnivorous beast were biologically inaccurate and the creature was actually extinct. Therefore, the Mastodon went from and American symbol to nothing more than a myth as it disappeared from American history for some time. The disappearance and relative unimportance of the Mastodon are why it was unable to outlast and become America’s symbol like the bald eagle. The Mastodon captured many including Jefferson for some time but later proved quite irrelevant and symbolized an America that many could argue in the wrong light.

October 23, 2013

A Split Between Parties

In his most recent post, Robbie states how the election of 1800 was a turning point in American politics because “It showed that the Republican model of government could function in America.” I agree with Robbie, but I also consider the election of 1796 to be a major turning point as well; it marked the first time a two party system existed in early American government. Throughout the early chapters of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz describes a constant struggle between Federalists and Republicans, the result of greater suffrage and contrasting views among the American people. A major question that emerges is whether elections for either Republican and Federalist parties were shaped more by split views between the elite and the common people, or by the conventional differences between North and South. Many government officials in both Republican and Federalist parties believed that only the wealthy and educated deserved to hold office.

Wilentz does not appear very favorable towards the Federalists; he portrays them as hypocritical and especially troublesome during the Republican presidency. For example, Federalists in New England and throughout the North were ironically the ones to propose the idea of seceding from the Union. Usually when we think about secession in America, we just assume Southerners were the ones who wanted to secede from the Union. Under John Adams, the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to prevent Republicans from criticizing the government. However, during the War of 1812 “paradoxically, the most inflammatory criticisms of the government came from conservative New England Federalists—with no Sedition Law raining down on their heads” (Wilentz, p. 89). I felt almost as though the Federalists were against Americans forming their own identity, as they intensely opposed nationalism and the war against Great Britain.

Wilentz focuses heavily on Jefferson’s actions and character as vice president and eventually president. Already faced with the debts and taxes from Federalist enactment, Jefferson favored a more passive form of treaty involving money instead of engaging in wars that would only lead to more debt. This approach was demonstrated by his purchase of the Louisiana territory to end French threat in North America, as well as his proposition of an embargo of British and French goods in order to avoid war. Although many argue that Jefferson was extremely hypocritical, he was still able to help fuel the American economy and keep the United States out of war. “After 1801, the federal government ran a deficit in only one year before 1809 and accumulated a net surplus of more than twenty million dollars” (Wilentz, p. 65).

October 22, 2013

Westward Expansion

In his writings, Turner talks about the frontier and its gradual expansion westward. I find this aspect of American history to be very interesting. It is fascinating to look at how the American’s at the time went about claiming new land. Turner mentions how the frontier was the “meeting point between savagery and civilization.” (Turner) This is very important because it shows how little they new of the land beyond the frontier, and how there were still “savages” there that needed to be conquered. In the years leading up to 1800, the newly formed government was focused on many things: making sure it didn’t collapse, the XYZ affair, pirate wars, and eventually the election of 1800 and all that Jefferson’s presidency would bring. The government was not focused on the native peoples west of the border. It seems while historians focus so intently on the formation of the nation that there is not much to be said about the frontiersmen until the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791. The frontier was not a safe place to live because as America stretched farther and farther west, the Indian’s land was once again being encroached upon. Wilentz devotes a portion of Chapter 5 to talk about the expropriation of Indian land. William Henry Harrison was a major character in the buying of Indian land. He completed the Greenville Treaty with nearly a dozen tribes which gave the US land rights to southern Indiana, most of Illinois and parts of Wisconsin and Missouri for “two and a half cents or less per acre.” (72) While they were buying this land from the natives, they were taking complete advantage of them and buying it for far less than its worth. Most natives were not happy, “‘The white people…,’ one Shawnee chief complained, ‘destroyed all that God had given us for our support'” (72) While the frontier was a means of expansion and “a steady movement from the influence of Europe” (Turner), the government did not care how detrimental of an action it was from the Indian’ point of view.

