slavery – Page 3 – U.S. to 1877

November 13, 2013

The Road to 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

Thursday’s reading from Sean Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy covered a wide variety of topics from the years leading up to the American Civil War. I particularly enjoyed Wilentz’s description of the radical divisions within the Democratic Party that formed over conflicting issues. Wilentz writes, “across the Northeast and West, equivalents of the Radical-Conservative fights split the state Democratic parties, chiefly on banking issues” (Wilentz, 278) into a number of subgroups including Loco-Focos, Barnburners and Hunkers. What amazed me is how these different subgroups could exist within the realms of the same political party while espousing completely different political views. While the Barnburners were committed to abolition (and willing to undermine the democrat party to achieve abolition), the Hunkers largely downplayed the cruelty that many others saw in slavery. I believe that these fundamental disagreements within political parties was one of many key factors in setting the stage for the Civil War, the ultimate manifestation of years of deep-seeded American political differences.

Wilentz also discussed the disarray of the Whig Party under John Tyler. Whether it was due to Tyler and political rival Henry Clay “tear[ing] each other apart” (Wilentz, 274) or due to the emergence of John C. Calhoun (who planed to capture the Presidency through manipulation of the Democrat Party), the Whigs were clearly falling apart. I found SAFUNDERBURG’s post concerning the reemergence of the Modern Whig Party in Pennsylvania particularly insightful in describing the surprising revival of this notorious political party. I still find it amazing, as a foreigner, whose country pays little acknowledgement to its past political histories, that the Whig Party could be revived. This would not happen in Canada, as people in my home country are not as passionate about the politics of the past or history of our country nearly as much as I’ve found people are in America. I’d be surprised if most people I knew could name the political parties active during Canada’s birth, while in America it is almost considered common knowledge to know your country’s ancestry.

I also enjoyed Wilentz’s description of the actions put forward by the Liberty Party and other antislavery movements. Wilentz’s description of the Liberty Party’s goal to “divorce slavery and government akin to the Jacksonians’ divorce of banking and government” (Wilentz, 288) was an analogy that I found interesting. Jackson’s desire to eliminate the federal bank was an attempt to stop rich northerners from claiming total control over America’s finances, while slavery was an issue concerning rich southern plantation owners. Both concern two different geographical areas of the United States, yet the two are both extremely important issues of American politics.

November 13, 2013

Destined to Rule

The reading for this week was for the most part focused on the idea of Manifest Destiny and how the United States began to annex other lands into their country. Starting with the death of President Harrison (which is the most absurd thing I have ever heard of) the United States mission to move in on other lands became what seemed like the most important thing to the presidents. After Texas expressed their want to become a part of the United States, along with the fact that the British stood a chance to take control of the Republic, new President John Tyler jumped on the chance to annex, which he just barely got done before Polk was sworn into the Presidency.

With another new president the United States was told that there were four major goals to be completed: “the settlement of the Oregon question, the reduction of the protectionist tariff of 1842, reestablishment of the independent treasury, and the acquisition of California.” (306) It only makes sense that half of our countries goals were to gain more land since it was our destiny to expand. Polk sent in men to go to the Mexican border, basically in an attempt to start war and take over California. Although it may not have been constitutional, Polk started the war and then got approval from the congress. His rival, Calhoun, did not take kindly to this abuse of power as he was an opponent of the war and said the Polk “had unconstitutionally engineered the country into war.” (310)

As any other story of pre-civil war America, slavery had to find its way into this situation. The idea of whether the newly admitted lands would be slave or free territories started dividing the Whig party as sectionalism became more important that ideology. I think this is similar to what my classmate SpEdwards was saying in the beginning of his post as he spoke on how Polk thought the new lands would unify the country, but instead it gave the North and South more reason to divide. As we bring up often in class, I feel that the Wilmot Proviso was one of the early precursors of the Civil war that we had coming. The parties split and Calhoun “saw the proviso as a golden opportunity to unite southerners across party lines” (319) and it didn’t take the north long to align the same way. Hence the divide that we later see fighting against one another in the civil war over the same issue, abolition.

