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 Rise of American Democracy disappointed me again this week. Wilentz plowed through an analyzation of the struggle between Jackson and Biddle over the national bank that was bland and not easy to follow for a student without a background in finance. I could comprehend the gist of the battle and who was on each side but I was not familiar with the processes and tactics used by the politicians. I would suggest a more simple approach with language and/or explanations for readers without experience and knowledge in the field. I recognize however, I may just have a low understanding of the way the national bank works and need to increase this. Luckily, the economic jargon gave way eventually to a more historical account of the events dealing with abolition.
I found it shocking that the anti-abolitionists could get away with, if only for a time, censoring the post to disallow the circulation of anti-slavery publication. This is obviously an issue of the freedom of speech, explicitly given to citizens in the Constitution. Censorship of a minorities opinion is censorship all the same and should be against the law. I can only assume that the reason this infringement upon the rights of American citizens was allowed only because of how serious slave insurrections were. Southern planters and mostly all whites for that matter would be terrified of just the notion of rebellious, angry slaves roaming the country side, possibly armed with plenty reason to do harm to their oppressors. The fear implanted in the white citizenry, as discussed in class, definitely stemmed from rebellions like the ones lead by Cato, Nat Turner, and others. The literate slaves and sympathetic whites, capable of producing anti-slavery literature, were stopped by unconstitutional laws even the President had a part in proposing.
In janewton’s post, the political motivation of elites against abolitionists stands in stark contrast with the fearful motivation of the South. I find it interesting that the two geographical regions differ in their reasons to hate abolition but agree in standing against it. (Admittedly, elites in the South definitely had similar motivations to the Northern elites.)
One very interesting point I found in Inhumane Bondage was about the divisive splits experienced by anti-slavery groups. Davis states that, “…Antislavery groups could hardly have been more querulous and divisive”(261). One would, at face value, think that with all the political or literal fire aimed at them, these groups would bond together and work tirelessly towards their collective goal. The American Anti-Slavery Society apparently split in 1840 for differences in opinion about women’s rights. I think this shows that though major reform was being demanded and soon to come, the country had still a while to go in terms of human rights. After all, it would not be until 1920 that our nation’s leaders decided to ratify the amendment allowing women to vote.