american – U.S. to 1877

December 9, 2013

A reflection upon the class

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

Taking a survey history course opened up my view on the history department and what a history major would mean at Davidson College. From this course I have taken an appreciation for not only American History, but for insightful, provocative, and researched discussions surrounding the topic. This being my first collegiate level history course, I have had an incredible and personally unique experience learning the subject material. However, the material itself felt like it stayed railed on the track of White Anglo Saxon male US history, and only occasionally addressing Slavery and especially Native American relation, while conversations in class tended to drift towards these topics. Overall I had a fantastic time in this class and am very happy I chose it to be my first experience with History at Davidson College!!!

November 18, 2013

Not Slavery, Not Pleasant

The word slavery carried a vast amount of weight throughout the 1800’s. In the years leading up to the civil war, 1830’s upward, slavery was the hot topic. The idea of “white slavery” is intriguing for that very reason. It seems unusual at a time when slaves were still considered less than human to a number of people that the northern workers would acquire such a title. Roediger notes, “in such a situation, it is not surprising that labor activists rather cautiously backed into making comparisons between white workers and slaves” (344). “White slavery” is almost contradictory. It is definitely a powerful argument, however, I believe there is a lack of humanity that cannot be ignored. In the early 1800’s white means human and black means slave and less or in- humane. While this cannot be applied generally all over the country, it was still believed. I disagree with the Vermont slogan that they were ‘“slaves in every sense of the word”’ (345). This may be moving, but I believe that it is not true. WIROBERTSON, on 11/18, states that, “Clearly, whites must have felt severe oppression in order to draw this comparison.” While I agree that they were oppressed, perhaps even severely, the racial prejudice of the time takes precedence over a wage war. Even the phrase “slavery of wages,” seems to draw too much on slavery as a possibility for whites in America.

Forgetting the word slavery, white workers of this time were right to argue for their cause. No group of people appeals for a change in such an extreme manner unless there is a problem. From unreasonable hours to low pay, white workers along with children, women, and the Irish all felt the pangs of an oppressive society. The Irish particularly entered the South and found a difficult path ahead of them. Dee Dee Joyce recounts, “ In Charleston, Irish labourers entered historically black labour fields out of pure economic necessity” (188). That is to say that the Irish were forced into a position similar to slavery with the social freedoms of whites. This may be where the sever slavery argument comes from. The vast difference lies in the ability for whites to advance to grow into economic success. Where as the blacks of the time were stuck in perpetual slavery or at the very least extreme prejudice and oppression. Slavery in the United States was based on race. Therefore, there was no equivalent to be acquired by the whites of the time. Even the Irish, that struggles, could not have come to slavery as an end.

October 2, 2013

What In The World Is Russia Doing Here?

Up to this point, the entire focus of this class has been on the colonization of America. That is logical considering that this is American history, but the history thus far has not really been American. Rather, it has been a conglomerate of European explorations, European politics, and European settlement. Chapter 19 was no different, but this final chapter ended the colonial period in an intriguing way.

Spain had played a role in the colonies up to this point, but they started to get worried. Spain “owned” a lot of land towards the west coast. I say “owned” because technically they claimed the land and it was theirs, but the Spanish really had no idea how much land was actually their. So when rumors spread that Russia and Britain were coming after their landed, they assumed that “the Russians and British were closing in on California and would soon outflank New Mexico and attack precious Mexico” (Taylor 445). First off, what in the world is Russia doing in this book? Russia was definitely not a country I expected to hear, or had ever heard, in connection to colonial history. Also, it always amazes me how little they knew about the layout of the country, as seen by the map of the island of California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_island_Vinckeboons5.jpg). However, the Spanish did expand with their missionaries up the coast of California. They claimed the land by establishing little missionaries scattered up the coast of a vast territory.

