John Brown – U.S. to 1877

December 2, 2013

The Negotiation cat is in the bag, and the bag’s in the river

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 the final chapters of Willentz , he discusses several of the volatile figures at the end of the Era of Secession which contributed to pushing the country towards civil war. The first is Chief Justice Taney, who was a staunch southerner, who held a strong affinity for southern culture and didnt not believe that black people, free or slaves, had any part in it or in being an american citizen. He also made the controversal ruling on the Dredd Scott case. This and other rulings within government, including the admission on Kansas as a slave state, worked to strengthen sectionalism in government. By this time, factionalism in government and the disdain each faction had for one another began spilling out past the point of negotiation, and even into violence on the house floor, as was the case during the Kansas state vote. As Malandini pointed out, Tensions rose eve further as civilian radicals such as John Brown began to surface during a time of already high tension and a government which could not handle domestic affairs effectively. The use of the sword from John Brown would push american media into a frenzy and send America down a path to war which was nigh impossible to diverge from.

December 2, 2013

The divorce of North and South

In chapter 24, Wilentz successfully distills the complex political atmosphere of America at the dawn of the civil war by succinctly describing the Harpers Ferry affair and its political ramifications. Wilentz does not oversimplify the matter or simply make Brown a one-dimensional figure. For example, on page 425, Wilentz explains the following: “To allay fears that Brown’s sympathizer’s came even close to a northern majority, northern conservatives and businessmen sponsored their own public meetings condemning Brown and any who would trample the Constitution. Democrats, North and South, tried to tie Brown around the neck of the Republican party. Alarmed Republicans hastily distanced themselves from Brown.” Here, Wilentz aptly characterizes the complicated nature of Brown as a national figure while simultaneously illustrating the tangled relations that both Democrats and Republicans shared across regional lines.

In many ways, Brown could be read as the catalyst that split the North and South, but Wiletnz seems to avoid that interpretation by giving the reader more to think about; both in terms of North vs. South and the bipartisan relationship between the Republicans and Democrats of the era. As @romangone states in their post, the South saw Lincoln’s election as “the North’s embrace of John Brown,” further separating the two regions in what would eventually lead to the realization of irreconcilable differences.

December 2, 2013

A Farewell to Wilentz

In the final chapters of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz discusses the final developments in the national powder keg, which inevitably exploded, thereby prompting the Civil War. While most other posts have thoroughly discussed the finer points leading up to this conflict, I found Wilentz’s analysis of the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision to be particularly notable.

Rather than solely focusing on the political tension between the North and South, Wilentz rightfully acknowledges the Supreme Court’s role in spurring conflict. Dred Scott v. Sandford focused on Scott’s attempt to buy himself (and his family) from slavery after living in Wisconsin, which was a free territory. Despite Scott’s previous condition of servitude, such a change presumably gave him standing in the fight for his freedom. Ultimately, the Court ruled that slaves were not citizens and thus they had no claim to citizenship. As such, Scott had no standing in the case. This meant that because he was not a citizen, he could not bring his plea to a courtroom. This distinct use of judicial review clearly reaffirms the Supreme Court’s role regarding the separation of political powers in the federal government. The Court’s ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, which had previously offset tensions concerning slavery. Furthermore, the Court also stripped power from Congress, as it dictated that Congress had no right to regulate slavery.

As we can see, the Court’s ruling meant that the issue of slavery could no longer be resolved politically. Unintentionally or not, their ruling had serious consequences.

Although many have already written eloquently about it, particularly Alia and Andrew, John Brown also played a role in contributing to the advent of the Civil War through non-political means. His use of direct force, although brief and futile, brought him to the forefront of tension over slavery. Ultimately, as others have stated, he encouraged military action to resolve slavery. However, more than that, he became a martyr in the North – giving a name and face to the cause.

December 2, 2013

Sending Not Peace But A Sword

Reading what Wilentz had to say about the politics and events leading up to the civil war was much more invigorating than usual. Come of the previous chapters explored high politics, and though well-written, failed to keep my attention. However, these chapters were rather interesting, especially the section about John Brown.

John Brown’s plans for raiding Harpers Ferry were foolish. However, the extent to which his strategy was unrealistic leads me to believe that he had a feeling he’d be exchanging “the role of an avenging commander-in-chief for that of a martyr” (Wilentz, 423). Uncommitted to actually being successful in his raiding efforts, he seemed to know that his actions served more as an ideological example for abolitionists. He knew that true change within “this slave country” would “never be purged away; but with Blood” meaning that his insurrection was only a glimpse of what was to come in the clash between the North and South.

Evfarese mentioned in their post that “many thought that it might occur, but Brown’s violent actions and his prophecy surely convinced a large amount of Americans that secession and war was in the future.” As my classmate pointed out, John Brown’s actions precipitated the public’s realization that war was imminent given the growing tensions between the North and South.

It was ironic that Brown’s actions, meant to exemplify his fundamental hatred for the institution of slavery, actually made southern slave owners believe that their slaves were content with slavery (Wilentz, 425). Wilentz brought up a point that I had never previously considered. After John Brown’s failed revolution, he was almost universally ridiculed for his hastiness. But as a result of this widespread disapproval of his actions, the door was opened for more moderate Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln to ascend to political power (Wilentz, 425). Although Brown would have rejected the more moderate route taken by Lincoln, the same goal of abolition was achieved in the end. Although the election of Lincoln is most often cited as the greatest provocation of the South’s secession (and perhaps it is) the events such as John Brown’s raid should also be cited to give context of the rising tension and chaos in the nation leading up to the election of 1860.

December 1, 2013

Leading up to Secession

Many events took part in factoring into the decision for South Carolina so secede from the Union. Of course they had been upset for quite some time with the abolitionists in the north and they were starting to feel that few if not no northerners could be trusted to hold represent them as president. They were shocked to see how far some northerners would go to see abolition when John Brown took hostage a federal armory. He had hoped to have many more people join him, especially other major figures like Frederick Douglass who firmly said no and it would be foolish to take the armory. Brown also intended to rally slaves as he went through to fight for him, but they were not very interested. Finally John Brown gave up after a day and half and was captured by Robert E. Lee. Just before his execution he wrote out his final prophecy and that was that the US was a guilty land and its crimes “will never be purged away; but with Blood.” (424) His words struck a large amount of the population who saw that maybe he war right and that a war was imminent. I think that Brown solidified the possibility of war in citizens’ heads. Many thought that it might occur, but Brown’s violent actions and his prophecy surely convinced a large amount of Americans that secession and war was in the future.

The final major event that lead to secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln into office. This election was very hard fought and caused the Democratic party to split in two, forming Northern and Southern branches. I think if anyone other than a pro-slavery president was elected, the South would surely secede. And that is exactly what happened when Lincoln was elected. ROMANGONE raises a good point regarding the fact that even though some Southern Democrats were divided on certain issues, they all stood together in opposition of Lincoln. Within the same month of Lincoln’s election South Carolina had seceded, closely followed by many other states who would go on to form the confederacy. I think that Lincoln’s election was the tipping point of the road to secession. It was as though the idea of secession had been brewing for so long and with the 1860 election, the South finally snapped. There were many events on the road to secession, but none more important than the election of Abraham Lincoln.