North – U.S. to 1877

December 3, 2013

After the Civil War

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 end of the Civil War brought about a new type of America. Although the war was still fresh in everyone’s minds, citizens, particularly of the North, tried to look past that and rebuild their country. It is important to note that many people in the South were unhappy with the way the war ended and thus still did not full support the United States. JANEWTON notes how Davis mentions that t the country came to terms with the end of the civil war. While this may be the case in the North and in the middle states, most members of the deep South most likely felt otherwise. Imagine having your entire livelihood taken away from you, your main source of income gone. For many in the South the ending of the war and the emancipation of enslaved people was not something they could come to terms with. In my studies in previous years I learned how guerrilla warfare continued in states like Missouri and Kansas, where there were both Confederate and Union sympathizers. Most of these altercations were instigated by angry ex-Confederates so I think to say that the entire nation was at peace with the end of the war would be misguided.

I do think however that the end of the war went better than it could have. Despite some angry southerners, people seemed to to adjust well to this new slaveless nation. Additionally, and rightfully so, President Lincoln came out looking like a hero to all people of the North and formerly enslaved people. The South was also in slightly better spirits after the war because the North was somewhat merciful in their victory. As a clever way to appease some southerners, the North allowed the South to rebuild and create sort of a new identity. This worked to keep relations between the two regions peaceful. This sort of liberty and trust that the North afforded the South after the war was responsible for keeping the South content and as a result could be a reason why the South did not act against the Union again.

December 3, 2013

Effects of the Civil War

In Chapter 15 of Inhuman Bondage, David Davis writes about the Civil War and describes the lasting impact it had on the United States. The most interesting aspect of Davis’ writing in this chapter, was to me, how the country came to terms with the war after it was over. With the North winning, slavery was effectively finished in the U.S. and President Lincoln was heralded as a hero. Davis gives an example of an African American man kneeling to the President during an instance of slaves being freed. Lincoln responded by telling the man “don’t kneel to me”(298). This is the type of characterization of Lincoln that I have come to expect. He is often portrayed as a beacon of moral superiority and hero of sorts. Davis writing in this section is consistent with that narrative. Another interesting aspect of the chapter was how the North was able to keep the Civil War deemed a “good war” (299) by not decimating the south after it was over. This is in part because it was necessary in keeping the country together. Robbie Mangone discusses this more in his blog post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/a-necessary-evil/). In addition, Davis says that another reason it was deemed a good war is that the North didn’t unleash “full vengeance” on the states that had seceded and kept blacks from taking over parts of the south. He also goes on to explain that the North allowed the south to essentially recreate their own identity after the war was over which was huge in keeping tensions between the North and South at a minimum. This is something I hadn’t ever considered before. After a war of that magnitude, it is safe to assume that the South had deep-seated feelings of resentment and hatred for the North. Northerners had to act delicately in order to restore the country to where it needed to be. It was tremendously important that they handled the situation this way and I like that Davis included this in his writing.

Another important point Davis brings up in his writing is the shrewdness of President Lincoln during the war. He describes the President as “keenly aware” (309) of how delicate the issue of slavery still was during the war. The President was sure to act carefully and made sure that his Emancipation Proclamation did not include slaves from Union states like Maryland. This turned out to be a brilliant tactical move, helping the North assure victory. I think Davis did a very nice job throughout the chapter of characterizing the President, describing his impact on the outcome of the war and explaining exactly how significant this war was on the development of the country.

November 20, 2013

Wilentz, Ch. 21-22: Angles of the Argument

Sherwood Callaway

HIS 141, Blog Post 10

I was interested in the different angles used in arguments preceding the Compromise of 1850. Clay suggested a compromise in eight parts, which seemingly favored the southerners, but left the fate of new territories to northerners. His legislative angle kicked off the discussion, and most parties followed suit.

Calhoun also described the issue as a legislative one, in which the north had repeatedly gained favorable national legislation at the expense of the south. As examples, he cited the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which brought an expanse of free northern territory into the Union, and the Missouri Compromise, which restricted the majority of the Louisiana territory from becoming slave-affiliated in 1820. Wilentz adds that, “tarrifs and internal improvements had enriched northern business at the direct expense of the South”, blatantly hinting towards the Tariff of 1828, or the Tariff of Abominations, as it was called in the south (345). These restrictions made manufacturing more profitable in the north, and consumer goods more expensive in the south. Calhoun seemed to believe that the north had negotiated legislation with unfair aggression.

Webster encouraged a legislative compromise, and suggested that legislative taunts such as the Wilmot Proviso be stopped, out of respect for the southern position. Better than other northerners (he was from Massachusetts), Webster seemed to understand the southern predicament—being entrenched economically and culturally in a slave system. He demonstrated that “some sort of compromise was required to keep the nation from falling apart”, deviating from the unreasonable inflexibility he had once shown as a supporter of the Proviso (346). Like Clay and Calhoun, Webster saw the issue from a legislative angle.

But then there’s William Henry Seward, an antislavery northerner who argued on different terms—ideological terms. He was against compromise altogether, “condemning out of hand Clay’s compromise, and any such sectional deal” (346). Furthermore, he attacked the moral foundations for slavery, as “an oppressive and undemocratic institution”, and invoked language from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (346). Listeners interpreted his speech as arguing that “the forces of antislavery were above the law” (346). Personally, I respect Seward’s values and determination, but feel that pragmatism would have been a more effective way to disarm the situation. In fact, it seems as if Seward was hardly interested in disarming the situation at all, but in confronting the problem at its root. Maybe Seward’s direction was best, though; as my classmate MIHAN writes, “the truce of 1850 was [ultimately] fruitless, for it once again avoided the question of slavery instead of trying to solve it”.

I think that southerners were most afraid of unbending northerners like Seward because they represented the type of northern aggression that Calhoun had described. It was unreasonable and unsympathetic to make such demands of the south, when the south was so deeply a slave society. Whether or not Calhoun considered the institution of slavery morally defendable, he knew it was integral to southern economy and culture, and thus could not be removed without uprooting southern society itself. Legislators like Clay and Webster recognized this, and subsequently proposed compromises instead of making demands. I can imagine that Seward, and other inflexibles like him, made southerners feel as if backed into a corner. But maybe his approach was necessary, and just poorly delivered?

September 18, 2013

Slavery in the North, Virginia, and South Carolina

Slavery took on distinct forms in the various regions of America. In the North slavery was not as commonplace as in the South, but slavery in some areas was still the primary backbone of physical labor, and unlike the South, Northern slaves were more directly in competition with working class whites, but at the same time had more elements of their own autonomy and were often quite close to their white owners. In Virginia slavery underwent several transformations. Slavery saw its roots initially in Virginia as very similar to indentured servitude, with some slaves finding freedom after working for a master for a set number of years. The beginning years of slavery in Virginia showed a surprising degree of egalitarianism between freed blacks and whites, with some blacks becoming planters and slave owners themselves. As time went on however, and more slaves entered Virginia, the elites among the society grew upset at the idea of this near racial equality and worked to enshrine black inferiority into the laws, resulting in a vast removal of the rights of freed blacks and of those of slaves. In South Carolina, a interesting dichotomy emerged, slaves were crucial to almost every aspect of South Carolina life, from working the fields to fighting Indians, and the slave owners profited greatly from the slaves’ skills and labor, but the slave owners were greatly fearful of the possibility of a slave uprising, as they were outnumbered by their slaves and instituted harsh slave codes to attempt to prevent it. But in spite of this slaves had a greater degree of cultural autonomy than within other portions of the American colonies.