November 13, 2013

The Foreshadowing of the Proviso

In The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz describes the birth and effects of the Wilmot Proviso. This Proviso was introduced to the House by a representative from Pennsylvania. It would create a law that decreed, “‘neither slavery nor involuntary service shall ever exist’ in any territories acquired from Mexico as a result of the war”(Wilentz 316). Obviously this stirred controversy with anyone and everyone supporting slavery and its spread westward. If this were to make it through as a bill, not only would slavery be confined to the southeastern United States, but eventually, slaveholders would lose a considerable amount of power in Congress. Abolitionists would score a major win and the fall of slavery would be accelerated. The Senate did not manage to pass the Proviso in the same session but the House passed a more extensive version during the next session and the Senate again had the chance to vote on it. Calhoun introduced legislation combating the anti slavery bill and declared that it discriminated against states. Soon, the entire nation and all of the parties and smaller factions took stands for or against the Proviso. Both the Democrats and Whigs had to divide North to South because of their interests in slavery.

The reason these divisions are so important lies in future events we already know will happen. Real lines were drawn between free and slave states and the same lines cut through united parties in Washington. Because of Wilmot’s Proviso, “Calhoun…launched a movement for southern rights and unity, which inspired anti-Proviso mass meetings across the South” (Wilentz 319). Did these meetings foreshadow a very real threat of a Confederacy? Though it’d be over another decade before the Civil War, an argument could be made that this movement is one of the first real signs of the South versus North hostile attitude. In Spedwards’s post, it is recognized that westward expansion and the expansion are linked and gravely debated in Congress. I agree that the two cannot be easily separated, if at all. By expanding, the US has to decide, slavery or no slavery. Another decision could be to continue kicking the can down the road and pairing every free state with a slave state. But the Proviso ignited tensions and lit the path ahead that was destined for a split between those who depended on slavery and those who would stop at nothing to end it.

November 13, 2013

James K. Polk: Expanding Land and Sectionalism

As President, James K. Polk was a devout Jacksonian democrat with a steadfast goal to annex new land into the Union. By expanding territory, Polk believed that a nation-wide belief in manifest destiny could eradicate the sectional disagreements that had recently emerged. Unfortunately for Polk, this plan backfired. Northern abolitionists believed that an expansion in land, also meant an expansion of the “slaveholder’s democracy” (311). This dispute led to even more tension between northern and southern states concerning the debate on slavery. In these chapters, Wilentz seems to always pair expansion and slavery together. The nation had become much more political than in earlier years and many debates arose regarding the governance of new land (slavery being the most debated topic). Because the United States was a democratic society, citizens wanted the new states to have characteristics were parallel to their beliefs. Soon, the debate on slavery enveloped the nation’s goals to expand and widened the gap between north and south. It is ironic that the frontier used to be a uniting feature of the United States, giving citizens a common goal of settling the lesser-known areas of continent and an overall feeling of nationalism. Now, people were so sectionalized and stubborn that expansion only led to more debates.

Wilentz characterizes the increased hostility between north and south during this time as a “mutual misunderstanding between Polk and his critics” (311). I agree with this statement. Polk had no intention to favor a side with his expansion policies. He was just following his Jacksonian democratic ideals of expanding the nation’s territory, and by doing so, its scope. I do think Polk could have tried harder to settle political tensions instead of focusing so much on foreign policy. But at this point in American history, I believe there was too much tension built up over regional practices that a president at this time could not do anything to successfully end the sectionalism in the states. At this point, the north and south were divided and no particular plan could appease both sides.

November 6, 2013

Abolition

The abolition movement was a very important factor in the leading up to the civil war. Obviously, it was the main cause for the thoughts of secession by the south who felt like their lifestyle was being threatened. It is important to see the why the those in favor of abolition took that point of view. While some did it because they saw how wrong slavery was, others did for intrinsic reasons, fearing that this mistreatment of other human beings would make them appear unfavorably in the eyes of God. I think that the latter reason for calling for abolition is missing the point, although it still does get the job done. Since slavery was an accepted part of American society, most people didn’t have a problem with it until they saw it escalate to the severity and brutality of plantation enslavement. I think the second group were not opposed to the idea of owning people, but once they saw the mistreatment of enslaved people, particularly on plantations, they began to worry about how their society appeared to God. In the end though, all abolitionists had the same well-intentioned goal in mind.

