slavery – Page 2 – U.S. to 1877

November 20, 2013

Running The Risk

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

While it does not come as a surprise, every single time I open Wilentz I am reading about slavery. I realize that it is a product of the time period we are studying. However, it seems unreal to me that one thing could dominate every sphere of politics for so long. Slavery seems to me, to be the only issue ever to be able to accomplish a dominance of this kind. I could not envision a time or idea that could do that today. While we have specific issues that dominate politics, both economic and social, there is no one issue that stands alone as a contributor to all other issues. Slavery was just that, it was a dominant force socially, economically, and politically.

Particularly, the issue of the Fugitive Slave Law is intriguing. MIHAN on 11/19 mentions that among some compromises made there was a “much more stringent Fugitive Slave Act, which inadvertently led to tensions…” I was not surprised to read what I did in Wilentz on the issue. However, I did find that the specific people mentioned with regard to the Law are among the most powerful anti-slavery advocates out there. John Brown, a rabblerousing abolitionist from Massachusetts, is mentioned with regard to his armed resistance. Frederick Douglass is also mentioned, and he is in support of a violent end to the Fugitive Slave Law. Wilentz writes of the Underground Railroad and the abolitionists, black and white, that stuck their necks out for the runaway slaves. This also brings to light the so-called hero of the Underground Railroad, Harriet Tubman. The Fugitive Slave Law made the entire United States a dangerous place for all slaves, former slaves, and even free blacks. Wilentz writes, “The new Fugitive Slave Law compelled ordinary northerners to participate in slave recoveries, on pain of fine and imprisonment, and placed heavy penalties on any found guilty of aiding runaway slaves–in effect turning the entire northern population, black and white, into one large slave patrol” (353). This made the Underground Railroad much more dangerous, and also created a tough internal controversy for many people in the north and south. This law made everyone punishable if they helped or even knew about a runaway slave. In no way was this meant to last forever. The everyday tension brought upon all people under this law was too much to bear.

I would argue that the new and improved Fugitive Slave Law was a substantial problem in the antebellum United States. With slavery dominating every facet of life, the Fugitive Slave Law pushed it one step too far.

November 20, 2013

British Tensions

In the book Inhuman Bondage, Davis in chapter 14 talks a good deal about Anglophobia and Britain’s effect on domestic policy surrounding slavery. Davis explains how the majority Americans saw the british empire as a “natural enemy… ruled by selfish interest, lusting for domination of the world, and filled with a deep rooted hatred for everything America represented,”(Davis 272). Through this worldview, Americans started to recognize every part of the British entity as “evil,” including slavery. As Davis explains, slavery in the early to mid 1800’s, was a fairly heated political topic that shaped a large part of the identity of American policy in this time period. Because of Britain’s anti-slavery policy and influence in the United States, many Americans began to lose support for the abolitionist cause because Britain’s ways must be evil. This in turn not only gave the South a great political strength nationally, but also gave them a boost in confidence. Meanwhile, British American tensions grew throughout the 1830’s and 40’s through territorial boundaries, the slave ship Caroline, and the Annexation of Texas (Davis 284). Britain’s attack on slavery in particularly worsened the Anglophobia which subsequently divided America even further. Davis seems to put much focus on the impact of Britain’s actions during this time to such an extent that he almost insinuates that British presence in political issues that deepened the divide that sparked the Civil War. I feel that Davis’s analysis here may be correct, yet I feel that this was not the only issue that sparked serious debate leading up to the civil war. David eludes here that this political debate started to become a serious issue only after the strong Anglophobia was influencing politics. I disagree to an extent, I feel that policies such as the gag rule, or the Missouri Crisis of 1819 are examples of where slavery was a very serious issue; however these issues were merely covered up instead of dealt with directly. Overall Davis has a strong argument on why it the slavery issue erupted later in the season, but in my opinion slavery was always a serious issue that politicians simple chose to act indecisively about.