Somehow Russia decides to rear its ugly head in the colonies. Now considering I had never heard of Russia being in America this early, I was intrigued to see what they brought to the table. I very quickly learned two major themes. The first is that the Russians are just like every other country that settled near natives. They were brutal, cruel, and effective in dealing with natives. They used natives to get the goods they needed and took advantage of them, just like every other society we have studied thus far. Secondly, Russia created a sense of urgency for the Spanish. Sarah Funderburg puts it eloquently in her most recent post, “the rumor that the Russians were rapidly expanding their land-holdings (or establishing them at all) motivated the Spanish to increase their aggressive expansion.” The Russians, to me, did not add much to the conversation about colonization. It seems as if they were another card in the deck.

Russia, Spain, Britain, France, etc. all seem to go the same way about colonization. As our talk of American colonization comes to end it is very clear. Now, just as Taylor does I will conclude with a brief mention of Revolution. Now, it is time to revolt against the British crown and become the United States of America.

October 2, 2013

What is this, Europe?

For real, though.

I’ve scrolled through the other blog posts and I see I might be the first to write about this so here’s my chance to bias everyone’s opinion! (Just like Thomas Paine)

The stance which the author of The Rise of American Democracy Wilentz takes on the American Revolution can almost be classified as Marxist. He prefaces his talk on the American Revolution with outlining of both the country and urban democracy, and defines the development of both as class struggle, with in each respective case the Rural farmers struggling against the aristocratic landowners or the Urban working class and petty merchants struggling against intelligentsia, Enlightenment era political leaders. Wilentz essentially outlines the causes of the American Revolution in the same manner that one would outline a revolution in Europe, with an extremely focus not on The British domination of Americans, and draws attention to the socio-economic conditions which existed within the colonies at the time. He makes his case by citing famous writings like Thomas Paine’s Common Sense as driving factors which increased antagonism towards both the British and the ruling elite as a whole.

So far I’m finding the new perspective very interesting and I’m honestly very excited to read on and see where Wilentz is going with this.

September 25, 2013

The Verbal Worship of the British Empire by Taylor

The Chapter 18 reading of American Colonies presents an alternative view of the New World. Whereas up until this point Taylor has described the New World in terms of settlement and development of political structures and economic systems, he now describes it as a battlefield to set the stage for the seven years war. He opens the history of war in the 18th century by stating that, despite having a well-funded army in the area, the French managed to lose a fortress at Louisberg to what was essentially a New English militia. After initial battles, both the French and the British realized that they needed to pay more attention to the New World as a theatre for warfare. However, as both colonial areas developed into the mid 18th century, population dynamics shifted so that the British found themselves at a massive advantage. They enjoyed areas of centralized, high density population, whereas the French found themselves dispersed along hundreds of miles of land that frankly was unsustainable and nobody could really live on. This lead to a particular point where Taylor refers to the French as “more restrained and civil” during the seven years war.

Really?

He goes on to explain himself by stating that since the French had such a dispersed population, they knew that the only way to win the seven years war was to gain the help of the Indian population, and become their puppeteers so that the Indian nations between the French and British Borders would die for the French. I completely agree with Jelaws post stating that The British, in this and several other instances, are painted in far too kind a light.

However, this does not excuse the indignation of the colonists that is described in later chapters. In exchange for fighting for and successfully defending the colonies, The British began to raise taxes on the colonists that were minuscule compared to taxes in England, and extremely affordable in the economy of the New World. However, the Colonists believed that they were being oppressed by their mother country because they were being asked to pay in VERY small part for a war which the British fought for them. Taylor describes the taxes being viewed as an “attack on liberty”, but, as always, in reality there is always a much more simple and pragmatic cause for government actions. Like trying to pay for two imperial wars at once.

September 1, 2013

Taylor, Chapter 2: An Environmental Perspective

Sherwood Callaway

HIS 141, Blog Post 2

For context, my post today has mostly to do with the environmental history Taylor presents in chapter 2.