The Second Great Awakening is linked to the abolitionist movements as SYSTRAUSS points out in their post. They make a good point in that maybe the abolitionists who used evangelist words did not exactly have the interest of the slaves in mind when they were speaking. This comes back to the point of how the majority of abolitionists had their own relationships with God in mind rather than the lives of the slaves. I would argue that this makes them appear worse to their God because they are valuing this relationship more than another human being’s life. I am not actually that religious so I cannot speak to this point with that much accuracy, that is just how I presume it would be. This group of evangelists abolitionists who fight against slavery may not be doing it for exactly the right reason, but they should still be recognized as being far ahead and far more honorable than a large population of the country.

November 5, 2013

November 5th Post

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.

October 29, 2013

Wilentz Ch. 7 / Davis Ch. 9-10: The Slave-Owner’s Conundrum

Sherwood Callaway

HIS 141, Blog post 5

In response to this week’s readings, one of my classmates wrote:

“While I certainly agree that the tension between the nation’s founding principles and the oppression of slavery contributed to masters’ desire to see their actions as a form of paternalism rather than overt oppression, I don’t believe slave owners had any interest in acquiring the affection of their slaves.”

http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/author/alkarout/

I understand this perspective; it is hard to imagine a way in which “benevolence” can be associated with such a horrendous institution. Southern plantation society seems completely consumed by capitalist gain and self-interest— lacking a sense of morality, and malevolent— especially from a modern perspective. This conclusion is accurate, but not entire.

Consider this angle. We often conclude that northerners were more morally inclined than southerners because of they held more progressive positions on the institution of slavery. But the northern colonies also participated in slavery— the difference being that they maintained a “society with slaves”, rather than a “slave society.” I would argue that the north was independent of slavery only out of convenience. If the institution had been more useful for shipbuilding, fishing or commercial activity, I’m sure it would have had greater influence in those spheres. After all, it is reasonable to assume that southerners sought the same thing as northerners: monetary gain. The prevalence of slavery in a particular region seems to have depended solely upon its potential to produce in said region.

The issue of racism in the south, however, is less excusable. We learned from studying the Chesapeake colonies that racism was not necessarily a reason for slavery, but rather a byproduct. White solidarity developed out anxiety and fear—the anxiety of being a minority, and the fear of a deadly slave revolt. But over time, white solidarity developed into an aggressive, indiscriminate defense mechanism. This trajectory— from prolonged fear to aggression— is strikingly similar to colonial perspectives of natives during the 17^th century.

(On a more general note, I think that the innumerable dangers of the “new world” explain the colonists’ aggressive behavior. They seemed to be constantly on edge!)

Ultimately, racism became malevolent, andcontributed to sustaining the institution of slavery. But this isn’t the complete story. Because of their spread-out communities, southerners enjoyed plenty of freedom from both the law and their peers. Their sense of personal liberty was second only to the frontiers peoples’. Also, they were English protestants. They held “good” Christian values, and wanted to save souls by spreading the faith. Southerners likely struggled to marry these ideological and religious beliefs to the institution of slavery. In some capacity, I feel sorry for plantation owners, because they absolutely needed slave labor to compete economically, but the institution was incompatible with their beliefs. Sustaining their livelihoods meant burdening an ideological and religious conundrum.

This is where I return to my classmate’s post. I would argue that “paternal benevolence” likely existed as an attempt to reconcile notions of freedom and Christian kindness with the institution of slavery.

In sum: slavery was perpetuated by commercial interests and malevolent racism, but slave owners were not necessarily without benevolence.

October 28, 2013

Solidarity through Suppression: Slave Politics and Paternalism in the American South

Our readings for Tuesday address the features of slavery in the South as well as the politics of slavery in the West. And though on both fronts the so-called ‘peculiar institution’ faced different threats, from Federalists and Republic ‘Restrictionists’ politically and from non-slaveholding whites and dissident slaves domestically, the responses of slavery’s supporters to each threat shared a noteworthy similarity: by appealing to established convictions—either political, religious, or philosophical—leaders of the pro-slavery minority established solidarity along political, social, and racial lines.

