Wilentz – Page 2 – U.S. to 1877

October 30, 2013

Post-midterm Blog Post #2- Politics then and now

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

Before taking this class, I was under the impression that politics in America’s early years were vastly different than politics today. And to a degree, that seems to be true. After reading chapters 8-11 in The Rise in American Democracy by Sean Wilentz however, it is clear that there are striking similarities between politics in the early 1800’s and politics today. Andrew Jackson and his life before and during his presidency were the focus of the chapters. In reading about his rise to the Presidency, the challenges he faced during campaigning and the divide between him and his main political opponents, I couldn’t help think about how similar it sounded to politics today.

Wilentz describes in chapters 8, 9 and 10 how Andrew Jackson rose to the presidency and the type of hardships he faced on his way to office. On page 160 he describes how Jackson, on the outside, remained upstanding and conducted himself with t “etiquette” when running for President. He also says however, that Jackson “threw himself into the fray behind the scenes as no other presidential candidate before him had”. He also points out that Jackson used generalities when campaigning, and began clarifying those generalities almost as soon as he got into office. (166) I liked Wilentz’s writing in this part because I think it gives the reader a description of an early 19^th century politician that could easily be used for one today. That wasn’t something I would’ve thought before reading this. The propaganda and slander that Adams and his supporters used in the election against Jackson is also something that I drew parallels with to modern day campaigning. Anytime elections are going on, it is common to see negative ads, attacking a candidate. Before reading this, I had no idea that this type of campaigning was utilized in 1820’s America. Jackson dealt with disparaging rumors about his mother and sister however, showing that this was indeed commonplace during this time period.

My one critique of Wilentz’s writing in these chapters is the way he characterizes Jackson’s handling of “indian removal” (170). While it was a different time, meaning Jackson’s opinions regarding native peoples is far less offensive and inhuman in 1830 than it would be now; I believe Wilentz almost unfairly defends Jackson. He compares Jackson to Henry Clay, saying that Jackson was a “benevolent, if realistic paternalist”(170) compared to Clay. He argues that Jackson truly believed that “removal was the only way to safeguard both the Indians’ future and the Constitution of the United States”. In my opinion he does not give Jackson enough blame regarding the Trail of Tears and the death of thousands of native people (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1567.html)

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 23, 2013

The Rise and Fall of Federalism, America’s first Crucial Election, and the War of 1812

A major theme of this week’s reading is the examination of American government structure immediately following the Revolutionary War. After gaining independence, the founding fathers aimed to control individual states, prevent division among states, and manage unorganized territories in the west. As the first official president of the United States, George Washington led the young nation as the symbol of the Federalist Party. The two major political parties during the time period were drastically different; the Federalists supported a strong and centralized federal government while the Anti- Federalists favored a decentralized federal government that gave most of its power to the states. Moreover, Federalists believed that an overly-liberal democracy would breed disorder and possibly revolution. In contrast, the Anti-Federalists believed that an overly powerful central government would develop into an oppressive monarchy much like the one in England. Despite holding an early advantage over the Anti-Federalists with the presidencies of Washington and Adams, the Federalist Party began to lose support as America entered the 19th century.
The presidential election of 1800 marked a significant turning point in early American history because the balance of power among the two major political parties shifted for the first time. Disputes between John Adams and Alexander Hamilton (two of the remaining leaders of the Federalist Party due to the death of George Washington) exemplified that “Federalist solidarity had collapsed” (Wilentz, 39). In contrast, Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson emerged as a political force for the Democratic- Republicans by attracting support in both the North and South and then soundly defeating the Federalist incumbent John Adams to take control of the White House. As my classmate ROMANGONE pointed out, the American people became detracted from the Federalist Party as well as the idea of Federalism following the election of 1800. Also, Americans began to favor Thomas Jefferson’s republican form of government. The ramifications of the election of 1800 were far-reaching not only because it was the first shift in power between parties but because it represented a shift in the political ideals of Americans.
In Chapter 5, Wilentz discusses the consequences of the War of 1812 for politics in the United States. At first, the war appeared to be a meaningless yet costly use of American resources, however, the war ended up providing James Madison with a ton of political momentum and producing future political mavericks like Andrew Jackson. In addition, the war sparked the support of the Republican Party and essentially buried the Federalists. Wilentz emphasized that the United States did not gain copious amounts of land through the war but acquired respect from nations around the world as well as the confidence that they could operate independently. I know that some of my classmates have argued over when exactly the Federalist Party should be pronounced dead, some have said after the crucial election of 1800 and some have said during eruption of Republican support that followed the War of 1812. I believe that the Federalist Party began its steady decline after losing the White House in 1800 but did not completely implode until America was in strong support of Jefferson ideals and Republican government after their victory over Britain.

October 23, 2013

Jefferson, Reality vs Actuality

In chapters 3 and 4 in The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz focuses on the battle between the Federalists and the anti-federalists/Republicans. Early on in chapter 3 wilentz starts with the Adams presidency, yet ultimately spends much of his time giving background into Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, rather than focusing on the presidency of John Adams. This choice of spotlight reveals the perceived importance of Jefferson by Wilentz. The election of 1800 was a significant election for Jefferson in that because of the division of the national government and of the people of the united states, he had to prove himself worthy of presiding over all people of America. The discrepancy between Jefferson’s writings and Jefferson’s actions is usually the main focal point for many historians when analyzing Jefferson’s presidency. But Wilentz points out that Jefferson’s actions, specifically with the Louisiana Purchase and the judiciary scenario involving the repeal of the Judiciary act of 1801, were generally the correct and rational decision, rather than the hypothetical decision noted in Jeffersons writings. Jacob Newton talks about this in his post about how Wilentz “seems to be a big fan of Jefferson.” In this sense, Wilentz is almost protecting Jefferson from much scrutiny. I think Wilentz’s stance on Jefferson’s presidency is affective in that shows the other side of the coin, yet I do not think that this softer political scrutiny is justified simply by the fact that his writings differ from his actions. Sure, Jefferson may have made more passive practical decisions than his writings, but that does not give him a pass from stringent political examination.