Generally speaking, chapter 2 was concerned with three things: thee driving forces behind European exploration, the decimation of local inhabitants upon European contact, and the environmental ramifications of European-American interaction. The Europeans pursued exploration because it offered new opportunities for commercial exploitation and religious conversion. Their experiences in the western Atlantic –where they subdued the Guanche through “just” warfare, manipulation of local politics, and by unintentionally introducing of foreign diseases, plants and animals – demonstrated these benefits, and prepared the Europeans for their “new world.” Finally, the breadth and variety of economical implications resulting from making contact was astounding; rampant disease destroyed whole Indian nations, crops were exchanged and food supplies significantly altered, livestock introduced, deforestation dramatically increased, etc.

Simply, the Europeans threw America’s natural balance completely out of whack.

Taylor deserves credit for giving sufficient attention to the role of the environment in this period. In his post last week, Wells was first to recognize the way Taylor weaves anthropological and environmental histories together. Certainly, one cannot be separated from the other, but less mindful historians often diminish the weightof the latter. Taylor has proven himself otherwise; for example, he quotes Thomas Malthas’ principle of population, acknowledging man’s environmental dependency.

After reading the first chapter, I assumed Taylor’s interest in environmental history was conditioned by his subject material— the Indians. Wells may have felt the same, since in his blog post he employed the examples of the Anasazi and the Hohokam. Under this impression, I considered Taylor backward and hypocritical, since much of his introduction was spent condemning historical inaccuracies like that of the nature-loving Indian. However, this reading has clearly proven that Taylor’s interest in environmental history is simply part of a well-rounded modus operandi. The environment pertains equally to all three parties this time; the Europeans gained more efficient crops like maize and potatoes; the Indians suffered from alien disease, flora and fauna; the Africans benefit from the introduction of cassava, and enjoyed some protection from slavers, thanks to the harshness of their environment.

I applaud Taylor for his including this historical dimension, and am excited to experience other aspects of American history through it.

August 29, 2013

Taylor, Chapter 1: A Diversity-Continuity Contradiction

Sherwood Callaway

HIS 141, Blog Post 1

In his introduction, Taylor describes colonial America as a melting pot of diversity, in which the three distinct cultures – European, Indian and African – each with its own subdivisions, were thrust together in a manner of unprecedented speed and force. Driven by “profit-seeking and soul-seeking,” the Europeans facilitated this gathering with their comparatively advanced navigational abilities, shipping entrepreneurial colonists and African laborers alike. British America emerged as the dominant cultural entity in the so-called New World, imposing itself upon Indian and African cohabitants. These less powerful cultures were certainly not less prominent, however; they held equal influence in the cultural mix. Taylor writes profoundly of colonial society, saying “in such exchanges and composites, we find the true measure of American distinctiveness, the true foundation for the diverse American of our time.” That particular statement struck me as Americentric (if that is even a word), and I was surprised to hear such a thing from Taylor, who makes such a point of debunking the “traditional story of American uplift” that is associated with the colonies.

Additionally, in chapter one, Taylor seems to contradict his description of colonial America – which I previously summarized in brief – by suggesting cultural continuity between pre-Columbian Indians and Europeans. Their violent tendencies, for one:

“the chiefdoms conducted chronic warfare. Burials reveal skeletons scarred with battle wounds; many towns were fortified with wooden palisades, and their art often celebrated warriors displaying the skulls, scalps, and corpses of their victims. Of course, none of this rendered them more warlike than their contemporaries elsewhere in the world; European graves, cities, and art of the same period (“the Middle Ages”) also displayed the prominence of war and the honors bestowed upon victors.”

Their metropolitan and technological advancements, for another: The Hohokam used a massive and complex system of irrigation canals for farming, which “demanded extensive, coordinated labor to build and maintain.” And near the Mississippi River, the Mound Builder city of Cahokia once sprawled – the notable home of an impressive calendrical device and the largest earthen pyramid in North America. Taylor seems to legitimize Indian civilization in the face of Eurocentrism by describing in detail these accomplishments.

In summary, Taylor seemed to contradict himself by first championing the diversity of colonial America, but then spending the entire first chapter writing an indigenous history in the way we usually write European history.