On the political front, the assault on slavery by humanitarian Federalists and ‘Restrictionist’ Republicans evolved into a Constitutional debate with the admission of Missouri into the Union. For the pro-slavery Southern Democrats, this marked a crucial juncture for the protection and expansion of the institution which had experienced an unprecedented renaissance during the highly lucrative cotton boom of the 1790’s and early 19th century. Not only would the admission of Missouri as a slave state establish a pivotal four vote majority for the pro-slavery coalition in the Senate, but it would also ensure the expansion of slavery into the West, since, as Wilentz noted, “southerners worried that if slavery were banned in Missouri there would be precedent for doing so in all the states” (117). Characterized by intense factionalism on both sides, the debate over Missouri’s slave status echoed that of the Federalists and Anti-federalists just decades before. Insisting that the preservation of individual rights superseded that of the states’, Restrictionist Republicans argued for the Congressional power to restrict slavery in newly admitted states. Conversely, pro-slavery Southerners recalled the arguments of the Anti-federalists and Old Republicans, asserting state sovereignty and federal limitations. Missouri, they insisted, must decide the slavery question for themselves. Embroiled in the age-old debate of states’ rights and divided along regional lines, each faction became increasingly polarized and radicalized. In the South, “sectional bitterness spiked” along with “southerner’s militancy over slavery” (Wilentz 121). And in the fallout after the Missouri Compromise, bitter southerners made themselves known. Of those senators who voted against Senator Thomas’ clause, 2/3 were re-elected, a tremendous victory compared to the only 2/5 of Compromise’s supporters who earned reelection (123). By appealing to well-established Anti-federalist doctrines, pro-slavery Republicans ensured victory as well as political and regional solidarity.

On the domestic front, however, slavery faced much different opponents. Though outspokenly pro-slavery in the Senate, southerners themselves were not all slave-holders. In the antebellum South, “72 percent [of slaveholders] owned fewer than ten [slaves]” (Davis 198). In fact, the “typical” white Southerner at the time was a struggling small farmer, not a slaveholding great planter (185). Such a great number of non-slaveholders threatened the cohesion of the Southern slave society and plantation owner elites. In the Upper South, anti-slavery sentiment was on the rise, and in 1832, the Virginia unprecedentedly supported the notion that slavery was ‘ruinous to whites’ (185). Thus, “Southern slavocracy” entered a bitter battle with the threat of an alliance between non-slaveholding whites and dissenting slaves (185). But in the process, they treated each group similarly. To the enslaved, Southern elites adopted the practice of “Paternalism,” whereby slaveholders earned both the love and fear of their slaves by tempering their violent threats and abuses with acts of kindness and generosity, such as monetary bonuses and Christmas vacations (194, 196). To non-slaveholding whites, pro-slavery elites employed a strategy similar to that of paternalism, instilling a racist fear of freedom for slaves and a love of class cohesion for whites. By appealing to the long-established Aristotelean defense of slavery and the Biblical “Curse of Ham,” pro-slavery intellectuals, such as James Henry Hammond, fostered the notion of white supremacy in an effort to “command the loyalty of non-slaveholding whites” (192). Accordingly, African slaves were of a “inferior race. . . [that] will never effect . . . in any other condition as in that of Slavery” (189). In addition to the reinvigorated racism of the South, however, slavocracy had the two-fold effect of dissolving class differences amongst whites. Influenced by the disparity of liberty and equality between themselves and enslaved Africans, poor Southern whites could “take pride in their skin color and feel equal to the wealthiest and most powerful whites” (177). Thus, as in paternalism, pro-slavery elites exploited their subordinates—this time an increasing number of non-slaveholding farmer—by instilling both a fear of Africans through racism and and a love of white solidarity through class cohesion.

In her blog this week entitled “Not-So-Benevolent Paternalism,” Alia Karout stated “personally, I am not convinced that nineteenth century figures are above criticism for their faulty morality” (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/not-so-benevolent-paternalism/). Though she conceded that perhaps Southerner’s “lack of humanity” could be attributed to “their misguided systems of belief,” I would encourage her to consider the typical Southerner of the antebellum South, the small, struggling farmer. Consider their exploitation by Southern politicians to endorse slavery for the sake of states’ rights, by Southern intellectuals to embrace white supremacy for the sake of ancient truths and Biblical legends, and by Southern elites to ignore class disparity for the sake of their liberty and equality. Can we not sympathize with white Southerners? Were they the victims of “misguided systems of belief” or the exploitative Southern elite?

