Wilentz – U.S. to 1877

December 3, 2013

The Teapot Boils: The Inevitable Breakdown

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 chapter, Wilentz details the final motions as the tensions that had long been building break out in civil war. As AJBEANE says, there had been many attempts to reduce the tension and prevent a civil war, but the fundamental problem was never addressed, and so, looking back, it is clear that the war was inevitable. Lincoln’s election proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, as, despite his vowed intention to not touch slavery where it already was the law, Southern Slave owners were terrified that Lincoln intended to deprive them of their “property.” With the election of Lincoln, and the secession of South Carolina, it would prove only a matter of time before most of the Southern slave-holding states would follow suit. For a time it was thought that, perhaps, the states which had seceded could be cajoled back into the union, but with the fundamental issue still looming, such attempts would prove doomed to failure, and civil war became a certainty.

Fort Sumter is where it became apparent that there would be, must be, war. Initially Wilentz points out that some believed that Fort Sumter could be given up to cool secessionists tempers, and perhaps aid in bringing the secessionists back into the union and preventing more states from seceding. But the political climate insured that such thoughts proved only wishful thinking as it seemed that to give up Fort Sumter without a fight would be a sign of weakness. With the union being unwilling to surrender Fort Sumter, the newly formed confederacy could not stand allowing a hostile fort to remain in such a strategic location, and thus attacked it and set off the final spark to set the civil war fully ablaze.

December 2, 2013

The Election of 1860 and a Nation in Disarray

In this section of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz discusses the events leading up to the election of 1860, the election itself, and the consequences of the crucial election.
One theme of this week’s readings that interested me was the South or Slaveholder’s increased confidence in secession or the threat of secession as the solution to nearly all political problems. For example, a movement in the late 1850s to reopen the slave trade attracted support from many prominent southern politicians. The politicians claimed that such an action would make slavery a much more efficient and profitable industry. However, Northern politicians and abolitionists rejected the idea of reopening the slave trade in America or satisfying the demand for a “federal slave code” in the United States. Unhappy Southern leaders like Barnwell Rhett and William Yancey began to declare that the South would secede from the Union if their desired legislation failed to be approved. In addition to issues like slave trade or the federal slave code, Southern politicians like Stephen A. Douglas were able to spread the belief that the South would secede if Abraham Lincoln won the Presidential election of 1860. Although the South did not end up leaving the Union until Lincoln was elected, the constant threat of dissolving the nation posed by the South struck fear and uneasiness in Northern politicians and citizens for years.
Another aspect of the reading that grabbed my attention was the way Wilentz portrays Lincoln’s rise to political prominence and the events of the election of 1860. At first, Wilentz depicts Lincoln as a name merely thrown into the conversation for the Republican nomination in order to defeat the “tainted” Seward and his “loyal wire-puller” Weed (Wilentz, 431). However, he builds up Lincoln’s political savvy and ability as a public speaker and ultimately portrays him as a pristine presidential candidate. Wilentz also illustrated how Lincoln’s “brilliant” political strategy to win the Republican nomination had worked almost flawlessly. Also, Wilentz introduced Lincoln to the audience as a talented underdog with an outside shot of winning the nomination, but as the election heats up Wilentz frames Lincoln into an unstoppable political force destined for the White House.
Lastly, I would like to comment on the debate of whether or not the election of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th President of the United States directly contributed to the immediate succession of the South. Although my classmate WIROBERTSON would disagree, I believe that the actions of Southern politicians (like Stephen A. Douglas) spread the fear of a Lincoln dominated White House among pro-slavery Americans and was a main cause of Southern secession. Once it became inevitable to slaveholders that Lincoln would become president, Lincoln’s political opponents worked to foster a “plot to stage a coup d’etat in November or December”, which eventually resulted in the secession of South Carolina in 1860 (Wilentz, 433).

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.

November 20, 2013

Running The Risk

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 13, 2013

Wilentz’s treatment of Calhoun

The issue of Wilentz’s treatment of his historical “characters” rises once again in chapters 17-2o in The Rise of American Democracy. I think it is interesting to note the way in which Wilentz treats the “characters” in his book, specifically his vilification of John C. Calhoun. In many ways the archetypical Southern Democrat, it is clear that Calhoun was not Wilentz’s ideal political representative. However, Wilentz could do much more to disguise his bias for the purpose of creating an accurate and trustworthy historical narrative. The language with which Wilentz describes Calhoun’s actions is much more negatively connotated than the language he uses for Jackson, or virtually any other politician. For example, where other politicians “take action” or “attempt” to do something, Calhoun does much more negative things–for example, on page 241, Wilentz describes Calhoun’s actions in the following manner: “John C. Calhoun hatched a scheme that would again put him in contention for the presidency. He would not join the Whigs but instead find ways to manipulate the Democrats. His plan: ally with northern Democrats, beat down the Yankee financiers and manufacturers, and then capture the Democracy–and the national government–for the south” (emphasis mine). Here, Calhoun is portrayed as ill-willing, scheming, and untrustworthy. In Chris’s post, he manages to describe Calhoun and his allies fairly, avoiding the bias that Wilentz inserts into his writing. No other political figure is characterized as negatively as Calhoun in Wilentz’s work. Perhaps Calhoun deserves this treatment, but I would assert that these extreme descriptions do not have a place in academic writing intended to give a well-rounded view of the democracy and its rise in America.

