abolitionism – U.S. to 1877

November 7, 2013

Wilentz, Ch. 13 / Davis, Ch. 13: A Hotbed for Abolitionism

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

Sherwood Callaway

Blog Post 6

In chapter 13, Wilentz writes:

“Abolitionism represented a new kind of American political community. Its activists, at great personal risk, defied widely and deeply held social conventions. This community set itself apart from sinful complicity with slavery and racism and created a new humane model of equality, freedom, and love.”

To synthesize and summarize his argument, within American society, the abolitionist movement sought unprecedented goals and held unprecedented values. But though the idea of ending the institution of slavery may have been radical and new (which it wasn’t), the movement itself was founded on principles that were both well recognized and well liked—which contributed to the movement’s widespread popularity.

For example, Wilentz mentions that abolitionism appealed to the “revival-soaked areas that defied greater New England.” This is because revivalism and abolitionism both emphasized similar values—individualism and progressivism. Revivalists encouraged a personal relationship with God, unlike traditional forms of Christianity. Both men and women, whether free or enslaved, were accepted as converts and allowed to profess their new faith. Subsequently, revivalists often came from the margins of society—the frontier, for example, or poverty, or slavery. Revivalism also represented a departure from ceremonial traditions; churches, priests and sacraments were no longer necessary for worship. Revivalists would have been excited about furthering the causes of individualism and progressivism through the abolitionist movement, which proposed to liberate slaves from oppression and end a tradition that primarily benefited the white landed elite.

The first great awakening, which saw the initial emergence of revivalism in British America, was during the 1730s and 40s. The second enveloped this period of abolitionism, running from the 1800s to the 1840s. It is no coincidence that these periods coincide; rather, because they held similar values, they energized one another. Revivalism during the 18th century laid the foundations for Abolitionism; revivalism during the 19th century popularized it.

But the goals and values of the abolitionist movement cannot only be tied to those of revivalism. Consider also, the spirit of 1776. Wilentz says abolitionism favored “equality, freedom, and love.” I cannot account for the latter of these, but I can certainly account for the former two. The notion of “equality” featured heavily in pre-revolution dialogue, as American-born Britons sought the same rights and representation as those across the pond. Of course, these sentiments did not stretch to the margins of society, as they did during abolitionism, but the language of equality was very much present. “Freedom”, also, was obviously associated with the spirit of 1776—personal freedoms such as the right to expand along the frontier, and the right to refuse quarter to visitors, for example.

Wilentz argues that abolitionism was a wholly new phenomenon in the United States. But rather, it seems as if the US would have been a hotbed for such a movement.

November 6, 2013

An Era of Uncertainty

With brand new political ideologies coming out of the rise of Jacksonian democracy, the federal government was once again left with many questions about what it could and could not do. As the new political era began, many different issues gained importance during Jackson’s second term. The federal government had to decide first, whether or not it had the power to issue a second state bank, and second, to decide whether or not it wanted to issue a second state bank; disagreement led to economic hardship for the country as a whole, and the recession led to a rise in worker’s unions. The rise in union participation gave way to a new political force. Finally, the abolition movement continued to grow to the point where it greatly affected politics in the north while increasing sectionalism.

I agree with MASPEED that the economic section (as well as the political/union section) was hard to understand, but I think that Wilentz’s main point is that Jackson had to deal with many issues in his second term, and when he dealt with them, he greatly increased federal and executive power. With many differing opinions about the magnanimous issues of economics, labor, and slavery, political parties became more fragmented. If the Jacksonians and anti-Jacksonians were more established, or if the first party system of the United States was still in tact, I think that the federal government may have been more capable in dealing with the issues. Because Jackson’s supporters’ opinions varied between the three major issues, he did not know how to lead one party, and Jackson’s weak followers led to him making controversial executive decisions in trying to appease different supporters while upholding his own values.

Perhaps the greatest issue of the 1830s was the abolitionist movement and attitudes toward slavery. Not only did people argue about whether or not slavery should be abolished, but they also argued about how it should be abolished (e.g. gradual vs immediate). Abolitionists appealed to both selfish and selfless ambitions in order to try to grow their movement. In the lead up to the Civil War, the abolitionists tried to throw many blows to the Southern pro-slavery advocates, and the South counterpunched right back, but when the time came to solve the issue once and for all, the only ammunition (no pun intended) that the Southern states had was to secede from the Union.

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.

November 6, 2013

A Tale of Three Topics

Chapter 13 in Sean Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy was significantly different from the other chapters so far. Whereas Wilentz usually devotes each chapter to one particular topic, Chapter 13 describes three independent events: The Bank War, abolitionism and the rise of labor unions. This division of different topics in American history leads to an awkward read where some topics are discussed in more sufficient depth than others.

I strongly agree with MASPEED’s criticisms of Wilentz’s treatment of The Bank War. I too found the writing extremely boring, and when the text did manage to hold my interest, I found Wilentz’s writing confusing for those who were not already familiar with the issue. I did find it the disagreement on Andrew Jackson’s removal of federal deposits from the bank between the House (backed his actions) and the Senate (disagreed) interesting. This conflict seems to echo the constant disagreements found in the US political system today that significantly limits the actions the government can take.

Out of the three sections, Wilentz seemed to focus most of his attention to the topic of abolition. Like JANEWTON, I was astonished by the “violent hostility in the northern states” (Wilentz 211) towards the prospect of removing slaves and the anti-abolitionist mobs led “not by lower-class rowdies but local notables” (Wilentz 214), who “abhorred the abolitionists’ challenge to their own social authority” (Wilentz 214). For a society that no longer relied on slaves to maintain their economy, I expected the North’s resistance to the preservation of slavery to be minimal. After the reading, I believe most anti-abolitionists were opposed to change primarily because they did not want the federal government infringing on their strong political power.

On a similar topic, in chapter 13 of David Davis’ Inhuman Bondage, I was interested by Davis’ discussion of the extent of the distribution of abolitionist literature (which reached 3 million pieces by 1840), which “far exceeded anything done in the British campaign” (Davis 260). These sentiments are echoed in The Rise of American Democracy when Wilentz discusses the publication of Thoughts on African Colonization, Declaration of Principles and Liberator as texts to help fuel the abolitionist movement. Across sources, literature is mentioned as a primary factor in spreading abolitionist ideals and gaining support in the same way it has influenced countless other revolutions.

Wilentz’s final section concerns the creation of labor unions. While I found that he discussed this topic more adequately than The Bank Wars, it was still not on par with his description of abolitionism. I was interested by his discussion of union-based political communities who published their own newspapers, organized their own elections and perform public demonstrations. Wilentz’s description made me consider unions as their own independent political and social communities that were not part of a particular infrastructure, but ones that set their own rules for their own personal interests and gains.