As a side note I found that MASPEED made a good point about how Lincoln is alway portrayed as this great idol, often times we don’t see the over all picture of Lincoln’s life—the good and the bad. I also agree with MASPEED in that Lincoln was an overall admirable morally sound figure, even though he wasn’t the perfect idol that our middle school history teachers portrayed him as. Although Lincoln should not be the epitome of an honest person, his life is one of admiration and good example.

November 20, 2013

The Delaying Compromise of 1850

It comes as no surprise that there were many political tensions between the North and South in the ante-bellum period. One of these main issues was the institution of slavery and its possible expansion into new territories.Each side feared that with the inclusion of new states that whether they be free or slave that it would tilt the balance of power to one side which would allow the stronger side to either further enforce slavery or to abolish it. The two sides needed to come to some form of agreement in hopes of maintaining the balance of power. Many compromises occurred to curb the spread of slave states to the west such as the Missouri Compromise while not outright restricting growth. One major compromise Compromise of 1850.

In 1850, congress wished to allow the territory of California to be admitted as a free state, as well as New Mexico. The southerns were outraged by this expansionary policy and believed it was a move for the North to gain more political power. Clay offered a more “fair” alternative to this plan. In this plan, Texas releases its claim to New Mexico and allow the future states New Mexico and Arizona to have the decision to be free or slave. California would still be admitted as a free state. The South gained a stronger Fugitive Slave act to enforce slavery.

This compromise only proved to delay the inevitable succession of South Carolina and the southern states who followed. It was a vain attempt at compromise that just didn’t do enough. It did not truly limit or allow slavery which caused discontent for both sides leading to future conflict.

November 20, 2013

Lincoln, Moral Idol, Yet Still A Politician

In Inhumane Bondage, Davis gives a broader, less detailed account of history than Wilentz ever does. Although arguably more objective, one can find points to analyze and break down. One thing that stood out to me was the characterization of Lincoln and his stance while running against Douglas. Historically, we see Lincoln as the just idol, always behind equal rights and abolition. One would not think he considered the African American race as inferior morally and intellectually. In reality, Lincoln might have been the perfectly moral character we are taught about in elementary school. But when standing behind the podium or on the political stump, he did not speak in absolutes and extremes. Though he claimed slavery was wrong, he “repeatedly acknowledged that the federal government could not interfere with slavery in the existing states” (Davis 290). So did Lincoln think the Deep South should immediately rid itself of slavery? No. He supported gradual abolition and “…wholly rejected the idea of ‘perfect social and political equality with the negro'” (Davis 290). Is this the Abe Lincoln we all know and revere as a man to model your moral standards after? Among these factors, I still say yes. These questionable quotes don’t necessarily reflect Lincoln’s heart. He is a politician after all and politicians that take extreme stances very rarely are successful. As a politician, especially a Senate and Presidential candidate, Lincoln had to attempt to appeal to more people than those who mirrored his views exactly. If he had run on a promise for the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln would not have an enormous copy of himself sitting in a chair in DC today. Since I am taking a political science class this semester, I recognized and considered the way politicians must be vague and avoid absolutes while running. Lincoln obviously did this and later, stimulated by the secessions all over the south, let out his true, deeply embedded moral motivations.

I look forward to seeing what else Davis has to say about Lincoln’s actions and positions on racial equality because I know we haven’t seen the end at the conclusion of chapter fourteen.

*Note: With the new way we are doing blogs, there are none with similar subjects to mine. I found no way to connect my blog to another’s. I will, however, state that I agree with SPEDWARDS in their post that it was quite interesting that the press would characterize the Craft Affair as a start to a civil war. That seems very extreme and not well placed by the press.

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?

November 19, 2013

Hostility Turns to Violence

In chapters 21 and 22, Wilentz outlines many controversial events leading up to the Civil War. As new states continued to be annexed into the Union, the same recurring theme of slavery followed each one. It seems as though compromise after compromise were passed and none left both the north and south satisfied. In his blog post on 11/19, MIHAN seems to agree with this thought and characterizes the strategy for settling regional differences as “avoiding the question of slavery instead of trying to solve it.” These multiple compromises on slavery only widened the divide between north and south. At this point, it seemed as though the United States was far down the “road” leading to civil war.