November 12, 2013

Wilentz, Ch. 14: Jacksonian Democracy, Delivered With Force

Sherwood Callaway

HIS 141, Blog Post 7

Jackson’s vision of democracy was implemented with force, and predictably, the result was destruction. The two subjects that best characterize this phenomenon are indian removal and the bank war, both of which Wilentz covers in chapter 14.

Indian Removal was a violent and clumsy process. He pursued it to please his constituency, much of whom resided in areas of population growth and frontier expansion. And although the government desperately needed to implement national Indian policy, Jackson’s was a crude proposal. The stories vary, but in every case, moving Indians across the country was inefficient and cost unnecessary lives. In some cases the natives responded violently, as in the Black Hawk War and the Seminole War. In other cases the natives attempted to deal with the Americans on their on terms, through the courts. In Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia they were defeated “when Chief Justice John Marshall declared…that because the Cherokees were a “domestic dependent nation,” they lacked standing to sue” (223). Worcester v. Georgia had a more promising result, in which Marshall declared that “the Cherokee Nation was “a distinct community, occupying its own territory”” (223). But ultimately, legislators had little tolerance for even those Indians who were most similar to whites.

In the case of the bank, Jackson vehemently sought its destruction, because he thought it favored northeastern states over western and southern states, and because it seemed to serve only to make the rich richer. He managed to quash its rechartering, and withdraw funds from it, thereby rendering the institution impotent. Striking against state banks as well, he passed the Specie Circular, which demanded that federal lands be bought with gold or silver. Suddenly, the paper currency issued by these state banks became worthless, and speculators demanded specie in exchange—specie that the banks did not have. Ultimately, Jackson’s violent dismembering of banking within the US spiraled the country into panic and recession, and left the government ill equipped to deal with financial matters.

By the time Jackson’s presidency ended, his successor was left with a real mixed bag. Indian Removal had been a long and costly process, and the Specie Circular had incited a national financial crisis. Jackson’s constituency had degraded and Van Buren was forced to establish political friendships upon different principles, as well as make new allies altogether. Frontiers people disliked the restrictions of Jackson’s Specie Circular, Southerners objected to the tariff that Jackson had defended, and the planter aristocracy was upset with the loss of the BUS. Despite the mistakes of his predecessor, Van Buren was able to win his election by gaining a popular reputation amongst southerners as “eager to mollify southern slaveholders and silence the abolitionists” (236). Hard to believe.

November 11, 2013

We Can’t Stop, We Won’t Stop

While reading chapters 14-16 of Wilentz, the belief that history is to repeat itself kept popping into my head. These chapters seemed to echo all of the American history I have read about and am living. The idea of manipulative political parties fighting each other, whether it is Whigs and Jacksonian-democrats or democrats and republicans, is not foreign to us. Nor is the fight for race relations. At the time of Jackson, Van Buren, Calhoun, etc. the fight was over slavery, but race issues stood flood our computers and television sets daily. William Lloyd Garrison even brings women into the equation, which is a conflict that pervades every aspect of politics today.

In addition, the Whig party struggles with Van Buren dominating the polls with his popularity. ALKAROUT mentions this through democratization by saying, “The party’s attempts at democratization demonstrate that the party was more or less obligated to reshape itself if they desired to maintain political relevance.” I would say this is true for today’s politics as well. I believe we are left with two parties, one who is popular and the other realizing that it will not win an election without changing some views.

Then, of course, there is this economic debate over banks and money. At the time, Jackson was still shutting down most of the popularly approved ideas regarding the banks and any money relations. We see at this time a large debate over the use of gold vs. paper money and the gold standard. As gold and silver ran low, there was an issue over money and many politicians of the time referenced paper money as a solution. Many other politicians saw the threat of inflation through paper money, something that has been considered since we picked up the dollar. A shipment of gold from Britain would quell their uneasiness for a short time, but as we now, the shift to paper money would occur eventually.

From the economic crisis of months and years past to the on going disagreement and refusing to settle between the democratic and republican parties, I would not go as far as to say that we are mirroring the past, or repeating it, but it important to note that we are still fighting the same things. Process of great strides has been made but the issues still remain. My question is whether or not we will ever move past these issues. My answer- in a democracy, I am not sure we ever will.

November 11, 2013

Democratization of the Whig Party

The topic from Tuesday’s reading that was particularly compelling was the democratization of the Whig Party prior to the 1840 election. Our classmate Will Robertson rightfully characterized the Whig party as being “grounded solely in their opposition to Jackson,” which threatened their unity as a party. However, I found that the reading for Tuesday, namely chapter 16, highlighted how the Whig party used their vehement distaste for Jacksonian politics to strategically unite themselves by changing their party’s ideals in an attempt to gain power.