AJBeane spends a good amount of time talking about how Europe influenced the westward expansion of the United States and many of the points they make are quite pertinent to my post. They raise the point that what America really wanted at this time was to form their own identity and not be associated with Britain or Europe in any way. Americans didn’t want to be known as coming from German heritage or French or any other European nation, they wanted to be their own entity and by expanding westward they were happy to be moving farther away from Europe and its stretching, global influence.

October 22, 2013

A Mastodon America

Prominent early Americans, such as Peale and Jefferson, have been criticized for their unscientific –like behavior regarding the discovery of and research on the mastodon. Peale overlooked some fact and aspects of scientific process in his excitement over his specimen and Jefferson certainly abandoned some practicality as he wholeheartedly embraced the creature as a “monarch of the past.” It seems to me, however, that their grasp on the reality of the extinct animal is not important at all. Neither are the true facts about the mastodon. The importance of the mastodon comes in the meaning it was able to take on and its role as a symbol of the new American republic. Semonin touches on this concept when he discusses the founding fathers’ emphasis on the fact that the mastodon could certainly beat the British lion in a fight. The mastodon was at the height of its infamy at a time when the nation needed a powerful symbol. The country was in political turmoil and the world did not seem sure if America could make it on its own. The mastodon served as a symbol of strength and power that was unique to North America.

It is interesting, however, that the mastodon has not survived as a symbol of America. Semonin admits that the extinct animal never surpassed the bald eagle in terms of symbolic value but the mastodon fell from such a place of prominence to relative obscurity. Perhaps the fact that the animal is extinct played a role in this but this is also where scientific accuracy does play a role. The symbolism of the mastodon was built on incorrect information and as the country matured and developed this first try at national pride and unity was left behind for more concrete symbols such as the eagle. Just because the mastodon did not last, however, does not make it irrelevant to our nation’s history despite its anonymity today.

This search for an American identity separate from that of Europe, personified by the mastodon, carries on past the era of Peale and Jefferson into the following century. Both Calhoun and Clay worked to separate America both politically and economically from England. They sought to remove barriers imposed by Britain on American trade in order to increase economic growth as well as overcome the sentiment in some American politicians that America depended upon connections to Great Britain for its prosperity. This increasing tension and American desire to separate from Great Britain led to the War of 1812 in which, metaphorically, the American mastodon did in fact defeat the British lion.

October 22, 2013

The Expansion of the American Frontier

With the independence of the United States, the frontier states looked to expand the countries borders west. This expansion was no small feat and required the full attention of the government to deal with native tribes over land disputes. According to Turner, the frontier was, ” the outer edge of the wave — the meeting point between savagery and civilization” (Turner). This belief that they were the tamers of this savage land allowed them to feel no qualms when they infringed on native land. It is important to note that Turner does point out that, “the environment is at first too strong for the man” (Turner). This shows that they acknowledged that expansion into the frontier would not be an easy job but with time that, “little by little he [can] transform the wilderness” (Turner). Also Turner mentions the, “European germs developing in an American environment” which shows that the American people were trying to create their own identity (Turner). The American people did not want to be known for, “German germs” but as, “a new product that is America” (Turner). As America’s frontier expanded, “it meant a steady movement from the influence of Europe” (Turner).

As the movement from Europe increased, President Thomas Jefferson sent Meriwether Lewis and William Clark on their historic expedition. When they were gone the bones of a Mastodon were excavated and put on display at the Philadelphia Museum. This is important because they wished to associate this creature with the new image of America. With the then still recent defeat of Britain, America needed to prove its ability to survive as an independent country. Jefferson thought that a good step forward would be an animal that was thought to hunt many other predators such as lions. This is symbolic because the national animal of Britain was a lion which signifies that the Americas were able to defeat them. While the Mastodon did not become a national symbol the concept of it shows how prideful that America felt at the time which it needed to survive the early years of being a new country.