In chapter 5 of The Rise of American Democracy, the War of 1812 is Wilentz’s main focus. What is surprising to me in this chapter is how close America was to loosing its independence from Britain. Wilentz spends much time focusing on the weak points of our young nation that I had not seen before in respect to the War of 1812. In 1814, after the total destruction of Washington, many New England states “were talking openly of secession and a seperate peace with the British” (Wilentz 80). I believe Wilentz is purposefully pointing out that America was not as strong of a country that the majority of people assume it to be today—even in the early years of independence. Although, Wilentz does not address very thoroughly the British side of the War of 1812. Maybe Wilentz is trying to draw more attention to the struggles and successes in America, but I feel like some deeper analysis of Britain’s mindset in the war may be beneficial (even though this is an American History book).

October 22, 2013

Westward Expansion

In his writings, Turner talks about the frontier and its gradual expansion westward. I find this aspect of American history to be very interesting. It is fascinating to look at how the American’s at the time went about claiming new land. Turner mentions how the frontier was the “meeting point between savagery and civilization.” (Turner) This is very important because it shows how little they new of the land beyond the frontier, and how there were still “savages” there that needed to be conquered. In the years leading up to 1800, the newly formed government was focused on many things: making sure it didn’t collapse, the XYZ affair, pirate wars, and eventually the election of 1800 and all that Jefferson’s presidency would bring. The government was not focused on the native peoples west of the border. It seems while historians focus so intently on the formation of the nation that there is not much to be said about the frontiersmen until the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791. The frontier was not a safe place to live because as America stretched farther and farther west, the Indian’s land was once again being encroached upon. Wilentz devotes a portion of Chapter 5 to talk about the expropriation of Indian land. William Henry Harrison was a major character in the buying of Indian land. He completed the Greenville Treaty with nearly a dozen tribes which gave the US land rights to southern Indiana, most of Illinois and parts of Wisconsin and Missouri for “two and a half cents or less per acre.” (72) While they were buying this land from the natives, they were taking complete advantage of them and buying it for far less than its worth. Most natives were not happy, “‘The white people…,’ one Shawnee chief complained, ‘destroyed all that God had given us for our support'” (72) While the frontier was a means of expansion and “a steady movement from the influence of Europe” (Turner), the government did not care how detrimental of an action it was from the Indian’ point of view.

AJBeane spends a good amount of time talking about how Europe influenced the westward expansion of the United States and many of the points they make are quite pertinent to my post. They raise the point that what America really wanted at this time was to form their own identity and not be associated with Britain or Europe in any way. Americans didn’t want to be known as coming from German heritage or French or any other European nation, they wanted to be their own entity and by expanding westward they were happy to be moving farther away from Europe and its stretching, global influence.

October 22, 2013

Post-Midterm Blog Post #1- President Jefferson

Sean Wilientz focuses heavily on the political career of Thomas Jefferson and his Presidency in chapter 4 of The Rise of American Democracy. Jefferson, while no doubt a great political figure who played a tremendous role in the development of the United States of America in its early years, is sometimes considered a somewhat controversial figure. In learning about him in the past, I knew that his strategy for dealing with Native Americans in his pre-presidential days, relationships with slaves and the somewhat aggressive style in which he often dealt with the opposing Federalist Party made him a polarizing political figure. On top of that, he has also been accused of being a hypocrite because of his decision to go through with the Louisiana Purchase without a vote after years of fighting for individual citizen rights. Wilentz, however, seems to be a big fan of Jefferson. He negatively describes Jefferson’s main political opponent John Adams and positively describes the way Jefferson fought against the Alien and Sedition Acts that he believed were certainly “unconstitutional” while Adams was President. Throughout chapter 3, Wilienz seems to admire the way Jefferson battled against the Federalists, ultimately winning and taking the Presidency in the election of 1800.

In chapter 4, Wilenz further approves of the job Jefferson does as President, highlighting the diplomatic way Jefferson dealt with the French to avoid war, the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Louisiana Purchase. His emphasis on westward expansion was huge, something that greatly benefited the United States in the long run. @systrauss talks about this more in her blog post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-beginnings-of-western-expansion/). Wilentz’s most glowing description of Jefferson comes on page 66 when he describes him as a man who had the “intellectual breadth and the personal prestige that helped [him] hold together the querulous Republicans and sink Federalism into the abyss” (Wilentz). I liked Wilentz’s writing, but personally I thought he was too biased towards President Jefferson. While he highlights the goods of his presidency he barely touches on some of the bad. In the bottom paragraph of page 65 he gives Jefferson credit for his handling of the government and how successful he was in having his legislation passed by Congress. He doesn’t mention however that some of that legislation had adverse affects on the country. For instance, the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809 only further irritated the British and drew the two nations closer to war (Wilentz, 69). Ultimately, the two countries would go to war just three years after Jefferson left office. I think Wilientz could have done a better job of addressing the impact Jefferson’s presidency had on the War of 1812, a war he divulges into in Chapter 5.