I found the Craft affair of 1850 to be one of the most interesting events during this hostile time. After the Compromise of 1850 strengthened slaveowners’ rights to retrieve runaway slaves, a skirmish broke out in Christiana, Pennsylvania between a slaveholder and his posse and multiple slaves. The slaveholder was killed during the fight and his son was critically injured. A Pennsylvania newspaper headlined the story as “Civil War—The First Blow Struck” (351). First, it is quite surprising that a newspaper would categorize a skirmish with only 20 or 30 participants as a “civil war.” Countless larger slave revolts had occurred in previous years and I can guarantee very few people believed a war would ensue. I believe Wilentz presents this title to the reader in order to show that tensions between northern and southern sentiment were rising. A subtitle in chapter 22 reads “on the tip-toe of revolution” (389). At this time, people all around the country knew that the United States was coming to a brink. And with each “compromise” that passed, the United States was practically tip-toeing, slowly but surely, towards a real civil war.

After the slave leaders of the skirmish had been captured, President Fillmore sent a large force of soldiers to Christiana and captured most of the assumed “black resisters” (351). Fillmore’s administration then attempted to accuse the perpetrators of treason in order to stop other black abolitionist from defying the compromise of 1850. This plan did not hold up in court and the government eventually dropped its charges. When I think of Fillmore’s actions, I can’t help but think about George Washington and his powerful actions to putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. It seems as though Fillmore had a similar plan in maintaining the new laws of the United States through the power of the United States army and judicial system. Unfortunately for Fillmore, the plan did not find the same success as Washington’s. Instead it showed the ineffectiveness of the United States Government at quelling slavery and tensions. It also failed to change the sentiment or actions of abolitionists and anti-abolitionists in the years leading up to the Civil War.

November 18, 2013

The Mouth of the South

In this week the main topic was Irish immigrants and their involvement in the civil war. It is very questionable to why the Irish chose to join the confederates in their fight for slavery, and the reading throws out numerous reason why this choice made sense although most “were not slave holders but young, impoverished, unskilled workers.” (Joyce 185) The overall reason behind the Irish choice was their knowledge on the need to be included in a group. In their homeland, they were excluded by the English and terribly mistreated as laws prohibited them from “property ownership, jury trial, the vote, and even a Catholic education.” (Joyce 186) Being the lowest of the low before, the Irish knew that they needed to be accepted socially in America in order to not be put in the same position as they were in their homeland. I feel this aligns to what my classmate AlKarout said in her post as she spoke on how the Irish played on slavery to create their identity in the south.

To go along with their mistreatment, the nativists of the north attacked the Irish immigrants; On the contrary, the southern Catholics accepted them. The Nativist attacks brought the thoughts “that social inclusion mattered as much in America as it had in the land they left behind.”(Joyce 193) On the other hand, the churches of the south offered “social services” to the impoverished Irish in times of need like the epidemic of 1852, and these essential moments were essential to gaining the support of these immigrants. (Joyce 190) Without these churches the Irish would have lacked things like hospital care, money for burials, orphanages, and, most important, a sense of belonging to some group.

A final reason pointed out in the reading was the economic competition between the free blacks and the working Irish. They struggled to battle for the same jobs until the Irish pushed to eliminate free black competition from “exclusively white realm of free labour.” (Joyce 188) With these groups battling for jobs, it makes sense that the Irish would support slavery. Without slavery it multiplies the number of people they have to compete with for the few occupations that the impoverished had the chance of getting.