October 28, 2013

Not-So-Benevolent Paternalism

This week’s Davis reading was incredibly gripping. He expanded upon the nuances and contradictions of slave societies that can often be perplexing. He clarified the point that, while slavery and racism in early US history were deeply intertwined, the absence of slavery did not equate to absence of racism. The racial slavery that was characteristic of the US’s slave system had an impact that also affected free blacks. This was illustrated by the existence of a color complex among freedmen—a manifestation of internalized racism created by slavery. Freedmen were ‘eager for honor,’ and did not want to be referred to as any darker than they found themselves, thus showing that, as a result of white supremacy in the US, ‘honor’ was directly correlated with whiteness (180). The case of William Ellison, who was born a slave but became a slave owner, also showed the extent of slavery’s negative impact. The lucrative nature of slavery, especially in the south, could intoxicate anyone—even those who had been its victim— into defying the basic principles of humanity by becoming slave owners.

Tasimmons mentioned in their post that “the American preoccupation with being liked by their slaves and being ‘paternalistic’ was a result of the disparity between the institution of slavery and the principles of liberty and freedom.” While I certainly agree that the tension between the nation’s founding principles and the oppression of slavery contributed to masters’ desire to see their actions as a form of paternalism rather than overt oppression, I don’t believe slave owners had any interest in acquiring the affection of their slaves.

Masters were only willing to consider accommodating their slaves in order to instill the absolute minimum amount of docility as to not create an uprising. The slave codes of southern states showed that “bondsmen were human beings who were capable of plotting, stealing, fleeing, or rebelling, and who were likely to be less ‘troublesome property’ if well cared for under a program of strict discipline” (Davis, 193-194). The welfare of slaves was only desirable to the extent that the master’s economic interests were protected. Even then, the submission of slave rebellions was more often achieved through psychological torment (for example, the threat of separating enslaved families by selling off relatives) than by appeasement (Davis, 183). The portrayal of slave ownership as benevolent paternalism was nothing more than a condescending infantilization of blacks and an overall poor excuse used to perpetuate the lucrative institution of slavery.

Personally, I am not convinced that nineteenth century figures are above criticism for their faulty morality. It’s unsettling that some people can look back upon great acts of systematic oppression with an apologetic tone. Perhaps it’s easier to attribute the lack of humanity of the ruling class to their misguided systems of belief, but after reading Davis I can’t help but think that southern American slavery came from a conscious decision to place profit above humanity.

October 27, 2013

Political Turmoil

It often seems as though the current political climate is the height of inefficiency and divisiveness. This, however, is wildly inaccurate, as the American government has been divided along party and geographic lines since its creation. One of the issues that created the worst rifts in the early nation was slavery. Many of the same arguments that occur today were just as present hundreds of years ago. Politicians argued over the intentions of the Constitution and the scope of national government. They refused to cooperate and took steps to secure their own self-interests over national good. Although the terms of the argument have certainly changed, we no longer debate the legality of slavery or property requirements for suffrage, today’s political fights are just as fierce and contentious as they were during the Missouri controversy. In addition, just as is done today the fundamental principles of America such as freedom and individuality were used to support a wide range of positions that often contradicted each other in their employment of these ideals. This, some would say, leads to slaveholders’ need to be beloved by their slaves. This is touched on in the Paternalism in the American South post, which posits that the disparity between American conceptions of freedom and the injustice of slavery creates the paternalistic attitude asserted by proponents of slavery. Even more interesting is the “necessary evil” approach to the slavery issue. Just as today many admit that the environment is a growing moral and practical issue, some choose to push the issue off as a necessary evil for growth and progress. As soon as we, as a society and a nation, transcend one issue, another arises. Thus, just as the country was engaged in political turmoil in the 1800’s and is still today, there will probably still be political debates another two hundred years from now. The strength of the American political system is its ability to survive political fads and stand as a framework for political progress at any point in its history.