Will highlighted the issue of hypocrisy in the Democratic Party to which the Whig party opportunistically responded. He stated that, “in its effort to appease voters from all areas and walks of life, the Democratic party under Jackson and Van Buren featured striking hypocrisies.” (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/dishevelled-democracy/).Horace Greeley—a key addition to the Whig party after they began to consolidate their party to include more than just “high-toned Whigs”—felt that Whiggery would be able to “confound Democratic hypocrisy and uplift the masses” (Wilentz, 253-254).

The party’s attempts at democratization demonstrated that the party was more or less obligated to reshape itself if they desired to maintain political relevance. Van Buren, the Whig party realized, was popular among the people “Not so much for him as for the principle they suppose he represents. That principle is Democracy” (Seward, quoted by Wilentz, 253). As a direct response to this American desire for democracy, the Whig party revolutionized American conservatism (Wilentz, 253).

The way Wilentz characterized the Whigs attitudes of humanitarianism was rather humorous, highlighting the condescending tone they adopted when appealing to more radical-minded voters who sympathized with oppressed groups. The Whig party chose to focus “on relieving the misery of battered wives, abused blacks, and others who suffered deliberately inflicted hardship and pain” and on creating a benevolent society of people who would adopt “an affectionate regard for the lowliest of God’s creatures” (Wilentz, 257). Despite the haughtiness of the rhetoric surrounding their humanitarianism, there is no denying the progress that this shift in mindset was, especially since many Whigs were moved by the “benevolent impulse” to contribute to antislavery work (Wilentz, 258).

In addition to highlighting corruption and hypocrisy within the opposing party, the Whigs also exemplified impressive strategy in their ability to spin criticism in their favor. The harsh ‘hard cider and log cabin’ comment supposedly delivered by Clay was used by Whig leaders to “claim to be paragons of plain rustic virtue while condemning the Democrats as scornful, out-of-touch politicos” (Wilentz, 260).

I felt this reading was a bit more readable than some previous chapters in which the jargon creates a bit of an obstacle for readers who are less familiar with the concepts of the discussion. However, I feel Wilentz did a fantastic job in outlining the changes in the Whig party and the reasons behind them, guiding the reader clearly through the course of events.

November 7, 2013

Wilentz, Ch. 13 / Davis, Ch. 13: A Hotbed for Abolitionism

Sherwood Callaway

Blog Post 6

In chapter 13, Wilentz writes:

“Abolitionism represented a new kind of American political community. Its activists, at great personal risk, defied widely and deeply held social conventions. This community set itself apart from sinful complicity with slavery and racism and created a new humane model of equality, freedom, and love.”

To synthesize and summarize his argument, within American society, the abolitionist movement sought unprecedented goals and held unprecedented values. But though the idea of ending the institution of slavery may have been radical and new (which it wasn’t), the movement itself was founded on principles that were both well recognized and well liked—which contributed to the movement’s widespread popularity.

For example, Wilentz mentions that abolitionism appealed to the “revival-soaked areas that defied greater New England.” This is because revivalism and abolitionism both emphasized similar values—individualism and progressivism. Revivalists encouraged a personal relationship with God, unlike traditional forms of Christianity. Both men and women, whether free or enslaved, were accepted as converts and allowed to profess their new faith. Subsequently, revivalists often came from the margins of society—the frontier, for example, or poverty, or slavery. Revivalism also represented a departure from ceremonial traditions; churches, priests and sacraments were no longer necessary for worship. Revivalists would have been excited about furthering the causes of individualism and progressivism through the abolitionist movement, which proposed to liberate slaves from oppression and end a tradition that primarily benefited the white landed elite.

The first great awakening, which saw the initial emergence of revivalism in British America, was during the 1730s and 40s. The second enveloped this period of abolitionism, running from the 1800s to the 1840s. It is no coincidence that these periods coincide; rather, because they held similar values, they energized one another. Revivalism during the 18th century laid the foundations for Abolitionism; revivalism during the 19th century popularized it.

But the goals and values of the abolitionist movement cannot only be tied to those of revivalism. Consider also, the spirit of 1776. Wilentz says abolitionism favored “equality, freedom, and love.” I cannot account for the latter of these, but I can certainly account for the former two. The notion of “equality” featured heavily in pre-revolution dialogue, as American-born Britons sought the same rights and representation as those across the pond. Of course, these sentiments did not stretch to the margins of society, as they did during abolitionism, but the language of equality was very much present. “Freedom”, also, was obviously associated with the spirit of 1776—personal freedoms such as the right to expand along the frontier, and the right to refuse quarter to visitors, for example.

Wilentz argues that abolitionism was a wholly new phenomenon in the United States. But rather, it seems as if the US would have been a hotbed for such a movement.