November 18, 2013

Irish Identity, White Laborers, and the Rhetoric of Enslavement

The readings for this Tuesday offered two enlightening perspectives about the relationship between free laborers and the system of slavery. It was interesting to compare the experience of white freemen in the North working for labor rights (as discussed in Roediger’s essay) and that of Irish Americans in their attempts at establishing a favorable identity within a slave society (discussed in Dee Dee Joyce’s article). I enjoyed Roediger’s eloquent style and Joyce’s clear and concise outlining of her argument.

Northern white laborers compared themselves to slaves in a rhetorical strategy in order to critique the “evolving capitalist social relations as a kind of slavery” (Roediger 342). This strategy was risky and complex; while they compared their plight to that of slaves, they also had to be careful to “distance themselves from blacks even as the comparisons were being made.” (Roediger 341). While it is easy to look back now and characterize their comparisons to slavery as hyperbolic and extreme, the risk that was assumed by likening oneself to a slave should not be understated. Roediger emphasized this point by saying that “comparing oneself to a slave or to any Black American could not be lightly undertaken in the antebellum United States” (344). I assumed that comparing themselves to slaves implied a certain degree of anti-slavery sentiment, but the reading revealed that this was not the case. Rather it was “a call to arms to end the inappropriate oppression of whites” (344). Because, you know, slavery is totally okay… just not for whites.

The Irish Americans in the South also played on the societal inferiority of blacks and slaves as they attempted to create their identity in their new home of the antebellum south. Like the white northern freemen, the Irish were extremely concerned about avoiding “the taint of blackness” as they attempted to succeed in the realm of free labor (Ignatiev quoted by Joyce, 188). While Joyce described quite a few racist acts by the Irish (minstrel shows, eradicating slave and free black from the realm of free labor, etc…) it is understandable (but not necessarily justified) that Irish Americans resorted to racism in light of their past. Will pointed this out extremely well when he said: “Shaped by a history of marginalization, Irish-Americans desperately longed for inclusion and a sense of superiority, and maintaining slavery offered the best way to attain these goals” (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/white-laborers-fear/). This history of marginalization led them to be very pragmatic and calculating about their discrimination of blacks. I ultimately took away from this reading that it wasn’t necessarily racist impulse that fueled their anti-black actions, just an undeniable truth that either the Irish immigrants or the African Americans were going to be oppressed in the US, and the Irish did what was possible to make sure it wouldn’t be them.

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.

November 18, 2013

MPIAH, David R. Roediger: The Language of Liberty

Sherwood Callaway

HIS 141, Blog Post 9

The “coffin handbill” that Roediger describes acknowledges an incongruity between the spirit of ’76 and the persistence of slavery—something that my classmates and I have been hung up on since the pre-revolutionary period.

The journeyman tailors who wrote this handbill use the language of slavery to describe their condition, although there are certain fundamental differences between workers and slaves that they do not acknowledge. The tailors are afforded a wage, while the slaves are not. The tailors are free not to work, should they wish, while the slaves are not. Furthermore, the tailors are not bound and whipped and abused like slaves. So why make the comparison?

These are not the parallels that the journeyman tailors are trying to make, when they said “freemen of the North are now on a level with the slaves of the South” (319). These “freemen” sought to demonstrate the deprivation of their freedom, above all else. Roediger writes: “They were cast as slaves not because they were “hirelings” but because the state had deprived them of the freedoms necessary for defending their rights” (319). In order to manipulate peoples’ liberal sensibilities, this document acknowledges the incongruity between the spirit of ’76 and the persistence of slavery. America was founded to protect our freedoms, right?

The level of comfort with which the tailors treat this incongruity is new and astounding, but it doesn’t necessarily imply that slavery was out of fashion. The tailors were not so inclined to make a full comparison between themselves and slaves, because they weren’t abolitionists; they probably didn’t have a problem slavery, and were definitely used to it being around. The journeyman tailors, like other wage laborers, used only half the analogy and ignored the rest.

Of course, it didn’t take much longer for people to fill in that other half. The language of wage labor movements questioned the ethics of forced labor, and “chattel slavery stood as the ultimate expression of the denial of liberty” (319).